Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

EU Views Net Censorship As a "Trade Barrier" 245

Posted by kdawson from the do-as-i-say dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The European Parliament just passed a proposal to treat internet censorship as a trade barrier, in particular the 'Great Firewall of China.' If passed by the European Council, the issue would be raised in trade negotiations and could lead to economic sanctions and trade restrictions for those countries unwilling to remove oppressive Net censorship." We have discussed some of the ways in which the EU, and its member countries, engage in their own brand of censorship.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Views Net Censorship As a "Trade Barrier" More

EU Views Net Censorship As a "Trade Barrier"

Comments Filter:
  • But they're doing it to PROTECT people. Everyone ELSE is doing it to OPPRESS people. HUGE difference.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by orclevegam ( 940336 )
      Oppression and Protection are mostly matters of perspective. The Chinese argue that they filter internet access in order to protect their people from dangerous information. Personally I'm against censorship of any kind, but that's really not important for the purposes of this article.

      • Oppression and Protection are mostly matters of perspective.

        ~Hands you your Captain Obvious hat~

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by orclevegam ( 940336 )

          ~Hands you your Captain Obvious hat~
          Hmm... my sarcasm detector must be on the fritz again. Damn Chinese made piece of junk.

          • Re:The EU May Be Censoring... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by LithiumX ( 717017 ) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @07:07PM (#22594456)
            Yes... that's the way to promote freedom. Cut oppressive governments further off from the outside world, so that they are even less inclined or able to change.

            I still believe if we had extended full trade relations towards Cuba as soon as they revolted, their communism would have quickly changed into something more balanced.

            Oppression can only exist in a vacuum. Opening your doors to such nations doesn't encourage them, it makes them interdependant, and exposes them to better systems. Just look at China - they are by no means perfect, but exposure to the free market has changed them drastically.

            • Re:The EU May Be Censoring... (Score:4, Funny)

              by darkpixel2k ( 623900 ) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @07:24PM (#22594680)
              Opening your doors to such nations doesn't encourage them, it makes them able to easily get into your country.

              There, fix that for you.
              So you're the one who let the terrorists in. Jerk.

              • Re:The EU May Be Censoring... (Score:5, Funny)

                by LithiumX ( 717017 ) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @07:49PM (#22594918)

                Opening your doors to such nations doesn't encourage them, it makes them able to easily get into your country.
                There, fix that for you. So you're the one who let the terrorists in. Jerk.
                I in no way support terrorists. In fact I denounce them. Or is that reject them? Denounce or reject... so complicated.
                • I in no way support terrorists. In fact I denounce them. Or is that reject them? Denounce or reject... so complicated.

                  I so wanted to shoot myself in the head just so I wouldn't have to hear them debate a play on words endlessly...
            • Go there as a tourist. Tell me that isn't capitalism at work.

            • it makes them interdependant, and exposes them to better systems.

              In the case of the Far East, it's just enabled quicker and more effective means of oppression.

              Just look at China - they are by no means perfect, but exposure to the free market has changed them drastically.

              They still make the same low-quality junk and still oppress their own, just by the hand of business. This is nearly 30 years later - and they flood our schools, forcibly devalue their currency, pull regular cook-booking stunts on larger orders than Enron, and cant seem to act more than a degraded copying machine. Same oppression, different system, higher scale.

              Then you wonder why a large sizable chunk wants to "b

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by donscarletti ( 569232 )

                they flood our schools

                Well, in that situation they pay market price for tuition, which at government universities is far higher than domestic students pay. Western universities make billions of dollars from Chinese students. Of course there is a price to pay in communications difficulties since differences in language and academic culture make teaching them, working with them and hanging out with them harder but this is the ultimately the choice of the university involved rather than some imposition from

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by barocco ( 1168573 )
              Just look at China - they are by no means perfect, but exposure to the free market has changed them drastically.

