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."
In 1995, Oceanic soldiers were locked in a battle with the Eastasians in...
*STATIC*
We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Stupid Flanders, always censoring the Internet.
Yet another nail in the coffin for the idea of having more EU control over the internet.
Why there's like a million different terms related to MAKING a blog, but not a single one for "reading" blogs? Could it be a hint that blogs are write-only media, and nobody actually wastes time reading them? At least thats the impression I get, because every blog I ever seen is just filled with mundane tripe/copypaste from other sites and/or blogs. What is the point, anyway?
What do you expect from a country named after a vile curse word?
After RTFA, it appears that the fine does not stem from the fact that he had a podcast. He was fined because he had on some guests from a deemed racist political party. Certain European countries get very limp-wristed on these issues and try to deny that such people and problems exist. They would rather sweep the problems of racism under the carpet and pretend these whackjobs don't exist. That is where the fine came from.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
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.
Can any concern about Flanders be considered a serious one? That's like saying there are serious concerns about what a father of four decides to have for dinner.
Currently hooked on AMP
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.
A novell idea. Let's use slashdot to gain exposure and some credibility for what most people would consider to be the whining and howling of a bunch of racists.
Two talk show hosts were ruled to have provided "in-kind" political contributions by supporting a gas-tax repeal.
More here.
Free-speech has been repealed by John McCain and the courts.
The article says the racism bothered leading officials and goverment parties.
But that the formal reason was non-compliance with some media-regulation.
The non-compliance is implied to be unlinked to the rasistic content.
The judgement only quotes existing law when it mentions podcasting:
Officially, every "radio service" operator who has Flanders as his primary audience should inform the appropriate government institution of this. Podcasting is also considered a "radio service". The accused didn't do that, but Vlaams Commissariaat voor de Media makes no problem of that. In fact, the verdict sounds to me a bit like begging to do away with that requirement.
The actual conviction has nothing to do with podcasting:
* the program was also an analog radio broadcast channel
* the analog broadcast channel was for one political party
* it is illegal to operate an analog radio broadcast channel for a single political party in Flanders
* it is illegal to operate an analog radio broadcast channel with Flanders as its primary market without a Flemish government permit. They didn't have one.
B.T.W. Jurgen Verstrepen is a member of parliament for Vlaams Belang, successors to Vlaams Blok, both generally considered extreme right wing parties. Even if on most issues including part of immigration policy, they are probably to the left of the Republicans in the US or Howard in Australia...
Most countries in europe do not recognize the right to free speech. Look at the anti-nazi-speech laws in Germany and many other countries in europe. The most important speech to protect is the speech that you despise.
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?
Ah, the guy wasn't fined because he had a podcast, he was fined because of the content of his podcast. That's a very important distinction.
I feel better now.
Write once, read never.
Discovering this was very interesting to me, as I had heard that Europe was less racist than the United States...
... but it ignores the fact that knowledge passes on through families, on social issues, moreso than podcasts and even television.
... people are going to continue to be racists (and worse) ... :/
When I heard about the riots in France, I was shocked that they had the same problems we had...
===
That sort of censorship MAY have a good motive (that is, the concept the lawmakers might have is that if they don't publicize the racism, if they try to stamp it out through not acknowledging it, that it may eventually just 'burn itself' out...)
Prejudice (on all sides) is passed on by social contact, and unless you can control that (which you really can't)
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
As a Flemish citizen, I have been downloading these podcasts for a while now and it is as VH describes in his article: rightwing-progressive (sic) talk radio. Nothing about racism, just news coverage and interviews from a different (uncommon for a 70% left-wing dominated press, as was revealed in a 2003 poll among Belgian journalists) point of view. People that get boycotted by the Belgian media (the VB party, dissident liberals, bloggers, ...)
Verstrepen is quite liberal in his society views (freedom above all), yet right-wing in rejecting the socialist dogmas that dominate politics in Belgium. He is therefore fair game for people that like the status-quo of the parties in power.
The "racism" argument is just Godwin's Law applied in the parliament by parties that don't like the strong popular backing the VB party is getting (25% of the votes, largest single party in Flanders). Over the last decade, the socialists have been hit by what must be a dozen corruption scandals, yet are still in power because they manage to constantly bad-mouth the VB and to threaten any other party from forming a coalition with them. This makes the socialists essential to forge any coalition and keeps them in power. And all in the name of "higher moral principles" of "not talking with nazi's" and other feeble Godwin-style arguments.
