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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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/
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.