              Oh, you mean the way the CPC managed to conglomerate fortune for itself at expense of relinquishing very little power, sustain unbalanced economic growth at the cost of environmental degradation and labour abuse, arouse national sentiment to further consolidate conformity and suppress opposition, and best yet, dump products to the largest economy of the world and then become its banker, and in
              • "Then of course, you have brought a lot of change to the country by exposing it to the free market"

                Good greif, have you people never heard of the silk road? And didn't Columbus trip over America while trying to find a short cut to Asia?

                Mao was a nut-job who did a 'back to nature' thing on China that makes Pol Pot look like a flower child. Since Mao's cultural revolution was abandoned, China has dragged more people above the poverty line than the rest of the planet put together.

                China, like the US is
    • Everyone is saying they do it for the good of the people, but the sad truth is censorship apart from the very limited scope of national security is either bad or neutral with a cost. It never helps.

      While I agree that some of the censorship in Europe is the more benign kind - I'm talking about the holocaust denial prosecution - it is probably less helpful than if society's moral self-censorship would be allowed to run it's course.

    • Re:The EU May Be Censoring... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by iamacat ( 583406 ) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @06:37PM (#22594046)
      How is censoring sale of historical artifacts protecting anyone? I have an interest in history of warfare and would buy a nazi artifact, along with those of allied forces, japan or US civil war to get a concrete fill for the history that I didn't personally experience. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it and I don't see how censorship is doing anything good for the future of peace in Europe.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by BrentH ( 1154987 )
        Because it wouldnt cater to the few historycollectors, it would give 'airtime' to a relativiely large subculture in most European countries, neonazis. They advocate hate of nonarians, destroy or desecrate mostly jewish graves and engage in other crimes in many cases. The suppresion of these materials is an attempt to supress this subculture, which is, in my opinion, in everybody's best interest. It's not like museums have any shortages of nazimaterial. Apart from maybe three serious collectors, nothing is

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by lgw ( 121541 )
          Nothing is served by allowing a freedom you find annoying? Were you saying you were or were not part of this neonazi subculture? I lost track. Your position is that the government should act to crush and destroy subcultures that you disapprove of, no?

          • Re:The EU May Be Censoring... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by cozziewozzie ( 344246 ) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @07:50PM (#22594928)

            Your position is that the government should act to crush and destroy subcultures that you disapprove of, no?
            No, actually, that's not what he was saying.

            He was saying that the government should crush and destroy those subcultures that are trying to gas dozens of millions of people in gas chambers and use them as fertiliser.

            And I have no problem with any such subculture being crushed and destroyed, as I think that mass genocide and world war is something completely different than "annoying freedom". Unfortunately, censorship is not the answer.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward
              If any neonazi group got close to being able to gas a dozen Jews, let alone begin to approach anything resembling what Hitler accomplished, they could quickly be dealt with using means that didn't impact anyone that wasn't a threat. If any neonazi group actually harmed someone, you could easily charge them with conspiracy to assault or murder - hell, you can even throw in the thought-crime of racially motivated assault and tack on an extra five life sentences.

              There's absolutely no need for a blanket ban
              • Even better, if the artifacts and other nonleathal stuff like books and posters was traided, you might have a few more NN but it would be more clear how they were. Finding these people and taking the wind out of there sails is a good an fair way to go about reducing the power of these ideas.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by lgw ( 121541 )
              This isn't about whether mrudering Jews should be illegal, though that's a nice strawman. This is about censoring ideas. It can be illegal to murder Jews, but legal to advocate removing such a law! Freedom of speech is precisely freedom of speech that offends you, especially offensive political speech! Freedom to say things that most people agree with is hardly an interesting freedom.

              Asking the state to censor an idea because you find it wrong and offensive is advocating totalitarian oppression, plain a
            • He was saying that the government should crush and destroy those subcultures that are trying to gas dozens of millions of people in gas chambers and use them as fertiliser.

