Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Report Warns Against Well-Meaning Net Censorship

Posted by Zonk on from the happens-in-democracies-too dept.

athloi writes "A report entitled 'Governing the Internet,' was issued Thursday by the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The document, which highlights the increasing environment of internet 'policing' around the world, characterized the practice as 'a bitter reminder of the ease with which some regimes -- democracies and dictatorships alike -- seek to suppress speech that they disapprove of, dislike, or simply fear.' From the article: 'The OSCE report says Kazakhstan's efforts to rein in Internet journalism in the name of national security is reminiscent of Soviet-era "spy mania," and it says Georgian law contains numerous provisions curbing freedom of expression online. Web sites, blogs and personal pages all are subject to criminal as well as civil prosecution in Kazakhstan, and the country's information minister, Yermukhamet Yertysbayev, has vowed to purge Kazakh sites of "dirt" and "lies."'"

14 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. Lots of this going around by nokilli · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Technorati simply banned my site. Google first truncated links from other sites leading to pages on my blog, and when that wasn't enough, they simply had Blogger delete the blog.

    No kiddie porn, no copyright violations, not even libel. Critical of America over the war on drugs and Israel over the war on terror though? You bet.

    The posts that triggered this orgy of censorship saw me positing the likelihood that Israel had nuclear weapons forward-deployed in other nations. Shortly after the second post in the series, Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli who blew the whistle on their nuke program, got arrested again. It would seem as though there are some subjects Israel would rather we didn't discuss. I guess I can understand that, but since when does Israel get to control what I can or can't say?

    They want to pretend censorship like this is only taking place in places like China. That's bullshit. It's happening here in America and with ever increasing frequency.

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- Johnn F. Kennedy

    --
    Censored by Technorati and now, Blogger too!

    1. Re:Lots of this going around by Osty · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The thing about free speech, as protected by the US Constitution, is that it only protects you against the government (not private or public businesses) and it doesn't guarantee you a forum. If the US government chose to censor your blog, that's against the constitution. If Google decided that they don't want your blog on their Blogger service, that's completely within their rights to do and is not a violation of free speech. Without knowing why Google decided to remove your blog (did the Israeli government really pressure them?), there's not a whole lot you can do about it.

      That said, you can still say what you want. You just need to find another forum. Find a web hoster that's sympathetic to your cause (meaning they won't drop you) and host your blog there.

    2. Re:Lots of this going around by cromar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would probably help if you didn't say things like "The racist Jews at The New York Times simply desire to preserve what little credibility they have remaining..." (Ironically, your blog is still cached by Google.)

      You come very close to stepping over the line from "anti-Zionist" to fundamentalist racist in that sentence.

    3. Re:Lots of this going around by nokilli · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OK. The formatting is going to suck though...

      M.A.D. R.I.P.

      (If you haven't already done so, please read the Iranian nuke vs. Israeli nuke post, you can consider this post to be a continuation and/or expansion of the points made therein.)

      M.A.D. of course stands for Mutual Assured Destruction.
      It is what passes for sanity these days in international affairs. That
      said, it is also enjoying over a half-century of success. M.A.D. is the
      policy that justifies the nuclear arsenals being deployed throughout
      the world. The Soviet Union had them because the U.S. had them. France
      and the U.K. had them because the Soviet Union had them. China had them
      because all of the above had them. India had them because of China,
      Pakistan because of India. Now we see North Korea has them: they have
      them because we have them, we're the adversary sitting on the other
      side of the D.M.Z.

      Every nation in possession of nuclear weapons
      today has them because they're afraid some other nation has them and
      they're afraid that if they don't similarly arm themselves, their
      nation may only exist in the future as an entry in a history book.

      Every
      nation but one of course: Israel. Israel has no nuclear-armed
      adversaries. To be sure, it has adversaries aplenty, arguably of its
      own making, but it has demonstrated repeatedly now that its military --
      as provided for by the U.S. taxpayer -- is handily capable of defending
      against any manner of aggression these adversaries are capable of
      producing.

      The other way of saying this is that Israel is the
      only nuclear nation in the world today that is not employing M.A.D. as
      the rationale for possessing its nuclear arsenal. Israel is doing
      something else.

      (that's alarming because M.A.D., as policy, works. Israel pursuing some other policy therefore is really terrifying.)

      Here is a story by The Sunday Times titled Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran .
      So if you're wondering why it is I feel compelled to bring this subject
      up again, there you go. Israeli Prime Minister Ohmert recently
      acknowledged Israel was in possession of nuclear weapons too, and an
      entire post could be dedicated to the incredible hypocrisy seen
      expressed by our media in response, but what is likely a sober and
      factual report on impending nuclear war takes top billing today.

      Israel
      is set to take the world into nuclear war. And why? We are told time
      and time again that it is because it can't permit Iran to possess
      nuclear weapons. The Sunday Times story even trots out the
      "Israel must be wiped off of the map" quote attributed to Iranian
      President Ahmadinejad as rationale, even though it's been shown that he
      never said any such thing. It is being drilled into our heads that a
      nuclear Iran must mean the end of Israel. That M.A.D., a policy that
      has kept the world free of nuclear war for over fifty years -- and
      despite the bitterest hostilities between opposing nations -- cannot
      possibly work between Israel and Iran. And so therefore America must
      attack, or at least, look the other way as Israel attacks in its stead.

      Of
      course, this reasoning is flawed, its conclusion blatantly false. The
      established precedent is that M.A.D. works. Not only that, the
      precedent is that nations locked in cold war eventually tire of it and
      learn to accept the other side. I made this point before: if Iran had
      gone nuclear back in 1967, the internationally recognized border
      between Israel and Palestine would undoubtedly be the de facto border
      today and we'd likely see peace in that part of the world where we now
      see nothing but war. It is the huge imbalance of power in the

    4. Re:Lots of this going around by plague3106 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well in a society that respects free speech he has every right to post that trash. Racist speech is protected.

