Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Podcasting Censored by Government

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Dec 26, 2005 07:28 PM
from the censor-what-you-don't-want-to-hear dept.
Censorship Government Politics
PodCoward writes "VH is blogging that in Belgium a former talk-show host and now member of parliament for the biggest political party, Jurgen Verstrepen, received a fine of 12,500 Euro because he hadn't asked permission for his podcast." From the article: "The decision is apparently politically inspired and motivated by content, although formal reasons like non-compliance with Flanders' media regulation have been put forward in the motivation of the decision to fine. The issue has raised some serious concerns about free speech on the Internet in Flanders, about the definition of 'broadcasting,' and about territoriality."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Podcasting Censored by Government 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Transcript of podcast: (Score:4, Funny)

    by kc32 (879357) on Monday December 26 2005, @07:31PM (#14341993)
    In 1995, Oceanic soldiers were locked in a battle with the Eastasians in...
    *STATIC*
    We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
    • yah, He should have known to use Newspeak.

    • Re:Transcript of podcast: (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 26 2005, @11:26PM (#14342852)
      Sorry, the propaganda is mostly the article description.

      What this guy was fined for was a radio broadcast. He didn't get their version of an FCC license for it. The same recording was also made into a podcast.

      So, the submitter says "Podcaster fined" or other misleading language to try and make it sound like he was fined for the podcast, rather than the radio broadcast, to get sympathy for this guy, both him and the submitter apparently belong to the same really shady, propagandistic far-right group.

      Propaganda doeesn't always eminate from the government, it really comes at you from all sides.

  • d'oh (Score:5, Funny)

    by joe_bruin (266648) on Monday December 26 2005, @07:34PM (#14342004) Homepage Journal
    Stupid Flanders, always censoring the Internet.
  • Yet another nail in the coffin for the idea of having more EU control over the internet.

    • Re:European internet control needed? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jugalator (259273) on Monday December 26 2005, @09:16PM (#14342356) Journal
      ???

      Would you immediately generalize in the same way to cover the policy of the entire US when it's about a whacky decision in one state?

      I hope you do, as European countries are less tied to the EU than US states are to the USA.

    • This case is setting up an interesting collision between Belgium's domestic legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights [hri.org] (ECHR), comparable to (...although differing in detail ...) the collision between state and federal law in the USA.

      This is a good thing. Ideally, of course, anti-racists or anti-anti-Islamicists would simply find a way to outtalk or otherwise pursuade racists, using reason, logic et cetera. But in the real world, it's normal and human to take shortcuts, especially where local

      • Re:European internet control needed? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jugalator (259273) on Monday December 26 2005, @09:21PM (#14342376) Journal
        Can someone please explain why this was modded Troll?

        Hmm, a guess. Belgian gov't != EU perhaps...?

        This is exactly the sort of value system that the Eurocrats

        Eurocrats? Say after me -- b-e-l-g-i-a-n-s.
        There have been no signs of this, rather to the contrary, in the country of "Eurocrats" I live in,

        Rebut it, or work to change it. Calling it "trolling" isn't going to help anyone.

        But generalizing governments to cover international organizations do?
      • The more power government holds, the greater the chance of oppression taking place
         
        I think the key is not power but accountability. All governments have a heck of a lot of power by default. The trick is to make the people in power answer in some fashion; regularly scheduled elections with unoppressed opposition parties is one of the best methods. In the case at hand, a member of the opposition party is being sensored apparently for political reasons. VERY bad sign.

  • Belgium Man (Score:3, Funny)

    by netglen (253539) on Monday December 26 2005, @07:41PM (#14342027)
    What do you expect from a country named after a vile curse word?
  • After RTFA, it appears that the fine does not stem from the fact that he had a podcast. He was fined because he had on some guests from a deemed racist political party. Certain European countries get very limp-wristed on these issues and try to deny that such people and problems exist. They would rather sweep the problems of racism under the carpet and pretend these whackjobs don't exist. That is where the fine came from.

    • What an astute observation! (Score:4, Informative)

      by whatthef*ck (215929) * on Monday December 26 2005, @08:07PM (#14342114) Homepage
      After RTFA, it appears that the fine does not stem from the fact that he had a podcast. He was fined because he had on some guests from a deemed racist political party. Certain European countries get very limp-wristed on these issues and try to deny that such people and problems exist. They would rather sweep the problems of racism under the carpet and pretend these whackjobs don't exist. That is where the fine came from.

