Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pirate Bay Launches Free Speech Blog

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the funny-we've-been-doing-that-for-years dept.

Privacy 171

Chris Blanc writes "In their ever continuing battle to 'free the Internet', The Pirate Bay has now launched an uncensored blogging service, called Baywords. The service is intended to be a safe haven for bloggers who want to be able to write whatever they want."

cancel ×

171 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first post (5, Funny)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126314)

I'm going to post on there how pirating is actually stealing.

Re:first post (3, Funny)

travbrad (622986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126336)

Finally somewhere that you can say whatever you want on the internet! *looks at countless troll posts on slashdot*

Re:first post (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23126746)

Yes, but hopefully they won't rate your karma, and knock you down if you either talk good about Microsoft or bad about Apple, or if you just complain about something not working on your linux machine.

Since I just said these things... I'll post as an AC (my karma is still trying to recover).

Re:first post (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127232)

But regardless of that you can say anything you want. For example if I want to say how much Scientology suc[this post was modified by the Slashdot administration]

Yay! PirateBay! Save me TONS of $$$ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23126586)

Just imagine all the cash we'd have wasted if not for Pirate Bay! Go Swedes! Rah-rah-rah! First their ski team, and now Pirate Bay! Yaaaaaaay! God save the monarchy!

Re:first post (0)

KGIII (973947) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127110)

I got bored...

Piracy is Theft [baywords.com]

Odd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23126320)

I thought that is what trolltalk [slashdot.org] is for.

"Whatever" with limitations (4, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126334)

You'd still at least have to comply to Swedish laws, an example of a notable one to Americans being that on the topic of hate speech [wikipedia.org] .

biased enforcement (4, Interesting)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126352)

The trouble with those laws is that they are enforced with a strong bias.

For example, is it apparently perfectly OK for religions to tell non-followers that they are evil and are deserve to be tortured for all eternity for the way they live their lives.

But if you try to tell a follower of a major religion that they are evil and deserve to be tortured for the way they lead their lives, those "hate speech" laws are going to come down like a hammer on you.

If Sweden was really serious about "hate speech", they'd have to outlaw Islam and Catholicism as they are currently being practiced, because those religions are intrinsically in conflict with hate speech laws.

Re:biased enforcement (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23126364)

deserve to be tortured for all eternity for the way they live their lives.

deserve to be tortured for the way they lead their lives
Emphasis mine. Note the difference, you can make whatever threats you want about the afterlife, but you can't threat this life.

Re:biased enforcement (2)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126470)

"for all eternity" doesn't necessary mean "afterlife"

Re:biased enforcement (3, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126402)

But if you try to tell a follower of a major religion that they are evil and deserve to be tortured for the way they lead their lives, those "hate speech" laws are going to come down like a hammer on you.

Can you point to some actual examples of atheists being prosecuted for suggesting that Christians or Muslims be tortured? I suspect that your post is just irrelevant speculation.

Re:biased enforcement (3, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126432)

Maybe the poster can find no examples of an atheist being prosecuted for suggesting that Christians or Muslims be tortured, but there is a rather famous example of suggesting that Islam is not a religion of peace and being pressured into silence.

I don't think his post is irrelevant speculation at all, but insightful commentary into what Hate Speech really is. In any case, it certainly not irrelevant to the topic, and only speculation since you obviously disagree with his statement.

Re:biased enforcement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23126518)

Maybe the poster can find no examples of an atheist being prosecuted for suggesting that Christians or Muslims be tortured, but there is a rather famous example of suggesting that Islam is not a religion of peace and being pressured into silence.
Huh? That's not unusual and is generally not considered censorship if it isn't done by the government. In the US for example, communists who suggest that capitalism is exploiting the workers are "pressured into silence" also (I'm not saying they are right, just that there are always certain pressures involved and it is not regarded as censorship).

Re:biased enforcement (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126988)

'... communists who suggest that capitalism is exploiting the workers are "pressured into silence"...'

Uh, bullshit.

Go to any university. Provide something more substantial than a bland assertion.

Re:biased enforcement (5, Insightful)

clichescreenname (1220316) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127244)

'... communists who suggest that capitalism is exploiting the workers are "pressured into silence"...'

Uh, bullshit.

Go to any university. Provide something more substantial than a bland assertion.
I live in Springfield Missouri, which is right in the middle of the bible belt. About a week and a half ago, our local sheriff (Jack Merritt) made the following statement in reference to somebody on American Idol signing the national anthem:

"The way I hear Jason sing the national anthem makes you want to go out and kill a communist."

And he said this to a local newspaper reporter. Now, terrible grammar aside, this is a horrible comment for a law enforcer to make, and it could certainly strike fear into local communists.

Re:biased enforcement (2, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127588)

I live in Springfield Missouri, which is right in the middle of the bible belt. About a week and a half ago, our local sheriff (Jack Merritt) made the following statement in reference to somebody on American Idol signing the national anthem:

"The way I hear Jason sing the national anthem makes you want to go out and kill a communist."

And he said this to a local newspaper reporter. Now, terrible grammar aside, this is a horrible comment for a law enforcer to make, and it could certainly strike fear into local communists.

So, Jason's a commie who sung the anthem really bad, right?

Re:biased enforcement (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126998)

is generally not considered censorship if it isn't done by the government.
Are you high?

I'm not sure about prosecution, but Theo Van Gogh had a bad experience after saying something fairly mild.

Considering the hijinks that all of the "Abrahamic" religions get into (those are just the ones I know about), it pisses me off that some alter cocker in a funny hat can come over here and get his ass kissed.