The podcast ban is symptomatic of this: the powers that be don't hesitate to modify laws at random to hit their nemesis party. First it was the "racism" law that was extended to just about any difference between people. It is now so convoluted that anyone can sue for any reason ("possible(!) incitement(!) to discriminate" concerning age, gender, financial status, ...). The party was sued and tried by a judge pertaining to a French elitist service club (note: the party wants independence from Belgium's French speaking part). It was sued for pointing out the incompatibilities between militant Islam and democracy, interjections that have been made by just about any other party, and since 9/11 are official government policy in countries as the US, Netherlands and Denmark.
The next juridical attack came as the "prohibition law". Its name originated as a reference to the 1920's prohibition, but now with the ubiquitous Godwin's Law as condition to cut off government subsidies to the party.
And now the government's internet carpetbombing makes some severe collateral damage in the feedom of speech department of every netizen. Podcast licenses, what will be next? Journalist cards to run blogs, as was hinted in Spain a couple of years ago?
Anyway, there is a English-speaking page (VB-operated) that details the political situation from their point of view: http://www.flemishrepublic.org/
So many politicians do things which severely harm the democracy of their country, which have been build carefully in their nations history. We know what democracy is, we certainly know what freedom is. Flander people use your vote to get politicians who enable true freedom of speech. How is it possible so many politicians misuse their powers to restrict this freedom? It is this freedom that is a fundament for democracy and also for their jobs.
And they just happened to be on a podcast.
This isn't a specific attack on podcasts, and this would be attacked if it were in something as archaic as cuneiform. It's the message, not the medium.
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
Actually, this point should be irrelevant to the discussion. So what if it was a radio station operated by a political party, a member of a party (as is the case here) or by a private person that may or may not have a privately held preference for a party? ... because *they* had all the media access they needed and wanted to deprive that other party that didn't. Guess which party that was...
The problem is that the government systematically tries to cut off media access to an opinion and a person holding it. Especially when the point of view of this person is already constantly targeted for vilification in the left-wing biased media, this constitutes plain censorship.
The World War 2 arguments are plain Godwinesque and could just as well apply to the government's point of view: unlicensed radio receivers for the British broadcasts would also spell trouble with the "acting government" back then.
And indeed, the air time on public television was a fact. Until the government parties decided to scrap it
Something's very rotten in the state of Belgium.
preface: I am an american myself.
First of all, why do Americans have to get so high and mighty about Europe's anti-Nazi laws? Every time I hear someone go off on a law like this it's like a European gets their foot chopped off when they utter the word "Hitler" or "Nazi."
I really can't speak for any of these laws, but what I can say is that just because such a law exists doesn't mean it's all that bad, even if it seems counter to our own constitution. Our own constitution at times seems flawed, in that the right to bear arms is felt by some to be completely unnecessary and constantly misinterpreted by modern governments.
And what's worse is that people think that free speech in America means being able to say racist and ethnic slurs so that no law is created that might on the off chance prevent someone from actually uttering the word "nigger" or "dirty jew" in a sentence that is not meant as a racist slur but in an intelligent adult discussion about the evils of racism.
My Major problem with racism and racist fucks is that to me it's really a form of slander or libel, except you are doing it against an entire race. You can't publically call someone a baby killer, so why the fuck can these people in America call Blacks and Jews baby killers?
In an ideal world you have evolving government and changing laws. There's no reason to think a democratically elected government cannot craft legislation that put forms of racist language on the level of libel.
And how does this relate to Nazism? That's the whole point. Europe witnessed the horrors of Hitler first hand and up front. The US has these weird rose colored glasses on at times. 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.
You can't cry fire in a crowded theater, you can't call Bush a baby killer without proof, and you should not be able to go onto a radio show and say blacks and jews are causing an increase in crime and disease and should be thrown in jails.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
...slogging?
This is censorship, but not regulation of free speech on the internet. The man who did the podcasts was NOT fined because of his broadcasts, he was fined because he broke the law on discriminatory speech.
To put it simple: the guy is fined for broadcasting racial crap (the nasty kind, not an intellectual discours on racial differences), which is a serious offense in Belgium.
