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!

Germany Denies Plans to DoS Neo-Nazis

jamie posted more than 13 years ago | from the reach-out-and-touch-someone dept.

Censorship 227

Over the weekend, we learned that Germany's Minister of the Interior, Otto Schily, was thinking about DoS'ing neo-Nazi sites -- not a new form of censorship, but the first time a government has put it on the table. Each country has its own type of content so abhorrent that its censorship must not be questioned. If a Bush cabinet member had mentioned that the U.S. is considering ping-flooding Dutch providers of (what we would call) child pornography (nude 17-year-olds), would anyone protest? Soon China will take Falun Gong off the net with trin00 and Kuwait will SYN-flood rogue sites that show pictures of women voting. But anyway, yesterday, the Ministry denied such plans, so the chaotic Balkanization of the net is postponed for another six months. Yay!

My translation of the slug from the April 5 story would be:

Innenminister Otto Schily is considering paralyzing foreign Nazi websites with hacker attacks. For this, the Ministry wants to use so-called Denial-of-Service attacks. With similar methods, hackers last spring blocked out broad portions of the Internet.

And a friend's translation of the April 8 denial:

Schily denies "hacker methods" against Nazi websites

Minister of the Interior rejects assertion his authority wanted to close down Nazi websites with "hacker methods"

BERLIN. The Ministry of the Interior led by Otto Schily (SPD) denied it wanted to act against Nazi websites using "hacker methods." What will be used in the fight against right wing extremism would only be determined by the law, a spokesman said on the weekend.

The story was updated re Kuwait (not Iran) and women voting.

cancel ×

227 comments

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

Re:Censorship of any form (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#305689)

yeah, its only a short step from stopping nazis and child porn, to repressing sites that host Doom wads and unsigned bands!
ban nothing or everything.
like real life, why have laws against murder, its only a short step from that to banning people from going outside after 7pm.

Really, some of the logic expressed in slashdot makes me laugh out loud!

Re:Some information about Otto Schilly (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#305690)

Dude, it can't get more stupid. May be he is just a bit smarter than the darn "progressive" smart a**s, who have no shame to play conspirateurs of the rebirth of neo-nazi-ism worldwide.

If you love/hate the Nazis so much, my Amercian friends, why don't you keep your f* abused and flawed first amendment arguments to yourself and live your racists attitutudes out in your own country, the beloved U.S.A. Who would have ever thought, that I would find in the community of so-called intelligent hackers the most braindead libertarian freedom loving conspirateurs for right-wing, supremacist extremism.

I mean coding is peanuts in comparison to deal with your political, intellectual wrong wiring of "sold-out" brains.

Shily is one of best, smartest, fairest secretary of Interior we ever had. The only one who really has brains and has been uncorruptable to any bullshit from the left extremism to the right extremism.

Exactly because he defended leftist politicial terrorists, who most probably would have been *executed* in the U.S. if they had done the same crimes in the U.S. if they did them in Germany very sucessfully, he will never be braindead conservative who buys into bullshit arguments from anywhere, neither from German based conservatives, nor from U.S. based ultra-conservatives of the Libertarian front. I must say I have never been more disgusted than with the discovery of how flawed the Libertarians of this country are and with whom they are not ashamed to go to bed with.

Is that meant to be sarcastic? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#305691)

If a Bush cabinet member had mentioned that the U.S. is considering ping-flooding Dutch providers of (what we would call) child pornography (nude 17-year-olds), would anyone protest?

I don't know about anyone else, but I sure would. I would view our forcing these kinds of "morals" upon countries that don't waste their citizens' tax money on enforcing victimless crimes like we do as an act of war.

It is bad enough that we declare such material illegal to distribute, let alone to possess. There are a number of reasons why I hold this view:

  • Where are minors supposed to get pornography from? Your answer to this is probably "They shouldn't." You might as well make it illegal for minors to masturbate too, in that case. And, no, they shouldn't have to resort to pictures of slutty old chicks like Pam Anderson. If you're so worried about the corruption of our children, try getting rid of all that shit first.
  • Most "illegal child porn" I have encountered (by accident, of course) is not porn at all. Much of it is topless 16 or 17 year old girls taking pictures of themselves. Only a relatively small amount appears to be professionally produced, and very little depicts sex. There is some disgusting stuff out there that is rightfully illegal, though.
  • I can't see anything fundamentally wrong with a 19-year-old male looking at naked pictures of (or having sex with) a 17-year-old female. That's only a two year difference, for christ's sake! But it is a felony in many places.
  • Until it is proven that looking at pictures of 17-year-old females turns you into a "child" molester, such images should remain legal to possess.

I had better stop here, since even the mentioning of minors having sex probably qualifies as obscenity. Lets see, that's two counts so far, so I should be out of prison in no more than 50 years. Not bad.

Re:The deny does not surprise me (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#305692)

Even the government wanted to forbid a fascist party and it couldn't.

Not true. Germany's government is, today, trying to ban [cnn.com] a party [npd.net] that it considers "unfriendly to democracy" and has a "close affinity with Nazism."

So yes, Germany can forbid a fascist party if it wants, and for no other reason than its (perceived) ideology. It probably will succeed in doing so in a few weeks, and that'll be a tragedy for free speech/thought. At least it'll expose the current German government for what it is, though.

Re:Censorship of any form (2)

Brian Knotts (855) | more than 13 years ago | (#305694)

spray DDT over villages growing Cocoa

Hmmm...I hadn't heard that there was a War on Chocolate.

Learn something new every day.

Re:Good Idea (5)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 13 years ago | (#305699)

Nazis have. If you ask them, they would reply that they believe that their system of morality is entirely valid and acceptable. No society believes that it is evil. What you should have said is "don't people have the same morals as me?". It's the same kind of transformation as R.A.Wilson [rawilson.com] 's "War on Some Drugs" [rawilson.com] .

Re:They do vote (1)

jamiemccarthy (4847) | more than 13 years ago | (#305700)

"Iranian women, in fact, do have the right to vote"

I was trying to be mildly funny (pictures of people voting, ha ha), but skipped Rule 1 which is to make sure jokes have their facts straight. I apologize to Iran. Someone name me a country where women can't vote and I'll update the joke.

Jamie McCarthy

Re:They do vote (2)

jamiemccarthy (4847) | more than 13 years ago | (#305702)

Afghanistan doesn't allow any voting. It shares that distinction with the U.A.E., which another poster mentioned, and with Saudi Arabia and presumably others.