Can you imagine what kind of reception the Founding Fathers would have given the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury? Polite, but hardly the orgy we have seen this week in Washington.

Re:biased enforcement (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127486)

Can you imagine what kind of reception the Founding Fathers would have given the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury?

If the pope had helped defeat their enemies, the Founding Fathers would probably have been very grateful. I think many in the current administration are so enthusiastic about the office of the pope only because of John Paul II's opposition of Communism and possible hand in bringing down the Soviet Union.

Re:biased enforcement (5, Informative)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126914)

Can you point to some actual examples of atheists being prosecuted for suggesting that Christians or Muslims be tortured?

No, I can't, because atheists generally don't suggest that other get tortured for all eternity. They don't because (1) they don't believe that anybody lives for all eternity, (2) most atheists are either religious or humanists and hence object to torture in any form, whether by divine beings or men, and (3) they know that if they speak out publicly, they risk death threats and arrest.

I suspect that your post is just irrelevant speculation.

Well, then you're living under a rock. Geert Wilders film, for example, has been condemned, literally, as "hate speech" by the UN secretary general (here [un.org] ), and all he did was compile a collection of quotes from the Quran and Muslim leaders.

Here are other examples:

http://www.lutononsunday.com/lutononsunday-news/displayarticle.asp?id=306589 [lutononsunday.com]

http://www.axcessnews.com/user.php/articles/show/id/12315 [axcessnews.com]

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ap-far-righters-arrested-for-anti-islam-protest [sweetness-light.com]

You can find many more if you look around, with free speech by students, bloggers, protesters, and others being suppressed for criticizing religions or saying things that "offend" people of one or the other religion.

Re:biased enforcement (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126946)

I suspect you have a reading comprehension problem. Look at my post again and you wouldn't set up strawmen.

Re:biased enforcement (1)

Fuzi719 (1107665) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127150)

Ah, the usual tactic of the unarmed: claim anything you can't refute is a "strawman".

Re:biased enforcement (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127220)

LOL. Actually I was reminded more of Inigo from the Princess Bride:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


Inconceivable!

Disclaimer: I am not making fun of the poster and his views. Just his choice of words. Oh what the hell, mod away...

Re:biased enforcement (3, Insightful)

Fuzi719 (1107665) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127164)

I watched the "Fitna" film a few nights ago and was impressed by the level of documentation. How anyone can point to this film and claim it is anything but honest only goes to their own bias, not Wilders'. "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot (1713-1784)

Re:biased enforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23127314)

Think about this for a second.

Recently, as I live in Blacksburg, Virginia, I heard the speeches of rememberance for those who died that day.

A common theme is that they worked to "spread God's word" and the like.

What do you think the response would be if, say, I had died on that day, and they had been told to announce that I worked to limit the spread of Christianity?

I don't think it would go over very well. I don't think they would even do it.

It's okay to offend atheists with your ignorant nonsense. It's not okay to offend religious people by saying what it is. Which is serious bullshit.

Re:biased enforcement (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23126418)

A pentecostal preacher was sentenced recently in Sweden, for saying stuff about gays in a sermon. (Which caused Fred Phelps to declare that god hates Sweden.)

I seem to recall that action has also been taken against an islamic radio station for stuff they said about jews, though I don't recall any details.

Either way, those laws are designed explicitly to protect minorities, people who are ill equipped to fight back in a propaganda war if you will.

So, I see no problem with it.

Re:biased enforcement (4, Insightful)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126944)

A pentecostal preacher was sentenced recently in Sweden, for saying stuff about gays in a sermon.

That's nice, but it's really just the tip of the iceberg. Look at what Catholicism says: if you're gay, you'll burn in hell. That's doctrine. What could be more hateful than that? Yet, they have been getting away with this for centuries.

Either way, those laws are designed explicitly to protect minorities, people who are ill equipped to fight back in a propaganda war if you will.

I think these kinds of laws are wrong and hurt, rather than help, in the long run. Right now, people like the Pope and Muslim leaders go around claiming to be authorities on ethics and morality, excusing the child abuse and terrorism by their members as aberrations. But we need to have a clear public debate challenging these people's claims to moral authority.

Re:biased enforcement (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23127224)

Look at what Catholicism says: if you're gay, you'll burn in hell. That's doctrine. What could be more hateful than that? Yet, they have been getting away with this for centuries.

Actually the Church says that sex outside of marriage, necessarily including gay sex, is a sin. The Church does not say that just being gay sends you to hell (it calls for compassion for those "afflicted" with a homosexual orientation). The Church also does not say that sinning will send you to Hell - like all sinners, that is to say, everyone, you have a chance to reconcile with God through Confession and Penance. It's still an intolerant line but not as hateful as you put it.

Also, the Church has not been condemning "gays" for centuries since the idea of being "gay" is a modern political construct, although homosexual activity has been condemned since the beginning of the Church.

--
Posted by a gay atheist in the interest of accuracy

Re:biased enforcement (5, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126420)

Some may say you deserve a +Troll modifier. However, I can find no fault with your statements, even though I am sure plenty of followers of both religions would claim otherwise.

You also correctly note, "as they are currently being practiced", since it is Islamic followers that will threaten to kill you (and many actually follow through with that threat) if you tarnish their "religion of peace". It is also Catholic Priests that use their positions of power in their communities to not only directly abuse certain people, but to foster an environment of hate for certain non-believers and non-conformists. I realize that some may vehemently take exception to such statements, but when these religions state their positions as absolutes with the language they use, it cannot be seen as anything other then hurtful and filled with hate for those it aimed towards.

