Slashdot Mirror
Several European Countries Lay Groundwork For Heavier Internet Censorhip
Gigaom reports that more internet censorship may be on the way, as several European countries' governments do a unity rally of their own, in the wake of the last week's terror attacks in France:
The interior ministers of France, Germany, Latvia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the U.K. said in a statement (PDF) that, while the internet must remain “in scrupulous observance of fundamental freedoms, a forum for free expression, in full respect of the law,” ISPs need to help “create the conditions of a swift reporting of material that aims to incite hatred and terror and the condition of its removing, where appropriate/possible.” ... It seems, to say the least, an awkward reaction to what was in part a free-speech-related attack — the left-wing Charlie Hebdo has itself frequently been accused of hate speech for its portrayal of Muslims and others. On that front, a German newspaper that reprinted blasphemous Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Mohammed in the wake of the attack was firebombed in the early hours of Sunday morning, with no injuries. Others that did the same remain under police guard.
Of course, we have to take away freedom of speech in order to protect freedom of speech, don't you get it? Duh....
That's racist against latinos and sexist against women. The editors here are troglodytes.
When you censor speech in this case, all your doing is letting the terrorist win and We as a people LOSE. Do you really want to let the Terrorists win?
Not that I agree with the content on those sites, but how is preventing such sites not exactly the same (in that I mean an act against freedom of speech) as what those morons did at the satirical comic office in france... If you really want freedom of speech, you'll have to allow for those hate sites, otherwise you're no better than they are..
If air could be linked in any way to terrorism, that would likely be restricted as well
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Write up draconian legislation, wait for a terrorist attack to happen, and immediately unleash it on the public. The media will be all to eager to play into your hand by whipping the public up into a frenzy. Ever since 9/11 every single terrorist attack has been an excuse for tighter surveillance and censorship across the world.
Look, it was sad that a bunch of people died over cartoons. But it changes nothing - absolutely NOTHING - about the importance of our freedoms. In fact, if anything, it highlights the importance of our freedoms, as these cartoonists died over free speech.
Anyone who tells you that increased surveillance and censorship will be 'selective' and 'only target high-risk individuals' is either ignorant or lying, as a cursory glance at previous measures will readily reveal.
Don't let them bait you.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
... there will be no freedom of speech left
And from TFA
" ... while the internet must remain âoein scrupulous observance of fundamental freedoms, a forum for free expression, in full respect of the law ...
What law?
I don't need to get a crystal ball to know that a lot more restrictive laws will emerge - and we all know what kind of the future world we will end up with if we do not stand up for our own rights!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Why does this remind me fatally of Orwell's "newspeak"? Or of those "ten commandments" in (also Orwell's) "Animal Farm"?
Sometimes I'm deeply ashamed of the politicans we vote into power.
In Swedish: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6063116
Someone wrote on Facebook: "The religion of peace has shown its face".
The ruling party filed criminal charges, calling it similar to race hate.
Islamists and the Left is pretty much one and the same.
I look forward to trying to reconcile condemning Saudi Arabia for whipping a guy who insulted the Prophet Muhammad, with jailing a guy who ironically called Islam the religion of peace. Oh wait, nobody will say anything to Saudi Arabia, because the modern left-wing IS Saudi Arabia just slightly milder.
France is one of the countries with a huge spying network and they trade with all the other intelligence agencies.
(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/04/france-electronic-spying-operation-nsa)
And if they can't get things by law, they just do it anyway. But that hasn't stopped this attack just as the US and UK agencies didn't stop 9/11 and the londen subway attacks.
So why give them more budget and powers? Start firing people for not doing their job properly and clean up your act first...
Makes me glad the U.S. still has the right to free speech even though we are far down the road to replacing that with the right not to be offended.
Are they going to clean up all the fascist/nazi websites, included the ultra-catholic ones? or just the jihadists? In Spain the only website I see regularly dissappear are warez and torrent site, maybe the terrorists were using them to upload videotutorials and "how to's".
Yeah some terrorists are probably supersmart and security concious and would cover their tracks in any event. But most terrorists are idiots - petty criminals and the dregs of society who've fallen under the spell of the movement. These people should be rich pickings if they are allowed to do what they like and given enough rope to hang themselves.
... by censorship!
The governments will be busy chasing Facebook and Twitter "jihadists" while the ones with kalashnikovs will be killing people in the streets. *facepalm*
The hypocrisy of the politicians that "were Charlies" this weekend in Paris and at the same time are calling for more Internet censorship really is staggering.