Parent is not flamebait. It's reality.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
Fitzgerald has been investigating for 2 years now and he's still not quite done with the indictments. The man has spent 2 years and hasn't actually gone before a judge and jury to force someone to defend themselves.
I do agree that Rush and O'Reilly have lowered the level of discourse.I can't speak about Burma or Europe, but which Chinese gov't are you talking about?
China has filters ALL internet content and more recently, they've moved onto censoring SMS messages because of the role it had in spreading (sometimes false) information about SARS and the Asian Bird Flu.
I'm quite sure China knows how cheap talk is, which is why they've gone to great lengths to suppress it.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This case is setting up an interesting collision between Belgium's domestic legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), comparable to (...although differing in detail ...) the collision between state and federal law in the USA.
This is a good thing. Ideally, of course, anti-racists or anti-anti-Islamicists would simply find a way to outtalk or otherwise pursuade racists, using reason, logic et cetera. But in the real world, it's normal and human to take shortcuts, especially where local fears are inflamed by famous crimes committed by Islamic immigrants.
The ECHR has been helpful in comparable matters. For example, in previous cases involving torture in the U.K., the local nation's actions which were engendered by local fears were overruled by the calmer, broader view of the larger E.U.. That's one of the benefits of a multilevel polity; locals get inflamed by local fears, while larger groups are not so emotionally involved.
The most obviously relevant ECHR law in this Flemish matter:
ARTICLE 10:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
This language gives plenty of room to argue, e.g. whether podcasting is broadcasting, and whether banning anti-Islamic speech is "necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security".
I don't know the answer that the Council of Europe will fnally provide, but the ECHR is probably the most important legal battleground.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
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.
This is actually an insightful.
I think someone went on a powertrip with mod points.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
This has nothing to do with censorship. A guy who also does podcasts, gets a fine for not respecting local media restrictions (like requesting a licences for analog radio broadcasts and registering yourself,) See pdf regarding convinction in article (dutch sorry)
As usual here in Belgium, justice department works a bit slow and it's actually for some analog broadcasts in the past (which now have been replaced with podcasts) he gets fined and gets urged
to do everything according to existing regulation.
The guy is political active for a convicted racist party and it's supporters now try to use this bit as propaganda to tell he's getting censored because of his content instead. Most politicians in Belgium are trying hard to ignore this kind of people but sometimes fail to due to the provocative nature of the party in question.
And then of course, there's actual freedom, which FDR took away from 100,000 Japanese-descended American immigrants when he put them into internment camps for the duration of WWII. Of course, when he did that he was protecting the rest of us from the fear that the Japanese gardener down the street wasn't plotting to take over California.
My other first post is car post.
He was still censored by the government nonetheless.
I guess most of you don't know that Flanders is a part of Belgium. And Brussels is the captial of Belgium. I live in this contry. Jurgen Verstrepe is a member of the very right wing party in Flanders. There is a law in Flanders that a politician can not have his own radio station. Radio shouldn't be partial ore biased to a certain political group. This man run a radio station from out of Germany for a few weeks. For that he got fined. His blog was also seen as a radio station. I must say the law in Belgium doesn't has a clue what a podcast is or even what the internet is. Politics are behind the facts of today.
I'm Flemish and I hear about it first on Slashdot. Do you really think this is news? For nerds or other human spieces?
The rant about VB has gone on now for decades, quite frankly we're al fed up about it. Actually, the fine will earn VB those extra few votes they need to gain executive power. The other Flemish politicians are shooting themselves constantly in the foot. And the media (now including Slashdot) are giving them a helping hand!
BTW: I never voted VB, yet.
StarTrek.org Free Webmail
For the sake of clarity:
- Jurgen Verstrepen, the presentator of the program, is a high profile member of the political party Vlaams Belang / Vlaams Blok.
- Vlaams Blok was convicted in Belgium because of strong racism (and the lies they used to spread it). They changed their name to Vlaams Belang.
- Jurgen Verstrepen has a history of spreading racism on the media. He used to have a talkshow before on local radio where racists could spread their hate freely.
- The heart of Vlaams Blok is made up by old school nazi's. These people are orgaznized, prepared and ideologically strong. This is what make this fascistoid party dangerous.
- Aside of racism and a new order ideology (break the unions and a police state) their main goal is the destruction of Belgium.
