South African Government Issues Plans To Censor Internet 82
An anonymous reader writes: The South African department of communications is sitting on a draft paper drawn up by the local Film & Publication Board, which proposes strict regulation of the internet within in the country in order to bring online publishing inline with that of DVD, video and terrestrial TV ratings. The proposals are being called censorship and unconstitutional, and include plans to criminalize anyone who publishes material online — including uploading videos to YouTube — who doesn't pay a licence and submit to vetting by FPB agents.
Re:Blah blah blah. (Score:5, Insightful)
South Africa is essentially a one party state. South African political parties are not defined by what they stand for, but for who they stand against. Until that changes, the ANC will win every election, regardless of how ineffectively they govern.
Re: (Score:1)
And what would you know about South Africa politics? You've got it exactly backwards.
The ANC still holds a massive lead over the other political parties although this is slowly eroding. Therefore by definition the other parties are opposition due to the way our political system is setup. Hint we have a westminster style parliment in South Africa. In addition while you may not know it the political parties have manifestos and even shadow minsters. Just because you don't know what they stand for doesn't mean
Re: (Score:2)
Obama has done his fair deal to repair things, like his healthcare plan, but the problems that Bush has created in eight years cannot be undone in eight years. That will take much longer.
The same can be said for any president. Government moves at a glacial pace at most times. What one president fixes during his term was caused by a president many years prior, and at the same time, any problems the current president causes will take many years for the next one to fix. This is the way it is, and is not specific to Republicans or Democrats, or any political entity in any country for the most part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Blah blah blah. (Score:4, Insightful)
People that call for more government control are always going back and saying "but we didn't mean THIS!"
People that call for less government control are also always going back and saying "but we didn't mean THIS!"
There's no reason to be ashamed of not making perfect choices, the only things that should be written in stone are gravemarkers.
And even then, sometimes there are errors on those that need to be fixed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Social security seems to be set in stone even though everyone knows it's broken and going to run out of money. These govt programs seem to gain entropy and never stop or get fixed.
The US government can print as much money as it wants. It literally cannot run out of money. So saying that Social Security will run out of money is incorrect. Sure, if the money supply grows too much faster than the overall economy it will lose value. But saying the Federal government doesn't have the money for something is just not the case.
It's always amusing to me to see how money is discussed at the Federal level; we can't afford this, there's no money for that. It's a joke. The US government wil
Re: (Score:1)
saying that Social Security will run out of money is incorrect. Sure, if the money supply grows too much faster than the overall economy it will lose value. But saying the Federal government doesn't have the money for something is just not the case.
But it's important to note that the Social Security Program will run out of money, and soon. By any honest accounting, it did in the 90s - there's nothing but IOUs left after that pool of funds was looted by Reagan/Bush/Clinton. It's all just fresh taxes now for outgoing payments.
And, sure, it will never run out of dollars, but so what?
"But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy" - Kipling, The Gods of the Copybook Headings
Re: (Score:2)
saying that Social Security will run out of money is incorrect. Sure, if the money supply grows too much faster than the overall economy it will lose value. But saying the Federal government doesn't have the money for something is just not the case.
But it's important to note that the Social Security Program will run out of money, and soon. By any honest accounting, it did in the 90s - there's nothing but IOUs left after that pool of funds was looted by Reagan/Bush/Clinton. It's all just fresh taxes now for outgoing payments.
And, sure, it will never run out of dollars, but so what?
"But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy" - Kipling, The Gods of the Copybook Headings
Those "IOU's" are treasury bonds. They are worth something. Sure, it's the government borrowing from itself. But since the government can always create dollars to pay that debt, it really doesn't matter to anyone but accountants.
Re: (Score:2)
Those "IOU's" are treasury bonds. They are worth something.
No, not in the usual sense. They used to be treasury bonds - the Social Security program would sell them on the bond market to raise funds. But Reagan/Bush/Clinton sold them all to mask the deficit. Now they really are just IOUs.
It's exactly like taking a loan from your 401K. If before you had T-Bliss in your 401K, but then you borrow all that money for an emergency expense, now you just have a loan to yourself. Before, you could actually live off that money at retirement; after, you must earn new mone
Re: (Score:2)
"Money" is not the same as "paper".
