Amnesty International vs. Internet Censorship 287
An anonymous reader writes "Amnesty International has a new online campaign against governments which censor websites, monitor online communications, and persecute citizens who express dissent in blogs, emails, or chat-rooms. The website, Irrepressible.info contains a web-based petition (to be presented at a UN conference in November 2006) and also a downloadable web gadget which displays random excerpts of censored material on your own website."
Petition vs. Solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone pray to the FOSS infrastructure gods! That'll more likely help than any petition ever will.
rhY
Re:Petition vs. Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Outside of that, what would end up happening with a "niche provider" would be the interaction with a "non niche" provider who wasn't providing security. They overlap and that will forever be a problem. Here in the US as we all have seen, what will likely happen in one of these Free(dumb)Networks is, the gov will spew the catch phrase Osama and all things terror and knock this notion down the drain. I'm a huge privacy advocate and believe in security to the fullest, but even I feel there is no need for an all inclusive "SecureNet". The typical network transaction does not warrant the network and application overhead needed. I do know however that when I need something said securely, processed securely, transacted securely, I don't rely on any protocol, person or program. Rather I rely on myself which is the main and most fundamental point on the security food chain.
As for the notion of a petition, it will go nowhere with this crapaganda of things terror related. To an extent I agree with some portions of governments pickings when it comes to security and privacy, but I also know governments' current actions are likely to create smarter criminals. This is evident in the computer security industry where viruses are now utilizing encryption schemes to hide themselves and their actions... Imagine clusters of terrorists doing the same... So to a degree I empathize with governments... They just don't have a clue, but at the same time their actions will be their stepping blocks.
Re:Petition vs. Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Petition vs. Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
How do these protect against an oppressive government?
As far as I know, Freenet is the only way to publish something, and for everyone else to view that something, without the government being able to tell who published it and who's viewing it.
And then you complain that Freenet is too standard?
And then decrypted at the ISP before it leaves their network? Seriously, what does that buy you? And why couldn't the government come in and demand the ISP's records?
The point of Freenet is, unless the government comes out and says you can't do it, no one can control it. Once it's widely implemented, the ISP is literally unable to turn over records of your activity to the government.
I don't think they could. Most of the population wouldn't buy it -- we don't like wiretapping, either. All we need is enough content on the network that most people want to use it, and that could be much more successfully bootstrapped if it weren't for the performance issues -- Freenet sucks down as much bandwidth and CPU as you throw at it, and is still much slower than browsing the web over VNC on half-speed dialup.
Now, it may prevent other countries from adopting it so quickly, but imagine if the US, Canada, and Europe put so much content on Freenet that it essentially became The Internet. China would have to let it through or effectively be cutting their country off from any Western content at all.
That's the point. So, when the vast majority of freenet traffic is "typical", it's that much more impossible to find the atypical.
Re:Petition vs. Solution (Score:3, Informative)
Hope they stop insanity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hope they stop insanity (Score:2)
Well...
I would actually like to be able to read the headers of emails I get. So will quite a few other people. Helps weed out at least some minor fraudsters out there.
Similarly, I do not see anything wrong with paying for bandwidth, services, etc on a per item or per Kb basis.
After all, let's get real. Internet is now a utility. We are reaching the point where governments are contemplating to make broadband access an essential service which is a right and Telcos are supposed to guarantee that 100% of the population is covered. Essentially it is on its way to become an essential service like phone or electricity.
A connection to any other utility carries with it responsibilities. If the water pipe between the street and your house bursts you have to pay for the repairs and any damage to other properties. If you have a broken appliance which uses electricity without your knowledge, you pay per KW/h used. If you use a phone you pay for any premium services you have used. So on, so fourth.
Frankly I do not see why Internet is supposed to be any different. I personally do not mind paying for my connection on a per Kb basis. Neither will 99% of the consumers if they are provided with clear, well defined and understandable billing criteria and billing information.
Re:Hope they stop insanity (Score:2)
You will when someone decides to dump a few thousand dollars worth of unasked for traffic your way.
Re:Hope they stop insanity (Score:2)
ISP's (at least here in australia) charge end users either set fee's for supposedly unlimited access at a maximum data rate, or fees based on how much they download. big wensites like google pay other isp's (or set up their own equipment) fees based on how much bandwidth is used by the website. in this setup, it should be obvious that any costs for users bandwidth should be covered by the fees charged them, NO MATTER THE CONTENT BEING VIEWED (its all just bits to an ISP), and beyond paying the bandwidth costs incured by its webhosting company (plus extra for profit of course), a website should not have to pay any other isp for data transfered through that isp's net:
They are ALREADY being payed for it by the end user downloading said data.
any arguments of "unexpectedly heavy bandwidth use" are rediculous, implying(and this is in fact generally true) that the ISP is engaging in a kind of false advertising, whereby you pay for an "unlimited download x mb/s connection" but are infact recieving an "x mb/s maximum, not garaunteed, download limited depending on how other people are downloading/ how overloaded our pipe is/ any other reason we pullout our &%$&.
