Slashdot Mirror
Podcasting Censored by Government
PodCoward writes "VH is blogging that in Belgium a former talk-show host and now member of parliament for the biggest political party, Jurgen Verstrepen, received a fine of 12,500 Euro because he hadn't asked permission for his podcast." From the article: "The decision is apparently politically inspired and motivated by content, although formal reasons like non-compliance with Flanders' media regulation have been put forward in the motivation of the decision to fine. The issue has raised some serious concerns about free speech on the Internet in Flanders, about the definition of 'broadcasting,' and about territoriality."
Yet another nail in the coffin for the idea of having more EU control over the internet.
And it will be called "campaign finance reform".
Have opinions on candidates? Have a blog? Comment on blogs? Hit tipjars? Too vocal and influential?
Look forward to visits from the FEC.
Money is speech, speech is money. Talk too much and you'll be over the limit for campaign contributions.
Thank the honorable senators McCain and Feingold.
it's still our internet, not theirs. This is just another example of the kind of government interference the high-minded international community would do if the UN took over the administration of the internet.
Tell 2600 magazine about how much more "free" it is over here.
Freedom isn't easy.
If you have ever heard Roosevelt's speech on the four freedoms can see just how hard it is.
The four freedoms are
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of worship.
Freedom from fear.
And Freedom from want.
How can you have freedom of speech and freedom from fear? Belgian is trying to give it's population freedom from fear be limiting racist speech. It is a trade off. It is really up to the people of Belgian to decide if that is a trade off they want. The US believes in a different set of trade offs. I tend to feel those are the correct trade offs for the US. Belgian is a democratic country and can and should work out what it thinks is best for it's population. Hopefully this is being debated in Belgian.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
True. The US government has realized something that the Chinese, Burmese, and now European governments haven't yet come to understand: Talk has always been cheap, and the Internet only makes it cheaper.
Think about it. If Watergate happened today, it would rate an outraged blog entry or two on DailyKos, and be spun into evanescent gossamer by Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. I doubt that the Committee to Re-Elect the President would even have to book an appearance for its representative on Hannity. The whole thing would blow over just that quickly, lost in the popular anomie that is "outrage fatigue."
So no, at least at the present time, the powers that be in the US have seen no need to enforce excessive regulation of free speech, except in a few cases where the religious freaks have to be appeased. Attempts like the CDA and COPA have been desultory efforts at best compared to what we've seen in Europe and Australia. I don't think this'll change anytime soon... they (correctly) see no downside in letting the bloggers stew in their own juices.
The fact is, that it is a crime in Belgium, to frankly or subtly set up one people to hate another, whether it is because of being a different race, sexual preference, or religion. This article is abusing, by posing Johan Verstreken as a victim. Don't be fooled by it. The article plays its role. Verstreken is member and politician of the VB in question. And VB is Belgiums' biggest nightmare after WW II. The issue is so sickening, that I even have to post anonymously.
Now look what hate has done to Europe in the 1930ies and look what it does to the world now. Freedom of Speech? The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. How much freedom is there in a lie, or in half the truth?
How much freedom is there in hate?
There is racism all over the world and a lot of people are put at a disadvantage by it. We don't tolerate racist nutjobs here in the US, either; but we're not naive enough to drive them underground so that we don't know what the hell is going on.
I'd prefer that my enemies make themselves known, rather than hide in the shadows. And it is sickening and somewhat frightening that a government would encourage the latter.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
At least people in Europe have the guts to say "we won't tolerate that crap!"
Which explains race riots in France how?
"At least people in Europe have the guts to say "we won't tolerate that crap!".".
Yeah, at least in Europe, we have the guts to say, "this may be democracy, but you have no right to speak".
Seems that when the US censors free speech, it's never the government's fault. It's the individual voter's fault for letting the government get away with it. But when the same thing happens in Europe, it's "evil socialist governments" who are at fault, not the individual voters.
Nevermind the complexities of the electoral systems and how much one's vote can actually change entrenched systems. Europe bad! America good!