I'm updating the country to Kuwait. The CIA World Factbook's entry on Kuwait [cia.gov] says "Suffrage: adult males who have been naturalized for 30 years," etc. Interesting that after five minutes of looking through dozens of countries to try to find one that denies the vote specifically to women, the only one I could find was one whose government my country went to war to defend.

Jamie McCarthy

Re:Why post a link to highly offensive material? (5)

jamiemccarthy (4847) | more than 13 years ago | (#305703)

"In the story's submission the submitter posted a link to Neo-Nazi content but not to pornographic content."

Obviously you didn't click the link (which was my addition, not a submitter's). It points to a collection of papers and speeches by my late friend Stig Hornshøj-Møller, who had researched the Nazi propaganda film Der ewige Jude.

Stig had argued, and persuasively demonstrated, that the 1941 Nazi propaganda film is no longer a threat to democracy, and that screening it for young people in particular can help them understand Nazi use of propaganda. And yet the film is still strictly regulated by Germany, to the point where instructors have to apply to the government for permission before using it even in the classroom.

Go check out his work [holocaust-history.org] . It's fascinating (IMHO) to see how the film has changed in sixty years from a tool of persuasion, to an object to be feared, and, finally, hopefully, to a historical document to be learned from.

Jamie McCarthy

Re:Who decides? (2)

uradu (10768) | more than 13 years ago | (#305707)

> The most important thing about selective censorship (which is what we are discussing here)
> is that you need to determine who decides what is offensive.

This conversation is getting too abstract. Even if Germany had decided to go through with the DoS attack, it would have been against entities and ideas that are highly illegal in that country. So in this case "what is offensive" is decided by the law. And it's not really a question of offensive material, but of illegal material. Since German law doesn't apply abroad, they sensibly decided that it wasn't a good idea after all. However, they would be legally fully justified to mount a DoS attack on German servers hosting NN material.

Re:Wait a minute... (2)

uradu (10768) | more than 13 years ago | (#305708)

> So two 17 year olds can have sex, but they just can't take a picture of themselves doing it.

What's so unusual about that? You can also breast-feed your baby, or have it lie completely naked on a changing table and apply cream on its behind, yet you'd probably get in trouble if you gratuitously photographed and posted these acts.

In the US we can decide who runs our country (and by extension much of the world) at 18, but we can't decide to have a drink until we're 21.

Re:The ups and downs of censorship (3)

uradu (10768) | more than 13 years ago | (#305712)

> The flip side is that freedom of speech enables John Skinhead to spout Nazi propagander if he
> wishes - just as God-loving bible bashers are allowed to preach that we're all going to Hell.
> Just as I'm able to proclame my atheism and contempt for hate-mongers - as God-loving
> bible-bashers generally are.

You're making it sound like groups that actively incite and organize violence against minorities and groups that simply spout bias are essentially the same. Most countries' laws will disagree with you, and the difference between the two is usually used as a yardstick of censorship and denial of freedom of speech. There's a big difference between saying that you're a worthless human being, and saying, oh, yeah, by the way, let's organize some riots and gangs and bash your head in and kill you.

Like it or not... (1)

ArthurDent (11309) | more than 13 years ago | (#305713)

Whether you happen to agree with it or not, (which I don't BTW), some people happen to believe this sort of garbage. If people believe it it will be on the net. DoS one site another will spring up. There will always be a dark side of the net because there is a dark side of the human race.

Now, whether or not we should decide to spend tons and tons of energy to fight it is another story. I don't claim to have a good answer for that.

Ben

The hypocrisy of the left (1)

bill (12141) | more than 13 years ago | (#305714)

Ah, so the censorship issue raises its head again. <p>
<b>But of course, we all know that a man like Horowitz can publish his opinion on slavery reparations in an advertisement in college newspapers without any threats or censorship whatsoever. Our wonderfully liberal and tolerant colleges and universities certainly allow any opinion to be expressed, even those of Charlton Heston or Wayne LaPierre.<p>
Certainly, anti-abortion websites expressing the authors opinions of abortion and abortion doctors are not censored or ordered removed from listing.<p>
Or are they?
<p>
The most blatant hypocrisy today is that of the modern day liberal, who cries 'censorship' the minute parents start complaining about books in libraries, but silence and censor any contraty opinion under the guise of eliminating 'hate speech'.</b>

Re:war (2)

Tim C (15259) | more than 13 years ago | (#305717)

Because, especially in this situation, there is very little to compare between the two.

When you bomb a nazi organisation's HQ, you damage and destroy property (not just the HQ, but buildings around it), and kill people (again, not just the nazis, although as long as they're not killing people, they have just as much right to live as the next person).

When you ping-flood a website, you bring down a website. No-one gets hurt, nothing gets damaged (expcet maybe the pride of a sysadmin or two).

It would be different if it was computers controlling, say, air traffic or power generation that were targeted, but when a website gets taken down like that, no-one gets hurt.

Sure, it would almost certainly damage diplomatic relations between the two countries, but anyone who would even threaten to go to war over such a thing should not be in a position of power.

I acknowledge that such a break-down in relations could, eventually, lead to war, but it should certainly not be anyone's first reaction.

Cheers,

Tim

Re:Ideology versus Reality (2)

Tim C (15259) | more than 13 years ago | (#305718)

Why would China care if US citizens couldn't access Chinese web sites?

I can't imagine that a Chinese version of Amazon would do much overseas trade, for example.

I can see the point in blocking eg the American subnet from being accessed by the rest of the world, as that would have some considerable economic impact. However, for countries that don't even use the same alphabet, I honestly can't see it having a particularly great effect.

Cheers,

Tim

Re:Like it or not... (2)

Tim C (15259) | more than 13 years ago | (#305719)

If you do decide to fight it, then you have a very difficult question to answer: What right do we have to express our opinons?

Sure, I think probably most people here would agree that Nazi beliefs are morally repugnant. So, do we fight against them?

Well, therein lies the problem - I seem to remember a while back, lots of people here getting very righteously indignant that the RIAA was seeking injunctions against people and sites who posted the DeCSS code. More recently, people were pretty annoyed that the Co$ threatened /. over a comment posted.

I can't rationalise protesting against the latter censorships, whilst participating in the former, myself.

