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.
The last two links in the summary go over some of the censorship that's been in the EU, and it's not even counting the child porn filter that one country put in (it was overzealous and somehow filtered some sites that the government didn't like but weren't child porn).
You do know that the G8 consists of: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Together, these countries represent about 65% of the world economy. Half the G8 is European and can vote as a block for European interests. Aside from a 2 country North America block, the other countries have no reason to be unified, unlike the European countries.
So in fact the EU Parliament does have huge influence in the G8.
Because it wouldnt cater to the few historycollectors, it would give 'airtime' to a relativiely large subculture in most European countries, neonazis. They advocate hate of nonarians, destroy or desecrate mostly jewish graves and engage in other crimes in many cases. The suppresion of these materials is an attempt to supress this subculture, which is, in my opinion, in everybody's best interest. It's not like museums have any shortages of nazimaterial. Apart from maybe three serious collectors, nothing is served by not censoring this, or however you want to call it. This is a far, far cry from what for example the great firewall tries to accomplish.
That country is Finland.
When and if the new treaty is fully ratified, both the power of the EP and the number of issues handled by majority vote (with a somewhat skewed definition of majority) in the Council will increase, but this is not the case now. Even after that, the EP will be very far from able to enact laws within arbitrary fields, or even laws that fall within the competence of the union, in a way that would be comparable to what one might think by the use of the term parliament.
That's an important question, but trade sanctions did help to end apartheid in South Africa. So why does it work sometimes and not at other times? Looking at Cuba - having trading partners left which are willing to help you (like Russia, and several Latin American countries) could be one factor. Another could be whether you have segments of the population which have some economical and political power and stand to lose from the embargo. The central government of China is relatively weak - e.g. often local authorities break the law for their own benefit. One of the stabilizing elements China relies on is continual economic growth.
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?
I'm not saying that I think the EU's plan would work, but one big difference here is that a big part of China's economy is based upon exporting stuff to the West. As far as I know a big part of Cuba's economy isn't? There are other western countries than the USA that trade with Cuba -- e.g. Netherlands, Germany, Canada. I can't easily find anything saying how much of Cuba's economy depends on this.
>> 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.
This isn't about whether mrudering Jews should be illegal, though that's a nice strawman. This is about censoring ideas. It can be illegal to murder Jews, but legal to advocate removing such a law! Freedom of speech is precisely freedom of speech that offends you, especially offensive political speech! Freedom to say things that most people agree with is hardly an interesting freedom.
Asking the state to censor an idea because you find it wrong and offensive is advocating totalitarian oppression, plain and simple.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Just look at China - they are by no means perfect, but exposure to the free market has changed them drastically.
Oh, you mean the way the CPC managed to conglomerate fortune for itself at expense of relinquishing very little power, sustain unbalanced economic growth at the cost of environmental degradation and labour abuse, arouse national sentiment to further consolidate conformity and suppress opposition, and best yet, dump products to the largest economy of the world and then become its banker, and in such way gain political leverage against all of western democracies who would now think thrice before speaking about promoting freedom in front of the giant
Then of course, you have brought a lot of change to the country by exposing it to the free market, a lot of change to the whole world too
The difference in what is banned has to do with the fact that there were dozens of millions of Nazis in Germany half a century ago, and there are still many out there right now, whereas there have been approximately 200 Mao supporters in the entire history of Germany (a slight hyperbole here). Maoists IN GERMANY don't pose any threat whatsoever, and probably never will. Just like Nazis in the States.
Once again, I don't support censorship. But I do understand why GERMAN government is censoring glorifying Nazi crimes more than glorifying other atrocious crimes, and if you don't, you need a history lesson, I'm afraid.
I challenge the logic of your charisma comparison on the grounds of any speech Hitler has ever delivered. This guy had Charisma. It may not be very accessable for many of us, but whether you like it or not, that guy had it.
That's exactly what makes the whole thing still dangerous after 60 years. He was charismatic. He could win people to his side. He could speak to the masses. He could play with the emotions of the people. This is why it is still outlawed to broadcast his speeches in full and uncommented on public television in some countries. Over 60 years after his death. Over 60 years after his system has been proven to be flawed and doomed to fail. You don't have any similar laws, in no country, for speeches from Lenin, Che or even Stalin.
If anything, Hitler was charismatic.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.