It is also predominantly the men of these religions that use their perverted interpretation of their faith's to abuse their fellow brothers and sisters. Just because they have been making these statements for centuries, while making up a sizable portion of their respective populations, makes it no less hateful of certain groups of people.

So if you are saying that "Hate Speech" is really just unpopular speech, then I wholeheartedly agree. For those that are against censorship, it must be treated as an absolute. Once you stop doing so, it cannot be anything but biased.

Re:biased enforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23126516)

I don't know anything about hate speech laws in Sweden, but generally speaking, hate speech is not the same as unpopular speech.

It's hard to say where the line should be drawn, but do note that the USA, too, outlaw certain kinds of speech. And I'm not even talking about yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, about threats against the president, or about libel/slander; I'm talking about things like inciting violence, for instance, which might well be counted as hate speech.

Selective enforcement probably still happens and is still a bad thing, and I don't know if hate speech laws etc. aren't being used to crack down on unpopular opinions as well, but do allow me to note that even in the USA with its emphasis on free speech, most legal scholars agree that certain things still do not fall under that protection, nor should they.

Re:biased enforcement (2, Insightful)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126848)

I have to agree. I'm almost always for protecting any speech, no matter how much I hate what is being said. However, language should be viewed like anything else.

It's not illegal to have and to use a pencil. But a pencil can be used as a weapon, which would be illegal. It's not illegal to have and to use a car, but a car may be used as a weapon. These things only become dangerous when used directly as weapons. If a word can be used to directly hurt someone, it is a weapon.

In this way, when language is used only for the purpose of hurting others, and I mean this in the literal sense of causing physical injury, it should not be considered protected speech. ...Of course, I'm secretly waiting for the day someone develops and uses sonic-based weaponry and tries to defend his actions as "free speech."

Re:biased enforcement (1)

Pictish Prince (988570) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127558)

Ever notice how it's only the Ibrahimic faiths (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) that get so touchy when you point out undesirable aspects of their respective religions? Tell a Buddhist he's going to burn in Hell for eternity and he'll offer to say a prayer for you.

Re:biased enforcement (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23127736)

Ever notice how it's only the Ibrahimic faiths (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) that get so touchy when you point out undesirable aspects of their respective religions?

I'm guessing you've never met a fundamentalist Hindu before. And if you count Scientology as a religion, they are far worse than any of the others in this regard.

Re:biased enforcement (2, Informative)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126446)

If Sweden was really serious about "hate speech", they'd have to outlaw Islam and Catholicism as they are currently being practiced, because those religions are intrinsically in conflict with hate speech laws.

Yeah, how dare those nasty Catholics pray for other religions! They must hate people if they pray for them.

Re:biased enforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23126502)

yes, nasty indeed, because what they are "praying for" is that everybody converts to their religion, since that's the only way to salvation in their religion. And if you look at their history, that's a pretty menacing prayer.

Re:biased enforcement (5, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126520)

Yeah, how dare those nasty Catholics pray for other religions! They must hate people if they pray for them.


LOL. Are you serious? To pray for someone's soul, and to hate them at the same time is not impossible. Praying does not negate the fact that they actively promulgate the views of their religion, which is that certain people are evil and will be tortured in hell for all eternity.

So yeah, I fully agree that Catholics may preach that all the "faggots" are going to Hell, they are evil, they live in Sin, but rid their commentaries of any connotations of hate by SIMPLY praying for their souls afterwards. Riiiggght.

I hope you can understand that when certain religions preach that you are a bad person, that you will be forever in pain and suffering, that it is hurtful and very easily felt as hate by such people. The fact that those same people openly "state" they are praying for you, often provides no sense of relief, but more often a sense of condescension, indifference, and intolerance.

Re:biased enforcement (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126658)

I hope you can understand that when certain religions preach that you are a bad person, that you will be forever in pain and suffering, that it is hurtful and very easily felt as hate by such people.
I don't doubt that people hate. Most people hate and most people are very good at it. If you tell kids that head lice is bad, they will start hating kids with head lice. What can be done about that? It's no different with adults, most of whom have not matured beyond childhood.

Re:biased enforcement (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127172)

I don't doubt that people hate. Most people hate and most people are very good at it. If you tell kids that head lice is bad, they will start hating kids with head lice. What can be done about that? It's no different with adults, most of whom have not matured beyond childhood.


If there was a point in that statement, it was a bit to subtle for me. It seemed to me that your previous post was a sarcastic statement that prayer precluded hatred and/or mitigated the harmful effects of certain speech. What this recent statement has to do with that and my response, I dunno. So not trying to go for a flambait mod here, but can you respond to my statement and make a little more sense?

Re:biased enforcement (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126680)

Only if you don't know the "empation" word. I REALLY don't like some guys, typically some asocial morons or serial killers, but I would REALLY like they changed and lived in a manner good for society. Does this mean I'm indifferent or intolerant?

Disclaimer: I'm atheist.

Re:biased enforcement (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127106)

Only if you don't know the "empation" word.


Umm... Neither does Google, or Thefreedictionary.com. Closest I can think of is empathy, but I don't think that is what you meant. So seriously, I don't know the word. By all means, write back to me with it's full definition and how you were attempting to use it. I love learning new words, and I please don't mistake my curiosity for sarcasm.
 
 

I REALLY don't like some guys, typically some asocial morons or serial killers, but I would REALLY like they changed and lived in a manner good for society. Does this mean I'm indifferent or intolerant?


You totally, completely, and I would dare say, absolutely missed the point. The original poster had said:

Yeah, how dare those nasty Catholics pray for other religions! They must hate people if they pray for them.


