Maybe offtopic, but such discussion is bound to happen on anything related to WWII.
I would only like to respectfully point out a few things. It doesn't say what I think as clearly as I would like, but bear with me.
1) The definition of a war crime varies widely from person to person. If we are talking about deliberate attacks/massacres on civilians, then I am certain you could dig up quite a few American (and other Allies) veterans who fall in that category and still have their pensions. Have you read about Dresden? The allies planned their bombings on the surrounding cities and left Dresden intact so the refugees would all be packed there. And then dropped one of the deadliest bombings in WWII on their heads. We're talking bombing a city packed with refugees, with no military value, to kill over 30,000 people in a day.
2) Never forget that the "justice" of war is always that of the victorious side, and therefore, in my opinion, it is no justice at all. When the defeated party kills thousands of civilians, it's a war crime. When the victor does just about the same, well, it sucks, but it was war.
[British Chief Marshal Sir Arthur] Harris, however, remained unrepentant, commenting on Churchill's objection that he did not regard 'the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier'. Even so, Dresden remains the prime example cited by those who condemn the morality of 'city busting' as practised by the Anglo-US bombing forces and was still a matter of contention in 1992 when a statue of Harris was unveiled in London."
Was there a tribunal to investigate possible war crimes by Allied troups in WWII? Of course not: they won. Therefore, we necessarily know more about horrible acts commited by the defeated party than we do for the winning one.
I'm not defending Nazi Germany policies of mass exterminations. They are a clear example of humanity gone wrong. But while they are not on the same scale as other examples, they are not the only example of humans gone wrong. And that is my point: nothing is absolute when it comes to human nature.
Have you ever visited Germany, or walked grounds ravaged by war? Seen the legacy of damage done by both sides? Visited Dresden? The concentration camps sites? Talked with people who were there when the bombs fell and survived? I did. And I found there even more truth in a saying some here would recognize : "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth."
Quote:
Dean even calls Bush Jr. "isolationist" in regard to his foreign policy! If Bush Jr. is an isolationist, I don't want to find out what Dean thinks is going to far in interfering with other countries soverignty. Dean says "we intend to enforce our view of the world", in regard to trade policies.
I don't think "isolationist" means what you think it does. What he refers to is the multiple economic measures that were slapped to other countries on some trade goods (which are covered by free-trade agreements the US pushed hard to sign with other countries). For example, to protect the American wood industry (to isolate it from competition from Canada where wood is cheaper to sell simply because we have alot more), Bush decreed a ~ 30% levy to be charged to all wood imported from Canada. That is what is called isolationism, as opposed to globalization of your economy.
In short, isolationism is strictly economics; it has nothing to do with political foreign policy, which has certainly been far from reserved in the last few years.
By that defenition, the self bombing palestinians who are resisting the israeli occupation are NOT terrorists but freedom fighters.
You see, that's the whole point: terrorism is a label that can be conveniently slapped on just about anyone. You did not answer the poster's question, but I don't suppose you would consider the "freedom fighters" that fought against the british rule over what is now the US to be terrorists. Well to the palestinians, it's the same fight, and they fight it with the only means they have been given: weapons and bombs.
Don't go thinking for a split second that I advocate attacks against civilians of any kind: I don't. I just don't believe that stigmatizing some groups as evil terrorists solves anything. The concept of "terrorism" is empty, and much to emotional to be of any use in a level-headed discussion, unless of course you want to buy into all of the propaganda we've been seeing in the last months.
This case is a little weird, since the site proprietor is saying that filing the counterclaim would put him under U.S. jurisdiction. I'm not sure if that's a legal interpretation, or if the DMCA says that, or what.
The DMCA explicitely requires the person who files a counter-notice to voluntarily accept jurisdiction from a US court. The reasons why a person outside of the US would not want to do this are obvious, especially considering US's tendancy to rule in favor of copyright holders, and the astronomic cost of defending oneself in another country.
Sadly, the CoS lawyers figured this out and took advantage of this loophole, making sure that they can easily censor any website not based in the US with a US-specific law.