      Ah, the guy wasn't fined because he had a podcast, he was fined because of the content of his podcast. That's a very important distinction.

      I feel better now.

    • Discovering this was very interesting to me, as I had heard that Europe was less racist than the United States...

      When I heard about the riots in France, I was shocked that they had the same problems we had...

      ===

      That sort of censorship MAY have a good motive (that is, the concept the lawmakers might have is that if they don't publicize the racism, if they try to stamp it out through not acknowledging it, that it may eventually just 'burn itself' out...) ... but it ignores the fact that knowledge passes on th

    • Re:Doesn't appear to be because it's a podcast (Score:5, Informative)

      by yupie (772822) on Monday December 26 2005, @08:21PM (#14342157)
      He was fined because he had on some guests from a deemed racist political party.

      Not exactly. He was fined because
      • the podcast is considered to be a radio-transmission, and radio-transmissions should have been declared as such to the appropriate government services beforehand;
      • the radio/broadcasting cannot be linked to a political party;
      • by placing the podcast on non-Belgian servers (US, formerly in Russia and others), he is falsely claiming it to be not-Belgian or not-Flemish, whereas in reality it is targetted to Flemish people.
      It has to be admitted that, for some time, the same podcast was also transmitted on shortwave. This is no longer the case, due to some inventive and intensive lobbying of opponents.

      Of course, in reality, the only reason why this is happening is that the author (Jurgen Verstrepen) is member of an alledged racist party. Any policical or governmental means possibly are being deployed in this country to weaken their rights of freedom of speech. The case of considering podcasts as equal to radio broadcasting (other political parties or government organisations have websites with audio and/or video, without any problem so far), and fining them as such, is just another illustration. Sometimes I wish the Belgian government would be more adherent to the principle once stated by Voltaire (and, ironically, by default printed on all publications of one of our universities): I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

      • Sometimes I wish the Belgian government would be more adherent to the principle once stated by Voltaire (and, ironically, by default printed on all publications of one of our universities): I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

        Voltaire never said this. It is a famous non-quotation by Beatrice Hall from 1907, well over a hundred years after the death of Voltaire. Please don't propogate urban myths.

      • Re:Doesn't appear to be because it's a podcast (Score:5, Informative)

        by Krommenaas (726204) on Tuesday December 27 2005, @04:35AM (#14343707) Homepage
        He was fined because he broadcast a radio program on short wave without getting the required permit, and because he started a radio station with a clear link to a political party (the radio station was in fact announced on a press conference of said party). He broke two laws, and he gets fined for it - that's all there is to the story. The podcast itself has nothing to do with the fine. Being masters of propaganda, the Vlaams Belang have spun this story to their advantage, and they've done it so well that their version made it on Slashdot. Some facts for non-Flemish people:
        • The Vlaams Belang gets almost all its resources from tax payer money which, like all Belgian parties, it gets in direct proportion to the number of votes it gets in national elections. If there were indeed a campaign to silence the party, the first action would be to take away this funding. This would have been possible after the party was condemned in court for racism, but has not been done, precisely so as not to make them martyrs.
        • The Vlaams Belang is an extreme right-wing party, openly aligned with Jean-Marie Le Pen, the French politician known among other things for calling the Holocaust a footnote in history.
        • The Vlaams Belang's party program used to include separate schools and separate social security for immigrants, and forced deportation on military cargo planes to their countries of origin.
        These things should of course not affect their right to free speech, but they should tell you how they use that right. The desinformation in this Slashdot article is an example.
    • So because the broadcast featured guests that were considered racists, then it's okay to censor it? How is this different from any other case of "we don't like your views so we're not going to allow you to express them"? Just because it's the Left that is doing the censoring doesn't make it right.
    • Well, it's not like these things are denied in europe. Some dumbass politicians just feel that censorship will do anything to curb this.
      The end result? Nobody dares to discuss these things in public forums and the racists themselves set up private forums in which they ban anybody showing dissenting opinions. Great going.
    • preface: I am an american myself.

