Dutch Judge Cracks Down on Hyperlinks 441
The webzine Radikal (mirrored in Holland, because it has been banned in Germany) published several articles on disabling railroad trains (in the context of preventing shipments of nuclear materials); the German national railroad discovered it, and the fun has been going on ever since. Rejo Zenger writes "Today a dutch judge ordered Indymedia NL on the request of the Deutsche Bahn to remove some links from a page on their website. These links were pointing to the mirrors of Radikal sites. A few of these sites were containing two articles that have been forbidden in court before. The links were indirect links (surface links) instead of direct ones to the articles (deeplinks). So, none of the links was pointing to the offending articles directly! The judge "orders Indymedia immediately after receiving this sentence to remove and to keep removed the hyperlinks, which are placed on (a) website(s) under the control of Indymedia, if those hyperlinks lead directly or indirectly to the Radikal articles [...]". This is BAD. As almost all links indirectly point to the Radikal articles we can abolish the web now. The announcement, Dutch with English to follow shortly. The decision of the judge (dutch only)." Indymedia's press release (English) covers it pretty well. Update: 06/21 19:54 GMT by M : My summary in the first sentence has been corrected.
No indirect links? (Score:3, Funny)
exactly! (Score:2)
Re:exactly! (Score:2)
No need, since Google already censored themselves (Score:2)
Re:No need, since Google already censored themselv (Score:3, Funny)
No, not correct:
When trying the search for "kleiner leitfaden" (which is German for "handy guide") in Google Groups you will go to here [google.com] , then choose the third message and look at the Complete Thread. You will go to here [google.com] , than scroll up and you'll see one of the forbidden articles.
Then, try the same "kleiner leitfaden" in Google WWW. You will go to here [google.nl]. . The seventh link is pointing to here [cwru.edu] and again you will have the article in front of you.
Then, enter the title of the forbidden Indymedia site in Google WWW. The first link, try the Cache: here [google.nl]
Enough said.
not knowing much about international law (Score:2)
No weight in US (Score:2)
Re:not knowing much about international law (Score:2)
if they were to put a law through the UN or any other international body, there might be some validity to the law
Not exactly, the implementation of UN Resolutions is up to the member states. They only carry weight if the member states choose to enforce them. The UN itself has no sovereignty over anyone (thankfully). If you want two or more countries to obey the same law, your best shot is a treaty ratified amongst the countries involved, but even then, that requires the countries to honor the law they passed.
Re:Totally offtopic (Score:2)
Possession of kiddie porn.
::sighs::
Figure there would be enough real perps out there to arrest that they wouldn't have to go and start making up cases, but nooooo. Yeesh. I guess it is easier to frame a person then to actually do some case work and arrest a real crook.
ALMOST good (Score:2)
Re:ALMOST good (Score:2)
It'd be better if he'd issued the order against the Germans outside of his jurisdiction - because that would be a tacit acknowledgement that he can't do anything to stop the speech he's trying to censor; the dutch courts don't have freelance assassins to enforce their will. Instead, he's issued a boneheaded ruling that will have an actual, chilling effect on free speech. In what sense is that ALMOST good?
Re:ALMOST good (Score:2)
Like any talented dog, it can do flips. Like any talented cow, it can do precision bitmap alignment.
All I can say to that is...
moof.
-----
Apple hardware still too expensive for you? How about a raffle ticket? [macraffle.com]
Let "them" know you're not a terrorist! [cafepress.com]
dutch != deutsch (Score:3, Informative)
Re:dutch != deutsch (Score:3, Funny)
But hyperlinks, oh my they had better ban those.
Hypocrites.
Re:dutch != deutsch (Score:5, Informative)
The newsletter found a new home on a server in the Netherlands some years ago after publication in Germany was forbidden. The authors and also some "usual suspects" were facing criminal prosecution. Houses and offices were searched, etc.
Since the German jurisdiction ends at the Netherland's border nowadays, Deutsche Bahn filed civil suits in the netherlands.
Indirect Links (Score:3, Insightful)
But how many "degrees of separation" (consectuive link-jumps) are needed until the linking is permissible. Six?
Though I'm not in the Netherlands, I cannot see how this can be logical. One might be able to extend this ruling ad infinitum.
Re:Indirect Links (Score:2, Insightful)
Maran
Re:Indirect Links (Score:2)
Reap the Consequences (Score:2, Interesting)
A comment on the Indymedia NL webstite state that:
This ruling [will] have severe consequences for every person or organisation that has placed links on the Internet.
Definately, It does. Now, I wonder shouldnt Indymedia NL, or other vigilantes (wink), now take this to the very people involved? Namely Deutsche Bahn and any Websites that may exist for the Nertherlands legal system. Perhaps it can be discovered that they too, have indirect links to the banned materials? This may take some searching, and if I knew some German, I would do this myself. Of course, if anything was found as such Indymedial NL should be made aware.
So perhaps, if the very legal system or even the plantiffs can be found to be guilty of the same action Indymedia NL has been penalized for, perhaps the ruling can be showed for what it is. Inane.
Big mistake in annoucement (Score:4, Insightful)
The Radikal magazine is german, DB (Deutche Bahn) is german, but the articles where published on a Dutch site (Indymedia.nl). So please get your facts strait!
Re:-1, Overrated. (Score:2)
In their defense, the webzine is apparently hosted on a Dutch server, to escape the clutches of the German government. If it's not allowed to be published in Germany, can you still call it German? :)
what about the URL (Score:3, Insightful)
Does putting a URL without making it a link (so that it has to be cut and pasted) count as linking? It's splitting hairs, but it's just conveying info that way, not linking...
Re:what about the URL (Score:2, Funny)
Re:what about the URL (Score:2)
The hip bone's connected to the thigh bone... (Score:2)
The mirror is out of the country. Okay I can't linke to the mirror, but can I link to an underground news site that has a linke to the mirror, that has a link to the "BAD!" information!!!
Or do I have to link to a site that a 12 year old made for his little sister, that links to a wired article, that links to a slashdot page (They totally steal their news from here. P.S.- Hi wired!) , that links to a pr0n site, that links to THIS slasdot article, that links to google, that links to the Queen of Englands home page, that links to the mirror?
So move the link out. And then when re-legislated, link out again. When the laws become too impracticle to enforce they collapse.
Re:The hip bone's connected to the thigh bone... (Score:2, Interesting)
What they do with this new skill is entirely their own business, unless you've encouraged them to do that specific linking activity.
As for taking responsability, it seems to me that it's more important to imbue children with a sense of their basic rights, including freedom of expression, than to mindlessly kowtow to stupid, and ultimately unenforceable, laws.
Remember - 85% of people will obey a morally just law without any coercion. But most people won't obey stupid, or contradictory, laws. The ban against linking is stupid, unenforceable, and ill-formed. It is a direct infringement of freedom of expression, constitutionally guaranteed in both the US and Canada. Maybe Europe should get with the program.
On a side note - I taught some friends how to take down a server in less than 5 minutes - but I also impressed upon them the importance of NOT doing this. The ability to do this is like a nuclear weapon - having it doesn't mean you have to use it. Why did I do this? They didn't believe they had to be so security-conscious, and were too sloppy. Now they know better, and are more likely to secure their sites.
Press release on Indymedia (Score:2, Informative)
Indymedia NL 21.06.2002 01:55
Amsterdam, 20 june 2002
The court case, initiated by Deutsche Bahn (German Rail, DB) against
Indymedia NL, has turned out negative for the latter organisation.
Indymedia NL regrets the facts that the judge in the verdict does not
elaborate on which kinds of links are permissible and which are not. This
ruling will therefore have severe consequences for every person or
organisation that has placed links on the Internet. Due to the structure of
Internet, it is possible to reach any website on the internet, by way of
combinations of links and indirect links.
Deutsche Bahn insisted a couple of weeks ago that Indymedia NL should
remove a number of indirect links of mirrors of the website of the
periodical Radikal. Through the linked start page, numerous articles are
available, including two articles concerning ways of blocking nuclear
transports. These two articles have been ruled illegal in the Netherlands
by the same judge on April 25th 2002. Indymedia NL refused to adhere to the
demand.
In the verdict of June 20th, the judge has ordered to remove the hyperlinks
and to keep them removed, in as far as these hyperlinks lead to the Radikal
articles, either directly or indirectly and notwithstanding whether these
hyperlinks were placed by visitors. If Indymedia NL does not comply with
this order, a penal sum of 5,000 Euros per day can be imposed. The judge
ordered that, like an Internet Service Provider but just as much like the
editors of a newspaper, Indymedia NL is, in principle, responsible for the
content that has been published with its help.
