A Comparative Study of Internet Censorship 195
An anonymous reader suggests we visit the home of the watchdog group Global Integrity for a breakdown of online censorship: "Using data from the Global Integrity Index, we put a US court's recent order to block access to anti-corruption site Wikileaks.org into context. In summary: This is unheard of in the West, and has only been seen in a handful of the most repressive regimes. Good thing it doesn't work very well... The whole event seems to encapsulate the constant criticism of governance in the United States: that the government has been captured by corporate interests, and that the world-leading rule of law and technocratic mechanisms in place can be hijacked to serve as tools for narrow, wealthy interests."
Silly (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to look at real censorship in the west, turn your eyes outside of the US. The US has no censorship laws around hate speech and almost no libel laws. Almost anything short of conspiracy to commit a crime is a-okay in the US. You can safely write or speak that you think the Holocaust is a hoax, that all the should die, and that is a whore who fucks pigs and goats. None of the above will get you in trouble with US law. All of the above would get you in trouble in more than one European nation. I am not saying that extremely weak libel laws and a lack of hate speech laws is a good thing, just that it decidedly tips the US over on the "free speech" spectrum farther than the vast majority of other nations out there.
There are a lot of complaints you can level against the US like starting wars, kidnapping and torturing people, extra judicial prisons, warrantless wiretaping, etc. That said, free speech is one places where the US is about as liberal as one can possibly be and takes it to extremes that few other nations do.
Re:Silly (Score:4, Insightful)
pendulum (Score:5, Insightful)
in other words, Americans as a whole need to learn what the internet does, and take a fresh look at how our freedoms are being shit on by the US government. we must demand the same digital freedoms and privacy protection that we have in non-digital media and more.
looking through this wikileaks story and a previous story about FOIA documents that show torture devices the government has been developing motivates me to seek a true change.
the American people must claim their rights or they will be taken
The Writing Has Been On The Wall (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake up, people!
There is really not much else to say.
Re:Silly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"World leading"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they are? Hell, I'm Canadian, I love my country, and even I have to admit that the USA does an immense number of things extremely well. Technology, for one - there is a reason that the majority of the world's tech R&D occurs in the USA, or is funded by the USA. The Americans have a strong history of "stealing" the best and brightest from all the countries of the world, and making them work for Uncle Sam. With promises of a better quality of life, freedom from persecution, and a culture where performance is rewarded, the US *is* the world leader in these things.
Of course, that is all changing somewhat suddenly now. Recent administrations have sabotaged scientific research funding for religious and partisan purposes, skilled immigrants are now the target of hatred, instead of being welcomed with open arms. Millions of Muslims are being socially ostracized and targeted for doing absolutely nothing except being non-Christian.
Don't get me wrong, America still does a lot right. But if you guys want to maintain your position as the grand superpower of the world, you need to seriously turn some of that shit around. It's already going to take DECADES to fix your foreign policy disaster, your economic fuckups, and restore scientific and technological integrity to your academia... so get started.
Oh, and more to the point, the USA *is* still among the best in freedom of speech. You know, they're the country where displaying Confederate flags is legal, KKK rallies are legal... whereas in, say, Germany, displaying any sort of Nazi symbolism is a good way to get hauled off to jail. This isn't a value judgment, just an observation that one land is clearly more free than the other, for better or for worse.
Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
People always spout this kind of nonsense when they're trying to argue for more government controls. The government is corruptible. The problem is not that the people in charge are corrupt, this can/will/has be/been true for any entity with any kind of authority that has ever existed, does currently exist , or ever will exist. If you don't want a corrupt government, you're out of luck. The best you can do is to give the government as little authority as possible.
In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything. This is the best possible arrangement of affairs, but it invariably means that you will end up with rulings like this one. If you read up on the case, you will see that the bank is claming that their ex-CEO is trying to use the website to influence the outcome of a separate legal case. So whose right would be more important, the right of the ex-CEO to leak confidential documents, of the right of the bank to have a fair court case in Sweden? People like to make these things seem cut and dry, but they're not.