So, any scientist who purchased access to your digital music would have to sign a non-disclosure agreement regarding the DNA the music converted into [...]
So what you're saying is that scientist would have to sign a NDA to get access to the DNA?;)
"if they remove offending content after they are notified"
There lies the problem with this particular provision: to avoid liability, ISPs have to shut down the allegedly offending content before it is determined wether it is illegal or not. When faced with potential liability, somehow I don't think ISPs think twice before simply removing the content before hearing out what their customer has to say. The burden is then on the user to prove that the content does not infringe on any copyright.
Sentence first, judgement later. Guilty until proven innocent, with a twist: if the "judge" (in this case, the ISP) did not immediately condemn the user who in the end did something wrong, they open themselves up to litigation. From a pure justice point of view, this sucks.
I don't see how blocking access to a site that has child porn on it restricts your freedom to surf the web. That's like saying blocking you access to illegal drugs removes your freedom to buy aspirin.
The main difference is you can't really put illegal drugs in aspirin bottles in the display and get the store owner liable. What if someone starts anonymously posting child pornography to an otherwise innoffensive newsgroup, will it get blocked? Child pornography as an effective government-endorsed DoS, sounds cute doesn't it?
Quoting your post to which I replied: So, you copy a cd, and lend it to a friend so they can copy it. Boom, you've broken the law because you've made a copy for the purpose of distributing that copy to others for copying.
We both agree that this is not permitted, since you're distributing a copy. This is all probably in there so that you can buy a cd, make copies of the cd for personal use (such as to play in the car, you cd player, etc), and lend the original to friends to make copies. That is, as long as they make the copy to keep for themselves. Anything else is a copy for the purpose of distributing.
We also seem to agree there. I lost sight of that paragraph in your post when I wrote the "getting the law backwards" paragraph, which is my error.
From the parent post: Where is the exception allowing you to lend copyright works that are assigned to you, for the purpose of copying?
The point I was trying to make was, you don't need an exception in copyright law to lend a work, because you're not making a copy of it when lending. Therefore, copyright law does not apply to the act of lending an original work. It is permitted for the same reason you can sell used CDs and books, but not sell copies of a book: copyright law is about what you can do with copies, not with the originals.
So, you own a CD. You are allowed to make a copy, BUT NOT TO DISTRIBUTE IT.
Which is the whole point about copyright: it's about what you can and cannot do with a copy of the work. You cannot distribute copies, but you can enjoy them for your personal benefit.
In the following process, where do I distribute a copy of the work? 1- I buy Celine's new CD (yeah right) 2- I make a backup copy to use in my car (personal use of a copy, perfectly legal) 3- I lend my CD to a friend (no copying occured, I distributed the original) 4- My friend makes a copy for his personal use (he didn't copy a copy, he copied the original. hence "for the private use of the person who makes the copy") 5- I get my original CD back.
What would be illegal, as dumb as it sounds, is for me to lend/give/sell my backup copy to a friend, since then I would be distributing a copy of the work, which would not be considered for personal use.
Furthermore, I do not see any text stating you are allowed to lend your CD to others for the purpose of copying.
I think you get the law backwards. For something to be illegal, the law has to explicitely forbid it, not the other way around. The point is moot anyway, since copyright law restricts what you can do with copies you make of a work, not what you can do with something you legally bought.
The screening plans reflect a growing faith among aviation and government leaders that information technology can solve some of the nation's most vexing security problems by rooting out and snaring people who intend to commit terrorist acts.
Information technology is not some kind of magical spell that will allow telepathic scanning of what goes on in a person's head before the fact. All the data processed by a computer will be configured to respond to specific clues, which people will always manage to go around.
Computers will never replace the judgement of a human being, and will never be able to determine what the intentions of a person are because of a very simple reason: computers measure actions, and the same action by different individuals does not imply that they have the same motives.
Despite what many politicians and officials seem to think, computers will not solve all of the world's problems. Their "faith" is just that: a belief in something based on no rational grounds.
