Slashdot Mirror
A Comparative Study of Internet Censorship
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."
WikiLeaks is available at it's IP address: http://88.80.13.160/ also a mirror site: http://wikileaks.be/ For the docs at the centre of the controversy, you can get them at http://cryptome.org/wikileaks-bjb.htm
Barbara Felden claims prior art on the flip phone, sues Motorola, Nokia.
This is a silly article. That court order was one minor judge, and he backed off it almost the second he let the words slip from his mouth. Further, the rulings of one low level judge does make law. If there was actual precedence set by having this work up the chain of courts, you might have an argument. Until that time, this is just one crappy judge who can have everything he says promptly overturned by the many layers of judges higher than him.
If you want to look at real censorship in the west, turn your eyes outside of the US. The US has no censorship laws around hate speech and almost no libel laws. Almost anything short of conspiracy to commit a crime is a-okay in the US. You can safely write or speak that you think the Holocaust is a hoax, that all the should die, and that is a whore who fucks pigs and goats. None of the above will get you in trouble with US law. All of the above would get you in trouble in more than one European nation. I am not saying that extremely weak libel laws and a lack of hate speech laws is a good thing, just that it decidedly tips the US over on the "free speech" spectrum farther than the vast majority of other nations out there.
There are a lot of complaints you can level against the US like starting wars, kidnapping and torturing people, extra judicial prisons, warrantless wiretaping, etc. That said, free speech is one places where the US is about as liberal as one can possibly be and takes it to extremes that few other nations do.
it's time to recontextualize and essentially reboot our understanding of privacy, freedom, information, free speech, and similar civil rights
in other words, Americans as a whole need to learn what the internet does, and take a fresh look at how our freedoms are being shit on by the US government. we must demand the same digital freedoms and privacy protection that we have in non-digital media and more.
looking through this wikileaks story and a previous story about FOIA documents that show torture devices the government has been developing motivates me to seek a true change.
the American people must claim their rights or they will be taken
Thank you Dave Raggett
Because they are? Hell, I'm Canadian, I love my country, and even I have to admit that the USA does an immense number of things extremely well. Technology, for one - there is a reason that the majority of the world's tech R&D occurs in the USA, or is funded by the USA. The Americans have a strong history of "stealing" the best and brightest from all the countries of the world, and making them work for Uncle Sam. With promises of a better quality of life, freedom from persecution, and a culture where performance is rewarded, the US *is* the world leader in these things.
Of course, that is all changing somewhat suddenly now. Recent administrations have sabotaged scientific research funding for religious and partisan purposes, skilled immigrants are now the target of hatred, instead of being welcomed with open arms. Millions of Muslims are being socially ostracized and targeted for doing absolutely nothing except being non-Christian.
Don't get me wrong, America still does a lot right. But if you guys want to maintain your position as the grand superpower of the world, you need to seriously turn some of that shit around. It's already going to take DECADES to fix your foreign policy disaster, your economic fuckups, and restore scientific and technological integrity to your academia... so get started.
Oh, and more to the point, the USA *is* still among the best in freedom of speech. You know, they're the country where displaying Confederate flags is legal, KKK rallies are legal... whereas in, say, Germany, displaying any sort of Nazi symbolism is a good way to get hauled off to jail. This isn't a value judgment, just an observation that one land is clearly more free than the other, for better or for worse.
Because, obviously, the US is leader in free [CENSORED]. Concerning news and political discourse, I think if you compare our [CENSORED] to the [CENSORED] of any other [CENSORED], you will find that our [CENSORED] is head and shoulders above that of any other [CENSORED]. Admittedly, certain alarmist elements, such as the [CENSORED] and those of the [CENSORED] party may lead you to believe that our government engages in [CENSORED] but the reality is that intellectual debate and news reporting in this country are [CENSORED], [CENSORED], and most important of all [CENSORED]. Really, all of this concern is just alarmism. We have nothing to fear except [CENSORED].
"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."
People always spout this kind of nonsense when they're trying to argue for more government controls. The government is corruptible. The problem is not that the people in charge are corrupt, this can/will/has be/been true for any entity with any kind of authority that has ever existed, does currently exist , or ever will exist. If you don't want a corrupt government, you're out of luck. The best you can do is to give the government as little authority as possible.
In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything. This is the best possible arrangement of affairs, but it invariably means that you will end up with rulings like this one. If you read up on the case, you will see that the bank is claming that their ex-CEO is trying to use the website to influence the outcome of a separate legal case. So whose right would be more important, the right of the ex-CEO to leak confidential documents, of the right of the bank to have a fair court case in Sweden? People like to make these things seem cut and dry, but they're not.
