Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Judge Cracks Down on Hyperlinks
The webzine Radikal (mirrored in Holland, because it has been banned in Germany) published several articles on disabling railroad trains (in the context of preventing shipments of nuclear materials); the German national railroad discovered it, and the fun has been going on ever since. Rejo Zenger writes "Today a dutch judge ordered Indymedia NL on the request of the Deutsche Bahn to remove some links from a page on their website. These links were pointing to the mirrors of Radikal sites. A few of these sites were containing two articles that have been forbidden in court before. The links were indirect links (surface links) instead of direct ones to the articles (deeplinks). So, none of the links was pointing to the offending articles directly! The judge "orders Indymedia immediately after receiving this sentence to remove and to keep removed the hyperlinks, which are placed on (a) website(s) under the control of Indymedia, if those hyperlinks lead directly or indirectly to the Radikal articles [...]". This is BAD. As almost all links indirectly point to the Radikal articles we can abolish the web now. The announcement, Dutch with English to follow shortly. The decision of the judge (dutch only)." Indymedia's press release (English) covers it pretty well. Update: 06/21 19:54 GMT by M : My summary in the first sentence has been corrected.
Better drop that link to Google then.
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
What if a dutch judge ordered the same of a US site? Would it carry any weight? I know our(US) laws dont have much weight in southeast asia...
That indirectly part is pretty suck, but at least the judge isn't trying to judiciate the other site (eg exercising control over his jurisdiction, not trying to extend it via the net).
funny munging
The Deutsche Bashn is the german railroad. Radikal is a german newsletter. Only the website is dutch...
The verdict is surprising, since Indymedia NL does not link directly to illegal articles. Until now, only direct links to illegal material were forbidden in the Netherlands.
But how many "degrees of separation" (consectuive link-jumps) are needed until the linking is permissible. Six?
Though I'm not in the Netherlands, I cannot see how this can be logical. One might be able to extend this ruling ad infinitum.
I am the evil aardvark!
Dutch != German!
The Radikal magazine is german, DB (Deutche Bahn) is german, but the articles where published on a Dutch site (Indymedia.nl). So please get your facts strait!
Does putting a URL without making it a link (so that it has to be cut and pasted) count as linking? It's splitting hairs, but it's just conveying info that way, not linking...
So where does it stop?
The mirror is out of the country. Okay I can't linke to the mirror, but can I link to an underground news site that has a linke to the mirror, that has a link to the "BAD!" information!!!
Or do I have to link to a site that a 12 year old made for his little sister, that links to a wired article, that links to a slashdot page (They totally steal their news from here. P.S.- Hi wired!) , that links to a pr0n site, that links to THIS slasdot article, that links to google, that links to the Queen of Englands home page, that links to the mirror?
So move the link out. And then when re-legislated, link out again. When the laws become too impracticle to enforce they collapse.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
press release: Judge orders Indymedia NL to remove links to Radikal mirrors
Indymedia NL 21.06.2002 01:55
Amsterdam, 20 june 2002
The court case, initiated by Deutsche Bahn (German Rail, DB) against
Indymedia NL, has turned out negative for the latter organisation.
Indymedia NL regrets the facts that the judge in the verdict does not
elaborate on which kinds of links are permissible and which are not. This
ruling will therefore have severe consequences for every person or
organisation that has placed links on the Internet. Due to the structure of
Internet, it is possible to reach any website on the internet, by way of
combinations of links and indirect links.
Deutsche Bahn insisted a couple of weeks ago that Indymedia NL should
remove a number of indirect links of mirrors of the website of the
periodical Radikal. Through the linked start page, numerous articles are
available, including two articles concerning ways of blocking nuclear
transports. These two articles have been ruled illegal in the Netherlands
by the same judge on April 25th 2002. Indymedia NL refused to adhere to the
demand.
In the verdict of June 20th, the judge has ordered to remove the hyperlinks
and to keep them removed, in as far as these hyperlinks lead to the Radikal
articles, either directly or indirectly and notwithstanding whether these
hyperlinks were placed by visitors. If Indymedia NL does not comply with
this order, a penal sum of 5,000 Euros per day can be imposed. The judge
ordered that, like an Internet Service Provider but just as much like the
editors of a newspaper, Indymedia NL is, in principle, responsible for the
content that has been published with its help.