The situation is analogous to signing a contract for unlimited electricity usage at a maximum 4 KW with a power company (no i've never heard of such a contract either), only to find that your entire street of 20 houses (on similar contract) only has a 6KW powerline supplying it, so if you and your neighbours both try to run a 4KW airconditioner your screwed. the power company then wants the airconditioner manufacturer to pay them as well for using too much power. Its rediculous, any costs incurred in supplying the electricity should be covered by the contract, and if they arent, thats the power companys (or ISP's in the real world) own bad luck for bad business planning (and signing a contract they never inteded to honour).
I have no problem with the isp charging users a cost per kb, if thats the obvious upfront deal (and if they can get users to sign up) but this cost and this alone should cover the isps costs for supplying this user. They should not expect a webservice provider not directly connected to them to pay them simply because the data travels over their net, THATS WHAT THE END USER IS PAYING THEM FOR!.
anyway apologies if this is not what you were talking about.
Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, are they also going after all those "enlightened" governments that censor "hate speech" and neo-Nazi crap, or are they selectively enforcing their policy?
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2)
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh wait, I've just realised, this whole line of reasoning is totally fucking stupid.
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2)
Because of the slippery slope that you despise so much, they have recently jailed a guy in my city who shot and killed in self defence, with a legitimately owned and registered gun, during a robbery where he and his fathers were attacked.
The reasons why he was jailed are, of course, political. I'm not entering the details because they are not relevant now. But it goes to show that "this whole line of reasoning is totally fucking" APPROPRIATE.
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2)
Are you serious? So you think that because the law was incorrectly enforced in one case that murder should be legalized? Well, let's legalize robbery and rape as well then since I'm sure just as many individuals have been wrongfully imprisoned for those crimes also.
Or maybe the more rational approach would be to address what actually went wrong in that situation: incorrect interepretation/enforcement of the law. Instead of legalizing murder (do I even need to explain why this is a stupid idea?), maybe the decision should be appealed and the judge who passed that decision should be investigated for incompetence--if what you claimed to have happen is in fact accurate.
In most countries there's a difference between murder, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide. These legal definitions are put in place so that the law can't be interpreted askewed and enforced differently from their original intent. So there's no reason to legalize murder just because one judge--supposedly--mistook justifiable homicide for murder.
Also, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the original quote, which was a statement about persecution. The original quote meant that in a society that doesn't stand up to the persecution of targeted minorities by an oppressive regime, no one is safe. Protecting society from murderers is not a form of persecution, nor is it a characteristic of an oppressive regime. Protecting society from murderers isn't an injustice that will snowball if let to persist. The logic simply doesn't work applied in the context you're using it in. If you're going to use a quote to demonstrate a point, atleast try to understand its meaning.
Re:Rating service (Score:2)
Re:Rating service (Score:2)
Besides, I don't understand what's wrong with taking down people who threaten your self or your house. Who cares if the burglar is 16yo? Oh, the poor guy was so stupid that he managed not to find anything to steal and so was running away already... so let's just let him go? What a load of crap.
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:5, Insightful)
Until this changes, they will be more than happy to sponsor censorship-happy governments. The more the gov't handles, the less responsible they will be. Then, when something bad happens, they just wish to fix it with extreme prejudice, lock it away, try to forget about it, and pass more legislation: apparently we're not forbidding enough things.
And why the hell are you a nazi anyway? Why do you support pro-nazi speech? Don't you think of the children?
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:5, Insightful)
The mere fact that a government is seeking to engineer how people think, speak and dress when it comes to Nazism is a Fascist tendency in its own right. Fascism operates under the tenant that people can't be trusted to think for themselves so the government has to regulate how they think and act for the good of the state.
The irony of rabid suppresion of Nazis is that many governments are leaning if not out right rushing to Fascism today. China, U.S., U.K., Australia, Russia and Israel are on the top of the Fascism scale in my book. Are they Nazi Germany, obviously not though China is pretty close with internal policy. Fortunately China at present seems to have no interest in aggressive warfare, a Fascist trademark, they are so busy just getting rich the old fashioned way. The U.S. has a superficially freer society though its getting less free every day, but its makes up for it on the Fascism scale with rampant militarism and advocacy of aggressive, preemptive war making.
Its my suspicion the world's governments need to suppress Nazi sympathizers because they want to return to Fascism as the world's dominant form of government, but to do that they need to erase the association between Fascism and the extreme turn it took in the 1930's and 1940's. If they outlaw and suppress the most notorious and superficial symbols of Fascism then OBVIOUSLY they must not be Fascist and Fascism must not exist today. If you make the false assertion that to be a Fascist you must wear a Swastika, and you outlaw the Swastika so no one wears them, then it follows there must not be any Fascists, right? It is an interesting con game.
