Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government Your Rights Online Politics

Kremlin Seeks to Control Online Media 220

Posted by Zonk from the oh-i'm-sure-there-will-be-no-jokes-with-this-one dept.
reporter writes "According to a disturbing report just published by Bloomberg, 'As the Kremlin gears up for the election of Putin's successor next March, Soviet-style controls are being extended to online news after a presidential decree last month set up a new agency to supervise both mass media and the Web.' However, unless the Kremlin pursues Chinese-style/Turkish-style blocking of the Internet-Protocol addresses of web sites like 'The Economist', even the Kremlin cannot control the online media. If Putin pulled the plug on an anti-Putin web site inside Russia, the anti-Putin web site could simply be migrated offshore to a server in, say, the United States."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kremlin Seeks to Control Online Media More

Kremlin Seeks to Control Online Media

Comments Filter:
  • it takes a dictator to get anything done. Peter the Great, Stalin, and now Putin are part of a Russian tradition of autocracy.

    • Re:Like always in Russia (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Patrick Mannion ( 782290 ) <patrick,mannion&gmail,com> on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @08:13PM (#18684365) Homepage Journal
      Well this is what happens when your President was once a KGB chief.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by happyemoticon ( 543015 )
        You know, Bush Sr. used to be the head of the CIA.
        • Since when is drawing parallels on slashdot offtopic? The article brings up the United States, which just nixed habeous corpus . . . also Soviet style.

          • Re:Like always in Russia (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Shihar ( 153932 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @09:37PM (#18684871)
            "Soviet style" is when you round up a few million people without trial and make them slaves in work camps in some place very cold and do this such that the vast majority of them die before there 'term' (if they even got one) is up.

            Take a fucking breather people. There are a lot of things to bitch about when it comes to the US and its direction. That said, the extreme hyperbole where you compare the Soviet Union justice system to the US makes you sound like an idiot not worth listening to.

            I am not happy with the direction that the US is headed in many regards, but people need to screw their heads back on and get some perspective. The US is not Soviet Russia. Hell, it isn't even close to the Russian Federation or China. The US is still very much a liberal place to live, and in many regards far more liberal in some areas then Europe. The US has a long way to fall before it reaches the level of Russian Federation (much less the Soviet Union).

            • Re:Like always in Russia (Score:5, Insightful)

              by AaronLawrence ( 600990 ) * on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @10:18PM (#18685083)
              Slaves in work camps? You're thinking of Stalin times, 1930's to 50's. After Stalin died things got a LOT better - there were no mass killings for one.
              I don't think the US realises how radically the USSR changed during the time it existed. It was messy and dangerous but somewhat functional under Lenin; brutal under Stalin; Kruschev denounced Stalin and changed direction radically; then it gradually relaxed until there was not the heart to continue forcing it to exist.
              Discussing the Soviet Union as if it has always been that same entity from WW2 is pointless.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by vandan ( 151516 )
                My GOD! Someone who actually has a clue for once. You won't last long around here ...

              • Re:Like always in Russia (Score:5, Insightful)

                by bendodge ( 998616 ) <bendodge@@@bsgprogrammers...com> on Wednesday April 11, 2007 @12:10AM (#18685537) Homepage Journal
                In fact, Kruschev changed directions so radically that he built the Berlin Wall and had would-be crossers shot!

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by arivanov ( 12034 )
                  Well...

                  Frankly that makes a welcome change from having a notebook with 30+ thousand names of public officials, scientists, writers, etc and notes against their names in which order they should be killed. In the rare cases when Hrushev wanted someone shot that person was shot on the spot and it was not meticulously planned for years in advance. The way Beria was removed is a good example.

                  That makes another welcome change from taking the passports of all rural population and effectively making them again a pr

                  • No one with any familiarity of Soviet history would claim that Khruschev was a monster on a par with Stalin, however he was not the great reformer that some people seem to think. Regular show trials and mass killings certainly ended with Stalin, but the criminal laws were not revised and remained open to abuse. Giving internal passports to people didn't make it easier to move around. The passport had to be carried - failure to do so resulted in immediate arrest - and simply by checking peoples papers their

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by andreyw ( 798182 )
                  GDR != Soviet Union
              • There were mass killings under (and directly ordered by) Lenin - ever heard of Red Terror, and in particular, the practice of mass-hostage taking of people from "hostile classes" (e.g. university students & professors)? The beginnings of Gulag also saw the day in Lenin's time. It was not dismantled immediately after Stalin's death either - the conditions slowly grew better, but it was only in 1960 when the camps were officially shut down. Not before an alternative [wikipedia.org] was brought forth to deal with politica

                • The Gulag de facto existed from Tzarist times [wikipedia.org]. Try reading Dostoyevsky.