The verdict is surprising, since Indymedia NL does not link directly to
illegal articles. Until now, only direct links to illegal material were
forbidden in the Netherlands. Out of this verdict however, it follows that
indirect links to illegal material are also forbidden, because Indymedia
NLs links only point to copies of the front page of the German periodical
Radikal. It takes more clicks to reach the illegal articles.
Indymedia NL considers the ruling a dramatic limitation of the
possibilities of the Internet and the freedom of speech. Indymedia NL will
probably try to appeal this decision out of principal considerations.
http://www.askthevoid.com
I think I need to walk away now, go live in the woods away from human stupidity, before I have a 'Scannrs' moment.
Would the last of you to leave please lock up and make sure the internet is switched off?
that too many people in power are too ignorant of technology. No one would be dumb enough to ban a website link directly or indirectly of a website in the U.S., because in the long run it doesn't matter. The judge thinks the Internet is some tangible force he can control through judiciary action. On a side note, I thought Denmark was one of the more tech-savvy countries (even more so per capita than the U.S.A). Scratch that off my list of assumptions :)
- tristan
If the ruling is posted on-line and the defendant proceeds to link to the ruling, would that be against the ruling? I'm assuming here that the ruling specifies the articles that cannot be linked to. If it specifies them as a URL, then it would be illegal for them to link to the ruling.
Wow, the judge really screwed this one up...
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
What's more puzzling is why American web-forum Slashdot chickened out of linking to any Radikal mirrors as well.
So Dutch National Railroad, let's see you do something about this.
[Heh - there's nothing so brave as using someone else's liability to make a political statement.]
In case I use information from a book in there to find another book elsewhere and use it for bad things!
The US courts don't recognize foriegn court rulings (of this sort,admiralty law is somewhat different). Yahoo US can't be required by the French to remove auctions of Nazi items, even though those auctions violate French law, because Yahoo US is in the US and not in France.
Best Slashdot Co
A few points.
1) The linked to articals where about derailing Nuclea Waste Trains, not passenger trains
2) Would you rather have ppl discusing how to do this with out killing any one, or just let the carnage begin
3) The links where to the main page of the site, not the artical. So this now means that in the Netherlands you can not link to anywhere that may link to these articals. I hope Google.nl is watching
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
Wow.. I have never seen a stream of thought that starts at "derail passenger trains" and ends at "destroy a woman's mink coat."
The fact is, free speech has to be protected in all but the most extreme of cases..or not at all.
Your chain of thought that I mentioned above is a great example as to why. Do we regulate all speech that could have harmful effects for others? Or does somebody have to choose which type of ill-effects are regulated and which are not? After all cooking meth can certainly lead to some fantastic explosions, which could set your neighbors house on fire. That has ill effects.. just like selling meth does. Why shouldn't that be regulated?
And driving fast can lead to crashes.. so should any speech about how to make your car go faster be banned as well?
Even this case has an interesting free speech question. After all, the dutch magazine was using its speech about derailing trains for a "good cause" as it was dealing with the shipment of nuclear materials. Why shouldn't this be protected?
The fact is, speech is incredibly difficult to regulate and to pick and choose what can and can't be regulated is very difficult. THis is why our courts in the US have always been so reluctant to limit speech in all but the most prudent of ways (the whole yelling "Fire!" in a crowded place is one example).
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Maybe it is good to have understand the whole story from the beginning ...
...
l )
... .. money is an issue ..
It starts way back in 1997 when the German magazine places some of their issues online at a dutch ISP (XS4ALL). In these issues they describe how to derail german trains.
A German Court rules that these documents are illegal and these publications are illegal in Germany. German ISP are orderded to block the URL to XS4ALL. Because blocking something on the internet is virtually impossible these blocks were lifted because a lot of people started to publish mirrors of these documents.
Back to April this year
The German Railroads suddenly notice that these documents are still online and available and through a (dutch) court order forces XS4ALL to take these pages down.
XS4ALL is applealing this decision and they are still in court (you can check the XS4ALL pages at http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/overzicht/radikal.htm
At the same time Indymedia plublishes a list with mirrors where these documents can be found
and that is now illegal to. They want to appleal, but as always
I hope this helps.
Rigolo
I would have sworn a while back that some study showed that there was less than 6 degrees of separation in 99% of all pages.
The ruling states that, although the links themselves were indirect, they were accompanied by detailed instructions on how to locate the pages in question. It was this combination which the judge ruled illegal, not the actual link per se.
