×

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!

French Net Censorship Plan Moves Forward

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the this-is-gonna-be-just-swell dept.

Censorship 108

angry tapir writes "French lawmakers have voted to approve a draft law to filter Internet traffic that Slashdot previously discussed. The government says the measure is intended to catch child pornographers. The Senate, where the government has a majority, will soon give the bill a second reading. If the Senate makes no amendments to the text, that will also be its final reading, as the government has declared the bill 'urgent,' a procedural move that reduces the usual cycle of four readings to two."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

108 comments

Bon chance! (3, Funny)

edittard (805475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184026)

Bon chance avec ça!

P.S. Preimer!

Re:Bon chance! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184390)

The fallacy here is that this measure will do nothing to stop the PRODUCTION of child pornography.
 
Wait, that can be shortened.
 
The fallacy here is that this measure will do nothing.

Re:Bon chance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184540)

Except to stop copyright infringements.... naaahh, I'm joking ! They'll just monitor and penetrate the french's privacy with their spyware...

Re:Bon chance! (5, Insightful)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31185788)

You really think copyright protection is about copyright? It's about maintaining the monopoly on culture and social psychology that Big Money currently has. It is secondarily about ensuring that any potential threat to the current status quo vis a vis the alliance of first world governments is identified, monitored and nipped as soon as it matures into anything of substance.

Try having another French revolution with modern governmental controls in place.

Re:Bon chance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31190272)

we'd be better served by a world revolution that this point

obviously AC revolutionary c

The government lies. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184776)

"The government says the measure is intended to catch child pornographers."

The government lies. The measure is intended to provide more government control.

Re:Bon chance! (3, Insightful)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184902)

The fallacy here is that this measure will do nothing.

I wish I could say otherwise, but you're wrong about that. It will do nothing to stop the production or spread of child pornography, but it will constitute another erosion of freedom of speech or information.

Governments all over the world are using the child porn issue as a stick with which to beat their citizens (I am posting from Australia), but it seems the regular law enforcement bodies are actually pretty good at catching a lot of the malefactors without any such draconian legislation.

Re:Bon chance! (4, Informative)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31185612)

The fallacy here is that this measure will do nothing.
I wish I could say otherwise, but you're wrong about that. It will do nothing to stop the production or spread of child pornography, but it will constitute another erosion of freedom of speech or information.

I wish I could say otherwise, but even this is not entirely correct. The measure will actually HELP the spread of child pornography.
It's pretty simple really:
1) Net censorship will eventually of course mean less access to "illegal" information. For example access to information deemed illegal at sites like Wikileaks [google.com].
2) Without widespread access to "illegal" information such as the illegal ACTA leaks [michaelgeist.ca], there will be little to no organized resistance to the ever-tightening Copyright and IP laws and treaties being signed (ACTA, GATS, TRIPS etc)
3) Strict IP and copyright laws keep third world countries poor [1]. The majority of Child Pornography stems from human trafficking from third world countries, an unfortunate risk of growing up in a third world country [2].
...

If the French Government really cared about Child Pornography, it would be taking studies like [1] below seriously and not playing cloak and dagger with treaties like ACTA.

[1]

Commission on Intellectual Property Rights declared the internationally-mandated expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights unlikely to generate significant benefits for most developing countries and likely to impose costs, such as higher priced medicines or seeds. This makes poverty reduction more difficult. The intensively researched, 180-page report is entitled Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. It is the culmination of much study and follows on more than a dozen meetings and workshops, 17 working papers, an exhaustive literature review of the field, visits to several developed and developing nations and a major conference. The report makes some 50 recommendations aimed at aligning IP protection with the goal of reducing poverty in developing nations. Topics include IP and health; agriculture; traditional knowledge; copyrights, software and the Internet; and the role of WTO and WIPO in advancing developing country interests. The Commission is an independent international body made up of Commissioners from both developed and developing countries with expertise in science, law, ethics and economics. The Commissioners come from industry, government and academia* (see list of Commissioners below). "Developed countries often proceed on the assumption that what is good for them is likely to be good for developing countries," said Professor John Barton, Commission Chair and George E. Osborne Professor of Law, Stanford University. "But, in the case of developing countries, more and stronger protection is not necessarily better. Developing countries should not be encouraged or coerced into adopting stronger IP rights without regard to the impact this has on their development and poor people. They should be allowed to adopt appropriate rights regimes, not necessarily the most protective ones."

http://www.biotech-info.net/independent_commission.html [biotech-info.net]

[2] Third world are the major "Source Countries" of child pornography and other human trafficking related crimes [google.com].