Cheers,

Tim

Re:war (2)

Tim C (15259) | more than 13 years ago | (#305720)

That's assuming that all the packets take the same route to the target, of course.

The best way to DoS a server, imho, would be to use a distributed attack, from a number of different subnets.

That way, not only does the server get hit with more packets (there's no guarantee that one machine will be able to take down the server), but they take different routes to the target, which helps to ensure that more of them get through (as you don't risk taking down any of the intervening nodes).

Besides which, the "worst" that can happen is that you overload a router or two on the way there; you are not going to be able to ping-flood an airport's or university hospital's critical systems in that way, unless they are also acting as a router (or you're really dumb, and fire at the wrong IP address, and the firewall lets the packets through...)

Cheers,

Tim

Why post a link to highly offensive material? (2)

The Rev (18253) | more than 13 years ago | (#305722)

In the story's submission the submitter posted a link to Neo-Nazi content but not to pornographic content.

Why? Is it because they feel that pornography is not acceptable but Nazism is?

They censored themselves whilst raising issues about censorship!

I personally have no probelms with pornography but take enormous and personal issue with Nazism.

I find it odd that we can all have sex at 17 (in the UK the age of consent is 16) but killing Jews (or promoting it or excusing it) is wrong.

Hm!

Craig.

Kinda makes you think..... (1)

willki (20190) | more than 13 years ago | (#305723)

What could be next? the RIAA sending a DoS attack to Napster's Database servers? These days, almost any thing is possible...

Re:Wait a minute... (2)

jilles (20976) | more than 13 years ago | (#305724)

You can have sex much younger if you like (12 or thirteen), however it has to be pretty clear that it is voluntary (adults having sex with children is definately not allowed but 14 year olds having sex is not illegal perse). Considering the amount of teenage pregnancies and abortions, I think the dutch approach might be a bit more realistic, kids fool around anyway. As for child pornography, I think any western country is pretty intolerant towards it.

However I think there's a difference between 6 year olds being forced to do stuff they don't want and sixteen year olds having sex. You might make the argument that in the latter case the participants are able to oversee the consequences whereas younger children cannot.

Re:They do vote (2)

WNight (23683) | more than 13 years ago | (#305727)

Afghanistan? The Taliban doesn't seem to like women doing anything...

Really, any government with an official religion is worthy of mocking, take your pick.

Re:Ideology versus Reality (1)

CSC (31551) | more than 13 years ago | (#305728)

The countries that attempt to censor net content of any sort should be blocked by the rest of the net, at the peering routers level. This ought to be a peering requirement. We know Red China is censoring us - we should simply block all of their sites from visibility to the rest of the fscking world! They might get a clue in about ten years,... maybe.

First, Red China is not blocking me so it's not an universal POV.

Second (and most important) most of the Net's backbone is private property. Why would any corporation hurt its profits for a measly and improductive anti-censorship statement by only a few customers ?

Seriously though you Americans are amazing. Always asking for fewer rules when you gain from it (usually detrimentally to others) and asking for more when the lack thereof bothers you. Couldn't you be consistent for a while?

Ideology versus Reality (2)

s390 (33540) | more than 13 years ago | (#305729)

The countries that attempt to censor net content of any sort should be blocked by the rest of the net, at the peering routers level. This ought to be a peering requirement. We know Red China is censoring us - we should simply block all of their sites from visibility to the rest of the fscking world! They might get a clue in about ten years,... maybe.

But this is easier said than done, unfortunately. Suppose you run a node router connecting to many other nodes. You forward all the traffic you get. How will you know what any of your peered routers drop? You won't, unless you implement a traffic logging server that compares requests against responses. Even then, you'd have to have a way to figure out which were real requests versus errors, an impossible or at least very difficult and error prone task. Most peering routers won't even attempt to do this at all.

Countries are going to get away with this short sighted censorship, at least until protocols and DNS management schemes are improved to catch it. Oh well, I don't really have anything to say to or hear from osama@bin_ladin.org, anyway. No loss. And people in oppressed countries will always have some ways around the "official" Internet.

But it _would_ help to simply cut the high-speed links to countries known to be censoring network content for political/economic/religious reasons. (State religions are abominations. So are official State political and economic restrictions.) Now here's something George W. might really get behind, if he could only remotely understand it!

Re:Censorship of any form (1)

James Lanfear (34124) | more than 13 years ago | (#305730)

What the hell, its late (early)....

tell Chinese they should return their spies

They aren't spies. Spies usually try to discover secret stuff while not being noticed; in this case, they were flying regular routes for years listening to radio transmissions and looking for radar sites. I'd call it (usually) dull recon duty.

Arm the military with dubious human rights records

I don't know what this means, but it sound wrong ;-)

I hope that hot head Bush sends in a rescue mission into China to rescue the US "hostages" and gets his ass kicked with a warhead on the WhiteHouse.

No, you don't. No matter how a rescue mission turned out, it's a good bet that the end result you be a large portion of the planet being transformed into a decorative glass bowl. (OTOH, then I might get my power armor and gauss gattling gun! ;-)

Re:They do vote (1)

david.heyman (36692) | more than 13 years ago | (#305731)

I was about to point this out. In fact a woman recently ran for Prime Minister/President (I don't recall). I think it was Rafsanjani's daughter.

Wait a minute... (1)

selmer (37218) | more than 13 years ago | (#305732)

Pictures of nude 17 year olds are as much child-pornography here in Holland as they are in the USA. The "anything is legal there" view on Holland is not entirely right.

Yes, you can purchase marihuana in shops, yes, we're about to legalise euthanasia but child-pornography is still illegal and one would certainly face prosecution if caught.

Re:America's does the same (2)

Steve B (42864) | more than 13 years ago | (#305734)

Nazis shouldn't be given sanctionary in any country of the world. They are not human beings

You owe me a new needle for my irony meter.
/.

Re:war (2)

wiredog (43288) | more than 13 years ago | (#305735)

That's a wonderful argument in favor of spammers and against the various RBLs. After all, the spam really doesn't hurt anyone, and doesn't cost actual money, right?

Re:Government oppression (1)

1stflight (48795) | more than 13 years ago | (#305736)

One catch, it's "Free Speech" here in American but as I understand German law, that kind of speech is outlawed. Interest legal problem, there it's illegal, here it's not... but it can be accessed with ease from there. Their ministry has to act (after all what is a law if it's not enfoced) but how do you enforce your laws on someone else's nation?

