Podcasting Censored by Government

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."

Slashdot used for racist agitprop

[burne]

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.

This is a surprise?

[qurve]

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.

Re:European internet control needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone please explain why this was modded Troll?

This is exactly the sort of value system that the Eurocrats would inflict on the entire world if they had the chance, and you know it. Don't like the truth? Rebut it, or work to change it. Calling it "trolling" isn't going to help anyone.

Yes it is, but from a persona non grata

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Flemish citizen, I have been downloading these podcasts for a while now and it is as VH describes in his article: rightwing-progressive (sic) talk radio. Nothing about racism, just news coverage and interviews from a different (uncommon for a 70% left-wing dominated press, as was revealed in a 2003 poll among Belgian journalists) point of view. People that get boycotted by the Belgian media (the VB party, dissident liberals, bloggers, ...) Verstrepen is quite liberal in his society views (freedom above all), yet right-wing in rejecting the socialist dogmas that dominate politics in Belgium. He is therefore fair game for people that like the status-quo of the parties in power. The "racism" argument is just Godwin's Law applied in the parliament by parties that don't like the strong popular backing the VB party is getting (25% of the votes, largest single party in Flanders). Over the last decade, the socialists have been hit by what must be a dozen corruption scandals, yet are still in power because they manage to constantly bad-mouth the VB and to threaten any other party from forming a coalition with them. This makes the socialists essential to forge any coalition and keeps them in power. And all in the name of "higher moral principles" of "not talking with nazi's" and other feeble Godwin-style arguments. The podcast ban is symptomatic of this: the powers that be don't hesitate to modify laws at random to hit their nemesis party. First it was the "racism" law that was extended to just about any difference between people. It is now so convoluted that anyone can sue for any reason ("possible(!) incitement(!) to discriminate" concerning age, gender, financial status, ...). The party was sued and tried by a judge pertaining to a French elitist service club (note: the party wants independence from Belgium's French speaking part). It was sued for pointing out the incompatibilities between militant Islam and democracy, interjections that have been made by just about any other party, and since 9/11 are official government policy in countries as the US, Netherlands and Denmark. The next juridical attack came as the "prohibition law". Its name originated as a reference to the 1920's prohibition, but now with the ubiquitous Godwin's Law as condition to cut off government subsidies to the party. And now the government's internet carpetbombing makes some severe collateral damage in the feedom of speech department of every netizen. Podcast licenses, what will be next? Journalist cards to run blogs, as was hinted in Spain a couple of years ago? Anyway, there is a English-speaking page (VB-operated) that details the political situation from their point of view: http://www.flemishrepublic.org/ [flemishrepublic.org]

Re:Weird, to me, anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who thinks that Europe is less racist than the United States is living in a fantasy world. The US is not perfect by any means, but is one of the least racist societies on the planet.

It's always amusing when some brainwashed American kid moves overseas to "escape American racism", and then we get to watch as it slowly dawns on him that he is little more than a talking zoo animal abroad. It becomes even more amusing when he starts learning the local language (the real language, not what he got taught in school) and starts to understand some of what gets murmured in his vicinity. It isn't long thereafter that he flees back to the US.

Re:European internet control needed?

[Jugalator]

???

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.

welcome to kneejerk central!!!

[mookie da wookie]

Oh, look, everyone! The first kneejerk reaction to the article! I love it. Someone who likely hasn't even read the article trying to sound all clever and educated with everyone's favorite look-at-me-i-am-not-clever-but-i-sure-try device, the 1984 reference. Sheesh.

This guy appears to be a racist pig and the gubby got 'em on a technicality. As it should be. They didn't fine him for his content. They fined him for his failure to obtain a proper license. Had he been an upstanding member of the community and not a Howard Stern acolyte he probably would have gone unnoticed. Society can find ways to cause it's own problems without some idiot inflaming the situation so he can make a name for himself. Good decision.

Not coming out it favor of censorship, but even things like free speech need to come with consequences. You say stupid stuff, or in this case, allow others to use your voice (podcast, whatev) to say stupid stuff then be prepared for the consequences.

Re:Typical Americano-Centric post

[disntrstd]

"Free speech means just that. It means the freedom to offend."

Does it? Maybe by your definition. Isn't the act of being perpetually offended a form of oppression? Certainly nobody feels free when they have to exist in an environment that completely contradicts, redicules, and suppresses their worldview. A devout Christian would not feel free in an environment filled with nudies. To assume that its possible to satisfy everyone without some sort of conflict and oppression is foolish; some people will feel free, and others will not.

Universal freedom can only exist through the universal acceptance of our differences or through a homogenuous blending of belief. If people one day stop taking religion, culture, politics, and other things so seriously, perhaps we could consider ourselves to be free.

Re:Anonymously said

[VomitInc]

Ah, so funny, these defenders of free censorship. Some more interesting facts:

• Yes, the Vlaams Belang is Belgium's worst nightmare, but because it wants Flanders' independence, not because it is national-socialist. On the contrary, it is not socialist at all, only Flemish nationalist. Flemish nationalists are like the Irish, but without the terrorism: they just want to live in an independent Flanders and want to jettison the foreign Wallonia that constantly wants other policies and has undemocratic vetoing power. Nothing remotely connected with the expansionist German national socialist.
• The only kind of people that need to be sickened of fear in Flanders are those that defend the VB points of view. They are kicked out of labour unions, ostracised, and as in the Jurgen Verstrepen case fined.

  • By all means remain anonymous if you like, but don't play a sad victim here. Anonymity here only protects you from getting humiliated with facts.

    "Hate" in the Orwellian sense is shorthand newspeak for "a point of view that I hate".