                  The Soviet regime was brutal by Western standards, but by Russian standards, it was business as usual. Let's not forget Nicolas II's regime gunned down [wikipedia.org] a group of unarmed protestors.

                  • The Gulag de facto existed from Tzarist times. Try reading Dostoyevsky.

                    Of course I know about katorga, and, while harsh, it was nowhere close to what labour camps became under Stalin. Just compare the death rate figures.

                    Let's not forget Nicolas II's regime gunned Let's not forget Nicolas II's regime gunned down a group of unarmed protestors.down a group of unarmed protestors.

                    Yet again, it's all about proportions. Yes, there was political repression in the Russian Empire, with secret police, occasional tor

                • Sure - I didn't say there were no killings under Lenin. I said AFTER Stalin. However things under Lenin were nowhere near as bad as they got under Stalin.

                  Anyway, either way it's clear that the USSR changed radically over time, and the prevailing US view of this monolith Stalinist state from beginning to end is silly and dangerous. It's particularly unhelpful now when Russia is changing further, in new territory again.

                • Indeed there were mass killings under Lenin's rule, and he is on record as approving of them. Trotksy, still a poster boy for old school lefties because he fell out with Stalin, was the main implementor of Lenin's Red Terror. Also notable was Dzerzhinsky, the founder of the Cheka - a man so fixated with oppressing perceived enenmies of the revolution that he worked himself to death.

                  You're also correct that the Gulags continued after the death of Stalin. Despite Khruschev's denunciation of Stalin's crimes,

            • Re:Like always in Russia (Score:4, Insightful)

              by bytesex ( 112972 ) on Wednesday April 11, 2007 @12:03AM (#18685501) Homepage
              It's called 'proportional judgement' and it's applied all the time: in Saudi you're not allowed to bring in a bible - should 'christian countries' disallow a quran ? Of course not. 'We' are expected to be 'better' than that. Palestinians kill people and Israelis kill people, yet we judge Israelis more harshly for it. We expect them to 'better', 'apply higher standards', 'be more careful'. The Russians implement laws that limit freedom and so does the US - not in the same way, and yet they're being compared. Why is that ? Because we expect the US to be 'better', 'more protected', 'less easily brought astray'. Anyone who has ever been in a debate must have encountered proportional judgement at some point. Haven't you ?
              • If it wasn't for the fact that it's generally leftists and liberals - the promoters of equality - who express those sentiments, you'd almost come to the conclusion that they consider Blacks, Arabs, East Europeans etc to be somehow inferior. If not, what reason is there to accept and expect lower standards from them?

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by bytesex ( 112972 )
                  Not inferior, just at the moment incapable (without questioning the reasons why). The point is; you don't apply standards to them - I think Iraq showed that; you're just not in their shoes and 'nationbuilding' clearly doesn't work. But you're not willing to lower your own standards either. Take, for example, Saudi Arabia. They portray themselves as a 'Muslim country' - no bibles allowed. Do we reciprocate and say: 'no qurans allowed' ? No, we don't. It would fly in the face of freedom of religion. B

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by init100 ( 915886 )

              The US is not Soviet Russia.

              Of course it isn't. This time, it's called Soviet America.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Shihar ( 153932 )
                OMFG, Google is trying to keep us from hearing about what THE MAN is doing? Quick, give me that link to that web site. In fact, while you are at it, lets quickly post about this crime in as many large news sites as possible.

                *cough*PR stunt*cough*

                Google doesn't give a shit. Google will index your nazi-prego-porn, anarchist revolution site, and your Google Sucks page. Far more likely is that they got delisted for good reasons, realize that this just scream conspiracy and publicity, and are dragging their
        • Good point. Honestly, though, I have a lot more respect for Bush Sr. than I do for Bush Jr. Maybe if Sr. had gotten two terms my opinion would be different, but Bush Sr. wasn't all that bad of a President, better IMO than his predecessor(Reagan) or successor (Clinton).