The verdict is surprising, since Indymedia NL does not link directly to
illegal articles. Until now, only direct links to illegal material were
forbidden in the Netherlands. Out of this verdict however, it follows that
indirect links to illegal material are also forbidden, because Indymedia
NLs links only point to copies of the front page of the German periodical
Radikal. It takes more clicks to reach the illegal articles.
Indymedia NL considers the ruling a dramatic limitation of the
possibilities of the Internet and the freedom of speech. Indymedia NL will
probably try to appeal this decision out of principal considerations.
Sigh (Score:2, Funny)
Would the last of you to leave please lock up and make sure the internet is switched off?
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted the subject matter involved is spooky, and I really dont want anyone monkeying with any train with a nuclear payload, but still.
We're back to ANOTHER linking issue! WTF? Did the New York Times ever go down for doing the same exact thing as 2600?
The principle issue at hand is the general ignorance (about the net and how it works) of those who create, enforce, and rule on the laws.
There are a great number of people with a decent level of understanding about the internet, and sufficient common sense to know what just is a Very Bad Idea(TM). But basically none of them are in lawmaking bodies around the world. They aren't greatly organized, they don't have a powerful lobby, they don't pack the monsterous cash warchests that the corps have. So what happens?
You get:
1)Trigger situation - someone does something somewhere related to computers or the net that some other body disapproves of, legal or otherwise.
2)Very Bad Law - disapproving body (often big corp) goes after (paid for or otherwise) new law that is so over the top that it looks completely loony to anyone who understands the technologies involved.
3)Uproar - you and I and everyone else wets themself laughing then realizes that there could be very bad consequences.
4)Sacrifical Lamb - some poor bastard (usually the poor soul from item 1) is hung out to dry while courts and lawmakers argue point they likely don't understand, insert paid experts from all sides. And lawyers, lots of lawyers.
5)Bad Law - eventually everything settles down and Very Bad Law goes away, but Bad Law is put in its place. Compromise isn't always a good thing.
Most Bad Laws regarding technology that we have now are actually the sons of Very Bad Laws.
Works the other way, too (Score:2)
And most Very Bad Laws are the sons of multiple Bad Laws that weren't objected to strongly enough the first time.
The problem is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Whats really sad.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Forget Dirty Bombs, I Choo-Choo-Choose U (Score:2)
Forget making dirty bombs.
Train hauling nuclear material I Choo-Choo-Choose You.
Things like this will continually push Government and Law Enforcement in favor of a "less fair" approach.
If only history supported your hypothesis. Govts. seem to be in a war against their people. Honesty and political transparency is considered a Bad Thing by those in power. Deals are cut, money changes hands under the table and taxpayers are ripped off and / or killed. You can find thousands of examples all over the place. Govts. only fall under continual pressure.
Writing letters to your local MP is *not* pressure. Your political representatives are not representative. The sheer fact that they are aligned to a political party discounts them from even being considered as representative.
Which of your politicians has the political clout to stand up against this kind of transportation of nuclear waste?
Their party loyalty is stronger than their integrity, never forget that, ever!
Re:Whats really sad.... (Score:2)
After that demonstration was carried out, it turned out that the mounting bolts holding the train's engine had been deliberately weakened. This meant that a large amount of the impact energy went into throwing the engine out of the train and up into the air rather than smashing open the container. Obviously, this doesn't prove the containers are weak, but it does mean that the demonstration proves very little.
What's even more interesting is that the Discovery Channel continues to use this footage after it has been discredited.
Doesn't make much sense (Score:2)
Or is the owner of the site being linked to complaining about links (the old "You can't see my ads crap")
The latter case is simply stupidity and can be ignored. The first case is scarier since it flies in the face of free speech. Of course I'm no expert on European laws but isn't there a way to fight that?
Re:Doesn't make much sense.. it does.. (Score:2, Informative)
Altogether.. this isn't a final verdict, it's a so-called 'short thinggy'
Paul
whew (Score:5, Insightful)
Once again, let's review what the web is for:
bomb recipees: OK
nude teens: OK
KKK and Nazi sites: OK
anything that interrupts wealthy corporations making money: Forbidden
Monkey knife fights: OK, as long as you aren't fighting the Railroad's monkey
Well of course. (Score:2, Troll)
Well duh, the world's new government is capitalism so of course each individual country is going to try its best to foster an environment best suited for corporations to make money. This is how you increase the standard of living for each citizen under this system and until something better comes along we can all expect money making institutions to get many more protective laws.