What's worse of course is that people when faced with such systems start to ignore their output sooner rather than later, and then the system becomes completely useless even from a narrow security perspective.
You managed to explain very well why the system won't work in practice (or even in theory). The problem is, it will seem to work in the eyes of the citizens, and they will think it was a good idea to let the government link all of their personal data.
Why? Because it will end up annoying citizens by flagging everyone and their mother as a terrorist, making them think "Hey, if they think I could be a terrorist, they'll sure find those who really are! Security is tight, we can travel safely now!"
And when another terrorist manages to go around security measures, or find a new way to cause general havoc, what will the citizens want to hear? They'll want to hear that security measures are being tightened to catch those evil terrorists.
In the end, what effect will such a system have? Terrorists will have to be a bit more inventive. If they spend their time trying to find a way to cause trouble, I have no doubt they will manage to find one. On the other hand, citizens will be profiled to death, and will still yell for tougher security from their newly created police state.
You're right, my analogy was not perfect. My point was, there are other crimes with far heavier consequences that go with much less severe sentences on average than those that were sought in this case.
Its not like what he did (while probably wrong) caused any physical or psychological harm to another human being, in fact it probably had no consequences whatsoever. It just made some manager mad, and a reasonable reaction would have been to fire him... This is way overkill. =\
Re:$2100 and 80 hours community service
on
McOwen Case Settled
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If I remember correctly, the authorities figured that he somehow had something to gain personally by installing the software, like credit if he ended up being the one who found something in one of the packets analyzed. This was enough for them to label his activities as "for financial gain", and they then proceeded to charge him with just about everything on the book.
Facing 30 years in prison for installing harmless software? That's almost twice as much as the maximum sentence for a single count of rape!!
Maybe you mean that Microsoft only unleashes their dogs of war when the word is used in a computer software context?
Of course, since trademarks are assigned per domain of activity. M$ has a trademark on Windows in the computer software arena, but they would have no grounds to sue me if I started Windows Accounting or a company created a car named Windows.
The reasoning behind this is that there can be no consumer confusion between a computer product and a car with the same name.
Now, we get to the interesting stuff - how would you get all your participants?
That's the point of class action lawsuits: You don't need to find participants, you only need one 'victim' and the court's permission to go forward with the suit. After the trial is over, the judge awards damages per victim, and then you post notices to rally them.
The problem of course is that a class action lawsuit can be brought for specific actions, therefore you could not sue "The Spammers" collectively. You'd have to initiate one action per spammer company.
Re:Just what we need on the battlefield
on
Battlefield Lasers
·
· Score: 1
Ugh!
You see, that's exactly my concern... Every time the US decides that they must act in some part of the world, they cripple the population there for generations with their weapons and sanctions.
Viet Nam? Agent Orange. Iraq? Depleted uranium residues and heavy sanctions. Kosovo? We'll have to wait a couple of years before we see what happens...
Trademark law varies slightly from country to country. Having a parrallel "justice" for domain names is silly: the different countries already have a justice system for this kind of disputes, that is (in theory) completely objective and funded independantly (usually the losing party pays part of the court fees as well).
Using a different "justice" for trademark enforcement over domain names is asking for abuse, and imposing one view of trademark law over the one that prevails in the defending party's country. I'm expected to know the law of my country (which in itself is a debatable demand considering the sheer size of legislation), am I now also expected to foresee how an international arbitrator will interpret the policy he is enforcing to keep what I bought?
The actual reason there are multiple organizations to serve as arbiters was to try to balance the system in more fairness. The obvious question is fairness to whom, and I think the answer is pretty obvious: those who have the money and pay for this "service".
As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to have a domain which I payed for, they should have to come here in front of a judge in MY jurisdiction and argue that it is theirs. Therefore if I disagree, I have means to appeal, and so on.
We have enough trouble keeping a sane justice system, let alone parrallel ones funded by plaintiffs...
Here in Canada, the government has this silly idea that you are within your right to make a copy for your personal use of a music/video that someone lends to you. So suppose I go to a friend's house and hear music I like, I could use my portable player to bring it back to my house, making a perfectly legal (in Canada), personal use copy for myself.
