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.
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...
Oppression and Protection are mostly matters of perspective. The Chinese argue that they filter internet access in order to protect their people from dangerous information. Personally I'm against censorship of any kind, but that's really not important for the purposes of this article.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
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.
A nice hope, but unfortunately many people prefer echo chambers to debating tables.
This is why there are many vibrant communities for the support of racism, discrimination, xenophobia, and suspicion of conspiracies by Other People.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
So the Chinese government is not PROTECTING its people from the DANGERS of porn? And EU officials are not OPPRESSING those who have views they find DETESTABLE? Of course, MAYBE you were just being SARCASTIC. Either way, why are we typing like THIS?
Censorship is good in one case only; To protect children. I personally think in that case it is protection.
For all other cases. If someone is going to do something dangerous with some information then its protection. Most countries are filtering because they are trying to control what ideas their citizens are exposed to. That is oppression.
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!
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
I'm against censorship, but some people lack any perspective whatsoever....
So basically you're against censorship, unless it's something you don't like - then it's to censor it.
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Yes... that's the way to promote freedom. Cut oppressive governments further off from the outside world, so that they are even less inclined or able to change.
I still believe if we had extended full trade relations towards Cuba as soon as they revolted, their communism would have quickly changed into something more balanced.
Oppression can only exist in a vacuum. Opening your doors to such nations doesn't encourage them, it makes them interdependant, and exposes them to better systems. Just look at China - they are by no means perfect, but exposure to the free market has changed them drastically.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
Protection is oppression.
Could you give me some examples of "destroying historical artifacts"?
Using Nazi symbols is explicitly allowed in Germany, if it is used for historical reasons, in documentaries, movies depicting that time, or any scholarly purpose. The museums are full of historical artifacts from that time. What "destruction" are you talking about?
What is not allowed is glorifying the Nazi regime and holocaust denial, as well as reselling Nazi symbols. Mein Kampf is not banned, or illegal, it just can't be printed. There are plenty of copies floating around. But it's illegal to take a copy to school, and then try to convince kids that it's full of great ideas and that they should try them on their colleague with immigration background. Which happens right now, in Germany.
I agree that banning things is not the way. But some people act as if Germany is doing it out of some childish spite, not real historical and political reasons. Millions of people were executed in concentration camps by the Nazi regime and there are many people still around who are trying to repeat that today. Comparing TODAY's Nazi gangs with Romans and Carthage shows complete lack of perspective.
Nothing is served by allowing a freedom you find annoying? Were you saying you were or were not part of this neonazi subculture? I lost track. Your position is that the government should act to crush and destroy subcultures that you disapprove of, no?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Did the EU pass proposal on that issue? No.
Next. A country in the EU is not the EU. Just because one country comes up with some dumb shit, doesn't mean you can say "the EU is trying to censor the internet."
Show me one way in which the European Parliament has censored the internet.
Mever nind the typos.
He was saying that the government should crush and destroy those subcultures that are trying to gas dozens of millions of people in gas chambers and use them as fertiliser.
And I have no problem with any such subculture being crushed and destroyed, as I think that mass genocide and world war is something completely different than "annoying freedom". Unfortunately, censorship is not the answer.
Even if something is censored, it's important for the people to know what is censored and to be able to argue with the reasons.
In the USA, you're not allowed to openly advocate murder of somebody or issue death threats-- it is illegal and will land you in jail. In Germany, you are not allowed to glorify the holocaust or the Nazi regime in addition to that. There are still Nazi political parties in Germany, and they are represented in some smaller local parliaments. Only they can't directly praise the third reich or the holocaust. Their programme is not that different, though.
What happens is that in every major city, there is a Nazi parade once a month. There are thousands of heavily armed police officers protecting them as they walk around and ask for foreigners to be expelled, racial laws, and all that other crap. It is their constitutional right.
Some people have a very skewed idea of how things are in Germany. Nobody gets arrested for being a Nazi, or loving Hitler, or having a swastika tattood on them. What's prohibited is public dissemination of such material. You can't publish a Hitler-loving article, or a pro-holocaust song. The reasoning of the government is that this will prevent the spread of such materials. I don't think that it's working, to be honest. You don't hear much about them anymore. I guess they've faded away. (except maybe for prison gangs?) The US has never had a significant Nazi presence. Those were small groups.
Germany had basically 40 million Nazis one generation ago, and we all know what happened. It is a very different situation. The Nazi problem in Germany and parts of Europe is historical, not just a simple result of censorship.
che != hitler by a long shot!
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
If any neonazi group got close to being able to gas a dozen Jews, let alone begin to approach anything resembling what Hitler accomplished, they could quickly be dealt with using means that didn't impact anyone that wasn't a threat. If any neonazi group actually harmed someone, you could easily charge them with conspiracy to assault or murder - hell, you can even throw in the thought-crime of racially motivated assault and tack on an extra five life sentences.
There's absolutely no need for a blanket ban on artifacts. It might just possibly slow down a few of the tiny number of organisations that would be able to do harm using them. It will also, however, impact a lot of serious collectors and even, yes, people and organisations whose views might be despicable but are incapable of harming anyone, with or without their Nazi banners.
Maybe this sort of hypocrisy just legitimizes the Nazi's as a poor repressed underground group? It's a copyright issue. While it is legal to own Mein Kampf, and also to sell old copies of it, new copies are not allowed to be printed. Like with every book, books can only be printed in agreement with the copyright holder, which in the case of Mein Kampf is the Bavarian state. The Bavarian state (for political reasons) does not allow the book to be printed. The copyright runs out in 2015, 70 years after the death of the author.
"No, hate speech is NOT free speech"
Of course it is. For two reasons.
You're either for free speech or your not. One you get to pick *your* categories, I get to pick mine. ANd pretty soon, we have alot of censorship.
There's no such thing as hate speech. If I say that Mexicans are ruining the U.S. and should be shipped back across the border, some thin-skinned mexicans and self-loathers will call it "hate speech". But it's free speech.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Well, in that situation they pay market price for tuition, which at government universities is far higher than domestic students pay. Western universities make billions of dollars from Chinese students. Of course there is a price to pay in communications difficulties since differences in language and academic culture make teaching them, working with them and hanging out with them harder but this is the ultimately the choice of the university involved rather than some imposition from the National People's Congress.
If China wants to send its next generation of leaders through English speaking, liberal and capitalist universities paying us money to teach them stuff they could have found out at home then I don't see how that disadvantages us. I guess they're gaining from this arrangement too but it's not a zero sum game, we're not at war with China or anything. If there are too many Chinese people going through we can build more and bigger Universities, that's what free market capitalism is all about anyway.
Yes, that was my reply to four words.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem