Reply
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 04:51 am
This has been often discussed here - now it's a topic on the political stage again: the EU and the US are at odds on spech limits
A report in
today's Chicago Tribune
Quote:Illegal abroad, hate Web sites thrive here
1st Amendment lets fringe groups use U.S. servers to spread message around the world
we might be able to come up with some way to address this properly if we (as a country) weren't busy censoring *everything else.*
these neo-nazis are scum, but that doesn't change my sig. censorship is ugly even when the good guys do it. i think information can be addressed with information, but ideally, the internet would make it difficult to regulate speech on the whole. vox populi, and all that. nazis can't be brushed under the carpet any more than cockroaches can.
This excerpt from one of the articles Walter has posted is, I believe, telling:
"The government says because these sites are based in the United States and [because of] your 1st Amendment, nothing can be done," Lazenby said from Leeds, England. "Well, they certainly manage to shut down pedophile sites and arrest the people behind them."
I may be reading something more into this comment than was intended, but it certainly seems like Mr Lazenby is suggesting that these sites are at the least, the equivalent of pedophile sites, and implying that the Puritanical American conservatives in power will bend the First Amendment to combat pornography but not hatred and intolerance.
I suspect that the American government would be willing to take legal action against a site that it believed was truly inciting violence. Some Free Speech zealots (on both sides of the spectrum) might not have a problem with a site that publishes names and addresses and then calls on others to punish these folks in some way, but I do and I believe so would the American Justice Dept.
On the other hand, some damaged beast can use the internet to publish ridiculously hateful comments about any specific group of people without presenting an actionable danger. The mere fact that the comments are hateful and repugnant does not deserve censorship.
Of course those of us who find them objectionable would be pleased to see them disappear, but that is an obviously slippery slope upon which to base policy.
Another factor in this matter is that whatever danger exists seems to run within lands outside of the US. Not a great reason for the American government to take less interest than in child pornography, but given the need to prioritize concerns, it is somewhat understandable.
Those who object to these sites should address them with their own governments. The US government will react more quickly and substantively to the expressed concerns of foreign governments as opposed to foreign interest groups - particularly when those groups find it impossible to urge the US to take action without spooning in gratuitous insults.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:This excerpt from one of the articles Walter has posted is, I believe, telling:
"The government says because these sites are based in the United States and [because of] your 1st Amendment, nothing can be done," Lazenby said from Leeds, England. "Well, they certainly manage to shut down pedophile sites and arrest the people behind them."
I may be reading something more into this comment than was intended, but it certainly seems like Mr Lazenby is suggesting that these sites are at the least, the equivalent of pedophile sites, and implying that the Puritanical American conservatives in power will bend the First Amendment to combat pornography but not hatred and intolerance.
O posted only one article here.
And I just take the comment you highlened as what it says: some wbesites: with other stuff on the internet something can be done.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Those who object to these sites should address them with their own governments. .
I think that such is done and has been done before.
And I think that's no-one's other business that these sites run the USA - if the laws allow it.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:If that's the case, what were you quoting at 3:51am on Nov 13th?
What the sourced quote says:
Walter Hinteler wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:If that's the case, what were you quoting at 3:51am on Nov 13th?
What the sourced quote says:
OK --- part II of article I. So you only "posted"
one article.
Do you take some strange pleasure in being correct about something so precise but so meaningless?
Or perhaps in your world/culture this is a significant issue. If so, I will never emigrate to Germany, despite my Teutonic heritage.
I'd just tried to avoid that someone was looking for a probably deleted quote.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:If so, I will never emigrate to Germany, despite my Teutonic heritage.
Great if you can source your heritage back to that tribe. (I only can say mine is most probably from this Saxon [?] region.)
...anyway, back to Walter's original post: back in 1999 I was working for a human rights group in Slovakia. Big part of my job was developping projects to combat racism, thus also working with police. I have myself surveyed many neonazi websites. Some incited violence directly, some indirectly. Police was helpless, none of the servers were hosted domestically. It is a major problem, since these websites are a major organizing point for the youth with shaved heads. And I stood face to face with the shaved head youths many times, having Roma or African people behind me. No fun. No fun at all. In fact, it's often a matter of life and death.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I can, thank you.
Though this is not the topic .... but "my thread" ...
Just out of curiosity and since I've studied history: how? And from where?
Walter Hinteler wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I can, thank you.
Though this is not the topic .... but "my thread" ...
Just out of curiosity and since I've studied history: how? And from where?
Sorry Prof Walter, but I will not play your game.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Sorry Prof Walter, but I will not play your game.
Game? I was only wondering that you can source your heritage back to the Teutons.
(I've never said that I am or was a a "Prof": at university, I taught "Methods of Social Work/ Social Work Sciences Praxis Related" as a lecturer)
Walter Hinteler wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Sorry Prof Walter, but I will not play your game.
Game? I was only wondering that you can source your heritage back to the Teutons.
(I've never said that I am or was a a "Prof": at university, I taught "Methods of Social Work/ Social Work Sciences Praxis Related" as a lecturer)
Blah, blah, blah and blah. blah, blah....Give me a freakin break!
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Blah, blah, blah and blah. blah, blah....Give me a freakin break!
I didn't force you to post here.
dagmaraka wrote:
...anyway, back to Walter's original post: back in 1999 I was working for a human rights group in Slovakia. Big part of my job was developping projects to combat racism, thus also working with police. I have myself surveyed many neonazi websites. Some incited violence directly, some indirectly. Police was helpless, none of the servers were hosted domestically. It is a major problem, since these websites are a major organizing point for the youth with shaved heads. And I stood face to face with the shaved head youths many times, having Roma or African people behind me. No fun. No fun at all. In fact, it's often a matter of life and death.
Whoa!!!! That's scary. I've done that on a way less scary and smaller way here. And even our local pathetic losers are scary en masse.
Are some of the sites hosted in the US, Dagmaraka?
Is it your view that they ought to be shut down?
dlowan wrote:Are some of the sites hosted in the US, Dagmaraka?
I would think so - if sites with German, Polish etc origin are hosted there, and since it's nearly impossible to host them in Europe - where else?
Walter Hinteler wrote:dlowan wrote:Are some of the sites hosted in the US, Dagmaraka?
I would think so - if sites with German, Polish etc origin are hosted there, and since it's nearly impossible to host them in Europe - where else?
Well, kiddy porn sites, for instance, are often hosted in parts of Asia.
dlowan wrote:dagmaraka wrote:
...anyway, back to Walter's original post: back in 1999 I was working for a human rights group in Slovakia. Big part of my job was developping projects to combat racism, thus also working with police. I have myself surveyed many neonazi websites. Some incited violence directly, some indirectly. Police was helpless, none of the servers were hosted domestically. It is a major problem, since these websites are a major organizing point for the youth with shaved heads. And I stood face to face with the shaved head youths many times, having Roma or African people behind me. No fun. No fun at all. In fact, it's often a matter of life and death.
Whoa!!!! That's scary. I've done that on a way less scary and smaller way here. And even our local pathetic losers are scary en masse.
Are some of the sites hosted in the US, Dagmaraka?
Is it your view that they ought to be shut down?
I cannot claim to know how it is now, this was some 8 years ago, but back then, yes, most werer hosted in the U.S.
And yes, I do think that any website that openly promotes racism and violence should be shut. But I also know that it's difficult to monitor and police. I think it really should be the responsibility of the domain providers to make sure the sites on their servers are in compliance with laws... or perhaps it is, dunno.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace