Several European Countries Lay Groundwork For Heavier Internet Censorhip 319
Gigaom reports that more internet censorship may be on the way, as several European countries' governments do a unity rally of their own, in the wake of the last week's terror attacks in France:
The interior ministers of France, Germany, Latvia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the U.K. said in a statement (PDF) that, while the internet must remain “in scrupulous observance of fundamental freedoms, a forum for free expression, in full respect of the law,” ISPs need to help “create the conditions of a swift reporting of material that aims to incite hatred and terror and the condition of its removing, where appropriate/possible.” ... It seems, to say the least, an awkward reaction to what was in part a free-speech-related attack — the left-wing Charlie Hebdo has itself frequently been accused of hate speech for its portrayal of Muslims and others. On that front, a German newspaper that reprinted blasphemous Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Mohammed in the wake of the attack was firebombed in the early hours of Sunday morning, with no injuries. Others that did the same remain under police guard.
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, we have to take away freedom of speech in order to protect freedom of speech, don't you get it? Duh....
When the freedom of speech is taken away ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... there will be no freedom of speech left
And from TFA
" ... while the internet must remain âoein scrupulous observance of fundamental freedoms, a forum for free expression, in full respect of the law ...
What law?
I don't need to get a crystal ball to know that a lot more restrictive laws will emerge - and we all know what kind of the future world we will end up with if we do not stand up for our own rights!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We already have this in Canada on the books, and is codified in our charter of rights and freedoms. Basically it boils down to: "You can do whatever you want, as long as law or society deem it to be harmful." Generally it's worked out well, and when it's over-reached, people have rallied around getting the law changed and it's happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Methinks there might be a "not" missing in the above.
Otherwise, your Charter of Rights & Freedoms seems to boil down to "murder is okay, since law or society deems it harmful"....
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In Nazi Germany they took away freedom of speech and put people in camps a long with the jews. no we do not need that to start up aging as soon as you control speech then you control the vote and after you control the vote then you can control the army the people and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
What law?
Whose law?
Re: (Score:2)
In respect of US law, obviously. It's not an accident that the timing here is identical to CISPA, because it is much of the same parties with the same interests.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF - What they WANT us to think.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You always need an identifiable "other" to justify laws that remove rights from all of us. In th McCarthy era it was 'the communist threat'. In Nazi Germany it was "The jewish threat". (then communists, gays, Gypsies, dissidents, and by the end of the war tanks were roaming the streets shooting at any window that was flying a flag of surrender).
The Patriot Act was supposedly to catch "Those damned (Muslim) terrorists", but then the NSA and the FBI used those laws to justify listening in on everybody . Do you really think that it's going to be any different with this new law? Do you really think that wasn't the intent of the old one? I'm almost disgusted enough to say "Yeah, go ahead -- give up your freedoms, and see what happens!" -- but the problem is that when you give up your freedoms, you give up mine too.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. Speech that offends no-one needs no protection.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
No, freedom of speech is the freedom to offend (or rather, "criticize") your government. And that is why it is so frightening that governments are now tightening their grip on information that is spread on the internet. Sure, they might catch some (rather naive and dumb) terrorists as a side effect. But they are also more likely to be informed who is disagreeing with the government.
Other than planning actual terrorist attacks, nothing else may (yet) lead to actions by police... but all the juridical groundwork has been done for a good police state.
You cannot give up liberties to give you more protection. There will be a time when the lack of liberties will pose a greater threat than any terrorist can ever do. Maybe not today, but certainly some time tomorrow.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
So in a country where criticism of religion is illegal, there is freedom of speech, because religion != the government?
Where do you get these wacked definitions from?
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
So in a country where criticism of religion is illegal, there is freedom of speech, because religion != the government?
And art. In a country where the government censors art, music or theater that it doesn't like, there is still freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:3)
Religion? No. I'm free in most of Europe you'd be absolutely free to blaspheme Jesus, Moses, the Bible, Torah, Pope etc -- but anything Islam related is off limits. Should be clear about that. No one is going to break into your workplace and shoot 12 people if you make a disparaging cartoon about the Virgin Mary.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist for being 'anti-Semitic' but revelled in publishing cartoons mocking Islam. Why Dieudonne is ostracised for his anti-Israel statements, shunned as anti-Semitic. Why footballers across Europe who dared to use the quenelle gesture to show support for him were banned from matches. Dieudonne has been blocked from entering the UK, but Murdoch who questions whether all Muslims aren't violent and says they are all responsible for the actions of a vanishingly small minority owns a collection of our most popular newspapers and TV channels.