      First of all, why do Americans have to get so high and mighty about Europe's anti-Nazi laws? Every time I hear someone go off on a law like this it's like a European gets their foot chopped off when they utter the word "Hitler" or "Nazi."

      I really can't speak for any of these laws, but what I can say is that just because such a law exists doesn't mean it's all that bad, even if it seems counter to our own constitution. Our own constitution at times seems flawed, in that the right to bear arms is felt by some to be completely unnecessary and constantly misinterpreted by modern governments.

      And what's worse is that people think that free speech in America means being able to say racist and ethnic slurs so that no law is created that might on the off chance prevent someone from actually uttering the word "nigger" or "dirty jew" in a sentence that is not meant as a racist slur but in an intelligent adult discussion about the evils of racism.

      My Major problem with racism and racist fucks is that to me it's really a form of slander or libel, except you are doing it against an entire race. You can't publically call someone a baby killer, so why the fuck can these people in America call Blacks and Jews baby killers?

      In an ideal world you have evolving government and changing laws. There's no reason to think a democratically elected government cannot craft legislation that put forms of racist language on the level of libel.

      And how does this relate to Nazism? That's the whole point. Europe witnessed the horrors of Hitler first hand and up front. The US has these weird rose colored glasses on at times. We agree Hitler was a bad guy, but we preserve our right to free speech because we should be able to say absolutely anything we want at all times. However, maybe if we stopped allowing whites to publically slur other races sooner, we could have ended segregation sooner, prevented Japanese Americans from being sent to internment camps, and prevented our own ethnic crimes from being committed in Tuskeegee [wikipedia.org].

      You can't cry fire in a crowded theater, you can't call Bush a baby killer without proof, and you should not be able to go onto a radio show and say blacks and jews are causing an increase in crime and disease and should be thrown in jails.

        • Re:Typical Americano-Centric post (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jasonditz (597385) on Monday December 26 2005, @11:30PM (#14342859) Homepage
          Do you think if we stopped talking about racism it would disappear? Seriously?

          Actually that's one of the benefits of these laws from the perspective of someone who doesn't have to live under them. They provide a nice counter-example to prove that criminalizing an unpopular opinion does not make that opinion vanish.
      • There is racism all over the world and a lot of people are put at a disadvantage by it. We don't tolerate racist nutjobs here in the US, either; but we're not naive enough to drive them underground so that we don't know what the hell is going on.

        I'd prefer that my enemies make themselves known, rather than hide in the shadows. And it is sickening and somewhat frightening that a government would encourage the latter.
      • Are you being serious?, or were you just not paying attention last month when every other car in France was torched by disenchanted French-born "immigrants"?

        Granted, tolerance and acceptance in the states is hard to find these days (although it can be found), but to think for a second that these things are not common across the planet (and yes in Europe too) is a clinical case of I-see-nothing, I-hear-nothing.

        And for the record I am a liberal atheist.

  • The same kind of BS will happen here in the US (Score:4, Insightful)

    by harryseldon (29164) on Monday December 26 2005, @07:43PM (#14342035)
    And it will be called "campaign finance reform".

    Have opinions on candidates? Have a blog? Comment on blogs? Hit tipjars? Too vocal and influential?

    Look forward to visits from the FEC.

    Money is speech, speech is money. Talk too much and you'll be over the limit for campaign contributions.

    Thank the honorable senators McCain and Feingold.
    • If you are spending more than the amont of money allowed in a policitcal campaign on a weblog or a podcast, well first of all you have too much money lying around. Second, you are a really crappy shopper because you can get the exact same services for a much better price.

      On a more serious note (and a bit off topic, this entire discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the actual article should you ever choose to read it), blogs are the perfect solution to the campaign finance problems. They are effec

      • Ah, but how much is too much? If it's running on your own computer, better check the cost of the computer and bandwidth. If it's running hosted on someone else's server, is it just the monthly fee that counts? Or do they include the cost of your desktop that you're using to post your blog from?

        When you have those answers definitively from McCain/Feingold, let us know. Then you can whine about people having too much money lying around.

        • Actually, the restrictions on issue ads only applied to radio and television ads and only banned money from unions or corporations. They do not restrict you from spending your own money to advocate some political position. So none of those costs are included.

