Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government The Internet United States

Spanish Congress Rejects Internet Censorship Law 229

TuringTest writes "A commission of the Spanish Congress has rejected a law that allowed the closure of web sites that provide unauthorized downloads. The government couldn't reach enough support from its allies, not because they opposed the law in principle, but because of the way it was redacted and the lack of negotiation. Recently the Spanish Senate rejected a law on net neutrality. Also the Wikileaks cables disclosed pressure from the USA on the Spanish government to pass a law to reduce Internet sharing of music and media, which is legal in Spain."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spanish Congress Rejects Internet Censorship Law

Comments Filter:
  • by mykos ( 1627575 ) on Thursday December 23, 2010 @03:52AM (#34649926)
    ...Is lower the bar for "copyright infringement" or the enforcement thereof.

    It's already happening in the US. [google.com] Homeland Security to fourth amendment: "Fuck you."
  • by Sparx139 ( 1460489 ) on Thursday December 23, 2010 @04:01AM (#34649954)
    ... then I realized that the reason they rejected it had nothing to do with the fact that this sort of thing is bad =(
  • by FuckingNickName ( 1362625 ) on Thursday December 23, 2010 @04:29AM (#34650028) Journal

    To give you an idea of the authoritarianism of Spain's government, around three weeks ago it issued a State of Alert [bbc.co.uk] because of striking ATCers which came down to, "If you refuse to work, you will be sent to jail." (Conversely, work sets you free.) Note that Spanish ATC was civilian, but an argument was formed that by striking you are denying people freedom of movement. This is probably one of the most Orwellian interpretations of "freedom" Western Europe has seen in recent years, and is the first time quasi-martial law has been enforced in Spain since the fall of Franco.

    This is not the sort of government that is about to sympathise with filesharing arguments. It is, like all authoritarian governments, a stickler for procedure, and that's the only real reason this law didn't pass.

  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Thursday December 23, 2010 @09:35AM (#34651018)

    Sometimes two different 'freedoms' may clash.

    Absolutely.

    . It looks like Spanish people feel that it is better to be free of the fear of huge amounts of guns on their streets than the freedom for the majority of citizens to carry guns on their streets.

    See, and this is where you, and perhaps they, lose me. Freedom from fear. People may give up personal freedom (and responsibility) in the hope that they will be safer and less afraid, but I seem to recall a rather famous quote about just that. In truth, there is little scientific support for the theory that strict gun control laws result in greater safety. They might result in less fear, but that's only a function of the public's ignorance.

    I've lived in Europe for 40 years and never once have I thought "I'd feel safer walking to the shops if I had a gun on me or knowing that lots of these other people walking around on the streets had guns on them".

    And for the most part, when it comes to personal protection, there is little scientific support for the theory that having access to more common firearms makes people safer either. Sadly, for being such a major issue, there's really very few well conducted studies on the issue since no one keeps track of how often firearms are used to deter or prevent crime, and very sporadic records on how often violent crimes occur (hint they are constantly reclassified by politicians that control record keeping and who want to seem effective ala, we have 50% fewer homeless and a huge increase in outdoorsmen in our city). The scientific consensus to date is there is no real correlation between gun control laws and violent crime when normalized for other factors, or perhaps a slight increase in violent crime.

    But mostly I just wanted to point out what I see as your misperception. The individual right to carry firearms is a freedom. The right to stop everyone else from carrying them is not a freedom, it's a restriction. No matter how you try to redefine it as a "freedom to not feel fear". You can claim it is a conflict of the freedom to carry firearms and the freedom to continue living, but that is only in perception. One might as well argue free speech is not a freedom, because it conflicts with my fear that word viruses might infect my brain and transform me into a starfish. Rational people have to rely upon actual evidence and there is no evidence to date, that is an actual conflict, only a perceived one in the minds of those who have not actually formed their opinion using a rational methodology. When you wrote that the spanish people "feel" it is better, you were much more precise than perhaps you intended.

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Working...