The world's governments and media are in complete denial that Fascism could ever flourish again when in fact it is flourishing, its just no one will speak the name and on the Internet Godwin's law will be invoked, Godwin's law being the ultimate weapon to prevent anyone calling a spade a spade on the Internet.
The only time you hear anyone being called Fascist lately, is the Bush administration seems to have settled on Islamo-Fascist as their new buzz word since they've completely worn out the 'T' and 'R' keys on their keyboards using the word "Terrorist" a hundred times in EVERY speech and press release for the last 5 years, to refer to EVERYONE who is not "with them" in the "either you are with us or you are against us" equation. I would say there is another pretty heavy dose of smoke screen in their recent use of Fascist in describing their enemy. If there enemy is Fascist then that MUST mean that they are not, though in fact they are at least leaning that way.
Israel is another interesting case study. It was a state born out of the crucible of Fascism, but they treat Palestinians as sub human and with such contempt that it must ring a bell with Jews who lived in Europe in the 1930's. Just last week Israel's Supreme court affirmed a law effectively banning a Palestinian from marrying an Israeli citizen, a law so much like the Nazi prohibition of intermarriage with Jews. The law is not exactly predicated on race since its real motive is to prevent Palestinians from ever becoming the majority withing Israel. You see Palestinian are reproducing at a higher rate than Israel's Jews, especially if you count the occupied territories. so there is an imminent danger they will become the majority. Since Israel wants to maintain the facade it is a representative democracy it must do everything in its power to prevent Palestinians from becoming the majority, because when they are either Jews surrender power at the polls or for all practical purposes Israel is an apartheid state, which is pretty much already is, with a minority controlling power through non Democratic means and ethnic "cleansing". This is a key motivator from the withdrawl from Gaza. Through withdrawl Israel can claim that all the Palestinians there are no longer a part of Israel while Israel still maintains a choke hold on every aspect of their day to day lives.
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:3, Informative)
This is, quite simply, false. The law you're refering to does not prevent anyone from marrying anyone.
What that law does state is that Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens would not be automatically granted Israeli citizenship.
So first of all, that's hardly a human-rights violation; it's a rule about who can and cannot become an Israeli citizen, and how. Japan, for instance, does not grant a man citizenship if he marries a Japanese woman. Every country has the right to determine who can and cannot gain citizenship, and many do enforce strict laws.
Moreover, you can hardly call that rule unreasonable. The Palestinians are currently at war with Israel. Many of them state their commitment to wiping us out of the face of the Earth. Are we out of line by denying them the ability to become citizens of our country? Can a country not prevent its enemies from gaining its citizenship? I think the answer to these questions is obvious.
And one other important fact. That rule was only established recently. After 5 years of intense conflict, during which 25 Palestinians who gained Israeli citizenship by marriage were involved in suicide bombings againt Israeli population. Each such bombing causes on average 10-30 casualties, and the order of 50-300 wounded. I believe the Israeli people have the right to defend themselves.
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:3)
And it also means the Palestinian spouse can't move to Israel to live together as man and wife. I don't think an Israeli citizen can easily move to the West Bank to live with their spouse either. The Israeli military restricts who can move to the West bank, apparently favoring to only allow Jews to move their to create "illegal" settlements secretly blessed by the Israeli government. Yes I think you can get married but you probably wont be able to live together and any children you have will be in legal limbo.
Contrast this with any non Palestinian who can marry an Israeli and get citizenship with no problem. Any Jew from anywhere in the world can easily move to Israel and get citizenship and in fact many American Jews have duel citizenship where they are given an Israeli passport merely because they are Jewish. I think Paul Wolfowitz, architect of the disaster in Iraq, carries
dual citizenship and duel alegience which is bad for a key decision maker in the Pentagon.
You can try to rationalize it anyway you like but in its current form it is a racist, apartheid policy designed to cement Israel as a Jewish state. It is a hard and fast rule a Jew from anywhere can get citizenship in a heart beat and its nearly impossible for Palestinians to even return to what was their home for centuries until they were driven out, often by threat of violence like the massacre at Deir Yassin.
"The Palestinians are currently at war with Israel."
Yes and likewise the Israelis have been at war with the Palestinians since they pushed them out of the homes 60 years ago. You act like its only the Palestinians who are at war. Far more of them die at the hands of the Israelis than the other way around. Its also unlikely there will ever be any real peace short of the Palestinians completely capitulating and accepting life in walled ghettos in Gaza and the West Bank for the rest of time, most probably in eternal povery since the occupied territories are economically unviable inside an Israeli noose.
If you had been driven out of your home and in to refugee camps for 60 years I'm pretty sure you would be doing the same things the Palestinians are doing.
