Podcasting Censored by Government 241
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."
Do you ever wonder... (Score:1, Informative)
Doesn't appear to be because it's a podcast (Score:5, Informative)
Flanders does not censor podcasting (Score:5, Informative)
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...
What an astute observation! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Doesn't appear to be because it's a podcast (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Typical Americano-Centric post (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Editors should read the article! (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
European Convention of Human Rights (Score:3, Informative)
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 fears are inflamed by famous crimes committed by Islamic immigrants.
The ECHR has been helpful in comparable matters. For example, in previous cases involving torture in the U.K., the local nation's actions which were engendered by local fears were overruled by the calmer, broader view of the larger E.U.. That's one of the benefits of a multilevel polity; locals get inflamed by local fears, while larger groups are not so emotionally involved.
The most obviously relevant ECHR law in this Flemish matter:
ARTICLE 10:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
This language gives plenty of room to argue, e.g. whether podcasting is broadcasting, and whether banning anti-Islamic speech is "necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security".
I don't know the answer that the Council of Europe will fnally provide, but the ECHR is probably the most important legal battleground.
Disinformation (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Transcript of podcast: (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Belgium (Score:2, Informative)
Not as simple as the headers make you believe (Score:4, Informative)
- 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:Doesn't appear to be because it's a podcast (Score:5, Informative)
- 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.Reality Check!! (Score:2, Informative)
Secondly, the "biggest party" referred to (Vlaams Blok aka Vlaams Belang) is only the biggest party in 1 city in the country, and does NOT participate in government on ANY level in the entire country.
Re:Transcript of podcast: (Score:1, Informative)