To best avoid inciting any discriminatory hatred maybe the portrayal of any group should be obscured. A code should be used for names. e.g., replace "Islamist" with "W4FK9zists". Photos should be edited to replace all extremist group related persons with a common icon. I am sure "Bob" Dobbs wouldn't mind if his likeness replaced those of terrorists, religious leaders, members of political parties - or anybody else for that matter.
This statement is a manifestation of policy developed during the Clean IT Project, in which seven out of twelve countries who signed this statement participated somewhere between 2011 and 2013. Some details here:
https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2014/08/reducing-terrorist-use-of-the-internet-result-of-clean-it-project-2011-2013/
And here:
https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2014/08/dutch-govt-announces-plan-to-fight-jihadist-internet-use-through-sort-of-voluntary-censorship/
An unofficial HTML version of the outcome of the Clean IT Project can be found here:
https://cyberwar.nl/d/20130118_Reducing-terrorist-use-of-the-Internet_CleanIT.html
Recall that leaked documents contained some controversial items, including the idea to ban non-compliant ISPs from govt contracts; that idea was internally scheduled as a topic for debate. It is unclear what happened to that idea. See more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_IT_Project#Opposition
One problem is that Europe is being fucked over and turned into a professional propaganda state.
A bigger problem is that we don't know who is behind this. I'm pretty sure we are talking small numbers of people.
A wiki to identify the people behind it?
They're preaching hatred in this Mosques at this moment. Here someone will say I am exaggerating or generalizing.
I will show you statistics that cover millions of people as well as video recordings in english of sermons that encourage the killing of homosexuals, adulterers, and anyone that converts from Islam to anything else including atheism.
I am not exaggerating. Islam has a problem. The entire religion must go through a reformation.
That is the issue. Not trolls on the fucking internet.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Only 24 predictable & thoughtless knee-jerk reactions to this? Is everyone asleep?
So, will anti-Muslim cartoons like Charlie Hebdo's be forbidden in the future (hate speech), or is it now allowed to deny the Holocaust (free speech for everyone?).
... rather they are the TOOLS
I have a feeling that the politcos have a secret pact with the terrorists, or whoever is/are behind the terrorist movement, just so that they can get a terrorist or two carrying out a really despicable terrorist act, in the middle of a major Western city, something that generates MAXIMUM IMPACT, and the sheeples be of course be scared shitless
The scared shitless sheeples will in turn agree to sign away whatever fucking rights they have left in the exchange (no guarantee, only a promise, an empty promise) of the so-called "safety"
That is why I do not foresee a great future for the so-called "Western Democracy" --- simply because the sheeples are too damn stupid to notice that they have been conned, again, and again !
I am not saying that there is no terrorists, yes, there are !
The act of using "terrorism threat" as a tool to further their goal to concentrate their power over the people, is itself as despicable as whatever the terrorists have done !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
"Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden."
"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters."
- Rosa Luxemburg
This states it as if it's inevitable.
Gigaom's quote in the first sentence makes it sound as if 'censorship' is a product already manufactured and currently shipping to our homes. We'll need to figure out what to do about it when it's here, there's nothing we can do about it now.
Would 'Right-Wing extremists clamor for censorship' be more appropriate? How about, 'Spectre of censorship raised by reactionary European leaders'?
The Charlie Hebdo reporters died for uphelding a quite strong version of "freedom of speech". If there is some afterlife and they can see what happens now, they should be unhappy about it.
Need a revolution to get rid of these leftists and feminists who run europe and the west.
They need to go.
Anything they dislike is hatespeech.
Fucking soviet union all over again.
The feminists and leftists that run europe need to be killed.
They need to be wiped out. Their opression of men (no marrying young girls, anti-men laws, prison time for violators) and anyone who speaks against them cannot be tolerated any longer. They need to be killed and their governments pulled down.
Oh c'mon, folks !
Them spooks are doing exactly what they are being paid to do ... to let terrorist events transpire, to shock the sheeple, to shock them so much that they will voluntarily give up their rights
And that is what is happening, in America, in UK, in Spain, and now, in France
Every single time something really terrible happen them ruling elites will play the "superman" role, to "lead", to "protect", to "save"
But who are they saving? Who are they protecting?
Fact is that sheeples never think
If they ever use their brains to think they would see that the ruling class is nothing but a bunch of lying megalomaniacs
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Mein Führer! We are winning the next elections in France, Germany, Latvia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the U.K. Our internment camp plans are progressing again!