Re:Bon chance! (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191490)

If the French Government really cared about Child Pornography, it would be taking studies like [1] below seriously and not playing cloak and dagger with treaties like ACTA.

Politicians care about child pornography. They just care about power and money more.

Oh, and helping out their buddies. But don't worry, child pornography is somewhere in the top five... ten. Probably top ten.

Oh, and hiding their misdeeds. Top twenty, almost definitely. Maybe.

Re:Bon chance! (4, Informative)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 4 years ago | (#31190778)

And the terrible fact that web based CP is not how it's distributed any more, paid for cp is done through virtualisation connected to via encrypted VPN. These laws are ridiculously out of date / lies.

Re:Bon chance! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184556)

Bonne chance.
Premier.

Almost, ou presque.

Re:Bon chance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31186550)

Premier.

le whooooosh.

C'est la vi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31188912)

or whatever its properly spelled
its too bad
now we can ban all french websites form the net
A NET EMBARGO FOR FRANCE
and to users in france just cancel and have a few months off
let your economy take a hit and shove that communist sarkozy out

anal sexy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184060)

Welcome to Niggerbuntu

Niggerbuntu is a Linux-based operating system consisting of Free and Open Source software for laptops, desktops, and servers. Niggerbuntu has a clear focus on the user and usability - it should Just Work, even if the user has only the thinking capacities of a sponge. the OS ships with the latest Gnomrilla release as well as a selection of server and desktop software that makes for a comfortable desktop experience off of a single installation CD.

It also features the packaging manager ape-ghetto, and the challenging Linux manual pages have been reformatted into the new 'monkey' format, so for example the manual for the shutdown command can be accessed just by typing: 'monkey shut-up -h now mothafukka' instead of 'man shutdown'.

Absolutely Free of Charge

Niggerbuntu is free software, and available to you free of charge, as in free beer or free stuffs you can get from looting. It's also Free in the sense of giving you rights of Software Freedom. The freedom, to run, copy, steal, distribute, study, share, change and improve the software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.

Free software as in free beer !

Niggerbuntu is an ancient Nigger word, meaning "humanity to monkeys". Niggerbuntu also means "I am what I am because of how apes behave". The Niggerbuntu Linux distribution brings the spirit of Niggerbuntu to the software world.

The dictator Bokassa described Niggerbuntu in the following way:

        "A subhuman with Niggerbuntu is open and available to others (like a white bitch you're ready to fsck), affirming of others, does not feel threatened by the fact that other species are more intelligent than we are, for it has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that it belongs to the great monkey specie."

We chose the name Niggerbuntu for this distribution because we think it captures perfectly the spirit of sharing and looting that is at the heart of the open source movement.

Niggerbuntu - Linux for Subhuman Beings.

Why stop there? (5, Insightful)

calibre-not-output (1736770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184106)

Let's also filter the mail, cellphone conversations and text messages, walkie-talkie and other short-range radio transmission devices and fax. We should also outlaw the lending and borrowing of pendrives, memory cards and home-recorded CDs and DVDs.Those child pornographers are sneaky bastards.

Re:Why stop there? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184146)

Europe is so ahead of you. Greece plans to make cash transactions of more than 1500 Euros illegal "to curb tax evasion".

Re:Why stop there? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184336)

The above post is completely irrelevant with the article and misinforming, at least. The plan in Greece is to prohibit people from doing any transactions over 1500 euros done in *cash*, in order to reduce tax evasion. Such measures already apply in most European countries. In fact Greece is the only country in the EU where one can go to a car yard with a suitcase full of money (ie 30.000 euros) and buy a car, without a receipt.

Re:Why stop there? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184450)

English isn't my native language, but I would be very surprised to find that "cash transactions of more than 1500 Euros" does not mean "transactions over 1500 euros done in *cash*". And of course the requirement that merchants document sales is completely separate from the payment type.