Re:Well of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, this is how you increase a small number of people's standard of living astronomically, and others, questionably if at all. Average standard of living is not the only measure, there is also mode and standard deviation. We can give the wealth of the world to one person and our "average" standard of living will be the same. But this will be far from optimal.
Re:What is wrong with corporations making money? (Score:2)
No matter how many geeks you get saying "OS/2 is better, don't buy Micro$oft" nobody is going to listen, because the vast majority of consumers are "Dwaaaaaaain, looktch at what aye got ye down s'perstore, shimmy here power on button." and if linux tries to appeal to these yokels we'll have nothing to laugh at.
Oh oh oh, they forgot the good part! (Score:5, Interesting)
Get the goodies [here] [altavista.com]
(babelfished)
There reasoning seems to be that it is illigal for google to have a 'cached' version of the page, since the page was ordered changed (the removing of the hyperlinks).
Interesting ramification... (Score:2)
Wow, the judge really screwed this one up...
What about you guys? (Score:2, Redundant)
So Dutch National Railroad, let's see you do something about this [xs4all.nl].
[Heh - there's nothing so brave as using someone else's liability to make a political statement.]
Better ban libraries (Score:2)
Some more background (Score:5, Informative)
It starts way back in 1997 when the German magazine places some of their issues online at a dutch ISP (XS4ALL). In these issues they describe how to derail german trains.
A German Court rules that these documents are illegal and these publications are illegal in Germany. German ISP are orderded to block the URL to XS4ALL. Because blocking something on the internet is virtually impossible these blocks were lifted because a lot of people started to publish mirrors of these documents.
Back to April this year
The German Railroads suddenly notice that these documents are still online and available and through a (dutch) court order forces XS4ALL to take these pages down.
XS4ALL is applealing this decision and they are still in court (you can check the XS4ALL pages at http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/overzicht/radikal.htm
At the same time Indymedia plublishes a list with mirrors where these documents can be found
and that is now illegal to. They want to appleal, but as always
I hope this helps.
Rigolo
Not so black and white (Score:5, Insightful)
The ruling states that, although the links themselves were indirect, they were accompanied by detailed instructions on how to locate the pages in question. It was this combination which the judge ruled illegal, not the actual link per se.
This aspect should go down well with the Code=Speech crowd: source code (in this case a direct link) is essentially the same as a description/poem/diagram describing same.
Ahhhh, but you're forgetting something... (Score:2)
Yes, you're right. The judge is showing that the code and the hyperlinks are a expression of the intent of the person writing. THAT SHOULD BODE WELL WITH MOST GEEKS.
But, you see, most geeks (IMHO) are radicals in their mind and want to see their world altered in their own image instead of really wanting people to act individually as they wish.
You raise a good point, but when you come down to it, you are going against their anarchist roots with such a statement. They secretly want the world to be the geek universe, where their minds are paramount, and all else is trivial. Too bad the world would rebel against them just in the same way they did against Hitler when his ideas were applied en masse.
Not to say that I don't agree with some of the geek ideals, some are really appealing, but I would rather let the world protest and then weed out what the world wants to see, instead of trying to stop railways with lethal effect.
Unfortunately, all of life is a struggle to get what you want out of the herd at the expense of the herd for yourself. That is, until you realize that THERE IS NO HERD BUT PEOPLE... PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE HAPPY AND PURSUE THEIR DREAMS AND IDEAS. Most of the geeks I know are so dejected by their mental differences between others that they see most strangers as idiots, dangerous, or worse yet some kind of meat puppet useful only to the geeks personal end.
Re:Not so black and white (Score:4, Insightful)
So text like:
would also be considered illegal? (As opposed to linking like this [google.com]; and, of course, assuming such search terms led to the desired page.)
How about:
Indirect links banned because... (Score:5, Interesting)
For instance, suppose linking directly to document A is banned. Then the hosting site could simply create a page with a "wink wink" link to document A, and the site against which the injunction is placed could link the the page with the "wink wink" link, with identical intent as with a direct link.
