Google Complies with Law, Excludes 'controversial' Sites

YDdraig writes "To conform with some French and German laws, Google has removed listings for over 100 sites which it believes to be anti-abortion, pro-Nazi, white supremacist or anti-semitic. They're not keen to talk about it either, saying merely: 'As a matter of company policy we do not provide specific details about why or when we removed any one particular site from our index.'" Noted from Declan's articles: This is Google.de and Google.fr, and is done to be in compliance with those countries laws. Because, of course, not being able to talk about something makes it less attractive right? And drugs being illegal makes it less attractive for kids too, right? *sigh* Update: 10/24 13:55 GMT by H : Thanks to Declan for providing the linkage to his News.com original story which has more links then the ZDNet UK one.

Comments

only 100 sites

[mirko]

OK, there'd be a lot to say about the reason a site should be considered as controversial but their light quantity just sounds like to me they actually visited these to ensure they would not blacklist a legitimate site...

Re:only 100 sites

[jasonditz]

Yeah, they sure don't seem to be blocking any more sites than they are being legally compelled to.

When they are just blocking willy-nilly my page always gets the axe.

Re:only 100 sites

[NetRanger]

Uhhh...

So, what number of sites does it have to be before it becomes wrong?

Frankly I find it rather interesting that Germany is censoring and banning pro-Nazi sites and literature that it doesn't agree with. Gee, sounds rather familiar to a Germany of the past...

Re:only 100 sites

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

"So, what number of sites does it have to be before it becomes wrong?"

142.

Re:only 100 sites

[Rhubarb Crumble]

Frankly I find it rather interesting that Germany is censoring and banning pro-Nazi sites and literature that it doesn't agree with. Gee, sounds rather familiar to a Germany of the past...

Very true. The problem that Germany has, though, is that whenever some neo-nazi skinheads or right-wing politicians make headlines in Germany, the entire world points the finger and goes "nasty germans"! Whereas e.g. in the USA the whole "white power" crowd goes pretty much unmolested, and nationalist rhetoric is considered standard rather than offensive.

Because of its past, Germany does live under the microscope in that sense and it sometimes makes Germans a bit hyper-sensitive, and excesses (such as the (IMHO extremely stupid and counter-productive) law that denying the holocaust happened is an offense) do happen.

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a very thin line between other philosophies and "Ich MÖCHTE ANDERE 3 MILLION JUDEN TÖTEN! LEBEN LANG DIE ARYAN NATION!!! WEISS IST!! RECHT! "(notice the bad translation from babelfish). While it is true that technically the socialist party of Germany wasn't evil, anyone stupid enough to be spouting pro-nazi rhetoric is likely a racist hick.

This, paired with the german peoples embarassment at what Hitler et. al. did in WWII, make it hard *not* to defend their banning of pro-nazi sites. After all, when you start backing someone who killed three million innocent people, you have truly lost all humanity.

Re:only 100 sites

[jasonditz]

Of course its wrong...

Not the point though

Germany et al are forcing google into this. The fact that google is only censoring a minimal number of sites is a good sign that they aren't doing so willingly.

Re:only 100 sites

[mirko]

> So, what number of sites does it have to be before it becomes wrong?
Google is a gift horse, don't look in its mouth.
Actually I just feel happy to know that :

• I can search through Google.com instead of .fr in case my search results let me consider Google.fr think I want something "controversial".
  
• They don't blacklist that many web sites so they may visit the ones they reject... Which let me think they may be honest instead of just running "CyberNanny" to detect the sites they should to blacklist...
  

Re:only 100 sites

[Sancho]

"Of course it's wrong"....

How self-centered.

Mod me as a flame or a troll if you want, but here's the standard reply to an American saying something is "wrong" based on their culture or laws.
The world is not American.
Different countries have different laws, and I applaud Google for respecting the laws of other countries, and doing so in a way that doesn't affect web searching in countries without these restrictions.

Re:only 100 sites

[G-funk]

Frankly I find it rather interesting that Germany is censoring and banning pro-Nazi sites and literature that it doesn't agree with.

I'm fairly sure it was part of the terms of surrender that pro-nazi speech would be (forever?) illegal in germany, you can go to jail for saying the holocaust didn't happen for example.

Re:only 100 sites

[JWW]

Free Speech is free speech and censorship is censorship. It doesn't matter where you are.

Personaly, you may or may not agree with what America does, but examples like this show just how important the Founding Fathers concept of free speech is/was and how slippery a slope limiting that speech is. It is an essential element of personal freedom anywhere on the globe.

Re:only 100 sites

[RevDobbs]

. . .but here's the standard reply to an American saying something is "wrong" based on their culture or laws.
The world is not American.

No, the world is not American, but what is the UN's position on censorship, especially of historical facts?

The resctrictions on (neo-)Nazi material is especially puzzeling: don't you want to know what the "enemy" is up to, what misinformation they may be spreading? I understand how both France and Germany can be embarassed by their past, but not talking about doesn't make it not happen, and forcing it underground makes it that much harder to keep track of what's going on.

Re:only 100 sites

[mseeger]

Frankly I find it rather interesting that Germany is censoring and banning pro-Nazi sites and literature that it doesn't agree with. Gee, sounds rather familiar to a Germany of the past..

The laws currently are quite old and go back to the military goverment by the U.S. and allies. The theory behind it is, that allowing the publication of it would offer new insults to the victims.

The laws are quite useless in the internet age. But nobody asks them removed because it would look like as the person asking would be in favour of such information.

Yours, Martin

Re:only 100 sites

[plumby]

Google is doing the sensible thing, in obeying the national laws. However, you don't have to be self-centred or American to believe that it is wrong for a country/government to force censorship of material that it doesn't agree with. It doesn't take much, if any, imagination to see where this leads.

As we speak, the UK government is attempting to take out a gagging order (on the grounds of "National Security") to surpress the reporting of a trial where evidence that claims to prove that the UK government paid Al Qaeda to attempt to assassinate Gaddafi for them in 1986 will be discussed. Of course you can find some of the details on the internet, but if the goverment could enforce the banning of access to web pages, then I suspect I would not be able to read about it anywhere.

Re:only 100 sites

[dvdeug]

here's the standard reply to an American saying something is "wrong" based on their culture or laws.
The world is not American.

So perhaps we should have stayed home during WWII, eh? The world's not American; maybe it's alright to murder Jews in Germany.

Re:only 100 sites

[operagost]

After reading the "articles" on your page, I think I'm going to have to block it out mentally. Your little Bizzaro World is screwier than an M. C. Escher.

Re:only 100 sites

[msuzio]

Sorry, bud, but our Declaration of Independence (which I hope still has some meaning even under the rule of Bush and Ashcroft), says "*All men*" (and duh, women too, OK... ) are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. We consider the rights we profess to be applicable to everyone, not just Americans. So yeah, I think we as Americans should be pissed at censorship and revocation of basic rights *everywhere*. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's one of the few facets of American imperialism I actually *like*.

(Now, of course, it would be nice if we actually *followed through* on this belief through our policy. I'm very sad that we as a government don't do that).

Re:only 100 sites

[MonsterChicharo]

Well, there is the moral wrong, as in something you dislike and think of as harmful to you and your lifestyle, and there is the ethical wrong, which is not a matter of mere taste, and is rooted on concepts which are considered universal, and sometimes absoulte.

An american saying that a german is wrong for eating, let us say, mayonnaise and fries, is only talking about a matter of personal choice. However an american saying that a nazi is wrong for killing innocent gypsies is is not speaking of a personal preference, but of a universal truth: it is ethically wrong to kill.

Re:only 100 sites

[Mandi Walls]

hehe.

as if the US went into WWII to free the Jews.

Why'd it take an attack on the US by Japan, if the US was really just in the war to free the people (Jews, gypsies, homosexuals) being persecuted by the Nazis? Hilter's reich started long before the bombing of perl harbor.

I'd be willing to bet you could incite Pat Robertson or Billy Graham into saying the US should have stayed out of the European Theatre until all those social subversive types were eradicated....

-1 Flamebait.

--mandi

Re:only 100 sites

[MonsterChicharo]

The laws are quite useless in the internet age. But nobody asks them removed because it would look like as the person asking would be in favour of such information.

No, they are not. Do not make the mistake of forgetting your own history, for you will be condemned to repeat it. Germany did a very good job at teaching the world what it is capable of if the postwar rules are allowed to be ignored. Do not think otherwise.

It may sound too radical for you, but neither of us fought in that war, and neither of us would like to do it. So please, take a look at the reasons and motives of the ones that did, and understand the consecuences of that which you are asking for.

Re:only 100 sites

[Sj0]

riiiiiight. Because banning pages that say "I want to kill three million jews!" will cause the murder of jews...

Re:only 100 sites

[FatRatBastard]

Its actually much worse in the UK. Another of the laws being put forward (slipped in among the "nation security" legislation) is so broadly worded it could define critisizing a religion as a "hate crime." Nasty stuff.

Re:only 100 sites

[dvdeug]

Because banning pages that say "I want to kill three million jews!" will cause the murder of jews...

If you accept that one thing is universally immoral, then arguments that something else is universally immoral can't be answered soley by saying that cultures differ.

Re:only 100 sites

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Did you know it is illegal to sell "Return to Castle Wolfenstein" in Germany? That law seems just a tad overboard, doesn't it?

Germany being forbidden to discuss Nazism is like Christians being forbidden from discussing the Crusades.

Re:only 100 sites

[mseeger]

No, they are not.

I think it doesn't make sense to continue "Yes, they are". Give me an email address and some time and i'll give you the pointers.

About our history, i know more than it is good for a sound sleep ;-). I don't think the "censorship" rules make sense today, but i at least understand the reasoning behind it. And some of them made sense in their time (pre-internet, post-war). Some of the censorship rules result directly from the lessons learned. History teaches you a lot, but it is not unambigous.

About "fighting in wars": I neither did nor intend to do. There are issues i would be willing to fight for, but i still hope it can be avoided. But i think we're still very aware of the war in the results. The city i live in was a submarine harbour and the post-war photos look like Hiroshima and Nagasaki (100% destruction in the city center, 70% in the city including suburbs). We still have evacuations or road blocks about once a month for bomb defusing (and those were dumb ones, they had only to explode) and if you have an eye for it, you see a lot of (fixed) bomb damages.

Yours, Martin

Re:only 100 sites

[mseeger]

I forgot my email address: martinseeger..de@@ms (invert user name and domain, dots and @ are doubled).

Re:only 100 sites

[br0ck]

You laugh, but it's a good thing that the Scientologists haven't found your link to Operation Clambake yet. ;)

OT, you may find this article interesting about a new book backed by the Vatican called _the Eleven Commandments_ that "is dedicated to exposing the "equivocations and lies" contained in the Bible and traditional Christian teaching."

Re:only 100 sites

[operagost]

Truly ironic- and not Alanis Morrisette ironic, either.

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

The "white power crowd" in the USA is shunned and despised.

Freedom of speech is important. Besides, when you let Nazi nutcases speak, they undermine themselves.

Re:only 100 sites

[John Ineson]

Because of its past, Germany does live under the microscope in that sense and it sometimes makes Germans a bit hyper-sensitive, and excesses (such as the (IMHO extremely stupid and counter-productive) law that denying the holocaust happened is an offense) do happen.

The latter being interesting, because it would appear to contravene Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Unfortunately the state has better legal representation than most defendants, and they'd probably get off under paragraph 2 (which has stuff about public safety, prevention of disorder, etc).

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Cow herd]

how important the Founding Fathers concept of free speech is/was and how slippery a slope limiting that speech is. It is an essential element of personal freedom anywhere on the globe.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. The slippery slope creates arguments like "Violent video games create killers". We already have some "common sense" limits on free speech, (no yelling "fire" in a crowded room, hate speech etc...) so according to the slippery slope we'd already be living in some kind of facist totalitarian regime.

Re:only 100 sites

[voidware]

ha, perl. God, I am such a geek.

brandon

Re:only 100 sites

[mseeger]

Germany being forbidden to discuss Nazism is like Christians being forbidden from discussing the Crusades.

Please distinguish: It is not forbidden to discuss it, it is even encouraged to discuss it. It is forbidden to use the symbol of "criminal organisations" (SS, NSDAP, Swastika) without appropiate context. I discussed Nazism in my oral exam (a theme i selected) in my final high school year and it scored the best mark in oral exams that year ;-).

Examples:

• Illustrate your term paper with photos of 1936 which show the swastika flags over the city: no problem
• Design a computer game where all enemies show SS badges: problem
• Use a Swastika as background image for your home page: problem
• Write a web page over the usage of Swastikas in history even showing examples of recent german history: no problem

There is even a logic behind it, even if i do not agree with it. The main reasoning is: the constituion does not protect action which aim at the abolition of the constitution. As the Nazism was the breakdown of constitutionalism, the uncritical showup their symbols is considered as action against the consitutuion.

Yours, Martin

Re:only 100 sites

[Sancho]

It is an essential element of personal freedom anywhere on the globe.

This shows just how entrenched in the American idea you are. It's an American idea that free speech is an essential element of personal freedom, yet you state it as fact.
Censorship is censorship. You are right there. It's just that some countries allow it, and some don't. And then there are those who allow it but claim not to. Those are the ones to watch out for.

Re:only 100 sites

[Sancho]

That's fine. Criticize the country, not Google for obeying their laws.

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

The "white power" crowd goes unmolested????????? Which parallel Earth did you just slide in from?

Every hand-wringing expose on racism in the US media focuses solely on white racism, KKK, etc.

Meanwhile all the black power groups can do and say whatever they want with impunity.

As for nationalist rhetoric, I don't hear massive legions of young Americans calling people in foriegn countires "the great satan" or calling for their extermination. Honestly, the national rhetoric in the USA is pretty sedate compared to a lot of the world.

But then again we live on a planet of 6 billion hyper-hypocritical and, for the most part, pig ignorant assholes, so what can you expect?

Re:only 100 sites

[Yokaze]

There is no global absolute ethics. Ethics is a set of moral rules.
There are only some agreed upon moral rules. But mostly it is always weighting one rule against other.

Speaking of grave matters like life:
In Germany, there is no death penalty. In the US, there is.
In Germany and the US, a woman can abort. In Ireland, not.

To get back to the topic.
Would it be right to let those people state their opinions, even risking a 4th Reich?
As hypothetical as this situation is, to my eyes, this is more likely than expecting that this restriction on free speech is leading to a regime in Germany.

Is free speech one of the prime ethical requirement?
Why should it then be restricted by slander, death threats, or child protection?

You think it is different? Ask a german Jew what he thinks about people saying that either the Holocaust didn't happened and or even saying it was just and how he compares this to slander or even death threat.

It is easy to make this decision, when it is a theoretical matter. But confronted with a real threat, one might decide another way.

It is always weighting the rights of one person against another.

And on these matters, I've to admit, the Nazis don't have my sympathy.
It is not like the right of free speech is irrecovably revoked from those persons. It is just that they aren't allowed to voice their opinion on this certain matter publicly.
I am well aware, that the same argumentation can be applied by the Chinese. But one should also be aware that the Germans can choose the form of the form of their society, the Chinese not.

Re:only 100 sites

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

There was some info in your (very well written) post that I was unaware of. I don't see how any discussion can be valid if you don't have access to material from both sides of the debate. I don't like the Nazi ideas, but I certainly couldn't say that with any accuracy if I didn't know what they were.

However, I'm a "stupid American" (LOL), and things truly are a lot different over here. AFAIK, you can talk about overthrowing our Constitution freely. You just can't threaten to kill the president. I could be wrong.

If the system you have works, great. I always worry when ANY information is suppressed, because it's hard to debate the boogeyman. ;-)

I was really shocked when I found out about Wolfenstein. And your version of Half-Life slightly altered as well, from a similar law IIRC?

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

That could cause fun if Scientology is included as a religion. The Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons (ok, the Church of the Latter-Day Saints) also get a very mixed press here.

Re:only 100 sites

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

The original Anti-Nazi laws were imposed by the Allies after the war. They were part of the furniture when both German states (as in nations) were founded and the one remaining state sees no reason to antagonise it's neighbours and dump something that has widespread acceptance.

Re:only 100 sites

[overunderunderdone]

as if the US went into WWII to free the Jews.

Granted we didn't go to war to protect the jews.

Why'd it take an attack on the US by Japan, if the US was really just in the war to free the people... being persecuted by the Nazis?

I would say that with the lend/lease program & flying tigers and our embargo on oil to Japan we were pretty well involved well before Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor happend for a *reason* you know.

I'd be willing to bet you could incite Pat Robertson or Billy Graham into saying the US should have stayed out of the European Theatre until all those social subversive types were eradicated....

What would make you think this? It is fine to oppose the political agenda of the religious right but don't be so blinded by your hatred of them that you become utterly ignorant of history and what they actually believe. Most American evangelicals look to people like Corrie Ten Boom, Deitrich Boenhoffer and Martin Neimoler as their hero's. "The Hiding Place", "The Cost of Discipleship" and "Letters and Papers from Prison" are bestsellers and classics among the religious right. It is not insignificant that the "religious right" in Germany, the biblical literalists - the groups & individuals most closely identified with their American evangelical co-religionists were the ONLY significant *German* opposition to Hitler.

"At this liberal seminary the students sneer at the fundamentalists in America, when all the while the fundamentalists know far more of the truth and grace, mercy and judgement of God."
-Deitrich Boenhoffer

Re:only 100 sites

[dvdeug]

It's an American idea that free speech is an essential element of personal freedom, yet you state it as fact.

What makes up the essential elements of personal freedom can't be facts; it's not something that has a factual answer. There can only be opinions here.

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

"don't you want to know what the "enemy" is up to, what misinformation they may be spreading?"

That's why I read /. every day

Re:only 100 sites

[mseeger]

And your version of Half-Life slightly altered as well, from a similar law IIRC?

Half-Life was edited too, but for other reasons. Computer games are rated for youth compatability and they omitted some blood to avoid an "R" rating. But there are patches to fix this ("blood patches" are available nearly for every shooter sold here).

Counterstrike has been a huge issue. There has been a school shooting (worse than Littleton) recently. At the same time, there was the rating of Counterstrike. As it turned out, the "killer" (16 years old) has a copy of Counterstrike (some newspaper wrote, that he "trained with it"). When the comission turned down the motion to rate counterstrike "R", the politicians were in an uproar and were talking about stricter laws.

All this discussions are very complex, most topics are highly political and the decision makers are free of clues. I love it :-(.

Yours, Martin

P.S. I'm lobbying against internet censorship for years, but as shareholder of an (small) ISP i may be biased ;-).

Re:only 100 sites

[dvdeug]

Would it be right to let those people state their opinions, even risking a 4th Reich?

I don't believe you're increasing the risk of a 4th Reich. By forcing it underground, you let it build and grow in ways that it can't in the light. Enough people can change any government, no matter what the rules are - e.g. the Russian revolution.

Re:only 100 sites

[plumby]

Would it be right to let those people state their opinions, even risking a 4th Reich?

The problem is that banning hate sites etc allows these people a nice convenient possition of "the government is scared of the truth, so they try to ban it", and as non-supporters are not allowed to read the articles either, they are not able to disprove whatever the claims, as they don't know what they are.

Re:only 100 sites

[BrianH]

There is a large difference between the two. The Nazi flag represents one thing...the Nazi government and the atrocities it perpetrated during and before WWII. The CSA battle flag is different in that it represents MANY different things to many different people. To blacks and anti-racists, the flag represents the evils of slavery. But it is important to remember that not every southerner fought for slavery. Many were fighting against what they saw as "northern domination". Because of that, many white (and yes, even some black) southerners are proud of the CSA and the war because their ancestors fought and died in the name of state freedom. And then, of course, you've got the redneck racists who hold the flag up as a white power symbol.

So, what do you do with a symbol that means different things to different people? Ban it? That just angers the people who see no evil in it...and in the south, that's a sizeable voting bloc. Not ban it? That just angers the people who view the flag as a representation of the repression of their ancestors...and in the south, that's ANOTHER sizeable voting bloc. So who wins?

Personally, I DON'T think that the CSA battle flag should fly on modern state flags, simply because there is little point in it anymore. The CSA is long dead, and it's presence is simply a nostalgic reminder of once was (kinda like the golden bear on the California flag). Some southerners get highly defensive when groups like the NAACP try to take it down, however, because the NAACP tries to paint all southerners with the broad "racist slave owners" brush, and insulting peoples ancestors like that just pisses people off. As a rule, angry people aren't reasonable.

Re:only 100 sites

[MonsterChicharo]

There is no global absolute ethics. Ethics is a set of moral rules.

I see. Out understanding of those concepts is different. For me, ethics is a set of rational rules that individuals establish in order to get along (e.g. the rules on which the declaration of human rights is based upon). On the other side, morals is a set of commonly accepted rules created by a group in a natural, evolutive way, which are fine tuned in time.

Since no two groups of individuals are the same, morals will also never be the same. However ethics are, for they represent an agreement between different groups.

Would it be right to let those people state their opinions, even risking a 4th Reich?

That is something they have to decide for themselves. So far they have chosen not to.

Is free speech one of the prime ethical requirement?

I believe so. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that " Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. "

It is about ethics, not morals.

Re:only 100 sites

[IDStewart]

I find it bizarre that everyone cries foul over Nazi flags and all, whereas many southern US states still have their confederate flag as the official state flag.. they don't seem all that different to me.

Of the 12 states that comprised the Confederate States of America (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia), only two incorporate the St Andrew's Cross in their state flag (Georgia and Mississippi), and only in the Mississippi state flag is it prominently displayed.

As to the assertion that the Confederate flag is symbolic of slavery, while this is popular rhetoric amoung the Left, it bears little semblance to historical accuracy. Slavery was in no way unique to the South. Indeed it was practiced by both sides throughout the duration of the Civil War.

The American Civil War was fought over state sovereignty, not emancipation.

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

> It is not insignificant that the "religious
> right" in Germany, the biblical literalists -
> the groups & individuals most closely
> identified with their American evangelical co-
> religionists were the ONLY significant *German* > opposition to Hitler.
>
The KPD was the only significant German opposition
to Hitler; the number of Christians who
opposed the Nazis was tiny in comparison.

Re:only 100 sites

[IDStewart]

However, I'm a "stupid American" (LOL), and things truly are a lot different over here. AFAIK, you can talk about overthrowing our Constitution freely. You just can't threaten to kill the president. I could be wrong.

Not only is it permissible, that very possibility is an integral aspect of our form of government.

From the Declaration of Independance:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [securing the inherant, inalienable rights of all men], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Re:only 100 sites

[BrianH]

The American Civil War was fought over state sovereignty, not emancipation.

Actually, you've hit on one of the biggest problems with modern discussions about the U.S. Civil War. Everybody today likes to argue about why the war was fought, and wants to pick ou the ONE reason. The problem with that is there is NO ONE reason that the war was fought. To some extent, everyone is right, and everyone is wrong.

1) Slavery- Yes, large plantation owners with many slaves were afraid of losing them. Some of these people were evil racist bigots, and others were good people who inherited a mess and were desperately trying to keep their businesses operating. These people, as large wealthy business owners, had a lot of influence and loudly supported secession.
2) States rights- Most of the people who fought for the south didn't care much about slavery one way or the other. There was a strong feeling both in the south AND the north, that the states should be "independent", with only a figurehead federal government. These people didn't see themselves as Americans or Confederates, they thought of themselves as Kentuckians, or Georgians, or Alabamans. They had long complained about the northern states domination of the economy, and there was a general feeling that the northerners controlled the federal government.
3)Taxes- Yep, that's right, taxes. The northerners were really big on taxes and tarrifs, which really hurt the import/export dependent south. In fact, 80% of the tarriffs that the north insisted on, were paid by southern states. This fact angered southern industrialists greatly, and was widely viewed as an attempt to stifle business.
4) Immigration- Largely forgotten today, immigration was also a big issue in the 1850's. The northerners, for the most part, were really big on unbridled immigration to "populate the continent". Many southerners didn't care for the idea of allowing immigrants to populate the whole country (and especially the southern states), and wanted more control over who came and went.
5) Indian treaties- Here's a fact that has been almost erased from modern textbooks about the Civil War because it doesn't fit peoples preconceived notions of what the CSA was all about: Many politicians in the southern states were growing tired of the wars with Native Americans, and wanted to begin honoring treaties and make peace with the native Americans, while the northern states insisted on militarily removing them from their lands, irregardless of treaties (yes, I am aware that not all southerners agreed on this point). The Cherokee Nation itself willingly joined the CSA, and blasted the north for ignoring the very freedoms of self determination that it claimed to represent.

I'm sure that there were hundreds of other localized issues that I'm overlooking here that got other communities and regions involved in secession, but I think the point is made. There was no one reason for the Civil War, and no one brush that all secessionists can be painted with. They were not all good people, nor were they all evil. People who try to label all southerners with one label simply display a fundamental lack of understanding on the issue.

Re:only 100 sites

[JudgeFurious]

It's kind of easy to point out how completely insane something is if you can actually have access to it. Showing things from the Nazi era and making them subjects of discussion instead of banishing them from existence sounds like the way to go on this to me. You can really see just how idiotic and dangerous those people were if you have access to all the material.

On a side note you ever notice that you never see people with a mind like Einstein and a body like Arnold Schwarzenegger running around advocating White Supremecy? It's always possibly the least "supreme" white people you can imagine representing that view. They are themselves the best argument against their beliefs. Why censor them at all.

Re:only 100 sites

[jazman_777]

Slavery was in no way unique to the South.

The Emancipation Proclamation was only for areas in the South not yet occupied by Northern troops. IOW, it didn't free any slaves in Northern-held areas (including Northern/neutral slave states).

The American Civil War was fought over state sovereignty, not emancipation.

Thank you. BTW, the US Flag flew over slave states a lot longer than did the CSA flag. Why isn't _it_ a "symbol of slavery"?

Re:only 100 sites

[mvdwege]

If the U.S. had stayed at home, perhaps Germany might not have had a prohibition on Nazi propaganda.

That prohibition was entered into German criminal law at the behest of the Allied Powers, and in practice that meant the U.S.

Mart

Re:only 100 sites

[Yokaze]

>Out understanding of those concepts is different
That is certainly a point we can agree upon.

> That is something they have to decide for themselves. So far they have chosen not to.

Is it? I'm not quite sure I understand you correctly.
It is their right to choose to become a suppressive state, actively torturing and killing people and is it not their right to choose to restrict the freedom of speech of a certain group aiming for that goal?

> I believe so. Article 19 [...]
> It is about ethics, not morals.

I agree, with you that there are some ethical principles which are globally agreed upon.
But the problem is to what extent those principles apply and which principles have priority is not agreed upon. This is my major point.

As you can see by the numbering and hopefully according to your moral codex, too, freedom of opinion and expression does not take precedence over "the right to life, liberty [and security]". (My brackets, the security part is not my idea. It is just there to complete the cite.)

You might not see those fundamental rights threatened by the free expression of the Nazis, but this to decide is up to the people concerned.

To a young, white U.S.-american with a good education (the guesstimated average slashdot user), the threat of another Nazi regime in Germany is quite meager and not worth the effort.

To a surviver of the holocaust, living in Germany, this is surely a different matter.

Whether this legislation has actually the desired effect is a different matter and not a question of ethics.
Neither you nor them can claim to have the definit answer to that question, so it is their right to make the possible mistake.

Re:only 100 sites

[jazman_777]

The resctrictions on (neo-)Nazi material is especially puzzeling: don't you want to know what the "enemy" is up to, what misinformation they may be spreading? I understand how both France and Germany can be embarassed by their past, but not talking about doesn't make it not happen, and forcing it underground makes it that much harder to keep track of what's going on.

What it really means is that the authorities in Germany believe that Nazi teachings/ propaganda/ symbols have some magical power to capture peoples' hearts and minds. That, in spite of history (and lessons learned and associated revulsion of all things Nazi by most sensible folk), the people will, at the mere sight of a swastika, start marching around singing the Horst Wessel song and reenact Kristallnacht and yearn nostalgically for the good old days of the 30s.

Re:only 100 sites

[smugfunt]

Most American evangelicals look to people like Corrie Ten Boom, Deitrich Boenhoffer and Martin Neimoler as their hero's.

Some American evangelicals think that Deitrich Bonhoeffer "was unsound not only doctrinally, but also in practice."

Re:only 100 sites

[jazman_777]

There is no global absolute ethics.

Does your statement count? You are making absolutist statements.

Re:only 100 sites

[issachar]

The Cherokee Nation itself willingly joined the CSA, and blasted the north for ignoring the very freedoms of self determination that it claimed to represent.

I had never heard that. You got any links so I can learn more?

Re:only 100 sites

[Beretta Vexe]

You can really see just how idiotic and dangerous those people were if you have access to all the material. We had already acces to all the historic material, for exemple in france you can find the full translation of Mein kampf, make before the WW2 with the large preface of the veterans of the WW1, which explains how much the ideas exposed in the book will carry out Germany to war again France. It is not published any more, but it is findable in many large libraries. exemple in the catalog of the bibliotheque natinal de france : http://catalogue1.bnf.fr/servlet/NoticeAutorite;js essionid=HXEQLZB2R0PG2QBNFMMYLYI?idNoeud=1.1.1&idN umeroNotice=11907574&NomAutorite=+Hitler%2C+Adolf+ %281889-1945%29+&FormatAffichage=0&adresse_mel=nom %40domaine.com&Voir_les_notices.x=68&Voir_les_noti ces.y=29 the problem comes from thos who remake the history for their suitability.

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you want to keep track of them. But you do not have to help them spread their ideas.

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont you want to know what the child pornography dudes are up to?

SAME rethoric

Re:only 100 sites

[BrianH]

A quick Google search turn up these. The "Declaration of Causes" is a VERY interesting read, as it provides a unique third party view into the comparative conditions present during the Civil War, and absolutely blasts the Union for the way they handled the secession.

Oh, and the Cherokee weren't the only Native American CSA supporters. The Chickasaws, the Seminole, the Creek, the Choctaw, and many other smaller tribes also signed onto the CSA. They understood that the federal government of the U.S. planned to eliminate their soveregnity and destroy them with incoming settlers, while settlers in the southern states had long recognized the Cherokee and other tribes as seperate nations with their own land. When the Union won the war, the Native Americans fate was sealed.

Re:only 100 sites

[Kwikymart]

About shouting "fire" in a crowded room, the term free speech is a little misleading. Sometimes "speech" is the act of talking, or making a point, or whatever. However, the speech they talk about in "free speech" is about making a point... it is not how you say it (in a different language, or with an accent for example), but what you say that should be free. Shouting "fire" isn't a form of speech, despite the vocal sounds, because it doesn't communicate anything worthwhile. The fact that you are using it to cause mayhem supersedes any protection of it because there is nothing to protect.

About hate speech... I am not sure that is so common sense to limit it at all. Of course, it is speech unlike shouting "fire" in a crowd. However, when does hate speech begin and political criticism of race/sexual orientation/religion end? Say, for instance, if I were to write a harsh editorial in my local paper criticizing Israelis / Palestinians for their actions, even if I didn't use slurs in it it would no doubt be labeled as hate motivated by the group I was criticizing and therefore hate speech. I would surely disagree. But the point is, hate speech laws can get a little flaky when one side of an issue considers it a good point and the other side considers it to be hate speech.

I really don't like the idea of hate speech laws, and here in Canada we do have them. I think they can be abused to limit legitimate speech. This type of speech should be considered unacceptable by our culture, but not limited by our laws.

Re:only 100 sites

[overunderunderdone]

The KPD was the only significant German opposition to Hitler; the number of Christians who opposed the Nazis was tiny in comparison.

Good point, perhaps I should clarify. The Confessing Church was the ONLY German opposition to Hitler that wasn't being victimized by Hitler. Jewish and Gay Germans as well as Communists opposed Hitler but for the obvious reason that they were his victims. The Confessing Church CHOSE to oppose Hitler when they were NOT his victims. Martin Niemollers famous poem wasn't really true about him (though he did regret that he didn't speak up sooner). He spoke up long before they "came for him" and the reason the "came for him" was because he (and Boenhoffer, and Barth & the tiny hardcore of uncompromising evangelicals) DID speak up.

Re:only 100 sites

[Dean Sas]

the swastika means much more than nazi atrocities too, it is/was a widely used celtic symbol (wicca?) can't remember more detail that that :/

Re:only 100 sites

[overunderunderdone]

Some American evangelicals think that Deitrich Bonhoeffer "was unsound not only doctrinally, but also in practice."

Half of American evangelicals think that of the other half when you get down to the fine points of theology - the more generic evangelicals think the charismatics are nuts and the fundamentalists are legalists, The fundamentalists think the charismatics are nuts and the evangelicals are libertines. The charismatics think the evangelicals are missing out on the spirit and the fundamentalists are legalist kill-joys. That is not the point. Part of this guys complaint is that conservative evangelicals of all stripes (except perhaps actual fundamentalists) revere Dietrich Boenhoffer which was MY point. If Deitrich Boenhoffer is too liberal for your tastes how about Karl Barth - he was more the intellectual center of movement anyway.