Re:the Free Speech Shiboleth (1)

csteinle (68146) | more than 13 years ago | (#305742)

I hate Nazi actions more than anti-free speach actions. However, I hate anti-free speach actions more than Nazi speach.

Re:the Free Speech Shiboleth (1)

csteinle (68146) | more than 13 years ago | (#305743)

Also, I can't spell speech.

Re:Why post a link to highly offensive material? (3)

Emil Brink (69213) | more than 13 years ago | (#305745)

Um, hello? How much of the linked-to site did you actually read? From the root page [holocaust-history.org] of that site:
The Holocaust History Project is a free archive of documents, photographs, recordings, and essays regarding the Holocaust, including direct of Holocaust-denial.
So, it's clearly not an example of (neo)Nazi content, but rather a site working against people who try to falsify history. I don't think you can make a case that the Slashdot editor (the sometimes-controversial Jamie) somehow censored himself by chosing this site as an example... It's a weird example, though. Your final sentence doesn't parse over here. Or if it does, it doesn't jive with the rest of your text, and frightens the living sh*t out of me.

We? (1)

rash (83406) | more than 13 years ago | (#305751)

The article states "we" as in people in the USA,
why is this?
I am not an american and is therefore not a part
of "we".

So...
Why does the article writer think that EVERYONE
that reads the article are americans?
This annoys me.

If this type of attack becomes common... (2)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 13 years ago | (#305754)

The net will evolve to route around it. Preventing DDOSes is pretty straight forward when you get right down to it and they're noticably hard on the network outside the site they're attacking, as well as the sites under attack. While it currently takes more effort than it's usually worth to trace a DDOS (Unless you're a multi-millon dollar company) the routers WILL evolve to the point where an attack is automatically detected and shut down near the source.

Re:Restricted Freedom of Speech (1)

Dervak (94063) | more than 13 years ago | (#305759)

However, democracy has the property that it can be self-destroying. Dictatorships never have the cunning idea to disband themselves, but democracies have voted to accede absolute power. (Case in point - in Germany, IIRC August 1934, 'The Enabling Law' (don't know the proper German name for it, sorry) was passed by a _95%_ vote and giving absolute power to Adolf Hitler...).

True.

If we allow anti-democratic forces freedom of expression there is a risk that they might take over and destroy democracy.

But that is a risk that we, IMHO, have to take. Because if we don't, then we have already lost democracy. It is then not a possibilty but a certainty.

And don't say that we should only censor nazis and the like. Restrictions in freedom of speech, once they are in place, always get abused, always get extended to more groups... and to still more... because they easily can, and because politicians can't resist.

The sad truth is that freedoms are very easily taken away, but very hard to recover.

Accepting the existence and expression of ideas repugnant to ourselves, and the risk inherent in this, is the price we have to pay for our freedom.

/Dervak

censorship can always be questioned (2)

gargle (97883) | more than 13 years ago | (#305760)

Each country has its own type of content so abhorrent that its censorship must not be questioned.

There is no form of censorship which cannot be questioned.

Re:Ideology versus Reality (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 13 years ago | (#305763)

Ohh I see, so to stop censorship we should start censoring people who censor things?
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\= \=\=\=\=\

Re:Translation (Not) (1)

yooden (115278) | more than 13 years ago | (#305765)

Why is every babeled translation considered informative? 'The German law causes itself however out'? What a crap.

Re:The deny does not surprise me (1)

yooden (115278) | more than 13 years ago | (#305766)

Even the government wanted to forbid a fascist party and it couldn't.
What are you referring to? IIRC two parties have been forbidden, the DKP and the SRP.

Re:Who decides? (1)

yooden (115278) | more than 13 years ago | (#305767)

However, they would be legally fully justified to mount a DoS attack on German servers hosting NN material.
The German police is much more comfortable kicking in doors than in mounting DoS attacks, so I think we can count this out.

Re:Translation (Not) (1)

yooden (115278) | more than 13 years ago | (#305768)

Why is every babeled translation considered informative?
Because then people don't have to manually Babel it themselves, thereby saving them time.
So it's just basic karma whoring.

However, which of the following do you understand better?
Well, since you have asked, the German one.

Re:The deny does not surprise me (1)

yooden (115278) | more than 13 years ago | (#305769)

All right, but it's not the government that forbids parties, it the german constitutional court.
I see. yes, that's probably what he meant. The idea that parties would be verboten at the government's whim is so strange that I didn't get it.

Re:Translation (Not) (2)

alexburke (119254) | more than 13 years ago | (#305771)

Why is every babeled translation considered informative?

Because then people don't have to manually Babel it themselves, thereby saving them time.

'The German law causes itself however out'? What a [load of?] crap.

Yes, I know Babel mangles most things (especially German). However, which of the following do you understand better?

[German] Wer die Angriffe für das Innenministerium durchführen soll, ist noch nicht bekannt.

[Babelled] Who is to execute the attacks for the ministry of the Interior, is not well-known yet.

Sure, it ain't English good, but it gets across the point...

--

Re:Censorship of any form (1)

Kotetsu (135021) | more than 13 years ago | (#305773)

Historically, there have been times when it was unlawful to be wandering about off your own property after dark. The legal term (in English) was "noctavigation".

Re:What's next? (1)

Arcanix (140337) | more than 13 years ago | (#305774)

Yeah, what would we do without all those wonderful hamburger recipes on the web? I'd be lost without the instructions, hamburgers being a complex food to make and all...

Censorship of any form (5)

HerrGlock (141750) | more than 13 years ago | (#305775)

This is what I've been fearing since the first time I've heard of a government attempting to take a site off the air that it disagrees with. This, if left unchecked, will mean the absolute end of the internet as a way to get all sides of the issues, all means of research and all ability to have honest and open discussion of any topic.

A government may have to limited right to decide what can/will be distributed within it's borders, but that does NOT mean it has the right to cross political boundries and attempt to tell the rest of the world what it can and cannot have out on it's pages.

The US is horrible with this and that is not helped by other countries who run hollering for the US to 'do something' about purely internal matters within a country.

Just because you do not like the message does not mean you have the right to silence the messenger. I wish all governments would understand that and allow honest discourse about all subjects.

DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page [cavalrypilot.com]

Slippery Slope (1)

Army No Va (143018) | more than 13 years ago | (#305776)

Censorship and control of information is a slippery slope to dictatorship and persecution or worse.

Plus can they really hide this from their people? I mean, geez, with wireless coming on?

Re:Is that meant to be sarcastic? (1)

Army No Va (143018) | more than 13 years ago | (#305777)

Yes, the police are tracing you down now ;-)....good luck....

History (1)

Hizz (143345) | more than 13 years ago | (#305779)

Is it just me or is history starting to repeat itself in the new age?

What's next? (2)

HiQ (159108) | more than 13 years ago | (#305782)

Well, there's always something called freedom of speech; it's not up to the German minister go around on the internet like a real hauptstormbahnfuhrer, and blocking all sites that he doesn't like. The only way to deal with these situations is through the proper international legal channels, no country should be their own judge in these matters. I mean what would be next:

  • Islamitic countries blocking access to christian websites
  • Christian countries blocking Islamitic sites
  • McDonalds blocking access to websites with hamburger recipes
  • Etc...

war (1)

bornie (166046) | more than 13 years ago | (#305783)

Wouldn't this be a act of war?

If Sweden doesn't like nazis in german and we throw a few bombs on their hq's, German certanitly would consider that as an act of war. Why then should not a ping-flood be an act of war?

Re:war (1)

bornie (166046) | more than 13 years ago | (#305784)

If one nation pingflood a site in another nation everything between those two points will go down or suffer. If an airport or an univeristyhospital is between the attacker and the target people may die.
It is very hard to make a pinpoint attack against a website from any one country.

Re:Ideology versus Reality [really OT] (1)

Moro vaan Ugrit (167028) | more than 13 years ago | (#305785)

Scandinavian countries have State Church. You're made a member when you're born, but you can resign from it at the age of 18.

Actually, you're a member of the church only if your parents belong to the church, at least in Finland. There are two 'state churches', which means that those religious organisations have the right to collect taxes (via government). As an atheist I must admit though that I am not too knowledgeable on these religious issues.

I wonder what the situation is in Sweden, Norway and Denmark? Separation of church and state has been an on going debate for decades and I believe at least Sweden has taken some steps. Am I misinformed?

Yep, this is news from the Linus' former home. Just in case someone only happens to think of islamic countries when they hear of 'state religion'.

Re:They do vote (1)

Mubarmij (176563) | more than 13 years ago | (#305790)

That is easy, you can take my country (UAE). Women do not have the right to vote. For that matter, neither do men! (:

The amazing thing is that everybody is happy regardless. it is a welfare state with a very nice guy on top. Democracy is not the solution. It is a solution.

They do vote (2)

Mubarmij (176563) | more than 13 years ago | (#305791)

Well, it is off topic, but Iranian women, in fact, do have the right to vote.. and do vote massively. Seems some of those "freedom fighters" do not mind slighting other people as long as this does not infringe on their right to, well, slight other people.

Re:Translation (Not) (1)

sydb (176695) | more than 13 years ago | (#305792)

Yep, I think I'm going to start doing it. Easy karmah. Then I can mod the other fsckers down.

Re:censorship can always be questioned (3)

sydb (176695) | more than 13 years ago | (#305793)

Sigh. Don't read him so literally.

Every country has a majority for whom certain taboos are sacrosanct.

America's does the same (1)

PyRoNeRd (179292) | more than 13 years ago | (#305794)

Racism is a crime in Europe and I think the law enforcers should be able to stop all forms of racism in their tracks. The American attitude is a great hypocrasy when viewed in light of their own actions

After all, the USA didn't respect Afghanistan's decision to give Osama Bin Laden sanctionary and attacked Afghanistan with cruise missiles. The USA als didn't respect Panama's borders and attacked Panama to arrest Noriega.

So if the USA has the right to take action against countries which harbour dangerous terrorists and criminals, Germany should have a similar right to take action against countries which harbour dangerous criminals, such as the Nazi's in the USA in this case.

Ultimately Nazi's shouldn't be given sanctionary in any country of the world. They are not human beings, but evil monsters that threaten everything the human race in all it's hues and colours stands for. Even their mere existance is an affront to humanity and all decent societies.

They should be stomped on severely.

Re:Free Speech in Germany? Ha! (1)

PyRoNeRd (179292) | more than 13 years ago | (#305795)

In Belgium they have a law that even makes it a crime to "minimize" the Holocaust.

That means, it is illegal to question the *UNIQUENESS* of the Holocaust. So if you do a research about Stalin's genocides of the '30s and state that they were "as bad as the Holocaust" or heaven forbid " worse than the Holocaust" then you go to jail as well.

Even studying them in any detail that takes the limelight from the Holocaust as worst genocide in world history would be dangerous.

Re:I hate nazis (2)

grammar nazi (197303) | more than 13 years ago | (#305803)

It's not the first time that a government has used a DoS attack as a form of censorship. Remember when we were attacking Kosovo? Many of the websites that the US Gov. put together to inform people within Kosovo of the U.S. version of the story were DoSed from somewhere within Kosovo.

I remember hearing about it on CNN.

Re:Restricted Freedom of Speech (1)

Peter Dyck (201979) | more than 13 years ago | (#305804)

I agree.

I think one of the greatest aspects of the net is that speech is free even for unpopular ideas.

I am personally leaning politically left and find the (neo)nazi propaganda abhorrent and intellectually dishonest. Yet, I would not start censoring the net because preventing discussion has never stopped an ideology from spreading.

Much better an alternative is to let these people spew out all the crap they want and counter it with reasonable argumentation (by posting to newsgroups or starting a anti-nazi website). Yes, it probably won't change their minds but it make a difference to someone who's just forming his/her own political ideas.

of course you know this means war... (1)

sfraggle (212671) | more than 13 years ago | (#305815)


bush@whitehouse:~$ su
Password:
root@whitehouse:/home/bush# ping -f saddam.gov.iq
PING saddam.gov.iq: 56 data bytes

actually, on second thoughts, bush is probably too stupid to use unix. he'd probably use l33tpingflood2000.exe or something else :)

The deny does not surprise me (2)

mirabilos (219607) | more than 13 years ago | (#305827)

We here in Germany always have had free speech as of 1949 with the release of the new constitution.
But such ideas always were to come out, though they usually were cut down fastly. Even the government wanted to forbid a fascist party and it couldn't.
IMO it just would create lotta more net traffic, while the target sites just would move.
-mirabilos

--

Compensation? (1)

graystar (223824) | more than 13 years ago | (#305828)

Assuming government X flood site Y. What are the claims for another business hosted on the same box or ISP? Would governments have to legislate provisions against spamming laws so they can legally do it? This could potentially spiral out of control and make the net unusable, with the network being clogged up as people retaliate.

