Slashdot Mirror
EU Views Net Censorship As a "Trade Barrier"
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The European Parliament just passed a proposal to treat internet censorship as a trade barrier, in particular the 'Great Firewall of China.' If passed by the European Council, the issue would be raised in trade negotiations and could lead to economic sanctions and trade restrictions for those countries unwilling to remove oppressive Net censorship." We have discussed some of the ways in which the EU, and its member countries, engage in their own brand of censorship.
But they're doing it to PROTECT people. Everyone ELSE is doing it to OPPRESS people. HUGE difference.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Even if it is somewhat hypocritical in some cases, it's a nice step forward--because, after all, this will mean that the member states will have to eventually reduce or eliminate censorship in order to comply with the EU regulations.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
So, the EU would have to begin sanctioning itself?
Man, I always thought that they were somewhat self-destructive but damn...
I like it. I can't help but believe that unfettered world wide access to information will lead to a more informed populations that will shun oppression and xenophobia in favor of participatory government and ethno-religious tolerance. This, in turn, will lead to more prosperity and consumer spending.
This could come back to haunt the EU. Their argument isn't very different from the arguments that the Americans use to try to ram their entertainment industry down the throats of other countries while the others argue that they need to protect their culture. The Chinese want to protect their culture (and, they would argue, their social stability) while the West wants more open access to what they perceive as nothing more than a huge consumer market.
France, for example, could wind up with a lot worse than old Jerry Lewis movies if the US is able to to turn this argument against the EU.
No, the should never have let China into the WTO until there were *real* advances made in China's human rights record.
And thus started WWIII. Such an innocuous thing, no one thought and harm would come, but one thing led to another until... well, you know what happened. Android class titled "Why There Are No More Humans".
The EU is censoring the internet? WTF are you talking about?
Are you trying make sense?
Or just being a general troll?
Mever nind the typos.
So I would assume Germany would be the first to get economic sanctions right? They refuse to let their citizens engage in online purchases of Nazi books and clothing. Give me a break...
Creative Demolition
This ban on anything related to nazis has been in place since the end of WWII and I don't think you find many people in the affected countries disagree with the ban, except for the batshit crazy few neo nazis but they seem to get around it rather nicely in some countries.
And that is basically the only thing banned, else you are free to say or do anything. I have no problems with the nazi ban, large portions of my family (non jewish) suffered dearly under the nazis and as far as I'm concerned it's a criminal enterprise and as such illegal. End of story for me.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Perhaps I ought to bow to the intellectual gods who populate the European Parliament and give them whatever rights I have left, because although this sounds pretty contradictory to me, I'm sure they are correct! After all, they are from the government, therefore their job is to help me!
The trade embargo with Cuba hasn't seemed to have worked...it's proponents have had enough time to prove it. So why would sanctions just magically work here? How would oppressing the already oppressed people China in the EU help?
Their logic is like this: some people are oppressed a bit it in some other country far away that makes stuff for us cheaply. So the way to fix it is to oppress the country even more, while simultaneously oppressing home! Why can't these do gooders leave people alone? Perhaps they can't get a job anywhere else? Also, kind of ironic that China looks like it is getting freer, in contrast to the EU.
What an earth would we do without the EU? I can't imagine life without it, the world would surely collapse, society would be in ruins!
Give me a break. I suggest the European Parliament is about as truly influential in international trade affairs as would be any random twelvepack of supercaffeinated intense humorless baristas from the local java shop.
To the extent there is any actual organized power in international trade relationships -- I mean, power other than that collectively wielded in an unorganized, ad hoc way by various bilateral agreements between concerned nations -- it resides in the G8.
Just because people call themselves an important international body and stand around debating resolutions with long faces doesn't mean they have any actual influence. Indeed, the more they pontificate and grandstand the less actual power they have.
Not that I think that people who want Nazi paraphernalia are completely sane well-adjusted individuals, but questioning the Holocaust is illegal in Germany and selling Nazi paraphernalia (on Ebay, for instance) is illegal in France. These are very much examples of censorship of (rather cookie) ideas by two of EU's largest members. Are they planning to do away with their domestic restrictions on Nazi propaganda when it comes to the Internet? It's fun to wag your finger at a trade partner who is beating you in the market place, but are they really willing to test the dangerous waters of truly free speech?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
LOL, This is awesome. Especially since depicting nazis in a videogame will get it banned in Germany...
OUR censorship isn't bad, but other people's cencorship is...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
1. fund, subsidize, give tax exemption to, internet web sites.
2. threaten to take away these 'benefits' if FCC doesn't like what's said on a website.
Another example is the UK and its crusade against naughty porn. Because it apparently turns us English people into violent murderers, if we look at a naughty picture, and OMG won't somebody think of the children who might see it on a website.
(Said law is currently going through the House of Lords, and if not stopped will be law by 8 May.)
Although having said that, the EU does at least give a tool to fight these various kinds of censorship, in that the European Convention on Human Rights at last gives us the right to freedom of expression, among other rights - unfortunately member countries still seem keen on censorship.