Re:Why stop there? (2, Interesting)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 4 years ago | (#31185602)

Common use where I live (.be, so also non-native english) makes a difference between "cash" and "in cash".

"cash" means "payed on the spot", while "in cash" means "with physical monies issues by the government". Thus, payment with a credit or debit card also counts as "cash".

Wikipedia doesn't mention any of that in the article about cash, though, so this may be a local thing.

Re:Why stop there? (1)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192702)

Actually, by your logic, a payment by card is precisely not cash: it involves no physical monies :)

Which is what was meant here. See, the universes is coherent!

Even better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184364)

Let's just outlaw sex with minors.
 
... oh, wait.

Re:Why stop there? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31185822)

Since alcoholism causes many deaths each year and is a far larger problem than pornography, I think we should prohibit the sale of French wines in America.

Re:Why stop there? (1)

MoeDumb (1108389) | more than 4 years ago | (#31186592)

"The war on terror" and "the war on CP": twin gateways toward implementing wider censorship -- which is the real goal.

Re:Why stop there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31187038)

This is a thing that they are going to need to do.

One thing is the right to have it non-censored. That means that they have to pay royally for highly explicit content. The problem with a non-censorship is that they already have riot on their hands.

With the censorship, they can filter Europe, or at least France. The problem with Europe is that their jobs are not for companies. Spain is killville with what they are doing with their employment.

Re:Why stop there? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31187998)

I’m not against filtering the media. As long as we only filter everything that is not deliberate disinformation and fearmongering. And as long as we include politicians and advertisements of all kinds as “media“.

Because then, there would not be anything left for them to send anyway. ;)

Germany's net censorship law took the last hurdle (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184116)

Horst Köhler signed the "Zugangserschwerungsgesetz" yesterday. A veto from the Bundespräsident was the last thing that could have stopped the law in the normal legislative process. To stop the law now, the Bundestag would have to agree on annulling the law before it goes into effect in about three weeks when it is published in the Bundesanzeiger.

Re:Germany's net censorship law took the last hurd (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184682)

Yes, but with all five political parties in the bundestag against the law, it is pretty likely that it will 1) never be enforced 2) get cancelled eventually

Re:Germany's net censorship law took the last hurd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31186148)

The legislative can say about enforcement what they want. It's neither their job nor in their realm of authority. If you are a network provider, you have to have the censorship infrastructure ready when the law demands it and there are enough zealots who will force the executive to enforce the law.

Re:Germany's net censorship law took the last hurd (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184904)

Horst Köhler signed the "Zugangserschwerungsgesetz" yesterday. A veto from the Bundespräsident was the last thing that could have stopped the law in the normal legislative process.

Yes, but he only signed after the government answered to his request for more information. In this answer, the government assured that they will order the "Bundeskriminalamt" (something like the FBI) to not produce any lists of addresses to be blocked.

The situation is rather absurd now: the (previous) government passed the law last autumn, then the coalition government changed (conservatives with liberals instead of conservatives with social democrats), and by now no party is in support of the law anymore. By signing the law, the President put the politicians under pressure to find a way out of this mess they got themselves in, so I'm actually not unhappy that he did it. :) The left parties in the parliament want to start a motion to abolish the law completely. Normally, the conservatives and liberals would not support something coming from that corner of the political spectrum, but it's something that eg the liberals were demanding before the election. So it's going to be interesting how they handle the situation. I kind of enjoy the mess they got themselves in with their short-sighted actions... ;)

Re:Germany's net censorship law took the last hurd (2, Informative)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31187900)

Yes, but he only signed after the government answered to his request for more information.

Not relevant to the problem. Fact is still: He signed something, whose only known effect is the protection (trough concealment) of child abuse, and which is unconstitutional. Making him de-facto punishable for treason (usually at least 10 years jail) and aiding of child abuse (also not a small thing). And he is fully aware of this.

In this answer, the government assured that they will order the "Bundeskriminalamt" (something like the FBI) to not produce any lists of addresses to be blocked.

Yeah because the BKA is oh such a trustworthy source when it comes to “assuring” something. This is more a guarantee that they will produce those lists, but want to keep the fact secret.
Oh wait... They already have a list, and it leaked already too.

So what does Köhler want? Go to PMITA prison over some stupid politic circus? Not such a wise move.