We already have law on the book with respect to speech and hatred, and those being forbidden... It sounds to me it is only required to really enforce those law now in a speedy manner.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Funny here in Belgium we have a right wing government and they where one of the first to and I quote "to give up a bit of our freedom of speech". The N-VA for example a couple of weeks ago was attacking the local press - so much that journalistic organisations needed to intervene - so it taste a bit bad if they are now portraying them-self as the fighters of freedom of speech.
It isn't a problem of right or left but the problem is the politician as a whole and people who always see the things in black and white. And it is not even the problem of religion but the small minority that uses violence.
Did you know that - even if the right is abusing this drama - that Charlie Hebdo was seen as a left wing magazine that combated any form of (religious) extremism? Tell that to some right-wing nuts and their head explodes because they can compute it in their black and white world where everybody "left" is Islam loving or whatever they call it.
The world is a bit more complex then the simplistic views that a lot of sides seems to hold.
I'm tired of reading Slashdot! Not only do I want to stop reading it, but I want it to cease to exist when I stop reading it!
To Christopher Hitchins.
I do. Only because it pisses him off.
Essentially, Charlie Hebdo is a freemason publication. Two of the journalist shot (Bernard Maris and Michel Renaud) were actually not just simple masons, but masters of the lodge, see: http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.hu/2015/01/i-received-this-note-today-from-grand.html
Because of that, their provocative "caricatures" followed the chief aim of masonry, which is the destruction of all deities and faiths, nominally in the name of pure reason. They published nasty cartoons of "Mohammad of the Bomb" on the front page, as well as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit engaged in a homosexual threesome coitus.
But there were two topics Charlie Hebdo never mocked: the egyptian deity Osiris and Lucifer, the fallen archangel, whom abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) consider the Satan. That's because freemasons actually worship Lucifer under the disguise of Osiris, because they think the fallen angel, in his revolt againt God, brough light of free thought and will to the mankind he sedited. On the other hand, abrahamic faiths hold that Lucifer-Satan brought sin, bodily death, pain of childbirth and expulsion from the Paradise upon mankind, as he seditioned Adam and Eve to participate in his revolt against God.
Freemasonry may be normal to united-statesians, as the dollar bill features their arcanae symbols, after all. But for europeans, freemasonry means the guillotine beheading frezy of the french revolution of 1789, continued attacks against the churches, foremost the catholic faith and assasination of properly corwned and anointed monarchs, that was so prevalent in the late 19th century, from tsarist Russia to Yugoslavia to the Habsburg Empire and France. Freemasonry means bloodshed, anarchy, civil wars and statanic worship in the collective memory of europeans.
What happened recently is that islamists got rid of Charlie Hebdo, instead of the Pope needing to send in his Swiss Guard to put those french masonic heads on pikes. (The Vatican sued Hebdo 12 times in the last 7 years to stop the blasphemy. They did this not just to stop the publication of filth, but to protect those masons themselves. That's because Jesus said in the Gospels, whoever swears and curses against the Father or the Son, his/her sins can be forgiven, but those cursing the Holy Spirit cannot have their sins forgiven, i.e. they go straight to Hell upon death. Regrettably, Charlie Hebdo was even more diligent in depicting the active desecration of the Holy Spirit, than abusing the good standing of Prophet Mohammed.)
If you have made the whole world your sworn enemies, maybe it's time to stop and think over, if it not yourself who has become evil?
"blasphemous Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Mohammed"
The term "blasphemous" is itself problematic: The legal concept of blasphemy no longer exists in most democraties, where religion is not above humor and criticism.
Clearly these proposed laws incite hate (just read some of the other comments here) so they should be declared illegal and revoked (censored).
I don't think satire should ever be censored but I also think it is far too easy to demand rights for oneself without really wanting any responsibility. Are these moves about clamping down on cartoons or are they about clamping down on those who try to incite violence (like the Jihadists). Most people don't have a problem with attempts to censor child pornography and I doubt they would accept a freedom of speech argument as justification for sharing child porn.
Here is a question for everyone: "If someone set up a website where they provided tutorials on machining, 3D printing and chemistry along with detailed plans for making your own firearms and explosives, and with calls to rebel against those in power and a list of suggested tactics including random attacks on large groups in public places, on schools and generally anyone they blame for stuff they don't like ... should the site be shut down or should it be protected as an example of free speech?
I have to confess I don't have an answer to my question, but I wonder if I would come to one if some site visitors then enacted the proposed strategy and killed a load of school kids.
