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.

Comments

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, we have to take away freedom of speech in order to protect freedom of speech, don't you get it? Duh....

Re:WTF

[Half-pint HAL]

Ah, but we're only taking away free speech from those who would take away free speech. You know, dangerous people like political protesters who might threaten our politicians' way of life.

Re:WTF

[SQL Error]

Freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. Speech that offends no-one needs no protection.

Re:WTF

[jandersen]

Of course, we have to take away freedom of speech in order to protect freedom of speech, don't you get it? Duh....

I know this is not a popular thing to say, and judging on my previous success in this area, I will get modded down to around absolute zero, no matter whether what I have to say actually makes sense, but ...

As I have said many times in the past - there is no such thing as perfect freedom. If one party - say, the state or society - doesn't put some limitations in place, then other parties - like the loudest bullies, for example - will do it by intimidation. This is true for freedom of speech as well, as we can see now in several forms: on one hand, the extremists try to oppress the freedom to criticise their view of the world, and on the other hand, the uproar against them tries in their own way to oppress dissent. In my view, there has to be some form of compromise that strikes a balance between the legitimate needs for all, not just a few, groups in sociaty to be able to express their views, and the need to protect other, just as legitimate interests that contribute to the stability and growht of society.

I don't have the solution to this problem, and I don't think you have it either. But I don't think it is beyond the capabilities of rational, thinking humans to find the solution.

Re:WTF

[Wootery]

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?

Re:WTF

[LordLimecat]

and the US

Comparing the two is disingenuous. True, we have nastygrams for infringement, NSLs,etc-- but their use tends to be fairly limited. We do NOT have grossly expansive libel laws that allow entities to demand that true-but-damaging information be suppressed for no other reason than that it is damaging.

It never ceases to amaze me how much people on the internet love to hate on the US, all the while European countries (and Australia) seem to be running with open arms towards heavy state-controlled censorship. Maybe Europe isnt the utopia people love to paint it as. Maybe you truly cant trust the government to have your best interest in mind all the time.

Re:WTF

[qeveren]

I guess they want to lock it away someplace safe to make sure no terrorism gets on it or anything. XD

Re:WTF

[LordLimecat]

You say that extreme speech needs to be controlled: Wonderful! Theres only one problem left to solve-- figuring out who makes the call of what constitutes "extreme". In the 40s and 50s it was far-left political ideology. Today, might it be the far right? Tea partiers?

Noone denies that "free speech" brings out some nasty characters like the Westboro Baptist Church. But you really cant tread down the middle on this issue; when you start saying "we're only going to allow the reasonable folks" you have to have someone deciding who that is, which in fact ends up controlling the entire political dialogue. Inevitably you will end up with a scenario where "reasonable" is synonymous with whatever ideology is in power.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

"speech that incites hatred" is arbitrary weasel words for "whatever critical views we don't like".

Anti-Scientology? Doesn't incite hatred. Anti-religion? Doesn't incite hatred. Anti-Islam? Incites hatred. Anti-homosexuality? Incites hatred. Anti-sexual abstinence? Doesn't incite hatred.

This is evil. It's evil that belongs in literature or horror movies. I hope the responsible people suffer the worst fate any person can do. They have chosen to place themselves at the heart of a nightmare, and don't belong in this world.

Re:WTF

[gl4ss]

look, if it's not offending anyone then it doesn't need freedom of speech protection now does it? nobody cares about stuff that nobody cares about.

thing with stingy satire is that it will always STING SOMEONE.

all it takes is for the government to decide that saying it's policies are bad "incites hatred" you know. that's the situation in Thailand now(no really, press is forbidden from saying 'bad' stuff because it 'causes conflict'). what that bad stuff is well, it's not explained, except that explaining why the current policies could be bad for the nation is of course 'bad'.

and damn well the protection of free speech should mean that you can say anything you want without legal consequences - and despite whatever you say you should still be legally protected from harm, like everyone else. now if some people in your community dislike you for saying shit you say, that's entirely up to them, but that doesn't give them permission to attack you through illegal means.

Re:WTF

[umafuckit]

and damn well the protection of free speech should mean that you can say anything you want without legal consequences

No it doesn't. If I publically incite/encourage harm against a group of people and they come to harm then I should face the consequences even if all I did was talk. If I was the cause of the harm then I'm responsible. You're free to say what you want but you're also responsible for what you say.

despite whatever you say you should still be legally protected from harm, like everyone else. now if some people in your community dislike you for saying shit you say, that's entirely up to them, but that doesn't give them permission to attack you through illegal means.

I agree. But that's a different point.