          The only way blogging could be affected by these restrictions would be if you were to donate over $2000 for him to set up his blog. And if a politician is requesting more than 2 grand so that he can create a blog, he is pulling your leg.

    • Two talk show hosts were ruled to have provided "in-kind" political contributions [shotinthedark.info] by supporting a gas-tax repeal.

      More here [nwsource.com].

      Free-speech has been repealed by John McCain and the courts.

    • Money is speech, speech is money.

      "What are you cuffing me for, officer??? What do you mean I can't offer to slip you twenty bucks for forgetting what your radar gun said! I was exercising my right to free speech!"

      Bribes, no matter what you call them, are not "speech". Speech is speech. If I choose to make a posting on my own blog, or here on Slashdot, or (fill in the blank), of course that should be my right, political or not-and it is. No one's stopping me, and no one's stopping you either.

      If I'm w

  • A serious question about Flanders? (Score:3, Funny)

    by wealthychef (584778) on Monday December 26 2005, @07:51PM (#14342061)
    The issue has raised some serious concerns about free speech on the Internet in Flanders,

    Can any concern about Flanders be considered a serious one? That's like saying there are serious concerns about what a father of four decides to have for dinner.

  • Different ideas of Freedome (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LWATCDR (28044) on Monday December 26 2005, @07:55PM (#14342069) Homepage Journal
    Freedom isn't easy.
    If you have ever heard Roosevelt's speech on the four freedoms can see just how hard it is.
    The four freedoms are
    Freedom of speech.
    Freedom of worship.
    Freedom from fear.
    And Freedom from want.

    How can you have freedom of speech and freedom from fear? Belgian is trying to give it's population freedom from fear be limiting racist speech. It is a trade off. It is really up to the people of Belgian to decide if that is a trade off they want. The US believes in a different set of trade offs. I tend to feel those are the correct trade offs for the US. Belgian is a democratic country and can and should work out what it thinks is best for it's population. Hopefully this is being debated in Belgian.

  • Slashdot used for racist agitprop (Score:5, Interesting)

    by burne (686114) on Monday December 26 2005, @08:02PM (#14342091)
    A novell idea. Let's use slashdot to gain exposure and some credibility for what most people would consider to be the whining and howling of a bunch of racists.

  • Flanders does not censor podcasting (Score:5, Informative)

    by lowieken (522530) on Monday December 26 2005, @08:03PM (#14342098) Homepage
    The judgement only quotes existing law when it mentions podcasting:
    Officially, every "radio service" operator who has Flanders as his primary audience should inform the appropriate government institution of this. Podcasting is also considered a "radio service". The accused didn't do that, but Vlaams Commissariaat voor de Media makes no problem of that. In fact, the verdict sounds to me a bit like begging to do away with that requirement.

    The actual conviction has nothing to do with podcasting:
    * the program was also an analog radio broadcast channel
    * the analog broadcast channel was for one political party
    * it is illegal to operate an analog radio broadcast channel for a single political party in Flanders
    * it is illegal to operate an analog radio broadcast channel with Flanders as its primary market without a Flemish government permit. They didn't have one.

    B.T.W. Jurgen Verstrepen is a member of parliament for Vlaams Belang, successors to Vlaams Blok, both generally considered extreme right wing parties. Even if on most issues including part of immigration policy, they are probably to the left of the Republicans in the US or Howard in Australia...

  • This is a surprise? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by qurve (689356) on Monday December 26 2005, @08:04PM (#14342101)
    Most countries in europe do not recognize the right to free speech. Look at the anti-nazi-speech laws in Germany and many other countries in europe. The most important speech to protect is the speech that you despise.

  • Anonymously said (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 26 2005, @08:06PM (#14342108)
    The fact is, that it is a crime in Belgium, to frankly or subtly set up one people to hate another, whether it is because of being a different race, sexual preference, or religion. This article is abusing, by posing Johan Verstreken as a victim. Don't be fooled by it. The article plays its role. Verstreken is member and politician of the VB in question. And VB is Belgiums' biggest nightmare after WW II. The issue is so sickening, that I even have to post anonymously.
    Now look what hate has done to Europe in the 1930ies and look what it does to the world now. Freedom of Speech? The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. How much freedom is there in a lie, or in half the truth?

    How much freedom is there in hate?

    • How much freedom is there in a lie, or in half the truth?