One [counterpunch.org]alternative viewpoint to consider and . [commondreams.org]
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2)
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2)
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2)
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can say all of that without thinking twice because the one freedom America hasn't completely sold out is the freedom to criticize or insult whomever you wish. If I were in France (or Germany or Switzerland or Poland or Belgium or Austria), I would think very long and hard before I said anything like that in public. If it was a very public statement, such as a speech or academic paper, likely I'd have to consult a lawyer first and he'd probably tell me to tone down my language.
Simply put, that's fucked up... and it's doubly fucked up for an allegedly free western democratic nation. The USA certainly has its share of freedom-stomping, un-democratic laws on the books, but I certainly do hope Amnesty International doesn't neglect to go after oppressive and unproductive "hate crime" laws in western Europe.
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2, Interesting)
KFG
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2)
If they're not, then your rhetorical question is answered.If they are, well...
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2)
Being selective is *not* hypocritical! (Score:2)
Re:Being selective is *not* hypocritical! (Score:2)
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hypocrisy, or sensible priorities?
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2)
Even here in the U.S. where we have pretty liberal laws regarding free speech it is still recognized that you are not allowed to incite people to violence. That inciting to violence is what AI opposes.
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2)
Ah, that old argument. I'm lobbying that people be treated as adults, instead of as children who constantly need to be looked after by Big Brother so that they do not go astray.
Do you think that if the hate speech propagated by the radio personalities in Rwanda had been halted there would still have been a massacre of 800,000 people? [If we don't censor speech, bad things will happen.]
But what if neo-Nazis use the postal service to spread their message of hate and discuss their vile ideology? We need the government to read everyone's mail now so that no pro-Nazi mail is ever sent! But what if they use email? Oh noes, we need the government to read all of that too. What if they get together in their houses and discuss their vile ideology? OMG, we need to the government to install video cameras in every house to make sure that does not happen! But what if they go into the wilderness to discuss their vile ideology? We need to install sub-dermal implants in all citizens so that the government can make sure that people don't say pro-Nazi things in the wilderness. But what if they use sign language in the wilderness? We need the government to install ocular implants in all citizens to make sure that that does not happen! What if they communicate using more code by tapping each other's stomachs while looking away! Oh noes, now were really doomed because I can't think of a way that the government can prevent that! I guess it's time that the government just placed everyone in solitary confinement to prevent that. It's the only way!
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2)
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good job. You've just outlawed verbal support for the colonials that wanted to rebel against the British Crown (ever heard of the American revolution?) including the founding fathers. You've just outlawed every other revolutionary movement (including anti-colonial, anti-imperial, and pro-democratic movements) as well. You've outlawed verbal support for communism, which depends on the proles rising up and violently beating the crap out of "the rich." You've also outlawed verbal support for socialism, which is dependent upon involuntary taxation, which is possible only when violence can be used to coerce people to pay their taxes (e.g. if you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come to your house, and take you to jail; if you resist, they'll beat the crap out of you). Just the other day, there was a Slashdot thread where people were seriously discussing violently overthrowing the American government; I guess Slashdot can be banned now as well, and all those people can go strait to jail. We can go on, and on.
Would you defend my right to try to convince people that you should be dragged into the street and shot?
I'd give you a microphone so that the whole world can be exposed to your "extraordinary" logic.
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2)
I didn't see that discussion. It's probably not as you described, but discussing the violent overthrow of the government is not the same as inciting.
And no, I didn't outlaw verbal support for socialism, communism or even capitalism (which is the most violent of all). I merely stated that actually inciting violence may not be protected.
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2)
Here [slashdot.org] you go. I suggest that you read it at -1 for full effect (as I do due to not wanting others to censor my information for me). If you read slowly, you can start here. [slashdot.org] Please come back and tell me how it is not as I described.
discussing the violent overthrow of the government is not the same as inciting.
Personally, I felt quite incited. Perhaps in the future, you could support your assertions with arguments (and no, saying "no it isn't" is not a good supporting argument.
I didn't outlaw verbal support for socialism, communism or even capitalism (which is the most violent of all). I merely stated that actually inciting violence may not be protected.
There you go again, supporting your assertions with such well thought out and strong arguments (you: No it isn't!; me: Well, ok. Your strong rebuttal has convinced me).
P.S. Aside to crafting an actual rebuttal, you still have to attempt to address the points I made in response to your other post.
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:2)
Homeopathy does not work. A tiny bit of fascism is not the way to prevent a lot of fascism.
From the summary : (Score:3)
Emphasis mine. Every government does that, and it's unlikely that any petition will end that. Why? Because not all of that monitoring is done with 'Evil Intent'. I'm not going to complain because the police are watching IRC rooms as part of operation Avalanche or whatever. I'm not going to complain when they shut down some idiots website telling someone to go poison the water supply.
This may not be a popular view with the yanks, but not all censorship or eavesdropping is inherently bad. The problem is making sure there are controls in place, so that that power can't be abused. The other problem is trust.
Re:From the summary : (Score:2)
Not all serial killers are actually killing with 'Evil Intent'.