Re:They do vote (2)

kyz (225372) | more than 13 years ago | (#305829)

Interesting that after five minutes of looking through dozens of countries to try to find one that denies the vote specifically to women, the only one I could find was one whose government my country went to war to defend.

Don't worry Jamie, your government didn't go to war to defend the Kuwait government, it went to defend its oil interests.

Human rights atrocities are fine by us (and the UK will even supply the torture equipment!) but mess with the fuel chain and we'll blitz you. We didn't walk out on the Kyoto agreement for nothing, you know! We demand our right to cheap fuel for our SUVs to run inefficiently on while sitting idle in traffic jams!

Re:The deny does not surprise me (1)

mbanck (230137) | more than 13 years ago | (#305831)

>>Even the government wanted to forbid a fascist party and it couldn't.
>What are you referring to? IIRC two parties have been forbidden, the DKP and the SRP.

All right, but it's not the government that forbids parties, it the german constitutional court. The Government only _wants_ to forbid them. The next bid for forbidding *g* a fascist party is underway, backed by legislative and executive. But in the end, it's the "supreme court" who rules.

Re:Restricted Freedom of Speech (1)

mbanck (230137) | more than 13 years ago | (#305832)

Case in point - in Germany, IIRC August 1934, 'The Enabling Law' (don't know the proper German name for it, sorry) was passed by a _95%_ vote and giving absolute power to Adolf Hitler...

It's called "Ermächtigungsgesetz" over here. IIRC it was already in '33. The Social democratic Party voted in favor of it, something I will never understand. The "absolute power" was limited to four years, perhaps that's why they decided to do so. Hitler would most likely had his way anyway, perhaps a bit later. Of course, 4 years later, the law was again applied, with all social democrats in concentration camps for almost 4 years...

A (only) 95% vote in favor for Hitler by August '34 would have most probably been seen as a devastating defeat for him, I guess. Almost everybody was brain-washed, dead or in concentration camps by then.

...and shouting Zieg Heil (can't spell German stuff, sorry!)

It's "Sieg Heil", Sieg being the plain german word for "Victory". I don't quite get the philosphy of neo-nazis, after all, the "Sieg" was not "Heil" but rather crappy... IIRC, even the nazi officials acknowledged that the russian/slavian man was apparantly "stronger/better genetically equipped/whatever" than the aryen man, and tried their best to destroy anything that was left of Germany by that time(still looking for quotes here, though)

Some information about Otto Schilly (1)

tempmpi (233132) | more than 13 years ago | (#305833)

In the past Otto Schilly was a lawyer that defended left terrorits in the court. Now after many years, he is a minister and now he has often very conservative conceptions. He even changed from the green party to the social democratic party, but now he often makes suggestion that were much more conservative, than the suggestions of the main conservative party in germany, the cdu.

Re:What's next? (1)

tempmpi (233132) | more than 13 years ago | (#305834)

It is very limited which sites could be against german law. It isn't really hard to make a nazi site without breaking the german law. Just don't use symbols of nazi germany and do not lie the holocaust. I think everyone could live good with the little restrictions of free speach here. There isn't any really difference between the prohibition of using symbols of nazi germany and the way that big companies are protecting their trademarks and brands. They are doing it because of other motivations but in the end, it is almost the same.

War by any other name.... (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 13 years ago | (#305837)

so the Internet has eveel-nasty stuff your country cannot stand, so take the standard "Territorial" action and attack it!

Talk about the ultimate Democratic coup, invade every country with information. The trouble for the US is that it works both ways. There are things that are not-lawfully allowed in the US that are just hunkey-dorey overseas. (notably porn)

Trouble with the who internet is, if a territorial entity attacks a non-territorial entity, how can the former be punished? Perhaps there needs to be a "make-nice" system similar that of spam-email. In other words, if the country attacks another site via the net itself or in court, then the net can band together and attempt a DOS versus that country, or just out right nuke all mail leaving it. Yes it would be pretty damn hard to pull off (and not currently feasible versus the US, but I figure we could get little countries like Iran, and maybe bigger ones like Germany if a collective group tried)

Re:I hate nazis (1)

ConsumedByTV (243497) | more than 13 years ago | (#305840)

Considering that nazi's are for government censorship they can be one in the same. But what gives them power is to be punished. Then they can actually have a reason to be angered, they can then turn around and blame it on "blacks or jews". This is bullshit, but they are being censored and sheep do follow.


Fight censors!

Freedom Of Speech? (1)

Rosonowski (250492) | more than 13 years ago | (#305846)

Sadly, freedom of speech is limited not only by the media that transmits it.

In the name of decency, people censor thought, (or lack thereof) in hopes of making "Our american youth stronger." I'm 16, I watch pron, I'm just fine. I can code in perl, c,c++, *tml, and faithfully read slashdot.

I've read into Neo-Nazi's. I've read into the KKK, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to become one. Bottom line: Just because someone says that you can become something, doesn't mean that you will.
If they remove the media that shows us that other options exsist, though, how will we make descisions? After all, we can't, not without options.

This is the declaration of the independence of cyberspace [eff.org]

Applying German laws to the internet as a whole ? (1)

rfc822flo (254239) | more than 13 years ago | (#305847)

This is not a problem of free speech. In Germany the facists or "Neo Nazis" are outlaws since having a new legislation in 49. One of the problems now is that our goverment thinks that it could apply local laws to the internet as a whole which is something they underestimate.

The internet routes around censorship.

The approach is completely hopeless but others have done before e.g. the US with their crypto laws.

Restricted Freedom of Speech (2)

deran9ed (300694) | more than 13 years ago | (#305862)

I notice how most people want their rights and their "Freedom of Speech" yet many find it inhumane for someone to possess opinions that differ from their own.

I'm far from a racism since, and have friends from all walks of life, including those with racist views, and while they don't appeal to me in any fashion, those with ideas other than my own still deserve the same amount of respect I would ask for to uphold my freedom to say what I want.

How can you honestly think in terms of fairness to say "My ideas are right" when it may be ethical to you but not to others. Sure I despise racism, sites but I will say this, they are entitled to their own opinions and the same right to express it, as I can express my opinions, etc.

On the subject of Denials of Service, I particularly don't buy that notion any government would partake in that for those reasons. I could however see a U.S. --> China DoS showdown between moronic kiddiots [antioffline.com] , but I can't see the government wasting their time, and money doing this.

Side note: For those into studying the effects of Denials of Services, and higher protocol based attacks, I wrote a paper [antioffline.com] on it a while back addressing attacks, fixes [antioffline.com] , but never finished it. Who knows maybe I'll pick up on it again some time soon

Re:Censorship of any form (2)

dachshund (300733) | more than 13 years ago | (#305863)

This, if left unchecked, will mean the absolute end of the internet as a way to get all sides of the issues, all means of research and all ability to have honest and open discussion of any topic.

No, you're thinking very narrowly. What this will mean is the absolute end of the current single-site model of news/content distribution, and that's probably a good thing. It's entirely too expensive and difficult to maintain high-traffic sites, not to mention constant wrangling with the DMCA (think Slashdot over the past few months.) If this sort of attack becomes common, over the next decade or so content will simply move to distributed storage networks like Freenet, as primitive as it is at the moment.

With so many countries and people involved, you can't rely on laws or goodwill for anything on the net. This is both its greatest advantage and its biggest failing.

Re:History (1)

booser108 (302999) | more than 13 years ago | (#305864)

Its not you. Embrace for the worse. Hope for the best.

History will end up repeating itself in two forms

1) Genocide war, a method of lowering the population so that the better portion can survive.

2) A clone war. The human genome has been cracked and all the earth will fight against clones united under a single cause.

This might just be the beginning.


-----

Re:The deny does not surprise me (1)

booser108 (302999) | more than 13 years ago | (#305865)

This does not make it right. People with different beliefs should be able to express theirselves anyway possible, even if it means sacrificing a little bit of bandwidth. Freedom does not exist for the close minded.


-----

Re:Good Idea (1)

booser108 (302999) | more than 13 years ago | (#305866)

First it will be the Nazis. Then it will be the Ku Klux Klan. Next, it will be the pro-abortionist, then the anti-abortionist, then the gay advocates, then ..., and when they finally stop finding anything controversial to go after, it will the Jews, followed by the Muslims, followed by the Christians, followed by the revolutionaries, then right-winged presidential and senatorial candidates. The list will go on and on. I don't like Nazis anymore then the next person but if you take one person's speach away because they are not "moral" then you leave a gap open for your own speach to be taken away. To protect your own speach, you must protect others, even people you hate.
-----

Re:war (1)

booser108 (302999) | more than 13 years ago | (#305867)

Why shouldn't they go to war. People have went to war on things less then that. Threaten the freedom of speach of my people will you? War. With population chrisis popping up all over the world, people will be looking for any little excuse to boost their economy and decrease the population.


-----

Re:They do vote (1)

Bobo the Space Chimp (304349) | more than 13 years ago | (#305870)

...or what if your country didn't happen to have several million tankers full of oil under it?

What's that old saying? Democracy is the worst government out there, except for every other government?

That's technically incorrect. A government based on freedom is the best government out there. Democracy is just small checkpoint politicians blow by that merely adds a small requiremtent to get the permission of the people before removing their own freedoms. History shows this is trivially easy, as political arguments that would be laughed at in any journal that even remotely knew what critical thinking was are heaved at yokels who embrace them.

Re:Ideology versus Reality [really OT] (2)

vidarh (309115) | more than 13 years ago | (#305879)

In Norway you become a member of the State church at birth if your mother (perhaps your father too? - don't know for sure) is a member of the State church. That was actually what finally got my mother around to relinquishing her membership. My parents didn't wish me to be automatically enrolled.

It also used to be a mess to get out - you typically had to go to your local priest or similar and hand him a statement saying you didn't wish to be a member anymore, and frequently they'd be upset about it and try to convince you not to.

Now, however, it is very easy.

The issue of separation keeps resurfacing at regular intervals, often when the debate starts raging about whether or not gay and lesbian priests are supposed to have the same rights as others, or similar issues where the conservative leadership of the church is heavily at odds both with Norwegian law and with the people in general.

Sweden has taken some steps towards separation, in that the local leadership of the state church is actually elected. A while back a group of atheists or agnostics (don't remembers which) actually almost managed to gain control of the church leadership in some counties, because most people don't give a damn about who contols the church.

Sweden is clearly the Scandinavian country where the debate seems to be least heated, and where it seems the path is pretty clear towards separation, and where there has even been talks about deciding on a specific year (don't know if anything was agreed on with regards to that) for separation or for a vote on it (I don't follow Swedish politics much ... :-)

The issue of separation is important not the least because the state church get advantages none others do: In Norway the state church can count as members anyone who has not actively registered as non members, or that haven't registered as a member of another recognized religious or atheist organization, and that have parents that are members of the church.

The other organizations, on the other hand, have to get the membership of the child reaffirmed at the age of 15, and effectively have to require membership dues or similar methods of getting a legally recognizable recognition of your membership to get money support from the government.

The state church doesn't have to care about their membership numbers to get money, either. The way the money allocation is done is that the government decides how much to give the state church, then divides that sum by the number of people that haven't left the church, and that is the amount of money that the other organizations will get per registered member.

This effectively mean that because the church has seriously bloated membership numbers because most people don't care, the state church get a lot more money per active member than the other organizations get.

The state church also have special legal privileges (at least in Norway, don't know about the rest of the Scandinavian countries). For instance the king (and possibly the prime minister?) and at least half the cabinet has to be members of the state church.

Replies... (1)

Trinidad_T_Tobago (311951) | more than 13 years ago | (#305882)

Well, ok. If somebody have anything nasty on their site, the government go and shut it off...
But, when the owners of the sites,and their friends go to the counterattack?
Who'll win?

terrorism? (1)

capoccia (312092) | more than 13 years ago | (#305883)

at some point this becomes international terrorism and not censorship.

if the us were to flood dutch sites, i'm sure that it wouldn't count as just censorship.

all that these neonazis have to do is move their server, and the german government is probably unable to do very much without risking international relationships.

this may have been one of the things that kept them from pursuing this route.