This aspect should go down well with the Code=Speech crowd: source code (in this case a direct link) is essentially the same as a description/poem/diagram describing same.
Free speech is a privilege, not a right, and it should be used responsibly - not to hurt people.
In the United States of America Free Speech IS a RIGHT... check out the constitution.
I do not believe that the government should restrict any speech that does not cause direct harm to an individual (e.g. hosting web pages with pirated software or child pornography should not be illegal IMHO)
I don't know what crack you are smoking but child pornography does cause harm to individuals, namely psychological and physical harm to the child victims. Child pornography is illegal for a reason and that is to protect children from that kind of harm.
aus.music.scrapbook
...otherwise it's trivial to circumvent the prohibition on direct links only.
For instance, suppose linking directly to document A is banned. Then the hosting site could simply create a page with a "wink wink" link to document A, and the site against which the injunction is placed could link the the page with the "wink wink" link, with identical intent as with a direct link.
In other words, it's perfectly reasonable for a ban to also include indirect links OF WHATEVER LENGTH (arbitrary numbers of pages of "Are you sure? Are you really sure? etc") so long as intent is clear (e.g. putting up silly links to Disney on each of the "are you sure" pages should not absolve them). One can even make a case for neglect if the linker should have known better according to a reasonable-person standard.
Of course, even if the ruling notes this justification -- I don't read Dutch, and I'm leery of trusting a web translator on legalese -- Indymedia isn't exactly an independent with regards to their own case, and probably wouldn't mention this.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The verdict mentions the sites as well and should therefore be illegal!
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
If normal people can't view information on how to disable railroad trains, then only the terrorists will be able to derail trains...
... oh... wait....
Sorry, but I want to defend the judge a bit. For some stupid reason, this information has been ordered to remain secret. Just like Americans would hide information on their president's plane from terrorists. The judge didn't say anything about hyperlinks in general, he only spoke about Indymedia's intent. Even if it wasn't a link but a Javascript-generated rot13ed copy sung as a MP3 but clearly marked as illegal, it should be judged that way. Case by case, without generalizations. Free speech is an important right. But that's what we have judges for. (As much as I hate them, and yes, I'm Dutch.)
But that's old news ("Google has also cut access to one or two pages cited in Deutsche Bahn's request letter").
I think the most important matter is how you advertise the link. If the link says: "get the instructions at this site after clicking link x" that would be disallowed, no matter how indirect you would get. On the other hand, if you linked to the top of the site and the link would say: "the site of Radikal that advocates forcibly stopping trains with nuclear waste" that would be ok, since you are not telling anyone about the offensive material.
IANAL, but this makes most sense to me.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
It's easy to be for free speech, if you like the someone else is saying. It's requires some courage to support free speech that you disagree with.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
The main argument for keeping child pornography illegal is that it is the product of a crime, and that the victims have a right to protection, especially as the pictures in many cases will serve to worsen the humiliation for the victim.
Did they - and if they didn't, why didn't they - demonstrate to the court the absurdity of what they are asking. Simply pick half a dozen or so government sites and show how, within five or so links they too link to the pages the court wishes to censor. Even better if they can show such links from the court service's web site.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Underneath all of this is a silly premise. Does anyone need instructions to figure out how to derail a train? Let's see, it runs on two rails which are attached to ties in a certain way. So you either move a rail, or undermine the roadbed, or foobar a track junction or switch, or put something on top of a rail that's big and strong enough to send the wheels off. If the German government is counting on keeping trains secure by not having instructions up on the Net, they must estimate that the people who'd derail them are unusually stupid - and yet they expect they'll know how to read?? Reminds me of an article in yesterday's NY Times about how the Germans are following around a guy they know financed Mohammed Atta, but won't arrest him because they have such a respect for individual rights there. Maybe Germans really are stupid enough to need a manual to figure out how to derail a train?? If you live in Germany, feel very secure.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Excellent troll.
.sig
I especially liked the "free speech is privilage not a right" bit - brilliant.
-- this is not a
What is this constitution of which you speak? I thought Ashcroft had it banned and all copies burned as terrorist propaganda.
This may be a kind of radical idea, but how about we not derail ANY trains? Sabotage is sabotage and just because the information is targeted at one specific train doesn't mean it couldn't be applied to a different train. I prefer riding the rails without having to worry if some lunatic figured out how many stacked pennies on the tracks it takes to derail it.