This has nothing do with "asocial morons" or "serial killers" and your wishes that they may change. It does not make you indifferent, but certainly intolerant. However, who the hell is actually tolerant of serial killers and sociopaths? Your talking about Apples, while I am talking about Oranges.

I felt that the poster was using sarcasm to state that a Catholic's prayers for an individual precluded them from hating the individual, and in fact provided direct evidence to the contrary. I was simply pointing out that it was bullshit. You cannot openly state to an individual that they will "roast in hell" for all eternity and then fervently "pray" to your god that they will see the "light" and conform to your traditions and values AND then say that the act of prayer eliminates all the negative connotations of your speech. It does not work that way.

Also, please don't misunderstand me either. It is nice that these people have prayed for the souls of others. I am sure that for many Catholics, their prayers for the conversion of other people to their religion are based on good intentions and a genuine desire for the well being of others in this life and whatever afterlife might possibly exist. I just don't believe that prayer excuses, or more accurately, mitigates the harm they may do others by when they promulgate certain views of their religion.

Re:biased enforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23126522)

Using a straw man argument, in an attempt to ridicule, kind of makes you wonder if you have no real arguments in defense of Catholicism.

Re:biased enforcement (1)

emj (15659) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126560)

If Sweden was really serious about "hate speech", they'd have to outlaw Islam and Catholicism as they are currently being practiced, because those religions are intrinsically in conflict with hate speech laws.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean.. Why should we outlaw an whole religion just because there are people with in that religion that have an unfounded for hate other groups.

We are not against hate, it's the hate propaganda that we are against. Propaganda that creates things like Rwandan Genocide [wikipedia.org] .

I know of just one priest [wikipedia.org] that got put infront of a judge in Sweden and he said something like "Homosexual are a deep cancer of sociecty"[1]. He was not convicted, but I'm sure if you give us one of the US pastors of hate we can put him in jail.

[1]In Swedish: "Sexuella abnormiteter Ãr en djup cancersvulst pÃ¥ hela samhÃllskroppen."

Bah... (3, Informative)

emj (15659) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126630)

Apparently we have convicted one guy for spreading hate against Homosexuals [wikipedia.org] . Though he ws acquitted in the supreme court on very shaky grounds.

I know only of Nazis being convicted of hate speech [hvk.org] [1] in Sweden. But even though they have been convicted they get away with a lot. I would say that the swedish police is more worried about the miltant groups that oppose nazis than the nazis themself.

[1] That article is hate proganda. Not sure why I give it google credit..

Re:biased enforcement (1)

skitapa (995743) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126664)

Your english translation of the swedish phrase is way, way off. "Sexuella abnormiteter", is just what it says, Sexual abnormities, or even sexual perversions. So the DA wanted to sentence a preacher for saying that Sexual abnormities [die.net] is a deep tumour on society, to four years imprisonment. The highest court in sweden freed the man with a statment saying -We would like to imprison him, however, we can not, for the EU court would free him.

Re:biased enforcement (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126980)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean.. Why should we outlaw an whole religion just because there are people with in that religion that have an unfounded for hate other groups. We are not against hate, it's the hate propaganda that we are against.

Quite right, and so am I. I contend, however, that the Bible and the Quran contain hate propaganda. The fact that it's old doesn't change that. And the semantic acrobatics that their apologists engage in don't change that either.

If those religions really have changed, as they claim, they must officially expurgate those passages and change their teachings, laws, and commentaries accordingly.

If they fail to do so and continue to maintain them as part of their education and teachings, then those religions should be banned until they do remove them.

Re:biased enforcement (1)

lixee (863589) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126696)

I sense a lot of hate in you.

Re:biased enforcement (1)

karlandtanya (601084) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126780)

The two situations are NOT similar at all.

When a religion says you are a sinner and "deserve to be tortured for all eternity", they're talking about an imaginary torture that ostensibly happens after you're dead.

Inciting people to torture one another in real life is a completely different issue--they might actually do it.

Re:biased enforcement (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127026)

When a religion says you are a sinner and "deserve to be tortured for all eternity", they're talking about an imaginary torture that ostensibly happens after you're dead.

What's "imaginary" about it? Catholicism teaches that we are all to be resurrected in body. If they say that you will be tortured for all eternity, it's not a figure of speech.

Inciting people to torture one another in real life is a completely different issue--they might actually do it.

Saying "you deserve to be tortured for all eternity" isn't an incitement to torture, it's an expression of a disregard for someone else's humanity and an expression of hatred. (Atheists can't even say such a thing and mean it literally, since they don't believe in eternal life.)

Both Catholics and Muslims dehumanize others in this way: if you believe that I will suffer in hell for all eternity, what difference does it make if you yourself torture me a little to try and save me from such a horrible fate? And if all else fails, since to you I'm sub-human anyway, it doesn't matter if you kill me. Catholics and Muslims have historically used those justifications for torture, executions, and conquests.

Dehumanizing others is the essence of hate speech. In Catholicism and Islam, hate speech and dehumanization of others is hard-coded into the scriptures and laws of those religions. And that is why those religions should be banned under hate speech laws until they thoroughly expurgate their scriptures and teachings from that kind of language.

Re:biased enforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23127064)

"Hate" speech is a joke. It's "Thought crime", is it not?
Who decides what is "hate" (redefined) or not? The GOVERNMENT. And who runs the governments in ALL white countries? The JEWS.

The fact that we have ANY laws which make it illegal to merely SAY THINGS shows exactly who is in power. Certainly not the people. We don't have democracy.