As a follow up question - If I ran a website encouraging vulnerable school-kids to commit suicide and post videos of their death on-line should I be stopped?
I can understand that everyone is mad as hell from the Charle Hebdo thing, and that the boundaries between free speech, as opposed to incitement and hate speech, are shifting.
Those boundaries need to be well understood, and set in stone.
That said, the sneaky efforts of religious people, especially Muslims and Catholics, to ban rude words against their beliefs, and paint themselves as victims, must be opposed. I don't know if people appreciate how sneaky and sophisticated, pro-Muslim propaganda actually is; Muslim groups and Islamic countries have paid PR outfits in the United States a lot of money to find ways to turn criticism of radical Islam into a thought crime. The Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, commissioned a PR shop, to invent the term "Islamophobia", to attack feminists. Accusation of "Islamophobia" has proven to be a powerful weapon for Islamic triumpalists and cultural imperialists.
The European Patriot Act.
Yesterday, in France, more than 3 millions people gathered in Paris, and in smaller cities hundreds of thousands of people gathered as well.
This is something that hasn't happened since the liberation in 1945.
Everyone is gathering to proclaim freedom of speech.
And what's the answer of the government? We're going to restrict freedom of speech...
You want to marry nine year old girls, I know a "state" where you can do that.
I can see no other reason for a law like than that they blame Charlie Hebdo for the attack on Charlie Hebdo. To claim that ISPs need to report "hate speech" faster when the attacks had nothing to do with the terrorists' speech and everything to do with Charlie Hebdo's speech reeks of the intent to shut down anyone else that makes fun of Islam "for their own good".
for dummies indeed
rofl
Those trying to take freedom of speech from their citizens are certainly no better than the deranged monsters who went into that building and shot the cartoonists.
After all, they are working together toward the same ends, are they not?
Well my dear Belgian, i insist: Censorship in Europe (even in Belgium, with its 2 ethnicities forming the state) means (mostly) censorship of right-wing rhetoric and persecution of anyone with such opinions - the first and main offender against free expression (and thought) is the European left-wing...
It isn't a problem of right or left but the problem is the politician as a whole and people who always see the things in black and white.
I choose to "see things in black and white" when i search for the basics: right-wing nationalists defend Western civilization, left-wing "red fascists" destoy it!
And it is not even the problem of religion but the small minority that uses violence
ALL MUSLIMS BELIEVE WHAT MUSLIMS BELIEVE...
The world is a bit more complex then the simplistic views that a lot of sides seems to hold
The world is much more simple than what many people think: the Charlie Hebdo magazine was making fun of both Christian and Muslim religions, but -as any right-wing nationalist predicted- it was the Muslims that did what Muslims do...
The left-wing is not "Islam loving" but very stupid "facts are racist" that don't know what Muslims believe and very evil "red fascists" that choose to censor right-wing rhetoric and persecute anyone with such opinions - i am Greek (and right-wing semi-nationalist) as i mentioned in my first comment: i know about both European left-wing's and Islam's fascism...
Give in to terrorists and let them win.
Is to ban it. The American way is just to price it out of all proportion.
The streets of Paris are full of masons. No matter where you turn , they are there.
Life is more important than "rights", especially rights that are absolutely irrelevant to the vast majority of the population. Take whatever steps might be needed, just make us safe. No debate.
...Right on time, and as predicted. Once again terrorism is used as an excuse to chip away at our freedom. BOO.
You always need an identifiable "other" to justify laws that remove rights from all of us. In th McCarthy era it was 'the communist threat'. In Nazi Germany it was "The jewish threat". (then communists, gays, Gypsies, dissidents, and by the end of the war tanks were roaming the streets shooting at any window that was flying a flag of surrender).
The Patriot Act was supposedly to catch "Those damned (Muslim) terrorists", but then the NSA and the FBI used those laws to justify listening in on everybody . Do you really think that it's going to be any different with this new law? Do you really think that wasn't the intent of the old one? I'm almost disgusted enough to say "Yeah, go ahead -- give up your freedoms, and see what happens!" -- but the problem is that when you give up your freedoms, you give up mine too.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
that the Charlie Hebdo terrorists were under surveillance by the French interior surveillance services. They were known, identified extremists and the police failed to prevent their attack.
What we're dealing with here is a police failure, not a surveillance failure.
The Charlie Hebdo events are the perfect excuse for the powers-that-be and the rich fucks of this world to inch a little closer to their wet dream of a 1984-style society for the rest of us - as if those who pay attention to the erosion of individual liberties didn't see it coming. It's disgusting...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
obviously...