Re:"World leading"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"World leading"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)
When will people learn how the Internet actually works?
Re:A couple of corrections... (Score:2, Insightful)
Or are you talking about adjuncts to harassment and that kind of thing?Punishing one crime differently from another based on intent is ridiculous?
So I should assume you are against the different levels of murder and manslaughter? That you advocate that any wrongful death should be punished exactly as any other? That John Wayne Gacy should have received exactly the same punishment as an elderly man who screwed up in his car and ran down the same number of people at a farmer's market?
Re:A couple of corrections... (Score:5, Insightful)
To your second point, I will answer: THAT is why it is ridiculous. If someone shoots you, does it really matter to you (or society, for that matter) WHY it was done? As far as punishment is concerned, that is. Historically, in order to find someone guilty it was sufficient to show motivation... it was not important what that motivation was. It is already a capital crime. Why should you, as a minority (hypothetically speaking of course) be able to punish your attacker more than I, a member of the majority? Are you worth more to society than I? Who says so?
ISN'T THAT RACISM??? (You need not answer. Of course it is.)
By their essential nature, "hate crime" laws are hypocritical and discriminatory. Those reasons alone are sufficient to remove them from the books, just like the other hypocritical and discriminatory laws that favor the "common folk" over minorities. You don't fight racism with more racism, no matter which direction it is pointed. You fight racism by getting rid of it, in whatever form it assumes.
Your final comparison I will just ignore. It has no bearing on the discussion at all. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just presume that you simply misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Grim future (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
Our government was designed to be the most transparent and least corruptible government that has ever existed.
Do you really think that the way the Constitution is currently interpreted really reflects the thoughts of those geniuses?
You're wrong... it *is* a good ting (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, I would say that.
"Hate Speech" is not defined. It simply means speech that is offensive to someone. Almost by definition, this type of law runs counter to the idea and ideals of free speech. It can easily be abused by political enemies, by a government that doesn't want criticism, or by one group to silence another.
Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks (Score:3, Insightful)
They do understand how the Internet actually works. The issue is that Wikileaks has servers in several countries. Countries that have laws protecting freedom of speech and legal procedures that prevent or slow down attempts at censorship.
The bank knew that trying to shut down or block all these servers would be very difficult, so they went for the weakest point: the domain name, which is controlled by the US company. As this case shows, it seems to be easier to restrict free speech in the US than in other countries (e.g., European countries like Sweden, which hosts the server with the IP address 88.80.13.160).
Of course, blocking the domain name will not make the information disappear: several links using IP addresses of the servers are already circulating, as well as alternate domain names hosted outside the US (e.g., wikileaks.be). But this is certainly good enough as a first step: this instantly breaks all direct links to wikileaks.org until these links are updated, and it makes it much harder for the average Internet user to access the site. The average user does not know how to work around these issues by finding out the IP addresses of the servers, finding mirrors or using alternate DNS providers. While the domain name is blocked, the bank can try to get the servers and mirrors shut down, a process that takes much longer than simply blocking the domain name.
The outcome will depend very much on how the press and other media talks about this case. If the reports about this censorship are published in the mainstream press during the next days and generate a lot of public discussion that lasts for several weeks, then it will be a net loss for the bank (the Streisand effect). On the other hand, if there are a few articles about this but no real discussion after a few days, then it will be a win for the bank because nobody will really pay attention to what is happening and the domain name will remain blocked. I hope that their cost/benefit analysis for this case was wrong and that the media will talk a lot about this. We will see...
Re:Silly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Leaving aside your appalling spelling, your 'either or' logic is impeccably wrong.
European cities with high Muslim populations also have high unemployment, especially amongst Muslim youths. Unemployed, feckless youths tend to gravitate towards gang behaviour, whether they are Muslim or any other type of flying spaghetti monster worshipper.