Re:WTF

[captainpanic]

No, freedom of speech is the freedom to offend (or rather, "criticize") your government. And that is why it is so frightening that governments are now tightening their grip on information that is spread on the internet. Sure, they might catch some (rather naive and dumb) terrorists as a side effect. But they are also more likely to be informed who is disagreeing with the government.

Other than planning actual terrorist attacks, nothing else may (yet) lead to actions by police... but all the juridical groundwork has been done for a good police state.

You cannot give up liberties to give you more protection. There will be a time when the lack of liberties will pose a greater threat than any terrorist can ever do. Maybe not today, but certainly some time tomorrow.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

So in a country where criticism of religion is illegal, there is freedom of speech, because religion != the government?

Where do you get these wacked definitions from?

Re:WTF

[Cenan]

There is no difference. How do you propose to censor speech if not by the threat of consequence?

Re:WTF

[ScentCone]

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.

You're being obtuse, here. "Inciting" hatred is exactly something like "All Jews/Muslims/Christians/Musicians/Whatever ought to be killed." That's what's so awful about what they're doing, here. It's not about planning a killing. It's about, say, using your Mosque's web site to say that you think heretics should be done away with. That's inciting hatred among that web site's audience, right? It's not a plan, not a specific call to a specific action. And indeed it appears that in certain demographics, that sort of talk fits right in with a widely held urge to go out and kill people. But the problem is there are other demographics that don't seem to have that cultural problem, and won't react to an identically worded (other than swapping out "Jew" for, say, "Atheist" or "Catholic" or "Cartoonist") phrase the same way. And these governments are looking to set up a structure in which such speech is illegal.

Just because way too many Muslims can't restrain themselves from being violent doesn't mean that we need to make it illegal for another group to express their opinions. So we should err on the side of allowing even dimwitted, medieval-minded backwards Imams to say what they will (unless they are calling for a specific violent act), and just shout them down. Right now, they're being coddled in their police-are-afraid-to-go-there enclaves in places like France, and THAT is the problem. Not freedom of speech.

Re:WTF

[fnj]

and damn well the protection of free speech should mean that you can say anything you want without legal consequences

No it doesn't. If I publically incite/encourage harm against a group of people and they come to harm then I should face the consequences even if all I did was talk. If I was the cause of the harm then I'm responsible. You're free to say what you want but you're also responsible for what you say.

That has validity, so long as one understands that the crime of incitement is a very slippery slope. Objectively there is a huge fundamental difference between saying "jews are all evil bastards and all jews should be killed", and "faggots are disgusting" or "muslims are intolerant and dangerous". Anyone with a working sense of logic should agree that the first steps over the line and needs SOME sanction (exactly what sanction is saved for another discussion), and the others are nothing more than the expression of the right NOT TO LIKE.

There can be no guarantee that everybody likes everybody and everything, or even that nobody is allowed to express dislike or fear or disgust. Yet many such expressions have come to be regarded as "hate speech" against protected minorities, and prosecuted or suppressed as such by the force of the law.

Of course the goal of suppressing hate cannot be thus achieved at all. The only achievement is an atmosphere of repression.

Re:WTF

[nbauman]

Speech that is abusive or incites hatred is one of the things things that is limited.

Who decides when speech is abusive or incites hatred?

Re:WTF

[nbauman]

So in a country where criticism of religion is illegal, there is freedom of speech, because religion != the government?

And art. In a country where the government censors art, music or theater that it doesn't like, there is still freedom of speech.

Re:WTF

[nbauman]

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/...

Re:WTF

[Charliemopps]

Free speech hasn't been taken away. There already are limitations on what constitutes free speech in the UK (and the US, and other countries, for that matter). Speech that is abusive or incites hatred is one of the things things that is limited. Political protest isn't limited. The press is free to insult the government. Go look up what constitutes "freedom of speech". It doesn't mean "I say whatever I like [without consequence]"

In the US? The only legal limits we have on free speech here are:
1. Speech that directly and immediately puts human lives in danger (The old, yelling fire in a crowded theater, thing.)
2. Slander... and this isn't unprotected, it's just that you can be sued for liable for making things up. And slander in the US has a much different definition here than it does in the UK.
3. Those limits imposed by society. i.e. I'm not allowed to make wiener jokes around my wife's friends. But this isn't a legal limitation, it's a "I don't want to get hit with pots and pans" limitation.