In other words, it's perfectly reasonable for a ban to also include indirect links OF WHATEVER LENGTH (arbitrary numbers of pages of "Are you sure? Are you really sure? etc") so long as intent is clear (e.g. putting up silly links to Disney on each of the "are you sure" pages should not absolve them). One can even make a case for neglect if the linker should have known better according to a reasonable-person standard.
Of course, even if the ruling notes this justification -- I don't read Dutch, and I'm leery of trusting a web translator on legalese -- Indymedia isn't exactly an independent with regards to their own case, and probably wouldn't mention this.
Wrong conclusions (Score:2, Insightful)
Banning direct links obviously doesn't work, which is why you say it's "reasonable" to also ban indirect links of any length. So option 2 is obviously out. That leaves us with:
There are many examples, papers, discussions etc on how most web pages are indirectly linked to another. Following your own logical progression, it would therefore be "perfectly reasonable" for a ban to include the entire web. Obviously that would be silly. Which leaves us with the remaining option:
It's as simple as that. This is why law is in general really twisted and complicated - it gets far too wide reaching otherwise. Sounds to me like this judge hasn't quite grasped the consequences that result from this. Or the logic, for that matter. IANAL, blah.
Re:Wrong conclusions (Score:2)
Re:Wrong conclusions (Score:2)
Re:Wrong conclusions (Score:2)
Re:Indirect links banned because... (Score:2)
Look at the verdict! (Score:5, Informative)
the terrorists have already won... (Score:2, Funny)
... oh... wait....
Free speech or intent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Free speech or intent? (Score:3, Insightful)
>their president's plane from terrorists.
that's the difference..
we can't play soccer, we can't smoke pot, but damnit, we DO know how to keep secrets.
and if some kind of secret did get out, we'd route around it, not depend upon draconion "people are stupid except for the communist/socialist leaders.. who are smarter than the peasants".
this judge is a moron.. the train people should fix their problems... whatever it is.
Demonstrate the stupidity (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's make the web site "disappear" (Score:2)
Train train (Score:4, Interesting)
___
Re:Train train (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want to derail a train, it isn't as easy as moving the train track. Train rails are mildly electrified so that a break in the rail will signal an alarm telling the trains in the area to stop. The signals sent down the rails can also tell if something metalic is on the tracks (completing an electric circut).
The censored article doesn't tell you how to derail trains. It tells you how to make the trains stop by falsely triggering these alarms (among other things).
Re:Train train (Score:2)
What's that, Toronto is in Canada? What, the Toronto Blue Jays won the World Series in 1992 AND in 1993? Man, what is the world coming to?
Hmm, World Cup - that's hockey, right? Damn Canadians have a lock on that too. Oh wait, you say that's the STANLEY Cup? Hmm, so what's the world cup again? Never mind, I'll just go watch some football.
Re:Train train (Score:2)
It would be kind of unfair to exclude all those people clustered so close to the northern US border, just because they're a few miles on the wrong side of the border!
Why information should be out (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me explain:
There's also a lot of people who claim guns should be illegal; I beg to differ (and this is an easier analogy).
Criminals will get guns regardless of whether they're legal or not. Most criminals don't even get guns legitimately; they're usually stolen from gun shops, other people, or bought from gun shows, where they don't have to follow the 7-day laws. Either way, they're acquired through the black market. Criminals (or at least intelligent criminals) don't just go out and buy assault rifles, because they know they can be traced.
If guns were criminalized, all it'll do is prevent legitimate owners from purchasing them for self defense. Now our problem is the personality of this country (the states) where crime runs rampant, the punishment doesn't make sense (I'd get more time for trafficking weed than killing someone), so people don't really have a reason to act responsibly.
In effect, if someone really wants to derail a train, they -will- find out; however, people who know should show enough responsibility to not tell everybody, as it can easily become some twisted game for a bunch of teenagers. As they've obviously shown, they don't have that responsibility, and of course, the government wants to punish them.
What it comes down to is we need to reevaluate our moral responsibilites, and keep the government out of it...
I dunno, I think I'm just rambling now, but it sense (to me) at one point....
Do the Dutch and Germans have free speech? (Score:2)
My other bit of advice would be to find the dumbass who think's it's a cool idea to derail trains carrying NUCLEAR MATERIAL and explain to him why having a freightcar load of NUCLEAR MATERIAL spilling onto the ground might not be a good idea.
The biggest problem (and greatest benefit) with free speech is that everyone gets it. Even dumbasses who want to dump a bunch of radioactive crap on the ground. Anybody who would even consider doing something like this has got to have fecal material in their cranium.