Re:Germany's net censorship law took the last hurd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31189792)

Fact is still: He signed something, whose only known effect is the protection (trough concealment) of child abuse, and which is unconstitutional. Making him de-facto punishable for treason (usually at least 10 years jail)

He has to check whether laws are formally correct. How far his *rights* go to check for the law being "correct" (meaning constitutional) in the matter is apparently a matter of debate. Decisions about the constitutionality of a law are usually the task of the constitutional court.

Yeah because the BKA is oh such a trustworthy source when it comes to “assuring” something.

The BKA is not the source, the government is. If they still move forward with producing lists *and* requiring ISPs to filter the addresses included, it would be difficult to keep secret.

This is more a guarantee that they will produce those lists, but want to keep the fact secret. Oh wait... They already have a list, and it leaked already too.

I would be quite surprised if the BKA would not have a list of addresses where child pornography is distributed. It's basically part of their job, which includes trying to get to the people who distribute such stuff.

If they use those lists to order ISPs to block the respective addresses (and this is what we are talking about), I don't see how you can keep that secret. People at the ISPs will know, and inevitably people will notice that certain addresses are not reachable from Germany, while they are reachable from outside. If you block something, you shouldn't expect no one ever notices...

Outmaneuvering censorship (2, Informative)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184134)

If IMMI goes ahead in Iceland, then all that censorship may turn out to be nothing more than a colossal waste of bureaucracy.

You can only attack content in the place where it is hosted - filtering the reception end just doesn't work reliably. Even China doesn't have a perfect rate, and Iran had to throttle its whole network in order to cut off communication...

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (2, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184306)

It's about instilling the acceptance of top-down control, about obeying, and perhaps even coming to view as necessary, government-determined access to information\. The French have already given themselves over to a Democratic (state) socialist government, so it's not a huge surprise that this is happening there and not here in the USA, at least not yet.

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (0, Troll)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184358)

The government, president and parliament are all controlled by the right-wing but in your wet dreams they're socialists. Yeah, right. Don't let reality change your Fox News view of the world.

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (4, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184438)

Their right wing is to the left of our left wing. Europeans, including the French, are ALWAYS bragging here about democratic socialism.

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184992)

But our left wing here in france is against that filtering. So that means only right-wing socialists want filtering ? What about left-wing capitalists? Would they be for or against filtering? And capitalo-communists, what about them guys?

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (1)

InEnacWeTrust (1638615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31185026)

Just to clean up this mess for our american friends:

- People who vote left are always bragging about "democratic socialism". people who vote far left, or people who vote right donc like the word at all.

- People who vote right are either democrats (in the US meaning of the word) or the part of Republicans who understand the risk of voting for extremists.

- The "real" french republicans, (overzealous religious people, facists, death penalty advocates, racists...) vote for "Front National", a far right party that has declined somewhat for the last few years.

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (2, Insightful)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31185066)

Funny, I always heard Americans call us "Socialist". Europe is not socialist. Most of the ruling parties here are social-democrats, even those who call themselves "Socialist Party". And they're increasingly less Social or Democratic, since they don't give a fuck about the people they rule and only think about kissing the ass of the big money corporations.

I also don't agree that our right wing is on the left of your left. Your Democrats equate to our moderate right-wing parties in most issues, I'll call it "the liberal right". Further to the right of this we begin to enter the mental illness territory. Which summarises what most Europeans think of your Republican party.

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (3, Funny)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#31186542)

it has the word social in it, so you might as well just put up a big red flag as far as Americans are concerned.

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31188544)

Or blue flag even! Americans get their colours confused so "red" is the far right party and "blue" is the centre right party.
Who knows why the GOP chose the colour of the soviet union, china, vietnam and cuba.

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31186866)

Your right winng equates more to American Dixiecrat Democrats (See Wikipedia) according to your definition. The sort of people who for 200+ years voted Democrat and fought to keep slavery.

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31188250)

To the extent that these parties achieve "the merger of state and corporate power", as Mussolini supposedly put it, shouldn't we call them fascist? Both US parties already support such things to some extent, and you say European "Social Democratic" parties do.

As for the US Republican party being crazy, that does fit into the idea (shorn of the left/right labels) that the range of acceptable politics in Europe ranges from "large-scale government meddling and forced redistribution of property" to "really large-scale government meddling and forced redistribution of property".

