France's Citizens Expected to Help Build Internet Blacklist

Corrupt links to a Sydney Morning Herald article which begins "The French state and internet service providers have struck a deal to block sites carrying child pornography or content linked to terrorism or racial hatred, Interior Minister Michel Alliot-Marie announced on Tuesday." The article is thin on details, but what it does say is bad enough: "Under the French plan, internet users, via a platform, will be able to signal inappropriate sites and the state, receiving the complaints in real time, will then decide whether the sites are to go on a so-called black list to be passed on to internet service providers to enforce site blocks." It sounds like the perfect way to organize an especially malicious DDoS attack. The French government has never been shy about wanting to "protect" French people by censoring Internet content, though.

Comments

Peer pressure

[SirLurksAlot]

Other democracies have done it. France could wait no longer.

Gotta love that "Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we?" mentality.

Seriously though, I want to know exactly how this will work. Who gets to decide what sites go on the black-list, and how deep are they going to dig into a claim before a site gets taken down? I can see a huge potential for abuse here.

Re:Not a problem

[Jarjarthejedi]

But, will it then unblacklist everything, as a result of the blacklisting software being unable to reach the blacklisting site? Oh, that would make for an interesting paradox...

Oblig Slipper Slope

[iamhigh]

Anytime you start to filter and suppress speech, you are well on your way to a troubling situation. Even if you allow majority rule, you can potential be blocking very important minority opinions/info.

Will the list be public?

[thesaurus]

And if so, isn't France just creating a "Get Yer Child Porn Here!" list?

Re:If the French people are on board... good

[Excelcia]

Most certainly because many people fear that the risk of disabled children is higher in incest pairings. Few, of course, want to continue this thought and forbid haemophiliacs to procreate. It's an irrational, inconsequent thing, you know.

As I pointed out in another post, there are many many forms of sexuality that don't involve any risk of pregnancy. The word incest implies intercourse, so let's drop that and go with sexual contact. I am prohibited from engaging in any sort of sexual behaviour with my children. I find that idea repugnant (the sexual contact, not the prohibition of it) - but why do I find it so?

Libertarians. Making victimless actions crimes is an authoritarian thing, where you pass on your morals on others without any connection.

Is child pornography victimless? This is something I have a hard time accepting. Which likely stems from my belief that sexual contact with children is wrong. And there are some who might consider there to always be at least one victim of child pornography, just as there is always at least one with drug abuse. Many psychological addictions are accepted behavioural disorders. I for one am not going to wave my arms in the air and tell another country they are wrong to want to protect their citizens from that - as long as a significant enough majority go along with it.

I don't think it's flawed idea on its face that a society would want to censor child pornography. Our own society has many many forms of censorship which are well accepted. Censorship of libellous writing and hate speech. Censorship due to copyright and patent law. Censorship due to privacy constraints and censorship incidental to legal actions. Most people believe censorship in general to be wrong, but believe that there are times when it's necessary. When the harm inherent in the content spreading outweighs the harm of censorship. Censorship is dangerous, but I really hate it when that word shows up here and everyone jumps on it like its a plague. Oh my heavens - they're trying to censor us, break out the pitchforks. What I'm trying to do, clumsily perhaps, is point out that maybe the method they are using in France is actually a good way to implement it. A method of censorship that varies in effectiveness with the amount of support it has from the population involved. If the people don't want it, I think it just won't work. If they really all do get on board with it, then as far as I'm concerned, good for them for finding a community solution and working together.