Ironically Boenhoffer would have been sympathetic to this guys complaint about his practice - That Boenhoffer should have restrained himself to civil disobedience, rescuing jews and the like rather than attempting to assasinate Hitler. Boenhoffer was a pacifist (as were most American fundamentalists of the time) and did NOT at first believe that his biblical principles allowed him to actively throw off the legitimate governmental authority even if that authority was being abused to commit atrocities. Boenhoffer's theology in this regard obviously changed - as did the theology of American fundamentalists who at the time of WWII were mostly pacifists and militantly apolitical. (one recalls the story of Jim Eliott of "Through Gates of Splendour" fame who almost failed his public speaking class because it was against his religious beliefs to talk about politics). The evolution of both Boenhoffer's and Fundamentist theology from pietist pacifism to political activism is an interesting parallel development.

Re:only 100 sites

[Datafage]

You're making an error. The Nazi flag represents the Nazi regime. The Confederate flag represents the Confederate regime. Both movements had extremely... unsavory elements, and both had people who disliked said elements but agreed with other parts. The Swastika may be stronger, as WWII was more recent and horrific, but the same principle applies to both. I'm quite sure there's a depressing number of people who revel is the Swastika, and others similarly in the Confederate flag. You can't claim to like the Confederate flag for reasons other than slavery and then simultaneously say the Nazi flag is evil. One way or the other, not both.

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yes actually, because it has happened in the past. Heck, it even happened recently - it was only 10 or so years ago that Germany reunited, and we were treated to the sight of East German nazis on the march.

Re:only 100 sites

[WatertonMan]

Actually I believe the original symbol (which is actually found in ancient Judaism as well) has the lines on the end of the "cross" pointed the opposite direction as the swastica. However most people can't tell the difference and it all gets labeled as the same.

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, BrianH, for an excellent outline of the reasons behind the great conflict of the 1860s, including some reasons (e.g. native nations) that I didn't know about. Once again, the winners write the history....

I grew up in liberal Southern California, was taught (as were nearly all of us) the usual crap about the "Civil War" being about slavery, etc. (150 years ago my ancestral family lived in Illinois, and all enlisted to fight in the Union army.) Wasn't till my 40s I began really questioning this and other "truths" that "everyone knows." Coincidentally, about then I discovered an excellent book on the subject, "The South was Right" (check Amazon).

Slavery is an evil, to be sure; but if so, then why is it a solution to the evil of slavery to enslave everyone, rather than just the blacks? Which is what Lincoln did by declaring himself Dictator and then using conscript troops to conquer anyone who disagreed - not only the Confederate states, but many dissenters in the North were imprisoned without trial, etc.

Lincoln was America's Caesar: he may have meant to save the Republic, but he actually destroyed it, replacing it with an empire - leading directly to our present troubles with the Imperial Presidency, Washington micromanaging everyone's lives, etc.

I call it the War of Federal Conquest, which is what it was. The Northern states made a bargain with the Devil, and ended in the same subjection suffered by the Confederate states. When New Jersey balked at ratifying the "14th Amendment," which created a new class of Federal citizenship, etc., it was threatened with the same fate - invasion and occupation - as the conquered states to the south.

(BTW, I won't answer to "Anonymous Coward," just don't feel like taking the time to create an account to post one comment. Anyway, the "Create Account" link took me to a Log-In page, which apparently assumed I already had an account. The hell with it.)

Philalethes

Re:only 100 sites

[salesgeek]

There is no way to "moderate" freedom of speech. The moment that laws curtail a citizen's right to speak - ESPECIALLY about political topics (race, religion, abortion, etc...), that nation begins down a very slippery slope.

True freedom means you have to allow those whose views are unpopular, disgusting or even dangerous to speak of them. Freedom for some and a gag for others is called oppression.

You would think that man would have learned by now...

$G

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

"swastika" is a sanskrit/hindi word and is
one of two holy symbols of india. There are
about a billion swastikas in india, on every
temple and every religious book.

you do know what "aryan" is right ? by definition,
it's anyone whose religion derives from the
vedas.

the german word is "hakenkrauz" (spelling?)
or some such thing. hitler copied it from
indian culture since it's a powerful symbol
in it's own right and north indians are
indo-aryans and sanskrit/hindi is the oldest
indo-european language known. (along with
latin perhaps).

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

That the world is not American does not itself mean that American moral values should not be applied universally; it merely indicates their place of origin and/or greatest acceptance. Accordingly, your "standard reply" is valueless unless you express the specific intellectual theory backing it.

Please try again.

Re: only 100 sites

[Capsaicin]

Growing up in hinduism, I saw the swastika on all the religious occasions..

In fact the word 'swastika' derives from the Sanskrit. In fact it is quite inaccurate to describe symbol on the "Nazi flag" as a 'swastika,' (although clearly it resembles one), it is in fact a 'Hackenkreuz.'

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

While it is true that technically the socialist party of Germany wasn't evil, anyone stupid enough to be spouting pro-nazi rhetoric is likely a racist hick.

The socialist party of Germany (SPD) was the main opponent of the NSDAP (Nazi Party). How clueless do you have to be to confuse 'national-socialism' (which is a synonym for 'anti-socialism,' as in 'anti-matter') with 'socialism.' Blödkopf!

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Speech is ... an essential element of personal freedom anywhere on the globe.

As is universal public health care. ... Doesn't mean you necessarily get it though.

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

What it really means is that the authorities in Germany believe that Nazi teachings/ propaganda/ symbols have some magical power to capture peoples' hearts and minds.

No, what it really means is the the Americans and other allies believed that Nazi teachings/ propaganda/ symbols had some magical power, when they insisted upon the inclusion of anti-Nazi provision in the new German constitution following WWII.

Re:only 100 sites

[Mnemia]

I agree, and you should have the right to wave either one (or any other flag you want) in public. I can't understand how flag waving could possibly be considered as anything other than free speech - it's CLEARLY political speech, which should have the highest protection of all. I don't think the flying of those flags should be enshrined in state law (unless a lot of people agree that it should be), but I should be able to show my support for any flag I want. Any attempt to suppress such flags is nothing less than sacrificing the _principle_ of free speech for something as trivial as people's feelings.

Re: only 100 sites

[12dec0de]

..erm, piece of german here: it is 'Hakenkreuz', from hook, not 'Hackenkreuz', it has nothing to do with the heel of the foot.

Re:only 100 sites

[Datafage]

Definitely gotta agree with you there, you should be free to fly either flag, but having the state fly the Confederate flag by law, that's bad.

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

If the U.S. had stayed at home, perhaps Germany might not have had a prohibition on Nazi propaganda.

You're right, of course. If the US had stayed home, Germany would have ended up with a prohibition on anti-Nazi propoganda, since Hitler would rule all of Europe as well as most of the rest of the world, possibly including the US.

Re:only 100 sites

[Conare]

The American Civil War was fought over state sovereignty, not emancipation.
That's not what the most recent news report that I read said. Here is a reprint:

Civil War Historians Posit 'You Had To Be There' Theory
ATLANTA--After years of conflicting approaches to interpreting the Civil War, a coalition of historians on Tuesday posited the non-specific theory that "you had to be there" to fully understand the complexities of the war. "It's not just a matter of 'Were the Southern forces as confident and dedicated as their Northern counterparts?' or 'Was Gettysburg the turning point?'" said conference chairman Shelby Foote. "The whole gist of the war is just hard to really get unless, you know, you were there and saw it happen." The coalition also advanced a theory that the Great Migration, wherein one million African-Americans moved to northern cities between 1915 and 1920, was "a black thing."

Yes it's from http://onion.com/

Re:only 100 sites

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to your page and read your rant on using drugs to calm hyperactive kids. Are you aware that ADD and ADHD are actual disorders, and that some kids actually need psychoactive drugs in order to function in school and in society? Your article seemed to imply that you don't believe that (although I could be misinterpreting you). I agree that such drugs are overused, and that some kids are medicated who shouldn't be, but it doesn't follow that no kids should be medicated.

Re:only 100 sites

[jasonditz]

I certainly didn't mean to imply that. ADD and ADHD are serious disorders, but likewise they are quite rare (whereas 3.6% of children are now being given the treatment for it, and that percentage is rising quickly). My problem was not with treating people who honestly need it, my problem was with the way teachers have been using these drugs as the cure for any and all forms of misbehaving.

Re:only 100 sites

[unitron]

"...I don't hear massive legions of young Americans calling people in foriegn countires "the great satan" or calling for their extermination."

Of course not. We've got W. to do it for us.

Re: only 100 sites

[Capsaicin]

Yup, I realised that I soon as I posted. Because I type only English nowadays these typos creep in all over the place. Lucky I can still spell my name. :)

Re:only 100 sites

[Sj0]

What do those two sentences have in common with one another?

Don't blame google for this

[Laglorden]

My guess is that there will be many here who will moan over Google being stupid, but of course they are doing the right thing following the law of each country in this case.

If the laws are wrong both Germany and France are fairly democratic countries so advocate to change the laws instead. Make it legal to spread nazi-propaganda i Germany etc...

Re:Don't blame google for this

[BlueGecko]

Make it legal to spread nazi-propaganda i Germany etc...

Problem: even if a majority of Germans wanted greater freedom of speech, try to imagine the public outcry if a candidate campaigned on the platform:

Candidate: Und eef I am electet, I vill also leat a coalition to repeal ze anti-Nazi censorship rules in ze constitution, ja?

Even in Germany I have trouble seeing that flying with the voters or the press.

Re:Don't blame google for this

[Anonymous Coward]

If we ban Nazi propaganda in Germany, then maybe we of all people know what we're doing.

Re:Don't blame google for this

[Pius II.]

It's not as if those laws had been passed only yesterday. The respective (german) law has been in place since around fifty years. That is, if they act according to 130 StGB.
It says, basically, that whoever produces, offers or advertises "hate speech", which is defined as material "which incites to hate or violence against parts of the population or which violates their human dignity". A later addition also bans material "which denies or plays down crimes committed during the reign of national socialism".

Anti-abortionist speech is not banned at all, but it could be that it also falls under this law if it calls for acts of violence against e.g. physicians.

Re:Don't blame google for this

[Anonymous Coward]

If the laws are wrong both Germany and France are fairly democratic countries so advocate to change the laws instead. Make it legal to spread nazi-propaganda i Germany etc...

In some countries such as Sweden, it is illegal to 'aggitate against an ethnic group' (whatever that means). To try and overturn the 'anti-Nazi laws' is to paint yourself as a Nazi in their eyes, and to be putting yourself at risk of befowling those laws.

Re:Don't blame google for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Make'em take a cluetrain.

Hint: Google is not spreading any nazi-propaganda, just links and some text..

Okay, maybe the cache can bust'em, but so are you buster! You cannot do any web-browsing without some sort of "copying" and duplication. (And you don't even ask for permission by the copyright holder for each page, shame on you! ;*)

Next time some pop-under ad sends you to a site with illegal child porn or nazi-prop, YOU have just become a criminal! The evidence is right there, on your harddrive. If you erase it, it can still be retrieved by technological means.

Re:Don't blame google for this

[CowboyMeal]

How do you campaign against this law without breaking it in the process? Even if people in Germany and France wanted to change this law, they wouldn't be able to, since all their politicains would get arrested.

Re:Don't blame google for this

[anthony_dipierro]

Eh, whatever. They should have just pulled those country sites completely in protest.

Wow

[dj28]

Those European countries sure do like to talk about their free speech. What was that about European nations scoring higher on freedom of the press, when they are asking google at the same time to censor data they deem to be 'racist'? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Re:Wow

[McCart42]

What blows me away is not the racist speech blocking, but the fact that they're blocking anti-abortion websites from google's listings--racist speech could be construed as "hate speech" and thus I can maybe see how they'd not want their children to see it, but anti-abortion (AKA pro-life, depending on whether you support it or not) speech?! How is that worthy of censorship? Oh, does it not agree with what their government believes?
Well, we get a chance to see their freedom of the press in action--let's see if any French or German newspapers cover this blatant act of censorship.

Re:Wow

[CaVi]

I haven't seen the suppressed sites, but there has been anti-abortion sites giving names of the doctors practising abortion and saying "Here are the adresses of murderers to kill".

A site which makes it easier to kill somebody by giving private information like home adress,... should be banned IMHO. Of course, some fanatics will dig the web and find that information anyway, but it is no reason to allow to publish it anyway.

If the site is hosted in a country which doesn't ban it, then it is IMHO perfectly legitimate to try to ban it from other countries, even if it is not 100% effective. Removing it from Google is not 100% effective, but it makes it a bit less accessible.

Being about anti-abortion, pro-terrorism or anything else doesn't change the fact: there are some sites which should be banned. But they should not be banned too lightly, and there should be ways to defend oneself against being banned,...

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

Yeah well freedom of speech ends where you step on other people's rights, like those anti-abortion sites inciting people to kill abortion doctors or Nazis who want to gas the jews.

I agree that it's a problematic issue. Note that freedom of the press is not the same as freedom of speech, by the way. You can report all you want about Nazis who want to gas jews, but as soon as you advocate it yourself, then you're in deep trouble, and in my humble opinion rightfully so.

Re:Wow

[jhunsake]

Because the murderers couldn't get it anyways... these are zealots that won't let such difficulty dissuade them. We're not talking about a guy that's discouraged from killing someone because he has to wait for his gun permit to come through.

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

Remember there are anti-abortion sites that advocate murder of doctors who perform abortions.

Re:Wow

[ponxx]

Have a look at the site. If that is not hate-speech, i don't know what is. Some things I read on extremist christian sites (have a look at tencommandments.org) made me feel actually sick, including suggesting the murder of all non-believers as a solution to world hunger, implicitly or explicitly condoning murder of doctors, homosexuals etc. not even speaking of generally insulting individuals and groups or religions that happen not to share their views. In my view this is hate-speech and asks people to commit crimes.

Some countries have different definitions of where the right to free speech ends, for example when it urges people to commit crimes.

In germany there would be not much controversy about censoring a magazine or group that wanted to glorify and re-instate a nazi-regime / get rid of all non-christians / foreigners / ... particularly when it includes calls to direct action.

Anyway, different countries have different standards, google.de is registered in Germany, so it has to comply with its laws, Germany is a democracy, so if people get upset, they can vote in a new government that will repeal them.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen the suppressed sites, but there has been anti-abortion sites giving names of the doctors practising abortion and saying "Here are the adresses of murderers to kill".

Considering that all you need is a name and (if the name is really common) a city and you can find almost any address in the US, I don't see this to be much of a problem. Anyone who wants to kill doctors (or anyone else) just needs to go to an online phonebook to find em.

I'm from America though, so obviously I don't know anything about other countries.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that all you need is a name and (if the name is really common) a city and you can find almost any address in the US, I don't see this to be much of a problem.

I assume you're talking about something called a "phone book" (or it's electronic, country-wide equivalent), from which you can be "unlisted".

Re:Wow

[cp99]

Actually you would be surprised about how dumb fanatics can be.

I once read an interview of Peter Singer, and he pointed out that out of all of his death threats, only one was considered creditable, and the guy who was making them from his own phone, and was even surprised when the police showed up at his house.

Re:Wow

[jhunsake]

So they ask a more intelligent friend. The fact is, that if I am quite determined to kill you, then I will most likely succeed. Just because someone makes a death threat doesn't imply that they are determined to kill you. Intimidate you, maybe.

Re:Wow

[JonTurner]

"Remember there are anti-abortion sites that advocate murder of doctors who perform abortions."

Remember there are pro-abortion sites that advocate murder of unborn babies.

If you're so damned concerned about censorship, the removal of EITHER site should trouble you. Otherwise, you're just an activist hypocrite.

Re:Wow

[cp99]

My point is that by making information such as lists of addresses of abortion doctors harder to find, you will rule out 90% of fanatics. It won't stop them all, but it does improve the odds.

Re:Wow

[jhunsake]

Fine rule out 90% of them. But last time I checked, you can only die once.

Re:Wow

[Stuart Gibson]

Note - Killing doctors is NOT "Pro-Life"

Goblin

Re:Wow

[Gorm the DBA]

Important difference, dude... Killing of Doctors = illegal by current laws Removing a mass of fetal matter from it's unwilling host = legal by current laws (in many places) Abortion may or may not be morally corrupt, depending on your particular moral code, but there is an unambiguous fact, it's legal.

Re:Wow

[Pius II.]

No, but perhaps we're talking about a guy who is a mentally unstable reject and thinks he'll be accepted for killing someone as bad as those "baby killers".
Or whatever pro-abortionists are called by anti-abortionists.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen the suppressed sites, but there has been anti-abortion sites giving names of the doctors practising abortion and saying "Here are the adresses of murderers to kill".

That site was in the US. It was shut down and the webmaster was charged and convicted. What does that have to do with France and Germany's violation of basic human rights?

I've looked at some of the banned sites. They merely voice opinions. I've seen nothing to indicate they advocate violence or murder. As for being able to "defend oneself against being banned", France and Germany give no leeway here. If you are anti-abortion, or pro-nazi, you are wrong. They aren't interested in discussing it, they're only interested in hiding and cowering in fear of these ideas. Maybe that's why they were so easily demolished 60 years ago. Maybe that's also why they have that huge chip on their shoulders today.

Re:Wow

[dvdeug]

Yeah well freedom of speech ends where you step on other people's rights, like those anti-abortion sites inciting people to kill abortion doctors or Nazis who want to gas the jews.

Your freedom of speech ends where you step on other people's rights, like those carnivore sites inciting people to kill cows.

That's one view of the world; how would you feel if you could not only not eat meat, but it was illegal to even promote the legalization of eating meat?

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

"Once the government approves something, it's no longer immoral!"

-- the Simpsons (about allowing gambling in Springfield)

If any of you actually visited the pro-life site in question, you will notice that it doesn't advocate violence against anyone, it merely states that abortion is immoral and against God's law.

Re:Wow

[LWATCDR]

Not so important difference dude. In Germany in 1944 mass killing of Jews == legal
hiding jews == illegal.
Legal does not equal right.
My personal belief is
killing doctors == wrong
Abortion == wrong
Speaking your mind on the subject == right

Re:Wow

[kmellis]

The German government's inclusion of anti-abortion sites in their ban makes sense from their point of view.

The problem with the abortion debate is that no one ever makes the effort to understand the other side's position.

In this case, I imagine that the censorship of anti-abortion sites is rationalized in the context of seeing anti-abortion activism as being fundamentally anti-woman. And here I'll ask the reader to re-read my second sentence. Many, many people who are pro-choice believe either that a fetus isn't a person and therefore the only issue here is the rights of the woman; or they believe that a fetus may be a person in some sense but that any rights it has are nevertheless subsumed by the mother. Again, from their point of view, it's only an issue of a woman's right to control her own body. From that point of view, it is a civil rights issue.

Pro-life activists are no less one-sided in their position that the only real issue is the rights of the unborn child and they do not acknowledge this as being about reproductive rights at all.

My point is that I am pretty sure that probably as much as 90% of Germans see this issue from the perspective of the pro-choice position I describe above. As such, anti-abortion is equated to anti-woman, which is on par with the other things they are censoring.

I'm not saying I agree with any of the positions I've described. But at least I am able to understand and recognize the legitimacy of an argument assuming its premises. Both the extreme pro-choice and pro-life arguments make perfect sense, and are important matters of human rights, and as such are noble and reasonable, assuming their respective premises. I wish that somehow both sides would make the effort to recognize the legitimacy of each other's arguments so that, finally, the real discussion can begin--which is about whether and how much they can agree about those premises. Maybe they can't. But right now they're talking right past each other and unfairly characterizing their opponents as specifically trying to work against the implications of their assumptions. (That is to say, pro-life people characterize their opponents as being anti-life; while pro-choice people characterize their opponents as being anti-choice. They really think that being "anti-X" is really what the other side's all about. That's why there's so much rancor involved.)

Re:Wow

[Eccles]

So they ask a more intelligent friend.

There was a study not too long ago that found that the not-so-bright rarely realized their degree of not-so-brightness. You would also have to find a more intelligent friend who thinks murdering abortion providers is acceptable.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

>>"Remember there are anti-abortion sites that advocate murder of doctors who perform abortions."

>Remember there are pro-abortion sites that advocate murder of unborn babies.

>If you're so damned concerned about censorship, the removal of EITHER site should trouble you. Otherwise, you're just an activist hypocrite.

Well, the murder of doctors is illegal while the murder of the unborn babies probably isn't.

Re:Wow

[JWW]

You realize of course that you are trying to justify censonship with statistics.

Think about that, doesn't that bother 64% of you?

Re:Wow

[chl]

Remember there are pro-abortion sites that advocate murder of unborn babies.

Remember that abortion does not count as murder where abortions are legal, so you do not advocate murder by advocating abortion in that jurisdiction. So the law against advocating crime does not hold. And since there are no other applicable reasons for censorship in Germany, pro-abortion sites usually can not be stopped.

Re:Wow

[TamMan2000]

Removing a mass of fetal matter from it's unwilling host

There is nothing unwilling about the host! People (women AND men) should not choose to have sex if they can not risk having a pregnancy. Remember, unless they were forced to have sex, they are a willing host. And just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. I really hope that the world pulls it's head out of it's ass and realizes that legal murder is going on everywhere.

A little googling will show that there is an enormous amount of evidence that the fetus is conscious (it's own life) form fairly early in the pregnancy.

don't dismiss me as some kind of religious wacko, I am an athiest.

one last thing: I am not against womens rights, I am for fetal rights, there is an important difference.

Re:Wow

[operagost]

Well and simply put. Thanks.

Re:Wow

[operagost]

Truly an irony that's lost on a lot of people.

Re:Wow

[cp99]

There are some extreme cases where I have no problem with censorship (child pornography, hitlists etc).

Life isn't black and white.

Re:Wow

[CrimsonAvenger]

but there is an unambiguous fact, it's legal Interestingly enough, in 1860 in the USA, slavery was legal. Should I assume that you consider it wrong that people opposed slavery during the period leading to the Civil War?

Re:Wow

[schlach]

Alright, alright, haven't been able to get into an abortion argument since high-school, since I went to such a liberal pinko long-haired hippie freak university... =)

Remember, unless they were forced to have sex, they are a willing host.

Unless they were forced, they are willing to have sex. Not to be pregnant. That's why many couples use contraceptives and the jim hat. If pregnancy ensues despite the use of a condom, I'd say the lovers never agreed to be willing hosts.

Jared Diamond makes some interesting theories in his book, The Third Chimpanzee, about the role of sex in evolution. "Our concealed ovulation [he means, a woman's buttocks don't turn blue when she's ovulating], constant receptivity [women engage in sex in between times of ovulation, not just during], and brief fertile period in each menstrual cycle ensure that most copulations by humans are at the wrong time for conception...Whatever the main biological function of human copulation, it isn't contraception, which is just an accoasional by-product." (p. 77-78)

If it were just about giving us a procreative edge, copulation would take much less time than the 4 minutes on average it takes humans, and we'd only do it during a woman's ovulatory period. Other primates spend 15-30 seconds, others a minute. But all less than humans. And baboons would know who's ovulating as soon as they sit down at the bar. But do you?

So, short explanation? His theory is that sex evolved to be so damn great in order to cement the social relationship between a man and a woman, so that the man would remain to rear the offspring. It takes much more fatherly involvement in the raising of human young than that of other species, and a strong bond between man and woman apparently turned out to be a good way of getting Dad to stick around.

And just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. I really hope that the world pulls it's head out of it's ass and realizes that legal murder is going on everywhere.

I'd hope that the world stops sanctioning legal murder in terms of political assassinations. But if everyone everywhere, as you say, is endorsing abortion as better than the alternative of not-abortion, you have to wonder if maybe somebody's thought of something you haven't...

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

What if they were raped, smart guy? How is that a choice?

People (women AND men) should not choose to have sex if they can not risk having a pregnancy.

Yeah, "just say no", a very effective approach to any situation.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

if a man and a woman have sex and refuse to accept a child, she is a whore and he is a pimp

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Slavery was legal in certain States, not across the country.

Re:Wow

[snarfer]

Remember there are pro-abortion sites that advocate murder of unborn babies.

No, there are not. Not even one, anywhere. If you think there are, please post an example.

Re:Wow

[snarfer]

Go look at the "anti-abortion" site in question, http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/.

It is a hate site, including anti-Muslim hate.

Re:Wow

[Gorm the DBA]

And you're misinterpreting the argument here.

No, I don't consider it wrong that people were against slavery, or the Holocaust, or even that they are against abortion now. Freedom of thought and political opinion and all that is absolute.

However, a site that said "Here's 35 slave owners, go get a gun and shoot them" in 1855 would have been advocating a clearly illegal act against people who were participating in a legal activity, and therefore should have been treated as "incitement to violence".

Likewise, I have no objections to a site that says "Abortion is wrong, for these 37 reasons", nor do I have any objections to a site that says "We should work to change the laws of the country to ban abortions"

However, the line is very clearly drawn at "Here's 40 Doctors who are engaging in illegal acts, you as a Christian should get a gun and KILL them!!!" (oddly enough...I've never seen a website run by a Jewish person, or a Hindu, or a NeoPagan advocating violence against abortion doctors, it's always fundamentalist Christians...)

Acting within the law to enact political change is allowable, encourageable, and even worthy. Acting OUTSIDE the law to kill those who are engaging in legal activities is not. Encouraging others to act outside the law to kill those who are engaging in legal activities is not either.

And as for the "Well, then we shouldn't have fought the Nazi's" argument...you'll notice that we didn't enter the war to save the Jews, we entered it to stop expansion...and when the Holocaust was discovered and proved, the legal system acted quite nicely in punishing most of those responsible.

Re:Wow

[TamMan2000]

Although most of what you said is indisputably true, I have to say that contraception is merely a risk reducer when it comes to risking pregnancy when you have to sex. I still believe that people who feel they are mature enough, and responsible enough to engage in sex, need to be mature enough and responsible enough to accept this reduced risk. There is one fact in this discussion, pregnancy doesn't happen to the sexually inactive.

I would like to thank you for not "going off" I am very much in the minority on this issue when it comes to my social circles, and I appreciate the rational conversation on the matter. I usually only encounter closed minded, almost violent responses to my views.

Re:Wow

[japhmi]

Unless they were forced, they are willing to have sex. Not to be pregnant.

If they had sex, then they consented to the possibility of having sex. Even if they reduced their chances via natural or artificial means, they still are consenting to "we don't want to get pregnant, but by having sex we know it's a possibility."

It's trite, I know, but if you absolutly don't want to get pregnant, then don't have sex!

Re:Wow

[TamMan2000]

I never said just say no, I said accept the risk

Re:Wow

[noshellswill]

Wow, pad're when that "mass of (post)fetal material" is a bunch a snotty Catholics, gypsies or Jews WTF it (was) a national (socialist)law ... eh pad're & ya got to obey those laws ... toast-em-up and ban the reports ... WTF

Re:Wow

[mesocyclone]

Nazis who say they want to gas jews are abhorrent, but unless they openly incite violence they are *not* infringing on other peoples' rights!

I know of have heard of only one anti-abortion site that advocates killing of doctors. Most pro-lifers are just that: pro-life and abhor killing, even in their cause.

Stereotyping pro-lifers to make it seem that all are like the most extreme is like stereotyping leftists by accusing them of favoring the policies of Pol-Pot.

Re:Wow

[schlach]

I still believe that people who feel they are mature enough, and responsible enough to engage in sex, need to be mature enough and responsible enough to accept this reduced risk.

Perhaps, but I don't think the decision to have an abortion is one that is taken in the absence of maturity and responsibility. It is a very difficult decision. I don't think anyone gets a giddy little thrill from "beating the system". The decision is made when the mother cannot responsibly care for the baby. If a foolish fourteen year old gets pregnant, what kind of life has she determined for herself and the baby? She may have to drop out of school, tank dreams of college, to care for her baby. She may be thrown out of the house by her parents in her time of need. She may resent the child for ruining her life. What kind of environment might the baby grow up in at that point? If she decides to have an abortion, it may be the most responsible thing she can do at that point. It's not trivial. It can cause lifelong emotional duress. It's a decision that needs to be understood with compassion, not judgement.

No one is pro-abortion. People are pro-choice because they don't want the government, especially one controlled so heavily by the fundamentalist Religious Reich, to be able to dictate one of the most serious decisions a person or couple may ever have to make. It's one of those, "Who are you to tell me how to live my life?" kinds of jobs. But the Right is very prescriptive, the way Christian missionaries have always been. I don't know what makes them tick, but I have a hard time believing it's a sincere committment to saving souls. But that's a different topic.

Every child wanted, every child loved. Massive overpopulation isn't doing anyone any favors, either. And the less outside interference in anyone's life, whether it be from relgious governments or governmental religions, the better.

I would like to thank you for not "going off" I am very much in the minority on this issue when it comes to my social circles, and I appreciate the rational conversation on the matter. I usually only encounter closed minded, almost violent responses to my views.

You and me both, my friend. I've never had this argument with anyone who wasn't in it from a fundamentalist (where the hell did that word come from, anyway?) Christian background. And usually their responses are pretty frothing-at-the-mouth, too. I favor a self-deterministic view of government and religion (I hestitate to say "libertarian"). The idea that people weren't made to be subordinate. It's only the meek or unlucky that get subordinated. But that doesn't mean there isn't room for that whole Christ (if not Christian) ethic of "do unto others", "turn the other cheek", "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", etc. So anyone advocating that I be subordinate to their laws/relgious views/whatever doesn't go over real well with me. They better ask real nice.. =)

Re:Wow

[pottymouth]

How do you go from listing doctors that perform a procedure many people consider murder, to killing doctors?? I would not pay for the services of someone that I knew committed despicable acts (say a NAMBLA member or a wife beater). If I knew my doctor was a NAMBLE member I never use his services again. However I would not kill him or condone killing him. I just would stop supporting him and his practice (get it?) with my money. No violence, just simple, peaceful passive resistance.

Preventing Google from allowing easy access to those web sites that present the pro-life point of view is an attack on free speech and should be condemed

Re:Wow

[3583 Bytes Free]

"Once something has been approved by the Government, It's no longer immoral"
Rev. Lovejoy

Re:Wow

[eaolson]

If they had sex, then they consented to the possibility of having sex.

If you go to a bad part of town, does that mean you consent to the possibility of being mugged?

OK, maybe that analogy is a bit extreme. How about this one: if you have sex, does that mean you consent to the possiblity of contracting an STD, even though you took all reasonable precautions against it?

Re:Wow

[eaolson]

...copulation would take much less time than the 4 minutes on average it takes humans...

OK, I don't know what you're doing, but you're doing it wrong.

Re:Wow

[mikestro]

What, you never heard of adoptions?

Re:Wow

[Christianfreak]

one last thing: I am not against womens rights, I am for fetal rights, there is an important difference.

That's the first time I've heard someone state that. Thank you. Interestingly enough it seems (to me) that a woman's right to an abortion in this country gives more rights to men to take advantage of women without fear of consequences.

Re:Wow

[mikestro]

I will just be blunt. Abortions are selfish in nature. Whether it's life threathening or not, ultimately that is the case in every abortion. It is selfish because the woman doesn't want to raise the baby for one reason or another. Whether she knows the father won't be there, whether she was raped, whether her life is in danger, it's still selfish. You can't argue that. Killing a life before it ever has a chance to live is wrong. And whether it is illegal or not is irrelevant - it doesn't make it right.

Name me one abortion that was good for the baby.

Re:Wow

[jazman_777]

It is a very difficult decision.

Oh, OK, that changes everything! Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Re:Wow

[f97tosc]

Remember there are pro-abortion sites that advocate murder of unborn babies.

If you're so damned concerned about censorship, the removal of EITHER site should trouble you. Otherwise, you're just an activist hypocrite.

Whether the killing of an 'unborn baby' is 'murder' or not is the heart of the debate, isn't it? Well unfortunately, the debate will go nowhere, because it is just a question of semantics; how the word 'murder' is defined.

I happen to think that abortion should not be considered 'murder'. You might disagree with this opinion, you may call me immoral, but please don't call me a hypocrite. There is no self-contradiction about the position that a born and an unborn baby are entitled completely different rights.

By extension, there does not have to be any hypocricy about promoting the closure of militant pro-life sites but not of pro-abortion sites (the opposite is not true, because there is universal agreement that the intentional killing of abortion clinics is murder).

Tor

Re:Wow

[Bakaneko]

Extraordinarily astute. Almost gives me hope for Slashdot. Heh.

Re:Wow

[TamMan2000]

If you have sex, then you clearly did not take ALL precautions...

If you are sexually active and you think that there is not even the most remote possibility of getting an STD you are kidding yourself..

I am not trying to preach, I don't think abstinence is the right answer, I just think that sex comes with risks and people need to acknowledge them.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

An "unborn baby" is an oxymoron, moron. *goes back to munching on his fried chicken fetus and sauteed bean plant embryos*

Re:Wow

[japhmi]

Recent studies show that there is no 100% effective method in preventing STD transmission if you're having sex with someone with and STD. Condoms are completely ineffective against some virus, like HPV.

If you engage in an activity with potential consequences, then you are consenting to those consequences.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen bait this flammable since hoof met
lantern!

Actually, many women who don't want abortions and who cry after the procedure are forced to get them. In the past (and maybe present) in China abortions were performed (and ordered by the state) in order to control the population, in America women who are in early pregnancy and who are found with uterine cancer must endure the heartbreak of an abortion in order to have the cancer (and sometimes the uterus) removed. Many women who try to wait it out end up dying from the cancer, which sometime spreads to the fetus as well (so both mother and child are lost.)

A baby is not truly alive within the mother until the time of the Quickening. That's when it recieves its soul. Before that it is, for all purposes, a machine. That's why God causes miscarriages early on. If He decides that the particular body that is forming is not going to work out, he removes it and begins creation of a new body so that the soul awaiting a new life can have the best one God can provide it.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Two things happened.

1: In the Dred Scott decision the Supreme Court declared that all Black People were noncitizens nationwide and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.

2: Fugitive Slave Laws made it impossible for any slave to gain his or her freedom by travelling to another state.

This made slavery effectively legal everywhere in the US. It also led quite directly to the Republican Party becoming dominated by religious abolitionists. The Democratic Party split between North and South in 1860, which gave Lincoln the election, and pretty soon there was a war.

Re:Wow

[eaolson]

If you are sexually active and you think that there is not even the most remote possibility of getting an STD you are kidding yourself..

I never said anything about "the most remote possiblity." There's no such thing. The question is, did you take reasonable precautions?

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

A site which makes it easier to kill somebody by giving private information like home adress,... should be banned IMHO.

Oh, you mean like this page?

Re:Wow

[eaolson]

Recent studies show that there is no 100% effective method in preventing STD transmission if you're having sex with someone with and STD.

Of course there isn't. Nothing anywhere is 100% effective. But you can, however, take reasonable precautions that reduce your risk significantly.

If you engage in an activity with potential consequences, then you are consenting to those consequences.

Utter hogwash. Everytime I drive on the highway, I know there is a chance that I will be hit by a drunk driver. A slim chance, but non-zero. I take reasonable precautions against serious injury, wearing my seatbelt, drving a car with an airbag, driving defensively, etc. This vastly reduces my chances of being killed by a drunk driver. It does not mean I consent to being in an accident with one.

Similarly, everytime I post to Usenet, I understand that I may start getting spam to that email address. This does not mean I consent to receiving that spam.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is that you are poorly informed. Almost no anti-abortion sites advocate the killing of doctors or anyone else.

If someone goes ranting about how porn sites on the internet are bad because they show underage children, Slashdotters are smart enough to say: wait a minute, most porn is not like that at all, and it is wrong to characterize it as such.

Re:Wow

[slipgun]

This is the best summary I have seen of the abortion debate. I am inclined to be pro-life, but I think it's important to realise that even in an issue as emotionally charged as this, the other side does have a case to make (just as with, for example, the gun debate and low tax vs high spend). Censorship of the other side's argument is (IMHO of course) absolutely and completely the wrong way to go about it... I would have a problem if my gvt started telling me I couldn't read pro-abortion material, for example.

Very nice post.

Re:Wow

[slipgun]

Go look at the "anti-abortion" site in question, http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/.

It is a hate site, including anti-Muslim hate.

It looks so stupid that it could be a pisstake.
Whether it's aimed to or not, it's managed to help give us Christians a bad name.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Name me one abortion that was good for the baby.

Are you using "baby" to mean "collection of cells"? What about we use "baby" to mean "emotionally and intellectually immature"? Hey, it's as good a definition as yours! Then the "baby" would, of course, be aborting a collection of cells. So, then, every single abortion is good for the baby. I know it's hard for you to accept, but nature aborts 3 in 4. Nature is selfish, then? Nah.

What's really really selfish is demanding other people change their entire lives (ie. bear an unwanted child) to make you feel better. That is the most selfish thing I have heard all day.

Re:Wow

[slipgun]

Hate to reply to my own post, but I've just noticed that all its filenames are 8.3. (eg hallowee.htm).

That's much worse.

Re:Wow

[kmellis]

"Very nice post."

Thanks; it's kind of you to say so.

I've been trying to talk to people on both sides of this issue for years. I've actually been pretty darn successful on an individual basis; but, even so, me and everybody I've influenced are but a tiny droplet in an ocean of highly-charged rhetoric and ill-will.

The point that I make in my post is why, for example, I use the terms that each side prefers for describing their own position: pro-choice and pro-life.

My own position is a little bit complicated by the fact that I do not believe in a "soul" or any other metaphysical quality of personhood. A lot of pro-lifers are "soulists"; and the assumption of a soul is, as rational assumptions go, a very strong and far-reaching one. You can just arbitrarily point to something and say, regardless of how it looks or acts, "that's a person". (It's interesting to me that many pro-lifers who are also soulists still, oddly, try to justify their belief in the personhood of a fetus on empirical grounds. I suppose that it's either a concession to our empiricist world-view, or a weakness in their faith in souls, or both.) You can also arbitrarily say that something is not a person, which is scary and has led to quite a bit of evil in the past. Anyway, for me, accepting only an empirical standard for evaluating personhood, it seems clear that the issue is both very murky and that it is highly unlikely that, ultimately, there's a "bright line" rather than a continuum. As such, I believe that a fertilized egg is not in the least a person, and a newborn baby is, and that one grows gradually into the other. And assuming that, I decide that the acceptability of abortion also gradually changes from entirely acceptable to entirely unacceptable. Since we do have to draw some arbitrary lines somewhere, I'd prefer a trimester basis which says, "Yes", "Sometimes", and "No". The problem here, of course, is that this position freaks out both extremes of the abortion debate because their assumptions don't allow for such a gradation. I think, however, that the majority of Americans would prefer such a compromise but the two minority partisan camps have complete control of the issue. The majority only makes their sentiments heard when one of the two sides gets too powerful.

Having explained my own evaluation, I want to add a bit more. Firstly, as strongly as I am committed to anti-sexism and women's rights--and I am very strongly committed to anti-sexism and women's rights--I simply can't avoid the conclusion that there's an important asymmetry involved here. Taking each extreme assumption and seeing them as a statement about an indivudal's rights, it's hard to see those two sets of rights as being, at their extremes, equal in importance. The right to live clearly trumps almost all other rights, including reproductive rights. For me, this is only a problem to the degree to which I accept that there's a person to whom the right to live is in jeopardy. Near the beginning of gestation, I don't see a person at all, and so it isn't an issue. On the other hand, because there's an asymmetry, and because it's tilted in favor of the fetus, I am not comfortable with a continuum which assumes a balance between the two, which my preferred legal framework seems to assume. For that reason, during the middle period when it's "sometimes", I would weight it towards "No", rather than "Yes" ("it" being the acceptability of abortion).

Secondly, because the pro-life assumption is an assumption of personhood, and because (assuming personhood) it is an issue of life and death, even though I personally don't think that an early-term fetus is a person, I see pro-lifers as heroic and noble, assuming they are what they claim they are. They think they are trying to save millions of lives. In a world where millions upon millions of people have been killed in the past with their murder justified on the basis of their lack of personhood, I prefer the existence of people that fight against that and be wrong in the specific than that those people not exist at all. The very history of liberalism is one that constantly expands the definition of the class of beings that possess inalienable rights. It is better to include than exclude. It is better to error in inclusion than error in exclusion. It bothers me that more pro-choice liberals don't understand this.

And, having said that, I want to make something very clear: many pro-choicers explicitly do not believe that pro-lifers are what they claim they are. As I said earlier, many pro-choicers believe that pro-lifers are specifically anti-choice. And while it is very unfair to characterize the pro-life position as being essential anti-choice in disguise; it also is the case that many pro-lifers really are essentially anti-choice. You can tell this by a correlation between pro-life views and sexist views. I steadfastly refuse to estimate how many pro-lifers are really anti-choice. I steadfastly refuse to let their existence be my model for all pro-lifers. But I also believe it is important to acknowledge their existence. As for pro-choicers being "really" anti-life; that is much more unlikely for the exact same reason that the pro-lifers have the more morally compelling position. It's far more acceptable and reasonable in our society to be sexist than an advocate of murder.

I hope this has been helpful or thought-provoking for you. Thanks again for the compliment. It's nice to know that someone's listening.

Re:Wow

[saintNiX]

"Stereotyping pro-lifers to make it seem that all are like the most extreme is like stereotyping leftists by accusing them of favoring the policies of Pol-Pot."

In the same way that stereotyping abortion doctors and those who support them are "Baby Killers." Can the pro-lifers really be so shocked at being stereotyped in this manner? What goes around comes around, right?

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

abortion is immoral and against God's law

And whose god might that be??. This is the problem, those who think their own view on spirituality is the only view. What right do these people have to enforce their beliefs on others, and kill people because they are not obeying the doctrine of whatever religion they follow. These people are no better than the Al-Qaeda that blow people up in the name of almighty Allah. Get back into your trees people, your not ready to live in Society. There's no man with a beard in the sky, and if you want to let your fear of your own mortality run your life then don't step over the line and try and run mine.

Re:Wow

[Tyreth]

You said it well.

I wonder...would it be justified for a pro-life nation to invade and overthrow the ruling regime of another country on the basis that that country is murdering thousands of innocent unborn children?

The only reason I think we can stand abortion is because we don't have to think of them as a person. We don't have to see their face, or hear them scream for help, or think of the life they once had that they have lost. Just like it is easy to ignore the millions starving worldwide while we sit down to our banquets.

You say killing of doctors is wrong, and I mostly agree. But I ask you, if your country legalised the murder of born children, between the ages of 0-3, what would you consider to be the ethical/moral thing to do? Would it be our sacred duty to protest while obeying the government? Or would our duty change to civil disobedience of some sort, and if so what?

And what if a Germany type murdering of Jews was legalised in your country? What would be your duty then before God?

I'm uncertain myself. For some reason we seem to think less action is needed or justified for abortion than would be against those other attrocities I list. Perhaps it is just because the one would involve attacking people we know (pro-abortionists), while the other is the thought of attacking people we don't know (eg WW2 Nazi Germans).

Re:Wow

[schlach]

Killing a life before it ever has a chance to live is wrong. And whether it is illegal or not is irrelevant - it doesn't make it right.

I couldn't agree with you more, which is why I assert that abstinence is the biggest killer of unborn children in America. Abstinence is prescribed by law if she's under age. Help us repeal the Age of Consent laws, and less children will be murdered by abstinence every year... ; )

Why don't I ever hear that argument coming from Jerry Fallwell...

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

Bovines are not people. Now, a case could be made that cows at least feel pain, so should not be killed and eaten; but then there is the problem that some people claim plants can feel pain as well. Whatcha gonna eat then?

If there are reasons to ban the eating of meat that compare the reasons why you should not kill people - the shocking revelations that cows have achieved sentience - then yeah you should treat them the same.

Sorry, but I am afraid until then you have no point.

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

I have not seen the sites in question; however, I assume they have to be radical enough to be grouped in with nazi sites.

On principle, I still disagree with you. Even if the site is not about killing, it can be illegal enough to ban it. Consider libel/slander: You can NOT say ANYTHING you want. If I publish an article in a paper making untrue claims about you, then I am sure you'd appreciate the article pulled at the very least.

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

Speaking your mind on the subject == right
Advocating murder of an individual == wrong

That is the whole point, that kind of site brings personal danger to people who do nothing wrong and who just happen to disagree with your personal code of ethics. If you do not like it, change the laws. In any democratic nation (Germany 1994 was not), laws represent the morals of the people (yes, not quite, there is at least a delay while legislation catches up, but the principle is a sound one).

The whole point behind having laws is to escape anarchy. Laws set a common standard which people ought to follow. If they don't, society eventually breaks down.

So, organize campaigns, write your congressmen, whatever works in America. But trying to get abortion doctors to stop their practices by advocating murder of them is, as tired as I am of the word, terrorism. Sorry, but you have to face that truth.

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

Big difference: It's a huge moral/ethical/philosphical question when an unborn baby stops being a lump of cells and starts to be a human being. In France, for example, I think that point is defined as 12 weeks, not sure about other countries.

But no-one can argue that an abortion doctor is a human being.

Re:Wow

[japhmi]

Perhaps consent is the wrong word.

If you engage in an activity, you must accept the possibily of any consequences that may occur because of your desicion.

Now, back to our discussion, if you take reasonable percautions to remove a potential negative result (or a result that's viewed to be negative) but those precautions don't work: you may be upset (understandably), you may wish that the consequences had never happened, but you can't change the fact that they happened. If one engages in sexual intercourse, then by engaging in that activity one may get pregnant (if female) or get an STD. (even after taking precautions against pregnancy and/or STDs). You knew what you were getting into, and you have to deal with the natural consequences of you actions.

Re:Wow

[No One]

Really? There are pro-choice sites that encourage women to go out and get pregnant just so they can have an abortion? Perhaps you'd care to point me to one? Advocating that abortion remain legal is completely different from advocating abortion, and pro-choicers believe in the first, no matter how badly anti-choice types want to pretend otherwise.

Oh, and there's a consensus that the murder of adult human beings is wrong. There's no such consensus about the removal of a blob of barely differentiated cells.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Please refrain from posting again until you evolve opposable thumbs.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me: are you planning someday to actually learn the English language?

Re:Wow

[dvdeug]

Bovines are not people.

That's your opinion. Strict Hinduism would disagree. If you live in a society that believes that bovines are people, for whatever reason, is it right to jail you for disagreeing?

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

"abortion is immoral and against God's law

And whose god might that be??. "

Mankind's , no matter how much you want so desperately to believe that you're just a type of monkey, so that you can say there is no moral basis not to do what you know in your heart to be wrong.

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

Mind you, no-one is being jailed for voicing their opinion.

Now, if this society you propose does in fact believe that bovines are people then yes they are within their right to stop people from calling to murder them. Now, if I had proof that bovines afterall are not people, then no they should not jail me but rethink their laws.

Good luck in proving that doctors are not people.

Re:Wow

[dvdeug]

Mind you, no-one is being jailed for voicing their opinion.

Yes, actually they are. Nazis in Germany are jailed for expressing their opinions.

if I had proof that bovines afterall are not people

If you have proof that bovines aren't people, I'd hope you share it with us, as the truth and falsehood of that statement is linked with the same questions about the gods and the nature of the universe that humans have been debating for at least 3,000 years. Only interested in actual hard evidence here, though.

Good luck in proving that doctors are not people.

You really don't understand philosophy, do you. It's not a matter of proof; we know what we can prove in philosophy is absurdly trivial. Now, most philosophers agree on what a person is, with some debate on the start. But even being a person is not sufficent to get you the right to live in all places; some countries still practice the death penalty.

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

Yes, actually they are. Nazis in Germany are jailed for expressing their opinions.

Not really. They get jailed for glorifying the third reich, or for denying the holocaust actually happened. Otherwise I wager that most of them get thrown in jail for pession of weapons or other such acts. I have no statistics at hand.

If you have proof that bovines aren't people, I'd hope you share it with us

I was following your example. As for biological proof, it should be easy enough to make. The big question is, are cows self aware, and where do we draw the line? Personally, I'd say a 6 weeks old fetus / collection of cells is much less a living being than a cow.

But even being a person is not sufficent to get you the right to live in all places; some countries still practice the death penalty.

Actually, all humans have the right to live, it's in the Human Rights that I am sure pretty much every nation has ratified (well maybe with some exceptions). Now, living up to these ideals is an entirely different thing.

Now, to draw the circle back to the abortion doctors: It could be argued that, under the law of a nation, a person revokes his "right to live" by committing some horrible deed. Murder, whatever. In a democratic nation, this is the will "of the people". Where abortion is legal, and doctors perform abortion, they do not commit anything unacceptable, but people threatening (or trying) to kill these doctors definitely do.

You see, you don't even have to bring philosophy into it. The social norm is that abortion is okay, and those who disagree can and should make their points, but once they use violence, they disqualify themselves from the discussion.

Note also that the government has the task of protecting its people, and that includes said doctors. So shutting down a threat to society - websites that condone random violence - is totally acceptable. Why should it be okay to say "this person has to be killed" but not to actually go ahead and kill him? It's not even said in the heat of the moment. If we allow such things we might just as well get rid of governments altogether and live in anarchy. I seriously doubt that this would be an improvement.

They're all ready slipping down the slippery slope

[Mantrid]

So it probably sounded like a good idea to filter out Nazis...everyone hates Nazis right? (except the Nazis) While we're at it let's censor White Supremicists, cause we all hate them too.

Yay censorship! Oh wait while we're at it, let's censor everyone who has a different point of view on abortion from the state view...well at least half the people will be happy...

What's next? Oh we don't like this site, it says unkind words about Jacques Chirac...ban it please...

Not as Bad as it sounds

[osiris]

I dont think that this is as bad as it sounds. Its not like they have removed the indexes completely from their databases. Only their .fr and .de sites. That would be complying with local laws as .de and .fr TLDs are specific to those countries unlike .com/net/org which are considered worldwide.

If these people want to search for these sites, they can still fire up google.com.

Guess it does seem a little pointless like that but they are complying with local laws for countries they are operating in which i think is fair.

And as another poster pointed out, they probably checked each site individually to insure that they were offending sites and not just done automatically.

Re:Not as Bad as it sounds

[sebi]

If these people want to search for these sites, they can still fire up google.com.

As a matter of fact they can't. Access to google.com is restricted. I am in Austria and can go to google France, Germany or Belgium. But if I try to go to google.com I am automatically sent to google.at. And this can not be circumvented by changing the Language settings of your browser.

Re:Not as Bad as it sounds

[osiris]

and what if you try to go to google.co.uk ?

i would imagine that that would work.

Re:Not as Bad as it sounds

[sebi]

Yes it does. As I said - going to national google sites does work. Google.com is restricted though.

Re:Not as Bad as it sounds

[mshiltonj]

Its not like they have removed the indexes completely from their databases. Only their .fr and .de sites.

What's to stop french or german citizens from going straight to .com and not using the nation specific googles?

Re:Not as Bad as it sounds

[pg133]

I don't think its your ISP that's redirecting you to google.at.

Why don't you just click on the "Google.com English" link on the "google.at" web page, it will bring you straight to google.com!

This fixed the problem, (as describe in a previous post), for a user from German with a similar problem. I guess it just google itself, "trying to be helpful" doing the redirecting.

Re:Not as Bad as it sounds

[OSSturi]

*Cough* If you click on the link on google.at on the link google.com you can go to google.com directly. But google.com normally returns you to your local google because it has settings like "Results from Austria only" and the like.

Re:Not as Bad as it sounds

[Evro]

Can you try this from your location?


[10:56:43 evan@lunix evan]$ telnet www.google.com 80
Trying 216.239.37.101...
Connected to www.google.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.google.com

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 2532
Server: GWS/2.0
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:57:57 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Cache-control: private
Set-Cookie: PREF=ID=0133684b35148073:TM=1035471477:LM=10354714 77:S=KDq7RU8rTxNutVf8; expires=Sun, 17-Jan-2038 19:14:07 GMT; path=/; domain=.google.com


Just curious if they're doing the redirection based on your IP or something the browser is sending.

Re:Not as Bad as it sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems the redirection is based on the IP: when I try from France, I get

$ telnet google.com 80
Trying 216.239.35.100...
Connected to google.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.1

HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Content-Length: 151
Server: GWS/2.0
Content-Type: text/html
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:20:39 GMT
Location: http://www.google.fr/
Set-Cookie: PREF=ID=454d6edb61acd23d:TM=1035472839:LM=10354728 39:S=jG2lLjLMuhVhv8VP; expires=Sun, 17-Jan-2038 19:14:07 GMT; path=/; domain=.google.com

google.com resolved to something different for me, but results are the same if I use telnet to 216.239.37.101 directly.

Re:Not as Bad as it sounds

[OSSturi]

That's right. Google is looking at the your resolved hostname. Try

telnet google.com 80
GET /intl/en

Here you go....

Re:Not as Bad as it sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't go along with censorship ... speak out!

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

--Martin Niemoeller

France should know better

[techstar25]

Maybe the French should try re-reading the works of French, postmodern writer/philosopher Michel Foucault, who wrote that repression of ideas and restriction of speech leads to discourse. France should know better. Now, Germany on the other hand . . .

Re:France should know better

[Skevos Mavros]

techstar25 said:

Maybe the French should try re-reading the works of French, postmodern writer/philosopher Michel Foucault, who wrote that repression of ideas and restriction of speech leads to discourse.

Eh? Did you really mean to say that repression of ideas and restriction of speech leads to discourse? Or did you mean to say that they lead to the suppression of discourse? Surely...

:-)

Re:France should know better

[Anonymous Coward]

As a french I oppose such ineffective, uncalled-for censorship.

It's just as if our society was going through a trend of Politically-Correcting everything for the sake of ... of fscking WHAT ? Here's a question for our stupid legislators: in the name of what are you banning fascist sites and not communist sites ? Anti-Abortion sites and not Pro-Religion sites ?

Some religious-based Commandments or faith ? France is supposedly a laic country.

Some blurry sense of "Right and Wrong" ? Well we obviously ain't got the exact same "sense".

There's a lot of speech about banning things here. As if this would make any difference... The one thing I hate with our french politicians is that they try to think in my place, and decide what's good for me in my place. Can't they just let people live their own lives ? Why the urge to treat every citizen of the country as irresponsible children ?

So for now the national policy is to shut your eyes and plug your ears at every problem... "Move along, and don't look or you'll be prosecuted."

Re:France should know better

[Anonymous Coward]

French and Germany have had these laws just about since WW2 ended. You seem to be suggesting there is a new movement in these countries to suppress free speech, but this is simply not the case. Nothing has changed.

Re:France should know better

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused by your reading of Foucault. I think you're mostly talking about the ideas presented as "the repressive hypothesis" from "The Incitement to Discourse," the first chapter of The History of Sexuality: vol. 1." (It's thinner than it sounds and an interesting read.)

What Foucault describes is the incitement to speak about sex in official discourses--which, in common with Bakhtin, he contrasts with folk discourses--, and the loss of sexual freedom that resulted. One example he uses is the confession:

Discourse, therefore, had to trace the meeting line of the body and the soul, following all its meanderings: beneath the surface of the sins, it would lay bare the unbroken nervure of the flesh. Under the authority of a language that had been carefully expurgated so that it was no longer directly named, sex was taken charge of, tracked down as it were, by a discourse that aimed to allow it no obscurity, no respite.


To apply these ideas to the google.fr situation, I might argue that the attempt to constrict discourses about violence is part of a general incitement to talk about violence in official discourses, to redifine the way violence is spoken. These efforts will not protect people from violence or free them from political repression, but on the contrary, will leave them more vulnerable to the depredations of officially sanctioned forms of violence. Somehow, though, I feel the French government understands this implicitly.

Re:France should know better

[apweiler]

Now, Germany on the other hand . . .

Now what do you mean by that? Sorry, I can't help but feel a bit offended by that - do you mean to imply that Germany is still Naziland, that we still love to censor deviant opinions?

Or do you mean, and I would somewhat agree with you, that in Germany, censoring Nazi propaganda is justified because the wound from the Third Reich haven't quite healed yet?
(as for this - I am for free speech all the way, but I think it's understandable that this stuff is still illegal here. It probably is time to change it now, to allow more open discussion of the whole thing, because the Neo-Nazis are becoming worryingly strong, and easing the taboo might work against them)

Ineffective?

[A non moose cow]

What prevents French people from just using Google.com ?

Re:Ineffective?

[Glanz]

They are using a "redirect" in Frogland...., much as they do here in Quebec, Canada. I can't get to google.com. I am always redirected to google.ca no matter what I do.

Re:Ineffective?

[koh]

www.google.com/intl/en/ works for me (I hate seeing french on web pages).

Re:Ineffective?

[hopbine]

Strange, next door in Ontario I always get google.com. I just checked and I can reach google.de and google.fr.

Re:Ineffective?

[lovebyte]

In France, I use this:
www.google.com/en

Re:Ineffective?

[the bluebrain]

YMMV, but try this:

1) Goto Google.
2) Click on "Preferences".
3) Edit the URL in the address bar to read "[...].com[...]" (instead of "[...].ca[...]"). This should not cause a redirect.
4) Click the "Save Preferences" button. You get the "Changes Saved" JavaScript popup.

Any subsequent access to google.com should no longer cause a redirect. If you track the cookies, BTW, you should see a brand-new one created by points 1-4 above, which overrides any existing one you have.

Re:Ineffective?

[FeloniousPunk]

Here in Germany, the first time I tried to go to google.com I got redirected to google.de. But there was an option on the page there to go to google.com instead.

Re:Ineffective?

[CrystalFalcon]

That none of them speak English, and that even pretending to be able to read such a third-world language such as English is a gross social offense? :-)

Re:Ineffective?

[Mike Schiraldi]

Quiet, you fool! You'll ruin everything!

Re:Ineffective?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we can somehow enforce DMCA on this?

Re:Ineffective?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod Parent DOWN! FLAMEBAIT
Typical US crap. When are you people going to realize you are not the center of the universe. Go suicide your mom the whore.

Re:Ineffective?

[3.5 stripes]

I just click "Google in English" on google.it, which is where I usually get redirected before they set a cookie on my machine. Afterwards, it's always google.com .

Re:Ineffective?

[Drakonian]

For the redirect to google.ca there is a text link at the bottom that says "Google.com". Click it to go to the US site. Other countries probably have this too.

Re:Ineffective?

[Glanz]

It doesn't work for me at all.......

Re:Ineffective?

[the bluebrain]

YMDV ;)

JavaScript and cookies enabled?
Ah, well.

Re:Ineffective?

[koh]

Hahaha. Just so happens, I'm french myself and I don't like the US too much either...

The other thing I don't like is google switching to french just because my english OS is configured with a french locale. And yes, as a french developper of international products, I like my OS and apps in _english_.

You must be young, I'll forgive your misundertanding ;)

Re:Ineffective?

[saforrest]

Go to http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en and you won't be redirected to google.ca.

Isn't it true...

[Drunken Coward]

By engaging in this limited censorship they are opening themselves up as being liable for not censoring other "controversial" sites? IIRC, that's one of the reasons universities choose traffic shaping over outright blocking- to avoid legal complications.

Lots more on the report

[Anonymous Coward]

Professor Jonathan Zittrain and Ben Edelman of Harvard's Berkman Center are studying exclusions from Google and have so far found some 113 sites excluded, in whole or in part, from the French google.fr and German google.de. Learn more about the situation and context, test the exclusions for yourself, and submit further sites suspected to be excluded. LawMeme and C|Net have more info.

OT: Kids and drugs

[Ted_Green]

"And drugs being illegal makes it less attractive for kids too, right? *sigh* "

Do you seriously believe that rubish?

Yes, drugs being illegal makes them more attractive to "some" but I wager it makes it that it also makes it that much less attractive for the majority.

Just because somone's a kid, isn't going to make them a rebel against all law.

Re:OT: Kids and drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

And then you grew up and found the shocking truth that pretty much everyone smokes weed at one time or another despite prohibition...

Re:OT: Kids and drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure didnt puff everything there was, some couse I got brain, and some.. guess what, couse its unleagal!

Re:OT: Kids and drugs

[fruey]

Ummm... the problem is that drugs are illegal to everyone, not just those under the age of "majority". There are lots of problems with drug laws, and let us not forget that while you all whine about freedom of speech and gun laws and so on in America, YOUR country pushed drug laws on Europe. You could buy cocaine over the counter in France for a significant part of the 20th century until the USA got their way.

See History of the American Drug War

And of course, from The History of Cannabis
The USA unsuccessfully proposed that cannabis be discussed at the Hague Conference on opiates in 1912. Their enthusiasm for drug control was a mix of moralism and self-interest, both tending to boost America's developing international influence. Most medical drugs were imported, so controlling them made little difference to US domestic policy, but gave the US a moral and economic lever against their producers, mostly Britain and Germany.

Of course, there are harder drugs. But making them illegal doesn't make the problem go away, and it has been argued that it makes the problem worse. Methadone is often used to wean heroin addicts, a substance which is proven to be more addictive than heroin itself. Oh well.

Re:OT: Kids and drugs

[aborchers]

The statistics I've seen from year to year seem to show use of various drugs up and down with little correlation to the increasingly draconian drug policy that is the rule. This would suggest that drug laws seem to have little to do with the attractiveness of drugs to "kids" either way.

If anything, I would say that sound education (by which I don't mean D.A.R.E. propaganda but real, unbiased information) has been the most effective measure against drug abuse. Back in the 70s, there was a very effective campaign about the dangers of PCP - which unlike many drugs commonly demonized in the US - is quite demonstrably dangerous. When was the last time you heard about someone on a PCP rampage? Of course, this doesn't explain why crack took hold, but that is more of a social engineering issue IMO, and best left for another topic.

The bottom line is that (1) drugs satisfy primitive impulses by satisfying pleasure centers and (2) kids can smell disinformation. When they aren't communicated with honestly, they give little credence to the message. They then do their own risk-reward analysis and make up their own damn minds.

** Take your finger off that offtopic mod, the writer invited this discussion with his snide aside! **

Re:OT: Kids and drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

> I wager it makes it that it also makes it that
> much less attractive for the majority.

Legality has NOTHING to do with it when it's readily available...kinda like, say, booze. Illegal to drink underage, but hey, everybody does it.

Re:OT: Kids and drugs

[Scarblac]

Yes, drugs being illegal makes them more attractive to "some" but I wager it makes it that it also makes it that much less attractive for the majority.

I live in the Netherlands. Cannabis is basically legal here (well, have to be 18+ to buy it, and the "coffee shops" have to buy it in secret, but it's practically legal). The theory is that cannabis isn't very harmful by itself (less than alcohol or even tobacco), and making cannabis legal prevents users from coming into contact with dealers of heavier drugs. Plus of course, if you can't beat it, tax it - aka Dutch pragmatism :-)

According to a recent study by the EU anti-drug organization, see also this newspaper report, cannabis use in the Netherlands is average, with 20% of adults having tried it at least once (the UK and Denmark, which stricter laws, are at 30%).

Also, Britian, Luxembourg, Italy and Portugal have the most problem users, with 6 to 8 cases per 1000. Austria, Germany and the Netherlands, which all have more liberal laws, have 3 per 1000 problem cases.

So it does seem that legal cannabis does not lead to more use, but might prevent problem use (of more potent drugs, usually).

Re:OT: Kids and drugs

[jasonditz]

I guess that's why drug use is so much lower now than it was back when it was legal...

errr, waitaminute.

Re:OT: Kids and drugs

[TeeWee]

And then you grew up and found the shocking truth that pretty much everyone smokes weed at one time or another despite prohibition...

Which is all fine and dandy, as long as you didn't inhale...

Re:OT: Kids and drugs

[tezza]

The original YDdraig "Kids-on-drugs" comment is way out of line.

As a frequent Amsterdam attendant ex Londinium, I can appreciate that liberalisation is a good thing. What the '*sigh*' rubbish tries to infer is a link between illegality and disinformation.

These Nazi, anti-semitic, paedophilic websites spread *disinformation*. Misleading quotes from the Q'uran, Bible, Torah, what have you. False propaganda to whip up the demented mind of an unstable few.

Information should be free, censorship-haters.

But what do all you folk jumping to protect these scum, say about *disinformation*. Why should falsehoods be allowed to propogate? It's in everyone's interest that all information and views be based on freely accessible, but for G-d's sake ACCURATE information.

So illegal drugs may suck, but there's no comparison to the article. What is bad is denying kids access to information on the drugs they may take, legal or not.

Re:OT: Kids and drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

I took a trip to Amsterdam recently, and the coffeeshop scene was amazing, to say the least.

At the same time, the streets were crawling with drug dealers peddling hard crap.

I love that the stuff is legal in Europe, but that fact that Amsterdam is the only place you can easily, legally buy it makes amsterdam somewhat of a nasty place.

Re:OT: Kids and drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

and making cannabis legal prevents users from coming into contact with dealers of heavier drugs.

Not true. It leads to people standing on the street in Amsterdam openly trying to sell cocaine, heroin or whatever else you want. I've never been approached by a dealer in the U.S. or anywhere else in Europe.

Well the french are offensive...

[phunhippy]

Well since the french are offensive in general.. maybe we should simply ban all references to the french on google.com :) except for the links to the "French WWII rifle, never fired, only dropped once"

Re:Well the french are offensive...

[curiuz]

Wow, this actually got a score. Then maybe this gets a score too... Are you serious? What's up with that WWII crap? How many times did YOU fire your rifle? And perhaps if the US fired their rifles a little less in general it might not be all bad.