Those who can't defend their points of view seek to silence those who question them, end of story.

Citation needed (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127480)

And who runs the governments in ALL white countries? The JEWS.
Citation sorely needed.

Re:biased enforcement (1)

ArAgost (853804) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127156)

Last time I checked, neither Catholicism nor Islam endorsed torture.

Re:biased enforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23127264)

"they'd have to outlaw Islam and Catholicism"

Ah-ah-ah, you forgot judaism. Either you're jewish, or you've been brainwashed. Ask a Palestinian.

Re:"Whatever" with limitations (3, Informative)

Eudial (590661) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126566)

You'd still at least have to comply to Swedish laws, an example of a notable one to Americans being that on the topic of hate speech [wikipedia.org] .
That's only true if they actually host it in Sweden. TPB isn't hosted in Sweden.

Re:"Whatever" with limitations (1)

symes (835608) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126850)

Not only that - you'd need access to the site in order to practice free speech. I'd have been really impressed if tpb had made efforts to overcome technological inequality and state censoring.

I'm not sure this is necessarily true (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127040)

A concept long lost on the internet is the idea that hosting providers aren't responsible for their content and it's the end users that are responsible.

In much the same way that Sweden is still sensible enough to accept legally that linking to content isn't copyright infringement I'd like to believe it's also sensible enough to realise that hosting providers shouldn't have to police content.

I don't know if this is the case but if it is then they should be in the clear for people to say what they want, if the Swedish authorities have a problem they would in theory have to go after the end user. Many many years ago things used to be this way before governments started fighting for control and corporations started corrupting it's very existence in every way possible.

Free Speech, My A## (2, Funny)

desmondhaynes (1269862) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126338)

Well I can post anything I want, on my own hosted website. And Piratebay is a thief's den. Want to see me write this on my blog [reviewk.com] ? What are these guys thinking? Free speech my a##

Re:Free Speech, My A## (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23126556)

Well I can post anything I want, on my own hosted website. And Piratebay is a thief's den. Want to see me write this on my blog [reviewk.com] ? What are these guys thinking? Free speech my a##
You cant miss the irony - piratebay being the free speech proponent!

Re:Free Speech, My A## (1)

call-me-kenneth (1249496) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126646)

They might well stand up to threats pleas and bribes from my employer to take it down if I started up an insider's whistle-blowing blog all about how FooCo's riddled with corruption, makes dangerous products for children and supplies the directors with cocaine and prostitutes on tap; however that wouldn't be much help for me when they fired my ass when they work out who's doing it. So this is a sort of supply-side freedom (or server-side, if you will) - fine and dandy 'cept that we need a client-side equivalent. Yeah yeah, tor, proxies,.. there are plenty of other ways to deduce things like "who knows about this stuff and does not stand to lose big if it comes out?" and such.

Re:Free Speech, My A## (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23127438)

cocaine and prostitutes on tap
I don't know where you get your FooCo information but all our cocaine and prostitutes are imported fresh daily to our doors, you insensitive clod!

Re:Free Speech, My A## (1)

Mantaar (1139339) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127272)

The idea for this service apparently came when one of the piratebay's admin's friends was forced to take down his blog because he had posted some links to torrents.

You may very well not be allowed to post links to torrents on your own site, depending on your country's legislation (or the country the server is dwelling in). Baywords was started to remedy that situation. There's more info on TorrentFreak [torrentfreak.com] (this is actually TFA, but you apparently didn't read it, so here's another link). Note that TorrentFreak never ever post links to torrents on their site because they fear to be taken down. Quite ironic, isn't it? If they had started hosting their blog on Baywords, this might not have been the case.

By the way, not everyone can administer/afford/maintain their own server. In fact, I'm glad it's like this, because everyone and their dog renting a server and bandwidth for their own totally nonsensical blog would be a complete nightmare.

Honesty (-1, Troll)

Ferenike (1264580) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126368)

It's great to be able to express oneself. However, there are those who hide behind a cloak of anonimity and begin campaigns of propaganda and slander. The purpose of people like this is not to communicate their thoughts, but rather to hurt and/or destroy a target. When this happens, honest people are prone to attacks without the ability to defend themselves.Add the fact that these torrent websites abet others in illegally copying software and you've got a very unsavory party on your hands.

Re:Honesty (3, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126422)

Add the fact that these torrent websites abet others in illegally copying software and you've got a very unsavory party on your hands.

The fact you focus on software raises suspicion that you are just astroturfing for some interested party. Software is great and The Pirate Bay really helps, but I would imagine the majority of people use torrents to get music, films and television shows for free.

Nevertheless (1, Interesting)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126546)

Nevertheless, no matter if he is astroturfing or not, what matters is if he has a point, rather than what his motives are.

1. The thing is, going on about uncensored speech is good and fine, if they were to make that in China. The west is actually pretty easy going about what you can say, as long as it it doesn't break the laws. Which, at least in continental Europe, tend to be there for a reason, namely that the people actually liked that idea. Politicians over here tend to have to be very covert about bribes and serving some corporate masters, because it's a _very_ unpopular thing and it can cost one the elections. Populism is a much easier way to power, so it's more the norm than the exception that they'd actually do the stuff that the population wants or can be convinced to want.

In a nutshell, there is no oppressive thought police that they have to fight or circumvent. It's not like anyone will come after you because you wrote "Bush sucks" or "Angela Merkel sucks" or "law X sucks and it should be changed." Note that even the Pirate Bay, well, there was no secret police coming to their homes and taking them to Siberia because they're vocally anti-copyright.

