Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russia Quietly Passes Anti-Blogger Law

Posted by Unknown on from the just-in-time-for-cold-war-2.0 dept.

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."

5 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. Russia you were so close by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Enjoy your slide back in to totalitarianism.

    1. Re:Russia you were so close by willie3204 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      The answer to all your problems
    2. Re:Russia you were so close by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  2. In Soviet Russia... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  3. That's a squirrley definition of free speech. by quietwalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.