Re:Well the french are offensive...

[marko123]

YHBT, HAND.

(Always wanted to say that.)

Re:Well the french are offensive...

[phunhippy]

How many times did YOU fire your rifle? And perhaps if the US fired their rifles a little less in general it might not be all bad.

Your absolutely right, next time france and europe gets run over we won't lift a hand!

Re:Well the french are offensive...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I mean.. damn, why'd we have to save *France*? Such a senseless waste of British and American life.

But then, can't expect much from a 'phunhippy' who thinks the US is the cause of all the world's ills. Probably blames the US for Hitler's rise to power in the first place. Silly druggie, thoughts are for humans.

Re:Well the french are offensive...

[Anonymous Coward]

The US joined WW2 after Pearl Harbor, which was Japan's way of getting them involved.
Once the US had declared war on Japan, Hitler declared war on the US. That is why the US got involved in France.
btw, the Japanese were not stupid enough to return the favor and declare war on the Russians.

Re:Well the french are offensive...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Russians promptly declared war on Japan August 10, 1945.

Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[joel_mac]

How the heck did that get lumped together in the same group with pro-Nazi, white supremacist and anti-semitic sites?!?!?
Pro-Nazism, white supremacy and anti-Semitism are all hate-driven egocentric nationalistic racial biases. How the heck does the Pro-Life movement fit in with these groups?

joel

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-choice activism is all about hate. Duh.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've just looked through the list of sites someone linked to, and couldn't find any obvious anti-abortion ones...

Perhaps what they're referring to is sites that encourage violence against abortion clinics and doctors, including publishing addresses and other details?

In which case they pretty much amount to terrorist sites...

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[6Yankee]

How the heck does the Pro-Life movement fit in with these groups?

A hard-core group within each makes somebody fear for his/her life?

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[danbeck]

It's not anti-choice. Pro-life people think that it's wrong to murder a human baby. Pro-choice people think that a womans choice overrides the human baby's right to life.

If a doctor held up a newly born baby and slit it's throat, He'd probably get the death penalty.

If a doctor, just a few months earlier uses a tool to scrape pieces of that same child out of the womb it's a celebrated action of individual choice?

Now, which action is hate. To wish a human baby has the same rights you do, or to celebrate the fact that a woman can murder her own child? WHICH IS REALLY THE HATE HERE?

Selfish, self-adsorbed, tunnel-vision, people like you who truly do hateful things to other people make me angry.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[glesga_kiss]

Perhaps what they're referring to is sites that encourage violence against abortion clinics and doctors, including publishing addresses and other details?

In which case they pretty much amount to terrorist sites...

They can't possibly be terrorists. You have to be an Arab to be a terrorist. If you are white, you get called militas, militants, activists or the DC sniper.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[ponxx]

> Now, which action is hate. To wish a human baby has the same rights you do, or to celebrate
> the fact that a woman can murder her own child? WHICH IS REALLY THE HATE HERE?

If that was all that all "pro-life" groups did, there would not be an argument. If they go round advocating the murder of doctors, that *is* hate. Just like wanting a free palestine is legitimate, but blowing up israelis is terrorism.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that a drunken driver who hits a woman walking into an abortion clinic to have an abortion, can be charged with manslaughter of her unborn featus? Yet if given just 20 minutes more the the "doctor" would cause a partial premature birth and then hack the fetus with a knife.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Choice was do with Sex.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[NumberSyx]

How the heck did that get lumped together in the same group with pro-Nazi, white supremacist and anti-semitic sites?!?!? Pro-Nazism, white supremacy and anti-Semitism are all hate-driven egocentric nationalistic racial biases. How the heck does the Pro-Life movement fit in with these groups?

Blowing up Womens Clinics, then planting more bombs in the dumpsters outside to kill Policemen and Firemen are acts of Terrorism. Assassinating Doctors is Terrorism. Advocating political change through violence against a civilian population is advocating Terrorism. Checkout The Nuremberg Files, this is pretty clearly a website supported by a hate group and inspite of its Christian trappings, has nothing what so ever to do with the teachings of Christ.

Mind you, I do not advocate suppressing these sites, these people, as sick as they are, have the right to say whatever they want. However, Google is a private company, they recieve no government funding and is therefore within thier rights to de-list any site it feels is objectionable. It is no more censorship than a TV broadcasting company refusing to show full frontal nudity during prime time.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[coastwalker]

The pro life group has been associated with the murder of doctors.

Of course interestingly you would have to add the Animal Liberation Front in the UK too if censorship were similarly applied.

Some of the ALF members have such fanatical views that they try and kill people who are involved in various kinds of research involving the use of animals.

You could say that the groups involved in this ban might be deffined collectively as organisations known to be or suspected to be engaged in terroist activities.

The main reason why everything to do with them isnt banned - appart from the weak outrage that might be generated over "government thought control" amongst the general population - is that if they are in the open, then they are easy to catch.

Drive seriously antisocial people underground and you cant catch them when they step out of line and start killing people. We can all wonder what wacky group the Washington sniper either belongs to or would belong to if it was legal - and if a member of that group might give the sod away if the pile of dead children gets too high...

The ban in Germany and France on Nazi propaganda is a slightly different local issue which recognises a historical problem that many people have fond memories of the Nazi party and it is not the political policy of the majority to allow that view to be passed on to new generations. This is sadly part of modern life - it used to be called "thought control" in the time of the cold war, but we now recognise it as a necessary social evil and call it "political correctness" - reinforcing an intellectualy acceptable idea which society is moving towards but has not yet accepted universally.

Whatever, almost no one in Europe has any time for the Nazi party. After all whatever the validity of Nazi policy, in the end they were proved complete arseholes who failed and destroyed europe in the process. So we dont want them back thankyou very much. Or the websites of their misguided fans who could pick someone more politically acceptible like Alexander the Great, to hero worship - who incidentaly suceeded.

Its interesting to reflect that the Pro Life people are now being seen as very little different to Osma Bin Ladins Al Quaida. It used to be a topic of conversation that the far right were very little different to the far left though I dont hear that debate much these days.

Sounds like the major political issue of our time is not about how we are Govern'ed. Now its about what tolerance and accomodations are made for differences within societies and between societies.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

uses a tool to scrape pieces of that same child out of the womb

you clearly miss the point, a 2 month old mass of cells is not the same as a new born baby. Unless you reason by emotion.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[isorox]

It is no more censorship than a TV broadcasting company refusing to show full frontal nudity during prime time.

Those bastards should be stopped from that censorship!

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is self-censorship is perfectly ok in fact its great you have the option of watching channels with full frontal nudity but most cable companies don't want this since they are much more likely to want channels that a family is not afraid to watch in front of kids. Just like no one wants you to swear in front of kids its a common courtesy thing.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is self-censorship is perfectly ok

The lack of full frontal nudity on US broadcast TV is not self-censorship. It is government imposed censorship.

And the post DID say broadcast TV. You swithed it to cable companies. able has a different set of rules.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter what spin you put on it, abortion is murder, plain and simple. If they're going to ban anti-abortion sites, then they must ban pro-abortion sites as well. In America, abortions account for an average of 4,500 babies aborted a day, which far outweighs the acts of any terrorists!

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[danbeck]

It's unfortunate that a few extreme sick-minded individuals advocate the murder of doctors, but it's unfair and ignorant to apply that to the entire group of people who believe that abortion is wrong.

How does this even have anything to do with my original comment? Did I say I support the murder of an abortion doctors? No, I thought I was clear in saying that murder was hate, did I not?

You are another perfect example of a narrowminded person, labeling people or causes with unfair stereotypes. It's amazing that a conservative pro-life individual would be accused of being the narrominded one in this country when you make ignorant comments like this.

google.pt (and others) to be affect soon too

[Cyclops]

Legislation is being prepared in the background that will force them to comply, as well, in Portugal. Freedom of Speech _does_not_ exist in Portugal either (even though the constitutios says it does), which makes laws like this very dangerous.

Drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?

GYWO

protesting abortion banned?

[Fuzion]

I can understand (even I don't agree with) their reasons for blocking anti-semitic, and white supremacist speech, because it's hate literature. I can find similarities between them and anti-slander laws. But why are anti-abortion sites banned? Isn't that going a little too far? There are enough people on both sides of the issue, and I can't see the justification for censoring people opposed to abortion.

Re:protesting abortion banned?

[Qender]

It might be because some anti-abortion sites feature photographs of aborted fetuses as well as encourage terrorist acts against some places that perform abortions. I don't like abortion, but I think that many people who would agree with me get a bit violent about that. I've heard about websites giving out home addresses of doctors who perform abortions, people have used information in that context to personally assault these doctors. This could be why the sites were banned.

I can't say for sure though.

Re:protesting abortion banned?

[Tuqui]

One Abort Clinic Doctor kills more Americans than the whole Iraq Army.

nice

[Anonymous Coward]

What a great way to silence critics of israel!

Just call em anti-semitic and get em banned from google!

Nice!

Way to get your censor on you zionist bastards!

What you said bulldozing peoples houses and dropping 1-ton bombs on apartment buildings is cruel? You must be anti-semitic!

What you don't think every palestinian is a terrorist? You anti-semitic!

What you don't believe that god personally gave that land to the jews so they can kill whoever they want in order to steal it? You must be an anti-semite!

Woohoo go censor squad!

Can't quite put my finger on it...

[banzai51]

I remember some Slashdot story. Something about the US being, oh what 17th in the world for free press? France and Germany ranked in the top 10 if memory serves (and I am only going by memory here). Guess I have a different opinion of what free press is than the enlightened lawmakers of France and Germany.

The Clash song Know Your Rights has never been more appropriate.

Re:Can't quite put my finger on it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess I have a different opinion of what free press is than the enlightened lawmakers of France and Germany.
Freedom of the press is public porn.

Re:Can't quite put my finger on it...

[jas79]

Does this mean that you call the people spreading hatred press?
The index was about freedom of press not about freedom of speech. I rather live in country with a free press than in a country which allows people to call for the killing of other people.

Re:Can't quite put my finger on it...

[Pius II.]

The study was not conducted by the "enlightened" lawmakers of France and Germany.

That set aside, you should try to remember who lighted the lawmakers of Germany: the (at that time) current occupying powers, namely Great Britain, France and the USA.
I personally think our current laws in that respect are good, and who am I to argue with the US?

Re:Can't quite put my finger on it...

[zenyu]

But Google has removed sites from it's index in the US too. Just different ones for different reasons. The Free Press listing was from Reporters without borders which is an organization concerned with the physical intimidation, arrest and murder of reporters. Even those countries ranked 1st aren't angels either, just better.

Re:Can't quite put my finger on it...

[banzai51]

Quite true. But many here at Slashdot took that as proof that the US has lost it's freedoms and crowed it unmercifully. European perception of the US is far different than the reality over here. The two articles do highlight the differences of what is tolerated in each society. Europeans tend to be agreeable to giving up some liberties for the (supposed) benefit of society, while Americans tend to be (violently) opposed to such surrender.
If Google took them down from it's US site, then they did so voluntarily, not by government decree. Important difference. But also it highlights how oppression elsewhere can chill freedom everywhere.

Re:Can't quite put my finger on it...

[zenyu]

If Google took them down from it's US site, then they did so voluntarily, not by government decree. Important difference.

It is an important difference, but I believe at least links to Scientology websites were taken down due to fear of court rulings after the 2600 case in New York. Now I know the 2600 case isn't a precident for California, but courts do look for how judges have ruled in similar cases in other jurisdictions. Plus, if you look at what doesn't have 1st ammendment protection in the USA it's generally either sexual, inciting to violence/revolution or copyrighted; pretty much the same as Europe. Where the draw the fuzzy line is different, but not in any real sense.

My biggest problem with Google's policy is that they don't just remove files from their cache, but from the searchable index as well. That makes every search suspect. At the very least they should publish a list of every URL/IP/domain they block, so we can verify whether the consorship is just. Very few people think all censorship is unjust so we're not gonna win that battle.

But also it highlights how oppression elsewhere can chill freedom everywhere.
I would change the elsewhere to anywhere.

Re:Can't quite put my finger on it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Memory serves poorly. France is ranked #11.

http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=4116

It's not about 'attractive'

[droid_rage]

The concept of more or less attractive ideas doesn't usually have anything to do with the access of the ideas. I believe this is done in an attempt to slow dissemination of ideas to the "impressionable youth", and to keep groups like these from organizing.
Will it work? Not really. There are still plenty of books (remember them?) available on the aformentioned subjects, and hate groups have been forming with large numbers of poorly educated members for years without the aid of the popular media or the internet.

Nice gesture

[jocks]

We all know that if you want to find something you can. For example the Homosexual poem "The love that dares speak it's name" is not available in print, however 5 minutes on the web and I am sure you will find it (not my choice of reading matter BTW, just to set an example).

The rules are changing for publication and we are lucky enough to be at the frontier. Let's use this responsibility carefully and appreciate a gesture for what it is. We know that we can find nazi or white supremacist stuff by using google.com rather than google.fr, at least that have made the gesture. In this environment all rules are temporary, let us relish this and enjoy the dichotomies that are raised as each nation's law struggles to keep up.

Re:Nice gesture

[danbeck]

You may have just pointed out something most people here in slashdot don't get.

Free speech does not mean that a publisher, or a company like google is required to publish or make available whatever garbage you wish to publish.

Free speech means that YOU can spend YOUR resources (i.e. money, time) and speak or publish your own garbage. One great way to do that is to put it on the web. You can stand on the corner and pass out business cards with the url on it all day long. That doesn't mean Google is required to.

Re:Nice gesture

[jocks]

I agree. Many of the comments on this site are about outrage and annoyance at censorship. Surely forcing Google to change what it has decided to do is as bad as censorship. Google can do whatever it likes.

Secondly, no-one has actually blocked any sites or taken down any servers. There is no big deal here at all. I think some of the /.'ers are forgetting the difference between "free as in speech versus free as in beer" definitions.

Thirdly and happily, the laws of the US do not apply outside of the US. This means that much of the argument over DMCA and Ammendments to the Constitution make absolutely no difference to the rest of the world.

Re:1st Ammendment

[Doom Ihl' Varia]

Pardon not realizing it's to comply with French and German law. I haven't had my coffee this morning.

I'd like them to be as upfront about it is possibl

[mjj12]

I'd like them to say on their front page what they have done, and mention there that it is only Google.fr and Google.de

That is, I think that it should (to the extent that the law will allow) make it as clear as possible that people should go to google.com and check there.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Anonymous Coward]

As you obviously chose to ignore:
Germany banned the public display of Nazi symbols about 50 years ago.
Germany also restricted the access to Nazi propaganda books and such to scientists/historians. Since 50 years.

With these materials being accessible via the internet to germans again, it was *obvious* that the german legislation does everything it can to keep germans (and not the rest of the world) from accessing something they can go to jail for.

Oh, and Germany even went to the extreme to ban a nazi political party back in 1952 (the SRP), and is currently on its way to do the same with the NPD.

Have i mentioned, that Germany at the moment has WAY LESS than 3% of its voters voting for extreme right wing parties?

Would it be better to allow everybody access to stupifying nazi propaganda crap and by that also increase the neo-nazi movement here?
Does anyone want the Weimar Republic back, that allowed all this shit - and was overcome by the nazi regime in 33?
Anyone?

This just doesn't work!

[Dr. Spork]

I bet you the pages of these idiots got more visits from all the people whose curiosity was piqued by the bad. They must be thrilled to be banned! I bet you there are some Nazi sites and "Holocaust Never Happened" sites and "Bush is Smart" sites that are like "hey, what a rip! How come we didn't get banned! That's bloody favoritism!"

Re:This just doesn't work!

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron. Bush is a lot smarter than you. Leave it to the French and Germans to forbid sites on the protection of an unborn child. Animals have more rights than our unborn.

Censorship...

[pdboddy]

Google's a target, that's for sure, it's a drawback to being highly successful. But Google has to follow the laws of each nation it is based in. So of course Google.de and Google.fr had to remove the links. It *could* make a stand, and challenge the laws, but does it really want to put the time and effort and money into such a legal challenge? These laws have stood, what, almost 60 years? Take a look at ChillingEffects.com and see how many cease and desists Google has to wade through... for simply having a link to a controversial site.

Re:Censorship...

[Citizen of Earth]

So of course Google.de and Google.fr had to remove the links.

So are the Google.de and Google.fr servers actually located in those countries? How about Google.ca? Canada has certain laws that outlaw certain types of speech too.

In response to the submission

[photon317]

There's a difference between supressing *all* speech about a bad topic like those listed, versus just supressing the speech of the active supporting groups. In at least some of these cases I'd be willing to bet they banned (for instance) an anti-semetic hate-group's website, but not another that merely discusses anti-semitism in a rational and moral light.

Re:In response to the submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh-huh... and how do you define a rational and moral light??

I'd define a rational and moral light as one in which all niggers and jews are crushed under my fucking boot!

Dumbass.

Re:In response to the submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that is not the case. They have removed from the index some sites that discuss for example historical details (such as holocaust) perfectly rationally. For example Institute for Historical Review's site (http://www.ihr.org) has been blacklisted.

Re:In response to the submission

[photon317]

Dear Mr Stupid Fucking Cowardly Anonymous Poster,

To discuss something in a rational and moral light means to have a meta-discussion about the moral and rational ways that the thing can be viewed. Your view that niggers and jews are crushed under your boot are as valid in that discussion as anyone else's. You missed the point, and then made yourself look stupid by announcing your ignorance and calling me a dumbass. Try it without being anonymous next time moron.

so they load a different google

[tekunokurato]

and get to see whatever they want regardless.

By the way, thanks for the impartial commentary, Hemos ;)

Anti-Abortion sites?

[goodEvans]

such as this one? Or this?

Re:Anti-Abortion sites?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they tell people to go out and kill abortion doctors?
No I didn't think so!

Need global playing rules

[jukal]

Otherwise, the final result will be that each country will have it's specifically censored index which will ultimately result into a mess which does not change anything but only makes hypocrites feel good. There is not much you can do by applying local rules, and in the context of internet every corner of the globe is local. Ohh, and this is not a free speech campaign - IMHO, it is just stupid that even at this very exact moment tens or hundreds of people are wasting time & money trying fix the problem with the wrong approach. As the publisher of the site with racist content said:

It's really a French and German issue rather than a Google issue."

Looks like ww2 was all for nothing....

[ChuckMaster]

if europe just falls to oppression again. I want my grandfather back now, thank you!

Wait a second...

[SamMichaels]

So they removed the sites from DE and FR.......

What's to stop them from loading dot com? Does their country block access to the "American" version of Google?

I think I missed something here..

Re:Wait a second...

[deop]

It does appear as if anyone with half a brain (left-half, of course) will not be foiled by these measures. This measure sounds like censor "appeasement". Now where have I heard that before...

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[sql*kitten]

So it probably sounded like a good idea to filter out Nazis...everyone hates Nazis right? (except the Nazis) While we're at it let's censor White Supremicists, cause we all hate them too.

The list of what's censored is in an of itself controversial. For example, pro-Fascist sites are censored... what about pro-Communist sites? After all, Stalin killed 20M or more of his own people in his purges compared with 6M in the Holocaust. Anti-abortion sites are censored, what about pro-Catholic? After all, Catholics oppose abortion.

Note that I'm not claiming to be pro or anti anything in this post, I'm merely pointing our some gaping inconsistencies that render the policy meaningless, and hence probably mere cheap political point-scoring rather than a serious attempt to suppress hate-crime or make the world a better place. Assuming you believe in hate-crime; my personal opinion is that it matters little to the victim what the criminal's motivation was.

Even more meaningless than it would be if French and German users couldn't simply point their browsers at google.ca.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[mike_mgo]

The situation is not quite that simple. First off, I think that this only applies to French and German versions of Google.

The important difference though is that white supremacists have never been anything more than a fringe group in the US. In Germany, the reason they are banned is not just that everybody finds Nazis distasteful but that there is an obvious history of them in power.

I'm not sure if banning all of their activities and publications is the best way to limit their appeal, but it is not as simple as it is in the US where the ideas of these fringe groups find traction with only a small percentage of the population.

Censorship Vs Information

[Ravenn]

Hypothetical Question:

A [German|French] student needs information on WWII, and the political aftermath. Where can they find information on anti-semitism and white supremacy groups to add to the project?

Same student needs to study the socio-politcal problems facing modern medicine. They know that others are choosing stem cell research or cloning, and want to do something with more information. They choose abortion. Where did all the statistics and one side's propaganda go? They need to offset one point of view with the other side, and can no longer access pro-life sites.

Propaganda is still propaganda, regardless of truth. But politically, propaganda is what the opposition puts out, and must be eradicated.

Not good. Not good at all...

Ravenn

Re:Censorship Vs Information

[Anonymous Coward]

It's important to realize that web sites studying white supremacists or the implications of abortions are not banned by the provisions of the German constitution.

The only real limitation that freedom of speech has is if it violates personality rights or advocates a change in the basic democratic system in Germany. For example, you can't legally advocate in public to have Germany changed into a centralized state and get rid of the individual states within Germany. Similarly, advocating to change Germany into a fascist or communist regime will get the attention of the Constitution Protection Agency (Verfassungsschutz).

It is their job to monitor people for breaches of the basic constitutional rights committed by anybode. They publish annual reports on this which are somewhat frightening to read.

Whether it is actually necessary or morally right to forbid certain types of speech is a totally different issue that can be (and has been) discusses to great lengths before. However, be it said that these provisions in Germany are not just federal law, they are part of the constitution which would make it so much harder to change that.

sebastian

Re:Censorship Vs Information

[Anonymous Custard]

Hypothetical Question: A [German|French] student needs information on WWII, and the political aftermath. Where can they find information on anti-semitism and white supremacy groups to add to the project?

BOOKS. Doesn't anyone go to the library anymore? The internet's a great source for statistics, news, and cutting edge academic papers, but nothing can teach you a topic better than a few days in the library.

Re:Censorship Vs Information

[Ravenn]

Hey, books are cool. Better than a laptop for bedtime reading.

Thing is, if things are censored, how much harder is it for "objectionable material" to be removed from libraries? It would take a while, but is quite within the jurisdiction of a restricted state.

Thought Police, anyone?

Re:Censorship Vs Information

[pommiekiwifruit]

A [German|French] student needs information on WWII, and the political aftermath.

What war?

Re:Censorship Vs Information

[Anonymous Coward]

A [German|French] student needs information on WWII, and the political aftermath. Where can they find information on anti-semitism and white supremacy groups to add to the project?

from the same places they got information for 495 of the past 500 years when google didnt exist :)

Re:Censorship Vs Information

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were up to the [German|French] government(s), they wouldn't get the information at all... scary, huh?

Re:Censorship Vs Information

[apweiler]

aaaaaargh...

What a load of crap. The stuff that gets banned is Nazi propaganda, advocacy. Information *about* Nazis is perfectly legal.
(although I agree it would be useful to visit actual propaganda sites to study the issue, and there are other reasons why it shouldn't be banned even though Nazism is evil. Still, that doesn't change the fact that it's possible, legal and accepted to publish and get historical information about all of this.)

Re:Censorship Vs Information

[Alsee]

BOOKS... nothing can teach you a topic better than a few days in the library.

Not if your topic is the crap currently being spread by a censored group. And I'd say that is a perfectly legitimate topic.

-

This is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to democracy, people. France and Germany are both democratic countries that have decided (along with most of Europe) that racist speech is not acceptable in society. The government isn't trying to dictate what people think, or say privately, but in public we expect people to behave in a certain way (eg. masturbation in public is not okay).

It saddens me when I see white supremacists in the USA campaigning outside schools for the removal of black teachers and children etc. If we need laws to stop that kind of abuse, then we have no other option. Your freedom to speech stops when it promotes violence and hatred towards other people. Don't forget that even in the USA theres no such thing as freedom of speech - try writing an "ANTHRAX-HOWTO" or setting up a pro-terrorism website and see how long it lasts. Its just a matter of drawing the line somewhere, and in Europe we draw the line closer at protecting personal freedoms - the freedom to live in peace is more important than the freedom to kill/promote killing.

Re:This is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with this. Most important to notice: these governments _were_elected_. Their decision to censor some kind of speech is legitimed by the people who elected them.

Re:This is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Not democratic ... bureaucratic. These nations do have the vote, they do have lawmaking bodies & presidents/prime ministers, but they are _de facto_ governed by accountants & social workers. What the people want is often ignored over what the bean counters determine is "proper". Check out the discussion on http://www.plastic.com concerning self-defense (& the government's suppression of it) in Great Britain.

White supremacists make me sad (& mad) as well. But DO something against them. Go protest against them when they protest, or support people who go to protest against them if they bother you so much. The truth of the matter is that laws do not change minds. Laws give authorities warrant to check one behaviour or another, which can effect salutary changes (such as lowering crime, etc.), but they do not get at the root of the matter. This is where educating people * & * getting the majority to actually DO something (i.e., getting in peoples' faces, or some such) is so important.

I'd rather live as a human being with a one in a million chance of getting blown up than as an animated corpse with a government-mandated social straitjacket. Freedom is far too precious a thing to leave to the care of others.

Anonymous Due To No Time To Sign Up Today

Re:This is a good thing

[A non moose cow]

I disagree.

Taking nazi, etc. content offline does not stop the proliferation of the actual practice of it. All it does is hide it from the public. Why should people not be allowed to look up information about something that they are curious about?

It seems that it would be much better for curious people to be able to read about these things in the safety of their own home, rather than having to attend a fan-club meeting about it. Generally I believe that people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves about ideas like anti-semitism, because the fools that believe in such ideas tend to represent themselves poorly. Apparently Germany and France do not think their citizens are smart enough to make their own decisions.

Personally, I occasionally visit Communist and Socialist web sites. I don't do this because I believe in either philosophy, but because I am curious about why other people believe in them. What this typically ends up doing is re-affirming my notion that these ideas are inherently flawed (I'm not trying to start a debate, this is just my opinion). If I could not reach web information about these ideas because my government prevented me from doing so, what am I supposed to think? Is the government hiding these sites from me because there is some merit in their ideas?

Re:This is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone else has on their .sig here, and I agree with it, that the most dispicable thing once can do is outlaw dispicable speech. Racist speech is not acceptable in society, but it's not my job or the government's to say so. Eventually, people will figure it out for themselves. I also think that saying, "I hate " is not the same as, "Let's make some and go kill people."

Re:This is a good thing

[Dr. Bent]

Your freedom to speech stops when it promotes violence and hatred towards other people.

Violence? Yes. Hatred? Of course not. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre but you're free to tell everyone that you think the director of the film is a complete asshole. Some people may think hate speech against certian groups is offensive (Eminem, for example), but nobody's forcing you to listen to it, and it is certinally not illegal. Nor should it be...that's not how we operate here in the U.S. (regardless of what those nutcases over at Reporters Without Borders say).

Re:This is a good thing

[ratamacue]

France and Germany are both democratic countries that have decided (along with most of Europe) that racist speech is not acceptable in society.

A "country" does not decide anything. A "country" (or more generally, a "society") is nothing but a collection of unique individuals, each with unique viewpoints on any given issue. Government is also nothing but a collection of unique individuals. When you say that a "country" has decided to pass a law, what you really mean is that an elite group of individuals (belonging to the class "government"), who were selected to rule over the rest, have decided to force a standard on the people. Once elected to office, these individuals have absolutely no obligation to represent the common people's interests, or even to keep the campaign promises they use as bait to achieve power.

Democracy is not the magic bullet some people would have you believe. Democracy could very well result in fascism or communism. Do you really think that the majority of US citizens approve of (for example) using their tax dollars to poison the crops of poor Columbian farmers, causing sickness and death to entire communities, in an attempt to reduce the supply of cocoa plants used to manufacture cocaine? Do you really think the majority of US citizens approves of government using their tax dollars to keep troops stationed in 144 countries around the world? These decisions were certainly not made by the individual members of society; they were made by the individuals belonging to the group called government.

Re:This is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting up an anthrax how-to is legal. Sure, if will draw the attention of the FBI, but so will putting up a pro-Nazi website. Besides, there is NOTHING wrong with being a Nazi.

Let me make this simple for you. Your country's (I'm assuming you're in some European country with excessive limits to free speech) policy on free speech is wrong.

Maybe you're not allowed to say that it's wrong, but I'm allowed to do so. QED, mutha-fucka!

Re:This is a good thing

[d^2b]

Besides, there is NOTHING wrong with being a Nazi.

I hate to be the first one to break this to you, but this is not universally acknowledged as true. In fact, for most of the world, Nazi is more or less synonymous with evil. If what you really mean is

Besides, there is NOTHING wrong with being evil.

That is just nonsense; this not a matter of politics, it is a matter of language.

Re:This is a good thing

[Fyndlorn]

Haha, that why 'pure' democracy can be folly. the 'tyranny of the majority' is NOT a good thing! Just because there is a thing which the majority believe in, does not make it a good, or moral, thing.

That's why our constitutionally proteted freedoms are such a big deal! They can't be changed on a whim because a clever politian happend to be able to rally a good amount of support for a 'fad' idea which would restrict freedom.

Re:This is a good thing

[mesocyclone]

In the US, you can put up an ANTHRAX-HOWTO and you can set up a pro-terrorism website, and it is perfectly legal (although the latter has a few limits).

Fortunately, in the US we have constitutional democracy. In other words, we have checks and balances to prevent the majority from violating constitutionally protected rights of minorities.

Of course, our self-admiring universities, actively try to suppress speech that *they* don't like, but that abhorrent practice is not as bad as the state passing censorship laws.

I think Germans should be able to read Nazi hate propaganda. It is good to be able to understand how these groups operate. They should be able to read pre-WW-II Nazi propaganda in order to understand how a majority of Germans supported Hitler well into World War II.

As far as the suppression of the jesus-is-lord site, it looks to me like hate speech suppression. Jesus-is-lord is audacious enough to attack certain acts of certain muslims: Muslims are killing, raping, torturing, mutilating, kidnapping, and enslaving Sudanese Christians in their Islamic jihad ("holy war").

The fact that this statement happens to be true is apparently not enough for the site to avoid censorship.

Or maybe it is their attack on the Catholic Church? Somehow I doubt the European governments are all that fond of protecting it!

Or maybe it is their complaint about abortion?

But nowhere that I saw (and I didn't have the stomach or time to read beyond the front page), the site does NOT preach violence or hate.

In general, the site is pretty bizarre and offensive, but to deny their citizenry the right to read it is wrong and silly.

Given what gets posted on slashdot, including this posting, maybe Slashdot will be next on their censorship list!

Re:This is a good thing

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

The Anti-Nazi laws in Germany were imposed on the country immediately after WW2. By the Allies. They have widespread acceptance here - the point being that the sites in question are basically telling offensive lies about what happened 60 years ago (it is not: 'we did it and it was right' but 'it is all lies, we never did a thing'). Most adults are pretty immune to this stuff, it is the kids who are liable to be more impressionable.
Most of us went through a phase of: 'it is in print so it must be true', or the printed word at least looking more authoritative at the age when kids are re-evaluating their beliefs.
As to the Anti-Abortion sites, it will be the ones advocating killing Abortion Doctors which are being 'hidden', anything else would be totally unacceptable here.

Re:This is a good thing

[TMLink]

I would think that protecting the kids would be a parental/educational issue. While I don't agree with any of these statements, wouldn't it be better for the kids to hear them and sort out the truth in their mind with guidance, rather than be kept away from them? That tends to give these items even more fuel. (Here's what the government doesn't want you to hear!! This is the REAL story!!!)

Kids are rational...if you show them all sides and show them why the one view is the truth (in a case like this), they'll understand. Besides, this isn't keeping any of these groups down, is it?? It's just pushing them underground, where's it's a lot harder to monitor what they're doing.

Re:This is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

> Welcome to democracy, people. France and Germany are both democratic countries.

The will of people does not make a bad thing good.

BTW wasn't Hitler elected by the vast majority of German citizens?

Re:This is a good thing

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Maybe to a certain extent. I thought about this in depth after having posted it and it it seems to be an 'age' thing. I am in my late 40's and have become less inclined over the years to trust kids' rationality. Some will always bite.
Or maybe it was an ex-girlfriend who corrupted me, she believed in Ufos because she read something convincing enough for her. It turned out that her Ufo beliefs had more than a passing resemblance to those in the National Enquirer (which she will have never read).

As to your second point, starve them of publicity and they bleed in private.

Re:This is a good thing

[Parafilmus]

As to the Anti-Abortion sites, it will be the ones advocating killing Abortion Doctors which are being 'hidden', anything else would be totally unacceptable here.

I'm not sure that's the case.

Consider this hidden site. While it has some rather unkind things to say, in particular about the Catholic church, I don't think it advocates violence.

