Slashdot Mirror
German Search Engines Self-Regulating
Philipp Lenssen writes "Heise reports the German search engines Google.de, Lycos Europe, MSN Germany, AOL Germany, Yahoo.de, T-Online and T-Info today in Berlin announced the forming of a self-regulating organization (Babelfish version) under the hood of the German FSM (the "Voluntary Self-Control for Multimedia Service Providers"). Their combined goal is to streamline the process of censoring content ruled illegal under German law, so that a user's search results are stripped from such items."
"a user's search results are stripped from such items"
So... it only returns the illegal matches?
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
I love the non-restrictive US.
So that means no more Hitler...or anything remotely linked to WWII...i feel bad for the German student writing the book report about WWII's causes...that's gonna be pretty odd...
Have you seen the arrow?
What's stopping someone in Germany from just going to Google.com instead of Google.de? Would they not then get uncensored results?
Who doesn't like free music?
Isn't part of the EU constitution a bit about free speech?
How does that affect these national laws which prevent us from expressing hate openly?
So poop sex and fisting will still be available then?
One thing listed was " glorification of violence".
Wouldn't that mean web sites and game servers for half the games out there could be considered illegal?
Reasonable laws quickly become unreasonable when they're written too vaguely.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
MSN already banned searches for "Adolf Hitler" from it's German search engine, which does of course make a lot of sense, as only Neo-Nazi scum would search for something like this.
People like me who are interested in history would never entertain even the thought to search for "Adolf Hitler" or "Holocaust" on the web.
After all we might stumble on sites like this:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/
Now wouldn't that be terrible...
Mod me down if you want, but I never got how a progressive society in any form could censor content. Now, I understand the historical contexts here, and I understand how the good 'ol USA has in some senses (or at least, in some peoples' eyes) has become a stomping ground for hate groups since nobody else will take them.. but I never got the point of "you can't post that opinion" or "that image, hurting nobody, is banned". I also understand that here in the US we have plenty of laws outlawing things which hurt nobody.. but HTML and GIFs?
Perhaps somebody from the European states could enlighten me.
While this is only my first post here, I still happen to think that it's smart of them to regulate themselves instead of having the government come in and do it. Censorship (self-imposted or otherwise) sucks any way you slice it, true, but at least if it's self-imposed they will be able to ease or lift it entirely once the political climate improves. Much the same way that the comic book industry censored themselves, and then eased the the enforcement of their standards when adult comics such as the vertigo line became popular.
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
so, the search engine folks have the choice of self-censoring, or getting slapped for breaking German law... in other words, they're already responsible for the things they link to, at least as far as "offensive speech" is concerned...
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
Seems fair to me. I'm all for free speech, but not when it entices crime.
Define "crime."
Speeding is a crime. In many parts of the United States, for example, exceeding 65 MPH is a crime, and on most urban expressways, exceeding 55 MPH is a crime.
The song "I can't drive 55" (1980s crapola music, but nevertheless) arguably incites one to commit a crime. Under the law you just cited, that would be censorable material.
As would many discussions here on slashdot in opposition to existing copyright law, patent law, and in support of many peer-to-peer networking technologies.
I can understand why Germany finnds such speech annoying and offensive, but censorship isn't the answer, and I'm afraid Europe (and perhaps most of the western world) is about to get a lesson in just how bad an idea censorship, even of offensive material, really is, and exactly how much worse such a cure is than the disease it's intended to address.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
What's the difference between PC users and a newborn baby? PC users don't smile when you spoon-feed them. WTF is wrong with the governments today? Do they need to have "we know better" written on everything they do? Matter of fact I'm pretty sure they don't. Or do they think I'd be happy to see Bamby rabbits when searching for "Hitlerjugend"? BTW - does searching for such a thing automatically make me a pro-nazi?
Just use an anonymous web proxy....
Seems like yet another foiled attempt to legislate the Internet!
http://www.reeb.freeserve.co.uk
Google was caught filtering out neo-Nazi sites back in 2002 so MSN is just following common practice.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Forbidden in Germany and restricting the freedom of speech are..., glorification of violence, ...
They don't have video games or action movies in Germany?
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
The issue of what content is illegal, and whether it should be or not, is a separate one. The government is the one that's making the content rules, the search providers are just responding -- and doing so by forming a group because it probably makes technical and economic sense. The fact that they are forming a group has no real news in itself: presumably they were already having to supress the content, now they are just working together to lower their pain levels.
I tried to think of any negative consequences, and only that the group could get into trouble if they acted as a cartel and exchanged price or operating sensitive information, or worked together to filter out foreign competitors or foreign content. Cartel behaviour is a well known phenomena, and easily possibly in the realm of search and information rather than products and prices.
- I am a german, but I am not a nazi. I belive in a democracy and don't want to change that.
I am not for censorship
The neonazis say "Die Nazis haben nie Gaskammern gebaut, alles eine Lüge" (Translation: "The nazis never built gas chambers, that's a lie!"
If you use google.de, you will get the "censored" results. For example links to informations/documetation websites that explain why this was a bad period in german history....
I think there will be no links to any websites of Garry Lauck"
If you use google.com you will get "the american version" of the results.
My opinion is that you can not surpress other "beliefs" but you can inform that these beliefs are bad or caused people to behave barbarous against other people.
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
(Or something like that. I don't actually speak German.)
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Brian: Yeah, uh, about your pamphlet, uh, I'm not seeing anything about German history between 1939 and 1945. There's just a big gap.
German Tour Guide: Everyone was on vacation! On your left is Munich's first city hall erected in 15--
Brian: Wait, wait. What are you talking about? Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and--
German Tour Guide: We were invited! Punch was served!
Brian: You can't just ignore those years. Thomas Mann fled to America because of Nazism's stranglehold on Germany.
