Where Are You Publishing?

AndrewRUK writes "A reporter for The Guardian is being prosecuted in Zimbabwe for a report that appeared on the newspaper's website, the newspaper writes in this report. If the case is successful, it would allow Zimbabwe's courts to apply the country's draconian media laws to any online publisher, putting reporters and editors at risk of arrest if they go to Zimbabwe, or any country with extradition treaties with Zimbabwe. Once again, we see a case which raises the question of which courts have jurisdiction over online publishing. Is a UK newspaper, with webservers in the UK, and a site accessable to anyone on the net, publishing only in the UK, or is it publishing everywhere where there's net access?" An issue that just doesn't seem to go away ...

Re:Sklyarov

[nuggz]

Except the product Sklyarov wrote was sold in the US. If the article was in a newspaper or magazine sold in Zimbabwe then it would be more similar.

They are different in specifics, however they are similiar that people are doing things completely legal and appropriate, being subject to stupid laws of faraway countries.

Best advice is to not go where they have sufficiently stupid laws.

Website Licenses

[Alien54]

It is this sort of thing that leads to the sort of Web site licenses seen here:

http://www.radiofreenation.com/rfn_news_titlepage. html [radiofreenation.com]

Which, among other things, says :

3.17 You warrant that your access to this site is not a violation of local laws and regulations in force at the location where you are accessing these Web Sites, and You agree to hold harmless these Web Sites, CyberKnowledge, and CyberKnowledge Staff and/or Authorized Agents for any actions by you that may be a violation of such local laws and regulations.

3.18 You warrant that your access to these Web Sites is not a violation of local laws and regulations of the Country, province, state, county, city, town, or any other type of government jurisdiction of which you are a citizen and/or whose laws you are subject to; and You agree to hold harmless these Web Sites, CyberKnowledge, and CyberKnowledge Staff and/or Authorized Agents for any actions by you that may be a violation of such local laws and regulations.

[...]

4.15 You warrant that your contribution to these Web Sites is not a violation of local laws and regulations of the Country, province, state, county, city, town, or any other type of government jurisdiction of which you are a citizen and/or whose laws you are subject to; and You agree to hold harmless these Web Sites, CyberKnowledge, and CyberKnowledge Staff and/or Authorized Agents for any actions by you that may be a violation of such local laws and regulations, including obscenity laws as judged by local community standards, promotion of and/or access to child pornography, incitement to illegal acts and/or other crimes not specifically mentioned.

4.16 You warrant that your contribution to this site is not a violation of local laws and regulations in force at the location where you are accessing these Web Sites, and You agree to hold harmless these Web Sites, CyberKnowledge, and CyberKnowledge Staff and/or Authorized Agents for any actions by you that may be a violation of such local laws and regulations, including obscenity laws as judged by local community standards, promotion of and/or access to child pornography, incitement to illegal acts and/or any other crimes not specifically mentioned.

Re:Consider the government...

[ImaLamer]

kill the only productive segment of his economy in the blantantly dishonest name of "land reform."


I hope to g0d you don't mean white people. I don't doubt they are productive citizens to say they are the only is kind of harsh isn't it. Of course I won't name call until you can respond.

As far as Mandela and Tutu there are a few issues. First: They are peaceful enough people but they realize that the white's don't belong in Africa. Although they don't want violence or anything harsh they still believe that Africa is a continent for Africans - not Englishmen or Frenchmen. And it shouldn't be - the only thing whites have brought to Africa is racism and their own forms of control over the lands true owners.

While there is bloodshed over rival groups, tribes and governments that is life; a consequence of the pecking order of people(s).

To quote a book:

[speaking about Khomeini's and Iran's style of revolution and it's spread around the world specifically Africa, China and other areas of Asia] have gained sufficent favor with South Africa's ANC that Nelson Mandela, in a 1992 visit to Teheran, told the Iranians that Africa must be reshaped along the lines of the Iranian revolution.[1] (Ironically, when South African leader Bishop Desmond Tutu gave a speech to a Palestinian crowd in 1989 lauding Palestinian interests, he failed to realize that the Arabic banners carried by his listeners read, "On Saturday We Will Kill the Jews, on Sunday We Will Kill the Christians!")[2]

The Lucifer Principle, Howard Bloom pg. 226,227 Atlantic Monthly Press
[1]Danziger, Himelfarb, and Weisenberg: "Schwarz 'Optimistic' on South Africa's Prospects."
[2]Robert R. McMillan, "Do You Have a Stamp of Israel in Your Passport?" Cucus Current, May 1992, 28

Colonizers left Africa and it's people with nice constitutions that we all would assume would make everything nice and dandy. The problem is that the place wasn't in any better shape when they left. (thus the reason for interests in Iran's style of revolution, they were fighing to nationalize oil-their one source of money)

Democracy is nice but you can't just force two rival gangs together and most importantly you can't expect your colonial times to be forgotten about.

Britian seems to be just a reason for him to mobilize the masses into acting, can't blame someone for doing what is part of human nature.

Before saying "hey! he's evil he kills white people!" think about why, think about why it's important to have an enemy. Sometimes that enemy could be your best friend.

Is it ok? No. But it happens and Africa is right now just one place where it is happening more often than we weaklings would like.

I suppose it is surprising to starry-eyed marxists who still buy into the collective bullshit of African anti-colonial revolution.


It's not bull shit buddy. You know little about how one set of people get over on another. If it's Islam, Judaism, Mao Red Guards, "Manifest Destiny", Christianity, Tutsis vs Hutus, Maxists, and all the other memes that drive a society there is bloodshed, there is a reason for it and it certainly not bull-shit.

If the enemy is fake or real it drives the people. Would you have bought the idea that Native Americans are heathens and need to be killed so your soul could be saved? (btw just in case it's not true - we had other things in mind)