Of course, there's a lot of people who claim that information like this should not be released because of the damage it can cause. Yes, I agree. The people erleasing the information should have better judgement; BUT the people should not be arrested either.
Let me explain:
There's also a lot of people who claim guns should be illegal; I beg to differ (and this is an easier analogy).
Criminals will get guns regardless of whether they're legal or not. Most criminals don't even get guns legitimately; they're usually stolen from gun shops, other people, or bought from gun shows, where they don't have to follow the 7-day laws. Either way, they're acquired through the black market. Criminals (or at least intelligent criminals) don't just go out and buy assault rifles, because they know they can be traced.
If guns were criminalized, all it'll do is prevent legitimate owners from purchasing them for self defense. Now our problem is the personality of this country (the states) where crime runs rampant, the punishment doesn't make sense (I'd get more time for trafficking weed than killing someone), so people don't really have a reason to act responsibly.
In effect, if someone really wants to derail a train, they -will- find out; however, people who know should show enough responsibility to not tell everybody, as it can easily become some twisted game for a bunch of teenagers. As they've obviously shown, they don't have that responsibility, and of course, the government wants to punish them.
What it comes down to is we need to reevaluate our moral responsibilites, and keep the government out of it...
I dunno, I think I'm just rambling now, but it sense (to me) at one point....
It sounds like they don't have that whole "freedom of speech" thing the same way it exists in the U.S. Yeah, there's a lot of corporate hoo-ha on trying to limit freedom of speech, what is speech, and so on, but I don't think this case could ever fly in the US. So my advice to the Dutch and the Germans would be to get protected speech.
My other bit of advice would be to find the dumbass who think's it's a cool idea to derail trains carrying NUCLEAR MATERIAL and explain to him why having a freightcar load of NUCLEAR MATERIAL spilling onto the ground might not be a good idea.
The biggest problem (and greatest benefit) with free speech is that everyone gets it. Even dumbasses who want to dump a bunch of radioactive crap on the ground. Anybody who would even consider doing something like this has got to have fecal material in their cranium.
You are of cause correct in this. However there have been times in the recent past where a Dutchman would have recived a medal from the UK for derailing a German train. (See WW2 for examples)
The thing is though; if we let juges get away with banning links in this case what will happen next. Will I suddenly find that I'm not allowd to link to an anti Microsoft site, because they use this case as a president on banning linking and combine it with some week law on defomation.
Its time we reminded the rulers that they rule at our sufference and don't rule to make us suffer.
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
And, of course, the techniques are totally different.
Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
No, not correct:
When trying the search for "kleiner leitfaden" (which is German for "handy guide") in Google Groups you will go to here , then choose the third message and look at the Complete Thread. You will go to here , than scroll up and you'll see one of the forbidden articles.
Then, try the same "kleiner leitfaden" in Google WWW. You will go to here. . The seventh link is pointing to here and again you will have the article in front of you.
Then, enter the title of the forbidden Indymedia site in Google WWW. The first link, try the Cache: here
Enough said.
Granted the subject matter involved is spooky, and I really dont want anyone monkeying with any train with a nuclear payload, but still.
We're back to ANOTHER linking issue! WTF? Did the New York Times ever go down for doing the same exact thing as 2600?
The principle issue at hand is the general ignorance (about the net and how it works) of those who create, enforce, and rule on the laws.
There are a great number of people with a decent level of understanding about the internet, and sufficient common sense to know what just is a Very Bad Idea(TM). But basically none of them are in lawmaking bodies around the world. They aren't greatly organized, they don't have a powerful lobby, they don't pack the monsterous cash warchests that the corps have. So what happens?
You get:
1)Trigger situation - someone does something somewhere related to computers or the net that some other body disapproves of, legal or otherwise.
2)Very Bad Law - disapproving body (often big corp) goes after (paid for or otherwise) new law that is so over the top that it looks completely loony to anyone who understands the technologies involved.
3)Uproar - you and I and everyone else wets themself laughing then realizes that there could be very bad consequences.
4)Sacrifical Lamb - some poor bastard (usually the poor soul from item 1) is hung out to dry while courts and lawmakers argue point they likely don't understand, insert paid experts from all sides. And lawyers, lots of lawyers.
