Forum Moderators: phranque
Google has agreed to censor their own search engine in china, any company with more lawyers than you can get you shut down for trademark infringement even when their is none and the US government shuts down any site that is, well, just any site really!
As far as I can see the internet is being reduced to nothing more than interactive television - 99% advertising 1% substantial content. Source of free speech? Used to be, then governments and major corporations realised "uh-oh, free speech!"
Strangely, the enemies of the state such as Microsoft seem to be really quite pro-internet. They've got to be the only large corp that hasn't tried to control anything. They always refer to themselves as being major "players" whereas everyone else like Google seem to want complete domination. In fact, Google is probably one of the best examples of the downfall of innovation and free speech on the web. If the original founders could see what their company has become would they still have chosen to float? (Okay, so they have $50million or so reasons but still ...)
I would have thought that the definition of free speech would be that I could put up a webpage saying whatever I wanted to say. That's just not true ... unless your a porn/spam merchant based in third world country with no extradition ...
Just do a search for "website censored" and read all the sites that now state how they have been censored. Where's the free speech?
Yes, Google are censoring search results in China, but if they were not they would be excluded altogether. It's not like the Chinese Government begged Google to set up operations in China and said "but we'd prefer you to censor results".
Also, picking on Google with respect to China is rather unfair. I read a few weeks ago of a case where Yahoo actually passed email information to the Chinese Government that resulted in an arrest and jail. I can't comment on the truth of that story but it serves to remind us that Google is not alone.
Kaled.
I'm totally against defamation having been a victim of it - but I think alot of people/companies have twisted defamation law to suit their needs. As far as my interpretation goes (and generally how it is perceived here in the UK) defamation is where untrue allegations are made that result in provable losses to that person or company. Luckily, here in the UK we haven't fallen to the level of having to pay out punative damages just because our feelings get hurt. The Germans dropped a bomb on my Grandmothers house! She wouldn't dream of suing Hitlers great-grandchildren (if he'd had any!). Anyway, that's a different rant altogether!
These days anyone with enough lawyers can pressure anyone into removing content from their site as most general webmasters do not have the financial resources (or a willing attorney!) to fight back. How can people claim there is free speech on the web with that going on every second?
Students protesting by sitting in the middle of a road will not get sued because the media will report it and the public will see it. The free speech on the web is labelled as defamatory, not a protest, just because its written on a web page and not a placard.
What is free speech? "You have the right to say anything you want unless its racist, inflammatory, defamatory, un-patriotic, pro-terrorism, pro/anti communism, copyrighted/trademarked, against a religion, against a company, against an actor, against a politician, against/for a regime, against an employee/employer or if you just hurt someone's feelings a little." does free speech even exist anymore now that lawyers run the country(ies)?
On this board you can't put curse words, but you can put whatever you want on your site.
If you steal content, you can be shut down, but you can create your own rants about any subject.
If you want to create your own site, you can put whatever you want on it.
No you can't. Otherwise why are so many people having to shut their sites down because people/companies/governments threatening fines/punative damages/jailtime etc.
Can I post a few examples? If a mod would just let me know I can post a list of sites that all now have a front page like "due to the new government regulation DCF883734" or "companyname is suing us for saying they gave us bad service".
If you live in a country such as the UK or the US censorship is rife for anyone and anything.
If you live in a country such as the UK or the US censorship is rife for anyone and anything.
So, I'm all ears, without naming the site, let's have a quote that involves a threat of jailtime.
Kaled.
I live in the UK and I don't have a problem.
Good for you.
Incidentally, if someone were to threaten me with jailtime I would just laugh - libel is a civil matter (i.e. imprisonment does not apply).
Libel? Okay, if you only want to pick one part of censorship (and in general a fairly legal and just part of censorship) lets go with that even though I've already stated I'm totally against defamation and support the intentions of libel law anyway.
You can receive jailtime for libel indirectly e.g. if your words encouraged criminal actions against an individual or if you refused to pay the fine(s). A strange example recently was the jailing of Senior Scottish Socialist Party official Alan McCombes for not turning over documents to simply assist a libel case. So I can't say it's a laughing matter for people that actually have convictions about things. There are simply dozens of ways to end up in prison over libel - even if the suit isn't actually against you! And that's JUST the UK and JUST libel cases, a huge number of countries around the world jail for libel and other censored practices such as Russia, China, Morocco, Egypt, Iran and so on.
So, I'm all ears, without naming the site, let's have a quote that involves a threat of jailtime.
Are you serious? You can use a search engine right? May I suggest "libel jail", "censored jail", "defamation jail", "website jail" etc. just off the top of my head ... May I return to your original statement:
... and I don't have a problem.