I see a lot of nonsense and talking heads on TV that talk about how the US is different and we just don't understand that the rest of the world has a different view on free speech. We do know that, we've fought wars over it. We know exactly what Europe's limits on free speech lead to, and it appears to be happening again! Seriously, pull your heads out of your asses. You've got a few douche-bags running around blowing people up. That sucks, but really the number of people getting killed is very very low. Remember WW2? Because that was a real war, and that's what restrictions on speech and the press lead to.

Man alive I'm glad that I'm too old to get drafted.

Re:WTF

[nbauman]

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.

Re:WTF

[itsdapead]

No, freedom of speech is the freedom to offend (or rather, "criticize") your government.

I think you're confusing laws like the 1st Amendment to the USA Constitution, or article 10 or the European convention on human rights with the wider, concept of freedom of speech as an ideal. Even the 1st Amendment goes further than you suggest, but I think you've hit on the original motivation behind it.

As a non-USAian it took me a while to work out that the spirit of the US Bill of Rights is to protect local government, corporations and organised religions against (specifically) the federal government, and that any benefit for individuals implicit in the letter of the law is a nice bonus.

The European convention of human rights, by contrast, seems to be mainly about enumerating all the exceptions to freedom of speech, so that the government can micro-manage your freedoms for you. Sounds cynical, but freedom is a paradox, and if you want to enshrine all human rights in law, that's the tarpit you end up in.

I think it is true, though, that both of these examples only prohibit suppression of free speech by government - they don't specifically oblige that government to prevent others from restricting your free speech (but then that really is a can of worms, and a lot of the people who pushed for Amendment 1 or Article 10 to protect their right to express their views really don't want to eat their own dogfood).

However, you should never rely on the law of the land as the last word on right and wrong, and general freedom of speech (insofar as it can be protected without descending into paradox) is a good thing.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Re:WTF

[rogoshen1]

Religion? No. I'm free in most of Europe you'd be absolutely free to blaspheme Jesus, Moses, the Bible, Torah, Pope etc -- but anything Islam related is off limits. Should be clear about that. No one is going to break into your workplace and shoot 12 people if you make a disparaging cartoon about the Virgin Mary.

Re:WTF

[cdrudge]

No, freedom of speech is the freedom to offend (or rather, "criticize") your government.

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.

Re:WTF

[N1AK]

No. I'm free in most of Europe you'd be absolutely free to blaspheme Jesus, Moses, the Bible, Torah, Pope etc -- but anything Islam related is off limits

Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist for being 'anti-Semitic' but revelled in publishing cartoons mocking Islam. Why Dieudonne is ostracised for his anti-Israel statements, shunned as anti-Semitic. Why footballers across Europe who dared to use the quenelle gesture to show support for him were banned from matches. Dieudonne has been blocked from entering the UK, but Murdoch who questions whether all Muslims aren't violent and says they are all responsible for the actions of a vanishingly small minority owns a collection of our most popular newspapers and TV channels.

Does any of that make it acceptable that a radicalised bunch of nuts threaten to, and sometimes do, attack journalists? Of course not. But only someone wilfully ignorant would think that their is only de facto censorship of Islam and not other religions.

Re:WTF

[CrimsonAvenger]

1. Speech that directly and immediately puts human lives in danger (The old, yelling fire in a crowded theater, thing.)

FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The "falsely" is important.

Re:WTF

[Xest]

"but then that really is a can of worms, and a lot of the people who pushed for Amendment 1 or Article 10 to protect their right to express their views really don't want to eat their own dogfood"

This shows a complete ignorance of historic context and is a rather unfair portrayal. The European Convention on Human Rights was drafted in the years that followed World War II and the lessons learnt from that. It was put together explicitly to try to prevent a repeat of things like the persecution of the Jews.

There was an explicit recognition at the time that much of what happened in Nazi Germany happened because the Jews had no external recourse against their own fascist government. The government's word was supreme and there was no higher international power they could appeal to in the face of wrongdoing by government. There was a belief that if you could give the people a last resort against government, a higher international order that held oppressive governments to account, that you could prevent a repeat of Nazi Germany's concentration camps.

Just because that has been perverted somewhat now and attempts at further perversion are growing doesn't mean those in charge have always succumbed to modern authoritarianism. Post-war was a period of relative political enlightenment in the West, but unfortunately due to the weight of the cold war, it was far too short lived. The ideas and intentions of leaders at the time were genuinely quite noble - look at the reasons behind the creation of the European Court of Human Rights too for example, it was all part of the same noble goal - to attempt to give the oppressed by government a voice against government.

It wasn't a complete failure, the European Court of Human Rights still does a great job in many cases of upholding the rights of citizens against overbearing government and corporations using the convention as it's guiding principles. It's imperfect but we can thank it for putting things like Phorm in the UK to death for example calling it out as the blatant widespread invasion of privacy that it was after the government refused to deal with it and instead opted to allow it.