It's the gang behaviour that leads to the increase in rapes, not the religion.
Now I do have issues with the way that some cultures treat women - Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Saudi Arabia..., but that is a cultural matter and has nothing to do with the religion - it's more a case of ignorant goat herders not knowing how to behave in a modern civilised setting.
Bet you'd get upset if I posted a similar comment about Jews - I'm sure statistics exist from the 19th century that highlight the increase in crimes in the East End of London and the prevalence of Jewish loan sharks, murdurers, baby eaters, etc.
The issue is a culture of corruption, not 1 judge. (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that the grandparent comment to this one, which is your extremely sensible observations, is moderated 0, Flamebait, and the parent comment, which is a minor and obvious correction you wrote, is +3, Informative. That's crazy.
The "one minor judge" has succeeded in stopping most access to the WikiLeaks site, except for technically knowledgeable people. That shows the mood of the U.S. government. There is no cry from the U.S. government to restore free speech.
The problem is not just "one minor judge". It is an entire governmental culture of corruption. See this thread in another Slashdot story (which includes comments I wrote): The U.S. government is too corrupt to investigate corruption. [slashdot.org] That comment is moderated "60% Insightful, 40% Flamebait" as I write this. Perhaps 60% of the readers understand the issues, and 40% want to avoid thinking about abusive situations.
In actuality, the U.S. Constitution says that Congress can make no law against free speech. It doesn't say that the U.S. government cannot allow misleading speech, or do other things to prevent free expression. The governmental guarantee is much weaker than most people realize. The power of the rich who want corruption is much stronger than most people realize.
Re:A couple of corrections... (Score:2, Insightful)
The criminal justice system is not about the victim punishing the criminal but about society containing the threat posed by a criminal. There is a punitive aspect to that and also a corrective aspect (i.e. ideally the criminal should change his anti-social behavior) but containing the threat is first and foremost. I do see a difference between Joe beating Bob because Bob insulted him and Joe beating Bob because Bob is black. In the latter case you have a significant proportion of the population which because of genetics which they do not control are likely targets of Joe's violence. In the first case violence erupts because someone insulted Joe. The trigger "insulting Joe" is highly contingent on circumstances. That is, there is no individual in society for which "insulting Joe" is true all the time. In the second case violence erupts because there was a black guy around to beat on. The trigger "being black" is not contingent. There are several individuals in society for which "being black" is true all the time. I do think that if Joe happily beats black people, he's more of a threat to society than if he just happens to beat someone (no matter what their race is). I hold this true whatever races are involved in the scenario: white, black; black, white; white, white; black, black. (Yep, you can totally hate on your own race.) Other non-contingent conditions could also be considered like if someone beats other people because they are: male, fat, have blond hair, handicapped, homeless, etc. (Some of these are contingent in the long term but not in the short term. It is possible to stop insulting someone if they threaten you but you can't suddenly stop being fat or homeless.)
Re:The issue is a culture of corruption, not 1 jud (Score:3, Insightful)
OP is correct (Score:1, Insightful)
If I say that illegal mexican immigration is a bad thing and they're ruining social services, education etc etc, that is considered "hate speech" by a lot of people. Particularly if I say "I think they should all be rounded up and sent back".
What is "inciting hate"? Completely arbitrary.
It's nonsense.
Re:A couple of corrections... (Score:3, Insightful)
So certain people get "special" protection. Because they are "special"? Because it's really difficult to determine motivation in these circumstances. If a guy gets beat up in a bar, and it comes out that the assailants were using terms like "baldy" and "slaphead", then they get a harsher sentence, right?
Oh, wait... bald people are part of a "special", "protected" class. Well, that's just wrong, and it's the start of a ordeal where people clamor to be part of a group and lobby for special protections and privileges for their group ad infinitum.
The Constitution also expressly forbids this type of thing - in fact the principle of equal protection is even older. Everyone should get "Equal protection under the law". Period. Anything else is just a variation of "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."