              As the present and unbroken line leading to the current Chinese government has, sadly during its various terrors unleashed by its still hero, Chairman Mao, killed far more than the nazis in Europe, is your position that you advocate the censorship and blocking of everything Chinese? The Chinese government recently looked like it would fin

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by cozziewozzie ( 344246 )

                As the present and unbroken line leading to the current Chinese government has, sadly during its various terrors unleashed by its still hero, Chairman Mao, killed far more than the nazis in Europe, is your position that you advocate the censorship and blocking of everything Chinese? The Chinese government recently looked like it would finally acknowledge how bad Mao was, but in the end, they concluded "he was more good than bad."

                Maoist groups have a similar political standing in Germany as neo-Nazi groups, as both are considered anti-constitutional.

                The difference in what is banned has to do with the fact that there were dozens of millions of Nazis in Germany half a century ago, and there are still many out there right now, whereas there have been approximately 200 Mao supporters in the entire history of Germany (a slight hyperbole here). Maoists IN GERMANY don't pose any threat whatsoever, and probably never will. Just like Nazis

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mdwh2 ( 535323 )
        Talking of Nazism, the release of a single Nazi-porn film is causing MPs in the UK to call for new censorship powers [timesonline.co.uk].

        They claim they want to give the public more power - in fact, the film was approved years ago after the BBFC relaxed its censorship policies, after consulting with the public. What they actually mean is, they want the power to ban films everytime there is a media uproar from a vocal minority (who haven't even seen the film).

        Of course they string out Nazism as the worse example, but we know th

    • Re:The EU May Be Censoring... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nycguy ( 892403 ) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @06:39PM (#22594076)
      So the Chinese government is not PROTECTING its people from the DANGERS of porn? And EU officials are not OPPRESSING those who have views they find DETESTABLE? Of course, MAYBE you were just being SARCASTIC. Either way, why are we typing like THIS?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      China does it to protect, too - If you were able to read about certain events, you would ask questions that would result in broken bones, see?
    • IMO, protection not explicitly requested is itself a form of oppression.
    • Another example is the UK and its crusade against naughty porn [slashdot.org]. Because it apparently turns us English people into violent murderers, if we look at a naughty picture, and OMG won't somebody think of the children who might see it on a website.

      (Said law is currently going through the House of Lords, and if not stopped will be law by 8 May [backlash-uk.org.uk].)

      Although having said that, the EU does at least give a tool to fight these various kinds of censorship, in that the European Convention on Human Rights at last gives us the

  • Positive movement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KublaiKhan ( 522918 ) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @06:29PM (#22593954) Homepage Journal
    Even if it is somewhat hypocritical in some cases, it's a nice step forward--because, after all, this will mean that the member states will have to eventually reduce or eliminate censorship in order to comply with the EU regulations.

    • Re:Positive movement (Score:4, Insightful)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @07:02PM (#22594388)
      Even if it is somewhat hypocritical in some cases, it's a nice step forward--because, after all, this will mean that the member states will have to eventually reduce or eliminate censorship in order to comply with the EU regulations.

      Correct. The real power in Europe is not found in Brussels, but in Paris and London and Berlin. The member states are very powerful and independent; the Brussels government is really just a jumped-up trading association, whose remit is to unify the European market for free trade, and to speak on behalf of the member states as a union in disputes with foreign powers such as the US and China.

      So, the EU directives tend to have to do with trading standards - hence the standardisation of weights and measures, the ongoing harmonisation of labour laws, and the project to establish a common currency. The member states make their own decisions about media censorship, based on local standards: hence the famous ban on Nazi memorabilia in Germany.

      However, EU directives are binding on the member states and do have to be implemented - at least in theory. So this might well be a good thing. Not sure it's the best precedent, though; it reminds me more than a little of the way the American federal government abuses the 'interstate commerce' rule to usurp the states' power. That's not something even I want to see in Europe, and I'm way over on the federalist side of the spectrum.

  • So, the EU would have to begin sanctioning itself?