    5. Re:Lots of this going around by BlueParrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well in a society that respects free speech he has every right to post that trash. Racist speech is protected.
      Maybe, but blogger has no obligation to host it free of charge.
    6. Re:Lots of this going around by computational+super · · Score: 5, Funny
      The thing about free speech, as protected by the US Constitution, is that it only protects you against the government

      Actually, it only stops congress from passing laws against free speech. The constitution doesn't say anything about law enforcement officials enforcing laws not passed by congress - hello Gonzales loophole!

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    7. Re:Lots of this going around by unlametheweak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not host your own blog on your own server?

      That reminds me of the infamous Bonsai Kitten Website fiasco where a university student did a farcical Website "selling" Bonsai Kitten paraphernalia. The site got banned from just about every hosting company that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) found out about, and the FBI even investigated the site and the people behind it. PETA actually wanted the people behind the site arrested.

      It doesn't really matter what you publish; if it is popular enough and there is an Interest Group that doesn't like it then it will likely be censored. If a Website author is rich, then there will be more options, but most people would likely just give up. And if the site was political and controversial, then there may be government "hate crimes" to deal with, blocking from censorware, etc. There is no easy solution to dealing with censorship. If Google just decides it's easier for them to not list the site in their search engine then they will not list it, which makes the site unavailable to those who are not already aware of it.

      One solution would be Freenet, but that too is only available to those who know about it and make the effort to install the software and find the proper "keys" to access the site. Freenet too can also be hampered by legislation in Western countries. The same with Tor and the Onion Network. Tor is rather easy to censor since the IP addresses of the proxies are easily available http://proxy.org/faq.shtml.

      And there are always the un-brave who just give up trying to say anything in the first place. When one has to worry about SLAPP (unjustified lawsuits to silence people), Law Enforcement (the war on terror, drugs, think-of-the-children, think-of-the-pets), Special Interest Groups, the PC (Politically Correct) crowd, employers data-mining their employees (or potential employees), even DDoS and "hackers" / crackers; self-censorship is probably more prevalent than people realize. Words, ideas, pictures, humour, and just about every form of communication can be seen as dangerous. The Internet was once a relatively easy way to express oneself, but it is getting harder all the time. ISPs are even finding ways to censor P2P traffic that is designed to obfuscate itself.

      The only real solution to censorship is to change the attitudes of the people who have the authority and control to influence the Tubes. Since these people are mainly politicians (like Ted Stevens) who are largely ignorant of the technology they legislate and who could care less about the social dynamics of freedom (beyond their own narrow paradigms), the future does not look bright for an unbridled flow of (uncensored) information.

      References:
      http://www.shorty.com/bonsaikitten/bkgallery.html (Bonsai Kitten mirror)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonsai_Kitten
      http://freenetproject.org/
      http://tor.eff.org/
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP
  2. Too specific by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If only there were a report that warned against "well-meaning" acts to force people to do (or not do) things against their will in general. That would be cool.

    Forcing people to act against their own interests is bad in general. Especially when it's sold as "well-meaning". Censorship is no exception.

  3. Kazakhstan censoring negative reports by darkmayo · · Score: 3, Funny

    from Uzbekistan, namely about how there Potassium is better.

    --
    "I am a kernel in the linux army"
  4. You think you get can-spam, net neturality... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and all those other supposedly good things you want without getting the bad interference and ubiqitious filtering, you are fooling yourself.

    The internet was much better when it was the wild west. If fact, it is over. We are getting the do-gooders and know-betters running the show, and it is game over, either with dems or reps in charge (excluding Ron Paul who won't win). Our internet will be turned into a PC, child-safe surburb unless we move on to some new dark network.

  5. Increasingly common restrictions. by metrometro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I work with an international governance watchdog, Global Integrity ( http://www.globalintegrity.org/ ), and anecdotally we're seeing a marked increase in online censorship being reported, under democracies and dictators both, even since we started looking at this in 2004. It's like the anti-democracy elements of the world just now figured out how to do this in earnest. We've just begun tracking the issue rigorously this year - we'll let Slashdot know when that report comes out.

  6. Gimme a thug rather than well-meaning Big Brothers by ericferris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A criminal bureaucracy will just harass you until they get what they want -- your money generally. Once they have your money and you're broke, they'll just make sure you toe the line, but otherwise they'll let you be because they recon they cannot get blood from a turnip. It's called a kleptocracy and it's very common now and in History. You are more than welcome to practice warfare against them because it's fair game to try to throw down a dictatorship of thugs.

    But the absolute worst nightmare is a bureaucracy of well-meaning weenies, always concerned about your own well-being, sometimes genuinely. Those won't stop harassing you, ever. They know what's good for you. They know you're too dumb to survive without them. And they know that they need to constantly babysit you from cradle to grave. There is no way to get them to stop. You cannot throw money at them to have them leave you alone, because they want you to be happy. Of course, they'll make you miserable. They are the nannycrats.

    We are clearly in that case here. And you know the cinch? When nannycrats get ousted, they are surprised, nay, shocked that people don't want their overbearing, crushing attention.

    Beware of people who want to make you happy in spite of yourself. Gimme a thug anytime over a nannycrat.

    --
    Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
  7. Better act now by Lockejaw · · Score: 3, Funny

    This would be a good "Ask Slashdot" question, maybe if somebody else asked it it might be posted.
    No, go ahead and post it. Slashdot isn't part of the Zionist conspiracy.
    ...
    Yet.
    --
    (IANAL)