Please put the headers in perspective,
A concerned Belgian citizen.
Not that I'm against 2600 and in favor of the DMCA, but the fundamental core values of freedom of political speech are more important than the freedom to circumvent copy protection. We can (if we're lucky) get Washington to repeal the DMCA, the Sony Bono copyright extensions, etc., but only if we are able to speak out against them, which is what we are doing.
An equivalent comparison between the case of Jurgen Verstrepen and the case of 2600 would be if the United States made it illegal to even argue against DMCA in a podcast without a government license. This isn't the law in the United States (although we came close when the FEC almost declared blogging to be political campaign contributions). So yes, I am still willing to say that the US has better free speech rights than Belgium, no matter what happens to 2600 under the DMCA.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
Jurgen Verstrepen was never a talkshowhost, and certainly not in the American sense of the word. He had a talk radio show for a couple of months on a new radio station with a couple of thousand listeners.
Secondly, the "biggest party" referred to (Vlaams Blok aka Vlaams Belang) is only the biggest party in 1 city in the country, and does NOT participate in government on ANY level in the entire country.
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/
The "Vlaams Belang" is nothing even remotely near those insane people-burning racists. There are colored people that are member of the VB, a point of view the Ku Klux Klan would find a bit "problematic". As I mentioned in a previous reply, this entire "racism" thing is one big vilification by the people that can't find any proper arguments.
But this has nothing to do with the crux of the question: what kind of impertinence does the Belgian government have, that they think they can impose "broadcast permission" acts on their citizens? This is news worthy of originating in China, not the heart of Europe.
Correctness check indeed:
Easily verified on his curriculum: http://jurgenverstrepen.typepad.com/about.html
(note that the cartel CD&V+N-VA is composed of two parties and N-VA scores around the electoral threshold of 5%, the reason why they were compelled to form the carte)
It's quite logical that if you count the French-speaking Walloon part, the VB scores zero. But all other Flemish parties also score zero there, just as all Walloon parties score zero in Flanders. So the argument stands: largest party, in Flanders or even Belgium.
I hope this kind of reality, with URLs included, is better checkable than random assertions.
And again: why should these trivia even play a role in the discussion about the usurpation of dictatorial powers by the Belgian government?
They want to abolish wealth redistribution and escape the shackles of the french-speaking socialists aka walloons.
They want to have a referendum on the European constitution - very unusual for any european party, for the most part the anti-democratic eurosocialists prefer to avoid all that democracy stuff and just impose more and more of the european behemoth on their subjects without asking them for their opinion on the matter, so good for you VB!
And the VB are the largest party in Flanders, whcih means they are nto by any means an extremist party at the edge of society, but a alrge party representing the interests of the people, a people who are ignored and abused by the central Belgian state, a people who are ignored by Brussels and who the walloons, on their socialist drip feed of money from the Flemings, prefer to villify.
I think the VB are an example of a resurgance of representative democracy and a new agitation for freedom in the face of opposition by the old, corrupt european establishment. Only a few countries are goign to escape the evil of Europe - those countries with the longest traditions of freedom and democracy, such as Britain. Can Flanders join them?
I say they can, thanks to the VB.
Well my dear little frogs, let this toad explain to you why he moved out of Belgium and how the Belgian system works....
First thing to remember, Belgium is the only real federal state in Europe. Belgium comprises of 4 very different groups of people.
You have the Flemmish, Dutch speaking who lean culturally really close to the Netherlands, the Waloon who spek French and mostly lean towards French tendancies, the German speaking +/-3000 people in the east and then "Les Brusselois". Those who live in Brussels, that lean towards the EU and try to create some sort of national feeling (as anyone who has lived in Belgium knows, there is no such thing as a Belgian nationalist feeling)
The reasons why this polititian has been fined are not because he abused the internet with this podcast, but because he broke Belgian law by creating a podcast for a political extremist party.
This all happens in Flanders, where the nationalist "Vlaams Blok" has for many years, been the target of what is commonly called the "cordonne sanitaire". A common cause of all non exreme right or left parties. To stop the growth of the extremist parties, a law was created to keep them out of the publics eye.
Anyone with even the tiniest bit of cerebral power knows that sweeping something under the carpet isn't a sollution, but when over 10 parties need to agree on something, the final result is almost always a compromise without to much of a effect on reality.