Re:From the summary : (Score:3, Insightful)
For at least one government, however, it is actually illegal to censor websites due to their constitution. If you have any proof of them doing so, you can sue them.
This may not be a popular view with the yanks, but not all censorship or eavesdropping is inherently bad. The problem is making sure there are controls in place, so that that power can't be abused. The other problem is trust.
Great, another "enlightened" "nuanced" individual. We can argue about eavesdropping as eavesdropping can be framed as a method of information aggregation which does not suppress information dissemination. Censorship, on the other hand, purposely suppresses the dissemination of information. You're right about one thing, it is a matter of trust, and if you, as an adult (I assume), are willing to let bureaucrats and politicians, each with their own personal bias and agenda, control what you see, hear, or read, you are being quite "trustworthy."
Ok, then... (Score:2)
Re:Ok, then... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:From the summary : (Score:2)
Maybe as a Yank, I have problems with eavesdropping.
For one... It is just inconsiderate. Secondly, it implies guilt. Lastly, it gives government too much power.
I'd rather have an ineffective and idiotic government than one that is strong and all knowing.
I don't care if it for "good", because we might have good people in office, but one day those tempted by power and greed might happen to be in a position of authority because all that power of the state is quite a target by those who would commit evil.
Keep the government weak and ineffective and those people will stick to running corporations or just doing evil on a local scale.
Crime can be prevented by local means and without using eavesdropping or monitoring. If they have a good reason, they can get a warrant and target specific suspects. Otherwise... They need to not be monitoring.
Re:From the summary : (Score:2)
Re:From the summary : (Score:2)
Re:From the summary : (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government wants to censor child pornogrophy, terrorist websites, and related things, it's fine with me.
So tell me who gets to define "child pornogrophy [sic]" and "terrorist websites" for the purposes of this censorship that is fine with you. Is Slashdot a terrorist website because of all the free thinking liberals that post here?
Re:From the summary : (Score:2)
You're a funny guy.
Re:From the summary : (Score:5, Insightful)
Child pornography is a crime. It is illegal in every industrialized society that I know of, and shutting down these websites is merely an extension of the enforcement of said laws. Similarly, a website clearly made to recruit terrorists is in violation of International Law. Again, shutting down this website is merely enforcing a law already in place. No one sane is going to complain when a website for black market goods is shut down.
But when they shut down a website that merely criticizes a government, posts unpoplar opinions, or some other legal content, that is when a problem arises.
Re:From the summary : (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From the summary : (Score:2)
Before anyone wrongly believes I am in favor of child porn (which I am not), I would like to point out that what is considered child porn varies from nation to nation. Typical limits are 18 in the US and the Western world, and 14 in China. In my native Sweden, it used to be a matter of maturity in the actor/actress, which is why Traci Lord movies that were banned in the US were allowed in Sweden (good stuff, btw). Now Sweden has also jumped onto the US bandwagon, as in so many other issues, and I am the first to be sorry for that.
There is still a popular lolita culture in Japan, despite the ban on real child porn. The actresses are 18 or over, but they dress as if they were 14, in school uniforms and so on.
Anyway, what Americans don't understand and will never understand is that the UN decaration of human rights was created by Westerners to be imposed onto the rest of the world. In essence, other people should not only have the freedoms we have, but they should also not have any other freedoms.
Therefore, this campaign stinks of the usual cultural imperialism that has plagued us recently, the kind of American world view that is shoved down our throats.
The page links to some country reports, for instance http://www.opennetinitiative.net/studies/china/ [opennetinitiative.net] on China. As I have done a similar report (in China), I can only say that it is exaggerated, and its purpose is to demonize China to the maximum extent. It doesn't put things in a cultural context, and doesn't honor the changes that have taken place for the better.
The conclusion, "While there can be legitimate debates about whether democratization and liberalization are taking place in China's economy and government, there is no doubt that neither is taking place in China's Internet environment today" is completely wrong.
Re:From the summary : (Score:2)
At first I did fall victim to the rationalization that Child porn is easily defined, which it is not. I have seen lolita manga in Japan, and it is often debated if it should be counted as child porn. (It's clearly sexual in nature against people far below most age-of-consent laws in just about every country I know. Though on the other hand, it's also entirely fictional (which is why, IMHO, it shouldn't be illegal because no actual crime has taken place)
I still hold to the idea that if a website (let's assume it's based in the US to avoid difficult International laws) clearly showing homemade movies of a 7 year old girl being sexually assaulted, I would expect that the police can shut it down and hopefully use some info on the site to locate and arresst the owner. But I admit, there is so much gray in the situation that rarely is it that simple. But as much as I detest censorship, I believe websites which promote DIRECT, PHYSICAL harm to individuals can and should be shut down (as an example, a site on how to build a bomb is fine, as it has other purposes, but a site about sodomizing extremely young kids or a site about stolen, black market goods are quite clearly illegal and I'd expect to react to it as if they found a poster advertising such services.)