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (1)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | more than 4 years ago | (#31189846)

The left to right political spectrum is useless.

Robert Heinlein said it quite well:
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

I think it's quite clear that both Europe and the US have problems with governments who want to control people, although the specific behaviors being targeted most rabidly may differ.

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (1)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195454)

While I really enjoy Heinlein's stories he is far from a solid thinker on politics. His views in the middle of his life where very much extreme in the libertarian direction (i.e. he views anyone who wants the government to handle anything a slave wannabe) so I don't find that quote surprising from him. It just a silly straw-man attack on the people he disagreed with.

His worst books are those where he uncritically idealises libertarianism - and his best works are where he fairly examines a political system showing both the good and the bad without explicitly passing judgement.

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (1, Redundant)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31185112)

Their right wing is to the left of our left wing. Europeans, including the French, are ALWAYS bragging here about democratic socialism.

You might need to be a bit more careful with your terminology. Hitler's Nazi Party was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party", and we all know where they stood in the political spectrum.

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 4 years ago | (#31185434)

My terminology is fine. You must be confused, if you are unfamiliar with the term "democratic socialism." The formal name of the Nazis is irrelevant and I am not speaking to the name of a political party and instead sort of a political ideology.

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31186128)

You must be confused, if you are unfamiliar with the term "democratic socialism."

No, actually I'm not. I've lived in France for many years, and there's still a wide streak of fascism prevalent in their culture. I'm well aware that "Socialism" is not regarded in Europe as the "dirty word" that it is in the US, but one has to remember that the term is used by both communists and fascists alike, but with different implications.

Think of the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front [youtube.com]. ;-)

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (2, Informative)

Mornedhel (961946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31186440)

Except that France's Parti Socialiste is *against* this legislation, which is being pushed by the current UMP government (which is on the right side of our political spectrum).

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (2, Interesting)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184380)

Especially in Europe. East Germany's censorship model failed in most places in the west because people could get signals from West German TV stations. In a place like France, people could easily get wifi signals from Italy, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, etc depending on where they lived.

Of course, Burlesconi will almost certainly jump on this bandwagon, and then France and Italy will try to leverage this on other EU countries.

Re:Outmaneuvering censorship (4, Funny)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31185378)

In a place like France, people could easily get wifi signals from Italy, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, etc depending on where they lived.

Either you've got the range of WiFi quite a bit wrong, or you believe France is the size of a large apartment where over sixty million people somehow manage to fit.

I don't know which option is weirder.

Well... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184172)

I surrender!

The Internet isn't compatible with your litigation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184222)

This wouldn't affect people who run their own recursive DNS server, right? Nor would it affect any servers in data center racks, right? Failing that, even configuring 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 as resolver would do the trick, right? Not that trading one untrusted organisation for the other completely solves the problem but still.

fascism will never succeed in reducing paedophilia (5, Insightful)

e70838 (976799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184254)

The main consequence of these "laws" will be the development of cryptography and anonymous browsing. As a result, real criminals will have better tools to hide their activity. Normal people will just lose a part of their liberties.

Re:fascism will never succeed in reducing paedophi (2, Interesting)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184524)

I think in discussions like these we need a new disclaimer: IANAP (I Am Not a Paedophile). However, I doubt anything more than a minority are violent people, just like everyone else. The reality is that the non-violent ones who used child porn will either be harrassed or might be driven to the paedophile stereotype of kidnapping/abusing kids. This does nothing but escalate it, and rather than try to talk to these people and work out their problems or give them a safe way to channel it (sort of like how BDSM was originally regarded as obscene before it developed an almost-universal code of conduct), it is suppressed.

Re:fascism will never succeed in reducing paedophi (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31194862)

I think in discussions like these we need a new disclaimer: IANAP (I Am Not a Paedophile).

Hey, it's a better acronym than "I ANAL"!

This is serious stuff. pay attention (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184260)

For the good of the hole at the end of your penis, don't put your dick in poop. Stick it anything else, a pussy, your hand, a tube sock, your mothers mouth. Just whatever you do, don't put in a butt. If you must put in a butt though, cover it with a rubber chicken first.

Remember, it's for the good of your dong.