As a concerned Flemish citizen I agree provided "racist" "fascistoid" and "nazi" follow the Godwin-definition and don't carry any intellectually significant meaning.
Verstrepen spreads the other point of view of people that want an independent Flanders and want a firm stand against crime, curb the hyperinflated immigration and stop the socialist superstate that is being created.
I already commented in other posts about the so-called "racism/discrimination" legal term being redefined to harm the VB. Read the law on http://flemishrepublic.org/ and shiver: any "expressing the intention of discriminating on the basis of age" for example now is punishable, unless you prove you are innocent. Being convicted under such an Orwellian law is an honor, not a blemish.
A police state is one that attacks the free speech of their citizens and dissenting opinions, like Belgium anno 2006. The VB wants police to arrest common criminals, this is not a "police state" but plain core business.
This story is actually another win of the "Vlaams blok^W belang", Flanders extreme right sesessionist party.
Yes, there's a law against political parties broadcasting radio in Belgium.
Yes, there are some laws about podcasting in Belgium.
Yes, you need a licence to broadcasted radio over analog short wave in Belgium.
They broke all of these laws.
So did they expect to get away with breaking all those laws at once? No, they knew this couldn't be ignored. They wanted to be fined.
Since obviously, getting fined for breaking the law, is political oppression. It is their strategy, they've been doing it for years. They are the innocent victim, the freedom loving democratic party that is censored by an oppressive dictatorial governement. It's an easy role, and it earns them lot's of votes.
The site slashdot links isn't an unbiased news source by far (read some of the other articles). If you wanna hear the other side of the story, read the official reasons for the fine (in dutch I'm affraid).
I prefer to make up my own opinion about them. I read their official party programs. I saw their leaders in debates. I saw the methods they use to gain support. And I saw/read/heard a lot more about them.
And I feel even more convinced to vote for another party.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Yet, the cordon sanitaire against the VB leads to this sort of inanity (ie the podcast affair) - the cordon should be scrapped.
That said, the VB is huge; they control the city of Antwerpen, which has Belgium's largest Jewish community. The VB is a large problem to the freedom of all of us in Belgium, esp. us foreign residents.
The spread of the fake European spirit, as embodied in the EU and EC, as opposed to the true European spirit, found in spontaneous identification, has greatly increased nationalist sentiment, esp. in Belgium.
According to Flemish law a podcast is a radiostation. That means you need a license to have a podcast and podcasts are not allowed to have ties with political parties. That's what his story is about: a government trying to get control over the internet.
But not for podcasting.
I think the question is whether VH is blogging with Sammy or Dave? The real VH only ever blogs with Dave, man.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Read the law. See article 31 paragraph 4 and Article 54 paragraph 4. All he needed to do was send a letter. That's it, it would have been completely legal, and nobody could do anything about it. No licence is needed.
The government only requests to know you are broadcasting radio over the internet, they don't need to give you permission. This is not at all a violation of the freedom of speech.
You have the freedom to broadcast whatever you want on an internet radio. They only want to know.
Mr Verstrepen broke that law.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Read article 35! A radiostation is not allowed to have ties with a political party. According to article 31 paragraph 4 a podcast is a radio station. If Verstrepen would have send a letter, he would never have had permission to have a podcast! He tried to avoid this by using an American provider to host his podcast, but that didn't help. Yes, Mr Verstrepen broke the law, and he knew he did. But this law is simply ridiculous. Yes, it is needed to regulate radiostations because the number of frequencies is limited, but the number of podcasts isn't. Why is a politician allowed to have blog, but not to have a podcast? Can anyone explain that to me? Sometimes, the only way to bring ridiculous regulation under attention is breaking it.
Analog radio broadcasts do indeed require a licence. But that's nothing new.
There is no danger to free speech on the internet here. You can say what you want on the internet, but if you do it in the form of a radio broadcast, you need to inform the VMC (needless bureaucracy perhaps, but no real danger to freedom of speech in my eyes).
This is the weekly official statement to the press by the prime minister. It's a press briefing about what the governement has done this week.
It is not an official statementof the prime ministers party, it's an official stement of the prime minister. I hope you see the difference here.
When for example Bush adresses the nation, or holds a press conference, that is not an official republican party radio broadcast.