Re:This is a good thing

[SuperMario666]

Get off your high horse. It saddens me to hear about the recent wave of synagogue burnings in Europe and when I see Jean-Marie le Pen place as high as he did in the French presidential election.

Racism exists in every nation. Censorship is not the answer.

Oh, and the whole, I see white supremacists in the USA campaigning outside schools for the removal of black teachers and children etc thing. That went out of style a long time ago. You'd get laughed out of town in even rural Alabama if you tried that. You should be bitching about white flight, which accomplishes much the same thing. I imagine you would expect the government to ban relocation to the suburbs.

So, ummm, in conclusion, I guess I'm just trying to say that the government cannot and should not be a womb.

not only France and Germany

[lovebyte]

According to the Harvard report, some sites that Google does not list include 1488.com, a "Chinese legal consultation network", and 14words.com, a discount Web-hosting service and some conservative, anti-abortion religious sites. Those sites do not appear to violate either German or French laws.
This is a particularly surprising move though. The German and French laws against racist speech are well known, but why would google remove sites like the ones mentioned in the article and that I have reproduced above? Certainly not because of pressure of the French or German governements.

Interestingly, 14words.com, which seems to be just a web-hosting company, is in the following category in google directory:
Society > Issues > Race-Ethnic-Religious Relations > Hate > Hate Groups

Re:not only France and Germany

[FeloniousPunk]

"14words" is a white supremacist rallying cry. It refers to the number of words in some mission statement that some neo-Nazi came up with. I vaguely remember adding 88 to it had some other significance, but have since forgotten. There was an article in a Der Spiegel issue sometime back about the women in the neo-Nazi movement and how they utilize the internet for their political ends.

Re:not only France and Germany

[lovebyte]

Right. So I assume that google has removed some sites containing 14 and 1488 in their address even if they are not racist sites.

Great.

Re:not only France and Germany

[Troed]

Maybe they only host that kind of content .. ?

I have quite a lot of faith when it comes to Google, they've done the right thing lots of times.

Re:not only France and Germany

[mlawton]

Curiously enough, Websense blocks 14words.com too:

Access to this web page is restricted at this time.

Reason:

The Websense category "Racism/Hate" is filtered.

URL:

http://www.14words.com/

AFAIK, Websense themselves set the (default) categories, so they must have some reason to believe there's something wrong with 14words.com too.

Re:not only France and Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

88 used to be neo nazi code for heil Hitler.

Re:not only France and Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

via www.google.de:

Das Web wurde nach 1488 durchsucht. Resultate 1 - 10 von ungefähr 514,000. Suchdauer: 0.22 Sekunden.

???--?????????
Die Zusammenfassung dieser Chinesisch (vereinfacht) Seite enthält Zeichen, die mit diesem Zeichensatz bzw. dieser Spracheinstellung nicht richtig wiedergegeben werden können.
Kategorie: World > Chinese Simplified > ?? > ??
www.1488.com.cn/ - 85k - Im Archiv - Ähnliche Seiten

Re:not only France and Germany

[overunderunderdone]

It is somewhat ironic that you are defending the french and german position to ban anti-semetic sites but have a link to electronicintifada.com in your .sig.

I'm not saying that being against isreali policy or even anti-isreali is the same as being anti-semetic (otherwise *I* would be anti-semetic). BUT some argue (wrongly) that it IS. Electronicintifada.com appears to be a good faith and fair-minded site. But many of the other pro-palestinian sites and even reputable, government sanctioned Arab newspapers have started to do more than just dabble in sentiments that ar unarguably anti-semetism & banned by German law - denying the holocaust (& then expressing regret that it "never happened"), perpetrating the blood-libel (that jews sacrifice gentiles & drink their blood during religious festivals), publishing "the protocols of the elders of zion" and "Mein Kampf" (the arab version with Hitlers opinion of Arabs deleted)).

Electronicintifada.com appears to have no link to any of these sentiments and I it doubt would be banned but it is possible. Similar good-faith sites have been caught up in censorship of their disreputable allies. I'm sure the nuremburg-files.com is the kind of anti-abortion site intended to be banned, but I wouldn't doubt at all that an organization like operation rescue could also be banned. It is painted by it's opponents as a violent terrorist group - Yet they disclaim violence & murder while advocating protest and civil disobedience. If Electronicintifada.com had powerful political opposition in France or Germany it would not be surprising at all to find them caught up (perhaps inadverantly) in this effort to censor anti-semetic sentiments that are being expressed in even reputable Arab news sources.

"The truth is that such persecution was a malicious fabrication by the Jews. It is a myth which they named 'The Holocaust' in order to rouse empathy.
-Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (The largest daily in the PA)

For this holiday, the Jewish people must obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare the holiday pastries. In other words, the practice cannot be carried out as required if human blood is not spilled!
-Dr. Umayma Ahmad Al-Jalahma of King Faysal University in Al-Dammam in the Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh

(the Holocaust) is nothing more than a huge Israeli plot aimed at extorting the German government... But I, personally and in light of this imaginary tale, complain to Hitler, even saying to him from the bottom of my heart, 'If only you had done it, brother, if only it had really happened, so that the world could sigh in relief [without] their evil and sin.'"
Fatma Abdallah Mahmoud in he Egyptian government daily Al-Akhbar

All of these papers & sites & many others would be banned under the German law. Even Al-Jazeera has had cross-fire style argue shows where three out of four panelists (and arguably the moderator) denied the holocaust. It is not hard at all to invision a wide array of pro-palestinian sites being banned - even those that don't publish such ideas themselves.

Re:not only France and Germany

[Troed]

It is somewhat ironic that you are defending the french and german position to ban anti-semetic sites

I did no such thing.

Re:not only France and Germany

[overunderunderdone]

It is somewhat ironic that you are defending the french and german position to ban anti-semetic sites

I did no such thing.

But you did, or at least implied that you did. You said:
"Maybe they only host that kind of content .. ?
Which to me implies that it's OK then to censor "that kind of content" even when the site itself was for the hosting service and did not have "that type of content" itself. Much like electronicintifada.com does not have "that type of content" but likely has at least some links to sites that do.

You also said:
I have quite a lot of faith when it comes to Google, they've done the right thing lots of times.
When the action in question, the one you have a lot of faith is the right thing is the censoring of opinions offensive to the French and German law.

To be honest I am not actually suggesting that the French and German position, and the decision of Google to comply with those laws without protest is actually wrong. There is a case to be made that some speech really is beyond the pale. "Fire in a crowded theater" and "The constitution is not a suicide pact" and all that. I was simply pointing out that your cause and the site in your .sig are not unlikely to be the victims of such censorship if it steps even a little over the line - I thought that ironic.

Re:not only France and Germany

[Troed]

Maybe you should stop assuming in the future, and admit you don't know.

Re:not only France and Germany

[overunderunderdone]

Maybe you should stop assuming in the future, and admit you don't know.

Huh?

What Google ought to do

[Anonymous Coward]

is just drop those other domains and put a disclaimer at the bottom of .com saying in effect "citizens of the following countries may not use Google: France, Germany, etc."

Fuck those censorhappy idiots. Wait - is it too late to use Europe as a nuclear testing site?

Re:What Google ought to do

[Anonymous Coward]

You would really bomb your own nuclear rocket launching/storing site?

Some of those Americans really are stupid sometimes. (i.e. you)

Actually...

[Atzanteol]

"And drugs being illegal makes it less attractive for kids too, right?"

Yes. Not nearly as many kids do drugs now as there would be if they were legal. How many more kids smoke cigarettes? Even that is in decline...

Freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the internet was all about the freedom of information to flow across all borders, unchecked....

Clarification on the Anti-Abortion stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you know. The only "Anti-abortion" site banned is www.jesus-is-lord.com It's a very hate filled site that's extremely biased against catholics, jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus.... basically everyone who is not a born again christian is going to hell according to the site.

I don't like censorship of anything either, but its not like the site was picked out just for being anti-abortion. It's violently anti-almost everything.

Re:Clarification on the Anti-Abortion stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

basically everyone who is not a born again christian is going to hell according to the site.

If the modern English-language translation of the bible is to be read literally, then that is the correct precedure of the Christian religion (of course, you don't have to believe the translation is correct).
Under Islam, any infidel is going to go to hell to be tourtured too.

Re:Clarification on the Anti-Abortion stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, no, it's not blocked at the moment. i just entered "jesus is lord" in google, and it showed up top spot.

what?

[Anonymous Coward]

how in the fuck did you come up with this book of stuff in the *12 minutes* since the first post? /me smells insider trading

anti-abortion? wtf?

[Ender Ryan]

Is it against the law in fr/de to be against abortion, and speak about it?

Re:anti-abortion? wtf?

[lougarou]

It's not. It's against the law to encourage people to kill the doctors that do the abortion operations. It's against the law to post their portraits with "Wanted" written under it.

Re:anti-abortion? wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Bear in mind that a goodly proportion of the populations of both those countries are Catholics, and the abortion debate there is perfectly lively.

What *is* illegal is inciting violence. Is that so terrible?

Re:anti-abortion? wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

That should be covered under criminal law already. Why is there a separate need for it?

Same with 'hate crimes' in general. Killing someone for being a particular color is murder regardless of the motive. The motive does not exacerbate the severity of the crime.

I don't condone it, but..

[Marc2k]

Well, often times anti-abortion groups are quite hateful and mob-ruled.

When's the last time a doctor who performed a birth after the mother decided against abortion was sniped? Many US doctors have been shot, or their offices been burned and/or pillaged for performing abortions after the mother decided against childbirth. A year or so ago, I took a good friend of mine to get an abortion, and we had to identify ourselves through an armored door thicker than some banks to get in, and they literally have to do that to protect themselves. If that's not hate, McCart42, what is?

Again, I don't condone silencing free speech, but where do you draw the line? I don't see how the blind hatred of people for their skin color is different than blind hatred for those that make decisions that do not concern yourself.

Re:I don't condone it, but..

[McCart42]

OK, that didn't come to mind immediately. I guess if that is what they mean by "anti-abortion" sites then it is something that should be removed from google's listings. I suppose I saw conspiracy to block an opinion rather than blocking something for a legitimate reason such as incitement to commit murder, and I was a little ticked at first.

Re:I don't condone it, but..

[Marc2k]

Agreed, I tried not to sound bitter in that post, but it was hard not to recall such things. Certainly, I would agree with you if they were blocking sites just for containing contrary viewpoints. Unfortunately, I haven't seen the sites (or even a listing of the sites, really..I'd be interested to see them, as they're not banned here), so I can't say who's right then, they may be blocking simply pro-life sites. The limited scope of the actual block list would lead me to *hope* that they're only blocking sites of organizations that conspire to commit murder.

Re:I don't condone it, but..

[TamMan2000]

I don't see how the blind hatred of people for their skin color is different than blind hatred for those that make decisions that do not concern yourself.

Many people don't see it as a decision that doesn't concern them. There is someone running around the east coast of the US killing people who I don't know. There are also doctors all over the world that are killing unborn people who I have never met. Yet everyone seems really concerned about the sniper, and not about the abortions. You could say the sniper is different because it could be me next, well I could have been aborted too, but I wasn't so I will look out for those who might be in the future.

Re:I don't condone it, but..

[JSiess]

Hmmm, not that I condone the murder of doctors for the woman's wrong doing, but don't abortion clinics conspire with the mother to murder her child? Murder is murder, whether the child is in the womb or out.

Re:I don't condone it, but..

[squiggleslash]

The fact that the sniper is killing sentient human beings also makes a major difference to the minds of many.

Re:I don't condone it, but..

[TamMan2000]

do a little research and you will see that the fetus is sentient as well.

Re:I don't condone it, but..

[Marc2k]

Ah, but abortion is legal for the first two trimesters. Murder by the legal definition is never lawful. Morality has nothing to do with this.

is it possible ...

[beta-tim]

... as i live in germany and use an german ISP i always get redirected to google.de even if i visited google.com(the language changes to english and it looks like google.com but sitll the name i read is google.de) my question now is is it possible for me to go to the .com page and STAY there and search the .com index or will google always redirect me?and if the index has to be censored in germany because google.de doesn't want to be sued in germany, is it then legal for me to search the .com index(that is hopefully not censored) or do i become a criminal then? hopefully someone with some knowledge about laws can help me

Re:is it possible ...

[pg133]

I don't think its your ISP thats redirecting you to google.de.

Why don't you just click on the "Google.com [English]" link on the "google.de" web page, it will bring you straight to google.com!

Re:is it possible ...

[beta-tim]

oouuppss...that solves the problem. didn't see that link/always asumed it would redirect me as the uRL www.google.com site does. thanks. still there is my other question would it be an act of crime using the google.com index from germany if google had to censor stuff because it is illegal in germany?

'Net law.

[RPoet]

This is what may result from the internet being evenly accessible from all over the world. You need to comply with a set of laws forming the "lowest common denominator" of all laws in the world, eventually - meaning that the strictest laws is what you comly with. Sad, and dangerous.

Re:'Net law.

[cyberformer]

No, sites ending in .de must obey German law, those ending in .uk must obey British law, those ending in .fr must obey French law.

This makes life harder for Web companies, but it's not unreasonable. You may not like the laws that says they can't publish anti-semitic propaganda in Germany or anti-Scientology information in the U.S., but you can't blame Google, Yahoo, etc. for obeying them.

Google has closed it's email

[Anonymous Coward]

Just tried to send an email to mentions@google.com

The mailbox is closed. Have the rest of you
tried too?

Google seems to use geolocation

[Raetsel]

I believe that Google uses some sort of IP address database or geolocation system. When I set up a computer for the in-laws (who live in Maine), setting the start page to www.google.com automatically and instantly redirected to www.google.ca.

No matter what, it wouldn't give up the plain vanilla .com version -- go figure.

Maybe Prexar (their ISP) routes through Canada? Or perhaps they're using a set of IPs that ARIN has listed as Canadian. Who knows, I didn't dig that deeply into it.

At any rate, it sure did a damn good job of keeping me away from google.com. Yes, I know a proxy server would solve the problem... but proxying all of France and Germany? Ouch. Even with Google's lightweight "do the search and get 'em out" philosophy, I wouldn't want that bandwidth bill!

Re:Google seems to use geolocation

[TheTomcat]

http://www.google.com/en/

or, go to google.ca, and click google.com

S

If only it was possible!

[Anonymous Coward]

Greetings,

First of all, I absolutely agree with you. Censorship is never the right way to go after ideologies of debatable morality. The only thing it's gonna achieve is make its proponents feel persecuted, and as such, it legitimates their views.

Thing is, you absolutely CAN'T touch those anti-racism/antisemitism/whatever laws. It's a very, very touchy issue over here, and some organisations will scream bloody murder if you ever even want to open the debate about it. (Note that it's the same organisation -- *not* the government -- that had the Yahoo auctions censored, for example). If you want to open the debate then you're obviously a racist antisemitic extreme-right wing nazi and should be dragged out and shot. So the debate is never opened. Heck, Sharon called Chirac an antisemite when France stopped supporting his attacks on Palestine.

And it is growing into a REAL problem. People are so afraid of being thought of the extreme-right that they'll never speak up, but brood in their corner instead, and then (other) people act all dumbfounded when the extreme-right candidate suddenly makes it to the second turn of the presidential elections.

While opening the debate will allow to laugh the extreme-right into oblivion in a matter of minutes, to everyone's benefit. Sigh.

Oh well. Now you can mod me (-1, Flamebait) for obviously being an antisemitic nazi bastard. :/

(Posted anonymously, for obvious reasons -- I dared open the debate, so now I'm gonna play it safe and hide.)

Re:If only it was possible!

[Sj0]

How the HELL do you legitimize the slaughter of three million people?

I don't even think the spin doctors in the US could pull it off.

Re:If only it was possible!

[Anonymous Coward]

How the HELL do you legitimize the slaughter of three million people?

I don't even think the spin doctors in the US could pull it off.

How the HELL do you justify punishing people for what their parents and grandparents did?

Re:If only it was possible!

[japhmi]

Ask the experts.

Re:If only it was possible!

[DaytonCIM]

How the HELL do you legitimize the slaughter of three million people?

Huh?

That attack came out of nowhere...

Re:If only it was possible!

[fferreres]

Anti-abortion = Neo Nazi? I don't know, but I don't like abortion. Just like you can't kill someone alive and outside, you can't kill someone inside.

In reality, I don't kind abortion (meaning getting the child out of you) as long as you don't kill it.

Abortion = preserve a human live
Nazi = genocide non-arians

This is really fsckd up. Law != Truth. Nazism is bad and abortion is not, no matter what law has to say about it. Really.

Re:If only it was possible!

[DaytonCIM]

I definitely understand why you posted Anon.

Thing is, you absolutely CAN'T touch those anti-racism/antisemitism/whatever laws. It's a very, very touchy issue over here, and some organisations [uejf.org] will scream bloody murder if you ever even want to open the debate about it.

"Over here" I suspect means Europe? We have the same situation in the US. But we have it two-fold. One, if you don't support Israel, then you're anti-semitic. Two, if you don't support the war on terrorism, then you're anti-american.

You can't win with everyone, nor should you try. German and French laws prohibiting Nazi propaganda are derived from fear and hatred of the past. No one in Europe wants another facist, murderer, yet Milosavic (sp) was pretty damn close, and no one did much to stop him. Oh the irony...

If you want to open the debate then you're obviously a racist antisemitic extreme-right wing nazi and should be dragged out and shot.

Pretty much the same attitude here in the states. If you don't support the troops, then you're anti-american. If you don't support Israel then you're a nazi. If you don't support Cuban exiles, then you're a communist. Etc... All of it meaningless rhetoric. Problem is, if you get enough people spewing meaningless rhetoric, then it becomes opinion and soon after, policy.

But then we have great technical sites like /. to openly discuss these types of issues... damn, there's my bleeding-heart, liberal sarcasm again.

Re:If only it was possible!

[StarFace]

Easy, drop a couple of nukes on civilian cities to end a war. They managed to spin that one quite well.

Re:If only it was possible!

[No One]

You can't. Now exactly WHAT the fuck did that have to do with the post yoe were responding to? Oh, and it was six million people. Romani, homosexuals, communists, and the disabled are people too.

Re:If only it was possible!

[No One]

Correcting myself: six million Jews, six million "other".

Re:If only it was possible!

[Sj0]

What attack? It's just a very spirited question. We're not talking about an abstract concept like communism here, we're talking about backing a group that killed millions of innocent people slowly. How do you legitimize something like that? How do you make the common man sit back and say "well gee, you know what? Those nazis never hurt anybody! Why can't we just let them live in peace?" knowing what we know about the nazis?

Re:If only it was possible!

[Sj0]

The original post I responded to said that by banning nazi propoganda, we'd end up legitimizing the cause -- everybody knows that the nazis killed millions of innocent people. How do you legitimize that?

Re:If only it was possible!

[No One]

A lot of people have managed to legitimize it in their own minds, which is what the AC you were responding to was saying.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Perl-Pusher]

But it's also against the law to disagree about abortion or be a Scientologist. How does that lead to Neo-Nazi's? Don't drag me into any debate about abortion please! My views are not going to be stated here. Scientology I believe is a con - game / cult, but I'm not calling for the arrest of John Travolta.

Read the article for God's sake

[nutshell42]

Also banned is Jesus-is-lord.com, a fundamentalist Christian site that is adamantly opposed to abortion.

I haven't read the page just looked around, abortion seems not to be the main topic (there's a number of pictures which put rotten.com to shame though) of the page it's more like an "Anti-*" page against anyone and everyone. Probably they violated hate-speech laws somewhere in one of their texts, wouldn't surprise me

Re:Read the article for God's sake

[Pike65]

it's more like an "Anti-*" page against anyone and everyone

Uh oh. Time to sell my shares in that French anti-freeze company . . .

Linking ain't illegal in germany!

[Qbertino]

This is all just preemptive stuff by google.
You can only get into trouble if you deliberately 'hardlink' a foreign site with illegal stuff (Nazi propaganda, Al Quaida rallying and the likes) and at the same time recommend contents of that link and make them part of your opinion ("sich zu eigen machen").
If you've got a disclaimer on your site, you can even hardlink it. It is then seen as more of a kind of 'journalistic quote' than anything else.
No need to go bashing at the 'krauts again. ;-)

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[NeoSkandranon]

Anti-abortion sites are censored, what about pro-Catholic? After all, Catholics oppose abortion.


To the best of my knowlege, Catholics generally don't advocate the murder of people who are pro abortion. that's the difference

What does this imply?

[cr@ckwhore]

Somehow this implies to me that anti-abortion views (read: pro-life, anti-murder) are supposedly "evil" just as pro-nazi views are assumed to be "evil"... at least according to the French government. Its a simple assumption to make.

First of all, nobody controls the free speech (supposedly) of US entities. Secondly, who decided that Anti-abortion, Pro-nazi propaganda is offensive? Are the french people that weak that their government decides whats offensive to them?

I happen to find pro-abortion sites offensive, but I don't rally for google to block those sites from their index! My respect of free speech and other people's opinions to be far more important that the content of their views.

So, lets think about the implications of this for a moment. The French government has the power to remove listsing from the internet's most popular search engine. Ok, so there are a couple hundred governments in the world that could do the same. [sarcasm]Wouldn't it be great if other governments hopped on the bandwagon and reduced the quality and accuracy of search results for the entire world? [/sarcasm]

What if another country decides that chickens are offensive? Do they now have the "right" to lobby Google for removal of chicken websites from the index?

Re:What does this imply?

[lovebyte]

slow down cowboy.
As has been said multiple times below, there is no law in France or Germany that prohibits anti-abortion speech. The fact that an anti-abortion site is blocked is, for the time being, a mistery.

Re:What does this imply?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Secondly, who decided that ... Pro-nazi propaganda is offensive?

Maybe the generation and peoples in Europe that were nearly wiped out by the Nazis?

Look, you guys lost a relative handful of people in the War. Europe saw its continent, races, nations and generations decimated. It is hardly surprising Europeans are like, a little more *sensitive* about the political ideologies that caused all this.

Re:What does this imply?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow this implies to me that anti-abortion views (read: pro-life, anti-murder) are supposedly "evil" just as pro-nazi views are assumed to be "evil"... at least according to the French government. Its a simple assumption to make.

Yes, and you are quite "simple" if you can't understand the law does *not* outlaw anti-abortionists. It outlaws those of them who advocate violence.

The government isn't deciding these things need to be censored, the people decided (as these are democratic governments).

Re:What does this imply?

[frankc]

Sounds more like they want to ban sites which promote hatred/killing towards physicians who perform those abortions. They do not say ``kill this guy'', but just give the adress of the physician. Wasn't there a site banned in the US over this issue?

Frank C

Re:What does this imply?

[DAldredge]

So does thei 'anti-violence' law also outlaw abortions? I personaly can not think of a more violent act.

Re:What does this imply?

[p3tersen]

Secondly, who decided that Anti-abortion, Pro-nazi propaganda is offensive?
Um, the people of France?
Are the french people that weak that their government decides whats offensive to them?
Nope. The French people decided for themselves, as a society, that nazi propaganda should be illegal.
Good for them!
I happen to find pro-abortion sites offensive, but I don't rally for google to block those sites from their index!
Well, maybe you'd feel differently if the websites in question were actively promoting the asassination of 'pro-life' activists, giving their names and adresses and photos with crosshairs on them and so on. Most likely that's the sort of thing we're talking about here.

Re:What does this imply?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing this has something to do with the fact that you're an idiot.

The World is going back to the Dark Ages

[Anonymous Coward]

why don't we just lock everyone inside a padded cell so nobody can do anything wrong.

I'm sick of this fucked up world. I'm going to kill myself.

Re:The World is going back to the Dark Ages

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't kill yourself. I don't want you to. Some people care about others, it is true.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[chl]

Anti-abortion sites are censored, what about pro-Catholic? After all, Catholics oppose abortion.

Anti-abortion sites are censored when they give names and addresses of abortion doctors who should be killed. Abortion is a delicate subject in Germany and the subject as such is not censored. In fact there is, by definition, no censorship in Germany. Any restrictions must be justified either by yells of "think of the children" or by some other law, e.g. Holocaust denial is a punishable act specifically mentioned in the Strafgesetzbuch ("book of punishments").

History

[Halo1]

No, it will definitely not make those things go a away or prevent them, just like a law that allows most people to carry guns will not really make a country more safe or prevent government oppression. It's just history: the US has been occupied for a long time and the Founding Fathers did not want to risk that the people would ever again be oppressed by the government, so they made the carrying of guns a fundamental right (at least, that's the way I understand things).

In Europe, people didn't want such horrible things as the holocaust to happen ever again, so to help prevent that they banned all sorts of hate speech, since that was what the Nazi's used to rally the people against the rest. This wasn't about curbing the rights of the people regarding what they could say, but to try to stop speech that promotes the limitation of freedom of other people (YMMV of course, but that's the intention).

Neither is a real solution to the "problem" they want to prevent, but nevertheless a lot of people hold on to them because their symbolic significance is quite big. Just like getting rid of that amendment would be interpreted as "Ok, now they're coming for us because they want to take away our rights to carry weapons", getting rid of those hate-speech laws would pretty much signify "Well, the holocaust wasn't that bad after all, who cares if a couple of people start again with spreading such crap and other hate speech".

Which one of these things. . .

[polyphemus-blinder]

is not like the other?

Is it just me, or does anti-abortion stick out as being rather unlike pro-nazism and anti-semetism?

I hope that the sites in question were militant anti-abortion sites--otherwise this is the most illogical grouping I've seen in a long time.

Re:Which one of these things. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

they blocked 100 sites - i'd imagine theres a tad more than 100 anti-abortion sites out there, that answers the question.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[_Spirit]

There is a difference between nazism and communism.

Nazism killed a lot of people, the wish to eradicate groups of the population being an integral part of the nazi ideas.

Stalin might have done the same, but communism itself is not about killing or suppressing people.

My point is that people have wronged other people in the name of some ideal or other for as long as we know. What makes nazism different from the others you mention is that it tells people to wrong other people. That can never be right in my book and might even be reason to censor.

So a site that is against abortion is ok, a site telling you to kill doctors who perform abortions is not.

Use a proxy server

[splorf]

like www.anonymizer.com.

This isn't right

[Anonymous Coward]

The accidemic idealogists in Europe have lost the plot as far as 'freedom of speach' is concerned. They're primarily concerned with crushing anything not 'correct'... I've had to sit through lectures of this doublespeak political-indoctrination... the evil white devil and the good illegal immigrant, the saddistic white colonist and the downtrodden native, the way the truth and the light of femminism, the evils of neoliberalism etc. Now although I may agree with _parts_ of what they're saying, that their concern should be with indoctrinating and intimidating the doctrine upon others rather than encouraging an open and free forum of ideas is rather discouraging for me. I think it has been the same throughout history, no matter what High Ideals(TM) they're supposedly adhering to.

Accidemic doctrine changes from time and place. Think over the last few thousand years from ancient Egypt or China to 19th century UK. They're always know their worldview is 'correct', and that all previous ones weren't, and that their worldview will stay truth and full for all time henceforth.

Why should anti-abortion sites be banned? I'm totally against abortion. I'm also quite sexually liberal otherwise, and resonably left-wing (which would probably confuse the philosophy department no end).

The reason why I'm against censoring these political websites is thusly: How do you define what is 'incorrect' or too 'far-right'?
If I set up a website saying the allies planned to wipe out the German population after WW2 (and that this plan was made by a Jew), this plan was almost carried through with, but that instead they 'ethnically clensed' 1/4rd of Germany, slaughted 100s of thousands or perhaps millions, went on rape rampages, and starved to death over ~9 million, would this be in short order be considered a far-right website? I certainly think it would be. Would you think it made up? Sure you would. Think I had (evil!) Nazi-sympathies for even bringing up such a subject? Definitely.
Now go read up about it, because the above is what actually happened, and it wasn't just the Soviets.

But it isn't in your school history textbook? Except perhaps a little mention about the north-west of the Czech republic...? I wonder why.

Yes it is

[StefMeister]

just use "http://www.google.com/en"

What about Google's stated policy

[splorf]

of notifying www.chillingeffects.org when they got a censorship demand? Government censorship shouldn't be treated differently from Scientology censorship.

Re:What about Google's stated policy

[The Cydonian]

The distinction is that this is not "Fan Fiction, Copyright, Domain Names and Trademarks, Anonymous Speech, and Defamation.

google.com blocked?

[chl]

As a matter of fact they can't. Access to google.com is restricted.

I do not know what you can do, or what exactly google does for access control, but all googles seem to have the same ip number:

www.google.de CNAME www.google.com

www.google.at CNAME www.google.com

www.google.com A 216.239.51.101

"Just" enter the bare ip number...

But, as I wrote elsewhere, the two sites mentioned in the article do not seem to be delisted from google.de anyway.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[WCMI92]

"So it probably sounded like a good idea to filter out Nazis...everyone hates Nazis right? (except the Nazis) While we're at it let's censor White Supremicists, cause we all hate them too."

And the black supremicists, and the christian fanatics, and the muslim fanatics, the man haters, the woman haters...

It can go on and on. Which is why it's better to censor NO ONE. The cost to society is far less in letting the KKK march than the cost of allowing the government to have ANY power to prejudge speech.

Elected

[nuggz]

Hitler was elected.
Saddam was elected.
Bush wasn't elected.

Just a thought.

Re:Elected

[Carbonite]

And your point is what?

Re:Elected

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Bush was elected fair and square, 5-4...

(A/C 'cos it's off-topic flamebait. I need to get out of here...)

USA is only 17th on "freedom of the press" index!

[liberteus]

Hey wait, this is France and Germany censoring Web contents.
Please people before commenting on how bad is the situation of "freedom" in the US look at your own countries first!

(note: I am FRENCH)

proxy

[danro]

Use a proxy in the US then.
I'm sure you can find one.
One would think that someone who displays the Cult Of The Dead Cow as his/her homepage would know that.

Re:proxy

[Glanz]

GeeeZZZZ ThanXXXX! I do use a proxy at home but at work I cannot. BTW, I changed my URL just for U> Enjoy!

Google.com *is* blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

So they removed the sites from DE and FR....... What's to stop them from loading dot com? Does their country block access to the "American" version of Google? I think I missed something here..

Those countries don't block access to google.com, but google does. Google has a setup whereby they detect the country your IP is in and autoredirect you to your country's google site. For example, I am in New Zealand. When I type in google.com, I am redirected to google.co.nz. I am blocked by google from reaching google.com, just as people in France and Germany are blocked from reaching google.com unless they use a relay server located in the US.
Horrible practice.

Easy fix

[jagripino]

I am in Austria and can go to google France, Germany or Belgium. But if I try to go to google.com I am automatically sent to google.at. And this can not be circumvented by changing the Language settings of your browser.

I had the same problem, here in Brazil. What I did was to set my language preferences on Google to English.

BASIC violations of free speech.

[Gannoc]

They ban sales of Mein Kampf? So they're burning books in France and Germany?

These are the people who we're worried about offending with a conflict with Iraq?

This isn't some quirky "Can I block an intersection/burn a flag/show porn in public" free speech issue, this is "This book contains material we don't like, and it reminds us of something we'd rather forget. Ban it."

We can discuss the erosion of civil rights in the United States after 9/11, while the readers from overseas loudly criticize the president, but I suppose if this was Europe, we'd be banning terrorist literature and shutting down Islamic web sites.

Re:BASIC violations of free speech.

[Nicolas MONNET]

"Mein Kampf" is not banned from bookstores; it is just required that it features a warning notice.

I'm not sure I understand what good this notice is, but anyway ...

Those laws are useless and, arguably, may do more harm than good, but fighting them with disinformation is not going to make it any better.

Re:BASIC violations of free speech.

[lqd]

"Mein Kampf" is not banned from bookstores; it is just required that it features a warning notice.

so what does it say? "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics"? ;)

Re:BASIC violations of free speech.

[jas79]

, but I suppose if this was Europe, we'd be banning terrorist literature and shutting down Islamic web sites.

Does this mean that I can buy books from bin laden about killing americans in every bookstore in the USA?

Re:BASIC violations of free speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

> but I suppose if this was Europe, we'd be banning terrorist literature and shutting down Islamic web sites.

Alternatively, if it was the Middle East, you'd be be blowing up Al Jazeera and shutting down pro Bin Laden propaganda... oh, that's what the US did.

Re:BASIC violations of free speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

(sorry posting as AC, forgot my password)

From memory, the notice is rather long and says something along the line `we are publishing this book not because we agree with the content but rather as an educational tool, in the hope that the reader will be edified'. When I read it the notice seemed to make some kind of sense, as opposed to the content of the book (gave me a headache).

Cheers.

Oblg. Google Link

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Story also covered here

atleast they're not censoring it..

in France figth against Fascists is not over !

[gillus]

Some facts that you don't seem to be aware of :

• yesterday two fascist skin head have been convinced of the murderer of a gay in a public park
  
• a month before a rascist did "drive by shooting" against an arab cafe. a youth of 17 killed IIRC
  
• one month ago an muslim homophobic has stabbed the mayor of Paris because he didn't like the gay politician.
  