Even hate-speech has to be rather extreme to actually get you censored. You can still jolly well be against immigrants (Nicolas Sarkozy actually got elected in France on not much more as a platform), or Muslims (you'll notice that it was various Islamic groups that produced threats in the recent anti-Islam movie, not the government, and a pretty offensive movie it was too), or pretty much whatever group of your choice. Depending on the country, you won't be very popular as a bigotted racist, but you have to take it pretty damn far before the government gets into the act.

They might, however, have a problem if you're using the net for libel. Cyber-bullying is pretty-much a fact of life by now, for example, and there seems to be a whole class of people whose claim to glory is, pretty much, "yeah, well, I bet I can make you miserable."

So I'm genuinely wondering how many people will use such a service because of some genuine need to effect a political change in their country. You know, the kind of free speech that's actually productive and useful for society. And how many will take it as just an opportunity to spread libel about their ex-GF, teacher, unpopular neighbour, etc? How many will try to intimidate said ex-GF, teacher, etc, via some anonymous site?

Now I'm not proposing to censor them a priori, but I genuinely wonder anyway.

2. I have to wonder exactly how can they make a promise to, essentially, break the law. If a court order comes and says, basically, "you are hereby ordered to tell us who Moraelin is", how _can_ they guarantee that they'll disobey the law? Being a rebellious anarchist is good and fine in some situations, but try it before a judge, and it tends to count as holding the court in contempt. So I wouldn't exactly bet that, if it comes to that, their whole attitude will last more than 5 minutes before their lawyer explains exactly what the prison sentences are for refusing to comply.

Re:Honesty (3, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126474)

Your bring up an excellent point. There is no question at all that certain groups of people will use anonymity like a shield to attack other groups of people. This anonymity, when very strongly protected and unable to be removed by the actions of any judicial branch of government, does certainly deprive those groups of people of any ability to defend themselves.

However, I would propose another question to you. If you had to choose, as an absolute, between anonymity and complete transparency (all Internet posts being digitally signed), which one would you choose? Why?

I only say that since it is an absolute. With the Internet being as ubiquitous as it has become, anonymity provided to one is anonymity provided to all. Freenet is the best example. I fully expect Freenet to explode in the next 5-10 years and become as ubiquitous as email. The only way to truly stop Freenet, is to outlaw it completely. Possession of Freenet, must be declared a crime in of itself to be effective in dismantling its networks. That would only be effective in doing it within that country only too. Of course, that does not even account for civil disobediance, but when being in possession of technology that facilitates anonymous and private communications risks prison time, it would certainly provide the respective governments a very powerful tool to discourage it.

So keep that in mind when you consider the value of anonymity in a society and it's proper use. It may not be possible, and I certainly don't think so, to provide it to people a "drop" at a time. It's all or nothing.

Re:Honesty (1)

77Punker (673758) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127514)

Even if Freenet was illegal, you could probably get around that by running Freenet over Tor. Sure, it'd be slower than ever, but it should still work as long as you don't set up your node as a server.

Since everything is encrypted (right down to the datastore) and there is no plaintext info to send, it's actually a good application of Tor. I run an exit node for Tor, and I do look at the traffic occasionally. Very little of it has to do with free speech; most of it looks like people watching porn who are apparently afraid of their prudish wives sniffing the router or something.

I'll keep running my Tor relay, and when I move to Arizona in a month or so hopefully I'll be able to get a better connection and run Tor and Freenet at the same time. I'll also need a better computer to handle all that, since Freenet is a bit heavy. If you've got the resources, there's really no reason not to. Also, I'm pretty sure that Freenet would perform almost as well as Tor if it was as popular. I certainly believe Freenet to be about the most important technology in development, as far as freedom is concerned.

Re:Honesty (3, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126524)

Hate speech is a symptom of free speech, and therefore in a perverse way we should welcome it.

Free speech and anonymous speech are basically the same thing. Free speech is the right to say what you like without consequences, and anonymous speech is the way you avoid consequences.

Re:Honesty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23126926)

It's kinda funny that the people who hate anonymity most almost always use pseudonyms.

Freenet? (1)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126370)

Isn't all that is needed to just make a html embedded client for freenet ? Java applet perhaps...

Good luck censoring one of those.

Kinda like (4, Informative)

ncryptd (1172815) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126408)

Kinda like NearlyFreeSpeech.net [nearlyfreespeech.net] -- except without true free speech. TPB's got to comply with Swedish (and EU) law -- so anything that can be construed as hate speech is illegal. Compare and contrast that to NearlyFreeSpeech.net, which has this "beliefs" page [nearlyfreespeech.net] . They've been around since 2002, and as long as I've been using them, stayed completely true to those beliefs.

Disclaimer: I'm in no way associated with NearlyFreeSpeech.net -- I'm simply a happy customer of theirs who enjoys the free speech protections and FreeBSD cluster hosting they offer. They don't have any form of affiliate program, so I couldn't be monetarily compensated for this post even if I wanted to be.

Re:Kinda like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23126454)

Nearly Free Speech require you not to violate US laws. On the other hand, they will fight overly broad interpretation of any law, and will shut your site only when they will not have another legal option, but if your are in clear violation, it will have to be removed. Also, free blog-only service and paid (though prices are good) hosting for arbitrary sites (with MySQL provided and CGI enabled) are not very similar when we talk about niches..

Re:Kinda like (1, Troll)

tick-tock-atona (1145909) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126846)

What a load of crap. People love to spout how the US respects free speech, while in fact it does nothing of the sort.