Prove me wrong then. I linked you the law, showing you are wrong. Now you do something better, surprise me, make me see my error... Do you believe that yourself? Do you truly believe no one in the right mind has different opinions than you, and comes out for them?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
He was broadcasting on Digital Radio Mondiale, an AM-band digital radio service. That's the part he got slammed for. He should've done what everybody in Europe that doesn't want to comply with local broadcasting laws does, and set up a storefront operation in Luxembourg and put on one program in the middle of the night in the unintelligible Letsebuergisch language. Not that I usually hand out advice to far right nutjobs, but there.
Also, just a podcast would also have been just fine and dandy.
If you're breaking the law out of protest, then at least say so. Otherwise, you're just breaking the law.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
... I can only applaud this.
As other belgian readers already stated: it's about the content. Not the package. This was an illegal mediachannel, administered by a political party/politician, used to spread fascism, hate and fear amongst the nation.
Altough the extreme-right winged party in Flanders can't *actually* make any policy decisions, they are still in the opposition. And *any* excuse is good enough to gain votes. And I don't really want to think about what happens if they did make it into governing majority.
Freedom of speech can be used to do much good. But it can also be horribly abused. If anything, Jurgen Verstrepen has definitly crossed the line here having listened on several occasions to his broadcasts.
Racism is much more a tool than some inherent human property.
People who think that are just as braindead as those who believe that others may think this. Read here for more. Nice to meet you, Anonymous CowardDonate free food here
So, we're on Slashdot. But with a story which is probably the biggest troll in /. history.
/., why did this get posted? If you can't read the original document, which you probably can't because it is in Dutch, don't post it! You stupid ignorant yankee. So, that's off my chest.
/. troll. I really wonder why I still come here.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Mr. Verstrepen didn't follow FCC rules and broke Belgian law and now he gets fined. End of story.
In Belgium we have a law that doesn't allow political parties to have radio and/or television stations. Why? Because we think that you have to be careful when you mix political parties and mass media. Take a look at Italy and Russia if you want to know what I mean.
And don't worry, Mr. Verstrepens and the Vlaams Belangs views and messages are getting through. Some days ago, Mr. Verstrepen told the world that he hates paying parking tickets and really enjoyed almost running over a parking guard.
I'm not going to tell the Vlaams Blok/Vlaams Belangs history here. I was born in a Flemish-nationalist family, so I witnessed the rise of this party and some of it's members closely and I don't like them. Partly because I don't agree with their right-wing ideas, partly because their just plain incompetent. But as a real democrat I do defend their right to organize and speak out, but of course, following our laws.
And
So, a sad day for Flanders/Belgium and yet again a
Anyway, you said a politician couldn't broadcast because he needed to obtain a license from his opponents.
That is not true at all. A politician just can't broadcast, whatever party he's from.
So you have a point here, but lying to make it look bigger does not help your argument.
Anyway, on topic, I don't agree with the form of the law, it goes to far, but it's not an undemocratic idea to try to keep the mass media neutral. Think of Italy where most mass media belongs to the prime minister personally.
Free speech does conflict with democracy on some points. It's also a danger to itself. Alas, free speech is not a magical right that makes the world into an irreversible utopia.
As an aside if Mr. Verstrepen hadn't broken it on so many points, and hadn't claimed he didn't do anything wrong, it could have been a nice symbolic action and he might get some of my sympathy. But he just completely screwed up, and trying to use his mess as party propaganda at that point is just sad.
I you protest to a law by breaking it, you have to do it right. With a clean symbolic action that ridicules the law. That's not what he did, he even denies the broadcast has party ties. I was simply answering your question as to why the prime minister isn't breaking the current law by putting that mp3 on the website. Though I have to admit that since the law is a bit broad, I can't be certain since IANAL. But I would be surprised if an official press statement is considered the same as a political radio show.
And I can't stress enough that I'm certainly not saying free speech should be limited by disallowing certain podcasts.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
"I guess most of you don't know that Flanders is a part of Belgium. "
We do. A very popular poem in the United States is "Flander's Field", written by a the Canadian Dr. John McCrae. Its probably the saddest poem I've ever read:
IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
This is exactly what's wrong with the grandparent. The Euros are a bunch of censors when it comes right down to it.
Dog is my co-pilot.