When has censorship ever reduced violence. Is there any empirical evidence that censorship of the internet will actually reduce violence? Is there any research on this subject for or against ? Charlie Hebdo cartoons are but one of many targets that religious fanatics may choose for furthering their cause. It used to be planes buildings and buses. Now its cartoonists. Next year it will probably be rock concerts or anything else that creates sensation.
Criticizing the press is also a form of free speech, don't you think?
You too seem to see the world in black and white: a world where every right-wing 'nut' sees the world in b&w.
I and hundreds of others have been saying for years, this is how they will tighten control over you. It's how the fascist police state seizes power.
Do NOT tolerate it. Hopefully everybody will remain civilized and non-violent, but I would not be surprised if it became violent against the politicians.
The United States was designed to be a Republic, no a Democracy. One of our founding fathers (Ben Franklin) said it best; When he was asked by a woman on the street what kind of government we have he said "A Republic mame, if you can keep it."
The Bill of Rights put all of that power into the hands of the people, the govornered. To be a government of the people by the people and for the people, instead of being controled at the top.
But it's also up to the people to hold on to those rights and not allow the stewards of the Republic to get out of control. Unfortunately, that has already happened.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilence.
their head explodes because they can compute it in their black and white world where everybody "left" is Islam loving or whatever they call it.
Leftist subverters promote Islam to destroy the status quo, but of course the ultimate goal is an atheistic orthodoxy. This contradictory "dialectic" makes opponents of leftism look like they are chasing their tails until they realize that leftism is a government disease. No welfare subsidies+no employment regulation=no immigration problem
Who gets to decide what is and is not 'hate speech', hmm? You may as well have some committee deciding for an entire planet what 'is' and 'is not' art. Oh, and of course no politician will ever use something like this to advance any agenda they might have, oh no! Keep up the good work, EU! You'll be living under Sharia Law before too long if you keep this up!
Terrorists: 1
European Union: 0
IDIOTS!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
ALL MUSLIMS BELIEVE WHAT MUSLIMS BELIEVE...
... that is the same for Islam and the interpretation of their scriptures. You have salafism, shia Islam, sunni's,... why do you think they hate each-other guts? You should put somebody from Iran with somebody from IS and see what happens, I think you will have quickly a different view that that "All muslims believe what muslims believe"...
Which doesn't make any sense because like in a lot of religions you have different views. In Christianity you have Catholicism, Anglican, Coptic Christians,
I have Muslim friends who are practicing their religion and for the most part - with the exception of the Ramadan that is the only time I am confronted with their religion - aren't that different. The girls don't wear a hijab and go out and drink like my "western" friends. I even have western friends who are married with a muslim and they are as free as before.
Granted that wouldn't be the case for those who practice salafisme, but fortunately - because that is a believe that develops terrorists - these are the minority.
Criticizing the press is also a form of free speech, don't you think?
Yes of course but unfortunately in Belgium it becomes less about the argumentation but more about automatic shrugging it of as left and even trying to silence those who have an opposing view. If a TV personality say somethings that opposes the view of right the whole social sphere explodes and a barrage of mails starts to the point somebody needs to apology. Why the hell is that ?
When a cartoonist post a cartoon that is negative for a popular right wing politician it is just the same. Like some cartoonist reacted after the Charlie Hebdo attack, people doesn't seem to accept opposing views.
You too seem to see the world in black and white: a world where every right-wing 'nut' sees the world in b&w.
I live in a society that shifted from a left-central view to a more right wing view, that introduced a lot of more black and white thinking. And not only about the press but also about those who are weaker in our society or are different, like for example Muslims but not only them. I have a disability and have been battling my whole life with PTSD (suffered from a lot of physical abuse as a child) and I can tell you for a fact - and really in all honesty - that I had it a lot harder since the right became more popular.
And it is not about the social benefits as I still work as a developer, but the the constant mantra that every "weakling" lives on the head - I don't know the English equivalent - of the "hardworking middle class" doesn't do a lot of good for those who aren't a member of that group. The hateful and stupid things you hear on the street these days... . Sometimes it is like everyone that is unemployed or is disabled is trying to abuse the system or faking it which is ridiculous.
But you can't hear any of those kind of politicians talking without creating any new form of enemy: first it was the french, then the socialist (although they call them-self "social") , the trade unions, the unemployed and those who live on a disability income... . And when I confront some of them it is always about those who abuse the system, but they - for some bizarre reason - never seem to make that distinction in their speeches or interviews.