... and then they built the supercollider.
It is not and should not be left to the government to decide our country's morals or values unless it is necessary in order to secure itself or its citizens. I cannot see how disallowing people (not necessarily whites) to publically slur others would have ended segregation sooner or protect citizens. Hate crimes would still be commited. Stopping the prejudice would be more effective than limiting its exposure.
No existe.
"First of all, why do Americans have to get so high and mighty about Europe's anti-Nazi laws? "
Ah, youth.
The reason those of us who have been educated with a sense of history is that the Europeans claim to believe in free speech, but they don't. You see, free speech means "Freedom to offend people". We broke away from England because of that principle, and we fought two great wars on the continent to defend those principals (against Nazis!). To see the Belgians, French, and Germans disregard the millions of deaths over the past 10 years defending those freedom strikes those of us who had fathers die in those wars as really really bad.
"And what's worse is that people think that free speech in America means being able to say racist and ethnic slurs"
Free speech means just that. It means the freedom to offend. It means the right to say stuff that you will find utterly offense. It means speech that will hurt you to your core. That's free speech. It's an important right, because it gives you the freedom to say things against conventional beliefs that people will find offensive.
"We agree Hitler was a bad guy, but we preserve our right to free speech because we should be able to say absolutely anything we want at all times. However, maybe if we stopped allowing whites to publically slur other races sooner, we could have ended segregation sooner, prevented Japanese Americans from being sent to internment camps, and prevented our own ethnic crimes from being committed in Tuskeegee."
First, America sent its sons and fathers to die to defeat Hitler; we changed our whole way of life to defeat him, so please stop with the revisionist history. Segregation didn't occur because people were allowed to talk about it, Japanese weren't sent to internment camps because we were allowed to talk about it, and the experiments you speak were not the result of free speech, they were the result of secrecy and an unwillingness to challenge coventional wisdom.
Do you think it was popular in 1940 to say FDR was doing a bad job by putting Americans from Japan in internment camps? Dude, Americans thought it was a *GREAT* idea.
Free speech is the most crucial freedom we have and its worth fighting and dieing for, even if it offends you. I don't get how you don't even understand history here! It scares me a great deal!
Do you think if we stopped talking about racism it would disappear? Seriously?
One adjustment from:
However, maybe if we stopped allowing whites to publically slur other races sooner, we could have ended segregation sooner,
to:
However, maybe if we stopped allowing anyone to publically slur races not of themselves sooner, we could have ended segregation sooner,
Because preventing white people from cussing out "niggers" will only lead to the inverse. If you're going to cut people's rights (in order to prevent them infringing others rights), do it fairly, en-masse.
He was still censored by the government nonetheless.
Do you think if we stopped talking about racism it would disappear? Seriously?
Actually that's one of the benefits of these laws from the perspective of someone who doesn't have to live under them. They provide a nice counter-example to prove that criminalizing an unpopular opinion does not make that opinion vanish.
It would be more approriate to liken this to the Ku Klux Klan operating a radio station in the US -- do you think it would be accepted?
The interactive way to Go -- http://www.playgo.to/iwtg/en/
"However, maybe if we stopped allowing whites to publically slur other races sooner, we could have ended segregation sooner, prevented Japanese Americans from being sent to internment camps, and prevented our own ethnic crimes from being committed in Tuskeegee."
As another poster already pointed out, that's utter bunk.
"preface: I am an american myself."
Well that explains it; but you forgot the "self-loathing" part. You seem to think that racism and other forms of bigotry and oppression are unique to America, and that Americans are the cause of said evils.
Get a clue. Oppression existed long before America was founded, and it wasn't caused by people talking about it.
Did you ever consider that perhaps our enduring racial tensions are perpetuated by our inability to openly confront and discuss the issues?
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
Isn't it somewhat illogical to first suggest that no one reads blogs, and then in the very next sentence say that you do, apparently in such amounts that you can recognize stuff that was copied from another blog ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.