German Tour Guide: Nope. Nope. He left to manage a Dairy Queen.
Brian: A Dairy Queen? That's preposterous.
German Tour Guide: I will hear no more insinuations about the German people! Nothing bad happened!
If the content filtered out from the search results is really illegal, the authorities should go after those who put the contents online.
And if the german authorities cannot stop the contents because it is located in other contries, this kind of censorship is no better than the censorship done by countries like Iran and China. The only difference is that it is called "voluntary". Please note that Germany has a history of banning both extreme rigth-wing and extreme left-wing political speech.
FSM = Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Multimedia
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
So why self-censor?
because they are breaking german law if they don't
The situation is kind of reversed. While there is no problem with nudity (even full frontal nudity in prime-time television), violence is frowned upon and you won't see as much of it as you can on US TV. Movies with scenes of violence get more restrictive ratings. Check out akas.imdb.com and compare the "Certification" part of movies with violence or horror.
What's going to happen? How's the censorship boogeyman going to bite us in the ass?
... though hopefully not.
You sound remarkably like a troll, or a young teenager still so wrapped up in your own cultural bigotry and ethnocentrism that you believe yourself and your society to be above learning from anyone else in the world. As a citizen of a country whose president has the latter character trait, such characteristics are rather easy to identify.
To address your point, lest someone innocent reading this actually buy into your "nothing can happen, prove otherwise! Failure to prove otherwise proves it will never happen and anyone who suggests otherwise is an ass!" tripe:
Define A as illegal (may be a misdemeaner, may be a felony, or EU equivelent) (e.g. copyright violation).
Define B is inciting A. E.g. Criticizing copyright is an implicit incitement to commit copyright violation, which is a crime.
Apply law banning "incitement to commit a crime." E.g. "You may not critizie copyright, because to do so incites people to violate copyright, which is a crime."
No reform is possible, as no one may speak out against the existing law.
Apply this to pretty much any law the current powerholders have a vested interest in maintaining, irrespective of the public interests. Software patents might be a good example in another couple of years
Frankly, if Germans in particular, and Europeans in general, are unable to grasp this, you have a whole world of political hurt coming your way.
This ins't to defend the American idiocy of the last half decade in any respect. We have plenty of hurt coming our way, as a natural consiquence of our own stupidity. That, however, doesn't immunize Europe against the consiquences of its own failings as well, or legitimize the bigoted notion that because a non-European made an observation about the implications of a European law, it has no value.
How? What's the lesson we're going to learn, and who's going to teach it to us?
You're going to teach it to yourselves. Just as you did the lessons of world war II. Like any society, you'll probably come out of it in the end in one of two states: 1) with an extended period of darkness (e.g. the "dark ages", where it took more than a millenium to learn the lessons of dictatorship vs. democracy that the fall of the Roman Empire [shouhd have] taught) or 2) with a potent, unforgettable lesson in the crippling effects censorship almost invariably has on the democratic process.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
One of the great benefits to society of free speech is it makes it easy to spot the idiots.
If someone's a racist asshole, better for all involved for him to be openly proclaiming his assholishness on a street corner for all to hear than for him to be keeping it to himself in his basement. In either case, his actions will be informed by his racism, but in the former case, that fact is obvious.
Why you can still argue if the German law is a good or a bad thing in that case, most ranting slashdotters should think about the reason why the founding fathers&mothers of the Federal Republic of Germany installed this law in 1948/49.
It was because they were still under the impression of the horrifing death the Weimar Republic experienced in the late 1920 and early 1930, leading to the birth of the 3. Reich.
Nazis came to power because of their demagogic methods, what is called "Volksverhetzung" (special form of sedition) today and the Communists paroles of that time werent much better only on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
Critical, sensitive, rational thinking didnt reach the masses (voters) at that time. And the founding fathers feared that the masses could be blinded again.
So like USA citizens see it as an important right to own weapons because of their history and people of other nations might think it is strange, Germans might see it as important to censor Volksverhetzung in any kind because of their own history.
Keep that in mind.
For all who want to know more about the background of the dying Weimar Republic this book is perhaps the best:
Sebastian Haffner -- Defying Hitler: A Memoir
--- censored
Knowledge should never ever be censored.
Never.
Bending over for absurd rules only perpetuates them, and the tyrants that make them..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Regarding the forced Prostitute thing, I invite you to check out snopes: http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp It's BS.
The "founding fathers&mothers" did not install the Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Schriften. Neither did they install the Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Multimedia-Diensteanbieter. Instead, they wrote a constitution which in article 5 plainly says "(1) Everybody has the right to [...] unhindered access to information from commonly available sources [...] Censorship does not happen". These are the actual words of the German constitution (modulo my rough translation)
Much like in the USA (where there are numerous Supreme Court decisions on the subject), the government may restrict this right under very specific circumstances. Again, article 5: "(2) These rights are limited by the general legislation, the laws for protection of the youth and the right of personal honor."
The personal honor provision allows the government to outlaw libel, the youth protection clause allows it to restrict access to adult material. Note that there is no Nazi speech clause there (as would be expected if your statements were true). In fact, i doubt that the ominous "general legislation" clause in paragraph (2) covers the banning of swastikas and such, but since no Nazi has ever tried to challenge this at Germany's Bundesverfassungsgericht, we have yet to find out.
The disturbing trend behind the recent attempts to declare unwanted information illegal is that we seem to think that bad things will go away if we don't talk about them. They won't.
And the Weimar Republic did not die because Nazis were allowed to speak. It died because there weren't enough Democrats around to answer them.
Maybe they could make hate criminals wear some distinctive badge so everyone knows who they are, or have 're-education centers' for them. The haters could redeem themselves through work.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.