In cases where such cut and dry, I'd expect debate to occur, and hope the government wouldn't abuse its power.... But giving a government too much power is like asking the fox to guard the proverbial chicken coop. It feels like real lose/lose situation.
Re:From the summary : (Score:2)
Great idea. And let's keep the government doing the censoring in charge of the controls as well. While we're at it, make the Administrative branch responsible for pushing these laws and appointing the Legislative gatekeepers who determine if it's constitutional. It's worked so damn well up to now, that is once those gatekeepers decide if it's in the Admin's powers to spy on any American citizen they want, whenever they want without oversight.
BTW, you wrote 'liberal' but I'm pretty sure the concept you were grasping for is 'pre-Enlightenment'. The position you advocate is after all closer to monarchy than democratic republic.
Re:From the summary : (Score:2)
Let me introduce you to the British-inspired parliamentary system in the liberal utopia of Canada (similar to other Commonwealth countries, but Canada is the Commonwealth country idealized most by a lot of Americans so I shall focus upon it), where the cabinet (Executive branch) is made up of the party which won the largest number of votes (even if that is 5% due to there being a lot of parties) in the Legislative chamber (House of Commons). The Prime Minister (leader of the largest party) gets to appoint the Supreme Court judges and Senators (second Legislative chamber) with no oversight. If you have a majority government (50% of members in House of Commons), the Prime Minister has complete control over the legislature (especially through The Whip and "party-loyalty," complete executive power, and he/she/it appoints the Supreme Court justices and the members of the Senate.
Re:From the summary : (Score:2)
Technically useless. (Score:3, Interesting)
"If you have a website, myspace page or blog, help us spread the word and undermine unwarranted censorship by publishing censored material from our database directly onto your site."
Great, amnesty, really great. The cynic in me just wants to say that all amnesty want is to have people "spread the word and undermine unwarranted censorship by driving more people to our website, not by publishing censored material"...
Re:Technically useless. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Technically useless. (Score:2)
Wow - it's getting serious then... (Score:3, Insightful)
Amnesty really is the hardcore of moral activism.
From blood diamonds to the arms trade, from violence against women to the death penalty, and not forgetting the letter writing campaigns, Amnesty doesn't concern itself with minor issues like Microsoft vs Linux or Google taking over the world.
I think I might actualy do something to contribute this time
Re:Wow - it's getting serious then... (Score:2, Insightful)
Needs more blantant anti-US content (Score:2, Insightful)
We all know that the US is the worst when it comes to censorship and human rights violations.
So why, when I visit that site, do I see a quote from a Syrian site?
Come on people, prioritize.
-john
Useless (Score:3, Funny)
UN: Please don't censor your people, China.
China: We have nuclear weapons, stupid.
UN: Oh, damn.
UN: Hey, Iran. Please don't censor your...
Iran: Uranium, uranium, uranium. Stick it up uranium, UN.
No need for Nukes (Score:2)
We (Iranians) have beed silenced long before Iran started its nuke program
Re:No need for Nukes (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that oil is proving to be more of a vulnerability than a strength with the current US administration. Any country that supplies a lot of oil to the US...
(Reads a top-15 US oil importers [snipurl.com] statistic)...
...um, maybe I should load up on supplies and move to the back woods of Manitoba before Dubya realizes who is really buttering his bread. I'll be sure to stock up on Canadian Bacon [imdb.com].
Re:Useless (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:But it's not censorship! (Score:2)
The kind of commie bastard who is so against racism that he has anti-white laws passed. But hey that's not racism because I'm white and I'm supposed to suck it up and die.
That kind. Satisfied, you commie bastard?
Anti-censorship...as long as you say what we like (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a supporter of the anti-censorship side of this debate, but having an organisation that believes in censorship of opinions they dislike really means little. I know this is going to stir people up, but consider this quote (from Wikipedia);
However, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute -- neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such "hate speech" should be prohibited by law.
Now, as much as nationalists, racists and religious extremists are scum, the fact of the matter is that they all have the right to a voice, just like everyone else. One shouldn't ban political opinions you dislike. When people use bigotry as an excuse to commit force or fraud, it is the act itself which is the crime, and deserves punishment, not the motive behind it.
Re:Anti-censorship...as long as you say what we li (Score:2)
Whether or not you like AI and it's methods, they do attract the attention of quite a few people. It helps to have them on our side of this issue. If only
Re:Anti-censorship...as long as you say what we li (Score:2)
I refuse to sign (Score:2)
I am not going to sign this petition. I don't want governments to force more regulations on privately owned telecoms. And the LAST, the very last thing I want to see, is an "international government" doing anything except ceasing to exist. Not proposing treaties, not controlling guns, not levying international taxes, not taking 50 fucking billion dollars a year from US Taxpayers and then attempting to claim control over our nation.
Good luck with that UN thing... (Score:5, Informative)
The UN has a lot of evil members. Don't forget that.