Re:Do the Dutch and Germans have free speech? (Score:2)
Aynway, the horse has clearly bolted, shutting down the whole damn internet won't put it back in the stable. Anyone who wants this information probably has it by now, the judge has only made things worse by drawing attention to it in this way.
Here we go again... (Score:2)
We're back to ANOTHER linking issue! WTF? Did the New York Times ever go down for doing the same exact thing as 2600?
The principle issue at hand is the general ignorance (about the net and how it works) of those who create, enforce, and rule on the laws.
There are a great number of people with a decent level of understanding about the internet, and sufficient common sense to know what just is a Very Bad Idea(TM). But basically none of them are in lawmaking bodies around the world. They aren't greatly organized, they don't have a powerful lobby, they don't pack the monsterous cash warchests that the corps have. So what happens?
You get:
1)Trigger situation - someone does something somewhere related to computers or the net that some other body disapproves of, legal or otherwise.
2)Very Bad Law - disapproving body (often big corp) goes after (paid for or otherwise) new law that is so over the top that it looks completely loony to anyone who understands the technologies involved.
3)Uproar - you and I and everyone else wets themself laughing then realizes that there could be very bad consequences.
4)Sacrifical Lamb - some poor bastard (usually the poor soul from item 1) is hung out to dry while courts and lawmakers argue point they likely don't understand, insert paid experts from all sides. And lawyers, lots of lawyers.
5)Bad Law - eventually everything settles down and Very Bad Law goes away, but Bad Law is put in its place. Compromise isn't always a good thing.
Most Bad Laws regarding technology that we have now are actually the sons of Very Bad Laws.
Slashdot's hesitance (Score:3, Interesting)
(Let alone deep linkin)
It's not hard... (Score:2, Interesting)
Solution! (Score:2, Funny)
How do you know that they broke it? Well simple, who ever sues you MUST have broken the encryption in order to know what was in the file!
\!_!/
netherlands, dutch, germany, deutsch mixup.. (Score:2, Insightful)
People from the Netherlands (Nederland) are dutch (nederlands). (The word 'Holland' is ufed to refer to the western part is the Netherlands.)
People in Germany (Deutschland) are german (deutsch).
Radical is a german bulletin which was posted on www.xs4all.nl. The atricles in question were on disrupting the german railways. The 'Deutsche Bahn' (in germany, not dutch) found the articles on the dutch server and asked xs4all to remove the articles.
Xs4all is really cool. It was started about 10 (more or less) years ago by a few hackers who wanted legal and cheap access to the internet for all.
Anyway. The german railroads asked the dutch to take off the Radical site.
I hope it helps to understand the article.
I don't get it (Score:2)
This story is fake! (Score:2)
As every Slashdot reader outside of the United States will tell you, the United States is the only nation in the world that restricts freedom of speech. Prominent Linux kernel hackers are boycotting the US but not Holland. Microsoft, RIAA and MPAA are in the US, not in Holland. So this story can't be real because it's set in Holland.
I totally agree! (Score:2, Insightful)
this does not bode well for security (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, should such content be published and widely accessible? If the article is bogus and does not describe a real threat, it doesn't matter. Now, let's say that the article described techniques that actually work. It was published, what, five years ago? If it still poses a threat, we have to conclude that this kind of transport just cannot be made safe, in which case it shouldn't be carried out. If a bunch of adolescents can describe this in a low-quality rag, real terrorists can certainly figure it out as well. Whichever way you look at it, the article should not pose a threat to actual nuclear transport or rail travel.
This just goes to show again that security through obscurity is as stupid when it comes to physical security as when it comes to computer security. Sadly, much of our government spooks are living by that principle, and we all pay the price, both in loss of civil liberties and loss of life.
Re:Defending the common criminal (Score:4, Interesting)
1) The linked to articals where about derailing Nuclea Waste Trains, not passenger trains
2) Would you rather have ppl discusing how to do this with out killing any one, or just let the carnage begin
3) The links where to the main page of the site, not the artical. So this now means that in the Netherlands you can not link to anywhere that may link to these articals. I hope Google.nl is watching
Re:Defending the common criminal (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Defending the common criminal (Score:2)
The thing is though; if we let juges get away with banning links in this case what will happen next. Will I suddenly find that I'm not allowd to link to an anti Microsoft site, because they use this case as a president on banning linking and combine it with some week law on defomation.