Okay, so you can announce to the world how you think everyone should hate *insertminoritygrouphere*, but seriously, who gives a flying fuck? That sort of crap is boring these days. The vast majority of people just don't take bigots seriously anymore because they are really just illustrating their own ignorance and end up alienating themselves. For an example, you just have to look at the reaction Mel Gibson got to his drunken comments about jews.

Anyway, nearlyfreespeech guidelines say:

You may not upload, publish, or otherwise use the Services to make available any Content that:
* violates the laws of the United States of America; or
* you are contractually prohibited from distributing; or
* is tortious under the laws of the United States of America; or
* your distribution of which infringes upon the intellectual property rights of others; or
* you otherwise do not have the legal right to distribute.
This means that you can't post anything that the US corporate-conglomerate/government has deemed inappropriate. This includes source code for software to watch DVDs on linux, or even advertisements for Cuban holidays for fucks sake!

But it's okay! you're allowed to say you hate a minority group!! /sarcasm> No, I think I'll take my bigot-free Cuban-affiliated DVD-watching blog thanks.

All this bleating about how the US respects free speech is fucking pathetic.

For a slightly related press-freedom world ranking, see here [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Kinda like (1)

chakmol (88099) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127360)

tick-tock-atona escribió:

This means that you can't post anything that the US corporate-conglomerate/government has deemed inappropriate. This includes source code for software to watch DVDs on linux, or even advertisements for Cuban holidays for fucks sake!
Cuba and DeCSS? Well maybe, but I think if you could dig up some really critical dirt on General Electric or Monsanto, for example, then you'd really be cookin'.

Re:Kinda like (1)

alexhard (778254) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127798)

TPB is not hosted in Sweden, so Swedish law does not apply to their blogging service.

Yes but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23126412)

Will I be able to copy/paste stuff copyrighted by the Church of Scientology there ? Last time I tried was on /. 7 years ago and it was censored :(

Free speech is a myth ... (1)

Artem Tashkinov (764309) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126424)

until they want to give a voice to pedophiles and to those who kindle national dissension. Some things have to be limited by force no matter how free we'd like to be.

Re:Free speech is a myth ... (2, Interesting)

toriver (11308) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126464)

Free speech governs restrictions on the Government's part; after you successfully use your free speech rights you get to face the consequences, whether you get sued for hate speech, libel or what have you. But you were not hindered from "speaking", which is the important part.

Just like most freedoms, freedom of speech has a duty of responsibility attached to it - as such, anonymous vents like /. really only cover the half where you speak not the other half where you stand for what you said...

Re:Free speech is a myth ... (1)

g253 (855070) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127356)

Well, yeah, ok, but assume you're not hindered from speaking , just extremely severely punished afterwards... You're still going to learn to shut up real soon, eh?

You know, there are some governments I thoroughly despise, yet I wouldn't want to stand for that in one of their courts. Anonymity is needed if there's any possibility of abuse from your government.

Fixed that for you (3, Funny)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126440)

Pirate Bay launches free speech blog - Chinese firewall updated

Re:Fixed that for you (1)

sponga (739683) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127500)

fixed again

Pirate Bay launches limited free speech blog - Chinese firewall updated

Free Speech (1)

Narpak (961733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126460)

I've always felt there is a certain confusion when it comes to the difference between Free Speech and the freedom to say what you want. While I whole heartedly support the concept about being able to voice your opinions, whatever they might be, and the right to live your life in whatever way you see fit (that do not directly harm others*); I feel I have to disagree with the way certain (yes I generalize) people define it. In a free, open and public debate certain things should be censored; notably; Ad hominem attacks and foul language. The reason I think that is because they do nothing but distract and confuse. So call it censorship or call it moderation, but Ad hominem attacks in particular have nothing to do with Freedom of Speech; in fact they ruin any meaningful debate on the topic. * I consciously ignore the fact about how one society might live like a parasite on another; it is not relevant to the point I am trying to make here.

Re:Free Speech (1)

Narpak (961733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126496)

Hurray I forgot I needed to format my text with code. :P

(really) free speech (4, Insightful)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126486)

I, for one, support completely free speech and this is why:

While speech such as harmful memes (religious extremism, racism, etc) is inherently harmful, people who are exposed to a sufficient number of such memes and use basic logic will develope an immunity. Meanwhile it is all too easy, once a precident of declaring some speech "bad" has been set, to change one's definition of Bad speech to whatever makes one uncomfortable. In the long term, uncensored speech is the only thing that can save humanity.

My point of view is that hating $group should be completely legal, as should encouraging hatred. Free speech and reason will, in time, drown out the less reasonable voices.
Even encouraging violence should be permitted. When someone listens to the speech and commits a violent act will you indemnify them because they are not responsible, having been given a harmful meme? of course not! And since responsibility lies on the shoulders of the actor, the person who encouraged such behavior is not responsible.

I believe in people. If everyone gets to hear all sought opinions, everyone will be better off because most people are more good than evil.

As for my sig, it means distribution of child porn, not any act required for its creation.

Re:(really) free speech (1)

Narpak (961733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126542)

My point of view is that hating $group should be completely legal, as should encouraging hatred. Free speech and reason will, in time, drown out the less reasonable voices.
Perhaps given infinite time a band of monkeys could also compose Mozart.

Re:(really) free speech (2, Insightful)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127734)

As for my sig, it means distribution of child porn, not any act required for its creation.
Child porn distribution is not just about discouraging creation, it's also about protecting the identity and dignity all the children who participated. It's not a thought crime, even if some would like it to be.