5)Bad Law - eventually everything settles down and Very Bad Law goes away, but Bad Law is put in its place. Compromise isn't always a good thing.
Most Bad Laws regarding technology that we have now are actually the sons of Very Bad Laws.
Remember - Supporting free speech means that you get the right to say that you don't like what someone else has to say. The proviso is that they have to SAY it first.
I hate people who claim to be American, but obviously can't stand Americans. As Voltaire's Social Secretary said (roughly),
"I may not agree with what you say sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Now THAT is a true American, who never was in America (he died 1778)
There's another great quote worth repeating here:
"Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities."
The Dopester
"Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
If you want to find out how to derail trains. Go to the *library*.
Gonna put me in jail now huh? I've linked to a place where this information is avilable...
Make KDE illegal, long live Gnome, so ruled a Dutch Judge this morning. Nobody has the authority to judge what is right and what is wrong. A lawyer argues about how to legally commit murder (take him to Somalia, do it there, then come back to the US no crime committed, fine by a US lawyer). Maybe that's why more lawyers commit suicide than anybody else? If you go to the conservative American heartland, if you have some marijuana in your hand they'll treat you like you're binLaden himself. Everybody has different judgement criteria.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Yeh, curse the Royal Air Force and their destructive ways. Why can't they just drop flowers from their aerial death machines.
Banning direct links obviously doesn't work, which is why you say it's "reasonable" to also ban indirect links of any length. So option 2 is obviously out. That leaves us with:
There are many examples, papers, discussions etc on how most web pages are indirectly linked to another. Following your own logical progression, it would therefore be "perfectly reasonable" for a ban to include the entire web. Obviously that would be silly. Which leaves us with the remaining option:
It's as simple as that. This is why law is in general really twisted and complicated - it gets far too wide reaching otherwise. Sounds to me like this judge hasn't quite grasped the consequences that result from this. Or the logic, for that matter. IANAL, blah.
like the typical "can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater". I think that is what the poster intended.
While it IS a right, it is NOT an unlimited right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, etc. Whether you like or not, there ARE limits.
The real question is: does this go past the limits?
notice how Slashdot didn't link to this Zine, either.
(Let alone deep linkin)
- undoware.ca
This is mostly a repost of a comment I posted on the Indymedia NL website, but here it is for the slashdotters...
A comment on the Indymedia NL webstite state that:
This ruling [will] have severe consequences for every person or organisation that has placed links on the Internet.
Definately, It does. Now, I wonder shouldnt Indymedia NL, or other vigilantes (wink), now take this to the very people involved? Namely Deutsche Bahn and any Websites that may exist for the Nertherlands legal system. Perhaps it can be discovered that they too, have indirect links to the banned materials? This may take some searching, and if I knew some German, I would do this myself. Of course, if anything was found as such Indymedial NL should be made aware.
So perhaps, if the very legal system or even the plantiffs can be found to be guilty of the same action Indymedia NL has been penalized for, perhaps the ruling can be showed for what it is. Inane.
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
Most railroad tracks have a very low voltage current running through them so if a track breaks, they can tell there is a problem before a train crashes. All you have to do is get a few feet (maybe 6 or 7) of some pretty thick metal wire, solder/attach both ends to the track as far apart as the wire will reach. Get a big sledge hammer and knock the track apart. The wire will carry the voltage accross the break in the track so the train company won't think anything is wrong.
Most Bad Laws regarding technology that we have now are actually the sons of Very Bad Laws.
And most Very Bad Laws are the sons of multiple Bad Laws that weren't objected to strongly enough the first time.
Nope, no sig
Yah, that does stink. The feds have also been known to send people /unsolicited/ kiddie porn and then arrest them for, guess what?
:(
Possession of kiddie porn.
::sighs::
Figure there would be enough real perps out there to arrest that they wouldn't have to go and start making up cases, but nooooo. Yeesh. I guess it is easier to frame a person then to actually do some case work and arrest a real crook.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
"I disagree with what you say. But will defend to the death your right to tell such lies."
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
Since the US seems dedicated to making the rules of the DMCA apply around the entire world, I say that somebody ROT13's the thing and if anybody tries to break it, they sue for bypassing encryption without autherization!
How do you know that they broke it? Well simple, who ever sues you MUST have broken the encryption in order to know what was in the file!
\!_!/
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
This aspect should go down well with the Code=Speech crowd: source code (in this case a direct link) is essentially the same as a description/poem/diagram describing same.