Won't somebody... (1)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184286)

Pensez aux enfants!?

Apologies if the French is totally wrong, just ran it through babelfish. :)

Re:Won't somebody... (2, Funny)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184734)

Pensez aux enfants!?

Apologies if the French is totally wrong, just ran it through babelfish. :)

If I remember my high school French correctly, that would translate to "Think in the children", which is hilarious by itself. I would think the correct French would be "Pensez des enfants", though penser may be one of those weird verbs that takes an article that doesn't match the literal translation. I'm just gonna ignore the fact that "pensez" is second-person plural (i.e. a command), since I'm not sure which form is supposed to follow "somebody".

Re:Won't somebody... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184882)

Actually, "Pensez aux enfants" is correct.

Re:Won't somebody... (1)

InEnacWeTrust (1638615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31185274)

"pensez aux enfants" is actually far better.

I understand you can't translate it easily, but "Think about the children" is probably the best way to go about it. "pensez des enfants" doesn't mean anything by itself. "think of the children"

Re:Won't somebody... (1)

fafalone (633739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31187050)

Actually it doesn't even seem like the most appropriate verb to begin with. Songer would seem to make more sense, which does take à. Furthermore, penser would take à if you were going to use it in this sense anyway; since the non-literal but equivalent phrases are penser à->to think about. Remember à literally translates to 'at', not 'in'. "Think in the children" would have been penser dans enfants, or perhaps penser en enfants.

Re:Won't somebody... (1)

ubercam (1025540) | more than 4 years ago | (#31187210)

As rusty as my French is, I'll try to give this a shot..

In the indicative present tense, the second person plural of the verb "penser" is vous pensez, whereas in the imperative case, the second person plural is pensez.

If you're speaking formally, you normally use the 2nd person plural (vous) if you're speaking to a single person. Informally, speaking to a single person, the use of the 2nd person singular is called for*. This differs from, say, German where the formal person is the 3rd person plural (some might argue it's an entirely different person, but it never differs from the 3rd person plural other than the pronoun, Sie, is always capitalized). You usually always drop the pronoun, which is fairly common throughout many languages.

As for "think of the children," the correct translations as far as I know are "Pensez aux enfants!" (2nd person plural, formal or to command a group, exclusive of yourself) but you could also say "Pense aux enfants!" (2nd person singular, informal to command a single person) or "Pensons aux enfants!" (1st person plural, to a group, including yourself, "Let's think of the children!").

*FYI, just like in English, use of the 2nd person singular in the imperative is generally considered rude in most social settings. There are exceptions though, such as in the military, speaking to children, etc.

It's been a while since I thought about French grammar. I thought it was dead and gone and replaced with German, but I guess it's still rattling around in there somewhere... Looks like 13 years of French Immersion wasn't a complete waste after all!

Re:Won't somebody... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31189630)

Pensez aux enfants!?

Apologies if the French is totally wrong, just ran it through babelfish. :)

If I remember my high school French correctly, that would translate to "Think in the children", which is hilarious by itself. I would think the correct French would be "Pensez des enfants", though penser may be one of those weird verbs that takes an article that doesn't match the literal translation. I'm just gonna ignore the fact that "pensez" is second-person plural (i.e. a command), since I'm not sure which form is supposed to follow "somebody".

The babelfish translation is the right one.

Pensez des enfants = Think children . Weird...

Anonymous frenchman.

Re:Won't somebody... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31190576)

Babelfish is actually spot on, that's a correct french sentence and exactly what Ms Lovejoy says in the french-dubbed version.

Sorry but "Pensez des enfants" doesn't make much sense...

Re:Won't somebody... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31191610)

"Pensez aux enfants" is the correct translation.

Think about someone -> Pensez à quelqu'un.

Granted however the translation from english to french is not always straightforward:

Do you think about that ? -> Pensez-vous à ça ?
What do you think about that ? -> Que pensez-vous de ça ?

Urgent? (4, Insightful)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184292)

I don't think anyone could call this bill urgent. This is stating the obvious a bit, but I'm going to call it right now - the French government is trying to force this through as quickly as possible before anti-censorship, net neutrality, and freedom of speech groups get to mount a decent defense and inform the French people about what is happening. Although, the populace could be complicit, sort of like Italy, where Burlesconi has managed to brainwash almost everyone.

