International (In)Consistency

[CajunCenturion]

The following link provides a good example of the difficulties in policing the Internet.

http://www.cdt.org/press/011108press.shtml

I'm not attempting to pass judgement either way on the French Law, the case, nor the ruling, but rather to highlight the inherant difficulties is establishing a set of rules for the Internet.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[pmonett]

Just the start of a long series of such decisions, it would seem.
The Internet is certainly not a global village. To me, it looks a lot more like a string of ghettos. Some are barricaded, some are not, but all are under scrutiny and susceptible to attack from another or group of others.
Personally I find that using the Free Speech excuse for such tasteless things as Nazi memorabilia is rather low.
It should be a moral obligation to such organizations to specifically avoid objects that promote racial hatred. Instead, money speaks first, in this case the money necessary to correct the situation.
Obviously, one might retort that there are perfectly respectable people looking for SS knives for perfectly good reasons. Like building up a museum room on the subject, or history boffins in need of catalog material.
There are, that is true, but I think there are many more skinheads and weak-minded individuals prone to aggressiveness that find an outlet to glorify hatred and violence.
The subject of hatred-inspiring objects is a very delicate one. I am absolutely supportive of the move, and I would like Yahoo to show a little bit more spine and a higher moral ground. Given that E-bay is quite different and much quicker to identify and remove such unwanted auctions, there is hope.
Unfortunately, the principle of censorship is quite a difficult proposal in itself. Indeed, what criteria is to be used to censor what ? Even if we do not take in arguments about Big Brother (it's only an auction site, after all), there still is the issue of acceptability.
I doubt that Nazi memorabilia is a true subject of discord, what surprises me more is that there was only one country to actually go and try to do something about it.
However, one might find other seemingly innocuous objects that could bring the ire of other countries. For example, does anyone think that Barbie dolls are well-viewed in integrist Islamic countries ?
Given that Matrix:Reloaded has been banned in Egypt (

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/2980432.stm),

does anyone doubt that in a year from now second-hand versions for sale will be ill-regarded by Egyptian authorities ?
Yet, no country has stepped up to the bar to ban Barbie dolls or films from being sold. And only one did so for the extremely delicate subject of Nazi stuff.
Does that mean no one really cares ? Or that it does not really matter ?
Some countries are handling such issues differently, as in banning all non-national sites, or severely controlling what sites can be accessed (China comes to mind).
I think the Internet will be more and more like that, a fractured, disjointed network, with some parts connecting fully, some partly, some not at all. It will be interesting to note whether or not the openness of a country is in correlation to the level of civic liberties its citizens enjoy.

 

[strongm]

>Free Speech

I think it is important to remember that, in fact, there are very few places in the world where genuine free speech is actually enshrined in law, precedent, conventions, constitutions, etc.

Loads of people, for example, think tat the EU has Free Speech. It doesn't. The Human Rights stuff that talks about this actually talks about freedom of expression (subtly different) and is actually fairly narrow in it's interpretation of what this means. And anyway allows local legislation in any of the member states - where necessary - to overide it.