Yes, you're right. The judge is showing that the code and the hyperlinks are a expression of the intent of the person writing. THAT SHOULD BODE WELL WITH MOST GEEKS.
But, you see, most geeks (IMHO) are radicals in their mind and want to see their world altered in their own image instead of really wanting people to act individually as they wish.
You raise a good point, but when you come down to it, you are going against their anarchist roots with such a statement. They secretly want the world to be the geek universe, where their minds are paramount, and all else is trivial. Too bad the world would rebel against them just in the same way they did against Hitler when his ideas were applied en masse.
Not to say that I don't agree with some of the geek ideals, some are really appealing, but I would rather let the world protest and then weed out what the world wants to see, instead of trying to stop railways with lethal effect.
Unfortunately, all of life is a struggle to get what you want out of the herd at the expense of the herd for yourself. That is, until you realize that THERE IS NO HERD BUT PEOPLE... PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE HAPPY AND PURSUE THEIR DREAMS AND IDEAS. Most of the geeks I know are so dejected by their mental differences between others that they see most strangers as idiots, dangerous, or worse yet some kind of meat puppet useful only to the geeks personal end.
Free speech is a right everywhere, part of every human being's birthright. It's not granted by the Constitution, just recognized, and it can't be revoked by any government.
What many people seem to forget is that even a God-given right doesn't absolve you of the consequences of your actions. You can exersize your free speech by lying under oath, but you're still guilty of perjury. You can falsely yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre, but if you try it should expect to end up in jail. There are also laws against making threats, libel, slander, incitement to riot, harassment, etc. You may also agree to voluntarily limit your own speech in return for certain kinds of employment or to gain access to sensitive information, maybe by taking an oath or signing a contract.
For any society to function there have to be some rules of interaction. Sometimes that includes limiting access to information that is a threat to society. Obviously the hard part is deciding what is truly a threat, and what limitations are justified. To argue that all such limits are equally bad is unrealistic.
Indymedia are terrorists? Please explain with evidence, Mr. A.C. I know this thread is a troll, but all the responses so far defend free speech without defending indymedia. Indymedia was instrumental in getting news out about the WTO protest in Seattle as well as alternative news regarding the war in Afghanistan. To my knowledge they have never, as an organization, advocated violence or terrorism. You may not agree with their perspective, but it is cowardly to put down one of the few alternative voices on the corporate media landscape. The protection of dissenting voices is the hallmark of a free society.
I agree, it seems logical. 'dutch' and 'deutsch' really look simmilar, but they are NOT. The text on /. makes one mixup after the other so let's put the things in the right place.
People from the Netherlands (Nederland) are dutch (nederlands). (The word 'Holland' is ufed to refer to the western part is the Netherlands.)
People in Germany (Deutschland) are german (deutsch).
Radical is a german bulletin which was posted on www.xs4all.nl. The atricles in question were on disrupting the german railways. The 'Deutsche Bahn' (in germany, not dutch) found the articles on the dutch server and asked xs4all to remove the articles.
Xs4all is really cool. It was started about 10 (more or less) years ago by a few hackers who wanted legal and cheap access to the internet for all.
Anyway. The german railroads asked the dutch to take off the Radical site.
I hope it helps to understand the article.
Privacy is terrorism.
In their defense, the webzine is apparently hosted on a Dutch server, to escape the clutches of the German government. If it's not allowed to be published in Germany, can you still call it German? :)
These guys were trying to cause a nuclear or enviromental accident? Why? What the hell is the point of that?!?!
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
This story is fake! It has to be fake. It must be fake.
As every Slashdot reader outside of the United States will tell you, the United States is the only nation in the world that restricts freedom of speech. Prominent Linux kernel hackers are boycotting the US but not Holland. Microsoft, RIAA and MPAA are in the US, not in Holland. So this story can't be real because it's set in Holland.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
BTW, the Supreme Court decided that rendered child porn, where no actual children are involved is, while not neccesarily protected, is not automatically NOT protected. In fact, the only things on your list that are currently, actually, illegal are the first 2.
