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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Go look up what constitutes "freedom of speech". It doesn't mean "I say whatever I like [without consequence]"
People often confuse the two... but not here. Here, we really are talking about government censorship. Did you miss that?
We already have this in Canada on the books, and is codified in our charter of rights and freedoms. Basically it boils down to: "You can do whatever you want, as long as law or society deem it to be harmful." Generally it's worked out well, and when it's over-reached, people have rallied around getting the law changed and it's happened.
Om, nomnomnom...
I'm not hating on the US. I know the UK libel laws are different. I'm just pointing out that, even the US, there are exceptions to freedom of speech. Every country does it differently, but the most important thing is that the government can't persecute you for what you say. e.g. critising it.
I don't know how they do things in the UK, but in the US many people in the film industry went to jail for being a member of the Communist Party, or for refusing to testify about it, or refusing to testify about the political activities of their friends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You're incorrect. The difference is clearly defined in all countries I'm aware of where such restrictions apply.
If you can't see a difference between "Meet me at the docks after lunch and we will kill all the jews" and "I believe all jews ought to be killed" then that is your problem. Voicing an opinion is, and always will be, outside the domain of governments to censor. Planning an attack on someone or instigating violence is not protected speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech and only morons would suggest it is.
Freedom of speech means freedom to express an opinion without consequence from any institution legally mandated to enact sanctions.
Unfortunately, despite your assurances, people have gone to prison in the U.S. for those kinds of comments and less.
You should read the history of the anti-Communist movement in the U.S., and particularly the Supreme Court decisions that erased the distinctions between abstract advocacy and "conspiracy to overthrow the government." The most disgraceful was Dennis vs. U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . A majority of the Supreme Court decided that publishing newspapers and books, giving lectures and classes, and holding demonstrations, wasn't protected activity under the First Amendment, but was a conspiracy to overthrow the government by force and violence. Go read the dissent by Black and Douglas; they can explain it better than I can.
Today under U.S. law they simply have to designate someone a terrorist, and then anyone who gives that terrorist "material support" can be sent to jail for the rest of his life. "Material support" can be a web side containing the terrorist's writing.
Take a look at the Holy Land Foundation case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... where the founders were given prison sentences of up to 65 years, They were convicted in part on the basis of the testimony of two anonymous Israeli security agency employees.
In Nazi Germany they took away freedom of speech and put people in camps a long with the jews. no we do not need that to start up aging as soon as you control speech then you control the vote and after you control the vote then you can control the army the people and so on.
No. Freedom of speech is your right to communicate your ideas and opinions to others that wish to hear it without government interference from doing so. Typically it comes with a restriction that such communication does not cause harm to others. Causing hurt feelings because your prophet was satirized in a cartoon is not generally causing harm to others.