So what we have is a company deciding I'm not allowed to do that, because they say I'm not. Now tell me, why would I encourage that company? I put my money where my mouth is, and I will not buy such a product. This is the reason why I will not buy any SDMI-compliant portable player.
The problem with an hypothetical international treaty on hate speech is that hate speech would not be agreed on between the different countries: The US might say that anti-globalization speech is corporate hate-speech, while the french will say Nazi ideology is hate speech. This would lead to several conflicts of perception, and as I pointed out above, would only serve to impose the views of the US on what is acceptable or not to the rest of the world.
One does not need to look very far to find evidence of this: just look at what the UN did when trying to define terrorism. Most countries agreed, but some, with reason or no, felt that the groups that were active in their countries were not terrorists but resisiting against occupation.
It all boils down to the fact that hate-speech is a subjective, negative notion (as is terrorism), and that different point of views will lead to different interpretation of the same word. Since treaties are written and open to interpretation, it's a can of worms I wouldn't want to open.
Actually, banning hate speech causes more problems than you seem to think, mostly because different people will consider different things hate speech.
Suppose that I say that all blacks should die. This may qualify as hate speech to you (as it would to me also), but would sound somehow reasonable for a white supremacist.
How about if I say that Americans are terrorists, kill people and that their government should be destroyed. That would probably be considered hate speech as well, but not so by say, the Taliban.
How about if I say that the Taliban are terrorists, kill people and that their government should be destroyed. Surely this is hate speech as well, if we are to hold everyone to the same standard?
So therein lies the problem: different people, different points of view, which ends with the stronger one censoring the marginal one through the "hate speech" label.
For another example, the Church of Scientology saying already says its critics engage in religious hate-speech in an attempt to quench criticism. Surely having a ban on hate speech at hand would please them and other criticized organisations greatly...
Slashdot Mirror
I would only like to respectfully point out a few things. It doesn't say what I think as clearly as I would like, but bear with me.
1) The definition of a war crime varies widely from person to person. If we are talking about deliberate attacks/massacres on civilians, then I am certain you could dig up quite a few American (and other Allies) veterans who fall in that category and still have their pensions. Have you read about Dresden? The allies planned their bombings on the surrounding cities and left Dresden intact so the refugees would all be packed there. And then dropped one of the deadliest bombings in WWII on their heads. We're talking bombing a city packed with refugees, with no military value, to kill over 30,000 people in a day.
2) Never forget that the "justice" of war is always that of the victorious side, and therefore, in my opinion, it is no justice at all. When the defeated party kills thousands of civilians, it's a war crime. When the victor does just about the same, well, it sucks, but it was war.
Quote from the first link up in google for Dresden World War bombing):
[British Chief Marshal Sir Arthur] Harris, however, remained unrepentant, commenting on Churchill's objection that he did not regard 'the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier'. Even so, Dresden remains the prime example cited by those who condemn the morality of 'city busting' as practised by the Anglo-US bombing forces and was still a matter of contention in 1992 when a statue of Harris was unveiled in London."
Was there a tribunal to investigate possible war crimes by Allied troups in WWII? Of course not: they won. Therefore, we necessarily know more about horrible acts commited by the defeated party than we do for the winning one.
I'm not defending Nazi Germany policies of mass exterminations. They are a clear example of humanity gone wrong. But while they are not on the same scale as other examples, they are not the only example of humans gone wrong. And that is my point: nothing is absolute when it comes to human nature.
Have you ever visited Germany, or walked grounds ravaged by war? Seen the legacy of damage done by both sides? Visited Dresden? The concentration camps sites? Talked with people who were there when the bombs fell and survived? I did. And I found there even more truth in a saying some here would recognize : "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth."
You should really consider adding an exception to this for dollars spent on food. Otherwise, you may not live to see the RIAA go out of business...
