Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spanish Congress Rejects Internet Censorship Law

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-one-expects-the-spanish-opposition dept.

TuringTest writes "A commission of the Spanish Congress has rejected a law that allowed the closure of web sites that provide unauthorized downloads. The government couldn't reach enough support from its allies, not because they opposed the law in principle, but because of the way it was redacted and the lack of negotiation. Recently the Spanish Senate rejected a law on net neutrality. Also the Wikileaks cables disclosed pressure from the USA on the Spanish government to pass a law to reduce Internet sharing of music and media, which is legal in Spain."

25 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. packing my bags ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    and moving to spain

    1. Re:packing my bags ... by spxZA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How will that prevent the great US and A from censoring what you want? Just because you're in a country that doesn't do any censoring, doesn't mean that other countries' policies won't affect you. Too many double negatives?

    2. Re:packing my bags ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hope you don't carry, 'cause in Spain you can only do it to and from a range. Freedoms can be funny things like that - you get one, you lose one.

    3. Re:packing my bags ... by BenoitRen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good luck getting a job there.

  2. Don't give them an inch, or all you have to do... by mykos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...Is lower the bar for "copyright infringement" or the enforcement thereof.

    It's already happening in the US. Homeland Security to fourth amendment: "Fuck you."

  3. pressure from the USA on the Spanish government by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to pass a law to reduce Internet sharing of music and media, which is legal in Spain

    see how that filth works ? this is precisely why they are trying to take down wikileaks. because it exposes what filth they are doing.

    --
    Read radical news here
  4. I smiled for a moment... by Sparx139 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... then I realized that the reason they rejected it had nothing to do with the fact that this sort of thing is bad =(

    --
    Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
    1. Re:I smiled for a moment... by Beriaru · · Score: 4, Informative
      The citizen awareness was high because the sharing webpages closed showing the notice of the intent of the government of passing the law as a 'petty topic' so it could approve it without public discussion.

      That raised protest, a DDoS attack to the web pages of ALL politic groups, a flood of emails and calls to the politics, and so on. That incidents produced some notices in national media that raised more the awareness of the public opinion.

      At last, the politic groups was intimidated. The situation in Spain is critical, with a 20% of unemployment and a brutal credit crunch. So a high unpopular law as that could 'spark' some unrest.

    2. Re:I smiled for a moment... by Beriaru · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yep, they worry about soccer.

      You're not spanish, or if you are, you're in denial. Spain had our laws and constitution stomped a week ago and nobody gave a damn. Had our worker rights ripped apart and nobody gave a damn. Our politics are a wealthy elite and the crisis don't touch them, but nobody-give-a-damn!

      BUT, if you touch a local soccer team or closes music or video downloads, hell breaks loose.

      This is Spain, and that's the reality in Spain.

  5. Spain beats with a fascist heart by FuckingNickName · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To give you an idea of the authoritarianism of Spain's government, around three weeks ago it issued a State of Alert because of striking ATCers which came down to, "If you refuse to work, you will be sent to jail." (Conversely, work sets you free.) Note that Spanish ATC was civilian, but an argument was formed that by striking you are denying people freedom of movement. This is probably one of the most Orwellian interpretations of "freedom" Western Europe has seen in recent years, and is the first time quasi-martial law has been enforced in Spain since the fall of Franco.

    This is not the sort of government that is about to sympathise with filesharing arguments. It is, like all authoritarian governments, a stickler for procedure, and that's the only real reason this law didn't pass.

    1. Re:Spain beats with a fascist heart by FuckingNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, they didn't simply all walk out at 1700, but nice toeing of the government line. There was a gradual cessation of operations and not one flight was put in danger. This doesn't mean that what they did was the best way to go about things, and it might have been against their terms of employment and open them up to civil action, but none of this justifies forcing them to work.

      . The difference is none of us get payed 17.000 euro every month.

      Ah, so your argument comes down to, "You're paid more than me so I get to impose slavery on you when I like without warning!" If you want to campaign for fairer salaries, that's absolutely reasonable, but your method is probably the worst way imaginable. Sigh, Spain's in for a dark few years.

      If they don't like what they're doing, go do something else, no one's forcing you to be an air traffic controller.

      So they should stop "being an ATC" if they don't like it, but it's okay when they actually stop for them to be forced back to work?

      I fear that any censorship/Copyright law is going to be defeated not because it's immoral but because of the twisted envy displayed above, which means any defeat is temporary and depends on either bribing the electorate or waiting a few years.

    2. Re:Spain beats with a fascist heart by FuckingNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. I disagree that doctors and electricity generation staff shouldn't be allowed (through criminal law) to strike. If you get to the point where the only reason they're doing the job is because of the gun pointed at their head, you've already lost the point entirely. Regardless, you don't apply martial law to stop strikes: if you want to militarise some profession, which is effectively what you're doing when you make striking illegal, you do it in advance and make sure every worker has provided informed consent.

      2. Are you asking who the controllers are working for? AENA is government-owned but the straw which broke the camel's back was the proposal to privatise.