• few months ago a member of the former "unite radicale" tried to kill Jacques Chirac the french president
  
• we're living constantly under the threat of the fascist Lepen
  
• we have plenty of regionnalist, nationnalist, independentist groups who dop bombs just every week.
  
  • 
    
    France is not a democracy, there are political prisonners. Germany and US are not democratic also !
    
    If you feel that we should enforce freedom of speech for the fascist, no problem, just give the a green card !
    
    

Re:in France figth against Fascists is not over !

[Anonymous Coward]

Some irrelevant facts that you seem to be aware of:

• yesterday two fascist skin head have been convinced of the murderer of a gay in a public park
  Yesterday, all over the country, someone was killed by a crackhead. What's your point? Murder is illegal, unless they talked him to death, banning speech doesn't matter.
  
• a month before a rascist did "drive by shooting" against an arab cafe. a youth of 17 killed IIRC
  A month before in Isreal a buttload of jews was killed by a palestinian with a bomb. Again, what's your point?
  
• one month ago an muslim homophobic has stabbed the mayor of Paris because he didn't like the gay politician.
  Okay... yet again, what's your point? Would it be better if he stabbed him because of some policy he didn't agree with?
  
• few months ago a member of the former "unite radicale" tried to kill Jacques Chirac the french president
  A fan of Jodie Foster tried to kill Ronald Reagan when he was in office. Quick, we'd better ban Jodie Foster!
  
• we're living constantly under the threat of the fascist Lepen
  Why is that a threat? Maybe it'd be good for you to change governmental systems. The fact is, you can't improve your government if you aren't allowed to suggest improvements/alternatives.
  
• we have plenty of regionnalist, nationnalist, independentist groups who dop bombs just every week.
  Every week? No, you don't.
  
  France is not a democracy, there are political prisonners. Germany and US are not democratic also !
  How does having "political" prisoners prevent a country from being a democracy?
  If you feel that we should enforce freedom of speech for the fascist, no problem, just give the a green card !
  
  I'd be perfectly happy letting a few proud white people into my country. What I don't want is to let some dothead in. It feels good to know that I'm allowed to say that, and you are not.

Re:in France figth against Fascists is not over !

[Anonymous Coward]

This post is considered Insightful? Good grief, if ever we needed an 'ignorant' mod option!

The original post lists a number of instances which demonstrate the rise of fascist politics in France and a rise in politically-motivated violence - and the reply ignores it!

It is to prevent extreme-right politics like this from tipping over into nazism, that the censorship laws exist!

The problem is elsewhere

[imr]

The real problem in France is that there is no laws done for the internet. So basically, and IANAL, they use laws on publications.
There are laws on what you can write in a publication, laws on what kind of foreigns publications you can distribute on the french territory, and so on. And they don't fit the internet.
Instead of building from the ground up new better laws, they try to enforce those laws, a process which require brutal force and a lot of resistance to stand being ridiculous, since they don't fit the internet.
Did I mention that they don't fit the internet?
The real problem has nothing to do with speech freedom. A lowering in speech freedom is just a consequence, even if a bad one. The description of this problem is better explained in the famous text of John Perry barrow "The Economy of Ideas". Seing the origine of this text and famous US laws I read about in /., I believe this is not a european related problem. At least the US proved that "made for the internet" laws can be worse than old unfitting laws. :(
Now on the anti nazi issue: 2 things.
1/ We did suffer a lot from our own behaviour during those years and do not trust us anymore on this subject. Good luck to you in being better. (sorry, I doubt it)
2/ This laws are actually a part of a vast protection scheme against real existing threats. The use of publications is at the core of the extreme right wing movements in Europe. This movements are extremly well organised, dedicated in seizing the power by all means necessary. They succeeded once and are not to be let loose again.
Would the guard be lowered just a little on the publication issues that there would be massive propaganda denying the Jewish extermination soon followed by massive lies how the nazi regime was great and in fact prevented from doing a righteous governmentship by this terrible coallition. All this followed by flows of trials to prevent real journalists from doing their work. From this on, they would make their base grow. Yes, they would.
3/(yes, I know) Unfortunatly, since the political partis in place learned nothing from history, they continue to play the "security" card to use the "extreme right wing" movements against their opponents. Miterrand(left) used the national front to lower the votes for the righ wing and stay elected 7 years more. Chirac(right) just did the same recently.
Unfortunaly those laws are still needed. Yet they do not fit the internet and result in highly ridiculous trials. (After the yahoo affair, some of the plaintiffs were disappointed because nothing that came out of the trial was about what they were complaining about. Of course since they used laws which were not about their problems. They recognised that, had they known that, they wouldnt have sued in the first place).
Until the day when governments really adress issues of poverty (and people stop electing morronnic puppets), there will be ground for "political" movements based on hatred and laws to hold them.

Re:The problem is elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

That you use the term "Jewish extermination" shows how much your mind has been filled with Jewish propaganda.

What about the Poles, Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals and people with disabilities, some of whom were exterminated in larger numbers than your precious Jews? Your ommisson degenerates their suffering.

Worth pointing out also that none of the other groups is attemtping to use their suffering to legitamise the illegal occupation of Palestine and the daily crimes against humanity, infractions of the 4th Geneva Convention and disregard for United Nations resolutions.

Re:The problem is elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you very much for the reminder. Of course you're right.
My mind has been filled so much with extreme right propaganda that I was denying the suffering of some of the victims of the nazy madness.
Yes, I forgot the Poles(didnt know about them , i must further confess), Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals and people with disabilities. By the way, you forgot the members of resistance mouvements and the faithfull believers in a better tomorrow based on the share of wealth: the communists.
Yet, to my discharge, note that, as much as I would like to be immune to any form of propaganda, I never believed I could be; only delusional sickos think so.
And to further amend me, I, like you, will post as the coward I'm sure you're not.
I love you too.

This Isn't a Free Speech Issue

[reallocate]

Since Google operates in France and Germany, why shouldn't they be expected to obey the laws of those countries?

This is not a free speech issue. Google is a private company making its own business decisions. They're under no obligation to index everything or to enable access to everything they index. If you don't like it, too bad -- take your business elsewhere.

Nazism and abortion

[Quill_28]

I was under the understanding that Hitler was for abortion. An easier way to get rid of those he wanted. Much like the founder of planned parenthood. She was for abortion so the riff-raff wouldn't reproduce.

Re:Nazism and abortion

[echucker]

An interesting theory, but one I doubt. While the NSDAP was ruling Germany, women were given medals for "producing" more children for the Reich. Upon reaching the four, six, and eight child levels, a woman would recieve the Honour Cross of the German Mother. If memory serves, the ancestry and race of the child (and family) had to qualify as Aryan. Images of the medals can be seen here.

Re:Nazism and abortion

[mshomphe]

I was under the understanding that Hitler was for abortion. An easier way to get rid of those he wanted. Much like the founder of planned parenthood. She was for abortion so the riff-raff wouldn't reproduce.

Just because Hitler was 'for' something doesn't make it invalid. Hitler also (probably) believed 2+2 == 4. Should we rewrite mathematics since an evil person believed this and espoused this view?

If someone arrives at a conclusion by faulty/evil/misinformed logic, the conclusion could still be true. You just have to find the right path to get to that conclusion. Perhaps it is true that the founder of Planned Parenthood wanted to control breeding in the 'riff-raff', but the right to control your own reproductive abilities is a good thing. And it's good for both ends of the spectrum: those that are infertile can take fertility drugs (if they wish); those that do not want offspring can ensure that they will have none.

Re:Nazism and abortion

[Quill_28]

>Just because Hitler was 'for' something doesn't make it invalid. Hitler also (probably) believed 2+2 == 4. Should we rewrite mathematics since an evil person believed this and espoused this view?

Can we take something completely out of context?
What are you talking about?
The article was written that nazism and anit-abortion as they were related to each other.

Re:Nazism and abortion

[No One]

Nope. One of the first things the NSDAP did upon taking power was criminalizing abortion, which had been legal in Germany.

Oh... that's TOO bad

[sielwolf]

I guess then you just have to use the US google German or French language versions to get all of your anti-abortion and nazi web searches.

Swiss people have agreed to such laws

[krouic]

Switzerland has similar laws that make public "incitation to racism or negation of crimes against Humanity" an offense. These laws have been challenged in a popular votation and the majority of the voters decided to validate them.
I voted against them, but being a democratic person, have to accept what the majority decided. Of course this votation took place at the time of highest wave of political correctness and no opinion leader dared publicly express a negative position, for fear of being labelled as a nazi supporter.

Re:Swiss people have agreed to such laws

[Anonymous Coward]

> I voted against them, but being a democratic person, have to accept what the majority decided

You do not have to accept what the majority decided, nor should you when it's wrong.

Statistics are funny things...

[Ted_Green]

By that same report:
Prevelance between 15-16 year olds

1996 - Netherlands 31.7%
1999 - Denmark 25.4%

http://annualreport.emcdda.eu.int/en/page77-en.h tm l

Regardless, all these posts about drug use (even if I'm inclinded to agree with many of them) really don't have to do with the orginal point of my offtopic post, which was simply that the majority of kids don't do illegal things because they're illegal.

The comment wasn't intended to be pro or anti drugs at all. Just pro kids. (ugggg! I can't believe I said somthing so glurg!)

Re:Statistics are funny things...

[Scarblac]

Regardless, all these posts about drug use really don't have to do with the original point of my offtopic post, which was simply that the majority of kids don't do illegal things because they're illegal.

Yes, sorry for dragging the thread further off-topic, and good point about the 15-16 yos.

Anyway, I think it's actually more likely that those kids listen to what their parents tell them is bad, instead of what's illegal. Kids know that copying music and games is illegal, but all of them do that, basically... Otoh, cannabis may be "legal", but most parents still aren't very happy to see their kids use it.

Uhm, yes. The topic. Nah, Google delisting stuff on a few national sites just isn't so interesting :-)

Now, this workaround is interesting...

[Noryungi]

This is based on Declan's article (Hi Declan!)

I am using Opera 6.03 uner Linux.

Entering "Stormfront" in the "Internet Search" field gives me [hit n.1] "stormfront.org -- Stormfront White Pride" neo-nazi web site we all love to hate.

If I enter "http://www.google.com", I get re-directed to "http://www.google.fr" and "Stormfront" does not appear in the results anymore. Screenshots available upon request.

On the other hand, I can always go through my main (US) ISP and browse google.com without redirection.

What's the moral of the story? If you are a [French|German] neo-nazi, and you have a [French|German] ISP use Opera to go around the google limitations. Or get a USA-based ISP.

What's the moral of this moral? Geolocation does not work!!!!. Moronic solution such as this one are simply to easy to avoid. And, yes, UEJF, that one is for you.

Whether neo-nazi opinions are worth defending is left as an exercise to the reader...

Re:Now, this workaround is interesting...

[wsapplegate]

> What's the moral of this moral? Geolocation does not work!!!!. Moronic solution such as this one are simply to easy to avoid. And, yes, UEJF, that one is for you.

You would have thought they'd learned since the Yahoo! fiasco, but this doesn't seem the case. Our beloved group of brainfucked retards has managed to be the scourge of the freedom of speech and the laughing stock of the computer-literate community *another* time. Clap your hands !...

Finding ways to route around the Google 'protection' is not difficult : I changed the location in the address bar after starting the search : success. I tried a proxy : success. I went to Google.It : success. The only thing such moronic actions do is making us lose confidence in our laws and lawmakers. Probably one day, these remnants of other times will disappear. For the moment, I'll just inform my friends and get them to pass the message around...

Oh oui, et au fait : t'as une page sur *BSD et tu utilises Opera *sous Linux* ? Traître, va ! ;-)))

The numbers..

[Viceice]

I can't belive that in a site full of geeks nobody tried an objective test.

I search www.google.com and www.google.de with the term "anti-abortion"

Google.com returned 77,800 resultes;
Google.de returned 58,300 results.

So whats the whole slug fest about? If you really want to find what you're looking for, use Google.com and not .de .

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Eagle7]

You say:

In fact there is, by definition, no censorship in Germany.

and then say:

Any restrictions must be justified either by yells of "think of the children" or by some other law, e.g. Holocaust denial is a punishable act specifically mentioned in the Strafgesetzbuch ("book of punishments").

So it sounds like you're actually saying "There is by definition no censorship in Germany, if you define censorship as not applying to any speech against the law," which is pretty meaningless. One could argue that the Anti-Abortion lists are similar to the "Yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" argument, but stopping holocaust denial - as repugnant as most people might find those sites - is censorship, plain and simple. One of the costs of living in a free society is that not everything is warm and fuzzy - I wish more people would remember that.

So what's to stop 'em?

[XxtraLarGe]

Can't the Germans and French just use Google.com instead? I know I get TONS of German sites whenever I'm looking for gaming info.

Fascists are pretty stupid...

Re:So what's to stop 'em?

[alecto]

Entering http://google.com from Germany gets you google.de.

Another common misconception

[Anonymous Coward]

OK - Seriously, this is getting pretty old.

Yes, some whackos go off and blow up clinics.

That doesn't make the Pro-Life group a violent group - it makes the individuals violent.

Just the same as how a few individuals from the Islam sect have decided that, well, they would like to strap bombs to their bodies, and walk into crowded streets, does not make all Muslim people suicide bombers.

Now, I don't know if any of those sites advocated any sort of violence, clearly I am against that. But lumping members of the pro-life movement along with the terrorist action of a few pro-lifers is being extremely shortsighted and unwitful. Dumbass.

Re:Another common misconception

[NumberSyx]

But lumping members of the pro-life movement along with the terrorist action of a few pro-lifers is being extremely shortsighted and unwitful. Dumbass.

You didn't read beyond the first line did you. If you had, you would have gotten to this part;

this is pretty clearly a website supported by a hate group and inspite of its Christian trappings, has nothing what so ever to do with the teachings of Christ.

Not hypothetical at all

[mblase]

A [German|French] student needs information on WWII, and the political aftermath. Where can they find information on anti-semitism and white supremacy groups to add to the project?

At google.com, of course. Most of those students will know English well enough to navigate the site and set their preferences to return matches only from German/French-language pages, if that's what's desired.

Re:Not hypothetical at all

[Ravenn]

But as someone else pointed out, countries can shape and redirect traffic back to their own TLD. How can you get google.com if you keep getting google.com.fr back?

Sure there are anonymous servers, but they aren't known to most people, and can be blocked as well.

Re:Not hypothetical at all

[mblase]

But as someone else pointed out, countries can shape and redirect traffic back to their own TLD. How can you get google.com if you keep getting google.com.fr back?

If they're actively doing that, they surely have the power to block the offending sites as well, and they wouldn't have had to ask Google to stop matching them in the first place.

Re:Not hypothetical at all

[Ravenn]

The point is not to block the information, but to block the knowledge that the information existed in the first place. That is why censorship is such a big deal.

If you stop a group from actively publishing, it will go underground. If you eradicate knowledge of a group, they don't get the next generation on dissidents, who don't know that a resistance movement even exists.

Ravenn

conundrum

[telstar]

One company breaks the law **cough*MSFT*cough**, they get chastized...

Another company DOESN'T break the law **cough*GOOGLE*cough** they get chastized...

Like it or not ... agree with them or not ... Companies should adhere to the laws within which they operate. If you disagree with the law, take it up with the law makers ... but don't take blame the company.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[dvdeug]

Catholics generally don't advocate the murder of people who are pro abortion.

Anti-abortionists generally don't advocate the murder of people who are pro abortion. The extreme fringe does not speak for the group.

German law

[oku]

Although not a lawyer, I will provide some info directly from Germany.

One possible problem that Google has is that recent German laws make a site's owner responsible (among other things) responsible for all linked content, unless there is some explicit disclaimer of a certain form. It sounds strange, but even if you cannot control the linked site, you are still responsible.

Another peculiarity of German law is that it is very inclusive. It claims to govern (more or less) all actions done by a German, to a German, or in Germany. I.e., it affects Google even if all servers are on the other side of the big lake, simply because the download happens in Germany.

This is very annoying and impractical, but do not expect those who make laws to understand the Net.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[chl]

You say: In fact there is, by definition, no censorship in Germany. and then say:

This was actually a kind of joke. The constitution literally says: There is no censorship. I wanted to point out that you need as much as a trial if you want to silence some speech.

Some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you want to impose us YOUR truth

1. French and Germany are Democratic country. Repeat it 1000 times.

2. Dont be surprized when DMCA apply to other country.

3. You disagree with these europeans laws, but realize most people are fine with it. We perhaps dont have nazis stuff, we perhaps dont have guns, but we dont have snippers in our citys.

4. All comments to defend europeans views are modded "Insightful", how nice !

5. You know what, its illegal in france to put name of doctors and asking them to be killed. If thats a problem for you and want these names use google.com not .fr

Re:Some thoughts

[Stonehand]

You certainly do have guns in your cities.

It wasn't that long ago that a man with a pistol shot some of your Parliamentarians, if memory serves; and likewise, somebody tried to kill Chirac with a rifle (but from a rather close distance, suggesting a curious lack of clue from the wannabe assassin). ...and I'd be surprised if France did any better in completely prohibiting Nazi paraphenalia.

Zero Tolerance for Censorship

[soop]

Ok, you know what ... this is just ridiculous. By no means am I a bigot, racist, anti-abortionist or any other fanatic. But you know what ... if someone wants to be a fanatic they can be a fanatic. Who am I to tell someone what they can and can't do. If someone out there wants to write about the non-existence of the holocaust so be it. Someone wrote the bible and lots of people don't agree with that. Damn popular consensus and stupidity. There are way too many whiny bitches on the internet. I'm sorry if you don't like it don't visit it, or ignore it.

This just pisses me off, who's right is it to decide what I can and can't see?

this just harkens back to Ebay banning auctions that it deems "not-nice"

I'm sorry but if I want to buy an SS Dagger off of ebay, why the hell not?

Oh well I'm on a rant for the day so get out of my way.

Re:Zero Tolerance for Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, you know what ...But you know what ... I'm sorry... I'm sorry but

You one sorry moe foe.

Germanies Free Press

[ACNeal]

So German press reports that Germany has a freer press than USA. Then we get an article about their censorship.

Germany has a more open press, as long as you don't talk about anything that might upset someone?

Re:Germanies Free Press

[Rhubarb Crumble]

So German press reports [slashdot.org] that Germany has a freer press than USA. Then we get an article about their censorship.

And if you read the original article (by a french, not german outfit BTW), you will read that:

"The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings."

No mention of actual censorship. Although the american media has a reputation for being good at self-censorship, i.e. 'don't criticise the president while we're "at war"' and all that.

Re:Germanies Free Press

[mesocyclone]

Obvious this poster doesn't read the New York Times, watch network TV or in general partake of the dominant media in the US, which has a long history of critizing presidents during war - especially republican presidents.

The journalists arrested for failing to reveal their sources simply highlights the natural conflict between freedom of the press and the need of the people to be protected from criminals. None of these people have been imprisoned for refusing to reveal *political* sources.

Re:Germanies Free Press

[Spruitje]

No mention of actual censorship. Although the american media has a reputation for being good at self-censorship, i.e. 'don't criticise the president while we're "at war"' and all that.


Heheh, that's why i'm always watching bbc world instead of cnn.

Re:Germanies Free Press

[Rhubarb Crumble]

Obvious this poster doesn't read the New York Times, watch network TV or in general partake of the dominant media in the US, which has a long history of critizing presidents during war - especially republican presidents.

After 2001/09/11, it took the "hawks" mere hours to come out on TV and go "hey, let's bomb Iraq, because, ummm, we can". I didn't see anyone criticising them at the time. It's only in the last few months that people have been able to "come out" against the warmongers in the administration without being shouted down as "terrorist-lovers". Off the top of my head, have a link.

Earle delivered a snarling treatise on the sidelining of the American ideal by blinkered greed. The song was duly grafted on to the film's closing credits - until the after-effects of September 11 began to emerge. "He [Cassavetes] finally admitted that the film's distributors had decided that it was too critical of the Bush administration," says Earle. "They couldn't include it in the film in this political climate. 'While we're at war' is what they said."

OK, "art media" rather than politics, but you get the idea. Don't say anything that criticises TPTB.

And no, not living in the US, I don't "watch network TV or in general partake of the dominant media in the US". The only instance of such things I see is the NYT, which wasn't always as anti-bush as it is now, and CNN, which is devoid of journalism anyway, preferring pointless interviews with people who have nothing to say or don't want to say anything, and parroting press releases.

The journalists arrested for failing to reveal their sources simply highlights the natural conflict between freedom of the press and the need of the people to be protected from criminals. None of these people have been imprisoned for refusing to reveal *political* sources.

Is that so? Maybe you should tell the people who compiled the report. I was quoting the passage to point out why these people thought the US had a poor record on press freedom, not to make a point.

Re:Germanies Free Press

[mesocyclone]

Regarding US press self-censorship...

The NYT is and has long been hostile to republicans and conservatives in general. They take every opportunity to hurt the president and his policies. The same is true of the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, the major networks and CNN (perhaps less so since they have lost leadership to FOX).

However, after 9/11 I don't think the NYT felt like self censorship. I think their natural reaction to the attack was to retaliate (although few at that time were talking about bombing Iraq). If your city had just been attacked that way, and you were in the press, you might also be a "war monger" (term normally applied by the left to the right) for a while.

Now it is true that the Guardian, which you cite as some sort of reference, is even more reflexively anti-Bush than the New York Times. But in Britain, unlike the US, the media are at least willing to admit, or brag about their particular editorial biases.

The US press does indeed in self-censorship, in the sense that they select which stories to cover of the myriad of possible subjects. But this selection is based on their editorial biases (which they don't admit to having) rather than some odd idea like "don't criticize the president."

Re:Germanies Free Press

[chris_mahan]

Of course, that is actual censorship.

If I lived in a police-state (which I still delude myself into thinking I don't) and I was chief of the unofficial "Media Control Division", I would rename the division to something more catchy like "Media Relations" and instead of pushing laws in congress that would not have a chance in hell of passing, I would harrass journalists, herding them this way and that, and making sure that they could not talk to just whoever they wanted; that I would make sure they don't take pictures of any military action or installation, and that they understood that the people who provide them with sensitive information are traitor and must be revealed to law enforcment for reasons of National Security.

Of course, I'd never do that, because my, hum, "psychological profile" would not fit the job description of anyone fit to run such organization, so I would not even be asked in the first place.

Censorship: because you can't formulate the correct answer if you don't formulate the correct question. True censorship tries not to cover up the truth, but rather tries to stop you from asking questions.

It is in such discussions that being an American does not feel so great in the grand scheme of things.

Re:Germanies Free Press

[dinotrac]

>But in Britain, unlike the US, the media are at least willing to admit, or brag about their particular editorial biases.

Which is something I find far more commendable than pretending to be objective when you are not.

The truth is that every human is biased and our biases affect what we do, even when we make a serious effort to be objective.

More to the point, if you really are trying to be objective, admitting to your own biases has a way of ensuring an extra bit of diligence WRT your efforts at balance.

Re:Germanies Free Press

[rogerz]

It's only in the last few months that people have been able to "come out" against the warmongers in the administration without being shouted down as "terrorist-lovers".

Another slashdotter confused about the meaning of freedom: If being shouted down is enough to cause one to be timid about expressing their views, then they are lacking in courage, not freedom. And free speech/press cannot mean that others must provide you with the means. That would obviously be a violation of their speech rights.

Or are you willing to let me put up an "Oust Saddam Now!" sign on your house?

Re:Germanies Free Press

[Anonymous Coward]

The NYT is and has long been hostile to republicans and conservatives in general. They take every opportunity to hurt the president and his policies. The same is true of the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, the major networks and CNN (perhaps less so since they have lost leadership to FOX).

Well yes, this must obviously be true when you compare the treatment handed out to Clinton over Whitewater and "inhaling", and the, er, nothing handed out to Bush over his dubious business dealings, alleged cocaine use and drink driving conviction.

I mean, come on.

Re:Germanies Free Press

[mesocyclone]

All of the Clinton scandals were first published by the right wing media, and the rest picked it up because they had no choice at that point.

Bush got plenty of media coverage about all you described - in fact, the coverage of his business dealings was far worse than the actual fact of his dealings.

Re:Germanies Free Press

[sg_oneill]

Yay! Someone said it!
There is a magic quote from University of Queensland, Australia, academic John Hartley on the News. Unfortunately I can only paraphrase as the exact wording eludes me;- Propoganda is more honest than News because Propoganda admits it's bias.

It's one thing that I like about the indymedia press etc is that it's alternative propaganda to news propaganda. You can then pick and choose which fool you wish to believe.

"Germanies"?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Previewed it twice, and "Germanies" didn't jump out at me until I hit submit. Sometimes I can be real stupid.

What's Google got to do with free speech?

[Winterblink]

Someone explain to me why Google is being slagged for removing these items from their indexes? Yes they're a popular search engine, but at what point did the idea surface that they were required to maintain some kind of free-speech or anti-censorship policy? It's their site, their database -- they can do with it whatever they want. It's also not as if Google has taken down the sites it's removing from their indexes -- as much as I object to the content those sites might have on them, they're still available for people to read.

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[oldstrat]

Someone explain to me why Google is being slagged for removing these items from their indexes?

I will.
Google is being 'slagged' because it affects the integrity of Google as an impartial (aside from the programmed rules) producer of search results.
Of course you are right Google can do anything with it's property that it wants, and it will have to suffer the barbs of the consumer in response.

I do appreciate that for the most part they are only complying with the law, however the results are the results, and results don't care about the law.
The results will be tainted by the fact that the dataset has been corrupted and can no longer truely be 'trusted'.

You cannot change the fact that hate groups exist by hiding them. I know this is not Google's intent, it's the laws intent.
Failure to collect the information that these groups exist, the levels they exist at, and the mis-information they are trying to spread will diminish the ability to see them, and hence to fight them.

"Just cover your eyes and it will all go away." Nope, won't happen.

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[Winterblink]

Google is being 'slagged' because it affects the integrity of Google as an impartial (aside from the programmed rules) producer of search results. Of course you are right Google can do anything with it's property that it wants, and it will have to suffer the barbs of the consumer in response.

Hold on: what consumer? You? Me? I know I haven't paid for Google, therefore I have no right to demand quality *anything* from them. The fact that I use them as a search engine for free and get decent search results back is just gravy to me.

I do appreciate that for the most part they are only complying with the law, however the results are the results, and results don't care about the law. The results will be tainted by the fact that the dataset has been corrupted and can no longer truely be 'trusted'.

TRUST doesn't factor into it because I never signed an agreement nor read ANYTHING on the Google website that lead me to believe the results would be 100% authentic. *shrug*

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[Alsee]

What's Google got to do with free speech?

Google has become the de facto single greatest filter of what information people see on the internet, though I'd say AOL is comparable. Most Slashdot readers already consider AOL to be the worst way to access the internet, and we have a pretty low oppinion of those who use it. Few of us use AOL.

It is that we have an extremely high oppinion and expectations of Google, it is important, and it affects us.

-

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[oldstrat]

Hold on: what consumer? You? Me? I know I haven't paid for Google, therefore I have no right to demand quality *anything* from them. The fact that I use them as a search engine for free and get decent search results back is just gravy to me.
The fact that you do not pay anything directlty to Google does not mean you are not a consumer.
One of the definitions of consumer is n:a person who uses goods or services.
You _have the right_ to demand anything, getting it is another story.
Also don't forget that individuals are not the only consumers of Google's output. Business of all kinds use the Goog, as well as institutions of learning and the government.

Trust factors into everything, I can't debate that point. The Internet is an interconnected network of trusted systems.
You don't have to sign an agreement, It's your fault that you didn't read this; http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html
This is the part that put's Google in hot water ...
The sites displayed as search results or linked to by Google Search Services are developed by people over whom Google exercises no control. The search results that appear from Google's indices are indexed by Google's automated machinery and computers, and Google cannot and does not screen the sites before including them in the indices from which such automated search results are gathered. A search using Google Search Services may produce search results and links to sites that some people find objectionable, inappropriate, or offensive. We cannot guarantee that a Google search will not locate unintended or objectionable content and assume no responsibility for the content of any site included in any search results or otherwise linked to by the Google Search Services.

Bold added by me.

Google being a corperation operating in the public venue is obliged, by law to comply with the law, and to meet it's public obligations. The agreement above that you, me, and Google agree to when I use it is being violated... hence trust is damaged.

The last part of the paragraph above from the agreement is something I count on, I expect, hope and deman content that is offensive to me.

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[Winterblink]

I guess the point to be made by your bolding of that particular line is that no screening of sites occurs -- which is NOT what the line reads as. It states no screening occurrs BEFORE adding to the indices. It follows with the statement "A search using Google Search Services may produce search results and links to sites that some people find objectionable, inappropriate, or offensive." The two together seem to be mean to indicate objectionable material CAN be filtered out after being added to the indexes, and that the content could be found before that occurs.

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[oldstrat]

.
I guess you just decided to overlook this part;
'...assume no responsibility for the content of any site included in any search results'

When they prefilter by exclusion because of content they do take responsibility for the content.

It's a slippery slope they've started down and my concern isn't just for the quality of a Google search, but for the survival of Google itself.
The French and German governments seeing that they cannot control non domestic content, are attempting to control the ability to find that content.
I suspect, that they may be violating thier own laws in putting the onus on Google, being that Google is only a near real time index of sites, not the owner of the content.
Are known hate groups and individuals removed from the local telephone directories and 411 type information services?

Google itself may be going too far in compliance, it would seem to me, depending on the wording of the court order, removing the K and P items (see http://www.google.com/help/interpret.html) would be enough keep Google out of any connection with republishing content forbiden by law and identified by authorities.

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[Winterblink]

I guess you just decided to overlook this part;

Not overlooked -- ignored. We were discussing the filtering of their indexes, not the content of the sites available from the search results.

Google itself may be going too far in compliance

Again -- it's their website. They can comply much or as little as they want, as it pertains to a court order.

I suspect, that they may be violating thier own laws in putting the onus on Google

More than likely, but that doesn't mean they have any kind of jurisdictional authority to enforce their laws on Google. As sovereign nations they have the right to control things that come in and out of their country -- information included. We don't have to agree or disagree with that policy. Regardless, that's ALL they can control.

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[theLOUDroom]

It's their site, their database -- they can do with it whatever they want.
No they can't. Otherwise they wouldn't be removing these links. Duh.
Just because you own something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. There are laws you know.

Having you site removed from search engines is a very big deal. Imagine a book sitting on a shelf in a giagantic library that does its book numbering randomly. If someone removes it from the card catalog (electronic or otherwise) that book might as well not exist becuase anyone looking for it can't find it.

Mods on crack

[Anonymous Coward]

Not funny or flamebait, but it is insightful. Who decides that a website is "anti-semitic" (the word is a falsehood anyway, since Arabs are also semites)? Note from the article:

"To avoid legal liability, we remove sites from Google.de search results pages that may conflict with German law," said Google spokesman Nate Tyler. He indicated that each of the sites that were delisted came after a specific complaint from a foreign government.

I suspect that the terrorist state of Israel was one of those foreign governments. There is a campaign underway by Israel and its compliant supporters to silence their critics. Google just caved in to them.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Anonymous Coward]

These sites have been "banned" not because of the views they defend (you do have the right to think that gaz chambers never existed in Germany or whatever), but because they violate national laws in France and Germany. This is then no arbitrary selection of "politicaly correct" sites, but mere application of existant laws. I cannot see any problem with this, as long as these laws are voted democraticaly, as it is the case in France and Germany.

umm.. hello?!?!

[MoceanWorker]

I don't understand what/why you're crying Hemos. What if you were a certain race and a website was found via google, claiming how much they despise your race and culture and want to kill off your whole race, for instance. How would you feel when Google goes ahead and blocks these sites from coming up in the search? Happy? Or would you be offended due to the fact that Google is blocking that site from popping up from further searches? Have some respect towards people who don't want to see such negative things, such as a pro-nazi site, white supremacist site..

Re:umm.. hello?!?!

[Vann_v2]

I'm sure Hemos hates everyone and wants them to die. But the truth is, nobody profits from ignorance. Unless these sites are so offensive that people refuse to use google there is no reason to remove them.

Re:Well the french are ... more OT

[Howzer]

Hey, funny comment! Those dumb Frenchies, ho ho ho. Boy you're a card. Pity about the rifle slur, which shows a vast lack of anything approaching knowledge about WWII.

You may be interested in repairing that ignorance. Here's part of the picture:

A certain General S.L.A. Marshall did unimpeachable research after WWII which determined, among other things, that out of all the American soldiers directly involved in fighting (ie. infantry) in World War II, only 15 to 20 percent of them ever fired their weapons.