    Man, I always thought that they were somewhat self-destructive but damn...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Gonoff ( 88518 )

      EU states have been getting in trouble with the EU for years. Mostly it is about money.

      Each country is entirely sovereign and can make its own policy. They just may have to answer for it...

  • I like it. I can't help but believe that unfettered world wide access to information will lead to a more informed populations that will shun oppression and xenophobia in favor of participatory government and ethno-religious tolerance. This, in turn, will lead to more prosperity and consumer spending.

  • This move could be a big mistake (Score:4, Insightful)

    by KeithH ( 15061 ) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @06:35PM (#22594014)
    This could come back to haunt the EU. Their argument isn't very different from the arguments that the Americans use to try to ram their entertainment industry down the throats of other countries while the others argue that they need to protect their culture. The Chinese want to protect their culture (and, they would argue, their social stability) while the West wants more open access to what they perceive as nothing more than a huge consumer market.

    France, for example, could wind up with a lot worse than old Jerry Lewis movies if the US is able to to turn this argument against the EU.

    No, the should never have let China into the WTO until there were *real* advances made in China's human rights record.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by lgw ( 121541 )
      Why should anyone have the right to "protect their culture"? You want the right to force other members of your "culture" to live the way you want them to, not the way they want to? How about we let each individual choose what culture they find appealing, and let the culture that no one finds appealing die?
      • "We" do. But "we" are not Chinese. What they do is their business. If "we" make it ours, than we only have 2 choices when we disagree with them: stop interacting or try to change them. The latter is almost guaranteed to be a road to war. The former is still meddling that is not likely to be tolerated even by the intended beneficiaries. Enough world revolutions. Trade causes cultural exchange which allows both partners to borrow each other's better qualities.

    • The Chinese want to protect their culture (and, they would argue, their social stability) while the West wants more open access to what they perceive as nothing more than a huge consumer market.

      It also has to do with the fact that western workers are essentially competing with serfs and other bonded laborers. People in China are not free, and their working conditions and standards reflect that. How is someone in a democracy supposed to compete with a factory owner in China who can literally own slaves [bbc.co.uk]?

      Do w

  • So I would assume Germany would be the first to get economic sanctions right? They refuse to let their citizens engage in online purchases of Nazi books and clothing. Give me a break...

    • So I would assume Germany would be the first to get economic sanctions right? They refuse to let their citizens engage in online purchases of Nazi books and clothing. Give me a break...

      AND France, and Austria, and Slovakia, and Czech... and others. A significant percentage of the EU censors something. So to describe this as disingenuous is generous to say the least.

      God only knows what the UK censors... since I am an inmate there... I mean live there... I can't see out past Hadrian's Firewall, so I've n

  • This ban on anything related to nazis has been in place since the end of WWII and I don't think you find many people in the affected countries disagree with the ban, except for the batshit crazy few neo nazis but they seem to get around it rather nicely in some countries.

    And that is basically the only thing banned, else you are free to say or do anything. I have no problems with the nazi ban, large portions of my family (non jewish) suffered dearly under the nazis and as far as I'm concerned it's a crimin
    • The Romans treated their enemies pretty brutally too. Remember what they did to Carthage? I'd say that ranks as a "genocide".

      So why aren't Roman artifacts banned as well?
      • It was before 1900.... therefore no-one cares.

        I really, really wish I was kidding.

      • Re:nazi ban (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cozziewozzie ( 344246 ) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @07:03PM (#22594410)

        So why aren't Roman artifacts banned as well?
        Because Germany doesn't have gangs of Roman youth beating up non-Aryan people and setting them on fire right now.

        I'm against censorship, but some people lack any perspective whatsoever....
        • So you think destroying historical artifacts is somehow going to change youths' behavior?

          • Re:nazi ban (Score:5, Insightful)

            by cozziewozzie ( 344246 ) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @07:29PM (#22594718)
            Could you give me some examples of "destroying historical artifacts"?