          • I agree. Bush Sr. was probably the least interventionist president we've had in twenty years, and when he did, he did it mostly right (except for violating Islamic holy sites). Clinton engaged in a lot of reckless and ultimately pointless bombing of sovereign states. Ronald Reagan... well, don't get me started with that guy.

            While I think I was feeling anti-George*Bush* when I posted that, I deliberately kept it to just observation. Hell, maybe if the current Bush had served as head of the CIA, he (and the

            • Bush Sr. was probably the least interventionist president we've had in twenty years
              The laughable thing is that at the start of Bush Jr's presidency, there was a lot of talk about it being ultra-isolationalist. No, seriously...

    • Re:Like always in Russia (Score:4, Insightful)

      by some damn guy ( 564195 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @09:12PM (#18684733)
      He is not an autocrat. George Bush looked into his eyes and he saw it for himself, a method far more powerful and revealing than any mere logical argument.

      Plus if this were true, would we have spent six years pissing off the entire world chasing two-bit terrorists while the government of the nation with the worlds most dangerous nuclear arsenal consolidated power and grew ever more despotic, violent and belligerent?

      So do be silly, Russia is a de-mocracy now, that means the problem is solved, friend.
    • So the Russians keep saying. "We need a strong leader". No, you need a MORAL leader first.
      Please Russians, stand up and vote this kind of stuff down, we don't want to see you fall back into another totalitarian disaster.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dryeo ( 100693 )
      This is what most people forget. Russia invented the secret police (long before the Soviet Union) and have a great tradition of doing this sort of stuff.

  • Finally..... (Score:3, Funny)

    by edwardpickman ( 965122 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @08:16PM (#18684389)
    the Russians are doing something Bush can get behind and support.
    • Well, Bush did claim to have seen into his soul and liked what he saw. It's our fault for taking his statement optimistically...

  • Thats what happens when you let mafia run (Score:4, Insightful)

    by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @08:17PM (#18684399) Homepage Journal
    a country.

    sooner or later mobsters will show their true face and "weed out" competition.

    pity on any fools who think russia is a western, modern nation.
    • More like when your president is a former head of KGB.
      • was it too different when yeltsin was around ?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rewinn ( 647614 )

        >More like when your president is a former head of KGB.

        Former? Hmmmm....

        Just because the secret police says it isn't around anymore, doesn't mean the secret police isn't around anymore. Although, in the case of Russia, it may have been privatized.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ScrewMaster ( 602015 )
      Of course Russia is a modern Western nation, modeled directly upon the United Sta ... oh wait. I forgot. We're not so modern anymore.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jerf ( 17166 )
        Yes. The carnage since the Bush Administration began murdering all of its loudest critics has simply devastated the academic and journalistic communities. Why, there's hardly anybody left alive at NPR, and Berkeley is a ghost town! And San Francisco might as well have been hit by a nuke for all the depopulation that has occurred.

        (Moral equivalence can be taken too far. Don't be so blinded by local demagogues that you allow them to mask true evil happening elsewhere. You end up making bad valuations.)

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by loftwyr ( 36717 )
      In capitalist America, media controls government!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by daigu ( 111684 )
      You mean western, modern nations are not run by the mafia? "The mafia is a kind of organized crime being active not only in several illegal fields, but also tending to exercise sovereignty functions - normally belonging to public authorities - over a specific territory..." Seems to me the key difference is whether the people running things are in public view or not - and even in western, modern nations the people running things are rarely those in public view.

      • You mean western, modern nations are not run by the mafia? "The mafia is a kind of organized crime being active not only in several illegal fields, but also tending to exercise sovereignty functions - normally belonging to public authorities - over a specific territory..." Seems to me the key difference is whether the people running things are in public view or not - and even in western, modern nations the people running things are rarely those in public view.

        Well, the major difference is that in the U.S.,

        • Why work against the government, when for a few million bucks, you can make it work for you?

          Uh, Dr. Evil, one million dollars isn't what it used to be . . .

      • The "mafia" is just the free market answer to national governments. Whether it's called "organized crime" or "public service" depends mostly on the number of customers paying for protection.

  • Russian internet brigades (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @08:20PM (#18684417)
    Maybe the Russian administration can't control the online media, but that sure doesn't stop them from trying.