As far as I recall, nothing has been done to stifle Ashcroft's right to speak freely. On the other hand, his words have been used against him by others exercising their rights to free speech, and rightfully so. He's an ardent "South sympathizer" regarding the civil war, because he's such a big fan of states' rights. Yet he has consistently stood against states' rights whenever he disagrees with the decisions the states make. Case in point; the Oregon assisted suicide measures, and medical marijuana in California. He's gone as far as to support efforts on the part of Bob Barr to invoke the "Supremacy Clause" of the constitution, over-ruling all states' rights (on matters he disagrees with, of course). He has subverted free speech by completely over-riding efforts on the part of Washington D.C. citizens to put forth medical marijuana initiatives on the ballot. In short, he's the worst kind of hypocrite, in the worst position to abuse his power by way of his utter disregard for the will of the people.
He's completely opposed to all legalization, even more medical purposes, yet blindly supports the tobacco industry. In short, he's a hypocrite who supports states' rights when it comes to the "right" to subjugate an entire class of people, but not when it comes to the decision to allow people to smoke the most effective anti-nausea, anti-wasting medicine known to man. I don't think the ACLU has done anything to stifle his right to make a complete buffoon of himself.
"i do have a problem with idiotically dangerous speech...i think shouting "fire" in a crowded theater should be illegal, which it is, "
The phrase you need here is: "clear and present danger". It's the phrase the Supreme Court of the United States came up with to describe one of only a couple of limits on 'free speech'. The other would, of course, be slander. Slander is obviously irrelevant to this discussion, so let's briefly look at the first idea. Clear and present danger describes a situation where your speech directly causes an atmosphere of immediate harm to others. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre directly changes the environment from a safe, friendly atmosphere to a chaotic rush in which virtually everyone in the theatre could be injured or killed. The same situation exists for a person who declares they have a bomb on a bus or plane. Such speech can cause panic within the cabin, or perhaps cause the plane or bus to crash, possibly killing everyone on board.
If I had a website that said it's funny to yell 'bomb' while on a bus, or to yell 'fire' in a theatre, it's very doubtful the site would ever run into any trouble with the law. Why? Because there's no clear and present danger stemming from the existance of that site. If someone read my website, and then made the decision to go yell 'fire' in a theatre, they would be arrested, as their words caused the danger, not mine. This website is abouta bit more serious situation, yet the principle remains the same. If the website's existance caused people to be injured or to die directly and immediately, I would say it's illegal and needs to go. However, to this day, I do not believe I have ever heard of a "website-related death". If you wanted to make such a case, try going after the people who make spam ads that flash alot, and make the case of possible harm to epileptics. THAT would be an example of a website fitting the 'clear and present danger' formula; the website itself causes a situation where injury or death is likely. 100,000 people can view a website about de-railing trains and go "hmm, that's interesting" with no direct or indirect consequences. The website is not your problem, the guy de-railing the train is the problem. The person who reads the website and then commits the illegal act is the problem, not the knowledge itself. Lots of people have the knowledge to de-rail a train, yet the vast majority choose not to. Why? They know it's wrong to do so.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I agree with those smart people! The best way to show the dangers of nuclear energy is to derail a train and let the contents spill over a large area. That'll show the government!
For a meaningful comparison of speech which in the US has been ruled as not protected consider the case of anti-abortion activists:
These people were found guilty of accessory to murder, creating the web pages in question for the explicit purpose of directing 'activists' to murder targets. This use of speech is not protected (apprpriately imho) under the constitution.It is also imho fallacious to say that "Anyone else can link / post / whatever this material, why are these organizations [radikal / indimedia] being prosecuted?"
In fact intent matters in many (probably most) legal proceedings. If these self-appointed protectors of my safety choose to act as accessories to violent acts then they risk having problems with the authorities.
Additionally, most network providers Acceptable Use Policies ban the placement / transmission of illegal material. The systems for isolating ISP's who do not subscribe to a minimal set of AUP standards are not as good as I would like to see them, but at least there is some internet policing / agreement on spam and crackers / script kiddies.
Unfortunately there are no simple tech solitions for this set of societal issues. That means that these things will sometimes be settled by the courts.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Now, should such content be published and widely accessible? If the article is bogus and does not describe a real threat, it doesn't matter. Now, let's say that the article described techniques that actually work. It was published, what, five years ago? If it still poses a threat, we have to conclude that this kind of transport just cannot be made safe, in which case it shouldn't be carried out. If a bunch of adolescents can describe this in a low-quality rag, real terrorists can certainly figure it out as well. Whichever way you look at it, the article should not pose a threat to actual nuclear transport or rail travel.
