French Government decides to censor the Internet

[bludex]

Potentially important news for any site on the internet:

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/06/10/french-government-decides

French Government decides to censor the Internet

Keep your Égalité and Fraternité but shove your Liberté!

By Sylvie Barak: Tuesday, 10 June 2008, 7:48 PM

THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT has apparently decided that it doesn’t much like being democratic, and that it would rather like to censor the Internet instead.
Not content with simply limiting itself to blocking despicable child sex abuse, a move three major ISPs in the US also agreed to today, the French government feels it necessary to go a radical step further and decide for its citizens whether or not they can view content it considers inappropriately racist and or linked to terrorism.
In fact, worse still is that any site is now game for a French blockade, as Sarkozy’s government is inviting people to send in huge long lists of sites which offend their delicate sensibilities. The French government, which will purportedly be able to receive complaints from Internet users in real time, will be able to add sites to a so called “black list”, which it will then force national ISPs to block.
The move, announced by France’s Interior Minister, Michel Alliot-Marie, is France’s way of showing it is indeed taking a strong stand against cyber-criminality, but it seems that the line between ‘strong’ and ‘authoritarian’ is a little fuzzy on this one.

[...]

 

[domaingenius]

Well seems that is the way the net is going. My ISP in UK is currently blocking all domains hosted by Namedrive the parking company.Cannot find out why !!. Where is it going to stop ?.

DG

 

[jasdon11]

Well seems that is the way the net is going. My ISP in UK is currently blocking all domains hosted by Namedrive the parking company.Cannot find out why !!. Where is it going to stop ?.

DG

Which isp is that?

 

[draggar]

Comcast is blocking all torrents sites which is bad for me, there are a ton of movies out there that I love but can't get in the US (Disney's "Songs of the South", BBC's "Threads" to name a few).

Also, try to find a site promoting tourism to Cuba based in the US.

 

[domaingenius]

which Isp Is That?

Be . If anyone on here is in the UK and has any domains parked with NameDrive could they see if they can access them OK and let me know ?.Would be interested to know if it is only BE as I have feeling it is wider than that.

Dg

 

[Rubber Duck]

Traffic on my IDN.com is normal, in fact it is better than normal, which is pretty much normal these days.:lol:

 

[MikeinFlorida]

It just shows that the world's governmental powers feel they have to control the net for the sake of controlling the net. Sure anybody with common sense wants child porn controlled but that's all anybody wants stopped on the web. The net is the most powerful medium to come out in world history and if it is controlled by governments we will all pay harshly!!!

 

[Rubber Duck]

Well you may all like to wish that but ultimately it is not really very democratic to have an institution like the Internet beyond the collective control of elected governments. That is how democracy works. You elect them, and then they tell you what to do. What you are actually advocating is anarchy, which might seem all fine in principle especially to any aging hippies amongst you, but it has never managed to take civilisation forward very far. I agree we don't want the internet burdened with too much regulation, but ultimately it has to fall within the scope of regulation by elected governments.

 

[bobby9101]

Well said Rubber Duck

 

[radioz]

Well you may all like to wish that but ultimately it is not really very democratic to have an institution like the Internet beyond the collective control of elected governments. That is how democracy works. You elect them, and then they tell you what to do. What you are actually advocating is anarchy, which might seem all fine in principle especially to any aging hippies amongst you, but it has never managed to take civilisation forward very far. I agree we don't want the internet burdened with too much regulation, but ultimately it has to fall within the scope of regulation by elected governments.

Yes, but the constitution of the United States, and I believe, most other Western countries guarantee Freedom of Speech and The Press and not just for the internet. Unless something is patently illegal, such as child porn or terrorism, sites should not be blocked. Governments should keep their hands out of you choosing what you see and do so long as it isn't patently illegal. Ones sensibilities or morals being bothered isn't enough! Perhaps in France, political sites that oppose Mr. Sarkosy could be eventually considered offensive, 'destabalizing' influences and be banned. This may be extreme but not impossible. That it the 'slippery slope' of controlling speech. This is really an all or nothing thing.

As an adult, you can do your own blocking locally or choose not to go to sites that 'bother' you. You could also voluntarily use an ISP that blocks sites deemed offensive to its users and that advertises that it does so.

 

[Rubber Duck]

Yes, but the constitution of the United States, and I believe, most other Western countries guarantee Freedom of Speech and The Press and not just for the internet. Unless something is patently illegal, such as child porn or terrorism, sites should not be blocked. Governments should keep their hands out of you choosing what you see and do so long as it isn't patently illegal. Ones sensibilities or morals being bothered isn't enough! Perhaps in France, political sites that oppose Mr. Sarkosy could be eventually considered offensive, 'destabalizing' influences and be banned. This may be extreme but not impossible. That it the 'slippery slope' of controlling speech. This is really an all or nothing thing.

As an adult, you can do your own blocking locally or choose not to go to sites that 'bother' you. You could also voluntarily use an ISP that blocks sites deemed offensive to its users and that advertises that it does so.

