Russia Quietly Passes Anti-Blogger Law

randomErr (172078) writes "Russia is tightening its grip on free speech and freedom of the Internet by creating a new 'bloggers law'. This policy follows the pattern set by China, Pakistan, Turkey, and Iran." Any site with more than 3000 daily visitors will be required to register and be held to a number of restrictions, quoting the article: "Besides registering, bloggers can no longer remain anonymous online, and organizations that provide platforms for their work such as search engines, social networks and other forums must maintain computer records on Russian soil of everything posted over the previous six months."

Comments

Russia you were so close

[SocietyoftheFist]

Enjoy your slide back in to totalitarianism.

Re:Russia you were so close

[willie3204]

If only they had the tools the NSA has.. They wouldn't even have to make it public!

Re:Russia you were so close

[Luckyo]

No, they just pass the information to the police that handles that job.

Look at what happened to all the Occupy members. Funny how all the important people in the movement were found very accurately by police forces across the country.

Re:Russia you were so close

[FriendlyLurker]

No, they just pass the information to the police that handles that job.

Look at what happened to all the Occupy members. Funny how all the important people in the movement were found very accurately by police forces across the country.

Found, and crucified:
Occupy Wall Street on Trial: Cecily McMillan Convicted of Assaulting Cop, Faces Up to Seven Years
Why Did FBI Monitor Occupy Houston, and Then Hide Sniper Plot Against Protest Leaders?

Like this dick authoritarian move by Russia, China et al. actions speak louder than words: The United States is not alone in being afraid of democracy... real democracy. Which starts with the more outspoken amongst us rallying together, writing blogs about the social problems we face, proposing solutions, attending OWS type events to agitate peacefully for positive change. Just too bad all those things that make common peoples lives better also happen to conflict with the goal of accumulating even more wealth for the richer parts of society. See graph: 12-country 1975-2007 chart of share of income growth going to The 1%.

Re:Russia you were so close

[BasilBrush]

So often what happened in "Communist Russia" was used as an argument that communism was flawed.

Well now we've seen Russia as:

1) An Imperial State up to and including the reign of Tzar Nicholas II.
2) A communist state.
3) A capitalist democracy.

And in all cases it's been a repressive state. So maybe that wasn't anything to do with communism after all and was more to do with Russian culture.

Re:Russia you were so close

[BasilBrush]

Convicted of assaulting a cop doesn't mean she assaulted a cop. Policing and jailing of protestors is very often political.

In this case the flip side of the story is that she was grabbed on the left breast by a hand from behind, and the person doing so received an elbow in return. Any in other situation, it would be the boob grabber if anyone that would have been at fault. But cops are above the law.

Re:Russia you were so close

[ArmoredDragon]

She was convicted AND sentenced by a jury of her peers; not the police, not a judge.

Besides, I looked at the video and when I see the way she hits him and runs, it seems to me she planned on doing that from the get-go. You don't elbow somebody on accident and then run from them. Furthermore, if she was groped, how come she didn't make that claim until way later?

Sorry, but I'm with the 12 jurors on this one. I think 7 years might be excessive, but the law may call for that, and the jurors are instructed to prescribe a sentence based on how the law is written.

In Soviet Russia...

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Here in America, we have it much easier. The NSA does all that recordkeeping for us.

this would never happen in america.

[nimbius]

Here in america we have journalistic freedom of speech. If you oppose US foreign policy or help expose secret illegal government programs we find it to be patriotic and sacrosanct. Moxie Marlinspike once helped a foreign journalist expose illegal american programs and he certainly wasnt ever targeted for random detention in airports because that would be unamerican. We never secretly spied on the New York Times when they reported on the NSA's illegal activities either, because thats not what america stands for. Heck, we once had a famous American blogger named Anwar al-Awlaki who had a really controversial opinion of the american government but did we use a robotic drone to kill him and his son with a missile while he was in Yemen? of course not.

Re:this would never happen in america.

[Sarten-X]

I suspect you have a broken sarcasm detector.

Re:this would never happen in america.

[MightyMartian]

And yet the newspaper in the US that publish details from Snowden's leaks are not being hauled into court.

Re:this would never happen in america.

[IamTheRealMike]

There's no point for the administration to go fry big names like the NY Times or Washington Post when all they were doing is re-reporting material already obtained by foreign press.