      3. Well, getting paid more doesn't make you immune to tiredness and the harm to conentration caused by working excessive hours. Nor does getting paid a lot mean you should lose the right to negotiate or to strike. You as voter are welcome to petition the government as employer to reduce air traffic controller wages, because the solution to hearing that a worker gets paid too much (as opposed to all the useless bureaucrats and bankers who gain ten times as much and are of no social benefit) is to make sure he suffers as much as you. Regardless, you're not welcome to enslave the air traffic controllers because you're bitter that they get paid more than you.

      4. Quite.

    3. Re:Spain beats with a fascist heart by ccguy · · Score: 2

      3. Well, getting paid more doesn't make you immune to tiredness and the harm to conentration caused by working excessive hours.

      Well, it seems to be that way, because ATC are happy to work as many hours as needed as long as they are paid 3x the regular rate. So it seems that money helps with tiredness.

      The thing is, the administration says "You have to WORK 1600 hours a year". And the ATCs says, "OK, but that's not real work hours, we'll take our vacations from there, our union hours from there, if we meet with a representation we'll take it from there too...". So instead of 1600, some wanted to work 1200 or so. And then, because more hours are needed, they say "sure, we'll do it, but this is overtime".

      Well, fuck you. The administration did the right thing by saying, "It's 1600 hours of actual controlling, not fooling around".

    4. Re:Spain beats with a fascist heart by Gorshkov · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some Political Science 101 for the people in this thread, who have been throwing around terms loosely with no real understanding of their meanings.

      Communism: A political/economic theory with the proletariat (the people) at the centre, who wield power. In a communist society, there *is* no state - it has "withered away", to quote some old dead guy named Marx, who was also the only Marx in history without a sense of humour.

      Fascism: A political/economic theory with corporations at the centre, with the government wielding power on their behalf.

      Spain under Franco was Fascist, no argument.

      Soviet Union under Stalin was *not* communist, in any way shape or form. It espoused communism, but there is a difference between using communism as a rationalization for your actions, and actually *being* communist.

      The Soviet Union was, depending on the time, either a dictatorship, or an oligarchy (think dictatorship, but instead of having a single ruler, it is run by a group of individuals. That would be the Politburo). It could accurately be described as an oligarchy, a dictatorship, or a police state.

      Spain under Franco could also be described as a dictatorship, a police state, *or* a fascist state. All are accurate.

      But there is no possible way to describe the Soviet Union as fascist. It's just plain wrong.

    5. Re:Spain beats with a fascist heart by hibiki_r · · Score: 2

      Let anyone that wants to train as an ATC, and let supply and demand set up the appropriate price. Then, some of them can strike all day long. In fact, the law they were protesting about allowed people to get the training without going throught the ATC union, which is one of the things that pissed the ATCers off.

      When a group's actions first set up a monopoly, and then use said monopoly in rent-seeking behavior, it's hard for them to get any real sympathy. When anyone that wants to be an ATC can at least train for the job, then you can talk about how a strike can be morally acceptable.

  6. Re:redacted law by marcansoft · · Score: 4, Informative

    I believe that's a mistranslation or a mistake by a Spanish speaker. In Spanish, "redactar" means "to write" (as in a book, an essay, a law, ...).

  7. Re:redacted law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Redact. Note in particular the definitions from Wordnet.

  8. Re:Don't give them an inch, or all you have to do. by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 4, Informative

    What has particularly pissed off Spanish internet community is that the copyright laws the US is blackmailing through in Spain (via 301/trade sanctions) go way beyond what has ever been proposed here in the US - i.e. 3 strikes.

    In a move that has only thrown more fuel on the fire, the US ambassador to Spain took an active role in discouraging democratic debate about the new laws - agreeing by Spanish request to "influence" elected representatives so that they did not to meet or discuss the new laws with their constituents:

    "[Sebastian] I was particularly concerned that the regional government of Madrid had been organizing meetings with Internet users. (...) He said that would be helpful if the ambassador could encourage regional president [Esperanza Aguirre] to stop.'s Ambassador agreed to raise the issue when meeting with the regional president."

    "Spreading Democracy" in action, anyone.

  9. Some people prefer other freedoms by fantomas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sometimes two different 'freedoms' may clash. It looks like Spanish people feel that it is better to be free of the fear of huge amounts of guns on their streets than the freedom for the majority of citizens to carry guns on their streets.

    I've lived in Europe for 40 years and never once have I thought "I'd feel safer walking to the shops if I had a gun on me or knowing that lots of these other people walking around on the streets had guns on them".

    1. Re:Some people prefer other freedoms by characterZer0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The right to bear arms is to protect yourself from the government, not from the riffraff.

      Regardless of whether it works or not in this day and age, that is the reason for the right.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:Some people prefer other freedoms by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sometimes two different 'freedoms' may clash.

      Absolutely.

      . It looks like Spanish people feel that it is better to be free of the fear of huge amounts of guns on their streets than the freedom for the majority of citizens to carry guns on their streets.