    I suspect their government-sponsored trolls are also active on Wikipedia, where, besides pushing Russian propaganda, they try to suppress any mention of this phenomenon. Recently, an article on this subject (titled "Internet trolls squads") was voted into deletion, and now the resurrected article (titled "Internet brigades") has again been nominated for deletion by a number of persistent Russian editors.

    Read more about the phenomenon here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_brigades [wikipedia.org]

    See the discussion on deleting that article here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_fo r_deletion/Internet_brigades_(2nd_nomination) [wikipedia.org]
    • So they are less elegant than our own Psyops. But I'm fairly sure every Government has a information control program of one sort or another.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by maxume ( 22995 )
        Any entity composed of more than zero people has an information control program of one sort or another.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by nuzak ( 959558 )
      Oh gosh, an asinine pure-POV soapboxing article was deleted from wikipedia, yes it must be a conspiracy. Oh wait, it's still there and someone dared suggest it be deleted. God damned russkies, can't trust 'em.

      I normally make it a point to not complain about the moderation system here, but who the fuck moderates this kookery up?

  • It's Okay (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Guuge ( 719028 )
    Bush declared that Putin has a good soul, so there's obviously nothing to be worried about.

  • Relax, Putin's got a beautiful soul (Score:5, Insightful)

    by straponego ( 521991 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @08:23PM (#18684435)
    You can trust Putin, just as you trust his kindred spirit-- his soul-mate-- our own dear leader. I don't see why you're all so cynical.

    "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue... I was able to get a sense of his soul... He's a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship," Mr Bush said.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1392791.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) ( 613870 )
      Ah yes...the infallible Bush gut instinct at work again.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You know, I strongly suspect that goat entrails are more reliable at divining truth than Bush's entrails.

    • Would you have rather had Bush tell the truth (Putin, you're a psychopathic douche bag!) and pissed him off? I, for one, would rather Bush tell him a flattering lie than further strain relations with Russia.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Guuge ( 719028 )

        Read the Bush quotation again. He was talking to us, not Putin. I personally don't think the president has any business lying to his own people. Do you?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hxnwix ( 652290 )
      Bush on why Harriet Myers, who has never served as a judge, ought to be a justice of the US supreme court: "I've known Harriet for more than a decade, I know her heart." "She's a good woman."

      Bush on why Bin Laden is not a priority: "Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all."

      Bush naming his favorite philosopher: "Christ, because he changed my heart."

      Bush on the Iraq debacle: "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq."

      Bush on himself: "Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me...

  • Moving... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shmlco ( 594907 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @08:26PM (#18684451) Homepage
    "If Putin pulled the plug on an anti-Putin web site inside Russia, the anti-Putin web site could simply be migrated offshore to a server in, say, the United States." ...and then what? Putting it outside Russia means that blocking it's IP is probably easier to do, not harder. Then again, if I was doing it I'd let it run... and see who drops in.

  • Joking aside... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheGreatHegemon ( 956058 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @08:27PM (#18684457)
    This is worrying. I personally feel Russia has been taking steps back as far as civil liberty goes, really I feel that the whole WORLD has been taking steps back.

    The internet is being reigned in now - this was possibly the last great refuge for free speech...

    Rather worrying.

  • Turkey not so bad (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @08:29PM (#18684481)
    I was just in Turkey and was able to visit every website I wanted which included newsites that were critical of AKP and other political parties and leaders in Turkey. Also, more importantly, porn sites can be reached without any problems.

    If you insult the founder of Turkey -- whose dead and thus not running for election -- then you get into trouble. Usually insulting the current PM - Erdogan - may get you sued by Erdogan but not likely your website is going to be blocked.

    China and Turkey are quite different in their levels of censorship. Critical political commentary is very common in the media in Turkey. This is an election year in Turkey too and I don't think you'll see any censorship of political opinion.

    • Also, more importantly, porn sites can be reached without any problems.
      Ah, a true slashdotter who knows his priorities. *Takes hat off*

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by The Bungi ( 221687 )
      If you insult the founder of Turkey -- whose dead and thus not running for election -- then you get into trouble.

      Yeah well, so it's not "so good" after all, right?

      Freedom of expression is not a relative concept. You either have it or you don't.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by glwtta ( 532858 )
        Freedom of expression is not a relative concept. You either have it or you don't.

        Damn straight! Unless you live somewhere where you have limited freedom of expression, in which case the degree of censorship becomes quite relevant.