Now imagine what would have happened if Snowden had provided his materials only to the NY Times. Oh, wait, we don't have to imagine. We know what would have happened because previous leakers did that, only to find the NYT was already under the thumb and they chose not to publish. In fact Snowden explicitly said he wasn't going to trust American media to publish things about the NSA because they had a history of self censorship in this regard, causing them huge embarrassment.

That's a squirrley definition of free speech.

[quietwalker]

In the US, free speech is a blacklist-based phenomenon. There's a few things that are illegal to say - like 'Fire' in the theater - for example. If it's not listed, it's probably fair game, and you can't be jailed for it. Thus; westboro baptists and illinois nazis.

In many places in the world, it seems like the definition of free speech refers to the fact that there's a government-approved whitelist - here are the things you are allowed to talk about/say, anything not on the list are disallowed and legal offenses. Anything that's not explicitly on the list (and often times, even if it is) is subject to prosecutions. Heck, it's standard in these places to claim that opposing political parties are, by their language alone, seditionists, and have them locked up. In part, this is why there's outrage against the US that we allow hate speech and open protest; in other countries, that requires a mandate by the government, explicit approval.

Even in western, supposedly enlightened countries, there are onerous restrictions; check out slander laws in England, Germany's stance on anything Nazi-related, or France's many, many restrictions - for example, it's illegal to criticize a public employee (though I have no idea if it's actually enforced).

Calling this 'free speech' is like calling tax laws in the US 'voluntary taxes'.

What we're describing here is not a "tightening grip on free speech". It's just "additional regulations" on a locked down system where participating is the exception, not the rule. The only thing free about it is that one is "free" to follow all the rules, or shut up.

Re:Beatings will continue until...

[fustakrakich]

I bet Democrats look at Putin with envy.

Maybe the "conservative" ones, but it shows much more strongly inside the republican sect.

"Surgery of Thuggery" vs. the Intelligencia

[retroworks]

Putin remains very "popular". Hitler was "popular". 97% of people don't really need or use their freedom of speech to an extent that it threatens the establishment.

On a hopeful note, historically, Hitler's tightening control produced "brain drain" among his most talented scientists and engineers. Societies which resort to these kinds of controls usually fail to keep apace with modernization. It's the fallacy of "surgery of thuggery". When totalitarians intend to surgically intimidate just a few vocal intelligencia, their "tools" or administrative enforcers (gestapo) are too clumsy and over-reach, intimidating brilliant people in unintended manners. This same thing happens in the USA business regulatory environment, if a state government gives too much authority to its regulators, businesses move elsewhere.

Ahh good!

[Sycraft-fu]

I was worried for a minute that there might be a discussion about a country other than the US on Slashdot. However no need to fear, the egocentric dipstick brigade is on it, making sure to try and steer any and all discussion back to America. I mean we can't possibly want to talk about the rest of the world, nobody is from there, nobody cares what happens. Instead let's make sure to focus any and all discussion on America. That's the only way!

Seriously, knock it the fuck off. There is a wider world out there, and some of that world visits Slashdot. They might be interested in some stories about thing other than the US. Heck, for that matter people in the US might be interested in stories about the rest of the world since it is all interconnected.

I get really tired of the ego brigade on /. that has to try and steer every single conversation back to the US. Story about Russia? Talk about how the US is worse and then rail on about that. Story about Canada? Talk about how it would be if the US did it and then rail on about that. No matter what the story, move the discussion back to the US.

Just stop it. If there's a topic about Russia, well let's talk about that. If that doesn't interest you, kindly keep your silence so that people can talk about it. If the NSA spying interests you, then comment in those discussions, of which there are many.

Slashdot is an American site and thus American centric in its reporting but it is not US exclusive. Stop trying to make it that way. Your ego can deal with something not being about the US once and awhile.

The UK is also Regulating larger Blogs

[Diamonddavej]

The UK also introduced regulation of larger commercial blogs that publish "news type" material, part of the recommendations of the Leveson enquiry into press standards. Large blogs have to sign up to a press regulator, if not they get fined. It does not matter where the Blog's servers are located, if someone downloads content in the UK, it is published it in the UK and they can be held responsible ("Downloading here can count as publication in the law.").

Links:
"Press regulation deal sparks fears of high libel fines for bloggers - Websites could have to pay exemplary damages if they don't sign up to new regulator, claim opponents of Leveson deal "

BBC News: Will websites/blogs etc be covered?