Re:Good luck with that UN thing... (Score:2, Informative)
John Bolton: There is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States. When it suits our interest, and when we can get others to go along. The United States makes the U.N. work when it wants to work, and that is exactly the way it should be, because the only question, the only question for the United States is what's in our national interest. And if you don't like that, I'm sorry, but that is the fact.
Stan Correy: John Bolton is now the US Ambassador to the United Nations, an organisation he's publicly disdained for almost 30 years.
Download Audio - 21052006 http://www.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/feeds/bbing_2006John R Bolton may be called 'the ugly American' and be widely disliked, yet his pivotal role as US Ambassador to the UN makes him extraordinarily powerful and important in world affairs. Obsequious, arrogant, doctrinaire and above all, Americanist - but no fool, neocons hope he may save the Bush administration.
Show transcript http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stori
fine, but... (Score:2)
Re:fine, but... (Score:2)
Re:fine, but... (Score:2)
Yes indeed, but there's no such thing as the "GDR" anymore, so semantically, it is plain wrong to list it. By your reasoning, shouldn't they list Switzerland three times, once for each language spoken there?
They just used a ~20 year old list of countries in the "Sign this pledge" form, that's it.
Does Amnesty go after the Wikipedia? (Score:2)
Because I and others have been prevented from telling the truth there several times.
AI ain't what it use to be. (Score:2, Informative)
Should really clean house before going abroad.
Re:AI ain't what it use to be. (Score:4, Interesting)
Goals of Amnesty (from the wikipedia entry):
Should really clean house before going abroad.
Not really sure what you mean by this. Did you miss the "international" in Amnesty International?
Re:AI ain't what it use to be. (Score:2)
Re:AI ain't what it use to be. (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you even looked at the Amnesty International website? Here let me show you a quote from their 2006 annual report that describes, "...widespread rape and killings continued - most shockingly in Darfur - against a background of poverty and disease." Source: http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/globaloverview-
Yes, the website does go on to criticize the US for one full sentence, and it also makes damn sure that China's rural policies, torture by Middle-Eastern governments, and incredibly poverty in Africa are mentioned as well.
Also, do you know WHY America gets criticzed for even (relatively, compared to the Darfur genocide) slips in human rights records? This is because Americans - me included - consider their country to be a role model for the rest of the world. We obviously aren't as bad as China when it comes to censorship or Syria when it comes to torture, but why are we even comparing ourselves to that? Does it really feel that good to say, "well, at least we aren't as bad as the Darfur Janjaweed militia?" We hold ourselves to a higher moral standard, and I see nothing wrong when international human rights organizations call us out when we lapse from that standard. If we consider ourselves a symbol of freedom and democracy in the world, we better be able to take flak when we deviate in any way from those principles.
Re:AI ain't what it use to be. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because AI is a biased organization that lives and breathes anti-Americanism?
Check out their annual report - it begins with a letter from Amnesty's secretary general, Irene Khan. The letter opens with the events of August 19, 2003, when the United Nations envoy to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, was killed in an attack on United Nations headquarters in Baghdad. Khan wonders why the "legitimacy and credibility of the UN could have eroded to such a fatal degree," noting that the UN was marginalized by America's march to war. That is supposed to explain the bombing of UN headquarters in Iraq? This peculiar bit of reasoning defies logic. Later on in the letter, Khan condemns "unequivocally" the actions of terrorist groups. But this hardly makes up for her earlier implication that America's rocky relationship with the UN somehow led to the August 19 attacks.
Khan worries that Washington is trampling on human rights in its search for security, and muses about lost opportunities to correct social injustice and inequality as increased funding goes to the Pentagon's budget rather than to poverty-alleviation programs. While condemning "armed groups and individuals," she doesn't delve into much detail about the enormous harm wrought on the lives and rights of untold millions living under the intolerant tenets of religious extremism.
The United States is named five times in her opening letter, and indirectly alluded to on several other occasions. No other country merits such sustained criticism. Certainly not the government of Sudan, which is guilty of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in what is the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. As many as a million Sudanese in the Darfur region have been driven from their homes and tens of thousands have been slaughtered by militias loyal to the government. Khan does not mention the government of North Korea, which keeps a population of 25 million living in abject poverty and isolation, with more than 6 million Koreans depending on international handouts to avoid starvation while the regime spends scarce resources to build nuclear weapons. Khan mentions only in passing the human rights problems in the Congo, where more than 3 million people have died in a war nobody pays much attention to. Egypt merits a brief mention, but Khan does not bother criticizing Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, or any of the other Arab countries where jails are filled with political prisoners who often linger behind bars even after their sentences are completed. The millions of Burmese living under the heel of military dictatorship also fail to garner a mention in Khan's letter, as do the populations of increasingly repressive Central Asia regimes. And, of course, Khan declined to write about the travesty of the UN Human Rights Commission, which has lost all credibility by counting among its members some of the world's worst human rights violators.
