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.

Comments

The EU May Be Censoring...

[Wandering Wombat]

But they're doing it to PROTECT people. Everyone ELSE is doing it to OPPRESS people. HUGE difference.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[orclevegam]

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.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[iamacat]

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.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[nycguy]

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?

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[Anonymous Coward]

China does it to protect, too - If you were able to read about certain events, you would ask questions that would result in broken bones, see?

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[Wandering Wombat]

Oppression and Protection are mostly matters of perspective.

~Hands you your Captain Obvious hat~

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[orclevegam]

~Hands you your Captain Obvious hat~ Hmm... my sarcasm detector must be on the fritz again. Damn Chinese made piece of junk.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[orclevegam]

If someone is going to do something dangerous with some information then its protection. The only dangerous information is incomplete or wrong information. If after learning something someone does something dangerous there was either something wrong with that person to begin with, or they weren't given all the relevant information.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[LithiumX]

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.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[BrentH]

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.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[Anonymous Coward]

Protection is oppression.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[darkpixel2k]

Opening your doors to such nations doesn't encourage them, it makes them able to easily get into your country.

There, fix that for you.
So you're the one who let the terrorists in. Jerk.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[lgw]

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?

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[LithiumX]

Opening your doors to such nations doesn't encourage them, it makes them able to easily get into your country.
There, fix that for you. So you're the one who let the terrorists in. Jerk. I in no way support terrorists. In fact I denounce them. Or is that reject them? Denounce or reject... so complicated.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[cozziewozzie]

Your position is that the government should act to crush and destroy subcultures that you disapprove of, no? No, actually, that's not what he was saying.

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.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[noidentity]

To PROTECT you from MISSING the IMPORTANT points. Or SOMETHING.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[RiotingPacifist]

che != hitler by a long shot!

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[mdwh2]

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.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[lgw]

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.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[barocco]

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

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[superwiz]

Censorship is good in one case only; To protect children. I personally think in that case it is protection. Think-of-the-children is a common tag line on slashdot for a reason. It is used to justify all kinds of trade offs of liberty for security. Parents must protect their children. The government should not and MUST NOT assume the position of a parent. Standards of "normal" vary and the government has no business protecting children from vulgar language any more than it has protecting them from "wrong" religions.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[cozziewozzie]

As the present and unbroken line leading to the current Chinese government has, sadly during its various terrors unleashed by its still hero, Chairman Mao, killed far more than the nazis in Europe, is your position that you advocate the censorship and blocking of everything Chinese? The Chinese government recently looked like it would finally acknowledge how bad Mao was, but in the end, they concluded "he was more good than bad." Maoist groups have a similar political standing in Germany as neo-Nazi groups, as both are considered anti-constitutional.

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.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[Rampantbaboon]

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)

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

[Alex Belits]

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.

Positive movement

[KublaiKhan]

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.

Re:Positive movement

[meringuoid]

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.

Correct. The real power in Europe is not found in Brussels, but in Paris and London and Berlin. The member states are very powerful and independent; the Brussels government is really just a jumped-up trading association, whose remit is to unify the European market for free trade, and to speak on behalf of the member states as a union in disputes with foreign powers such as the US and China.

So, the EU directives tend to have to do with trading standards - hence the standardisation of weights and measures, the ongoing harmonisation of labour laws, and the project to establish a common currency. The member states make their own decisions about media censorship, based on local standards: hence the famous ban on Nazi memorabilia in Germany.

However, EU directives are binding on the member states and do have to be implemented - at least in theory. So this might well be a good thing. Not sure it's the best precedent, though; it reminds me more than a little of the way the American federal government abuses the 'interstate commerce' rule to usurp the states' power. That's not something even I want to see in Europe, and I'm way over on the federalist side of the spectrum.

So self-righteously inflicted self-harm?

[cptnapalm]

So, the EU would have to begin sanctioning itself?

Man, I always thought that they were somewhat self-destructive but damn...

Re:So self-righteously inflicted self-harm?

[A beautiful mind]

On the other hand, applying double standards is better than applying no standards at all to noone.

Re:So self-righteously inflicted self-harm?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'll find that anyone with any power at all does this every day. We live in a world of hypocrites - and to lay it squarely at the feet of Europeans is somewhat unfair as similar egregious hypocrisies have been committed by the: Chinese, Russians, North Americans (US and Canada), Those from the Netherlands, every Middle-Eastern Country (including Israel), South Americans, The Japanese, Koreans (North and South), in fact pretty much every country in the world. Now get your trolling ass out of here.

As soon as anyone gets a smattering of power, they abuse it and then distract attention away from their own abuses by pointing out the same thing in others. It's called politics, and every politician of every country or bloc is just as responsible as the others for perpetuating this state of affairs.

I'm sure your leaders are as pure as the driven snow, though, right?

This move could be a big mistake

[KeithH]

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.

Re:This move could be a big mistake

[lgw]

Why should anyone have the right to "protect their culture"? You want the right to force other members of your "culture" to live the way you want them to, not the way they want to? How about we let each individual choose what culture they find appealing, and let the culture that no one finds appealing die?

Re:Social justice will create better markets

[KublaiKhan]

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.

Re:What?

[moderatorrater]

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).

Sucessssss like Cuba?

[slysithesuperspy]

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!

Re:Sucessssss like Cuba?

[Asic Eng]

So why would sanctions just magically work here?

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.

Re:Sucessssss like Cuba?

[xaxa]

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.

Re:not likely

[Jackdaw Rookery]

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.

Re:nazi ban

[cozziewozzie]

So why aren't Roman artifacts banned as well? Because Germany doesn't have gangs of Roman youth beating up non-Aryan people and setting them on fire right now.

I'm against censorship, but some people lack any perspective whatsoever....

Re:nazi ban

[ZDRuX]

So basically you're against censorship, unless it's something you don't like - then it's to censor it.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pot and kettle, meet wok.

Mind reading CAPTCHA? barbecue

Re:kettle, meet pot.

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

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... 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.

Re:What?

[Depili]

That country is Finland.

Re:Social justice will create better markets

[rrkap]

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.

Because the internet is such a haven of enlightened tolerance now.

Re:nazi ban

[cozziewozzie]

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.

Re:not likely

[cnettel]

Quite simple, while the EP is involved in the process, it has very limited power to enact new laws, but they are part of the process to ratifice ones proposed by other parties. As the summary of this /. post mentions, the Council (which is basically a fancy names for the leaders of the national governments) also has to pass it. The European Parliament only wields direct power when the Commision or the Council wants something badly and are ready to bargain. It should also be mentioned that, for now, many kinds of decisions are handled in the Council with a formal right to veto for every country.

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.

Re:nazi ban

[xaxa]

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.

Re:nazi ban

[cozziewozzie]

In the US they are allowed free speech, freedom of assembly, etc. They are allowed free speech, freedom of assembly, etc. in Germany too.

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.

Finnish Censorship Expanding

[mingrassia]

>> That country is Finland.

It was discussed on /. last week ...

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.

UK and Sweden and censorship

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

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.

Re:Cuba is not a degraded high-output copier...

[donscarletti]

they flood our schools

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.