There are a few things Google were asked to remove from their search results for google.co.uk -- I think things that a court injunction meant could not legally be revealed. AFAIK there is nothing stopping anyone in the UK from accessing them though.
I see this list of domains: http://lapsiporno.info/filtered.demon (from a Google search for uk net censorship list)
It claims the sites aren't accessible, and perhaps it's true. I'm not willing to look too closely, they're (apparently) child pornography sites and my curiosity on net censorship only goes so far. The first in the list doesn't resolve using dig +trace 1st... (it times out) but I can resolve it using dig @ns1.mit.edu 1st.... I can't ping 216.255.189.11 (where the MIT server resolves it to) though, or connect to port 80. The same for the second (17-j...). I can resolve the third (beaut... -> 79.135.166.102) but not ping it, I can resolve and ping the fourth (badj... -> 64.210.151.186, 66.254.121.94).
Here's an explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom
I'm not sure on my opinion on this.
For a start, possessing the images those websites contain is almost certainly illegal in the UK, with serious consequences for offenders. Blocking them prevents 'accidental' visits, and might put off someone just 'surfing' for illegal images. Wiki says it's easy to get round the block though. By banning access to them from the UK the country shows it doesn't accept child pornography, but I don't think any country does anyway so that doesn't really matter.
However, the technology used to block access to them could potentially be used to block other websites.
Since the opinion of a massive majority (well over 99.9%, I would guess?) of the UK's people is that child pornography should be forbidden I think the block is reasonable, but I also think it would be much better for everyone if forbidden URLs were redirected to a UK government "The page you are trying to view is blocked, by law X. It was reported to contain explicit images of children, which are illegal to posses under section X of law Y".
My guess is that they are going to use this to impose a carbon tax. Pretty clever.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
>> That country is Finland.
/. last week ...
It was discussed on
Finnish Censorship Expanding
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/19/0252236
This one was a surprise to me. Link provided for those who don't want to hit Google to find WTF.
OS X, Linux, Tivo, Amiga, my fascination with cult-like technologies would intrigue any psychiatrist.
So, are the EU member countries planning stop importing Oil ? http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/saudiarabia/
about censoring nazism, that is
if the usa went through the kind of trauma they did over nazism, i can see myself being convinced to give up my freedom of expression fundamentalism and make a special unique case for clamping down on nazi expression, with an expiration date in a generation or two when the spectre doesn't hang over europe and is instead more of a horror story from ancient history
meanwhile, in china and iran, the motivation to censor is purely power retention and ridiculous notions of fundamentalist morality
so i really don't see it as hypocrisy, because i see there are different motivations here, and different scale and scope of censorship going on
but germany should uncensor scientology. i think scientology is a bunch of fucking brainwashed fanatic morons, but there is no special need to censor them
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Things would be much simpler if relations between nations were symmetric.
If Europe wants to punish China for their censorship efforts, I support them. I also support China calling the EU on their own censorship blunders, and punishing them equally.
In the end, people mostly want to get along. That can't happen as long as there is a power struggle. Balance it all out and we just might find stability before we all kill each other.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
The story states:
The tone of the statement would seem to imply that said censorship is something bad, unwanted, and unnecessary.
"own ways" links to a /. story titled, French Court To Yahoo!: Dump Nazi-Related Auctions
"censorship" links to a /. story titled, EU Moving to Ban Online Hate Speech
Yes, censorship should be avoided whenever possible. No, hate speech is NOT free speech. No, removing hate speech is NOT censorship! It's the right thing to do! And removing Nazis and their evil ways is also the right thing to do!
Then you wonder why a large sizable chunk wants to "bash" them? Their concerns are quite credible, and not hard to address in a satisfactory (to them) manner. Addressing them however will annoy a few economists.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
T think calling internet censorship a 'trade barrier' is far-fetched. What would happen is simply that the WTO will spend a huge amount of time, decades even, pinning out what kinds of network trade are to be included under free trade. The problem here is that this is not really about trade, it is about trying to tell another nation how to run its internal affairs, and no sovereign nation will allow that. At the end of the day this is just a silly stunt - I don't think the EU are going to be all that interested in alienating what everybody agrees is going to be the greatest economical superpower.
First they take on Microsoft and then China. No goal seems to big. Considering that Brussels is populated by people that are in one way or the other political stigmated in their home countries, one starts to wonder if the Geeks and Nerds are taking over in Brussels. A sort of 'A prophet is not honored in it's home country.' Take for instance Neelie Kroes. Right wing politician that has one more then one occasion been compared to 'The Tatcher' (remember her, woman don't start wars, the wars start woman). Never the less this little pitbull made a great thorn in the side of Microsoft. And I didn't have time yet but I can imagine that she's behind this proposal as well. Gives you to think that most right wing politicians in the Netherlands obviously are more progressive an liberal then left wing politicians in other countries. I wonder if we can get her to smoke some pot and listen to Jimmy Hendrix.
Much of Europe was destroyed, millions was murdered or fell in war, and the eastern half of Europe had to suffer half a century more under communist dictatorships, all as a result of the Nazi movement.
