|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:25 am Post subject: Germany passes Internet censorship |
 |
|
France already has a three-strikes-and-you're-out bill like this. Is the entire planet destined to go the way of China?
German parliament passes Internet censorship bill
For the children of course
By Egan Orion
Friday, 19 June 2009, 11:36
THE GERMAN parliament passed a bill Thursday imposing censorship of pornographic websites justified by the need to protect children.
The legislation was proposed by a coalition of German social democratic and conservative parties. It requires the country's federal criminal investigators to maintain a list of websites accused of containing child pornography and to distribute it to German ISPs, which will then be required to block queries to those websites with a stop sign.
In its present form, the bill requires only that ISPs display the warning sign. Users will still be able to access the flagged websites, but they will be advised that viewing child pornography is illegal. German legislators also bowed to criticism by adding a sunset clause that will see the law expire in three years.
The bill drew strong protests from German Internet users including hackers, digital freedom activists, bloggers and social notworkers. It triggered an online petition signed by more than 130,000 individuals, 80,000 more than the number required for the petition to be heard on the floor of the German parliament.
The bill also requires the German chief privacy commissioner to periodically review the website block list, but the incumbent official has already balked at that.
Critics have proven that there are more effective, less instrusive ways of suppressing child pornography, such as emailing the web hosting companies involved to get the objectionable content removed from the interwibble almost immediately.
Furthermore, small ISPs might not have sufficient resources to comply with the infrastructure demands of the plan.
The worst fear, of course, is that once the German government has an Internet censorship apparatus in place, it will be deployed by authoritarian elements of the government, political parties or security agencies to repress freedom of political expression, dissent and free access to information.
L'Inq
Deutsche Welle |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
So they're asking ISPs to place a sign on the website instead of asking them to block it.
You really think this is a step towards Chinese policy? Are you going to argue for unrestricted content on the internet - even when a government knows it has something illegal on it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another misleading thread title by bacasper. I'd call it deliberately misleading, but I think he's so earnest he thinks, rather than propagandizes, in hyperbole.
| Quote: |
| In its present form, the bill requires only that ISPs display the warning sign. Users will still be able to access the flagged websites, but they will be advised that viewing child pornography is illegal. German legislators also bowed to criticism by adding a sunset clause that will see the law expire in three years. |
That is really, really quite tame. And its pornography. Possession of child pornography is illegal in the United States, and child pornography (as opposed to 'regular' pornography) is considered obscene speech and is Constitutionally unprotected.
The law is quite reasonable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Another misleading thread title by bacasper. I'd call it deliberately misleading, but I think he's so earnest he thinks, rather than propagandizes, in hyperbole.
| Quote: |
| In its present form, the bill requires only that ISPs display the warning sign. Users will still be able to access the flagged websites, but they will be advised that viewing child pornography is illegal. German legislators also bowed to criticism by adding a sunset clause that will see the law expire in three years. |
That is really, really quite tame. And its pornography. Possession of child pornography is illegal in the United States, and child pornography (as opposed to 'regular' pornography) is considered obscene speech and is Constitutionally unprotected.
The law is quite reasonable. |
Yeah, seriously. They're actually doing you a favor by telling you that the site you're looking at is illegal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Another misleading thread title by bacasper. I'd call it deliberately misleading, but I think he's so earnest he thinks, rather than propagandizes, in hyperbole.
| Quote: |
| In its present form, the bill requires only that ISPs display the warning sign. Users will still be able to access the flagged websites, but they will be advised that viewing child pornography is illegal. German legislators also bowed to criticism by adding a sunset clause that will see the law expire in three years. |
That is really, really quite tame. And its pornography. Possession of child pornography is illegal in the United States, and child pornography (as opposed to 'regular' pornography) is considered obscene speech and is Constitutionally unprotected.
The law is quite reasonable. |
Again, Kuros misses the point and misinterprets the Constitution.
My copy of the First Amendment does not read "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech except for obscene speech." That has been judges' own invention over the years. In my opinion, free speech is absolute.
And if you talk to a real lawyer (not an internet chatboard poser) he would tell you that in recent years, all the attempts at internet censorship in the USA using the pretext of "child pornography" (COPA, COPPA, etc.) have eventually been struck down by the Supreme Court.
They use kiddy porn as a wedge issue. Once they can restrict that, law creep sets in, and more and more topics (and ultimately, dissent) can become prohibited.
