Pirate Party Banned From Social Networking Site

An anonymous reader writes to tell us that as the European Parliament elections loom, StudiVZ, Germany's largest social networking site, has opened up to political parties for election campaigning. That is, if you aren't the Pirate Party. "The other political parties were allowed to have a special account to show they are an organization and not an individual. The Pirate Party, however, was not allowed to have one and instead operated on a standard user account registered by an individual. StudiVZ noticed that the Pirate Party account was not a "real person" and despite it having a thriving network with hundreds of followers, it was summarily deleted. This means that it is impossible for the Pirate Party to have a presence at all on the largest social networking site in Germany." Update: 05/02 19:17 GMT by T : Reader riot notes: "FYI: I just translated the press release to English."

Comments

What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[JO_DIE_THE_STAR_F***]

Except that they are more about civil liberties then they are about hijacking ships off the Somalian coast.
It does not matter what your party name is. If you have a sufficient sized following and your trying to get into power to improve your country why should you be treated any different than the rest of the political parties?

Re:What do they expect. They're the PIRATE party

[lucas_picador]

Clearly they don't understand very much, because if they did they'd see that censorship is a tool that's very useful to totalitarian regimes, and a dual purpose one to boot: silencing opposing points of view and hiding their own crimes & vices.

Again, I don't disagree with you. But are you really going to stand up and defend the right of the Hutu Power guys running the radio station to broadcast the locations of Tutsi "cockraoches" to the roving machete-rape squads? And if not, then where is the line being drawn between reasonable and unreasonable censorship? Is Lou Dobbs calling for Mexican immigrant concentration camps on FOX News closer to the Hutu Power boys, or closer to Thomas Jefferson? I think it depends on context: if the US were to see an drastic upswing in hate crimes targeting immigrants, I can see how curbing that kind of incitement could be justified. Germany has a very specific context when it comes to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, obviously. I live in Canada, which has much more restrictive hate-speech laws than the US, and yet there seems to be more accountability, transparency, and free discourse up here than in the US (where I grew up), and people are much nicer to each other as well. My primary reason for opposing hate-speech laws in the US is because I know that they would be drafted and enforced to protect specific politically powerful interests, rather than marginalized groups. I really do think that this is an area where the right balance struck by the law depends a lot on context.

Re:Oh well

[Tikkun]

They're not outlaws. They're for amateur librarians and are anti-monopolist. Just because they believe that laws today are unjust and want to reform them doesn't make it right to exclude them from political debate.

Would you really want social networking sites to prevent the ALA from having their say because Barnes and Nobel decided that libraries are killing the publishing industry?

Re:Zeitgeist

[AlgorithMan]

As a german I can tell you - the political situation here is BAD! censorship is back, surveillance is back, corruption... never left

the lockout of the pirate party is just a small puzzlepiece of opposition-oppression, but all in all - yes - we are headding for the fourth reich...

Re:Oh well

[Daimanta]

"The Pirate Party aren't revolutionaries because they aren't fighting for anything in particular, just against something (which is almost as vague)"

People who fought against prohibition weren't revolutionaries because they weren't fighting for anything in particular, just against something.

Your comparison does not hold up.

Re:Zeitgeist

[sortius_nod]

I think there's a difference between a member doing something against the TOS and a member that you don't like, or have been told to not like. This, to me, is a political deletion, has nothing to do with getting rid of bad members.

I'd hazard a guess that your site isn't thriving if you can't tell the difference between a personal dislike and someone breaking the rules of your site. Where I live, if this happened, the site owners would find themselves infront of the ACMA quicker than you can say "politically unjust act".

Yes, you are an "asshole" as you said, but you're also an idiot too... but they usually go hand in hand.

Re:Zeitgeist

[painandgreed]

But it's a private website. It is the website's call if they want to ban pirates or ninjas.

It depends on what the political contribution laws are in the said country. Once a company starts allowing some political parties their services for free while banning them to others (like the Pirate Party which is a registered political party in Germany IIRC), that might be seen as an endorsement or contribution and could be in violation of some laws dealing with political contributions.

Re:Zeitgeist

[mysidia]

So if you're a bar, you can't refuse admittance to a 9-year-old, and refuse to sell them an alcoholic drink that they're too young to safely imbibe? On the basis of age discrimination being illegal?

Oh, by the way... political beliefs and political party associations aren't in that list!

Re:Zeitgeist

[trewornan]

In the UK it's the British National Party (quazi Nazis), membership of this party precludes you from employment in the government, police, etc. Vile as they may be, they are a legitimate political party and legalising discrimination against them is even more vile, as well as the most dangerous precedent imaginable. Unfortunately this policy is actually quite popular in the UK - the sheeple will get what they deserve in the end I guess.