While I agree that it is less than perfect from a free speech point of view, I do believe it is inefficient but understandable that some of the countries in the parts of Europe that suffered most have forbidden the symbols of that movement.
I agree that the symbols should be legal (it is easy for me to do so, I come from a country that aligned with Germany in the beginning, but cleverly switched sides when the tides of the war turned, and thus came out on the winning side without actually having to do anything[1]), I would like to see a little more understanding for the other side from here.
Hate speech is another issue, made complex because the concept is ill-defined. I see it as an extension of libel law to cover some grouping. In Denmark, specifically groups defined by nationality, race, religion or sexual orientation. But not e.g. occupation. So while I'm not allowed to call a specific lawyer a lying scumbag, I'm allowed to call all lawyers for lying scumbags. But just like I'm not allowed to call a specific Norwegian for a "mountain monkey", I'm not allowed to call all Norwegians for "mountain monkeys" either.
I'm not sure why individual insults are generally outlawed, while group insults are allowed.
[1] Apart from the rescue of the Jews, which was possible due to some cooperation from the local German command, but still carried out by the people, and both a brave and decent thing to do.
That's how come decades of massive trade with the US has made Saudi Arabia into such a moderate, liberal regime!
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
In 2005 was there were calls for installation of a national porn filter that would be used to prevent access to sites with "violent porn". This was after some girl got killed by some maniac who was "inspired" by "violent porn". The family of the girl was like "BAN ALL PORN! BAN ALL PORN!" or something retarded like that. I haven't kept myself up to date on the current situation in the UK, but last thing i heard they were discussing the possibility of banning even POSSESSION of violent porn.
In sweden we already have a so-called child-porn filter which doesn't seem to lower our booming rape rates (i think it was among the highest in all of EU) or save any children in general. In fact, it doesn't even seem to actually block child porn sites (bonsai tree sites?). Hell. We can't even realistically determine what's being blocked by the filter in the first place, seeing as the fucking list is kept SECRET.
So no. The EU needs to clean up it's own fucking backyard before complaining about some shit china does.
Unless you are planning to legalise conspiracy, incitement, all verbal threats, racial abuse, and shouting "fire" in a crowded auditorium. As far as I know every country has categories that are not covered by free speech.
actually i was thinking of this and waiting when it would happen. censorship as harming free market i mean. eu really knows what it is doing.
Read radical news here
I never thought I would actually agree with the EU on absolutely anything. Although, I am sure that if I bothered to read the article, I would find they are still full of crap and just got lucky with a right answer.
The EU are acting to prohibit people putting content which displeases them online in the first place. Not desirable, and not sensible, but it doesn't trample on anyone else's jurisdiction; what it governs is material which originates in the EU. Content that is illegal is still not filtered out if it comes in from elsewhere - so trade is unhindered.
China is acting to selectively embargo content which has already been placed online elsewhere, as it comes into the country. That's what makes it a trade barrier.
A much more interesting comparison might be with the UK's recent noises in the direction of requiring ISPs to filter out P2P.
Although having said that, the EU does at least give a tool to fight these various kinds of censorship, in that the European Convention on Human Rights at last gives us the right to freedom of expression, among other rights I'm not really sure on this as it was quite a while since i read up on free-speech within the EU. However i'm sure i've read somewhere that in the European Convention on Human Rights there is a "right for children not to be sexualized in fiction". That is, child pornographic drawings are illegal. As i said i'm not 100% sure on this, but some members (sweden for example) has already criminalized possession of child pornographic drawings.
> We have discussed some of the ways in which the EU, and its member
> countries, engage in their own brand of censorship.
While China, et al., are far worse, it's true the EU should "take the plank out of its own eye before searching for splinters in others'."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I'm not really sure on this as it was quite a while since i read up on free-speech within the EU.
Article 10 of the ECHR is:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Unfortunately the get out clause is "for the protection of health or morals". I've no idea how this has been tested to apply so far in any court cases. With regards to the criminalising of possession of "extreme porn" that I talked about, the Government acknowledges that it violates article 10 (and article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life - which has a similar get out clause), but thinks it is justified for the protection of health or morals. The justifications are at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/016/en/08016x-s.htm#index_link_296 .
So we do at least have something, but unfortunately it has this get out clause, and obviously doesn't have anywhere near the same influence and strength as the First Amendment.
However i'm sure i've read somewhere that in the European Convention on Human Rights there is a "right for children not to be sexualized in fiction". That is, child pornographic drawings are illegal. As i said i'm not 100% sure on this, but some members (sweden for example) has already criminalized possession of child pornographic drawings.
I can't find this in the text, although one could see a country trying to do so under the get out clause. Note that the EHCR doesn't stop countries passing laws that violate it it - it would have to be challenged in court (much like the US where laws are passed then struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court). I believe this is unfortunately time consuming and costly. I don't know if anyone's done this yet for laws regarding fictional child drawings.
Fictional child drawings aren't illegal everywhere in the EU - they were considering it in the UK, but they are (for now at least) only criminalising non-realistic images that have been derived from (already illegal) realistic child porn images (as it happens, in the same bill as the "extreme porn" plans).