Slashdot Mirror
Hungarian Officials Can Now Censor the Media
An anonymous reader writes "Hungary is set to regulate the media, including web-published content, under a new law applicable today. The law requires all the media to provide a 'balanced view' and must not go against 'public morality,' and places all publications under the control of a new regulating body, whose top members have all been nominated by Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Orban, whose strong ways have been compared to Putin's, has been tightening his grip over Hungary. 'In the seven months since Orban came to power with a two-thirds parliamentary majority, he has implemented retroactive taxes in violation of the constitution, curbed the Constitutional Court's power, effectively nationalized private pension funds and put ruling-party allies in charge of at least four independent institutions, including the audit office.' Citizens sentenced in application of the new law can still challenge it at the European Court of Human Rights — see you in a few years."
It seems like a lot of countries are going on a slide towards dictatorships and totalitarianism, and if it doesn't stop, I'm pretty sure we're going to see World War III, and I'm willing to bet it's within the next 50 years. The problem with WWIII is going to be, it's not going to be countries banding together to stop aggression from another bloc of countries, but fighting for the right to rule over other countries. Russia, USA, UK, Italy, Hungary, China, and North Korea are the ones off the top of my head sliding that way, though there's a bunch of other countries who might give them a run for their money (Iran et al).
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
>>>There is one thing that the election in 2010 taught me: if someone campaigns on vague promises and commits to nothing
Sounds familiar. (cough) US 2008. Hopefully the European Union courts will come to the rescue and enforce the constitutional rights enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. Ex-post facto laws are supposed to be unconstitutional, and ditto suppression of speech, press, and expression.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
It doesn't cease to amaze me how it's a horrendous crime to embezzle money but it's all right to eliminate freedom. Don't worry, you're in good company. Or bad company, depends on how you want to see it.
I can live with politicians that line their pockets. We came to get used to it, and it's not like I'd expect the current leaders of Hungary to abstain from it. But when only facing the choice between politicians that steal my money, and politicians that steal my money and eliminate my liberty, I guess the choice is... well, the lesser evil.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Being another Hungarian, I am sort of two minds regarding this act.
On the one hand, it is certainly a step away from democracy, and a rather large one at that. The government, already piling mistake upon mistake, could not have chosen a worse time to pass this act: the first day of our European Union presidency will go down in memory as 'The day censorship was reinstated', even after Angela Merkel voiced concerns that Hungary might not be ready for the presidency after passing such laws.
On the other hand, the law seems to be at least partially unenforceable: granted, the Media Authority has the power to "order the suspension of broadcasting", but given that while the government does own the airwaves, it does not, by definition, own the internet. Thus, this power cannot be exercised, even though failure to comply may result in the a de facto ban as the broadcaster is stricken from the national registry (but will probably be able to continue its activities online).
Not to mention that jurisdiction on the internet seems to be a gray area even today. There exist no codified laws or practices on where a lawsuit may be brought against online entities: in the jurisdiction where the server resides, where the entity is headquartered, or where the offender or offended is?
On the gripping hand, however, this is hardly a relief for those news outlets that still depend on printed press, which, to my knowledge, include all media organs with the exception of two larger online news portals. ... after they were paid. This will likely encourage self-censorship, as it will be significantly easier to comply with the regulations than to pay the fine, then go through legal trouble to potentially lose the lawsuit.
Also of note is the fact that fines may be appealed, as is customary
While these measures are certainly harsh, I am glad that we are not yet anywhere near the level of China or Iran. Although, with our drunk-on-power prime minister and his loyal-to-a-fault followers, that may yet come to pass in the new constitution to be approved this year.
A disclaimer regarding any judicial inaccuracies: I am not a lawyer, and have only taken introductory law courses during my studies.
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
And now the same thing is going on within the borders of the United States. Not only do we have to present identification and submit to a search when we travel by air, but Janet Napolitano has indicated that the same procedures are coming for travel by trains and buses. And given the emergence of "border checkpoints" up to 100 miles into the country from any border, it isn't going to be much longer before travel by car, bike, or foot is restricted to only those who can show identification.
For the sake of safety, of course. It's a different world since 9/11!
It's a different world since 1776, too.
They get away with it because few people care. Especially since the law is supposed to uphold decency in the media. A lot of people actually think that's a good thing... until it's their point of view that gets censored.
These laws are all over the place, and they generally start small. In the Netherlands, there already is a law for websites with child pornography (what else? *rolls eyes*), which can be ordered shut down and/or blocked without intervention of a judge. There have been recent proposals to extend this law to cover sites with hatred-inciting or discriminatory content, or stuff that threatens public order. In other words, covering "anything we don't like". The proposal was shot down, thankfully. But even the mere the fact that this motion was tabled at all is a shameful, shameful blot on our institution of government.
But this is by no means a new thing. Searches and wiretaps for instance, used to require a judge's go-ahead, but that was done away a few decades ago with "for convenience". No one cared. The prosecutor's office can now order searches, and wiretaps can be requested by pretty much anyone involved in police investigations, to the point where there are now more wiretaps being conducted in the Netherlands than in the rest of Europe combined. And as for searches, even city mayors now have the power to order these, for crying out loud. They can (and have one so on several occasions) order searches on no suspicion whatsoever, and/or do a door to door search of an entire neighborhood. The pretext is just fire safety, but they will enter homes with a whole team of officials checking for varied things like stolen goods, firearms, marihuana plantations, false social benefits claims, electricity theft, illegal subletting, and so on. And for those who think these are not real, official searches... if you're not at home and it's the 3rd time they've found you absent, they will open your front door with the "municipal key" (i.e. a crowbar), and fail to compensate you for the broken lock even if they find nothing.
That is the state of our country... sounds a bit like East Germany, but nobody gives a shit. So, am I worried about freedom of our media? Well yes... if they can get away with the above, then who will raise a hue and cry over something as "reasonable" as media censorship?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...