    • Re:Turkey not so bad (Score:4)

      by krbvroc1 ( 725200 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @10:21PM (#18685097)
      Oh yeah, how many websites on the Armenian genocide can you bring up in Turkey? Journalists have gone to prison or been murdered for reporting on the Aemenian genocide of 1915 which Turkey denies. Its considered an 'insult to Turkishness' which will bring the wrath of the government upon you. Were you able to reach those?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_301_(Turkish_ penal_code) [wikipedia.org]
      • Yes, actually, you can. (Although your other points regarding the repression of the information related to the Armenian genocide is quite valid).

        ]{
        • Thanks for the feedback. Apparently I have violated Article 301 of the Slashdot code 'insult to Slashdottedness', because my informative and valid rebuttal to the posters 'Turkey not so bad', complete with a Wikipedia link, was modded as flamebait.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I wonder how long it will be before the revolts.... Turkey, China, Russia and the US to some extent, I wonder how long it will take till we can say:

    In Soviet Russia, Internet censors you
    • Granted, China has thousands of spirited protests each year and Turkey is tenuously held together by a dominant military. But who is revolting in Russia or the US? Yes, Russia has Chechnya - but how would that lead to a popular revolt? And then there's the US... the only people I see getting really fired up these days are some fringe weirdos that travel around and show up at every protest, be it anti-war, anti-globalism, political conventions, or whatever. Seriously, walk around one of these events - it's t

  • When will the 'Man' learn? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by haluness ( 219661 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @08:46PM (#18684585)
    We're in the 21st century. We've got the Internet, everybody (ok, most) is aware of blogs and the relocatability of information sources.

    So when will institutions learn that times have changed?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by istartedi ( 132515 )

      "The man" doesn't learn. Not in the traditional sense. The man can only be usurped. Then there's a new man, and the cycle repeats. This usurping doesn't necessarily have to be violent. Every shift in power in Congress or the Presidency is a mild form of usurping. Even if it's *somewhat* violent, it doesn't have to totally destroy society (e.g., the US civil rights movement). Of course, examples of violent revolution are, unfortunately, all too common, and the "new boss" is often worse than the old bo

    • So when will institutions learn that times have changed?

      The lesson is that there is no longer one Internet. There are multiple internets, filtered to suit the needs of national leaders. They've proven that they can control their own tidy filtered internets. Don't believe me? Just ask Yahoo! about what the French government [com.com] can do. The irony with the Yahoo! case is that the suit was originally brought not by The Government in France, but by a well-meaning French anti-Nazi group.

  • migrating off shore (Score:2, Insightful)

    by z3d4r ( 598419 )
    "If Putin pulled the plug on an anti-Putin web site inside Russia, the anti-Putin web site could simply be migrated offshore to a server in, say, the United States."

    Fair trade. the US gets the anti-Putin sites, and Russia gets the Torrent servers after the RIAA pulls the plug in the US.

    Meanwhile, Canada gets the former US internet radio streams.

    'The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers'

  • ISR (Score:2)

    by SeaFox ( 739806 )
    In Post-Soviet Russia, the government reports on the media.

    Sorry, everyone. I don't have a proper meme joke for this one.

  • Since we just LOVE soviet russia jokes... (Score:3, Funny)

    by GFree ( 853379 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @10:44PM (#18685217)
    In Russia Soviet, Dyslexia for cure found.
  • This could be rather ironic. There are, um, certain things I've googled for in the past where the most effective results were obtained with site:*.ru. Looks like we might be returning the favor to the Russians soon.

    Dan East

  • enemies (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zoftie ( 195518 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @11:16PM (#18685329) Homepage
    ... " If Putin pulled the plug on an anti-Putin web site inside Russia, the anti-Putin web site could simply be migrated offshore to a server in, say, the United States." ...

    Then it becomes enemy, imperialist propaganda and immediately discarded as such. To have legitimacy sites must be located within the country.
    2c

  • Parent Article: (-1, Troll) (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ezh ( 707373 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @11:33PM (#18685391)
    Bloomberg, just stop trolling with your articles. All the online press that Russians actually bother reading is already licensed by the Ministry of Press, TV Broadcast and Mass Media of the Russian Federation: Same goes for the most popular blog services: None of these businesses is going to risk their investments. The irony is that it is exactly the same in the U.S. as well - big companies just support one of the two candidates and nobody cares about the smaller ones. So Bloomberg and the rest, stop scaring your people while attempting to control them. And you, /. - take note. Cheers!