This just goes to show again that security through obscurity is as stupid when it comes to physical security as when it comes to computer security. Sadly, much of our government spooks are living by that principle, and we all pay the price, both in loss of civil liberties and loss of life.
Read that second clause again:
.)
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
That second clause makes a joke out of any "free speech" guarantee you think you have--it says that speech is free-- EXCEPT when the government says it is not.
I leave it as an exercise for the student to demonstrate that ANY restriction on ANY speech can be legally justified by sufficiently bending the letter of "..are necessary... in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary".
Most European countries have a similiar clause. Canada has a similar clause, Great Britain has one. The United States does not. Instead, we have "Congress shall make no law abridging...." Notice, no "except for such restrictions as are deemed necessary..." clause, either. Even so, throughout our 225 year history, federal, state and local governments have tried to restrict speech, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances and the press, but have been beaten back by those willing to fight in the courts for their rights. It's still happening, and will continue to happen, but I think things will eventually shake out into sanity again.
Why? Because we have a 225-year history and tradition that speech is free --and attempts to remove traditional freedoms just get under people's skins. The former monarchies of Europe do not have a good tradition of free speech and press, they have always subordinated freedom to the needs of the State, and (IMHO), Europeans tend to either (a) trust their government too much, or (b) feel they can't do anything about it anyhow. (And if you don't like (b), why the hell did you all decide to saddle yourself with Parlimentarian Democracies when you tossed out the absolutist monarchs? That just substitutes the tyranny of the majority for the tyranny of the monarch--so long as the majority party is the majority, it can do anything it wants, and the minority, even if it represents 49.9% of the country, can do nothing
---dragoness
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Also note that here in the Netherlands we think differently about freedom of speech (and press) than the US. While Americans are keen on absolute freedom, we dutch put a couple of restrictions on things, like racism and discrimination ofcourse, but also like bringing people to commit violence (like the articles in question).
The fact that your country allows and encourages involuntary euthanasia leaves me rather unimpressed with any Dutch arguments about how wonderful your censorship is. Your legal system is morally bankrupt. Hopefully Indymedia and Radikal can both move their controversial but free speech to American servers, and tell both the Dutch and German governments to go take a flying leap into freefall.
History has proven that only tyrants and would-be tyrants are afraid of free speech. Only fools think that violence and crime can be prevented by not talking about it. Which do they have in the Dutch and German governments, would-be tyrants or fools?
---dragoness
And you can also see A translation of the artice.
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
Why go to all that bother? Just import a moose from Canada and turn it loose near the tracks. It will immediately challenge the first train it sees, derailing it with no human intervention required.
;)
Of course, one generally needs a new moose afterward
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I want to know where there's a link on any page at bahn.de that indirectly gets to Radikal A cursory examination shows that virtually every link on their site points to other links within the bahn.de domain. I'm sure someone with sufficiently Mad Skillz could whip up a bot to map out the link structure, and find the shortest number of links to follow to get there, with a description that even a dumbass judge can follow
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
This is bullshit too. Many of them, including their grand wizard, were spoiled Saudi party boys gone wrong. Their leader's main beef is supposedly US military hardware and personnel in Saudi Arabia, even though he trained on American military hardware with American personnel in Afghanistan against the Soviets... he didn't really discover the Palestinians until after 9/11. These people claim to be orthodox Muslims but they carouse in strip clubs, get drunk, and shoot guns off in trailer parks. They claim to have read the Q'uran yet they leave copies of it in cars they rented in their own names as well as in strip clubs that they frequented. They claim to be waging jihad - which even in its most violent forms presumes a tradition of justification not far removed from the Christian just war tradition - and yet they killed many innocents (many Muslims included) to strike a nebulous symbolic blow to a dying empire that will now destroy many more innocents (most of them Muslims) in its final paroxysms (while Europe, Russia, and China wait in the wings to see who will rule the ruins of the dying American empire, on the backs of millions of people, many of them Muslims). These people have as much right to call themselves activists as they have to call themselves Muslims.
(PS: IANAM - I am not a Muslim)
Why is everybody suddenly comparing all sorts of imaginary crimes with huge acts of terror? The only ones in this story are the imaginary girl and the boy. There are exactly 0 victims. Besides. I know 25 y.o. guys that have a rather normal realtionship with 15 y.o. girls. So I really do not even see the problem.
0x or or snor perron?!