It's an odd statistic, but a fascinating one. It's all in this book, which I recommend to everyone, and not just makers of half-funny "those dumb frogs" comments on slashdot.

anti-abortion not reason why site was banned

[wayward_son]

I don't think anti-abortion content was why www.jesus-is-lord.com was banned. It has very little anti-abortion content. On the other hand, it is virulently anti-Catholic, which is probably why it was banned.

AFAIK, Germany and France do not have restrictions on anti-abortion speech. Thats only the United States.

Re:anti-abortion not reason why site was banned

[gregsfamous]

Congratulations. Out of 300-some posters, you are the only one I found who broke the code.

Mod this man up!

[Brian_Ellenberger]

I would +1 Insightful if I had any mod points. I can't believe someone modded this down as flamebait.

Re:Mod this man up!

[banzai51]

Amazing since it was +4 this morning. Thanks for the shout!

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Eagle7]

Ah... I understand now. Sorry about that.

*Grin*

[Ted_Green]

I totaly agree with that. Most kids probably choose to do drugs or not because of their parents and other influences.

As far as downloading music... well yeah, I'm sure very few kids (people) will not do it because it's illegal.
But I still kind of think even less are going to do it, because it is illegal. =]

"Hey CowboyNeal! Whatcha doing?"
"Downloading the latest britney spears album"
"WTF?! Why are you doing that?"
"Cause it's illegal man, ya dig?"

I must say... this is one of the stranger off topic threads I've been part of. Normaly they all degrade into some sort of argument about the nazi's. This one actualy started out that way. heh

Re:*Grin*

[Nasarius]

>>But I still kind of think even less are going to do it, because it is illegal. =] Again, if we look at the Netherlands, teenage cannabis use is much lower than in the US. You will probably find a similar correlation with less alcohol abuse among teenagers in much of western Europe. If it's normal and accepted, it's boring.

Re:*Grin*

[Ted_Green]

Statistics are meaningless without a point of reference.
Without that refernce I can just as easily say Cannabis use in the United States is greater than in the Netherlands because the United States is bigger.

Simply because two facts happen to be true, does not mean one is the cause of the other.

Differnt cultures/societies within differnt nations(and their respective cities) is a far better explaination for why one has a greater drug use than the legality of drugs themselves.

As far as alchol when somone who's abused alchol since 18 hits 21 they don't suddenly stop... (it usualy takes them till they get out of college.)
Likewise, I doubt the common sense of anyone who seriously thinks that if we legalized drugs the majority of people who would have done anyways, won't.

Censorship etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

In France and other European countries, there are those who remember the Nazi holocaust of WWII -- perhaps they have a right not to be reminded of what happened. In Germany, many are very sensitive about pro-nazi propaganda -- they have learned from their country's past.

To say that their censorship of such material is wrong is to say that the efforts of Germans to learn from their past mistakes has been in vain.

Let me remind those in the US that there has been much self-censorship since September 11th -- for example the film Spider-Man (the film was recut to remove references to the Twin Towers). Currently, there are arguments being made that a film featuring a sniper should be banned.

I am a strong supporter of freedom (including free speech). But I also recognise that there are times when, in the cause of the common good, censoship is important. For example, giving out the names and addresses of those suspected of working in abortion clinics, and advocating their assasination, is clearly wrong.

Some may argue that abortion is wrong, but either way, change must be brought about peacefully by following the legal channels.

History is rife with examples of successful peaceful protest. American history is particularly rich in such respect.

Personal freedom is hugely important, but I believe that community freedom is far more important. Americans have the right to bear arms, but this personal freedom results in thousands of deaths in the US each year. In countries where it is illegal to own firearms, death rates from gun-related incidents are almost zero.

Saying that the French or German government's laws banning pro-nazi propaganda is wrong is xenophobic and naive -- there is a rich history behind those laws, designed to protect the community and its way of life. Both countries have functioning democracies, have good education, healthcare, standards of life and are important players on the world stage.

Perhaps the US should look at itself in a new light -- how many of its freedoms are harming it?

Consership is only oppressive when it is used by a powerful government to pull the wool over the eyes of its citizens. As a non-US citizen, I am always amazed at how one-sided US and pro-administration US news-sources are, compared to the rest of the world, who tend to get a far more balanced picture of world events.

So, is the US really the nirvana of free speech its citizens think it is?

Re:Censorship etc.

[Stonehand]

Pro-administration?

Tell me, when was the last time Bob Herbert or Paul Krugman wrote a column which actually agreed with the policies of the Bush administration? And, in case you don't recognize their names, they both work for a little newspaper you may have heard of -- the _New York Times_, one of the most well-known papers in the world. You must also have missed Dan Rather (again, not exactly buried in some backwater indy news site) suggesting that oil might be a motive in an Iraq war, the heavy criticism all-round about Bush's initial dissing of the "ballistic fingerprinting" scheme, the frequent lacerating of the previous administration during its tenure...

So, tell me, are you ignorant, or were you just trolling?

BS -- Communism is at least as racist as Nazism

[swb]

There is a difference between nazism and communism.

It's unfortunate you don't know what it is.

Nazism killed a lot of people, the wish to eradicate groups of the population being an integral part of the nazi ideas. Stalin might have done the same, but communism itself is not about killing or suppressing people.

"Nazism" is the expression of the political will of the National Socialists in Germany, which was a rather demented expression of a more general poltical philosophy which arose in early 20th century Europe known as Fascism. Nazism injected a lot of flawed ideas about racial supremacy and a number of very radical solutions to the problems presented by the supposition of Aryan racial supremacy.

It's possible (but incorrect) to argue that because the known governments that reasonably qualify as fascist (Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain) were all fairly repressive, dictatorial governments that fascism itself is a repressive, dictatorial political philosophy. But the same arguments can thus be made of communism -- all of the communist governments I'm aware of all have abyssmal human rights histories that make Nazism look like a 5th grade civics project.

Stalin's purges killed millions, including deliberately and specifically targeting non-Russian ethnic groups like the Ukranians, Armenians, Jews, Central Asians in addition to "normal" political enemies of communism. China killed millions in the cultural revolution and has a terrible track record of repression of non-Chinese minorities in the far western Muslim areas and in Tibet. Pol Pot slaughtered a third of the population.

Often the motivation for killing in communist countries isn't stated deliberately as promoting a racial hegemony but is instead phrased in propaganda as "fighting the enemies of the people" or "the enemies of the revolution", but strangely they're always the same ethnic group.

I think there is some missing information here

[Arker]

I am in Sweden, but my localisation settings on this machine are for English. I pull up google.com without ever having a problem. At the same time, another computer on the same net, setup in Swedish, does pull up a localised Swedish version when I type in google.com. So it has to be more complicated than just looking at your network number.

Godwin's Law

[Monkey-Man2000]

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law on this article.

Remember that Concorde crash?

[Anonymous Coward]

... the French killed more Germans that day that in all of WWII.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[operagost]

I am ... but it's for his appearance in Battlefield Earth.

I'd put Hubbard away for that if he was still alive.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[jamie]

"stopping holocaust denial - as repugnant as most people might find those sites - is censorship, plain and simple. One of the costs of living in a free society is that not everything is warm and fuzzy - I wish more people would remember that."

Well said.

I've been involved in combatting Holocaust-denial on the net for ten years. I work with The Holocaust History Project, have transcribed and helped translate documents, including those about gas chambers, and have prepared information on deniers. I've even co-authored a lengthy and highly technical paper on chemistry of the Auschwitz gas chambers.

I think it's deplorable that Google has bent its knee to the German government in this way. Practically speaking, it's unfortunate because this gets the neo-Nazis and Holocaust-deniers more press (unintended consequences). And they do love this kind of attention, there is nothing they love more than being censored.

But more importantly, morally, it's wrong that these people are being censored. What they say is despicable. But until they start making credible threats against people, or telling harmful lies about individuals, instead of simply telling lies about a group of people, they should be allowed to have their say. Fairness demands that. And just because they would refuse to treat us with basic fairness, is no reason for us to be so afraid that we stoop to their level.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no spoon.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism aims to eliminate class difference by _removing_ entire classes of people, in case you haven't noticed yet.

labeling as "hate speech" = censorship

[jazzbotley]

Seems rather Orwellian to me ... if you reinvent the language, you control the people.

[1984]Let's introduce a new term, boys and girls: "hate speech". Yes, that's right, these are thoughts and ideas that are too terrible for you to contemplate, so we will censor them from your tender minds. What? No, you are not sensible enough to arrive at your own conclusions, so we must ensure that you are never exposed to these evil ideas.[/1984]

One of the consequences of truly "free" speech is that you have to hear a lot of crap from people you strongly disagree with. These are the "idiots" that we "love to hate", but if their speech isn't free, then nobody's is. That's the idea of free exchange of ideas in a free society. But then again, there's no such thing, because every attempt at a free society has ended by a centralization into a totalitarian state. [© 2002 jazzbotley the cynic] Ah, the rub. (Thanks, G.W.!)

Law? Bah!

[donscarletti]

O.k. So the content of the sites should be dictated by what is currently legal?

I am certainly not advocating the killing of anyone (hell the anti-abortion movement was about preserving life last time I checked) but disputing what is moral and what isn't possibly to the point of suggesting breaking laws is part of free speech.

I don't think there are many NAZI advocates here so I will use them as an example.Back when they were in control it was illegal to be a jew. Does that mean that anyone that broke that law and escaped the haulocaust alive was moraly corrupt?

By shutting down these sites one side of the debate is silenced and this must be considered a kick in the teeth to free speech.

By the way, in Ireland for example aborting fetus = bloody illegal, linching doctor that performs abortions = technically illegal but no one gives a damn (at least not as heavily punished as aborting a feotus). Does this mean it is right to linch abortionists? Should the anti-linching sites be banned?

Of course not, linching people is murder and just because the lincher does not think it is wrong doesn't make it right for them to do.

Re:Law? Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when they were in control it was illegal to be a jew.

You don't know much about Nazi-era Germany, do you?

By the way, in Ireland for example aborting fetus = bloody illegal, linching doctor that performs abortions = technically illegal but no one gives a damn (at least not as heavily punished as aborting a feotus). Does this mean it is right to linch abortionists?

That's lynch, and as you said, it is illegal. Lynching sites (whatever those are) should not be banned per se, but a site that advocated the lynching of certain people (like, say, abortion doctors) SHOULD be illegal.

I don't see what your point is, other than the fact that you're ignorant.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Anonymous Coward]

But those who advocate violence are the ones in violation of that law.

Germany learned the hard way

[snarfer]

Germany learned the hard way about the effect right-wing racist propaganda can have on people.

Re:Germany learned the hard way

[btlzu2]

Well, I guess as long as their press is so free, it doesn't matter if you censor in other areas, huh? You'd NEVER see anything like this in the US. Every view is allowed, no matter how unpopular. This is why I think the referenced article is BS. It's humorous that study was done in Germany, and then this comes out about censorship.

site blocked for anti-Catholicism?

[gregsfamous]

I think the ZNet article should have labeled the jesus-is-lord.com site "anti-Catholic," as that would more correctly characterize its main editorial focus.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[sql*kitten]

Nazism killed a lot of people, the wish to eradicate groups of the population being an integral part of the nazi ideas.

Well, I contrasted fascism and communism, not nazism ("Hitlerism", if you will) and Stalinism.

The modern-day Left would have you believe that Hitler and Stalin were ideological enemies, but it would be far more accurate to describe them as rivals. They both ran totalitarian police states with absolute power concentrated in a single leader, both believed that the only purpose of the citizen should be to serve the state (and hence the maximum leader), both ran command economies, both had expansionist foreign policies, both persecuted ethnic minorities. The only real way to differentiate between them is that Stalin's purges killed 3-4x what Hitler's did. It is also worth noting that other self-described Communists (China, Cambodia, etc) have similar records to Stalin's.

But mysteriously, modern-day Fascists are shunned and modern-day Communists are tolerated. In fact, the same attitude should apply to them both; neither has a place in the modern world.

ANT-ABORTION != HATE CRIME

[zaqattack911]

I don't get it... sure I have no problem with banning Nazi, white-power, and various other hate sites.

But what in blazes is wrong with anti-abortion sites? I mean pro-abortion seems just as contraversial to me.

Unless these websites are talking about killing certain Abortion Doctors (which most anti-abortion activists would never dream of doing). I don't see the problem here.

Might as well ban any website with an opinion, Anti-Bush , PRO-India... yatta yattaa..

tjhey did it because ...

[werdna]

the courts told them to do so. What else could they do? The wiser move might well be to do something else, but whose wisdom should apply? I do not presume to be wiser than the French government, although upon noting this humble view, I respectfully find their speech regulation problematic and ultimately ineffective. Still, they, not I, get to decide what is French law. Google wants to participate in France. What else could they do?

maybe we should all reread locke

[b17bmbr]

maybe we should all reread john locke, etc., and remind ourselves the natural course of governments. thus it is only through the social contract, that the government governs with the consent of the governed that rights and fredoms are preserved.

eventually, all governments, whether democratic or not so, will attempt to seek power and control through various and sundry ways. whether by resrictions on freedom or by doling out public monies, they acquire ever greater power.

look at the us tax code. why is reform so hard. hell, EVERYONE stands to lose something if you reform it. so, we leave it unchanged and only add to its complexity.

It has no meaning for me....

[kghougaard]

Feel free to be pissed. An feel free to politically express your concern and bla bla bla... but do not try to impose your laws on other countries.

I consider the whole legal system of the US very much inferior to not just our system, but inferior to most countries in the world. I could give many examples: Weapons, the importance of money when fighting in a court, totally strange lawsuits when poeple have acted stupid (smoking, eating burgers), using religion in a court and many many more.

I do not wish to have ANY US law influencing me in any way. (Unless of course I go the US)

If my country did "something wrong" I do not wish for another bully country to try to enforce their vision of the "right way". Take it up with the UN.

Re:It has no meaning for me....

[jazman_777]

I consider the whole legal system of the US very much inferior to not just our system, but inferior to most countries in the world.

Middle East: mostly a disaster, a civilizational dead zone;
Africa: mostly a disaster;
South & Central America: corruption is rife;
Asia: Authoritarian regimes everywhere

I've been rather general, but MOST coutries? You're certifiable.

Re:OT: Kids and drugs, and back on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Way off topic heading here, but right back on topic.
You can not hide something, and hope it goes away. If the people who desire these things want them, they will find a way, and in the process making it harder for them to find will only increase the number of people who are attracted. There is no believing, take a child (start at the early age of 8 months to 2 years) and a two exactly the same toys. Place them equa distance from the child. One toy is placed in easy grasp, the other has a slight obstacle that forces the child to expend extra effort for the child to achieve the toy. Guess which toy the child goes after first. It's not about hiding, it's about education. Go after the source. Unfortunately this leads into the international arena, where the solutions are not easy. You have the unified world body of law idea, or the ban it at the border idea, and a whole slew of non-perfect ideas in between.

Wired interview with Google on their policy

[iamr00t]

here

Do me a favor

[Anonymous Coward]

don't say "willy" and "axe" in the same sentence like that.

Please

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Blacklists Not Updated, How Google Blocks

[The Importance of]

Seth Finkelstein points out that some of the sites blocked were formerly racist sites, but the domain owner has changed. This is likely why the study is unclear why the sites are currently blocked. No one ever seems to update blacklists (Reason note for "Localized Google search result exclusions" report). He has also uncovered more about how Google is blocking sites (How-it-works note for "Localized Google search result exclusions" report).

That's correct from what I saw 1 month ago

[medscaper]

While visiting France recently, I found it terribly frustrating to have to VNC into my machine in the US and THEN load Google, as all attempts to load google.com redirected to Google.fr, no matter how I tried. Even my tracert and pings responded from google.fr.

begone with your homo ways

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe if you sucked his dick a little more, that might help

or not

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

The original comment needs a balancing comment of its own, especially within the context of what has already been said about violent attacks.

So where will it end?

[kitzilla]

So where will this end? What will Google be forced to remove next? What will be left of ANY website after it's whittled down each nation's pet peeves?

As an aside, I think it's pretty bizzare to censor "anti-abortion" (self-identified "pro-life") sites. Yeah, there are some crazies out there. But most anti-abortion sites I've seen are just people peacefully expressing their opinions.

I'd like to see international law exempting search engines from this sort of censorship.

Come On Google, FIGHT!

[fire-eyes]

This is highly disturbing. What is it with this international law bullshit? Google is BASED IN THE UNITED STATES, would someon care to explain to me why the HELL they have to listen to some other countries laws, laws which they had NO SAY IN?

It seems that such laws go one direction: Enforcement. Is there some way to fight them? This is absoloutly rediculous.

The very idea of someone having to follow a law they had ZERO SAY IN is violation of human rights as far as I'm concerned.

What can be done? This sort of thing MUST be stopped.

The hell...?

[CAIMLAS]

Certainly there has been a mistype. The initial post isn't serious when it lists "anti-abortion" and "pro-Nazi" right next to each other? I can't imagine a governmental state both condoning the slaughter/killing/removal of preborn and newborn children, and at the same time, condemning Nazi/socialist beliefs (and obviously the horror that prevailed during WWII). That sounds incredibly hypocritical.

Re:USA is only 17th on "freedom of the press" inde

[cwis42]

No this is not. This is about the French and German governments censoring free speech, and about a company (ie, Google) fear legal issues in providing links to third-parties websites, which is even worse than censoring web content.

(Note : I am french, too.)

A pretty good take on Nazi banning in Germany...

[FurryFeet]

here.

Well, yes it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to french Law, promoting crime or racism / discriminatory views is a crime. So since the Anti-Abortion website that was banned, which is promoting a great many of very discriminational views in a hateful manner, its author, along with its webhoster, could very well be considered criminals.
Abortion is legal in France, so denying people of their right to abort is not legal. Est-ce que c'est clair ?

Re:Well, yes it is.

[mirko]

I'll dig a little deeper :
According to the French "Fabius/Gayssot" law, contesting whichever fact related to a genocide is a crime and contesting about such a judgement is to be punished the same way either as recidivism (if you contest your punishment) or as complicity (if you just can't accept that some people asking questions, however stupid they may be are to be treated as crininals).
This law goes much to far to behold the smallest bit of ethics.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Herkum01]

The Nazi's killed 6 million Jews, but if you look here article, they killed 5 million others. To many think that just the Jews were persecuted by the Nazi's, but there were just the easiest to target.

Re:Well the frogs are offensive...

[noshellswill]

Well stated, pad're. Hehehe ... the slavs are patient folks, now aren't they ... hehe ...

Sesame Street Flashbacks

[Cheesewhiz]

"anti-abortion, pro-Nazi, white supremacist or anti-semitic"

Why does that song "one of these things is not like the other" from Sesame Street keeping running through my mind?

Since when is being anti-abortion in the same category as being pro-nazi, a white supremacist, or anti-semitic? This is a scary bit of phraseology on the front page here!

"Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence ineherent in the system!"

Re:Sesame Street Flashbacks

[Alsee]

"anti-abortion, pro-Nazi, white supremacist or anti-semitic"

Why does that song "one of these things is not like the other" from Sesame Street keeping running through my mind?

Those four are all exactly alike, we need to censor them because they all commit acts of speach inciting murder. They all spread lies, and all lies must be censored. We need to create a global Ministry of Truth to handle this.

[Disclaimer: I understood exactly what you meant]

-

Re:OT: Kids and drugs, and back on topic

[Ted_Green]

oooo ooo! let's say the toys resemble hay, put them equal distance from the child, and pretend his name is Buridan!

Chill.

[Anonymous Coward]

No books are burned here (France). What "ban" means for a book is that it's not advertised for, and not on display in libraries and book stores.

Your example on "burning a flag" hits its target though: it's a crime in France to show public disrespect towards the Nation, the Government and its representatives (while anyone can block trafic for days and get away with it...)

old article

[wwwgregcom]

Remember yesterday? Something about both Germany and France ranking higher in freedom of the press than america? I don't support the nazis but I know they would never get banned from expressing their views in America.

Re:Well the french are ... more OT

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, its called the front line. Its generally the troops who are closer to the action that fire their weapons. Now how long did it take Hitler to roll over the entire country of France? Two, three weeks? I cant remember.

Mmmh. France isn't ambarassed by its past.

[aepervius]

And saying that to a french he will probably laugh aloud. Now we ARE embarassed by our present (aka Chirac and other politics that many consider overly corrupted).

Second you are judging with your culture, within your law mindest. We have a different culture and law, and I find it perfectly normal, no, DESIRABLE, to supress some information on spreading hate and murder. You find it sick ? *shrugs* your opnion. But a strangely biased one considering the horror the KKK has done/is doing.

Bottom line : You have freespeech but are forbidden to scream "fire fire " in a theater. We forbid to scream "Black are bad ! Kill 'em all ! kill the abrotion doctor ! Kill ! Heil !". Same difference.

Re:Mmmh. France isn't ambarassed by its past.

[JudgeFurious]

Well they should be!

What is it with those guys anyway? Do they have a collection of small flags of other countries in every house so they have one to wave no matter who comes riding by in a tank or what?

Re:Mmmh. France isn't ambarassed by its past.

[RevDobbs]

Second you are judging with your culture, within your law mindest. We have a different culture and law, and I find it perfectly normal, no, DESIRABLE, to supress some information on spreading hate and murder. You find it sick ?

I don't find it sick, in fact, I stayed away from emotionally charged language. I do thing that:

• those who fail to learn from the past tend to repeat it
• once something is censored because a person/group/government

Weren't Germany and France's ranked ABOVE the US

[daytrip00]

... in having a free press? I guess a free press only includes the things that the popular government considers amenable to their beliefs. But wait, then isn't China's press free then? riiiiiiiiiight...

But those rankings were done in France. I smell a rat!

They do know better. Foucault and other woudl agre

[aepervius]

Those would supprot the right to express an ENLIGHTED and WELL FORMED opinion backed by LOGIC. To say that they would have supproted blattant spitting of hate is to really demenure them. They msut be turning in their grave each time anybody try to use them to support Total freedom of speech. What they supported was freedom of expression. Not quite the same if you get my drift.

US democracy

[osolemirnix]

Fortunately, in the US we have constitutional democracy. In other words, we have checks and balances to prevent the majority from violating constitutionally protected rights of minorities.

I'm glad you didn't say "working democracy". Check your facts: In the US, the voter turnout during national elections is pretty steady around 50%. That means if about 50% of the voters voted for the current government (Bush), he only has the votes of 25% of the population. In other words: a minority of the population sets the rules for the whole country.
In Germany for example, the voter turnout during national elections is pretty steady around 80%. While not perfect it seems a whole lot better than 50%, wouldn't you agree?

IMHO a working democracy requires citizens taking an (active) part in it. Figuring out where the democracy is working better is left as an exercise for the reader.

Personally, I wholehartedly agree with your opinion on cencsorship though. On the other hand, if people are not even responsible enough to go vote, what will stupid lying hate propaganda do with them? Lead them to believe their country must start a war, perhaps?

Re:US democracy

[mesocyclone]

Actually, I am not so sure that I am unhappy with the voter turnout. If those who do not care enough to vote don't vote, it leaves the governance to those of us who DO care enough to vote!

It would be better if the citizenry were more educated (hard to do with our idiotic educational system) and more motivated.

Also, it doesn't matter if those who don't vote have political opinions we don't like. They have no input.

Also, a lot of us who do watch events very closely and apply critical thinking to them do believe that our country is already at war, declared by radical islamists and by totalitarians by Saddam, and that we must act to protect our interests (which mostly correspond to the interests of the civilized world).

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the millions dead in Communist governments died from failed economic policy and famine (yes, some of it was intentional--forced collectivization, forced deportation, etc.), not purges or political murders. This is no different from the millions dead from similar situations during 500 or so years of capitalism, including several populations that were completely exterminated via forced labor, deportation, disease, famine or worse.

I'm not defending the Stalinist states--nearly a million, probably more, were murdered in the USSR for political reasons alone and many more imprisoned--but it is inaccurate to compare the death toll resulting of ideologies.

At the ideological level communism and fascism are not similar at all, though much has been made of a similar breeding ground in the works of Hegel (and the Left and Right Hegelians that followed). Communism existed as an idea long before Marx and his "dictatorship of the proletariat," and many other communists and socialists were very critical of his ideas and authoritarian tendencies, so it is hard to point to communism as ideology being similar to fascism. Whereas fascism is a priori totalitarian, and as an ideology tacitly refutes democratic methods, any measure of equality among groups or races, government accountability, or rule of law. Whether or not those that ruled countries with an iron fist called themselves "Communists" and used that populist ideology to gain and maintain power is another matter.

google searches sucking lately

[ozmodier]

Not sure why but my searches on google have been very mediocre lately. Last 4 months or so its become more like altavista than the once great google.

the only french i know

[b17bmbr]

we surrneder, here's our jews!

feel free to mod me down as you wish.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong in both cases.

Abortion is legal in germany - as long, as you have a medical reason for it, or if you have a so called "social" reason for it. (Which is eg. religion, having not eniuzgh money to raise the children).
It has to happen in the first three months of pregnancy - afterwards only medical reasons allow an abortion.

And i won't discuss with you my point of view, i just state facts.

The scientolgy church is NOT illegal in germany. Who he fuck always says that in the US????
It is being supervised by the Verfassungsschutz, which is pretty much like the CIA. Nothing else - they are watched by the government, since they seem to have antidemocratic tendencies (and this is in germany unconstitutional). They are NOT verboten.
A scientolgoist can keep his religion, nobody gets fired from their job, nobodies church gets set on ifre or whatever.

In fact: the scientology church is not considered to be a church or religion in germany and it is supervised by the government - nothing else.

But its nice to see, how americans fall for Larry Kings uninformed poit of view. :(

Hogwash

[dh003i]

No matter how offensive, mean, or cruel-spirited you may find people's ideas, they have the right to express them. Its a fundamental human right to freedom of speach. It exists whether or not government's recognize it, just as does the right to life.

If pro-nazi speaches offend you, then don't listen to them. Go somewhere else. Don't read Mein Kampf. No one's forcing you to listen: the right to speak does mean the right to necessarily be heard (though it does mean the right to have the potential to be heard).

That Germany as a nation chooses to ignore and violate the right to freedom of speach proves they haven't learned much from Hitler's era, when human rights were completely ignored. Had they, they would respect these rights. I'm speaking as someone of German descent, in this case. Its even worse in a democracy when human rights violations occur than when they occur in a dictatorship; when they occur in a democracy, that means that a majority of the people must have voted for someone who supports human rights violations.

To those who say that Google's doing the right thing by obeying the laws of Germany and France, I say that's non-sense. Unjust laws should not be obeyed. Just as in Germany during WWII, the right thing to do was ignore orders to kill Jewish people, so is the right thing to do in this case to disobey these laws which violate freedom of speach. This is not such a severe case, but the right thing to do is to violate laws which are wrong.

That said, I wonder why Google bother's to obey these laws. Google is based in the US, and to my knowledge all of their people are in the US, as is all of their finances. If Google chose not to obey these laws, how could the German & French government's possibly coerce or penalize them, since Google is beyond their sovereignty?

Re:Hogwash

[Alsee]

That said, I wonder why Google bother's to obey these laws. Google is based in the US, and to my knowledge all of their people are in the US, as is all of their finances.

Google.com is NOT obeying these laws. Google.de is obeying German law and Google.fr is obeying Frech law.

It is idiocy, but it is localized idiocy. Anyone in Germany or France can with effort still use Google.com. That is, the ones who KNOW about it can. Most of them will live in blissfull ignorance that they are using a censored search engine.

-

Re:Hogwash

[dh003i]

Google is one organization. It is located in the US, and all its finances are in the US. So the question is firstly how do European countries have any sovereignty over it? and secondly what possible means could they have to force Google to obey their laws? Why should Google bother obeying these backwards laws, when it can ignore them at no cost.

Free press in Germany and France?

[vmalloc_]

Does somebody want to tell me why the US takes 17th place in Press Freedom, and Germany and France take 11th and 7th respectively?

hmm..

[talks_to_birds]

"...Google has removed listings for over 100 sites which it believes to be anti-abortion, pro-Nazi, white supremacist or anti-semitic..."

OK.

No great loss...

t_t_b

This goes over again

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you read the description, about 100 sites removed from Google. I see people raving about losing freedom of speech and not being able to read information about nazis or anti-abortionists.

How many sites that 100 really is? Is there any common sense left? Do you think removing 100 _most_ violent and provocative extremist sites will do so much harm to freedom of speech? Informative sites (and extremist sites) will still be available, no matter what.

Everyone of you must admit that there are always content that you don't want to see and is censored even in USA.

Commercialism offends me, they must comply

[nurb432]

Google, Please remove all web pages that discusses the evil practice of commercialism.

And Christianity violates my moral beliefs, so they must remove those pages too.

Only kidding, but you see my point i hope. This sets a BAD precedent.. a really really bad one.

This will open the flood gates on mass censorship.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly the most annoying thing about the "holocaust" bandwagon is how much is ignores the enormous death rates among Russians. Russian losses during world war 2 were horrendous... even compared to the Jews. No Spielberg films... no special database of atrocities... no funds setup. When you also then take into account just how many Russians were killed by Stalin it is simply mind-blowing.

But then, Russians were commies, and Jews are good capitalists.

Censorship used in Qatar

[DonK]

A front-page article in the Wall Street Journal today discusses the situation in Qatar, which is rapidly modernizing (much to the annoyance of its neighbor Saudi Arabia). To keep up the momentum of this effort, the government jailed one cleric who complained in print that the "un-Islamic mingling of sexes" would cause women to "lose their proper role and turn into men". The cleric was released under condition that he no longer talk to the press.

Google News Page

[Anonymous Coward]

You just have to love the irony that sometimes comes from not having human editors. Google's new beta news section has "Google Quietly Blocks Controversial Sites" as it's main Sci/Tech headline. Guess it's not so quiet after all.

Re:Google News Page

[Anonymous Coward]

Link to page (may as well add it)

http://news.google.com/news/gntechnologyleftnav. ht ml

Damn google toolbar...

[Anonymous Coward]

updated itself as well, without asking and there is no means to turn it off. It was a part of a certified desktop until Google took it upon itself to decide what features the users needed without consulting the users. As a result, the site was banned at the firewall and now no one in the company can even use it. The pressures of business are beginning to tell ?

No swastika?

[Brendan Byrd]

There goes Wolfenstein, or Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

Re:No swastika?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct.

Those games are both illegal in Germany. Possesion of them is a crime.

MOD PARENT UP, MOD GRANDPARENT DOWN

[OSSturi]

If you want to go to google.com choose www.google.com/en from the bottom of your local google and you won't get redirected. The redirection is meant as a help, because it gives you the possibility to restrict your search with one click to your country or to your language. This isn't censorship.

Heh...

[neocon]

Aren't these the countries that Reporters Without Frontiers claimed had more freedom of the press than the US? I guess we now know how much that claim is worth...

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Anonymous Coward]

WOOHOOO!!!

I KNEW that i'd find a post defending communism here...
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAAA!!

didn't take long either...who knew...BWAHAHHAA!!

Oh yeah,and there's another subpost where the twat actually blames capitalism for a bunch of killings throughout the years as well..
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!

OMFG...I can't wait until the 'leftist revolution' so you commies can be starved to death again...like freakn weeds you are....

And why's not free child pron too ...

[Beretta Vexe]

Because, of course, not being able to talk about something makes it less attractive right? And drugs being illegal makes it less attractive for kids too, right? *sigh*

sed s/drugs/child porn

Because, of course, not being able to talk about something makes it less attractive right? And Child porn being illegal makes it less attractive for pedophile too, right? *sigh*

Oh ok let make the child pron legal ...

Your comment is stupid.

It isn't the work of a Franco-German political office but the normal complaints expressed by courts and citizens, who asks for the application of laws which were never called into question by citizens, of France and Germany.

If a US hosted site is closed, because it contient illegal stuff, even if it's legal in France or Germany (DeCSS for example), no one slashdot's user will say anything but it is enough that these are another country which face to respect its laws on its Web sites so that it is censure.

If you want really attack the censorship, take a look of the situation in Egypt or in Iran.

gotta love the US

[spudwiser]

i can't read rhat release notes, but i can read all the white power bs i want.

Re:Well the french are ... more OT

[banzai51]

Which would probably correlate to the percentage actually on the front line and fighting at any given moment or to the percentage actually using rifles as opposed to grenades, tanks, planes, bombs, etc. But hey, tell that to all the dead Germans and Japanese.

Re:ANT-ABORTION != HATE CRIME

[Beretta Vexe]

Unless these websites are talking about killing certain Abortion Doctors (which most anti-abortion activists would never dream of doing). I don't see the problem here. Talking about killing doctors and Helping people to do it, isn't a problem and hate site for you ? The problem isn't anti-abortion opinion, it's the incentive to crime. if tomorrow a anti alcohol website, incentive to the murder of the alcohol salesmen, their web site will be closed if it's hosted in the country or blacklisted too.