As for terrorism, well, your statement is just silly. The governments only acting afraid because terrorism has proved terrifying for so many people over the past few years. See my sig:

Re:(really) free speech (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127754)

You're right: people are more good than evil. But people are also more easily duped than smart.

Re:(really) free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23127838)

Free speech and reason will, in time, drown out the less reasonable voices.
I suppose the Allies did win the war, but not before a few million people were systemically butchered. What is it intrinsically about speech that wants to be free? What's wrong with freedom in a private sense, and strategic, responsible and considered positioning in a public sense. All of this (and I'm talking about 95% of the other comment threads here) seem preoccupied with a kind of posturing for the essential virtue on unrestricted speech, as if people for centuries (including those citizens living under oppressive national regimes) didn't dim the lights at night, meet with friends over a glass or wine or a cup of tea, and speak freely their thoughts on the world around them.

Re:(really) free speech (1)

manekineko2 (1052430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127868)

So under your theory, a mafia don who never gets his own hands dirty but merely orders people to go out and kill on his behalf should not be guilty of anything?

Unnecessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23126494)

Kind of unnecessary now that we have Tor (using LiveJournal, Blogspot, etc) and Freenet available to pretty much anyone.

No complaining about religion...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23126530)

If I'm interpreting Wikipedia's definition of Sweden's hate speech laws, does that mean we're not allowed to complain about/insult religion? That's quite a limit.

Re:No complaining about religion...? (1)

skitapa (995743) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126766)

Well, in practice, it's like this. You can complain about christians as much as you want. You can call them whatever you want, and I even saw the former Minister of justice, Tomas Bodström, on TV saying that all christians should be wiretapped because of a hightened risk of hatecrime. And on the RFSL(gaylobby) yearly gay/pedophile/trans-parade they even threw darts at images of famous christians. However, if you say anything negative, and I mean anything negative about Islam or any other religion, your a islamophobe, or other *phobe. This of course also applies to homosexuality, "thanks to" the very strong gaylobby in sweden you risk up to 4 years in prison, if you say anything negative about homosexuality as an act, and I do not mean that you criticise them as people but to question that homosexuality is not something you are born into, but rather a lifestyle, could land yourself in jail.

Re:No complaining about religion...? (1)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127228)

"Well, in practice, it's like this. You can complain about christians as much as you want. You can call them whatever you want, and I even saw the former Minister of justice, Tomas Bodström, on TV saying that all christians should be wiretapped because of a hightened risk of hatecrime. And on the RFSL(gaylobby) yearly gay/pedophile/trans-parade they even threw darts at images of famous christians."

Nice conflation. Those pesky homosexuals are clearly *insane* to complain about Swedish Christians! Risk of hatecrime, the justice minister says? I cannot believe it!

Hint: I am genuinely slightly appalled by your comment. So, and although I'm not gay and generally try and avoid profanity, fuck you.

How close are we? (4, Interesting)

penguinbrat (711309) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126538)

"In normal times, evil would be fought by good. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil." The Chronicles of Riddick [imdb.com]

Anymore, pirates are a hell of a lot more trustworthy than ANY given government or corporation. If I had something serious to leak, or had some crazy theories on even a half way controversial topic - I would trust those flagrant, authority mooning thugs to resist big brother more so than anyone else. The reason? Everyone has there breaking point, regardless of how bad ass you are - you still have one. It's just a matter of who has the higher breaking point as to who I would trust - not to necessarily do something for me, but more to NOT DO SOMETHING.

Can I post source code for OOXML? (1)

julie-h (530222) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126584)


Will I be allowed to post source code for an OOXML implementation to Linux?

welcome to /. (1)

dword (735428) | more than 6 years ago | (#23126612)

torrentfreak.com seems to have been slashdotted. I can't believe that /.ers are more powerful than p2p-ers

Invisiblog? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23127296)

What happened to invisiblog?
It does not seem to work anymore... :(

Hold on a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23127800)

The reason the Pirate Bay can flagrantly post riffs on the legal threats they get is because in Sweden, what they do is legal, mainly because TPB does not actually hold any torrents, just the locations of them.

I'd be interested in someone more well versed in the law telling us what would happen if say, Joe Blow decides a local merchant ripped him off. He makes an angry blog detailing his quest for justice. Said local business decides to sue for libel. Would the Swedish government act on an American subpoena?

That's what interests me.

If not, the old combo of blogger and Foxtor will prevail yet again.

Only as good as its search engine (3, Interesting)

Simonetta (207550) | more than 6 years ago | (#23127808)

A global blog forum open to any subject is an appealing idea, but it is only as good as its search engine. Say you want to enlighten the world about your boss or company. There are a hundred million other people who are interested in doing the same thing. So how do you tell the world about your idiot boss John Smith and differenciate him from all the other idiot John Smiths (my apologies to all readers named John Smith, but you must run into this situation all the time).

    And how do you change the blog when the situation has changed? And what do you do about the douchebag (an American term meaning a person whose obsession with a particular topic has made them insufferable, not a French term for a camping solar-shower) who attempts to post 10000000 full copies of the Qu'ran or the ancient scrolls of BaBeezoo-Bub and take up a teraByte of Pirate Bay blog space?

    And who oversees this new global medium: who becomes the Pirate Bay's Rupert Murdoch? And how do we get rid of the Pirate Bay's new gossip site's overlord when he or she becomes hopelessly corrupt? When it becomes obvious that their personal tastes are affecting their editing decisions?

    And why don't Slashdot posters address the real issues that arise from each topic? The ratio of horseshit to insightful commentary is extremely high for such a smart group of readers.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>