Re:Urgent? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184366)

You are aware the general populance here in europe doesn't even know what net neutrality actually is?

Re:Urgent? (1)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184394)

Exactly. The French government is obviously trying to force it through before their people are as educated about it as they are in other countries.

Because of the elections (5, Informative)

kemenaran (1129201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184838)

The "urgent" status is actually because this censorship bill is part of a larger law, named LOPPSI 2, that addresses several "security" matters : more jail for everyone, Internet filtering, trojans for cops in "organized crime" investigation, and so on.

There are regional elections in France in about one month. The government tries to scare people on security matters — the good old "I want *everyone* to *remember* _why_they_need_us_ !". They want to pass the law before the elections, and gave it an "urgent" status that of course isn't justified in any other way.

Radio Free _____ (3, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184512)

I, for one, will be using my "end of Cold War" era Yaesu FRG-7700 shortwave radio to search for broadcasts from the Free World. Could any of you guys tell me which direction I should be pointing my antenna, in order to get the best reception from signals bouncing over the Wall? My map isn't even clear where the border lies any more; all I know is that I'm on the wrong side.

Re:Radio Free _____ (1)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184564)

It depends. State of Europa, anyone?

In all seriousness, what would be truly heroic would be some kind of organized circumvention effort near the borders - people setting up free, public, long-range wifi in the bordering countries and mapping out areas where it's available.

Re:Radio Free _____ (2, Insightful)

discord5 (798235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184842)

I, for one, will be using my "end of Cold War" era Yaesu FRG-7700 shortwave radio to search for broadcasts from the Free World

Purely from a technical point of view, one could use such a shortwave radio together with a modem to create a network that could broadcast kitty porn, so, I'm afraid we're also going to have to confiscate that.

We're also going to have confiscate any flashlights you have, so you can't broadcast aforementioned kitty porn in binary signals to your neighbours. You don't happen to own two tin cans and a piece of string? We've had disturbing reports of people luring kitties by mewing loudly into one can.

I hate to say it, but soon the only network free of filters will be something like freenet [freenetproject.org], but oh snap... The very people this filter is trying to catch already are using this and similar technologies.

Re:Radio Free _____ (2, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31185186)

I'm afraid we're also going to have to confiscate that.

In the UK, the government is already allowing pollution to the 3-30MHz spectrum, which will lead to a reduction in short wave listeners and HF amateur radio users, which will in turn eventually lead to closing down of services due to "lack of demand".

This is done through generous EU self-certification requirements for electronic devices, so in particular HPA and other BT-provided home powerline networking products radiate broadband noise up to a few hundred metres away. With hundreds of thousands of units installed and in use, this often makes reception difficult in urban areas.

The regulator, Ofcom, clearly underreports the number of complaints, stating that it will only investigate individual cases (i.e. every single time there is a shortwave listener or other HF radio user within close proximity of such a device) rather than enacting a ban/confiscation of products which effectively act as unlicensed transmitters, using the house wiring as an antenna.

The short wave radio band is the only infrastructure-free method for worldwide communication, i.e. it is the only truly free worldwide communication method. It would be cost-prohibitive to censor it with broadband jammers (as opposed to the specific frequency jammers used especially throughout the Cold War); getting the citizens to purchase equipment to do the job instead is very effective, and takes the cynical approach that one might now have to sour relationships with his own neighbours to fix the problem.

UKQRM [mikeandsniffy.co.uk] for more information.

Re:Radio Free _____ (4, Insightful)

baKanale (830108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31185124)

I'm beginning to doubt there's a single place on this entire planet that's on the right side of the border.

but isn't only China supposed to be doing this???? (2)

Petkov (1011081) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184632)

after ALL, France is a "democracy" and ONLY China which is communist state supposed to be doing this things????

We're preparing foreign services taxation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184700)

Ever heard of the french Google tax? French government want to tax every foreign advertizement company that display ads on websites that can be accessed from france.

This censorship law is just preparing the government to be able to censor foreign services that don't pay any tax they may invent.

Filter /. in france (1)

cyborch (524661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184716)

"French lawmakers have voted to approve a draft law to filter Internet traffic that Slashdot previously discussed."