Its time we reminded the rulers that they rule at our sufference and don't rule to make us suffer.
Re:Defending the common criminal (Score:2)
Re:Defending the common criminal (Score:2)
And, of course, the techniques are totally different.
Re:Defending the common criminal (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is, free speech has to be protected in all but the most extreme of cases..or not at all.
Your chain of thought that I mentioned above is a great example as to why. Do we regulate all speech that could have harmful effects for others? Or does somebody have to choose which type of ill-effects are regulated and which are not? After all cooking meth can certainly lead to some fantastic explosions, which could set your neighbors house on fire. That has ill effects.. just like selling meth does. Why shouldn't that be regulated?
And driving fast can lead to crashes.. so should any speech about how to make your car go faster be banned as well?
Even this case has an interesting free speech question. After all, the dutch magazine was using its speech about derailing trains for a "good cause" as it was dealing with the shipment of nuclear materials. Why shouldn't this be protected?
The fact is, speech is incredibly difficult to regulate and to pick and choose what can and can't be regulated is very difficult. THis is why our courts in the US have always been so reluctant to limit speech in all but the most prudent of ways (the whole yelling "Fire!" in a crowded place is one example).
Re:Defending the common criminal (Score:4, Insightful)
In the United States of America Free Speech IS a RIGHT... check out the constitution.
Re:Defending the common criminal (Score:2)
What is this constitution of which you speak? I thought Ashcroft had it banned and all copies burned as terrorist propaganda.
But the *ARE* exceptions... (Score:2, Insightful)
While it IS a right, it is NOT an unlimited right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, etc. Whether you like or not, there ARE limits.
The real question is: does this go past the limits?
Re:Defending the common criminal (Score:2)
Free speech is a right everywhere, part of every human being's birthright. It's not granted by the Constitution, just recognized, and it can't be revoked by any government.
What many people seem to forget is that even a God-given right doesn't absolve you of the consequences of your actions. You can exersize your free speech by lying under oath, but you're still guilty of perjury. You can falsely yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre, but if you try it should expect to end up in jail. There are also laws against making threats, libel, slander, incitement to riot, harassment, etc. You may also agree to voluntarily limit your own speech in return for certain kinds of employment or to gain access to sensitive information, maybe by taking an oath or signing a contract.
For any society to function there have to be some rules of interaction. Sometimes that includes limiting access to information that is a threat to society. Obviously the hard part is deciding what is truly a threat, and what limitations are justified. To argue that all such limits are equally bad is unrealistic.
Free speech: check your case law (and AUP's) (Score:2)
For a meaningful comparison of speech which in the US has been ruled as not protected consider the case of anti-abortion activists:
These people were found guilty of accessory to murder, creating the web pages in question for the explicit purpose of directing 'activists' to murder targets. This use of speech is not protected (apprpriately imho) under the constitution.It is also imho fallacious to say that "Anyone else can link / post / whatever this material, why are these organizations [radikal / indimedia] being prosecuted?"
In fact intent matters in many (probably most) legal proceedings. If these self-appointed protectors of my safety choose to act as accessories to violent acts then they risk having problems with the authorities.
Additionally, most network providers Acceptable Use Policies ban the placement / transmission of illegal material. The systems for isolating ISP's who do not subscribe to a minimal set of AUP standards are not as good as I would like to see them, but at least there is some internet policing / agreement on spam and crackers / script kiddies.
Unfortunately there are no simple tech solitions for this set of societal issues. That means that these things will sometimes be settled by the courts.
Re:Defending the common criminal (Score:2)
BTW, the Supreme Court decided that rendered child porn, where no actual children are involved is, while not neccesarily protected, is not automatically NOT protected. In fact, the only things on your list that are currently, actually, illegal are the first 2.
Re:Defending the common criminal (Score:2)
I don't know what crack you are smoking but child pornography does cause harm to individuals, namely psychological and physical harm to the child victims. Child pornography is illegal for a reason and that is to protect children from that kind of harm.
Re:Defending the common criminal (Score:2)
Re:Defending the common criminal (Score:2)
I especially liked the "free speech is privilage not a right" bit - brilliant.
-- this is not a
Re:Defending the common criminal (Score:2)
If you want to find out how to derail trains. Go to the *library*.