I would disagree, a worldwide epidemic of lawsuits and jailings over things said on the internet you manage to reduce down to "I live in a non-oppressive regime and I've never had a problem therefore nobody does/can and I laugh at the idea" simply demeans the struggle and suffering these individuals have experienced for stating their beliefs. I think your problem may be an introverted view of the world.
[theregister.co.uk...]
I would disagree, a worldwide epidemic of lawsuits and jailings over things said on the internet you manage to reduce down to "I live in a non-oppressive regime and I've never had a problem therefore nobody does/can and I laugh at the idea" simply demeans the struggle and suffering these individuals have experienced for stating their beliefs. I think your problem may be an introverted view of the world.
IMO, that's simply one person's perception, which is their reality. If a person lives in a country where they are allowed to post terr^ristic threats -- then free speech (making threats) on the web is their reality.
If you live in the U.S. or UK, where you cannot openly threaten someone on the web, then the lack of free speech (being able to openly threaten someone) is your reality. But it's only for that particular subject (making threats).
You can easily voice your dislike of the U.S. president, or the UK Parliament (which is free speech) without any ramifications.
So I think free speech does exist on the web. It's just broken into small pieces that say: "This is free for you to say, but this is not."
You specified the UK and US, therefore it was reasonable for me to concentrate on the UK - your accusation of being introverted is, therefore, invalid.
Of course libel cases can result in jailtime - Jeffrey Archer is the best example - he committed perjury in his libel trial. More generally, any attempt to pervert the course of justice, be the case civil or criminal, can result in jailtime. HOWEVER, in the UK, you cannot be sent to jail for libel. Nor can you be sent to jail for non-payment in a civil case (but bailiffs, etc. can be used). However, you can be sent to jail for contempt of court.
Excluding regimes such as China, it's easy to say pretty much whatever you want on the internet without fear of lawsuits, HOWEVER, you have to choose your words carefully and get your facts straight. You cannot say things like "Superwidgets Inc are a bunch of thieves" but you can say, "I paid $60 for a superwidget but all I got was a $30 standard widget rebadged as a superwidget. Given that Superwidgets Inc. refused to refund my money, in my opinion, they are guilty of fraud in this case."
I am not aware of any democracy in which freedom of speech is unnecessarily restricted. However, with freedom of speech comes responsibility - a fact that many people simply do not grasp.
Here's something you might find interesting. I read some CND type talking about UK Trident Missiles being useless because the US refused to supply guidance systems for them. The reality is that the UK declined to use the US guidance systems and installed its own (I think). Does freedom of speech give people the right to distribute their own blatant lies? Well, the fact that I was able to read it tends to suggest that the UK government doesn't worry too much about it. Certainly, their is no dept. in charge of closing down sites that say the wrong thing.
As for the rest of the world, it was always inevitable that countries like Burma would seek to control the internet within their borders - anyone who believed otherwise must have fewer than two useful braincells to rub together. However, that doesn't mean that free speech is dead.
Kaled.
I live in the UK and I don't have a problem
Oh naive child!
I spent over 15 years with my telephone being tapped and being monitored by MI5 - from about 1980 until the end of the Soviet Union. I have been refused work, my son was refused entry to the armed forces, and all because of my political views.
Censorship is rife in the UK, so are murders and disappearences, we're just not so open about it as some regimes are/have been.
Matt
... we're just not so open about it as some regimes are/have been.
I think what you mean is that all media (and their directors) have their political and financial agendas and therefore they do not report on actual issues in the UK, just the sex lives of politicians, problems with other countries and Jordans bust size.
What news station is going to blow the whistle on the organisations and companies that keep them in ad revenue and press passes?
Note: sorry to hear about another victim of profiling. Attend one rally and they dog you for years!
IMO, that's simply one person's perception, which is their reality. If a person lives in a country where they are allowed to post terr^ristic threats -- then free speech (making threats) on the web is their reality.
Again with the whole "people shouldn't be allowed to say bad things" argument. No-one on this board, ESPECIALLY not me has said anything about allowing terrorists to incite or for people to be able to slander anyone they like. That is such a ridiculous argument and isn't worth the breath.
Of course people should be protected from terrorism and from slander - that is of course completely justified and something that I would fight for without hesitation. I'm not suggesting for one second that people should be allowed to say whatever they want, don't be stupid.
My problem is that people are being censored and/or jailed for simply having an alternate opinion about something. I also have a problem with companies threatening libel action when there is none but the defendant is not rich enough or has enough time to fight it.
My problem is that people are being censored and/or jailed for simply having an alternate opinion
1Excluding countries like Austria and France that have tight laws governing references to the Holocaust and Nazism.
Kaled.
I also have a problem with companies threatening libel action when there is none but the defendant is not rich enough or has enough time to fight it.
That's de facto censorship, and I agree that it's an issue humanity as whole needs to resolve. Countries where the loser of a lawsuit must cover the legal costs of BOTH sides have taken a good step, IMO.