This really just shows contempt for the democratic systems of other nations. The whole point is that in a democracy Mr Sarkosy has to take the views of his voters into account. One of which you are not incidentally.

 

[bludex]

Well you may all like to wish that but ultimately it is not really very democratic to have an institution like the Internet beyond the collective control of elected governments. That is how democracy works. You elect them, and then they tell you what to do. What you are actually advocating is anarchy, which might seem all fine in principle especially to any aging hippies amongst you, but it has never managed to take civilisation forward very far. I agree we don't want the internet burdened with too much regulation, but ultimately it has to fall within the scope of regulation by elected governments.

Anarchy is about acting without rules. Freedom of speech is about freedom of thinking, of speaking, of information. About a fair basis to ground decisions on - in politics democratic decisions hopefully.

Computing and the internet are still in infancy and our genius has limitless possibilities to implement systems that will care for both, freedom and respect of each other ("the limits of your freedom are where your neighbour might be hurt" or so).
Do we have to move to "thought control"? Aldous Huxley is greeting...

"it is not really very democratic to have an institution like the Internet beyond the collective control of elected governments" - you say it. At the moment the internet with it's root servers is mainly under the control of the United States and big corporations. I don't see today's control of the internet being an example of applied Democracy at the moment.

 

[Rubber Duck]

You are quite correct that a lot of the control has to pass to those who have the mandate to weld it. The US has cede is control of the internet.

 

[whitebark]

The French may quickly find they bit off more than they can chew. Let's say I'm a French national and I hate anything liberal. I spend my day gathering all sites with anything remotely liberal and send it in as it "offends my delicate sensibilities." It will happen.

Assclowns exist everywhere and where there is an avenue to get what they want, they will try to take advantage of it. Hopefully the French government will stand back after being deluged with self-serving idiots.

 

[tristanperry]

We only have freedom of speech when the Government(s) decide we do...

This is, unfortunately, the way it's going.

 

[mulligan]

We only have freedom of speech when the Government(s) decide we do...

This is, unfortunately, the way it's going.

People are free to say what they like .. anywhere in the world .. just be careful who / where you say it.

 

[bludex]

IQ tests for Presidents!

 

[tristanperry]

People are free to say what they like .. anywhere in the world .. just be careful who / where you say it.

People aren't free - at least in the UK, the Government are happy for peaching of pro-minority group stuff, however their anti-PC chips kick into overdrive if anyone starts preaching (non-angrily) about anti-minority group stuff (even if it's a Christian handing out the Church's views on homosexuality, etc).

That's the point I'm trying to make The West makes a bit deal of freedom of speech, however we aren't allowed to use it. Well we are, but only when the Government want us to. If it's something "un-PC", suddenly you've committed a crime.

 

[bludex]

I think we should use our freedoms and constantly remind everybody about our rights to do so, unless we don't we will loose them.

Freedom: to be free to do anything which is not forbidden
Liberty: anything's forbidden that is not expressively allowed

 

[NostraDomainus]

A few thoughts:

A) Democracy in theory & 'Democracy' in practice are 2 totally different things - imo, many 'democracies' are facades for capitalizing on the 'sheepeople' they marginalize. (Ex: While some people think they have 'Freedom of Speech' - the reality is there are many laws restricting what you are allowed to say.) Many people who have rose-coloured glasses on believe in the theory of democracy so much that they become blind to reality - which is 'democracy' in practice has alot left to be desired for what it can be versus what it currently is. (ex: The 1st 'Dubya' election in US - 'democracy' in action and at it's best, I tell you what - or do we only have to look to Zimbabwe for what 'democracy' is?) [PS: You can also look at the so-called 'free market' system as another example of theory vs. practice.]

B) The strategy of many governments throughout time and right up to this day have 1 great strategy - Divide and Conquer - including it's own citizens. (Ex: Canada's historical treatment of Aboriginals, whereby Canada as a whole consistently ranks as one of the Top 5 countires in the World by the UN - but Aboriginal reserves consistly rank over 100, closer to being equal to Egypt. One persons 'democracy' is another persons dictatorship.

C) Quote: Apathetic conformity to wrongeousness has never made the World a better place ~ anon. In other words, there is much much more 'democracies' can do to actually be democratic - and we all know it.

D) Another Quote: Greed breeds mean deeds ~ anon.

E) ...and a 3rd: Insecure jealousy is the hobgoblin of respect and appreciation for diversity ~ anon.

F) 4th Quote: "Ignorance towards the laws of nature are not an excuse for commiting planetcide." ~ anon.

In conclusion - blind faith in 'democracy' is just that: blind faith, not necessarily Democracy.

Party-on Wanye! Long-live true democratic freedom! Gov'ts will come and go.

Best of Luck & Success in All Your Endeavours!

PS: bludex is correct (as much as T. Jefferson was in saying it: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Stay vigilant - stay free!