            Using Nazi symbols is explicitly allowed in Germany, if it is used for historical reasons, in documentaries, movies depicting that time, or any scholarly purpose. The museums are full of historical artifacts from that time. What "destruction" are you talking about?

            What is not allowed is glorifying the Nazi regime and holocaust denial, as well as reselling Nazi symbols. Mein Kampf is not banned, or illegal, it just can't be printed. There are plenty of copies floating around. But it's illegal to take a copy to school, and then try to convince kids that it's full of great ideas and that they should try them on their colleague with immigration background. Which happens right now, in Germany.

            I agree that banning things is not the way. But some people act as if Germany is doing it out of some childish spite, not real historical and political reasons. Millions of people were executed in concentration camps by the Nazi regime and there are many people still around who are trying to repeat that today. Comparing TODAY's Nazi gangs with Romans and Carthage shows complete lack of perspective.

        • I'm against censorship, but some people lack any perspective whatsoever...

          I understand what you're saying and why you're saying it, but I don't agree with you. Censorship is always wrong. As one who has lived in Berlin for a long time and seen a great deal of Neo-Nazi activity, I know it is terrifying, and it is getting much worse. However, the censorship is part of the problem, it's encouraging it and not preventing it.

          You add censorship then you add mystery, glamor and excitement of breaking a taboo.

          • You add censorship then you add mystery, glamor and excitement of breaking a taboo. You also drive the Nazis underground and make them hard to find.

            I actually agree with you. You cannot ban ideas, you have to fight them in the open. The censorship is simply the admission of the government that they have no better solution. It's a desperate attempt to stop the spread of said ideologies by making sure it can't be spread publically.

            It's just that some people don't understand that Nazi symbols have a very different weight in Germany than Roman or Mongol insignia, both historically and today.

    • Re:nazi ban (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ZDRuX ( 1010435 ) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @07:05PM (#22594426)
      So basically you're against censorship, unless it's something you don't like - then it's to censor it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by xaxa ( 988988 )
        Even if something is censored, it's important for the people to know what is censored and to be able to argue with the reasons.
      • No and this is what you have a problem with, I don't care what you say, you can tell me as much nazi crap you want in private. The ban is on public promoting nazism, it is not a general censorship on nazism or its ideas. There are no internet firewall that censors nazi stuff. In each of those countries you can search on the terms as much as you want, read nazi pages all over the world. Do you get it now?

  • Sucessssss like Cuba? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by slysithesuperspy ( 919764 ) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @06:48PM (#22594186)

    Perhaps I ought to bow to the intellectual gods who populate the European Parliament and give them whatever rights I have left, because although this sounds pretty contradictory to me, I'm sure they are correct! After all, they are from the government, therefore their job is to help me!

    The trade embargo with Cuba hasn't seemed to have worked...it's proponents have had enough time to prove it. So why would sanctions just magically work here? How would oppressing the already oppressed people China in the EU help?

    Their logic is like this: some people are oppressed a bit it in some other country far away that makes stuff for us cheaply. So the way to fix it is to oppress the country even more, while simultaneously oppressing home! Why can't these do gooders leave people alone? Perhaps they can't get a job anywhere else? Also, kind of ironic that China looks like it is getting freer, in contrast to the EU.

    What an earth would we do without the EU? I can't imagine life without it, the world would surely collapse, society would be in ruins!


    • The trade embargo with Cuba hasn't seemed to have worked...it's proponents have had enough time to prove it. So why would sanctions just magically work here? How would oppressing the already oppressed people China in the EU help?


      I'm not saying that I think the EU's plan would work, but one big difference here is that a big part of China's economy is based upon exporting stuff to the West. As far as I know a big part of Cuba's economy isn't?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by xaxa ( 988988 )


        The trade embargo with Cuba hasn't seemed to have worked...it's proponents have had enough time to prove it. So why would sanctions just magically work here? How would oppressing the already oppressed people China in the EU help?