14words.com

[knuth]

Blockquoth the poster:

Interestingly, 14words.com, which seems to be just a web-hosting company, is in the following category in google directory:
Society > Issues > Race-Ethnic-Religious Relations > Hate > Hate Groups

Now it is merely a redirect to a web hosting company. But it used to be a Wotanist site, 14 Word Press. (If this site doesn't look like much, view source.) It was white supremacist at least. They called for the establishment of an exclusive White nation, to preserve "the beauty of the White Aryan woman." The "14 words" are a recently coined white supremacist slogan.

Reminds me of yesterdays article...

[sheldon]

Germany and France have much stronger support for Freedom of the Press, according to yesterday's article.

What was interesting was the bias this report introduced, as they considered Freedom to be how free someone was to publish stuff which wasn't currently outlawed by the government.

Another thing that makes you go hmmm...

pro-life sites

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what, they are censoring the German State church, Vatican City, Ireland, etc?

And equating these -pro-life- sites with the anti-life National Democratic Socialist sites?

Is Goebels running the operation now?

Re:pro-life sites

[Anonymous Coward]

And equating these -pro-life- sites with the anti-life National Democratic Socialist sites?

If anti-abortionists are pro-life why do they go around bombing family planning clinics and killing doctors? Fact is, they are murderous fascist thugs whose maniacal ravings are best sent to /dev/null.

Re:pro-life sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice way to stereotype. Fuck you asshole, it's the sign of a 12 year old thinking you can debate when you just categorize everyone you disagree with as murderous thugs. Take your bullshit elsewhere, motherfucker.

Re:pro-life sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you asshole ... motherfucker.

Exhibit A: Stereotypical ranting of murderous anti-abortionist thug.

Re:pro-life sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting logic you have there. Let's see if I understand you. A handful of anti-abortion people have killed abortion providers and bombed clinics, so therefore all pro-life people are "murderous fascist thugs"? Sounds logical. Let's see where else that logic can take us:

• Some serial killers are Democrats. Therefore, all Democrats are cold-blooded killers.
• Some rapists are black. Therefore, all black people are sexual predators.
• The Unabomber was an environmentalist. Therefore, all environmentalists are dangerous terrorists and should be shot on sight.
• Stalin was an athiest. Therefore, all athiests are power-mad communists willing to kill anyone who gets in their way or looks at them funny.

I could go on for hours, but I think most everyone has gotten my point. (Whether you have gotten my point is questionable, considering how few brain cells you seem to possess.)

Re:pro-life sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see if I understand you.

Thank you for your Junior High logic lesson, but you do not!

What your examples ignore is context. We are talking about the type of anti-abortionist site that is banned. These sites are those which advocate and instruct in the use of violence, circulating addresses of clinic doctors etc. You don't believe for one moment that it is illegal merely to voice disaproval of termination procedures in Germany, do you? Good.

Now it seems to me labelling people who run around "blowing up family planning clinics and murdering doctors" as 'pro-life' is preposterous, they are in fact murderous thugs. 'Fascist' was perhaps a little colorful.

That being said (and leaving the relevant context for a moment), it seems to me that even 'peaceful' anti-abortionists cannot be truely called 'pro-life,' it is more accurate to note that anti-abortionists priviledge the 'life' of those not yet born over and above the 'life' of the living.

... considering how few brain cells you seem to possess

A lot more than to injure my own argument with a clumsy ad hominem, that's for sure!

Re:pro-life sites

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes no sense to generalize the actions of the most radical anti-abortion individuals to the MILLIONS of people who are against abortion. It might be news to you, but there are a whole lot of people who hold that opinion, and there are NOT many who would kill someone over it. Those who do are incredible morons and hipocrits, but that doesn't mean everyone who is against abortion is like that. I am pro life and I don't value the life of the unborn above the life of the living; I put it on an equal plane. Before you bring it up, I am against the death penalty and the hawkish war-mongering of the Bush administration as well. The difference between myself, you, and many pro-lifers as well is that I try to be morally consistent on issues of life.

Re:pro-life sites

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes no sense to generalize the actions of the most radical anti-abortion individuals to the MILLIONS of people who are against abortion.

Clearly! It should be obvious from the post you are replying to that I agree with this, again consider what was said in context. From the original post (my emphasis): And equating these -pro-life- sites with the anti-life National Democratic Socialist sites? Now 'these' sites are ones advocating the use violence. What I objected to the description of these terrorists as 'pro-life'.

I am pro life and I don't value the life of the unborn above the life of the living; I put it on an equal plane.

Look, I'm pro life, I don't think people should go around killing other people, I just don't think terminations should be criminalized. (Actually I'm not so much pro life as pro-consciousness, but anyway.) Forgive me if I'm reading you wrong, but I take you to be using the term 'pro-life' to mean that you think abortions should be legally restricted. Now history teaches us that wherever access to terminations is tightly restricted, many many women die painful deaths at the hand of back-yard abortionists or as a result of their own attempts to abort. Yup, sure its "their own choice," but the fact remains that if you have tight laws restricting access to abortions, many more women will die. Conversely, where you don't it seems likely that a greater number of foetuses will be aborted.

Sometimes you can't put these things on an "equal plane." You just have to bite the bullet and prioritize your hierarchy of morals.

The difference between myself, you, and many pro-lifers as well is that I try to be morally consistent on issues of life.

The difference between you an me (and excuse me for making perhaps unwarranted assumptions about your position) is that I rank the life of a consious living human above that of an unborn foetus. But only slightly mind you, I don't want to be taken to say that I think abortions are morally desireable.

As far as my search for moral consistency, as I said above, I ground my ethics in consciousness. But I guess another way we differ, is that I'm old and disillusioned enough to know that consistency is unattainable. (And perhaps a bit of a 'purist' fallacy.)

Re:pro-life sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, one of the first things the NSDAP did when they took power was outlaw abortion. It was legal in Germany before that. Research thy trolls, idiotboy.

Re:pro-life sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Research thy trolls, idiotboy.

Yeah, but keep the research relevant. What the policy of NSDAP re abortion was, is neither here nor there.

Google's secrecy is the real issue

[mediareport]

All the free speech blather misses the point raised by Edelman at the end of the News.com story. I don't fault Google for following German and French law, but I *do* fault it for hiding the fact that some searches turn up results which are deliberately incomplete. At the very least, when a search includes results that have been deleted for legal reasons, a notice should appear at the top of the page with a link to details about the legal requirements. Anything less is blatant disrespect for the 'Net community.

"If Google is prohibited from linking to Stormfront, they could include a listing but no link," Edelman said. "And if they can't even include a listing for Stormfront, they could at least report the fact that they've hidden results from the user. The core idea here is that there's no need to be secretive."

Speaking of things being voted in democraticaly

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany, March 1932.

Enough said!

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[wsapplegate]

> Even more meaningless than it would be if French and German users couldn't simply point their browsers at google.ca [google.ca].

We've got a little problem here : Google.Ca has a little link for the french-speaking Canadians which links to http://www.google.ca/fr which in turn... redirects to Google.Fr. This would mean, I assume, that unsuspecting residents of Québec would get a censored version of Google. Now, that's bad ! I hope they'll fix that soon.

BTW, I'm French, and frankly, I would have hoped the lawsuit-happy morons at UEJF would have avoided putting pressure on Google, if nothing else because Google is used by researchers who could happen to research neo-nazism (note : the UEJF is the French Jewish student union, a bunch of sorry idiots who spend all their time suing people -- sometimes mistakenly -- instead of spreading good information. No wonder Le Pen has no problem posing as the Persecuted Whistleblower !). And with the axis-of-evil-terrorists-threaten-the-free-world frenzy, it seems there is no chance such stupid laws will go away anytime soon. *sigh* at least we don't have the DMCA...

MOD GRANDPARENT UP, MOD GREAT GRANDPARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Troof.

Re:USA is only 17th on "freedom of the press" inde

[Anonymous Coward]

All this shows is how ridiculous that list was. I'm not surprised that your blind hatred of the U.S. doesn't allow you to even realize something as simple as this. We all know why you Euros hate on the U.S. but remember, don't hate the player, hate the game.

Re:ANT-ABORTION != HATE CRIME

[zaqattack911]

thats what i said..... killing people is bad. anti-abortion opinion is not.

Total patriotic hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this will be ignored, derided or modded into the deepest pits of Slashdot hell, but I have to get it off my chest.

If this story were about the U.S. censoring some search engine, the discussions would be rife with how corrupt, backward, ignorant and repressive Americans and American society is. This sentiment would predictably come from Europeans and Canadians primarily, but a good number of properly self-loathing Americans would join in too.

However, since it's France and Germany, what do we see? Do we see denunciations of this kind of Big Brother style of governing? No, of course not. What I see are subtle defenses of what amounts to censorship and attempted mind control. "We've decided what's best for a civilized society" or "It's Google's fault because they caved" or "Yeah but... Americans set the precedent for this." Blah blah blah.

Fuck that and if that's your attitude, then fuck you too because you're secretly a patriotic hypocrite. This kind of thing happens everywhere in the world and instead of taking up your goddam flag and waving it high enough to distract everyone, you ought to be attacking what appears to be a total lack of responsible and trustworthy leadership in your own countries.

I guess this kind of thing is perfectly okay and reasonable as long as it's not the U.S.

Very annoying redirect "feature"

[geekotourist]

Last year while visiting Japan our Palm caught a bug. No problem, we thought, we'll just download the software again. But Palm wouldn't let us go to "palm.com." Instead it would always redirect to "palm.co.jp," and that site didn't have an English option. Have these auto-redirecting companies never heard of "tourists" and "business travelers"? Luckily for us the Palm software problem hit at the end of our trip-- we'd been using the guides and whatnot we'd downloaded into it throughout our visit.

But where is the scripture?

[Loundry]

If any of you actually visited the pro-life site in question, you will notice that it doesn't advocate violence against anyone, it merely states that abortion is immoral and against God's law.

And where, exactly, is the scripture that states that abortion is against God's law? I doubt that it's possible to use scipture to show that a fetus is a human before the sixth month of pregnancy. Dennis Mckinsey has a great writeup on this in Biblical Errancy (do a find for "abortion" to page down to the discussion). Now, before you go off and assault Dennis Mckinsey, first respond to what he wrote on the subject.

Re:But where is the scripture?

[Rich0]

Regardless of whether abortion is or is not immoral, or is or is not against God's law, the fact that the website states that this is the site author's opinion should not be grounds for censorship.

In the same way, a site which states that God is in favor of people smoking pot should not be censored - despite the fact that smoking pot is illegal, and that the matter is controversial.

Re:But where is the scripture?

[Parafilmus]

Probably the most relevant verse is in the first chapter of Jeremiah:

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I consecrated you

Mckinsey dismisses the verse as ambiguous. I'm not inclined to agree. Though not yet born, Jeremiah is clearly recognized as a person.

Mckinsey also suggests that Jeremiah might be a "special case," though that argument strikes me as reaching pretty far.

Re:But where is the scripture?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mckinsey also suggests that Jeremiah might be a "special case," though that argument strikes me as reaching pretty far.

Heh. What kind of an argument would that be? "It's wrong to abort Jeremiah, but all others are A-OK?"

Re:But where is the scripture?

[WatertonMan]

Realize that many who believe in a pre-mortal life use this same verse to support that. So it need not be taken to speak about the fetus.

Re:But where is the scripture?

[Alsee]

>Mckinsey also suggests that Jeremiah might be a "special case
What kind of an argument would that be?

I haven't looked at the site, but how about this...

God specificly consecrated Jerimiah, something that he does not do to everyone.

-

Re:But where is the scripture?

[Loundry]

Probably the most relevant verse is in the first chapter of Jeremiah:

I think you meant to write, "the only possibly relevant verse."

Mckinsey dismisses the verse as ambiguous. I'm not inclined to agree. Though not yet born, Jeremiah is clearly recognized as a person.

First, your choosing to use the word "clearly" shows the weakness of your argument. If it was really so clear, then you wouldn't need to tell me that it was; its clarity would be evident to me without your assistance.

Second, what does God's statement "I knew you" mean in this instance? This sctipture is not stating that Jeremiah was "known" despite being born, it is stating that Jeremiah was "known" despite being formed. How can something be known if it has no form?

Third, you can't claim that "I knew you" implies "I recognize you as a person." It is possible to recognize someone as a person without knowing them.

Fourth, how could a fallen Jeremiah be consecrated?

The scripture is not nearly as clear as you pretend it is. I do agree with you that McKinsey was reaching with his "special case" argument. McKinsey has blasted apologists for making the same kind of argument, usually when apologists say something like, "Well, that was a special case and not intended for the general" (such as Mat 19:16-21).

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Anonymous Coward]

But mysteriously, modern-day Fascists are shunned and modern-day Communists are tolerated. In fact, the same attitude should apply to them both; neither has a place in the modern world.

The basic notion of fascism is that of one human being superior to another and therefore somehow deserving 'more': more children, more money, more land, more life - at the expense of the 'inferior' persons of course.

By comparison, the basic notion of communism is 'all work for the benefit of all'. Yes, I know it didn't/doesn't work like that, but nonetheless this is the ideal.

Judged only by its basic ideal, communism is not in and of itself evil. Those millions of people were not killed because communism required it, but rather because an evil madman rose to power and was not opposed.

The million killed by fascism, on the other hand, were completely in line with its basic filosophy. Fascism does not need a dictator in order to be evil.

Re:Germany's Free Press

[Yet Another Smith]

The national rankings of "Reporters without Borders" were measures of freedom of the press, not freedom of speech.

Free Press != Free Speech

If only "journalists" are protected by free press laws, then all manner of censoring and abuse can go on that would never create a blip on the free press index.

That's not to say that the RWB index is useless, but you need to understand what it was saying. The US could certainly use some renewed focus on civil liberties, now that we've had some time to digest the post 9/11 world.

To take the contrary view....

[Dai_Quat]

Because, of course, not being able to talk about something makes it less attractive right? And drugs being illegal makes it less attractive for kids too, right? *sigh*

And murder being illegal... that's what CAUSES murder!

I'd love to live in a free society... it's just that these LAWS are so damn onerous!

Drugs SHOULD be illegal for kids, you dope. Adults maybe not, but KIDS? You're a bit too liberatarian for me.

Only with the crazy alterna-right-wing do we get people who link free-speech with freedom of drugs and expect that it is a CONVINCING argument.

Re:Actually...you're quite wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at places where Marijuana is legal or tolerated, I.E. Holland, you will find much *lower* rates of teen drug use and drug-related crime.

And if you outlaw cigarettes tomorrow, they will become much 'cooler' for teens and use will rise, guaranteed.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Anonymous Coward]

What color is the sky on your planet?

"Don't judge us by our actions, judge us by our intent". Isn't that the standard apology all communists (leftists) use? Fact is, communism ("from each according to his ability") turns *everyone* into slaves. Slaves=property=something the state can dispose of at its convenience. Communism will *always* result in labor/reeducation camps, genocide, butchery etc. It's the nature of the beast. I dare you to try to convince me this is not true.

Point 2: This false dichotomy between Naziism and Communism. Did Pravda (or whever you get your happy happy marching orders from) ever mention what NAZI stood for? Hint: the German word for "Socialist" is part.

Frankly, I don't know why I bothered with this: someone who spells "filosophy" is probably just another public-school incurable oatmeal-for-brains.

I concur.

[Anonymous Coward]

Filler text.

This is just wrong.

[stonewolf]

During the 1960s when there was no trade or diplomatic contact between the US and China and the Soviet Union, you could walk into a book store and by a copy of Mao's "Little Red Book." "On People's War," and everything ever written by Lenin... You could do that because in the US you have the right to read and talk about anything, even if it is offensive to someone.

It would be better to break off diplomatic relations and stop all trade with Germany and France, even the whole of the EU, than to allow even one page of material to be censored by those governments.

I would much prefer to see Google shut down their .de and .fr sites than knuckle under to those fascist bastards.

Stonewolf

Country TLDs Only

[Mittermeyer]

I'll say it before and I'll say it again- let each country have it's country TLDs and they can chose to impose their own stupid local laws (whether the stupidity is the PRC, France, or the US).

Blocking sites for anti-abortion stance?

[knuth]

McCart42 says,

What blows me away is not the racist speech blocking, but the fact that they're blocking anti-abortion websites from google's listings...

I don't see a reference to abortion anywhere on the Harvard web site summarizing the study. The supposition that jesus-is-lord.com was blocked because it is anti-abortion may be a conjecture by Declan McCullagh. The site in question is vehemently anti-Catholic. Might it be over the line as far as French or German law is concerned, and regarded as inciting hatred?

The Nazi Party is Socialist

[jdun]

While we are on the subject of Nazi, let me point out that Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). You guess it, Nazi are socialist. Like all socialist left countries, censorship is a way of life. The left can't handle the truth.

Hate Literature in Canada

[stew-a-cide]

As many people know certain forms of 'hate speech' targeting people on the basis of race, religion, etc. are banned in Canada. Currently (openly gay) MP Svend Robinson is trying to pass a private members bill that would add anti-homosexual propaganda to the section of the Criminal Code pertaining to hate literature.

While I'm all against gay bashing, the repercussions of this going through are very broad - going so far as to ban certain passages of the bible, prevent certain religions (e.g. Catholics) from distributing certain of their teachings, outlawing political party platforms that call for un-equal rights for gays (such as pertaining to marriage), etc. Again, while I'm not religious, and don't object to any of these possibilities personally, they are by most people's definition extreme.

I'm not sure what chance he has of getting this through (I certainly wouldn't call it impossible), but he certainly got a leg up yesterday when the leader of the opposition Stephen Harper (from a very right-wing party that would certainly oppose such an amendment) made a homophobic slight against Mr. Robinson in an unrelated debate. Stephen Harper and his party are very sensitive to being labelled as homophobic, so they might now just keep their mouths shut and let the proposed amendment go through rather than draw more negative attention to themselves.

Re:Hate Literature in Canada

[MikeBabcock]

This is one of those "slippery slope" issues like gun control (which we also have in Canada). It seems however, that the issue should be allowing the court to define what indeed is the spreading of hate. In Canada, that has been a very tight definition in the past. Saying "I am anti-semetic", for example, is not illegal. Telling someone the holocaust didn't happen and the Jewish people made it up to make themselves look cool because they're a bunch of mind-controlling megalomaniacs (that's almost a quote ... I won't link to the website though; I'm sure you can find them if you want to) is pretty close. Telling people to go out and beat up (or kill) *put group here* because they're lesser people, _is_ (and should be) a hate crime, however.

I don't think many americans would even dispute that last one; its held up in International law at least these days (I hope it continues to be) and should be held up at a national level too -- making it a crime to incite violence against a group.

There is a difference, however, with literature to some degree; and that involves descriptions of past events; describing what the Nazi camps did to people it imprisonned is good for our collective historical knowledge; making editorial comments about it being a good thing would be a bad thing :)

chillingeffects.org

[knuth]

chillingeffects.org is about First Amendment rights. That means it's about the United States.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[apweiler]

*sigh* at least we don't have the DMCA... yet.

Ever heard of the European Copyright Directive, or the WIPO treaty in general? We're catching up, y'know...

The not-so slippery slope...

[Zhe Mappel]

First they came for the Nazi memorabilia sites
And I did not speak out
Because I am not a Nazi, and frankly, only fetishists want such shit, anyway.

Then they came for the anti-abortion sites
And I did not speak out
Because I am not a loopy right winger, and those assholes can plan their violent clinic disruptions somewhere else.

Then they came for the white supremacist sites
And I did not speak out,
Feeling, as it were, a bit under-sympathetic toward those sewer-dwellers.

Then they came for me.
I used to run a site selling Beanie Babies that played a midi version of "Wish Upon a Star" while you shopped.
And even I'm forced to admit I got what I deserve.

DO blame google for this

[Parafilmus]

The removal of nazi websites from Google's index can be safely blamed on Germany and France.

But the removal of religious websites cannot be. Neither Germany nor France have laws against such material.

If Google wishes to take a stand on religious or political issues, that is certainly their right. But it's Google's stand, and only Google is responsible for it.

That's because 'US' media is owned by Jews

[snowcold]

Every single news source that you mention is owned and operated by jews. Click here for the proof.

You know Google is pathetic when without a fight

[marlowe]

...they surrender to the French.

If they can do whatever they want, then what's their excuse for wanting to do this?

Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany is very liberal. But when you show Nazi symbols or pray against humanity than you are an outcast. Anti-semitism is no problem in Germany, I think philosemitism is the problem. So there is very few propaganda stuff that cause that you will be punished. I'am in favour of FRee Speech. But there always must be a limit. When someone says "Kill all XY!" and it is meant serious than he has to be punished.
In France it is the same. But France is less liberal than Germany (you may not use cryptography). And rassism and anti-semitism still is a french partial problem. right Wing radical Le Pen got 18 percent. (Remember: to european standards George Bush would be regarded a strong right wing)
Of course Google should not save a copy of hate pages it in its archive.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism is a ideal theory. Socilaist reality had some totalitarian problems, that caused millions to die. But you cannot blame a today's communist for the cruelity of Stalin. And you cannot blame a democrat for the bloody revolution trials of then French Revolution. Or Christianity for witch-hunting. (In West Africa people still believe in witchcraft and it is not the church that told them so)

Nonsense!

[snowcold]

Nazi = genocide non-arians

What the hell are you talking about?, Nazism has nothing to do with this, you have fallen in one of many myths spread by the establishment (the same ones who are censoring the net) as part of their smear campaign against anyone who stands in defense of White people.

Learn a little about what Nazism really is by visiting the National Alliance website.

Re:Nonsense!

[DaytonCIM]

You're joking right?

Nazism has nothing to do with this

Huh? I take it you're one of the less than 1% of 1% of the world that somehow believes the holocaust was some great ruse? That all of those people marched into German Nazi Death Camps from 1938 to 1945 are actually vacationing in the tropics while running a secret underground government that is solely responsible for keeping the "white man" down?

There is a medical name for your condition: cranial-rectum inversion.

This proves that 'democracy' sucks

[snowcold]

Democracy/mobocracy is one of the worst ways of deciding anything. Those morons who voted against freedom of speech should be permanently disenfranchised.

And those 'opinion leaders' who promoted this outrageous referendum should be trialed as the traitors they are.

The National Alliance

14 words and 88

[snowcold]

14 words = "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." a slogan coined by David Lane, member of the White revolutionary group The Order, in the early 1980's.

88 = Heil Hitler. H is the eight letter of the alphabet, it is illegal to say Heil Hitler in Germany (and many other countries) so Nazis changed it to 88.

Anti-Abortion????????

[Anonymous Coward]

So, anyone can KILL babies but you can't speak out against it?? Is there something I'm missing here?

Re:Well the french are ... more OT

[Howzer]

Which would probably correlate to the percentage actually on the front line and fighting at any given moment or to the percentage actually using rifles

Nope. Sorry. Dead wrong. Although "distance" does have something to do with the explanation for why they didn't fire (ie. your tanks planes etc.) actually the figure is exactly what I said. Out of all the people with rifles, who were supposed to fire, only 15-20% of them did. Read the research, it's utterly more fascinating that cheap shots on slashdot I assure you. As for your "tell that to all the..." well, yeah, and your point is?

Re:Well the french are ... more OT

[Howzer]

Read my other response. Your "point" was made by a non-AC and so I answered that one. By the way, it's got nothing remotely to do with what you are suggesting.

Some details on the Yahoo case..

[Mayfoev]

Much is said on the Yahoo case that has created jurisprudence in France about some contents on Internet. That it is censorship, denying the freedom of expression and so on..

In fact, the judge decision (in emergency proceeding), that was later confirmed in appeal, is based on a law called Loi sur les propos incitant à la haine raciale i.e. "Law on utterances inciting to racial hatred" for the auction part.

Indeed, there are three part in this case: the auction, the hosting and the directory parts. For the hosting and directory parts, the judge has ruled against negationism that is a crime in France, a crime against the memories of all the victims of the Shoah.

An interesting quote in the subpoena (Assignation) says that a previous sentence about selling Nazi object (not on the WWW) rules that "Such activities trivialize dangerously horror and ensure mawkishly an obnoxious proselytism."

For those of you, who are interested with some details about the case, you can get there all the judicial file in French, and some translations in English on the links on this page.

The constitution

[LeftOfCentre]

According to the Swiss constitution the population has the last word on what laws to pass, if anyone can gather a certain amount of signatures. This is realized via binding referendum. It appears a truly beautiful system with people really in control as opposed to a small government elite. The same risk of stupid decisions also exists with representative democracy and clueless politicians in the US, EU or elsewhere.

[Disclaimer: I'm not Swiss nor have I lived there.]

Yeah, well, I am offended

[ChaoticLimbs]

by sites that depict or describe events of a graphic sexual nature. Ban them, I say! Ban them to Hell!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This happened to me...Re:Censorship Vs Information

[Joey7F]

I was a student in High School researching the KKK. I went to the KKK's official website only to have the filter kick in. I then tried other searches to no avail. I even tried using the National Association for the Advancements of White People to get a picture of its founder who was a klansman.

It blocked that as 'hate speech'. Interestingly the 'Black Panthers' were accessible.

That proved to me, conclusively, that "hate speech" is considered one way and always originates from "Whites". Too bad equal standards don't apply to groups that spout hate speech. If you allow one, then you should allow the other. If you block one, it is inconsistent to not block the other.

--Joey

Murdering the Murderers

[Cheesewhiz]

Your post reminded me of something I once read by an author by the name of Calvin Miller:

"Hell's logic consists in preventing murder by murdering all murderers. Heaven's logic greets every murderer with grace, dying when the time comes with a beautiful face."

Man's logic of justice is inherently circular, and subsequently flawed. The concept of murdering murderers is somewhat rampant in American society, and if anyone stopped to think it out, they might notice a less than faint line somewhere between justice and self-perpetuating sin.

Re:Germanies (sic) Free Press

[Anonymous Coward]

So German press reports that Germany has a freer press than USA. Then we get an article about their censorship.

Which just goes to show how truely horrendous the censorship of the press is in the US.

Re:This happened to me...Re:Censorship Vs Informat

[Ravenn]

If you block one, it is inconsistent to not block the other.

But to block the Black Panthers would be against the rights of African-American militants, depriving them of their right to freedom of speech. The Political Correctness army would be rioting^H^H^H^H^H^Hlobbying before the afterimage had faded from the monitor

Racism is evil, but reverse racism is an order of magnitude greater. Unfortunatly, that's what we tend to see these days. Worse still is the censorship of these issues, which should instead be used to educate the public.

Ravenn

you forget one thing

[trmj]

The main reason that the Facsists are shunned is because they decided to enforce their views not just in their own country, but in others as well. Those who didn't comply were simply absorbed. Stalin, for the most part, kept his "cleansings" to his own country, not becoming the worldwide "playground bully" and making other countries cry for help.

Re:you forget one thing

[sql*kitten]

Stalin, for the most part, kept his "cleansings" to his own country, not becoming the worldwide "playground bully" and making other countries cry for help.

The countries of Eastern Europe (for example, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Armenia, Ukraine etc) would disagree with you. These countries were annexed by the Soviet Empire and subjected to the same regime as the Russians. Not only that, but a significant part of the current trouble in Afghanistan can be traced to Soviet invasion (altho' that obviously happened well after Stalin himself died).

Also, it is correct to compare Fascism with Communism and Nazism with Stalinism - you have to compare like with like, and the former are abstract, the latter practical.

Re:pro-doctorkilling sites

[Anonymous Coward]

it's the sign of a 12 year old thinking you can debate when you just categorize everyone you disagree with as murderous thugs

I do not catagorise everyone I disagree with as being 'murderous thugs.' I resever that appellation for those who truely are murderous thugs, such as anti-abortionists who go around blowing up family planning clinics and killking doctors. Got it?

The Germans have suffered too

[NewsWatcher]

There is no doubt that during World War II the Germans perpetrated some evil crimes against the Jews, the Gays and the Communists. Millions of innocent people were slaughtered and it serves as a permament blight on the German people that they will have to live with forever more.
I have been to Germany and I can tell you that they are among the most open people in the world. They have rebuilt a society that anyone would be proud of. Where civil liberties are held much higher than in the USA. What Americans fail to realise is that you are not an open society in the true sense of the word. Your journalists are free to write the truth, but not free to get the information. In Germany a few years ago, a newspaper was given access to the private email account of a politician, in the name of transparent government. Can you imagine someone from the Washington Post getting access to W's personal e-mail account? Oh, I am not a German either, or even European, so I have no vested interest in highlighting US hypocrisy.

Reason?

[fireboy1919]

I don't really think reason is entering into the argument here. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

What you call a "mass of cells" I call a human. Why? Fundamentally, because I believe it is one. A secondary reason is because it is developed enough to behave the same way that a newborn would - requiring incredible amounts of support to sustain life, but producing almost exactly the same organic activity. I take slight offense to your making this a call to reason here, because I think science is on my side. There is more to point to the fact that a foetus is a child than that there isn't if we examine humanity as a machine whose function is life (one of the few objective ways to do it).

The one fact in your favor is that the baby is inside a womb instead of outside. Does location define humanity? I believe not, and you believe so. Do not confuse your belief with logos - the issue is far to cloudy for you to make a decision as you have to be such - more than anything else you believe it because you want to.

It takes a mere two weeks for a human foetus to take on the majority (something like 90%) of the biological functions of a human baby. Why has that not entered into your thinking?

You would think they would learn

[Distortions]

I have no problem with google removing the links. In fact, it is their right to do so.
I wouldn't have removed the links if it was my site. But thats just me.
They are allowed to remove any link they wish, for any reason.

The part I don't get is why germany would want to censor sites such as that.. ever.
I know they want to forget what happened.
But, closing your eyes if your dying in a fire wont put the fire out. You will just die with your eyes closed!
As much as they want to forget it the world should *never* let them forget it.

'He who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it.'

I think it is interesting google removed them. I didn't expect that.

Re:pro-doctorkilling sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I've "got" that I'm convinced I was right. I used such inflammatory language because you pissed me off with your stupidity. I take back the personal attack; I don't take back my assessment of your lack of brains.

Re:pro-doctorkilling sites

[Anonymous Coward]

I take back the personal attack; I don't take back my assessment of your lack of brains.

Apart from being wildly inaccurate, your assesment of (sic) my lack of brains, is a personal attack. What you are supposed to do is to point out the inadequacies of the arguments, not of the person putting them

As the owner of one of the sites...

[CaptainPotato]

...that has been blocked [williscarto.com], I cannot decide whether to laugh at this or to scream in despair. As anybody who looked at the site would have noticed, the site is not exactly racist; indeed, the site's title is "Resources Against Holocaust Denial and Antisemitism (italics for the benefit of this post only) - pretty damned obvious to most, I would have thought.

Looking at the site's information makes it only more apparent.

Whilst I do understand the Germans' way of dealing with antisemitism, banning such sites is not the way to go. Education is, however.

Banning sites that combat antisemitism is beyond belief...

High End Hogwash

[Qbertino]

That Germany as a nation chooses to ignore and violate the right to freedom of speach proves they haven't learned much from Hitler's era, when human rights were completely ignored.

You're into serious bullshitting territory without knowing squat what you're talking about. I suggest you ease down on standard resentiments about germany.
What's with the DMCA and the Pop-under Patent? Does that show Americans haven't learned from Hitler or 1984? Would you please be so kind to explain to me why child pr0n should run under 'free speech'? It shouldn't? Well why not? Why is child pr0n exempt, if you're so pesky at defending no-holds barred 'free speech'? And what's that weird US profanity law that passed a few years ago? Hum?
Oh, it's judged by common sense? Well now, how about that.

Nazi propaganda is ILLEAGAL in germany. It's THE LAW MADE BY A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERMENT. Get over it.
And, as I might add, other than in the US, the german gouverment actually DID get most of the votes. You call that 'democracy'.
Aside from Nazi-Propaganda, speech is free, software and algorithims are unpatentable (still, at least) and, guess what, child p0rn is illegal too. Just as in the US. Differnt democratic gouverned countries deal certain issues differently. Is that to complex to deal with?

On the other hand, every day is 9-11

[dublin]

Every day is 9-11. It's true. Abortion has reached such epidemic proportions that the *daily* death toll in American abortion clinics is roughly the same as the *total* bodycount from the Sept. 11th attacks. Check the figures yourself.

If that doesn't cry out for a legitimate protest, I don't know what does...

Re:The numbers.. (not adding up)

[Anonymous Coward]

77,800 - 58,300 = 19,500

Earlier in this discussion there was mention of the censorship being 'only 100 sites'.

Perhaps I am missing something in this discussion, but the numbers just don't seem to add up.

Re:Well the french are ... more OT

[banzai51]

My point is that that rate (if true) can't be any better for any other army in history. War is won by killing the enemy. And we killed many of them. Knock it all you want, but the US was effective in WWII.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Anonymous Coward]

Or a non native english speaker