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ImdatS ( 958642 )
      The only "small" difference being that you don't get shot on the street, polonimized, or otherwise rm -rf'd in the US for writing something anti-government or anti-establishment.

      Guy, get a sense for reality! I am also doing business in Russia and China and to be honest, on a pure-personal level, I prefer doing business in China especially because I don't get shot down on the street publishing government-critical info - in China they just invalidate your business/media license or block you otherwise, but don

  • Only some channels need to be controlled (Score:3, Insightful)

    by orzetto ( 545509 ) on Wednesday April 11, 2007 @12:32AM (#18685619)

    However, unless the Kremlin pursues Chinese-style/Turkish-style blocking of the Internet-Protocol addresses of web sites like 'The Economist', even the Kremlin cannot control the online media.

    Now, if a sizeable chunk of the Russian electorate had Internet connectivity and could read English, that would be a problem. Why is everybody assuming every Russian can read English? How many of us can read Russian?

    The main point being, in a "nominal" democracy you need to control only 50%+1 of the electorate. Information channels that are available to only a tiny fraction of the population are irrelevant to censorship. In Italy (not as badly censored as Russia... yet) you can find bunches of books denouncing Berlusconi [wikipedia.org]'s mafia acquaintances, corruption, and the suspicious sources of his wealth in his own bookstores: that's because few Italians read books (or newspapers for that sake). Try say anything even alluding in that direction on television, and you get fired [rsf.org] so fast your ass leaves skid marks through the parking lot. It has not even gotten much better now that Berlusconi is in opposition because he still retains his private power.

  • pure irony (Score:4, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquar ... m ['gma' in gap]> on Wednesday April 11, 2007 @12:44AM (#18685671) Homepage Journal
    notice all of the subject change comments in this thread to criticism of the usa/ bush. right over the head of anyone who makes such a comment or mods such a comment up is that... drum roll please... THEY CAN MAKE THAT COMMENT IN THE USA WITH NO REPERCUSSIONS

    the issue here is that criticism of putin/ the russian government within russia is being censored. everyone get that? has the meaning of that observation sunk into your head yet? really?

    now go ahead and bash the usa, criticize bush all you want, and mod such comments up... in this thread... about russian censorship

    !?

    you're absolutely free to do so. get it yet?

    fashionable anti-americanism is no replacement for a functional brain. if in the context of commenting on russian censorship you still think it is somehow useful to bash the usa, all you are doing is making yourself look like a fool. you are just demonstrating your own lack of an elementary school level skillset at compare and contrast. it's amazing how prejudice blinds

    now don't get me wrong, the usa does plenty of wrong in this world (and plenty right... how's that thunderbolt of moderation strike you?), but to criticize a country with much better freedoms than russia (i said much better, not perfect, do you understand that difference?), in a thread about russian censorship, is just pure idiocy on the part of anyone who does so. all you do is make yourself look like a moron

    really, you're a moron if you think bashing the usa in this thread is useful, insightful, interesting, whatever. 100% unadulterated low iq cretin = you

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by shutdown -p now ( 807394 )
      To be fair, I can criticize Putin here in Russia just fine as well. In private speech and on the 'Net, certainly. It's when the criticism gets to mass media the government starts acting. No jail times and the like, it might just happen that e.g. the place you were supposed to hold your public speech at is suddenly closed for inspection due to "fire code violations" or "non-compliant sanitary condition" (happened with a few more prominent opposition leaders recently), or the newspaper office gets a visit fro
  • What about the Cybercrime treaty [slashdot.org] the US signed? Is Russia a signatory to the treaty? Will the US have to enfrce Russia's laws?
  • they simply kill those who descent too vocally? regardless of whether they are in russia or say... london?
  • The question is what will Russians do? (What will Chinese do? What will Turks do?)

    Nothing.

    And nobody will give a damn about this situation until economical situation significantly deteriorates. People rallying here for "rights" do not understand that mere existence of "rights" in Western country is a result of good economic shape not vice versa.

    And economy does not have ideological preferences. It can be blooming in fairly autocratic societies like China or Chile (during Pinochet times) or Singapour or it c

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close