EU Considering Regulating Video Bloggers 351
Aglassis writes to tell us that recent proposed EU legislation could require anyone running a website featuring video content to acquire a broadcast license. From the article: "Personal websites would have to be licensed as a "television-like service". Once again the reasoning behind such legislation is said to be in order to set minimum standards on areas such as hate speech and the protection of children. In reality this directive would do nothing to protect children or prevent hate speech - unless you judge protecting children to be denying them access to anything that is not government regulated or you assume hate speech to be the criticism of government actions and policy."
Re:The only thing without frontiers is (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Never going to work (Score:5, Informative)
Actually not in Germany, if I remeber right. With broadcast receiving license fees TV and radio stations are funded. And - since they have financing secured in this manner, their programming is actually informative, educational, partially critical, of higher quality and very often a pleasure to watch (bublic broadcasting stations - there are privates as well, more going US style). That may be a positive aspect.
On the downside, attempts are made to milk wherever possible and there seems to be no end to it. They are in the process of increasing the sales tax (actually VAT) from 16 % a couple of % higher.
So, everyone attempting to suck more should get their fingers beaten until they give up.
Re:The current face of censorship: "Hate speech" (Score:3, Informative)
Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, moral or political views, etc.
Are we working fom the same definition of hate speech?
Re:Where are they headed? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:The only thing without frontiers is (Score:4, Informative)
That would be all well and good if the government were required to demonstrate that the people in question actually committed any such acts. As a matter of fact, as of right now, my wonderful government doesn't even have to charge people with anything specific to hold them indefinitely without access to the courts, a lawyer, or anyone else on the outside. Unless something has changed that escaped my notice, they are not even compelled to disclose the fact that they are holding you. (Theoretically, if any of these people were US citizens, how would we even find out?)
The argument that these losses of liberty are unimportant because the people being shortchanged are terrorists is getting very tired. We don't know that they are terrorists, we don't even necessarily know who they are. The idea that we should blindly trust the executive branch of our government to not get overzealous with so few restrictions and no oversight is laughable.
"Second, the bill doesn't trump the Constitution, it just points out that foreign enemies don't get the benefit of the Constitution."
I do not believe that someone having been born in another country (or perhaps more precisely, with a different faith background or color of skin) is any less human or any less deserving of guarantees of their basic liberties.
"Quit being such a cry-baby."
Seventeen people from Guantanamo Bay have just been releasted. All were found to have committed no crime. Most of these were Afghan citizens taken from their home country to have over *four years* of their lives taken away while living in a prison where, as many of them allege, they were subject to methods of psychological torture. I could go on and on about various US prison abuses, or about reasons to doubt the ability of our executive branch to exercise sound judgement, but you should be familiar with them already. We have ample evidence that rights that most of us would agree should be provided to everyone have been taken away from a great many people by our government. People's lives are, in fact, being irrevocably harmed by our actions.
Without any transparency or accountability, we have no idea how many people have been so wronged, and will have no idea whether or not it is continuing or expanding. We are essentially being asked by certain factions in our government to simply trust them to use these powers wisely. I find little reason to do so, either on the grounds of ethics or competency. I would ask that others try not to make decisions on this matter (like voting) while thinking that these changes only affect "bad guys," which is the mentality being promoted. People should not be indiscriminantly punished for the crimes of extremists that happen to share a region of birth with them. I certainly wouldn't want to be.
Re:Never going to work (Score:4, Informative)
That's right. But the downside is that starting with 2007 every internet connected computers is seen as a reciever and one has to pay a monthly fee because you can access the websites of the broadcasting stations with it. So while you could get around this fee in the past by not possessing a tv now virtually everyone is forced to pay it (and yes, your pc at work does count. And you have to pay for every location extra) no matter if you really use their services
Re:The only thing without frontiers is (Score:5, Informative)
You are partially correct.
Although the U.S. Constitution does not specify the rights of non-citizens, The Third Geneva Convention [wikipedia.org], Article 3, says the U.S. must give non-citizens the same rights we afford citizens.
Most importantly, it says that a detainee must be sentenced by a regularly constituted court. Not a secret court, using secret evidence. Detainees must be tried and sentenced using the same rules that the country would use to try and sentence any other person accused of criminal action. Detainees must be given all the rights recognized as indispensable by civilized people. The U.S. Constitution outlines all the rights that Americans believe to be indispensable. This means a detainee must be given all constitutional rights.
This article specifically outlines how a signatory of the Geneva Conventions must treat a non-signatory.
In signing the Geneva Conventions, those are the rules the U.S. agreed to abide by. The U.S. administration would like everyone to believe they don't have to abide by these rules because the current circumstances are exceptional, but there is no "...unless the signatory gets very, very angry" clause.
Nonsense, see draft (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The only thing without frontiers is (Score:2, Informative)
As others have pointed out, there are those who believe that the U.S. was founded on the ideas of equality and universal human rights. Some view the Constitution as a document which defines and limits the U.S. Government, not the rights of the people.
In any case, it does not seem relavant. As pointed out, Jose Padilla was a U.S. citizen arrested in the Chicago. The new terror legislation also says nothing which would limit use to non-citizens.
Milton (Score:5, Informative)
Actually you can go all the way back to 1644 with John Milton's rather important essay called Areopagitica [uoregon.edu] -- "A speech for the liberty of unlicensed printing to the parliament of England." (Wikipedia entry here [wikipedia.org])
Back in Milton's day, the King of England decided the new printing press was a pain in the ass since every time the King did something corrupt, the printers would crank out leaflets blowing the matter wide open. Kings, who remembered how they used to be gods, really didn't like little common people criticizing them. He made laws that required an official seal from the King to be permitted to own and operate a printing press, and made the penalty for being found in possession without the official seal rather severe (death). Interestingly, a printer could immediately lose a seal if he printed something the King didn't like, and the King's men could take time letting you know you no longer had that seal.
Not many printers decided to print leaflets critical to the King then.
Milton challenged this by taking the King's argument of "protecting the people from harmful falsehoods" at face value and discovered that if this was the King's value, the presses instead must be free. Truth and falsehood must be permitted to grapple if truth is to be found. Milton's essay won over the minds of men and historically has held true. Societies and religions that accept criticism and deal with the ugliness of open argumentation have thrived and rised to the top. Those that surpress truth and only permit state or religious-sanctioned speech have sunk to the bottom.
So EU... what direction are you going? All of us in every nation and society need to oppose the elites when they try to led down this status quo-preserving path of societal decay.
MOD PARENT UP TO STRATOSPHERE, PLEASE (Score:3, Informative)
I was about to post if anyone had a link to the actual draft directive [europa.eu], instead of that obviously alarmist rubbish, but there it is. Thank you!
I cite another article, adding emphasis:
So, this is yet another example of typical British anti-EU hysteria and the predictable Slashbot kneejerking. Nothing to see here, please move along.
(I do wish the UK would go ahead and leave the EU already.)