Sure you can print more money but if you don't back it with a loan or some other kind of security it will lose value and then you will need to spend more for everything else thus no money created, only more paper printed with no net effect of "more money".
Sure trickery can temporarily make it seem like you have more money to pay for social security or whatever but it can't in the long run.
If you want to pay for things with public funds you need a decently balanced budget or you will become Greece sooner or later.
No, you don't. Greece got into the trouble it did because it did not have control of the Euro. It was more like a State or local government in the US; it had to tax in order to spend and it ran out of money. That can't happen to the US government. Greece got to a point where it couldn't pay its debts. The US government will always be able to pay its debts because it can create its own currency.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Hmm I'm starting to see why the South African government is doing this.
'godless' is particularly funny on slashdot.
Re:Niggers run the country and now they are marxis (Score:4, Insightful)
Calling someone both "Godless" and "Satanic" is a contradiction in terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they're not Satanists. Really.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mandela was a ... MARXIST ...
According Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], South Africa's post-apartheid economy was mostly shaped by the World Bank's trickle-down theories:
The early ANC envisioned a more socialist South Africa, but this was unpopular with businessmen, foreign politicians, and the established media. For example, Mandela strongly supported nationalizing banking, mining, and monopolies, but was forced to change this goal due to pressures from stock traders and international economic entities like the World Bank. The World Bank encouraged the new South African government to promote the growth of the private sector, which trickle-down economics theory proposes will create jobs that will alleviate poverty.
Re: (Score:3)
When will we learn not to confuse trolls with facts?
Re: (Score:2)
Mandela was a ... MARXIST ...
According Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], South Africa's post-apartheid economy was mostly shaped by the World Bank's trickle-down theories:
The early ANC envisioned a more socialist South Africa, but this was unpopular with businessmen, foreign politicians, and the established media. For example, Mandela strongly supported nationalizing banking, mining, and monopolies, but was forced to change this goal due to pressures from stock traders and international economic entities like the World Bank. The World Bank encouraged the new South African government to promote the growth of the private sector, which trickle-down economics theory proposes will create jobs that will alleviate poverty.
John Perkins was right.
Re: (Score:2)
This may have worked to, however when Mandela was replaced, it all went to shit pretty quick.
Go read this http://www.moneyweb.co.za/arch... [moneyweb.co.za] to give you a pretty good idea of how things are. The current president is a moron. Thabo Mbeki, slightly less a moron, but still a moron.
Mandela had lofty goals, and I truly (as a white person no less, who grew up in South Africa) believe he had the best intentions, but his successors have done nothing but consolidate power and money, cronyism is rife in SA, they are
Does this mean... (Score:2, Offtopic)
... they want to get rid of the fookin' pr0ns?
Re:Does this mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust me. A government can keep the lower class down. They can tax us into oblivion, and take away most of our freedoms and we'll take it in stride. Take away the porn though, and the peasants will burn this bitch down.
Is it unconstitutional? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. Here it is [www.gov.za]. As constitutions go, it's pretty decent. Plus, unlike in some other countries, it genuinely is the highest law of the land.
Re:Is it unconstitutional? (Score:4, Informative)
Their Bill of Rights is very broad, covered in Chapter 2 of their constitution. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer in any country, and this was my first time even reading their constitution, but it seems pretty obvious that it won't allow censorship of the internet.
Section 16: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes [...] freedom to receive or impart information or ideas"
Section 32: "Everyone has the right of access to any information held by the state; and any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights"
Depending on implementation, if might also breach Section 14: "Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have [...] the privacy of their communications infringed" ... I kinda want this bill of rights in my own country. Gotta say, it looks pretty nice.
Re: (Score:3)
It is a decent constitution, not perfect, but decent. However, the ruling party has enough of a majority to change that. The big issue is they are running scared because various unpopular policies are fast eroding voter support. Africa still hasn't got the hang of democracy quite yet, and they think that controlling the media will perhaps allow them to control votes.
With regards to censorship, this will likely land in the constitutional court and be struck down. Other things have. Either that or you won't s
Re: (Score:1)
The ruling party does NOT have "enough of a majority to change that". A two-thirds majority is required to change the constitution. The ANC is at only 62%.
Re: (Score:2)
And nobody can be bought.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it only prevents them from scooping up US communications, the NSA's actual mandate is to do whatever it wants outside the US, however a loophole in many of the rulings and laws allow them to practically scoop up all US communications. Close the loophole, and hopefully it would solve the problem, however I do not see that happening.
Re: (Score:1)
Who cares what the 'law' says? Just find a way around it, and let the tyrants cry.
easy solution (Score:1)
just execute everyone on the " Film & Publication Board". what do they even need to exist for?
Dumb Idea. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's one of those laws that will only get used when you're already going after someone.
Re: funny... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please engage sarcasm detector before posting next time.
Ace in the hole - AC repost (Score:1)
Fuck the tyranny! Please read below.
Fundamental Concepts - Weakness Invites Aggression [Weirddave]
—Open Blogger
It's human nature to live in your own bubble. We have only experienced the world that we live in, so naturally many people assume that the world as it is is its default state. In order to move beyond this paradigm, one must first be introspective enough to recognize it, then take the time and effort to study history and culture to examine whether your norm is anything at all like the human no
Re: (Score:2)
No idea what that has to do with South Africa, but with regards to:
Bill Clinton gave Ukraine a rock solid guarantee of protection in return for them giving up their nukes to ensure "peace".
This is untrue.
The pertinent parts of the agreement [wikipedia.org]:
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
There's another four bullet points but they're mainly about not nuking Ukraine. The parties to the agreement all said they would not attack Ukraine. Not once do they say anything about coming to Ukraine's defense if they're attacked. The United States said "we will not attack Ukraine." The United States did not say "we will defend Ukraine." There is a big difference.
Yes, Russia broke the tr
So What? (Score:1)
Are you surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Space-based Internet transport exists [exede.com]. National regulators of the radio frequency spectrum can arrest, try, and imprison people for using it without a license.
Who cares if it's "unconstitutional"? (Score:1)
Just find a way to circumvent it and the problem is solved
Re: (Score:2)
Just send your cat videos. (Score:5, Interesting)
The way to defeat stupid laws like this is for everyone to actually send everything they intend to upload to the ratings board then to complain when you don't get a rating back in a timely manner to their representative.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my first thought also. The problem is that the government would likely say that you need to wait for approval before publishing online - no matter how long the wait. So you go to share your cute video of your baby with your relatives online via YouTube, submit it to the government for approval, and get the approval just in time for your baby to leave for college. (I'm sure any South African business that makes money from posting content online would be able to pay the government extra for rush a
An attack on one is an attack on us all (Score:4, Insightful)
In years past, the elite weren't just the financially powerful but those with the greatest control over and access to, information (points at the medieval elite and Roman Catholic church use of Latin as an example).
It was only the elite that could read and write. It was only the elite that had books. It was only the elite that were educated. With the advent of industrialisation, the drones needed more information to function, and so education became desirable. Even then, the access to information was restricted.
The rise of journalism, allowed people to know about their leaders and power brokers in ways that were previously unavailable. Even then, there were strict controls over the flow of information.
With the wide spread availability of the web, those restrictions were wiped away to a greater extent, and governments and power brokers have been attempting to curtail that flow ever since. People need to at least acknowledge how important the free flow of information is to their ability to pursue their freedoms, otherwise that access to information and the pursuit of those freedoms will be lost.
Governments need to inspire, be honest, and educate their populaces, instead of trying to dumb them down and put them back into the corner. Leading people by hiding what you do and how you do it is no longer an acceptable way of getting what you want.
Governments should not tell people what they are allowed to know. Attempting to categorise all information, in an information age, is simply unattainable. People must ultimately take responsibility for the information they receive, not leave it to others to make that decision on their behalf. We are not children. If they allow others to make those decisions, they won't ever get to know what they don't know. They are lost.
If the legislation is created in one country, how much easier is it to copy it to others? We have seen this with the "three strikes" policies. We have seen it with the "war on terror" eavesdropping legislation. We've seen it with the "think about the children" memes demanding controls over the kinds of information that can flow. I feel the general population is sleepwalking their way into another dark age of control being out of their hands. Their education has failed them. They don't understand technology enough to know what their freedoms depend on. It is seriously depressing.
Take that Turkey (Score:2)
Ha, Take that Turkey, South Africa just out-dumbed you big time, watcha gonna do now, ban the internet worldwide?
Can the FCC be far behind... (Score:1)