I don't think "isolationist" means what you think it does. What he refers to is the multiple economic measures that were slapped to other countries on some trade goods (which are covered by free-trade agreements the US pushed hard to sign with other countries). For example, to protect the American wood industry (to isolate it from competition from Canada where wood is cheaper to sell simply because we have alot more), Bush decreed a ~ 30% levy to be charged to all wood imported from Canada. That is what is called isolationism, as opposed to globalization of your economy.
In short, isolationism is strictly economics; it has nothing to do with political foreign policy, which has certainly been far from reserved in the last few years.
By that defenition, the self bombing palestinians who are resisting the
israeli occupation are NOT terrorists but freedom fighters.
You see, that's the whole point: terrorism is a label that can be conveniently slapped on just about anyone. You did not answer the poster's question, but I don't suppose you would consider the "freedom fighters" that fought against the british rule over what is now the US to be terrorists. Well to the palestinians, it's the same fight, and they fight it with the only means they have been given: weapons and bombs.
Don't go thinking for a split second that I advocate attacks against civilians of any kind: I don't. I just don't believe that stigmatizing some groups as evil terrorists solves anything. The concept of "terrorism" is empty, and much to emotional to be of any use in a level-headed discussion, unless of course you want to buy into all of the propaganda we've been seeing in the last months.
This case is a little weird, since the site proprietor is saying that filing the counterclaim would put him under U.S. jurisdiction. I'm not sure if that's a legal interpretation, or if the DMCA says that, or what.
The DMCA explicitely requires the person who files a counter-notice to voluntarily accept jurisdiction from a US court. The reasons why a person outside of the US would not want to do this are obvious, especially considering US's tendancy to rule in favor of copyright holders, and the astronomic cost of defending oneself in another country.
Sadly, the CoS lawyers figured this out and took advantage of this loophole, making sure that they can easily censor any website not based in the US with a US-specific law.
So, any scientist who purchased access to your digital music would have to sign a non-disclosure agreement regarding the DNA the music converted into [...]
;)
So what you're saying is that scientist would have to sign a NDA to get access to the DNA?
"if they remove offending content after they are notified"
There lies the problem with this particular provision: to avoid liability, ISPs have to shut down the allegedly offending content before it is determined wether it is illegal or not. When faced with potential liability, somehow I don't think ISPs think twice before simply removing the content before hearing out what their customer has to say. The burden is then on the user to prove that the content does not infringe on any copyright.
Sentence first, judgement later. Guilty until proven innocent, with a twist: if the "judge" (in this case, the ISP) did not immediately condemn the user who in the end did something wrong, they open themselves up to litigation. From a pure justice point of view, this sucks.
I don't see how blocking access to a site that has child porn on it restricts your freedom to surf the web. That's like saying blocking you access to illegal drugs removes your freedom to buy aspirin.
The main difference is you can't really put illegal drugs in aspirin bottles in the display and get the store owner liable. What if someone starts anonymously posting child pornography to an otherwise innoffensive newsgroup, will it get blocked? Child pornography as an effective government-endorsed DoS, sounds cute doesn't it?
I'm still fighting to keep [email omitted] usable. But it becomes an awful lot easier if you can write your own filters.
And posting it in clear view of the spamcrawlers on slashdot will surely be of great help. =P
Quoting your post to which I replied:
So, you copy a cd, and lend it to a friend so they can copy it. Boom, you've broken the law because you've made a copy for the purpose of distributing that copy to others for copying.
We both agree that this is not permitted, since you're distributing a copy.
This is all probably in there so that you can buy a cd, make copies of the cd for personal use (such as to play in the car, you cd player, etc), and lend the original to friends to make copies. That is, as long as they make the copy to keep for themselves. Anything else is a copy for the purpose of distributing.
We also seem to agree there. I lost sight of that paragraph in your post when I wrote the "getting the law backwards" paragraph, which is my error.
From the parent post:
Where is the exception allowing you to lend copyright works that are assigned to you, for the purpose of copying?