I didn't read the article. I didn't even read the rest of the text beyond that sentence. Any traffic related to something which has previously been discussed on /. should be filtered in France...

Paging anonyme (1)

sackvillian (1476885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184718)

Commencer l'opération tempête de le téton !

Re:Paging anonyme (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 4 years ago | (#31189034)

Shouldn't that be << Commencer l'operation tempête dans un verre d'eau. >> "Commence operation tempest in a teacup"? Or did you mean D cup?

Why hello there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184720)

Why hello there, angry crowd of a million men who has just burnt down a thousand city blocks, I happen to have in my hand a button which when pressed would fulfil your desire of removing the webpage that has motivated you to these acts from the internet, but you see, I promised that I would only press if it the web page contained child pornography. I very much sympathise with your cause and it is certainly understandable that you are so angry, however I promised really much and I think I even wrote a law about it so my hands are totally tied, sorry.

- The French president in a universe very much removed from ours, 2015

Misplaced effort (4, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#31184824)

If the French legislature -- or, for that matter, ours, the British, or the Australians -- were genuinely concerned about child pornography, there are any number of productive, real-world efforts they could pursue. On the technical side, they could fund research into automated image analysis, so computers could look for the stuff specifically instead of having uniformed thugs, er, gendarmes pawing through everyone's data manually. That, obviously, is not going to produce overnight results, so maybe the kiddie porn-obsessed countries of the world could take concrete action against the human trafficking that fuels so much of the child porn business. Of course, that would end up hurting business interests, whereas violating everyone's rights in a largely fruitless pursuit for evidence of crimes after the fact -- cast in the appropriate light, of course -- generates some free publicity prior to elections, without the unintended side effect of actually doing something to reduce a very valuable hot button issue.

We have the same kind of politics here with respect to abortion. Both sides fear a final resolution to the issue because it's such a huge source of votes. Consequently, the pro-life faction always stops just a little bit short of overturning Roe v. Wade, and the pro-choice faction never actually gets around to even discussing a constitutional amendment. The politicians (and professional pressure groups) involved want an unresolved controversy, lest the issue be reduced to driving as many people to the polls as the Runaway Slave Act does nowadays. The voters on both sides are quite sincere and feel strongly about their respective positions, but their elected representatives? Not so much.

Titstorm, part II (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31184918)

Ok, anon, now is the time. Let's begin planning operation titstorm, part II.

Let the message be loud and clear: "Don't fuck with us. We do not accept censorship in our network".

fi8st Post (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31185030)

become an unwanted GIVE BSD CREDIT More stable the future holds 'You see, even deliver. Some of [gay-sex-access.com]? 1. Therefore there as to whi3h *BSD the NetBSD project, formed his own United States of it. Its mission is

It will be interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31185694)

To see who steps up to provide tools to circumvent this filter and how much media attention is given to the "righteous computer geeks" who are saving the French from the evils of repressive net censorship, like in China, Iran,etc.

will someone please... (1)

nycguy (892403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31186492)

...think of the fucking children.

Oh wait, fucking children are the problem...

Re:will someone please... (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31187366)

I say we end this child porn menace once and for all!

To protect children from child porn we must kill all children so they cannot be used in child porn!

(And as a side benefit restaurants and airplanes will be slightly more tolerable.)

There sure is a lot of child pornographers (1)

eiMichael (1526385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31186890)

These "for the children" net censoring countries sure have a lot of child porn in their country. So much so that they're willing to spend a few hundred million dollars to just build some giant blindfolds to ignore it. Do they really not have any more pressing concerns? I'd be willing to wager they have more unemployed people than pedophiles and molested children combined.

Last I checked, there were plenty of other 'issues' that could use the attention: poverty, cancer research, alternative energies, food production, etc. I understand that raping children is a very bad behavior. But hopefully it's already illegal

Roman Polanski (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 4 years ago | (#31187096)

So France wants to stop people from looking at child porn on the internet cos it's such a BAD THING... but they complain about Roman Polanski being arrested and they want him freed?

He didn't merely look at child porn, he drugged and raped a 13 year old for fuck's sake.

"The Senate, where the government has a majority" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31188726)

ORLY, the government only has a majority in the senate. Who is in the Senate without being in the government? Or did the French invent a branch of government that is not controlled by the government?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...