FInland Proposes Editorial Culpability for Web Content

Sandstorm writes "Electronic Frontier Finland ry has an interesting article about a proposed law in the Finnish parliament on liabilities in public communications. Among other alarming things, the proposed law would require all web publications to have an editor-in-chief, who would have a criminal responsibility for all material published in his publication. That would include discussion on web boards and force editors on sites like /. preview and censor all comments before displaying them."

Comments

just dumb

[retards]

I really wonder about laws of this kind. Do the lawmakers really think about the implications of this? I don't mean that "Big Brother"-shit, I mean, people will not abide by this law because it is too cumbersome. People will not archive every revision of their personal homepage just because they happen to have a small webserver and the law says they have to. I sure as hell won't. Come arrest me.

This kind of civil disobedience may seem trivial, but what happens when lots of people lose respect for the law in other areas because they deem (correctly) that the lawmakers are totally clueless about modern society?

When will politicans realize we cannot have an Orwellian government AND an informed and educated population AND a market economy at the same time? IDIOTS!

Re:just dumb

[leviramsey]

Warning: rant ahead...

When will politicans realize we cannot have an Orwellian government...

I'm getting fucking tired of all this "Orwellian" bullshit, and the ease with which people, of all political stripes throw that name around without any idea of what Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) actually thought.

The fact is that anyone who bothers to look at Orwell's writing can find an idea that they can applaud. For instance, Orwell was opposed to having India as a colony of the UK ("In order that England may live in comparative comfort, a hundred millions Indians must live on the verge of starvation -- an evil state of affairs, but you acquiesce in it every time you step into a taxi or eat a plate of strawberries and cream"), but he did not believe India was capable of governing itself. He found Hitler personally appealing ("I have never been able to dislike Hitler... [he] grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life [which is the attitude of] nearly all Western thought... certainly all 'progressive' thought."), using terms that were eerily similar to those in England and France who endorsed fascism. He thought that Britain should not get involved in war against Germany and advocated planning "illegal anti-war activities." However, as soon as Hitler and Stalin signed the non-aggression pact, he flip-flopped, accusing British anti-war intellectuals of "sabotage"; of having been "Europeanised"; of sneering at patriotism; of weakening the morale of the morale of the English people.

Politically, Orwell was a revolutionary Socialist. He advocated a Socialist revolution in England, and a violent one if that was required. He viewed Hitler's success as the proof of the superiority of the planned economy. He wrote, "It is not certain that Socialism is better than Capitalism, but it is certain that, unlike Capitalism, Socialism solves the problems of production and consumption. However Orwell thought that, while a classless society would be made, the monarchy would continue.

The worst part of Orwell's legacy is providing a new vocabulary for slippery-slope arguments. If ideas are to stand or fail based on their logically possible consequences, than there would be no ideas, because every idea is, ultimately against life itself, if it is taken far enough.

Of course, those who like to use language inspired by Orwell, often times prove that they never read Orwell. The prime example is "Big Brother", which is generally used to mean a system of covert surveillance and manipulation, and oppression in democratic disguise. Nothing could be further than Big Brother; in 1984 all of that was overt; there was no disguising it.

One gets the impression that Orwell's only objection to totalitarianism and propaganda was stylistic; that only because the language they use is ugly are they evil.

Ohmigod!

[gmhowell]

You guys don't even read the stories half the time, now you're supposed to read every comment?!

The background

[Caid Raspa]

The Finnish parliamentary elections will be held in a few months (around 16.3). So the politicians are busy, trying to show that they have done something, and deserve re-election.

A mall was bombed last year. (try googling for "Myyrmanni bomb") Several people got killed, including the bomber. It turned out that the bomber was active poster on several discussion forums. Some of these were crackpot forums, and one was for people interested in explosives. The moderator of the explosives forum got arrested, but was released afterwards.

Another point is that the Finnish telecom, (Sonera) got thoroughly blasted by an anonymous book first published on the web. The book seemed credible enough, and later a police investigation showed that the security department of Sonera had been scanning the e-mail and the phone calls of the employees, without their consent. Probably this was done by a pissed-off employee. However, a big company got in trouble because the net allowed fast spreading of the book, and there was no way to press the publisher.

The outcome is logical, as the politicians and voters do not understand the net. Large campaign financiers have an interest in regulating the net. Play with the fears of the people and get paid when you desperately need good press and money for the commercials.

I'm getting more and more ashamed for being Finnish.