The point I was trying to make was, you don't need an exception in copyright law to lend a work, because you're not making a copy of it when lending. Therefore, copyright law does not apply to the act of lending an original work. It is permitted for the same reason you can sell used CDs and books, but not sell copies of a book: copyright law is about what you can do with copies, not with the originals.
So, you own a CD. You are allowed to make a copy, BUT NOT TO DISTRIBUTE IT.
Which is the whole point about copyright: it's about what you can and cannot do with a copy of the work. You cannot distribute copies, but you can enjoy them for your personal benefit.
In the following process, where do I distribute a copy of the work?
1- I buy Celine's new CD (yeah right)
2- I make a backup copy to use in my car (personal use of a copy, perfectly legal)
3- I lend my CD to a friend (no copying occured, I distributed the original)
4- My friend makes a copy for his personal use (he didn't copy a copy, he copied the original. hence "for the private use of the person who makes the copy")
5- I get my original CD back.
What would be illegal, as dumb as it sounds, is for me to lend/give/sell my backup copy to a friend, since then I would be distributing a copy of the work, which would not be considered for personal use.
Furthermore, I do not see any text stating you are allowed to lend your CD to others for the purpose of copying.
I think you get the law backwards. For something to be illegal, the law has to explicitely forbid it, not the other way around. The point is moot anyway, since copyright law restricts what you can do with copies you make of a work, not what you can do with something you legally bought.
The screening plans reflect a growing faith among aviation and government leaders that information technology can solve some of the nation's most vexing security problems by rooting out and snaring people who intend to commit terrorist acts.
Information technology is not some kind of magical spell that will allow telepathic scanning of what goes on in a person's head before the fact. All the data processed by a computer will be configured to respond to specific clues, which people will always manage to go around.
Computers will never replace the judgement of a human being, and will never be able to determine what the intentions of a person are because of a very simple reason: computers measure actions, and the same action by different individuals does not imply that they have the same motives.
Despite what many politicians and officials seem to think, computers will not solve all of the world's problems. Their "faith" is just that: a belief in something based on no rational grounds.
What's worse of course is that people when faced with such systems start to ignore their output sooner rather than later, and then the system becomes completely useless even from a narrow security perspective.
You managed to explain very well why the system won't work in practice (or even in theory). The problem is, it will seem to work in the eyes of the citizens, and they will think it was a good idea to let the government link all of their personal data.
Why? Because it will end up annoying citizens by flagging everyone and their mother as a terrorist, making them think "Hey, if they think I could be a terrorist, they'll sure find those who really are! Security is tight, we can travel safely now!"
And when another terrorist manages to go around security measures, or find a new way to cause general havoc, what will the citizens want to hear? They'll want to hear that security measures are being tightened to catch those evil terrorists.
In the end, what effect will such a system have? Terrorists will have to be a bit more inventive. If they spend their time trying to find a way to cause trouble, I have no doubt they will manage to find one. On the other hand, citizens will be profiled to death, and will still yell for tougher security from their newly created police state.
Wonderful world, isn't it?
...just buy Doubleclick's database?
Well that would mean the Feds would have to join TrustE to show that they care about your privacy...
You're right, my analogy was not perfect. My point was, there are other crimes with far heavier consequences that go with much less severe sentences on average than those that were sought in this case.
Its not like what he did (while probably wrong) caused any physical or psychological harm to another human being, in fact it probably had no consequences whatsoever. It just made some manager mad, and a reasonable reaction would have been to fire him... This is way overkill. =\
If I remember correctly, the authorities figured that he somehow had something to gain personally by installing the software, like credit if he ended up being the one who found something in one of the packets analyzed. This was enough for them to label his activities as "for financial gain", and they then proceeded to charge him with just about everything on the book.
Facing 30 years in prison for installing harmless software? That's almost twice as much as the maximum sentence for a single count of rape!!
Maybe you mean that Microsoft only unleashes their dogs of war when the word is used in a computer software context?
Of course, since trademarks are assigned per domain of activity. M$ has a trademark on Windows in the computer software arena, but they would have no grounds to sue me if I started Windows Accounting or a company created a car named Windows.