Does any of that make it acceptable that a radicalised bunch of nuts threaten to, and sometimes do, attack journalists? Of course not. But only someone wilfully ignorant would think that their is only de facto censorship of Islam and not other religions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah? But, who died as a result? Where was the slaughter?
There's a bug fucking difference -- you're just too obtuse to acknowledge it.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Interesting)
No, freedom of speech is the freedom to offend (or rather, "criticize") your government.
I think you're confusing laws like the 1st Amendment to the USA Constitution [wikipedia.org], or article 10 or the European convention on human rights [wikipedia.org] with the wider, concept of freedom of speech as an ideal. Even the 1st Amendment goes further than you suggest, but I think you've hit on the original motivation behind it.
As a non-USAian it took me a while to work out that the spirit of the US Bill of Rights is to protect local government, corporations and organised religions against (specifically) the federal government, and that any benefit for individuals implicit in the letter of the law is a nice bonus.
The European convention of human rights, by contrast, seems to be mainly about enumerating all the exceptions to freedom of speech, so that the government can micro-manage your freedoms for you. Sounds cynical, but freedom is a paradox, and if you want to enshrine all human rights in law, that's the tarpit you end up in.
I think it is true, though, that both of these examples only prohibit suppression of free speech by government - they don't specifically oblige that government to prevent others from restricting your free speech (but then that really is a can of worms, and a lot of the people who pushed for Amendment 1 or Article 10 to protect their right to express their views really don't want to eat their own dogfood).
However, you should never rely on the law of the land as the last word on right and wrong, and general freedom of speech (insofar as it can be protected without descending into paradox) is a good thing.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Interesting)
"but then that really is a can of worms, and a lot of the people who pushed for Amendment 1 or Article 10 to protect their right to express their views really don't want to eat their own dogfood"
This shows a complete ignorance of historic context and is a rather unfair portrayal. The European Convention on Human Rights was drafted in the years that followed World War II and the lessons learnt from that. It was put together explicitly to try to prevent a repeat of things like the persecution of the Jews.
There was an explicit recognition at the time that much of what happened in Nazi Germany happened because the Jews had no external recourse against their own fascist government. The government's word was supreme and there was no higher international power they could appeal to in the face of wrongdoing by government. There was a belief that if you could give the people a last resort against government, a higher international order that held oppressive governments to account, that you could prevent a repeat of Nazi Germany's concentration camps.
Just because that has been perverted somewhat now and attempts at further perversion are growing doesn't mean those in charge have always succumbed to modern authoritarianism. Post-war was a period of relative political enlightenment in the West, but unfortunately due to the weight of the cold war, it was far too short lived. The ideas and intentions of leaders at the time were genuinely quite noble - look at the reasons behind the creation of the European Court of Human Rights too for example, it was all part of the same noble goal - to attempt to give the oppressed by government a voice against government.
It wasn't a complete failure, the European Court of Human Rights still does a great job in many cases of upholding the rights of citizens against overbearing government and corporations using the convention as it's guiding principles. It's imperfect but we can thank it for putting things like Phorm in the UK to death for example calling it out as the blatant widespread invasion of privacy that it was after the government refused to deal with it and instead opted to allow it.
People often cherry pick cases where it protects the bad as well as the good, but it has to, because once you start differentiating between people on fundamental rights it's not long before everyone falls into some exception category rendering the whole thing useless. But it was a good idea, pushed through with good intentions, by people who saw genuine horrors that even they knew must never be repeated. It's for that reason that we should not take it for granted, or belittle it, or claim it as a trap by the elite - on the contrary we should be pushing to keep upholding it and fighting to reclaim it as a charter for everyone, all the time, not just as something that governments can pick up and put down as and when it suits.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -Benjamin Franklin
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
No. Freedom of speech is your right to communicate your ideas and opinions to others that wish to hear it without government interference from doing so. Typically it comes with a restriction that such communication does not cause harm to others. Causing hurt feelings because your prophet was satirized in a cartoon is not generally causing harm to others.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Informative)
Go look up what constitutes "freedom of speech". It doesn't mean "I say whatever I like [without consequence]"
People often confuse the two... but not here. Here, we really are talking about government censorship. Did you miss that?
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
and the US
Comparing the two is disingenuous. True, we have nastygrams for infringement, NSLs,etc-- but their use tends to be fairly limited. We do NOT have grossly expansive libel laws that allow entities to demand that true-but-damaging information be suppressed for no other reason than that it is damaging.