There is no good justification for such counterproductive laws, as outlined by NYU Law Professor Amy Adler in her Columbia Law Review article, The Perverse Law of Child Pornography.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/Adler_full.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
samcheokguy
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Location: Samcheok G-do
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Germany still has an anti-blasphemy law in Bavaria. Clearly the US and Germany are a little different, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| My copy of the First Amendment does not read "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech except for obscene speech." |
But child porn is a product, not speech. If you defend distribution of child porn without hinder then you can do the same for drugs, or guns.
Anyway, I was in frist, can you answer my question? Are you arguing for totally unrestricted internet access even when something can be identified as illegal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I explore the possibility that certain sexual prohibitions invite their own violation by increasing the sexual allure of what they forbid. |
| Quote: |
| The dramatic expansion of child pornography law may have unwittingly heightened pedophilic desire. |
I'm going to struggle with this.... It's the same with guns etc. A law may well 'turn-on' the population that likes to break laws, but that doesn't undermine the fact such laws are necessary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| My copy of the First Amendment does not read "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech except for obscene speech." |
But child porn is a product, not speech. If you defend distribution of child porn without hinder then you can do the same for drugs, or guns. |
"Free speech" has long been considered to encompass other "products" like books, recordings, photos, and movies. Would you support banning books because they, too, are "products?"
| Quote: |
| Anyway, I was in frist, can you answer my question? Are you arguing for totally unrestricted internet access even when something can be identified as illegal? |
I support the original, anarchic structure of the internet. The illegal stuff will find its way on anyway, and should be dealt with in a less intrusive manner. This "solution" cedes too much power to the government eroding too much of our freedom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| "Free speech" has long been considered to encompass other "products" like books, recordings, photos, and movies. Would you support banning books because they, too, are "products?" |
From reading a little of the Harvard law piece I can see it is. Books are just writing whereas child pornography involves the positioning of a child, i.e. it involves a physical object being used (abused). I don't mind people looking at cartoon peadophilic material. I also don't mind a film like Lolita, it portrays child sex, but doesn't actually include it.
| bacasper wrote: |
| ...should be dealt with in a less intrusive manner |
Like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Censoring child pornography is pointless. Those who want it will still be able to access it, which means it will still be produced, which means the actual crime (exploiting minors in a sexual fashion) will still continue.
Censorship is never the answer. Banning the production of child pornography is reasonable; trying to censor it will accomplish nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| "Free speech" has long been considered to encompass other "products" like books, recordings, photos, and movies. Would you support banning books because they, too, are "products?" |
From reading a little of the Harvard law piece I can see it is. Books are just writing whereas child pornography involves the positioning of a child, i.e. it involves a physical object being used (abused). I don't mind people looking at cartoon peadophilic material. I also don't mind a film like Lolita, it portrays child sex, but doesn't actually include it.
| bacasper wrote: |
| ...should be dealt with in a less intrusive manner |
Like? |
| Quote: |
| ..such as emailing the web hosting companies involved to get the objectionable content removed from the interwibble almost immediately. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Banning the production of child pornography is reasonable; trying to censor it will accomplish nothing. |
REASONABLE??! Errr...ya!
Censoring increases the cost of entry of peadophiles into the market, thereby reducing consumption and production.
| bacasper wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| ...should be dealt with in a less intrusive manner |
Like? |
| Quote: |
| ..such as emailing the web hosting companies involved to get the objectionable content removed from the interwibble almost immediately. |
|
So, you support a government forcing an ISP to remove content, but you oppose them placing a warning sign when accessing the website? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Banning the production of child pornography is reasonable; trying to censor it will accomplish nothing. |
REASONABLE??! Errr...ya!
Censoring increases the cost of entry of peadophiles into the market, thereby reducing consumption and production. |
The bolded text in question is hard to prove given how easy it is to circumvent internet censorship measures. However, if it truly did become meaningfully harder to obtain, it's very likely those who desire it would be willing to pay more for it, which would make it more lucrative a business, which could even increase production.
All this focuses purely on the pragmatic aspect of the situation, neglecting the fact that bacasper's "child pornography as a wedge issue" argument has some merit as well (though not necessarily to the extreme he takes it to). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
So, you support a government forcing an ISP to remove content, but you oppose them placing a warning sign when accessing the website? |
No, I didn't say anything about forcing, but it is less intrusive.
As I recall, a detail of the law permits ISPs to ban users at their discretion, a position in which they should not be placed and with which I have a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
