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."

Comments

Doesn't appear to be because it's a podcast

[Rude Turnip]

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.

Re:Doesn't appear to be because it's a podcast

[yupie]

He was fined because he had on some guests from a deemed racist political party.

Not exactly. He was fined because

• the podcast is considered to be a radio-transmission, and radio-transmissions should have been declared as such to the appropriate government services beforehand;
• the radio/broadcasting cannot be linked to a political party;
• by placing the podcast on non-Belgian servers (US, formerly in Russia and others), he is falsely claiming it to be not-Belgian or not-Flemish, whereas in reality it is targetted to Flemish people.

It has to be admitted that, for some time, the same podcast was also transmitted on shortwave. This is no longer the case, due to some inventive and intensive lobbying of opponents.

Of course, in reality, the only reason why this is happening is that the author (Jurgen Verstrepen) is member of an alledged racist party. Any policical or governmental means possibly are being deployed in this country to weaken their rights of freedom of speech. The case of considering podcasts as equal to radio broadcasting (other political parties or government organisations have websites with audio and/or video, without any problem so far), and fining them as such, is just another illustration. Sometimes I wish the Belgian government would be more adherent to the principle once stated by Voltaire (and, ironically, by default printed on all publications of one of our universities): I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Re:Doesn't appear to be because it's a podcast

[Krommenaas]

He was fined because he broadcast a radio program on short wave without getting the required permit, and because he started a radio station with a clear link to a political party (the radio station was in fact announced on a press conference of said party). He broke two laws, and he gets fined for it - that's all there is to the story. The podcast itself has nothing to do with the fine. Being masters of propaganda, the Vlaams Belang have spun this story to their advantage, and they've done it so well that their version made it on Slashdot. Some facts for non-Flemish people:

• The Vlaams Belang gets almost all its resources from tax payer money which, like all Belgian parties, it gets in direct proportion to the number of votes it gets in national elections. If there were indeed a campaign to silence the party, the first action would be to take away this funding. This would have been possible after the party was condemned in court for racism, but has not been done, precisely so as not to make them martyrs.
• The Vlaams Belang is an extreme right-wing party, openly aligned with Jean-Marie Le Pen, the French politician known among other things for calling the Holocaust a footnote in history.
• The Vlaams Belang's party program used to include separate schools and separate social security for immigrants, and forced deportation on military cargo planes to their countries of origin.

These things should of course not affect their right to free speech, but they should tell you how they use that right. The desinformation in this Slashdot article is an example.

Slashdot used for racist agitprop

[burne]

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.

Flanders does not censor podcasting

[lowieken]

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...

Typical Americano-Centric post

[hellfire]

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.

Re:European internet control needed?

[Jugalator]

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?

Re:Transcript of podcast:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, the propaganda is mostly the article description.

What this guy was fined for was a radio broadcast. He didn't get their version of an FCC license for it. The same recording was also made into a podcast.

So, the submitter says "Podcaster fined" or other misleading language to try and make it sound like he was fined for the podcast, rather than the radio broadcast, to get sympathy for this guy, both him and the submitter apparently belong to the same really shady, propagandistic far-right group.

Propaganda doeesn't always eminate from the government, it really comes at you from all sides.