Gonna put me in jail now huh? I've linked to a place where this information is avilable...
Make KDE illegal, long live Gnome, so ruled a Dutch Judge this morning. Nobody has the authority to judge what is right and what is wrong. A lawyer argues about how to legally commit murder (take him to Somalia, do it there, then come back to the US no crime committed, fine by a US lawyer). Maybe that's why more lawyers commit suicide than anybody else? If you go to the conservative American heartland, if you have some marijuana in your hand they'll treat you like you're binLaden himself. Everybody has different judgement criteria.
Nested is probably unimportant (Score:2)
IANAL, but this makes most sense to me.
Re:Normally... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy to be for free speech, if you like the someone else is saying. It's requires some courage to support free speech that you disagree with.
Re:Normally... (Score:2)
Re:Normally... (Score:4, Insightful)
The phrase you need here is: "clear and present danger". It's the phrase the Supreme Court of the United States came up with to describe one of only a couple of limits on 'free speech'. The other would, of course, be slander. Slander is obviously irrelevant to this discussion, so let's briefly look at the first idea. Clear and present danger describes a situation where your speech directly causes an atmosphere of immediate harm to others. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre directly changes the environment from a safe, friendly atmosphere to a chaotic rush in which virtually everyone in the theatre could be injured or killed. The same situation exists for a person who declares they have a bomb on a bus or plane. Such speech can cause panic within the cabin, or perhaps cause the plane or bus to crash, possibly killing everyone on board.
If I had a website that said it's funny to yell 'bomb' while on a bus, or to yell 'fire' in a theatre, it's very doubtful the site would ever run into any trouble with the law. Why? Because there's no clear and present danger stemming from the existance of that site. If someone read my website, and then made the decision to go yell 'fire' in a theatre, they would be arrested, as their words caused the danger, not mine. This website is abouta bit more serious situation, yet the principle remains the same. If the website's existance caused people to be injured or to die directly and immediately, I would say it's illegal and needs to go. However, to this day, I do not believe I have ever heard of a "website-related death". If you wanted to make such a case, try going after the people who make spam ads that flash alot, and make the case of possible harm to epileptics. THAT would be an example of a website fitting the 'clear and present danger' formula; the website itself causes a situation where injury or death is likely. 100,000 people can view a website about de-railing trains and go "hmm, that's interesting" with no direct or indirect consequences. The website is not your problem, the guy de-railing the train is the problem. The person who reads the website and then commits the illegal act is the problem, not the knowledge itself. Lots of people have the knowledge to de-rail a train, yet the vast majority choose not to. Why? They know it's wrong to do so.
Re:Normally... (Score:2)
I hate people who claim to be American, but obviously can't stand Americans. As Voltaire's Social Secretary said (roughly),
"I may not agree with what you say sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Now THAT is a true American, who never was in America (he died 1778)
There's another great quote worth repeating here:
"Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities."
Re:Normally... (Score:2, Interesting)
As far as I recall, nothing has been done to stifle Ashcroft's right to speak freely. On the other hand, his words have been used against him by others exercising their rights to free speech, and rightfully so. He's an ardent "South sympathizer" regarding the civil war, because he's such a big fan of states' rights. Yet he has consistently stood against states' rights whenever he disagrees with the decisions the states make. Case in point; the Oregon assisted suicide [backoffjohn.com] measures, and medical marijuana in California [marijuana.org]. He's gone as far as to support efforts on the part of Bob Barr to invoke the "Supremacy Clause" of the constitution, over-ruling all states' rights (on matters he disagrees with, of course). He has subverted free speech by completely over-riding efforts on the part of Washington D.C. citizens to put forth medical marijuana initiatives on the ballot. In short, he's the worst kind of hypocrite, in the worst position to abuse his power by way of his utter disregard for the will of the people.
He's completely opposed to all legalization, even more medical purposes, yet blindly supports the tobacco industry. In short, he's a hypocrite who supports states' rights when it comes to the "right" to subjugate an entire class of people, but not when it comes to the decision to allow people to smoke the most effective anti-nausea, anti-wasting medicine known to man. I don't think the ACLU has done anything to stifle his right to make a complete buffoon of himself.
Indymedia (Score:2)
Re:Big picture?! (Score:2, Funny)
Yeh, curse the Royal Air Force and their destructive ways. Why can't they just drop flowers from their aerial death machines.