It never ceases to amaze me how much people on the internet love to hate on the US, all the while European countries (and Australia) seem to be running with open arms towards heavy state-controlled censorship. Maybe Europe isnt the utopia people love to paint it as. Maybe you truly cant trust the government to have your best interest in mind all the time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not hating on the US. I know the UK libel laws are different. I'm just pointing out that, even the US, there are exceptions to freedom of speech. Every country does it differently, but the most important thing is that the government can't persecute you for what you say. e.g. critising it.
I don't know how they do things in the UK, but in the US many people in the film industry went to jail for being a member of the Communist Party, or for refusing to testify about it, or refusing to testify about the political activities of their friends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how they do things in the UK, but in the US many people in the film industry went to jail for being a member of the Communist Party, or for refusing to testify about it, or refusing to testify about the political activities of their friends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Wasn't that, like, more than 50 years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how they do things in the UK, but in the US many people in the film industry went to jail for being a member of the Communist Party, or for refusing to testify about it, or refusing to testify about the political activities of their friends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Wasn't that, like, more than 50 years ago?
1. The anti-Communist movement eliminated not only Communists but anyone on the left from the U.S. entertainment industry, teaching profession, unions, etc., and has left its effects today. It moved the political center of gravity far to the right. It was particularly damaging to unions, where Communists had been some of the most effective leaders.
It also demonstrates how the U.S. doesn't allow people to express unpopular views, especially when they are politically effective.
2. The Holy Land Foundation case
Re: (Score:3)
We do NOT have grossly expansive libel laws that allow entities to demand that true-but-damaging information be suppressed for no other reason than that it is damaging.
So Manning and Snowden are convicted for/accused of what now again?
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
"speech that incites hatred" is arbitrary weasel words for "whatever critical views we don't like".
Anti-Scientology? Doesn't incite hatred. Anti-religion? Doesn't incite hatred. Anti-Islam? Incites hatred. Anti-homosexuality? Incites hatred. Anti-sexual abstinence? Doesn't incite hatred.
This is evil. It's evil that belongs in literature or horror movies. I hope the responsible people suffer the worst fate any person can do. They have chosen to place themselves at the heart of a nightmare, and don't belong in this world.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
You're incorrect. The difference is clearly defined in all countries I'm aware of where such restrictions apply.
If you can't see a difference between "Meet me at the docks after lunch and we will kill all the jews" and "I believe all jews ought to be killed" then that is your problem.
You're being obtuse, here. "Inciting" hatred is exactly something like "All Jews/Muslims/Christians/Musicians/Whatever ought to be killed." That's what's so awful about what they're doing, here. It's not about planning a killing. It's about, say, using your Mosque's web site to say that you think heretics should be done away with. That's inciting hatred among that web site's audience, right? It's not a plan, not a specific call to a specific action. And indeed it appears that in certain demographics, that sort of talk fits right in with a widely held urge to go out and kill people. But the problem is there are other demographics that don't seem to have that cultural problem, and won't react to an identically worded (other than swapping out "Jew" for, say, "Atheist" or "Catholic" or "Cartoonist") phrase the same way. And these governments are looking to set up a structure in which such speech is illegal.
Just because way too many Muslims can't restrain themselves from being violent doesn't mean that we need to make it illegal for another group to express their opinions. So we should err on the side of allowing even dimwitted, medieval-minded backwards Imams to say what they will (unless they are calling for a specific violent act), and just shout them down. Right now, they're being coddled in their police-are-afraid-to-go-there enclaves in places like France, and THAT is the problem. Not freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're incorrect. The difference is clearly defined in all countries I'm aware of where such restrictions apply.
If you can't see a difference between "Meet me at the docks after lunch and we will kill all the jews" and "I believe all jews ought to be killed" then that is your problem. Voicing an opinion is, and always will be, outside the domain of governments to censor. Planning an attack on someone or instigating violence is not protected speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech and only morons would suggest it is.
Freedom of speech means freedom to express an opinion without consequence from any institution legally mandated to enact sanctions.
Unfortunately, despite your assurances, people have gone to prison in the U.S. for those kinds of comments and less.