People often cherry pick cases where it protects the bad as well as the good, but it has to, because once you start differentiating between people on fundamental rights it's not long before everyone falls into some exception category rendering the whole thing useless. But it was a good idea, pushed through with good intentions, by people who saw genuine horrors that even they knew must never be repeated. It's for that reason that we should not take it for granted, or belittle it, or claim it as a trap by the elite - on the contrary we should be pushing to keep upholding it and fighting to reclaim it as a charter for everyone, all the time, not just as something that governments can pick up and put down as and when it suits.

Re:WTF

[Half-pint HAL]

Political protest isn't limited? Do you know how many restrictions have been applied to the right to assembly and protest so far this century? Do you remember the kettling and brutal assualt of non-protesters who happened to be in the wrong part of London? And then the latest laws banning organised protest groups from any and all public campaigning in the run-up to an election? Or what about recent revelations about undercover police offers being paid to infiltrate peaceful protest groups and attempting to incite them to violent action, while sh*gging women under false pretences? Talk about sleep-walking into a police state....

Re:WTF

[ichthus]

...he was shouted down for anti-semitism, and there was a huge cry for apologies.

Yeah? But, who died as a result? Where was the slaughter?

There's a bug fucking difference -- you're just too obtuse to acknowledge it.

Re:WTF

[Opportunist]

And how do you want to keep someone from saying something? At least once he can before you can react and jail or kill him.

There's an old joke: Is there freedom of speech in Soviet Russia? Of course! But there may not be freedom after speech.

Re:WTF

[Opportunist]

We do NOT have grossly expansive libel laws that allow entities to demand that true-but-damaging information be suppressed for no other reason than that it is damaging.

So Manning and Snowden are convicted for/accused of what now again?

Re:WTF

[Curunir_wolf]

Speech that is abusive or incites hatred is one of the things things that is limited.

Who decides when speech is abusive or incites hatred?

Some prosecutor or bureaucrat with an axe to grind, or sometimes a group looking for a scapegoat to blame for some tragic event.

Or at least that seems to be the way it currently works.

Re:WTF

[x0ra]

In the US, the KKK and white supremacists have a right to free speech. Not in Europe.

Who wins or loses?

[QuantumLeaper]

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?

Re:Who wins or loses?

[Anonymous Coward]

The winners in this case is the ruling class.
This has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, the laws weren't suddenly written last week, they have been planned a long time.
Terrorism is just the scapegoat for taking more control.

I do however admire the reasoning. "Since terrorists try to censor you with violence we are going to protect you by preemptively censor you with the threat of violence."
That is pretty brilliant.

Re:Who wins or loses?

[gweihir]

Most people are sheep and are far too dumb to realize what is going on.

uhhh....

[SuperDre]

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..

Re:uhhh....

[jlar]

But to be honest, freedom of speech is somewhat more limited in Europe than in the USA. But even between European countries there are som marked differences. Sweden is for example jailing (provocative) artists for hate speech while neighbouring Denmark has no such tradition (although Denmark does also have hate speech legislation). See for example Dan Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Park).

Not that I like Dan Parks views (even though he says that the court in Sweden is misunderstanding his art pieces). But I do believe that Sweden is on a dangerous path when they prosecute artists for hate speech (who draws the line).

Breathing air

[hcs_$reboot]

If air could be linked in any way to terrorism, that would likely be restricted as well

At this point the game is so obvious;

[Beck_Neard]

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.

Re:At this point the game is so obvious;

[Half-pint HAL]

And of course, even where legislation does target "high-risk groups", it often descends into harassment of your minority demographic du jour. Right now, that tends to mean black people and Muslims. When I was child, here in the UK, Irish people in a certain age-band were targeted by police as potential terrorists. A lot of people are happy as long as they're the us that's being protected at the cost of some other "them".

Re:At this point the game is so obvious;

[AmiMoJo]

Mockery is an important part of democracy and free debate. If any subject cannot be insulted or mocked, it cannot be properly debated.

Almost any kind of criticism or mockery could be described as baiting by those who wish to respond with violence to it. When people talk about there always being consequences to free speech, they don't mean murder. They mean more words, more argument and debate. Shunning, even hatred, but not physical violence.

If your religion is so weak, if your god is to insecure that it can't handle satire and ridicule then your religion sucks. In any case, it never justifies violence. The problem is with you, not the people annoying you.

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
-- President Obama, addressing the United Nations General Assembly

Said in the context of not allowing Muslim extremists who consider harming those who criticise their beliefs to gain power.