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"?
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.
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
This is not going well for Bank Julius Baer.
Press reaction is very favorable to Wikileaks. The New York Times even published the IP address of Wikileaks. There's favorable coverage in The Associated Press, the British press, the Australian press, etc. Since it's on the AP feed, it's going to be in papers across the US tomorrow. Not much TV coverage yet.
Bank Julius Baer is trying to take their US business public. Their proposed billion dollar IPO could be derailed by these disclosures.
God I hate this debate. Are we as a nation arrogant. Probably, yes. Are we as individuals, arrogant. Nope. Most of us have long ago learned we've lost our edge in several areas, if we ever had an edge to begin with in those areas is still under debate. But if we aren't world leading... why is so much of the world bound and determined to follow our lead? Iraq? Guess who Europe followed there. Afganastan. Guess who Europe followed there, again. 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. Its that simple. Our research base may not be what it was, our education system may be in the crapper, and our manufacturing may as not well exist. But if the rest of the world keeps following us into our doom... Then like as not, we are world leading. You got a couple choices, China and India have the potential to be, hell, for that matter Russia still has the potential to be.. But you keep choosing America. Its your own damn fault.
Posted anonymously for legal analysis. The following is my opinion and my opinion only.
Every lay discussion of the orders in this case have gotten it wrong about what happened. The judge did not have second thoughts about granting the injunction. There are two orders, and they are directed at separate parties, even though they are part of the same case.
The first order is the settlement with the registrar. The registrar Dynadot settled with Bank Julius Bear to dismiss any claims BJB may have against it, in return for the permanent injunction that you see there. Dynadot agreed to do, among other things, lock the domain, disable it, preserve all DNS data, and produce all information it has about who registered the hostname and who had access to it.
This permanent injunction, between BJB and Dynadot, is not binding on Wikileaks, because Wikileaks was not a party to it. I think this is the big story here. Essentially Dynadot rolled over and settled with BJB without letting Wikileaks participate in the process or have any say whatsoever. Depending on the terms of its registration agreement, Wikileaks could very well file a complaint against Dynadot for unjustly terminating its service. Be wary of your registrars and internet service providers, because if this stands, they can agree to terminate your service without your involvement.
The second order is a temporary restraining order against Wikileaks, prohibiting them from publishing the documents at issue. They are listed at the end of the order. Unfortunately for BJB, due to the the way Wikileaks is architected, the operators of Wikileaks do not host the documents themselves, nor can they order their removal. Is Wikileaks concerned about any legal consequences? The answer is no. "We design the software, and promote its human rights agenda, but the servers are run by anonymous volunteers." That's why those who run the company have nothing to do in response to the injunction and why the documents are still online. Wikileak's response is due tomorrow Feburary 20th at noon, and the hearing will be on Friday February 29th at 9:00am at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California 94102 at the US Courthouse, so be sure to show up!
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.
"I am not saying that [...] a lack of hate speech laws is a good thing"
Oh, I would say that.
"Hate Speech" is not defined. It simply means speech that is offensive to someone. Almost by definition, this type of law runs counter to the idea and ideals of free speech. It can easily be abused by political enemies, by a government that doesn't want criticism, or by one group to silence another.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Shihar, I agree with what you said. However, it seems to me that people, including you, don't deal with abuse very well.
Note that the grandparent comment to this one, which is your extremely sensible observations, is moderated 0, Flamebait, and the parent comment, which is a minor and obvious correction you wrote, is +3, Informative. That's crazy.
The "one minor judge" has succeeded in stopping most access to the WikiLeaks site, except for technically knowledgeable people. That shows the mood of the U.S. government. There is no cry from the U.S. government to restore free speech.
The problem is not just "one minor judge". It is an entire governmental culture of corruption. See this thread in another Slashdot story (which includes comments I wrote): The U.S. government is too corrupt to investigate corruption. That comment is moderated "60% Insightful, 40% Flamebait" as I write this. Perhaps 60% of the readers understand the issues, and 40% want to avoid thinking about abusive situations.
In actuality, the U.S. Constitution says that Congress can make no law against free speech. It doesn't say that the U.S. government cannot allow misleading speech, or do other things to prevent free expression. The governmental guarantee is much weaker than most people realize. The power of the rich who want corruption is much stronger than most people realize.