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.
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.
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.
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?
???
Would you immediately generalize in the same way to cover the policy of the entire US when it's about a whacky decision in one state?
I hope you do, as European countries are less tied to the EU than US states are to the USA.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Can someone please explain why this was modded Troll?
Hmm, a guess. Belgian gov't != EU perhaps...?
This is exactly the sort of value system that the Eurocrats
Eurocrats? Say after me -- b-e-l-g-i-a-n-s.
There have been no signs of this, rather to the contrary, in the country of "Eurocrats" I live in,
Rebut it, or work to change it. Calling it "trolling" isn't going to help anyone.
But generalizing governments to cover international organizations do?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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.
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.