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."
Insular American Media (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm quite sure the Romans said the same thing until the day the Goths sacked Rome...
A couple of corrections... (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, the US *does* have laws regarding "hate speech" and other "hate crimes". They might typically be state laws rather than federal, but that does not negate the fact that they exist in much if not most of the United States. Having said that, I will add that I personally believe "hate crime" to be among the most ridiculous legal concepts so far devised by man.
Third, the United States has very strong libel laws. The difference is that unlike in many nations, libel must generally be proven before it can be punished. Also, libel against "public figures" is much harder to prove... but that is by design, and for very good reason. (In many other places, speech against politicians or other "public figures" is punished much more harshly than speech against other citizens. But that does not mean that libel laws do not exist in the US. They do... they are just fairer than most.)
And finally, the fact that it is worse elsewhere does NOT mean that it is good here. That is like saying to one man in line, "Look, you only got a broken finger! The next guy in line has a broken leg!"... and then using that to justify breaking fingers. Sorry, but it is not a valid argument.
Compensation? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or could I short [wikipedia.org] some stock in a company, sue them for hosting sensitive/"evil" information, and then buy the stock back when the domain gets turned into a blank page? (Use any online company here, something like child-porn on flickr would be an easy target)
Re:"World leading"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A couple of corrections... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is really a straw man. The difference between degrees of murder and manslaughter is the level of intent: did you plan ahead of time to kill him, decide to kill him on the spot, or not even mean to kill him at all, etc. That distinction is quite different from asking "why did you intend to kill him?" The difference between intentionally and unintentionally causing death is not the same as intentionally killing someone because he was an [epithet] or because he slept with your wife or whatever.
Re:"World leading"? (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't think, maybe, American corporations are pushing those countries down the same path they've already pushed the US down?
Re:Silly (Score:3, Interesting)
People tend to lag behind reality with the image they have of themselves.
The USA is still a very free country, generally a pretty nice place to be. It would however, appear to no longer be a leader in freedom, liberty or human rights.
Re:A couple of corrections... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Silly (Score:4, Interesting)
Knowing fondness for defense of free speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Silly (Score:3, Interesting)