Censorship is a specific METHOD of restricting speech. Specifically, it means having the censor approve publications before they are published. Under a censorship system, the Charlie cartoon wouldn't have been published, because the censor would not have approved it for publication.
Threat of punishment is ANOTHER way of getting similar results. The effect my be similar to censorship, but the method is via punishment, not via censorship.
It may still be bad, evil, unconstitutional, etc. It's just not censorship, because censorship is a specific process, not a result.
It is not worthy of respect. The only thing that matters to me is circumvention and protection from the law. We must make the internet absolutely indelible, and accessible to everyone. Only the tyrants benefit from censorship. And the people are becoming tyrants. Fuck them! Fuck anybody who interferes!
Let's hope it brings about more incentive to route around it. Censorship must be defeated by any means possible.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If you preach that XYZ needs to be : * lose right they have now
* ened to be "eliminated", "purged", "kicked out of the countries"
Then your speech is most probably extreme.
Most Left political ideology in the US did not meet those criteria. In fact witch hunt from holywood and the FBI *did* meet that criteria.
Finally in europüe we have many hate speech law. I may be wrong, but they are speaking not of new law, which already cover the case, but rather speed up enfrocement.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Of course, we have to take away freedom of speech in order to protect freedom of speech, don't you get it? Duh....
They are not talking about censorship... Nor are they talking about people making bad cartoons...
They are talking about videos encouraging young extremists to up arms against innocent civilians.
This is perfectly reasonable, one is not allowed to encourage criminal activities. We often tolerate bloggers encouraging people to disregard speed limits, disregard copyright law, or participate in civil disobedience, etc... But if you encourage murder, terror, violence, it is perfectly reasonable to prosecute you.
Note, free speech, does not imply speech without consequences. It is not okay to incite violence, perpetrade fraud, spread false rumours about people (UDHR Article 12). Also speech crime does not equal censorship.
> internet must remain “in scrupulous observance of fundamental freedoms, a forum for free expression, in full respect of the law
It'll REMAIN free right up until someone says something some government doesn't like, then it's abuse and we'll jail your ass.
..for heavier internet censorhip
You've got to be pulling my censorleg.
One historical note: the Patriot Act merely extended "you have no rights if we just say that you're a drug dealer" to "you have no rights if we just say that you're a drug dealer or terrorist". Be very wary what power you give the government - they never give any back.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
*Sigh*. I look forward to the day when Coursera runs An Introduction to Sarcasm for Americans...
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
After all, there are *lots* of prophets.
some people will be offended by internet content.
if you don't go looking for it, you won't find it.
no matter what you believe in, there are others that don't. and still others willing to force you to change.
the only censorship need from these terrorist attack over differences in opinions. (religious this time)
is to drop muslim countries from the network . no internet traffic, no telephone service, no radio/tv broadcast.
No passenger airline service. economic sanctions.
no business with people unwilling to be tolerant of others.
they can walk away, or beat themselves with sticks, but leave the rest of the world out of it.
give them no stones, guns,ammo, money, food or water.
fighting will solve nothing.
terrorism is crap.
The appropriate response from Muslims to the stuff that Charlie Hebdo publishes that offends them is: for Muslims to publish stuff that explains why they don't like it, and to ridicule Charlie Hebdo just as much - if they can manage it.
If every group got to prevent everyone from saying something that offended them, we eventually end up with a very, very tiny list of sentences that we are allowed to put a check next to in order to communicate with each other.
Right now we can't even get two groups (Muslims and Jews) able to communicate with each other without causing offense. So the more groups we add to the mix, the less and less things remain that can be said.
Caving in to the folks that use violence only teaches them that if they kill people, everyone will change their behavior to accommodate them - zero incentive to stop using violence. I'm far, far more offended by actual violence than any blasphemous or unflattering depiction of any religious figure, or even real people for that matter, yet you don't see any religious group taking care to accommodate me and not cause offense.
*Sigh*. I look forward to the day when Coursera runs An Introduction to Sarcasm for Americans...
Won't help. You're looking for An Introduction to Sarcasm for Aspberger Syndrome Patients.
If my ancestors wanted to be European they would have stayed...... The place sucks and that is why the left. They left for greener and more free pastures right here in the US of A.
Paul E. Bahre
I read Danish which is close to Swedish, and the summary says: Convicted for "character assassination"/"smear campaign" against a segment of the population.
Depending on circumstances and interpretation, this can certainly be a violation of the human rights.
Also note the source mentioned here doesn't say he was sentenced to prison...