The reasoning behind this is that there can be no consumer confusion between a computer product and a car with the same name.
lol is that OSDN's MS-DOS version!
;)
No actually, its Backslashdot, the opposite of Slashdot: News for companies, cash that matters
Now, we get to the interesting stuff - how would you get all your participants?
That's the point of class action lawsuits: You don't need to find participants, you only need one 'victim' and the court's permission to go forward with the suit. After the trial is over, the judge awards damages per victim, and then you post notices to rally them.
The problem of course is that a class action lawsuit can be brought for specific actions, therefore you could not sue "The Spammers" collectively. You'd have to initiate one action per spammer company.
Ugh!
You see, that's exactly my concern... Every time the US decides that they must act in some part of the world, they cripple the population there for generations with their weapons and sanctions.
Viet Nam? Agent Orange. Iraq? Depleted uranium residues and heavy sanctions. Kosovo? We'll have to wait a couple of years before we see what happens...
Trademark law varies slightly from country to country. Having a parrallel "justice" for domain names is silly: the different countries already have a justice system for this kind of disputes, that is (in theory) completely objective and funded independantly (usually the losing party pays part of the court fees as well).
Using a different "justice" for trademark enforcement over domain names is asking for abuse, and imposing one view of trademark law over the one that prevails in the defending party's country. I'm expected to know the law of my country (which in itself is a debatable demand considering the sheer size of legislation), am I now also expected to foresee how an international arbitrator will interpret the policy he is enforcing to keep what I bought?
The actual reason there are multiple organizations to serve as arbiters was to try to balance the system in more fairness. The obvious question is fairness to whom, and I think the answer is pretty obvious: those who have the money and pay for this "service".
As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to have a domain which I payed for, they should have to come here in front of a judge in MY jurisdiction and argue that it is theirs. Therefore if I disagree, I have means to appeal, and so on.
We have enough trouble keeping a sane justice system, let alone parrallel ones funded by plaintiffs...
Here in Canada, the government has this silly idea that you are within your right to make a copy for your personal use of a music/video that someone lends to you. So suppose I go to a friend's house and hear music I like, I could use my portable player to bring it back to my house, making a perfectly legal (in Canada), personal use copy for myself.
So what we have is a company deciding I'm not allowed to do that, because they say I'm not. Now tell me, why would I encourage that company? I put my money where my mouth is, and I will not buy such a product. This is the reason why I will not buy any SDMI-compliant portable player.
cc_pirate in his reply made my point very clear.
The problem with an hypothetical international treaty on hate speech is that hate speech would not be agreed on between the different countries: The US might say that anti-globalization speech is corporate hate-speech, while the french will say Nazi ideology is hate speech. This would lead to several conflicts of perception, and as I pointed out above, would only serve to impose the views of the US on what is acceptable or not to the rest of the world.
One does not need to look very far to find evidence of this: just look at what the UN did when trying to define terrorism. Most countries agreed, but some, with reason or no, felt that the groups that were active in their countries were not terrorists but resisiting against occupation.
It all boils down to the fact that hate-speech is a subjective, negative notion (as is terrorism), and that different point of views will lead to different interpretation of the same word. Since treaties are written and open to interpretation, it's a can of worms I wouldn't want to open.
Actually, banning hate speech causes more problems than you seem to think, mostly because different people will consider different things hate speech.
Suppose that I say that all blacks should die. This may qualify as hate speech to you (as it would to me also), but would sound somehow reasonable for a white supremacist.
How about if I say that Americans are terrorists, kill people and that their government should be destroyed. That would probably be considered hate speech as well, but not so by say, the Taliban.
How about if I say that the Taliban are terrorists, kill people and that their government should be destroyed. Surely this is hate speech as well, if we are to hold everyone to the same standard?
So therein lies the problem: different people, different points of view, which ends with the stronger one censoring the marginal one through the "hate speech" label.
For another example, the Church of Scientology saying already says its critics engage in religious hate-speech in an attempt to quench criticism. Surely having a ban on hate speech at hand would please them and other criticized organisations greatly...