      How much freedom is there in hate?

      Who decides what is or is not a lie?
      Who decides what is or is not hatred?

      If your answer is anything other than "me", you are a hateful liar. This is why freedom of speech must include those things which an individual might consider hateful or a lie. Otherwise freedom of speech is nothing but a hateful slogan chanted by liars.

  • So many politicians do things which severely harm the democracy of their country, which have been build carefully in their nations history. We know what democracy is, we certainly know what freedom is. Flander people use your vote to get politicians who enable true freedom of speech. How is it possible so many politicians misuse their powers to restrict this freedom? It is this freedom that is a fundament for democracy and also for their jobs.

  • Editors should read the article! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is censorship, but not regulation of free speech on the internet. The man who did the podcasts was NOT fined because of his broadcasts, he was fined because he broke the law on discriminatory speech.

    To put it simple: the guy is fined for broadcasting racial crap (the nasty kind, not an intellectual discours on racial differences), which is a serious offense in Belgium.

  • Disinformation (Score:3, Informative)

    by redzebra (238754) on Monday December 26 2005, @09:44PM (#14342467)
    This has nothing to do with censorship. A guy who also does podcasts, gets a fine for not respecting local media restrictions (like requesting a licences for analog radio broadcasts and registering yourself,) See pdf regarding convinction in article (dutch sorry)

    As usual here in Belgium, justice department works a bit slow and it's actually for some analog broadcasts in the past (which now have been replaced with podcasts) he gets fined and gets urged
    to do everything according to existing regulation.

    The guy is political active for a convicted racist party and it's supporters now try to use this bit as propaganda to tell he's getting censored because of his content instead. Most politicians in Belgium are trying hard to ignore this kind of people but sometimes fail to due to the provocative nature of the party in question.

  • Not as simple as the headers make you believe (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 27 2005, @04:31AM (#14343697)
    For the sake of clarity:

    - Jurgen Verstrepen, the presentator of the program, is a high profile member of the political party Vlaams Belang / Vlaams Blok.
    - Vlaams Blok was convicted in Belgium because of strong racism (and the lies they used to spread it). They changed their name to Vlaams Belang.
    - Jurgen Verstrepen has a history of spreading racism on the media. He used to have a talkshow before on local radio where racists could spread their hate freely.
    - The heart of Vlaams Blok is made up by old school nazi's. These people are orgaznized, prepared and ideologically strong. This is what make this fascistoid party dangerous.
    - Aside of racism and a new order ideology (break the unions and a police state) their main goal is the destruction of Belgium.

    Please put the headers in perspective,

    A concerned Belgian citizen.

    • Re:I'm sure glad... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by d34thm0nk3y (653414) on Monday December 26 2005, @07:52PM (#14342063)
      it's still our internet, not theirs. This is just another example of the kind of government interference the high-minded international community would do if the UN took over the administration of the internet.

      Tell 2600 magazine about how much more "free" it is over here. [wired.com]
        • Right, Its the law and until someone changes the law its the law. SO GET OFF YOU #$% and get the law changed if you don't like it.

          Seems that when the US censors free speech, it's never the government's fault. It's the individual voter's fault for letting the government get away with it. But when the same thing happens in Europe, it's "evil socialist governments" who are at fault, not the individual voters.

          Nevermind the complexities of the electoral systems and how much one's vote can actually change entren

    • Re:How Funny! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      True. The US government has realized something that the Chinese, Burmese, and now European governments haven't yet come to understand: Talk has always been cheap, and the Internet only makes it cheaper.

      Think about it. If Watergate happened today, it would rate an outraged blog entry or two on DailyKos, and be spun into evanescent gossamer by Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. I doubt that the Committee to Re-Elect the President would even have to book an appearance for its representative on Hannity. The w

    • A possible term for reading a blog... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Urusai (865560) on Monday December 26 2005, @09:03PM (#14342311)
      ...slogging?

    • Could it be a hint that blogs are write-only media, and nobody actually wastes time reading them? At least thats the impression I get, because every blog I ever seen is just filled with mundane tripe/copypaste from other sites and/or blogs.

      Isn't it somewhat illogical to first suggest that no one reads blogs, and then in the very next sentence say that you do, apparently in such amounts that you can recognize stuff that was copied from another blog ?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.