Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Comparative Study of Internet Censorship

Posted by kdawson on from the maybe-it's-the-third-world-maybe-it's-your-first-time-around dept.

An anonymous reader suggests we visit the home of the watchdog group Global Integrity for a breakdown of online censorship: "Using data from the Global Integrity Index, we put a US court's recent order to block access to anti-corruption site Wikileaks.org into context. In summary: This is unheard of in the West, and has only been seen in a handful of the most repressive regimes. Good thing it doesn't work very well... The whole event seems to encapsulate the constant criticism of governance in the United States: that the government has been captured by corporate interests, and that the world-leading rule of law and technocratic mechanisms in place can be hijacked to serve as tools for narrow, wealthy interests."

11 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Insular American Media by jnelson4765 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Propaganda, ignorance, and no mass media reporting on how the rest of the world thinks. That's why the movie Sicko was such a huge shock to the American people - the vast majority of Americans have been fed nothing but negative propaganda about socialized medicine (circa 1950's anticommunist, with updated graphs), but never see any of the positive aspects, like not going bankrupt after breaking your leg.

    I'm quite sure the Romans said the same thing until the day the Goths sacked Rome...

    --
    Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
  2. A couple of corrections... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First, a "lowly" court judge in the United States CAN "make" law. If his/her decision is accepted as precedent (as it MUST, unless reason is later demonstrated to overturn it), then even a municipal judge can "change law". Further, it does not even have to be a judge. A jury can change law, and that decision too would have to be overturned by a higher court in order for that change to be invalidated. [http://www.fija.org/]

    Second, the US *does* have laws regarding "hate speech" and other "hate crimes". They might typically be state laws rather than federal, but that does not negate the fact that they exist in much if not most of the United States. Having said that, I will add that I personally believe "hate crime" to be among the most ridiculous legal concepts so far devised by man.

    Third, the United States has very strong libel laws. The difference is that unlike in many nations, libel must generally be proven before it can be punished. Also, libel against "public figures" is much harder to prove... but that is by design, and for very good reason. (In many other places, speech against politicians or other "public figures" is punished much more harshly than speech against other citizens. But that does not mean that libel laws do not exist in the US. They do... they are just fairer than most.)

    And finally, the fact that it is worse elsewhere does NOT mean that it is good here. That is like saying to one man in line, "Look, you only got a broken finger! The next guy in line has a broken leg!"... and then using that to justify breaking fingers. Sorry, but it is not a valid argument.

    1. Re:A couple of corrections... by twizmer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So I should assume you are against the different levels of murder and manslaughter? That you advocate that any wrongful death should be punished exactly as any other?

      This is really a straw man. The difference between degrees of murder and manslaughter is the level of intent: did you plan ahead of time to kill him, decide to kill him on the spot, or not even mean to kill him at all, etc. That distinction is quite different from asking "why did you intend to kill him?" The difference between intentionally and unintentionally causing death is not the same as intentionally killing someone because he was an [epithet] or because he slept with your wife or whatever.

    2. Re:A couple of corrections... by Atario · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The difference between degrees of murder and manslaughter is the level of intent: did you plan ahead of time to kill him, decide to kill him on the spot, or not even mean to kill him at all, etc. That distinction is quite different from asking "why did you intend to kill him?"
      And likewise, the difference between beating the hell out of a guy because he bumped into you in a bar is vastly different from beating the hell out of a guy because he bumped into you in a bar and we got to show them damn _____s they got to learn their place. One is an attack; the other is an attack intended to intimidate everyone like him.
      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
  3. Compensation? by corsec67 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When the wikileaks.org url is put back online, could they seek compensation for the lost time that they suffered as a result of that ruling?

    Or could I short some stock in a company, sue them for hosting sensitive/"evil" information, and then buy the stock back when the domain gets turned into a blank page? (Use any online company here, something like child-porn on flickr would be an easy target)

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  4. Re:"World leading"? by Tom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    whereas in, say, Germany, displaying any sort of Nazi symbolism is a good way to get hauled off to jail. Actually, it's a good way to get a lawsuit against you, with all the proper proceedings of a fair trial but that's beside the point. The point is that those laws were set up by the allied occupation forces after WW2. They're not really a german idea, though we've found them useful and decided to keep them. But saying the US is the champion of free speech and then using a contrast where it was them who caused that contrast to exist in the first place is a little cheap.
    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  5. Re:"World leading"? by Mr2001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Patent laws? Well, the rest of the world seems hell bent on adopting American versions there of. Copyright? Same thing. If you want us to stop thinking we are world leaders, simply stop following. [...] you keep choosing America. Its your own damn fault. Er.. you think the people of those other countries are rising up and demanding to follow us into granting more power to copyright and patent holders?

    You don't think, maybe, American corporations are pushing those countries down the same path they've already pushed the US down?
    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  6. Re:Silly by Ardaen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Many sources such as the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index seem to be showing a trend of decreasing freedom in the USA over the last few years. I'm guessing that trend started somewhere in 2000-2001.

    People tend to lag behind reality with the image they have of themselves.

    The USA is still a very free country, generally a pretty nice place to be. It would however, appear to no longer be a leader in freedom, liberty or human rights.

  7. Re:Silly by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Interesting

    More details on the reason for the poor US standing is here.

  8. Knowing fondness for defense of free speech by mapkinase · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Knowing fondness for defense of free speech of Western media one would think that all the material at Wikileaks would be immediately copied on the front pages of all major Scandinavian newspapers. Anybody had any links to those newspapers?

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  9. Re:Silly by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This also makes it impossible to read e.g. The Female Eunuch - an important political work, whatever you think of the author - on television without censoring the text. Nice going FCC.

    --
    "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."