        I'm not saying that I think the EU's plan would work, but one big difference here is that a big part of China's economy is based upon exporting stuff to the West. As far as I know a big part of Cuba's economy isn't?

        There are other western countries than the USA that trade with Cuba -- e.g. Netherlands, Germany, Canada. I can't easily find anything saying how much of Cuba's economy depends on this.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Asic Eng ( 193332 )
      So why would sanctions just magically work here?

      That's an important question, but trade sanctions did help to end apartheid in South Africa. So why does it work sometimes and not at other times? Looking at Cuba - having trading partners left which are willing to help you (like Russia, and several Latin American countries) could be one factor. Another could be whether you have segments of the population which have some economical and political power and stand to lose from the embargo. The central governmen

  • Not that I think that people who want Nazi paraphernalia are completely sane well-adjusted individuals, but questioning the Holocaust is illegal in Germany and selling Nazi paraphernalia (on Ebay, for instance) is illegal in France. These are very much examples of censorship of (rather cookie) ideas by two of EU's largest members. Are they planning to do away with their domestic restrictions on Nazi propaganda when it comes to the Internet? It's fun to wag your finger at a trade partner who is beating yo
  • LOL, This is awesome. Especially since depicting nazis in a videogame will get it banned in Germany...

    OUR censorship isn't bad, but other people's cencorship is...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by LighterShadeOfBlack ( 1011407 )

      LOL, This is awesome. Especially since depicting nazis in a videogame will get it banned in Germany...

      OUR censorship isn't bad, but other people's cencorship is...
      Do you have a source for that claim? I'm not aware of any ban on depicting Nazis in computer games in Germany. In fact from what I understand WW2 games have traditionally sold especially well in Germany where the Nazis are typically considered to be a separate entity and culture from modern Germany.
      • And there's something about Germany and Nazi/Hitler...

        He was the head of the country, voted legally in by the citizens. His campaign was truly democratic, and look what it got the peoples of Germany.

        I could understand safeguarding the government so that kind of corruption could never happen again.

        We look it as censorship.. I'd say they look it as shame as part of their history.
      • He is just a typical american idiot who believes everything he reads in the internets without checking for fakt relations.

        Usage of nazi symbols is forbidden in toys. Video games are characterized as toys. Nazi flags are nazi symbols.
        This 3 pieves of information should explain all details of what the OP seems to think to know.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lgw ( 121541 )
          So a game that sells into Germany can't let me kill nazis. As a American I've been affected by and annoyed by this German censorship, and it makes me less liekly to buy games that are also sold in Germany. It is a trade barrier.
          • So a game that sells into Germany can't let me kill nazis.

            You can kill Nazis. They can goosestep around the place and give stiff-armed salutes and sing the Horst Wessel Song and shout achtung achtung for you Tommy zer war is over. They just can't display the insignia: chiefly, no swastikas.

            Which is why the Germans in WW2 games tend to have a red flag with a white circle on which is emblazoned the Iron Cross.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by lgw ( 121541 )
              I don't want to machinegun goosestepping stiff-armed saluters - I want to machinegun Swastica-wearing Nazis! It gives me great pleasure. Please that was denide to me when a favorite online game started selling into the EU and changed the uniforms of the Nazis I enjoyed slaying to be run-of-the-mill goosestepping stiff-armed saluters. It even ruined the great joke that every so often a Nazi would turn into a werewolf. Damn EU censorship.
  • My guess is that they are going to use this to impose a carbon tax. Pretty clever.
  • about censoring nazism, that is

    if the usa went through the kind of trauma they did over nazism, i can see myself being convinced to give up my freedom of expression fundamentalism and make a special unique case for clamping down on nazi expression, with an expiration date in a generation or two when the spectre doesn't hang over europe and is instead more of a horror story from ancient history

    meanwhile, in china and iran, the motivation to censor is purely power retention and ridiculous notions of fundament

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close