Yes, the details of each country's abuses appear inside the report. But the overarching views and priorities of Amnesty International take shape in Khan's introductory letter and in the press release. After all, those are the sections of the report that most readers are likely to see.
And Amnesty's bias isn't just reflected in who it condemns; it's also revealed in where it directs praise. Amid the desolate landscape allegedly created by Washington, Amnesty takes solace in the emergence of what it calls a "global justice movement"--comprising the millions who, according to Amnesty, "took to the streets around the world in solidarity with the Iraqi people." That's an amazingly simplistic characterization of anti-war marches--it's not clear how a movement that urges the abandonment of Iraq stands in "solidarity with the Iraqi people"--and one that makes Amnesty sound more like a left-wing activist group than the rational, analytical organization it claims to be. Human rights are indeed under attack, and victims of abuse need staunch--and serious--defenders more than ever. Amnesty International could be at the forefront of this work, if it weren't so busy carrying out a narrow political agenda.
Sign the damn thing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe me, Amnesty has been able to change pretty many things in this world, and for better. Now they are taking up the case of Shi Tao, who got 10 years in China for advancing freedom. Now sign the damn petition, it takes a freaking 10 seconds! Would be great to have 100.000 names on it. Slashdotters could and should help.
http://irrepressible.info/
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Not a short term solution (Score:5, Informative)
For those who don't know (Score:3, Informative)
What do people here think about this? Is it over-stepping their mark?
Cannot use their javascript in Blogger (Score:3, Funny)
Your HTML cannot be accepted: Tag is not allowed:
I guess the forbidden javascript will also be cut out of this Blogger error message quote.
Talk about censorship...
But in fact, if you click the check box to ignore HTML errors, it posts alright.
Re:official? (Score:2)
You mean besides the:
Right smack dab in the middle of their homepage?
Re:official? (Score:2)
If you could give us the URL where you saw that, I (along with many others) would greatly appreciate it!
Re:official? (Score:2)
Re:official? (Score:4, Informative)
Hey ;) (Score:2, Funny)
Paranoia (Score:2)
<ecode>Registrant Name:Mel Herdon
Registrant Organization:Amnesty International UK
Registrant Street1:17-25 New Inn Yard
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:London
Registrant State/Province:
Registrant Postal Code:EC2A3EA
Registrant Country:GB
Registrant Phone:+44.2070331642
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:mel.herdon@amnesty.org.uk
Admin ID:tuX9qGlGSJx5L46v
Admin Name:Mel Herdon
Admin Organization:Amnesty International UK
Admin Street1:17-25 New Inn Yard
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:London
Admin State/Province:
Admin Postal Code:EC2A3EA
Admin Country:GB
Admin Phone:+44.2070331642
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:mel.herdon@amnesty.org.uk
Billing ID:tuX9qGlGSJx5L46v
Billing Name:Mel Herdon
Billing Organization:Amnesty International UK
Billing Street1:17-25 New Inn Yard
Billing Street2:
Billing Street3:
Billing City:London
Billing State/Province:
Billing Postal Code:EC2A3EA
Billing Country:GB
Billing Phone:+44.2070331642
Billing Phone Ext.:
Billing FAX:
Billing FAX Ext.:
Billing Email:mel.herdon@amnesty.org.uk
Tech ID:tuX9qGlGSJx5L46v
Tech Name:Mel Herdon
Tech Organization:Amnesty International UK
Tech Street1:17-25 New Inn Yard
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:London
Tech State/Province:
Tech Postal Code:EC2A3EA
Tech Country:GB
Tech Phone:+44.2070331642
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:mel.herdon@amnesty.org.uk
</ecode>
Re:official? (Score:2)
Domain ID:D13225976-LRMS
Domain Name:IRREPRESSIBLE.INFO
Registrant Name:Mel Herdon
Registrant Organization:Amnesty International UK
Registrant Street1:17-25 New Inn Yard
Also, the IP address is owned by Soda Creative - the company mentioned on the site so I think it's safe enough to remove the foil hat and sign the pledge.
Re:official? (Score:3, Funny)
fragments.irrepressible.info/data/current/*-180.h
where "*" is from 0 to 70.
It includes some quotes, but they are just few words, taken out of context, no author or place of origin is given, basically makes no sense. Some of them are Arabic as well.
Let's hope it's not some scam, otherwise you can expect those quotes to turn into cheap C1aL1s offers and affordable mortgage deals when they gain some mass
Re:official? (Score:2)
Irrepressible.info -> "irrepressible information" -> "information [that] [cannot|should not] be repressed" (or similar).
Besides that, given that it's the website for a campaign, rather than an organisation or similar, what domain fits better?
Re:official? (Score:2)
And perhaps the AI Worldwide webmaster is based in the US and therefore on a long weekend? Occams Razor?
Re:Slashdot? (Score:2)