When the freedom of speech is taken away ...

[Taco Cowboy]

... 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!

Re:When the freedom of speech is taken away ...

[Mashiki]

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.

Re:When the freedom of speech is taken away ...

[Joe_Dragon]

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.

Swedish Social Democrats filed criminal charges

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Either you value free speech or you don't

[Crashmarik]

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.

Re:Either you value free speech or you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't help you, since you're bunch of cowards. None of the big US (and UK) newspapers dared to publish the cartoons offensive to muslims. French and German newspapers did.

Re:Either you value free speech or you don't

[fnj]

He's on the money, though, isn't he? Doesn't change the message.

Censorship is the wrong thing to do

[DrXym]

If you want to catch bad guys you don't want to block them from reaching resources because they'll just use proxies and the likes of tor to get them any way. And in doing so it becomes that much harder to track their activity. The better choice is to let them access what they like and monitor that activity. Use that activity to determine who they interact with, what sites they visit, what aliases they use, what search terms they plug in, what hours they operate, what IP address and location they come from. Shutting off that sort of information is self defeating.

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.

Lets fight for the freedom of speech ...

[janoc]

... 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.

This relates to the Clean IT Project (2011-2013)

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

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.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

Catholic church went through a reformation otherwise they'd be burning Muslims at the stake.

Know your history before you pass judgement.

Look up the Reconquista. The Catholics drove the muslims out of Spain and through the inquisitional killed all muslims that did not convert to Catholicism on the spot.

Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church go back to that practice? Because really... having one religion acting in a pre modern context with no moderating reformation is unacceptable.

Either they reform or all other religions and ideologies are going to have to nuclear just to protect themselves. Shall we go back to crusifying people are you beginning to understand that this cannot be tolerated?

ISIS is literally crucifying children right now. In the name of Islam. Do you want me to show you rooms full of muslims agreeing that killing homosexuals, jews, and anyone that leaves islam is a good idea? I can do that.

Can you show me Christians or Buddhists or Hindus making the same claims? Look for them.

Your moral equivalency betrays an ignorance of the world.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It is really easy to find, guys. This is not conversial. It is just really really hard for modern western society to deal with because we really want to be tolerant.

But just because our ancestors were frequently intolerant and nasty doesn't mean we need to be door mats for insanity.

This is a very important distinction. There is a difference between being a nice guy and being a door mat.

I believe in being a nice guy. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. I believe in trying to work for the common good of everyone. I believe in live and let live.

But I am not a fucking moron and I am not going to let someone just do whatever they want to me. I do not believe in being weak.

Islam needs to go through a reformation. Or if you prefer simply reform.

Call it reformist islam.

Here is the President of Egypt basically saying the same thing I am saying:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Lots of articles covering his statements on the issue if you don't like that one. I am not a bigot. I do not hate muslims. I do not think their faith or their culture is irredeemable.

However, it does need to go through reform. And contrary to what many foolish people have been saying mostly out of misplaced hope... is that extremism is extremely common in islam.

To say that most muslims are peaceful ignores that those that literally kill people are themselves a subset of a large number of people that approve of or encourage the killing. And that group is significant. It rarely falls below 20 percent in any muslim population and it can get as high as 90 percent in some countries. But it doesn't fall below 20 percent in any country. Look at the stats. I'd cite some now but people always say "oh that site is biased" even if I'm citing a Pew or Gallup poll.

So instead... YOU look it up. It is one easy google search away. It will come up on the first page and you can read it yourself. I don't like the facts of the matter anymore then anyone else. I wish things were better. I think they can be better. But the first step is acknowledging the problem. The denial makes reform impossible. Everyone denying that Islam has a problem with extremism is effectively ensuring that the extremism will continue. Stop it. Islam needs an intervention.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

The point was not to pass judgement on Christianity but rather to point out that the religion reformed where as Islam has not. It no longer acceptable in the 21st century for Islam to not reform and for its believers to mingle freely in the global culture if they view everyone else in the culture as someone they can kill at will without moral consequence.

That was my point.

Terrorists are not scapegoats ...

[Taco Cowboy]

... 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 !!

... not doing their job properly ... ?

[Taco Cowboy]

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

Re:(European) left-wing = "red fascism"!

[SilenceBE]

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.

Blasphemous?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Disregards the people completely

[loufoque]

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...

Re:WTF - What they WANT us to think..

[darkonc]

They're taking those rights away from all of us. Islamists are the excuse for that. If the general public realized that these restrictions are ultimately gonna bite all of us on the ass, they'd never be allowed to pass these laws.

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.