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.
How is censoring sale of historical artifacts protecting anyone? I have an interest in history of warfare and would buy a nazi artifact, along with those of allied forces, japan or US civil war to get a concrete fill for the history that I didn't personally experience. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it and I don't see how censorship is doing anything good for the future of peace in Europe.
On the other hand, applying double standards is better than applying no standards at all to noone.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
OUR censorship isn't bad, but other people's cencorship is... Do you have a source for that claim? I'm not aware of any ban on depicting Nazis in computer games in Germany. In fact from what I understand WW2 games have traditionally sold especially well in Germany where the Nazis are typically considered to be a separate entity and culture from modern Germany.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
If they have to answer for it, then they are not exactly sovereign.
Talking of Nazism, the release of a single Nazi-porn film is causing MPs in the UK to call for new censorship powers.
They claim they want to give the public more power - in fact, the film was approved years ago after the BBFC relaxed its censorship policies, after consulting with the public. What they actually mean is, they want the power to ban films everytime there is a media uproar from a vocal minority (who haven't even seen the film).
Of course they string out Nazism as the worse example, but we know the law won't stop at Nazi films. The Bogey Man, Death Trap, The Evil Dead and Zombie Flesh Eaters are the new "video nasties", along with Manhunt, which was blamed for a murder, even though it was the victim who owned a copy of the game.
I find the idea of a connection between these films and neo-Nazi groups laughable anyway - as if neo-Nazis are horror film and video nasty fans. Indeed, people who watch these are more likely to be seen as "deviant", and hence more likely to be persecuted by any Nazis anyway!
MP Julian Brazier is the prude who wants to control what you watch. Write to your MP if you disagree. The law is currently being debated in Parliament.
Then the gov't is utterly useless. I had to deal with this myself as a child, no matter how many times I reported neglect, it took me getting multiple adults to report the situation to Children's Services to get any sort of action taken. The worst part was, my father was willing and eager to take me, but the sexual bias in the court wouldn't let facts get in their way.
The only situation where I see censorship for a "think of the children" argument is in public school where they are mandated to serve "in loco parentis" (in place of parents)
Last time I have checked (when USSR existed -- I speak Russian but not Chinese) Communists as a matter of policy applied their censorship almost exclusively to what they deemed to be propaganda materials, that they believed to be just that -- incomplete, wrong, or misrepresentation of opinions as facts. I am sure, they would see a year-old version of Wikipedia article on Holodomor as a work of propaganda but current version as merely some data they did not like but wouldn't bother censoring if presented that way except possibly for the list of opinions (mentioning of "cultural elite", reference to political statements and resolutions that labeled it as a genocide) in the article (see the list of differences). And in this case I would agree with this assessment because older version of Wikipedia article was obviously written to promote a certain opinion based on incomplete and misrepresented facts while later edits presented more data and less attempts to force the reader to adopt a certain opinion about the nature of the same event. I was arguing about the same events and their representation earlier on this site, and Wikipedia's then-current version of that page was often referred to by my opponents in their arguments as some kind of authoritative source. If I was editing a "paper" encyclopedia, I would throw out (censor) the first version, too, and I have very little sympathy for Stalinist policies.
Also all governments, regardless of the political systems in their countries, prefer to use secrecy, not censorship when they want to hide raw data from population.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.