You should read the history of the anti-Communist movement in the U.S., and particularly the Supreme Court decisions that erased the distinctions between abstract advocacy and "conspiracy to overthrow the government." The most disgraceful was Dennis vs. U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . A majority of the Supreme Court decided that publishing newspapers and books, giving lectures and cla
Re: (Score:3)
look, if it's not offending anyone then it doesn't need freedom of speech protection now does it? nobody cares about stuff that nobody cares about.
thing with stingy satire is that it will always STING SOMEONE.
all it takes is for the government to decide that saying it's policies are bad "incites hatred" you know. that's the situation in Thailand now(no really, press is forbidden from saying 'bad' stuff because it 'causes conflict'). what that bad stuff is well, it's not explained, except that explaining why
Re: (Score:3)
and damn well the protection of free speech should mean that you can say anything you want without legal consequences
No it doesn't. If I publically incite/encourage harm against a group of people and they come to harm then I should face the consequences even if all I did was talk. If I was the cause of the harm then I'm responsible. You're free to say what you want but you're also responsible for what you say.
despite whatever you say you should still be legally protected from harm, like everyone else. now if some people in your community dislike you for saying shit you say, that's entirely up to them, but that doesn't give them permission to attack you through illegal means.
I agree. But that's a different point.
Re: (Score:3)
That has validity, so long as one understands that the crime of incitement is a very slippery slope
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the goal of suppressing hate cannot be thus achieved at all. The only achievement is an atmosphere of repression.
I agree it's hard, but I don't think it's the case that no hate supression can be achieved or that attempting to do so results in repression. We currently have a system where hate speech is supressed and it's not repressive. It's a balancing act and always will be.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Speech that is abusive or incites hatred is one of the things things that is limited.
Who decides when speech is abusive or incites hatred?
Re: (Score:3)
Speech that is abusive or incites hatred is one of the things things that is limited.
Who decides when speech is abusive or incites hatred?
Some prosecutor or bureaucrat with an axe to grind, or sometimes a group looking for a scapegoat to blame for some tragic event.
Or at least that seems to be the way it currently works.
Re: (Score:2)
No, free countries allow even speech that is filled with hatred.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech hasn't been taken away. There already are limitations on what constitutes free speech in the UK (and the US, and other countries, for that matter). Speech that is abusive or incites hatred is one of the things things that is limited. Political protest isn't limited. The press is free to insult the government. Go look up what constitutes "freedom of speech". It doesn't mean "I say whatever I like [without consequence]"
In the US? The only legal limits we have on free speech here are:
1. Speech that directly and immediately puts human lives in danger (The old, yelling fire in a crowded theater, thing.)
2. Slander... and this isn't unprotected, it's just that you can be sued for liable for making things up. And slander in the US has a much different definition here than it does in the UK.
3. Those limits imposed by society. i.e. I'm not allowed to make wiener jokes around my wife's friends. But this isn't a legal limitation, it's a "I don't want to get hit with pots and pans" limitation.
I see a lot of nonsense and talking heads on TV that talk about how the US is different and we just don't understand that the rest of the world has a different view on free speech. We do know that, we've fought wars over it. We know exactly what Europe's limits on free speech lead to, and it appears to be happening again! Seriously, pull your heads out of your asses. You've got a few douche-bags running around blowing people up. That sucks, but really the number of people getting killed is very very low. Remember WW2? Because that was a real war, and that's what restrictions on speech and the press lead to.
Man alive I'm glad that I'm too old to get drafted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The "falsely" is important.
Re: (Score:2)
we also have a thing called prior restraint, and a thing called imminent violence.
controlling what people say is the very first step in trying to control what they think.
some people, myself semi-included, take issue with hate crime legislation for a similar reason.
aren't all crimes hate crimes? what is hate crime legislation but an attempt to penalize thought?
Re: (Score:2)
controlling what people say is the very first step in trying to control what they think.
There are already restrictions [wikipedia.org] on what you can say and these vary by country. If you don't see that, it's because you accept utterly what those restrictions are. The only question is where the line is drawn and in the light of recent events we are debating whether it needs to be re-drawn. This is not a new idea and isn't itself problematic. The really important line however is whether or not you're allowed to criticise the government and what the country stands for in general. There are certainly places i
Re: (Score:2)
They'll simply classify satire as abusive or hate speech and that will pretty much be the end of it. Can't make fun of the Muslims anymore, they tend to lose their minds and firebomb embassies, behead " infidels ", or shoot up the place.
The thing to consider going forward is now that Islam knows violence works to get their way, they'll continue to use it to enforce their will / beliefs upon the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no difference. How do you propose to censor speech if not by the threat of consequence?
Re: (Score:2)
In one case, the speech can still be heard or read, in the other it can't.
Re: (Score:3)
And how do you want to keep someone from saying something? At least once he can before you can react and jail or kill him.
There's an old joke: Is there freedom of speech in Soviet Russia? Of course! But there may not be freedom after speech.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no difference. How do you propose to censor speech if not by the threat of consequence?
You can't if you get punishment confused with consequences - but calling "punishment" "consequences" is a circular argument.
To use the cliche'd "Shouting 'fire!' in a crowded room" example: the 'consequence' is the risk of causing a dangerous stampede. Acceptable 'punishment' is what comes after you've convinced a court that the stampede actually happened, or presented compelling evidence that it was a serious risk. Unacceptable censorship is banning the discussion of combustion in a public place based on
Re:WTF (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, we have to take away freedom of speech in order to protect freedom of speech, don't you get it? Duh....
I know this is not a popular thing to say, and judging on my previous success in this area, I will get modded down to around absolute zero, no matter whether what I have to say actually makes sense, but ...
As I have said many times in the past - there is no such thing as perfect freedom. If one party - say, the state or society - doesn't put some limitations in place, then other parties - like the loudest bullies, for example - will do it by intimidation. This is true for freedom of speech as well, as we can see now in several forms: on one hand, the extremists try to oppress the freedom to criticise their view of the world, and on the other hand, the uproar against them tries in their own way to oppress dissent. In my view, there has to be some form of compromise that strikes a balance between the legitimate needs for all, not just a few, groups in sociaty to be able to express their views, and the need to protect other, just as legitimate interests that contribute to the stability and growht of society.
I don't have the solution to this problem, and I don't think you have it either. But I don't think it is beyond the capabilities of rational, thinking humans to find the solution.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
You say that extreme speech needs to be controlled: Wonderful! Theres only one problem left to solve-- figuring out who makes the call of what constitutes "extreme". In the 40s and 50s it was far-left political ideology. Today, might it be the far right? Tea partiers?
Noone denies that "free speech" brings out some nasty characters like the Westboro Baptist Church. But you really cant tread down the middle on this issue; when you start saying "we're only going to allow the reasonable folks" you have to have someone deciding who that is, which in fact ends up controlling the entire political dialogue. Inevitably you will end up with a scenario where "reasonable" is synonymous with whatever ideology is in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Republican speech is often characterized in exactly this way. But I cant play the victim card here, because it could very easily shift in the opposite direction.
Stifling free speech truly doesnt benefit the average citizen of any party.
Re: (Score:2)
it's not a easy line to walk, but at least we're trying to walk it.
when the sarah palin released images of rival politicians with hunting targets overlayed over their faces. well, we thought she was incredibly ignorant of the danger, but we didn't think it was necessarily intentionally inciting imminent violence either.
we have a active neo-nazi party, and the klan has rallies. half our political system seems to want to drive the latinos out of our country with pitchforks and fire and the other half can be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess they want to lock it away someplace safe to make sure no terrorism gets on it or anything. XD
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, we have to take away freedom of speech in order to protect freedom of speech, don't you get it? Duh....
That has always been the difference between American and European legal traditions... in Europe free speech is protected from everyone but the government, while in the US free speech is (supposed to be) protected just from the government. Having free speech attacked by terrorists is the perfect scenario for European government propaganda.
Who wins or loses? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who wins or loses? (Score:5, Interesting)
The winners in this case is the ruling class.
This has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, the laws weren't suddenly written last week, they have been planned a long time.
Terrorism is just the scapegoat for taking more control.
I do however admire the reasoning. "Since terrorists try to censor you with violence we are going to protect you by preemptively censor you with the threat of violence."
That is pretty brilliant.
Terrorists are not scapegoats ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... rather they are the TOOLS
I have a feeling that the politcos have a secret pact with the terrorists, or whoever is/are behind the terrorist movement, just so that they can get a terrorist or two carrying out a really despicable terrorist act, in the middle of a major Western city, something that generates MAXIMUM IMPACT, and the sheeples be of course be scared shitless
The scared shitless sheeples will in turn agree to sign away whatever fucking rights they have left in the exchange (no guarantee, only a promise, an empty promise) of the so-called "safety"
That is why I do not foresee a great future for the so-called "Western Democracy" --- simply because the sheeples are too damn stupid to notice that they have been conned, again, and again !
I am not saying that there is no terrorists, yes, there are !
The act of using "terrorism threat" as a tool to further their goal to concentrate their power over the people, is itself as despicable as whatever the terrorists have done !!
Re:Who wins or loses? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people are sheep and are far too dumb to realize what is going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The State Security organizations win along with the terrorists. It is eminently plausible that they have no interest at all in preventing terrorism. An external enemy is a tried-and-true approach to extend state powers, to suppress free speech and to eventually establish a police-state and then a totalitarian regime that has some sort of fascism as its state-religion.
uhhh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:uhhh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But to be honest, freedom of speech is somewhat more limited in Europe than in the USA. But even between European countries there are som marked differences. Sweden is for example jailing (provocative) artists for hate speech while neighbouring Denmark has no such tradition (although Denmark does also have hate speech legislation). See for example Dan Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Park).
Not that I like Dan Parks views (even though he says that the court in Sweden is misunderstanding his art pieces). But I do believe that Sweden is on a dangerous path when they prosecute artists for hate speech (who draws the line).
Re: (Score:2)
Breathing air (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point the game is so obvious; (Score:5, Insightful)
Write up draconian legislation, wait for a terrorist attack to happen, and immediately unleash it on the public. The media will be all to eager to play into your hand by whipping the public up into a frenzy. Ever since 9/11 every single terrorist attack has been an excuse for tighter surveillance and censorship across the world.
Look, it was sad that a bunch of people died over cartoons. But it changes nothing - absolutely NOTHING - about the importance of our freedoms. In fact, if anything, it highlights the importance of our freedoms, as these cartoonists died over free speech.
Anyone who tells you that increased surveillance and censorship will be 'selective' and 'only target high-risk individuals' is either ignorant or lying, as a cursory glance at previous measures will readily reveal.
Don't let them bait you.
Re:At this point the game is so obvious; (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:At this point the game is so obvious; (Score:5, Insightful)
Mockery is an important part of democracy and free debate. If any subject cannot be insulted or mocked, it cannot be properly debated.
Almost any kind of criticism or mockery could be described as baiting by those who wish to respond with violence to it. When people talk about there always being consequences to free speech, they don't mean murder. They mean more words, more argument and debate. Shunning, even hatred, but not physical violence.
If your religion is so weak, if your god is to insecure that it can't handle satire and ridicule then your religion sucks. In any case, it never justifies violence. The problem is with you, not the people annoying you.
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
-- President Obama, addressing the United Nations General Assembly
Said in the context of not allowing Muslim extremists who consider harming those who criticise their beliefs to gain power.
Swedish Social Democrats filed criminal charges (Score:3, Informative)
In Swedish: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6063116
Someone wrote on Facebook: "The religion of peace has shown its face".
The ruling party filed criminal charges, calling it similar to race hate.
Islamists and the Left is pretty much one and the same.
I look forward to trying to reconcile condemning Saudi Arabia for whipping a guy who insulted the Prophet Muhammad, with jailing a guy who ironically called Islam the religion of peace. Oh wait, nobody will say anything to Saudi Arabia, because the modern left-wing IS Saudi Arabia just slightly milder.
Re: (Score:2)
Either you value free speech or you don't (Score:3, Interesting)
Makes me glad the U.S. still has the right to free speech even though we are far down the road to replacing that with the right not to be offended.
Re:Either you value free speech or you don't (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't help you, since you're bunch of cowards. None of the big US (and UK) newspapers dared to publish the cartoons offensive to muslims. French and German newspapers did.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't help you, since you're bunch of cowards. None of the big US (and UK) newspapers dared to publish the cartoons offensive to muslims. French and German newspapers did.
Anonymous coward questions other people's courage ?
Re: (Score:3)
He's on the money, though, isn't he? Doesn't change the message.
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I looked most of us didn't list our profession as journalists.
Censorship is the wrong thing to do (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah some terrorists are probably supersmart and security concious and would cover their tracks in any event. But most terrorists are idiots - petty criminals and the dregs of society who've fallen under the spell of the movement. These people should be rich pickings if they are allowed to do what they like and given enough rope to hang themselves.
Lets fight for the freedom of speech ... (Score:5, Interesting)
... by censorship!
The governments will be busy chasing Facebook and Twitter "jihadists" while the ones with kalashnikovs will be killing people in the streets. *facepalm*
The hypocrisy of the politicians that "were Charlies" this weekend in Paris and at the same time are calling for more Internet censorship really is staggering.
This relates to the Clean IT Project (2011-2013) (Score:2, Informative)
This statement is a manifestation of policy developed during the Clean IT Project, in which seven out of twelve countries who signed this statement participated somewhere between 2011 and 2013. Some details here:
https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2014/08/reducing-terrorist-use-of-the-internet-result-of-clean-it-project-2011-2013/
And here:
https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2014/08/dutch-govt-announces-plan-to-fight-jihadist-internet-use-through-sort-of-voluntary-censorship/
An unofficial HTML version of the outcome of the Clean
Islamists don't need the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
They're preaching hatred in this Mosques at this moment. Here someone will say I am exaggerating or generalizing.
I will show you statistics that cover millions of people as well as video recordings in english of sermons that encourage the killing of homosexuals, adulterers, and anyone that converts from Islam to anything else including atheism.
I am not exaggerating. Islam has a problem. The entire religion must go through a reformation.
That is the issue. Not trolls on the fucking internet.
Re:Islamists don't need the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Catholic church went through a reformation otherwise they'd be burning Muslims at the stake.
Know your history before you pass judgement.
Look up the Reconquista. The Catholics drove the muslims out of Spain and through the inquisitional killed all muslims that did not convert to Catholicism on the spot.
Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church go back to that practice? Because really... having one religion acting in a pre modern context with no moderating reformation is unacceptable.
Either they reform or all other religions and ideologies are going to have to nuclear just to protect themselves. Shall we go back to crusifying people are you beginning to understand that this cannot be tolerated?
ISIS is literally crucifying children right now. In the name of Islam. Do you want me to show you rooms full of muslims agreeing that killing homosexuals, jews, and anyone that leaves islam is a good idea? I can do that.
Can you show me Christians or Buddhists or Hindus making the same claims? Look for them.
Your moral equivalency betrays an ignorance of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Catholic church went through a reformation otherwise they'd be burning Muslims at the stake.
Know your history before you pass judgement.
Look up the Reconquista. The Catholics drove the muslims out of Spain and through the inquisitional killed all muslims that did not convert to Catholicism on the spot.
You should brush up on your own history. As much as I despise the Inquisition, the Crusades (where massacres were indeed common), and other depravities of Christendom which are real - I must protest when imaginary depravities are added to the list.
The Catholic Church never burned Muslims at the stake. They burned Christian heretics at the stake. Thus self-proclaimed Christians, suspected of being Muslims or Jews in secret, were burned alive (if they confessed to being secret Muslims or Jews, then they recei
Re: (Score:2)
A distinction without contextual relevance. The point is that Muslims would not be tolerated by Christians in the 21st century in societies that would have remained rabidly Christian if Christianity had not gone though a transformation.
Are people of other faiths permitted in Islamic countries? Notice the large Jewish, thriving Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist populations in Islamic countries. Right?
I mean, if there is anything Islamic society is known for... it is tolerance.
Right?
Do you have any doubt that if
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want me to show you rooms full of muslims agreeing that killing homosexuals, jews, and anyone that leaves islam is a good idea? I can do that.
Can you show me Christians or Buddhists or Hindus making the same claims? Look for them.
You can find Christians making the same claims just by turning on the television set, you don't need to go searching. Buddhists and Hindus, not so much. Which is why far less people even think about their religion, which is how it should be. Your* religion is between you and your gods, it has nothing to do with me.
* Obviously, the global you, not you personally
Re:Islamists don't need the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
It is really easy to find, guys. This is not conversial. It is just really really hard for modern western society to deal with because we really want to be tolerant.
But just because our ancestors were frequently intolerant and nasty doesn't mean we need to be door mats for insanity.
This is a very important distinction. There is a difference between being a nice guy and being a door mat.
I believe in being a nice guy. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. I believe in trying to work for the common good of everyone. I believe in live and let live.
But I am not a fucking moron and I am not going to let someone just do whatever they want to me. I do not believe in being weak.
Islam needs to go through a reformation. Or if you prefer simply reform.
Call it reformist islam.
Here is the President of Egypt basically saying the same thing I am saying:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Lots of articles covering his statements on the issue if you don't like that one. I am not a bigot. I do not hate muslims. I do not think their faith or their culture is irredeemable.
However, it does need to go through reform. And contrary to what many foolish people have been saying mostly out of misplaced hope... is that extremism is extremely common in islam.
To say that most muslims are peaceful ignores that those that literally kill people are themselves a subset of a large number of people that approve of or encourage the killing. And that group is significant. It rarely falls below 20 percent in any muslim population and it can get as high as 90 percent in some countries. But it doesn't fall below 20 percent in any country. Look at the stats. I'd cite some now but people always say "oh that site is biased" even if I'm citing a Pew or Gallup poll.
So instead... YOU look it up. It is one easy google search away. It will come up on the first page and you can read it yourself. I don't like the facts of the matter anymore then anyone else. I wish things were better. I think they can be better. But the first step is acknowledging the problem. The denial makes reform impossible. Everyone denying that Islam has a problem with extremism is effectively ensuring that the extremism will continue. Stop it. Islam needs an intervention.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Remind me how many Hindus are randomly killing people in the name of their faith throughout the world... I'd love to see those statistics.
I'm not funny. You're either an idiot or a liar. Pick one.
Re: (Score:3)
The point was not to pass judgement on Christianity but rather to point out that the religion reformed where as Islam has not. It no longer acceptable in the 21st century for Islam to not reform and for its believers to mingle freely in the global culture if they view everyone else in the culture as someone they can kill at will without moral consequence.
That was my point.
Re: (Score:2)
In what way was anything I said "dumb"?
I'll note that my opinion is mirrored by the president of Egypt who is himself not only a Muslim but a leader of Muslims.
So... who here is really stupid? Me for making a substantiated argument backed up by facts and the respected opinions of leaders within the culture.
Or some asshat AC too cowardly to use even his fake name?
Exactly. You're nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, many in Islam are calling for reform.
That said... there is a time limit here. There is a clock. Every time we get another atrocity it winds a spring... and once it is fully wound there are going to be sudden reactions.
Islam needs to take this seriously and it needs to move more quickly then it is moving now. The Hindus are already through with them. The Russians and Coptics are through with them. Many portions of Africa have absolutely had it with Islam. The Chinese are increasingly losing patience wit
Are you sure it is that new ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have proto-law in the form of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". So long as that provision is not amended via Constitutional process, do you see any wiggle room there? Hemming and hawing doesn't count.
As it stands, any Federal law whatsoever abridging freedom of speech in any manner is null and void on the face of it. But this in no way restricts the laws of individual states.
Blasphemous? (Score:5, Insightful)
"blasphemous Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Mohammed"
The term "blasphemous" is itself problematic: The legal concept of blasphemy no longer exists in most democraties, where religion is not above humor and criticism.
Here it comes (Score:2)
Disregards the people completely (Score:5, Insightful)
Yesterday, in France, more than 3 millions people gathered in Paris, and in smaller cities hundreds of thousands of people gathered as well.
This is something that hasn't happened since the liberation in 1945.
Everyone is gathering to proclaim freedom of speech.
And what's the answer of the government? We're going to restrict freedom of speech...
May I remind you all (Score:2)
that the Charlie Hebdo terrorists were under surveillance by the French interior surveillance services. They were known, identified extremists and the police failed to prevent their attack.
What we're dealing with here is a police failure, not a surveillance failure.
The Charlie Hebdo events are the perfect excuse for the powers-that-be and the rich fucks of this world to inch a little closer to their wet dream of a 1984-style society for the rest of us - as if those who pay attention to the erosion of indivi
WHO GETS TO DECIDE!? (Score:2)
Terrorists: 1
European Union: 0
IDIOTS!
... not doing their job properly ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh c'mon, folks !
Them spooks are doing exactly what they are being paid to do ... to let terrorist events transpire, to shock the sheeple, to shock them so much that they will voluntarily give up their rights
And that is what is happening, in America, in UK, in Spain, and now, in France
Every single time something really terrible happen them ruling elites will play the "superman" role, to "lead", to "protect", to "save"
But who are they saving? Who are they protecting?
Fact is that sheeples never think
If they ever use their brains to think they would see that the ruling class is nothing but a bunch of lying megalomaniacs
Re:(European) left-wing = "red fascism"! (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't a problem of right or left but the problem is the politician as a whole and people who always see the things in black and white. And it is not even the problem of religion but the small minority that uses violence.
Did you know that - even if the right is abusing this drama - that Charlie Hebdo was seen as a left wing magazine that combated any form of (religious) extremism? Tell that to some right-wing nuts and their head explodes because they can compute it in their black and white world where everybody "left" is Islam loving or whatever they call it.
The world is a bit more complex then the simplistic views that a lot of sides seems to hold.
Re: (Score:2)
Which doesn't make any sense because like in a lot of religions you have different views. In Christianity you have Catholicism, Anglican, Coptic Christians,