      See, and this is where you, and perhaps they, lose me. Freedom from fear. People may give up personal freedom (and responsibility) in the hope that they will be safer and less afraid, but I seem to recall a rather famous quote about just that. In truth, there is little scientific support for the theory that strict gun control laws result in greater safety. They might result in less fear, but that's only a function of the public's ignorance.

      I've lived in Europe for 40 years and never once have I thought "I'd feel safer walking to the shops if I had a gun on me or knowing that lots of these other people walking around on the streets had guns on them".

      And for the most part, when it comes to personal protection, there is little scientific support for the theory that having access to more common firearms makes people safer either. Sadly, for being such a major issue, there's really very few well conducted studies on the issue since no one keeps track of how often firearms are used to deter or prevent crime, and very sporadic records on how often violent crimes occur (hint they are constantly reclassified by politicians that control record keeping and who want to seem effective ala, we have 50% fewer homeless and a huge increase in outdoorsmen in our city). The scientific consensus to date is there is no real correlation between gun control laws and violent crime when normalized for other factors, or perhaps a slight increase in violent crime.

      But mostly I just wanted to point out what I see as your misperception. The individual right to carry firearms is a freedom. The right to stop everyone else from carrying them is not a freedom, it's a restriction. No matter how you try to redefine it as a "freedom to not feel fear". You can claim it is a conflict of the freedom to carry firearms and the freedom to continue living, but that is only in perception. One might as well argue free speech is not a freedom, because it conflicts with my fear that word viruses might infect my brain and transform me into a starfish. Rational people have to rely upon actual evidence and there is no evidence to date, that is an actual conflict, only a perceived one in the minds of those who have not actually formed their opinion using a rational methodology. When you wrote that the spanish people "feel" it is better, you were much more precise than perhaps you intended.

    3. Re:Some people prefer other freedoms by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Outnumbered 100:1? No problem. Do you really think that in a full blown civil war situation we'd get armed citizens vs. "special" police force?

      Let's pretend for a moment I am the government. First, I'd make sure that I control the media and label everyone opposing me a traitor and anti-american insurgent. Next, whatever area is under the control of the 'rebels' gets cut off. No water, no power, no gas, no nothing. Don't like it? Come out, or throw the 'rebels' out. Your call. The most powerful weapon in a civil war is causing dissent amongst your enemy. Next, start the helicopters and make sure I have minute information who is where and what is going on. Make sure you tape everything and hope and pray someone is dumb enough to shoot. If they do, well, take a look at the collateral damage video to see what's next.

      You are dealing with a powerful enemy here. You can win that war, but not with a complacent population used to their comfort. Guerilla warfare is much, but it's not comfortable. You have to be willing to sacrifice a LOT.

      And I doubt many people are willing to do that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Some people prefer other freedoms by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2

      Hmm. Did you bother to check gun deaths in Europe vs. gun deaths in the Untied States, before speaking? I didn't think so.

      You apparently didn't bother to think much at all. Do take a look at violent crime and murders in Europe and South America, and North America and everywhere else, by country and even legal jurisdiction. Notice a correlation between those numbers and gun control laws? No? Gee neither does anyone else. Sweden, for example has very liberal gun control laws and high rates of ownership, but some of the lowest rates of murder and violent crime in the world. There are, however, many very good correlations with murder and violent crime, wealth disparity being one of the most stark.

      And while we're at it, lets talk about "gun deaths". Where did this absurd term come from? It's an intentional logical misstatement of the problem invented by people who could not show a correlation between gun laws and murder and violent crime. So they play some statistical games and come up with numbers that at first blush as read by a layman seem to show what they wish was happening.

      Scenario that demonstrates the logical misstatement:

      Case 1, strict gun control laws in effect. An axe murderer broke into a home today and chopped up twelve children and three adults. Analysis using "gun crime" - 0 gun deaths yay! analysis using violent crime and murder as the problem - 15 murders.

      Case 2, lax gun control laws in effect. An axe murderer broke into a home today and was shot at by the homeowner who then chased the psycho out into the street and shot him. Analysis using either "gun crime" or violent crime and murder as the problem - 1 manslaughter.

      So, you really think a problem statement that results in the above, hypothetical, effect of gun control laws effectively helps society make proper choices? You think people are happier having been killed by an axe? When you come at problems with such a wrongheaded idea, you clearly cannot make a reasonable determination of what effective action is. As such, any study of "gun crime" statistics can be immediately trashed.

  10. Legal is not the right word by Damnshock · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'll copy+paste myself from Osnews:

    File sharing is not "legal" in Spain. It is something called, in the law world, "alegal" which means something is not regulated nor prohibited. To give a weird example: it is legal to say something because you have the right of free speech but... would it be legal to kill an e.t.? Right now, with the law in hands, that would be "alegal".

    1. Re:Legal is not the right word by Zangief · · Score: 2

      If something is not ilegal, then it's legal. This "alegal" thing is a dangerous concept.

      We can't expect the laws to define absolutely every aspect of the human (or alien!) experience.