Bored with your projects?
Try Einsteinium [redbearnet.com]

The ups and downs of censorship (2)

Claric (316725) | more than 13 years ago | (#305885)

Well, that's the biggest problem with freedom of speech. Can you draw the line at what's acceptable and what isn't ? Unfortunatley the answer isn't black and white.

You think of the number of people who have died for freedom of speech (about the government and stuff - I'm not really clued up on this stuff) in wars. How would they feel if they died to that some misguided idiot can publish Nazi worshipping literature. In any form.

The flip side is that freedom of speech enables John Skinhead to spout Nazi propagander if he wishes - just as God-loving bible bashers are allowed to preach that we're all going to Hell. Just as I'm able to proclame my atheism and contempt for hate-mongers - as God-loving bible-bashers generally are.

However, I also believe that people can make up their own mind. It's not like hate pages are two-clicks away. You search for it. The fear is that these pages will coax people into forming similar opinions of hate. In my opinion if they are reading those kind of pages then your attitude and opinion is already that way inclined.

Either that or you want to see for yourself just how misguided people who waste their time publishing hate material.

So, in conclusion my point is that if you want to hate blacks, Jews, Gays, whites, minorities, majorities, women, etc you will, regardless of what web pages or literature you read. If you are easily swayed by hate material, surely you can be swayed the other way...

Anyone agree ?

Claric
--

Re:Restricted Freedom of Speech (1)

Hater's Leaving, The (322238) | more than 13 years ago | (#305886)

Agreed.

The democratic right and some form of freedom of speech go hand in hand. However, democracy has the property that it can be self-destroying. Dictatorships never have the cunning idea to disband themselves, but democracies have voted to accede absolute power. (Case in point - in Germany, IIRC August 1934, 'The Enabling Law' (don't know the proper German name for it, sorry) was passed by a _95%_ vote and giving absolute power to Adolf Hitler...).

So democracy does need protecting from itself, possibly.

However, there's a second point - some of the more extreme factions do not play by the same rules. If they themselves do not support the freedom of speech of opposing factions, then in some cases it is right to restrict their ability to curtail others' rights. I think I need an example:

University student body election hustings, late 80s. As soon as a mild manoured, intelligent, Liberal (UK sense of the word, no wacky policies, and no vote-whoring either) Asian candidate moves up to the microphone, a bunch of BNP (British Nationalist Party) guys right at the front stand up, start Nazi-saluting, and shouting Zieg Heil (can't spell German stuff, sorry!). Constantly. Poor guy didn't know what to do, and wasn't being given his democratic right.

These BNP guys still have their _democratic_ right, no matter how much I abhor their views. BUT, they should be denied the ability to disrupt other's democratic right.

So there's the problem. If you cut their phone lines you stop both, if you don't then you let them to continue not playing by the rules.

I'm tempted to take the arms-race view of things here. Best to let them be, else the attacks escalate.

THL.
--

Re:They do vote (1)

Hater's Leaving, The (322238) | more than 13 years ago | (#305887)

The informal name for this system is "Benevolent Dictatorship", and theoretically it is a perfectly workable system.

But you are asking "in a system where there is no democracy, what happens when a bad guy gets to power?". First ask yourself how this happens.

Firstly, there's a revolution. That is something which in theory could happen in any political system, and after it you find yourself in a different political system, so the question is not relevant in this instance.

Secondly, the old codger dies. So for the last 30 years the son has seen how content the people are and how stable the system is. What's his incentive to change? Not much. And so you've got small changes every couple of decades or so. That's pretty damn stable.

It's no more open to abuse than other systems, it's just that it's much slower moving.

Democratic vote-whoring and vote-counting innaccuracies are as much of a problem. (John Major in the UK, and Dubya in the US).

Don't dismiss it 'cos it's not what you're used to. However, it is rare to actually find a real benevolent dictator.

THL.
--

Re:Free Speech in Germany? Ha! (1)

Hater's Leaving, The (322238) | more than 13 years ago | (#305888)

"
If they say that, in their opinion, the Jewish Holocaust has been exaggerated, they'll be put
in jail.
"

Wrong.

The recent law that was passed on this issue was a "denial" law. It is strictly forbidden to deny the existence of the holocaust. However, some facts are still unknown and there's no law against questioning the unknowns.

You seem to forget that the Nazis were remarkably good record keepers. They were quite proud of what they were doing, and we have photos and videos taken by the Nazis themselves carrying out the deeds.

SHIT - I've just been trolled. ARGH! Me of all people...

THL.
--

Re:Censorship of any form (1)

Hater's Leaving, The (322238) | more than 13 years ago | (#305889)

I am prepared to not be anonymous and agree with your stance.

THL.
--

Who decides? (1)

w2gy (324957) | more than 13 years ago | (#305894)

The most important thing about selective censorship (which is what we are discussing here) is that you need to determine who decides what is offensive. You can not take a majority vote, as that can be corrupted easily via the use of propoganda itself. You can't choose one man as his descisions may not be unbiased. This is all far too spiritual if you ask me.

For example, I find scat [stileproject.com] very offensive (and if you don't know what it is, click on the link, but be warned - it's not nice - the name of the link when you hover over it should be a big enough clue). However, other people find it highly arousing. Should I deny consenting adults their right to indulge in whatever they wish to, or to share pictures with others? If they are both consenting and capable of making their own minds up, why should I have the right to censor them?

In addition, if you tell somebody they can't do something or they can't believe something, they will actively persue those actions or thoughts in order to undermine you. What do you think neo-Nazism is all about? You really think that they're doing it because they really think Jews are bad people? No, it's because they know it pisses off the establishment they hate so much. Same thought processes that teenagers who don't get along with their parents smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol and listen to heavy metal - it pisses off their parents and makes them belong to a group that is in the same position as them.

All in all, selective censorship is a very bad thing. any government minister who seeks to censor ideas, thoughts, or opinions is no better than Hitler himself. The reason why we as a society see ourselves as better than Hitler's society is that we allow that freedom of consenting adults who do not actively harm others, whilst protecting the innocent and those who can't protect themselves (i.e. children). To descend into this quagmire is unthinkable.

the Free Speech Shiboleth (1)

akondo (409587) | more than 13 years ago | (#305895)

how much of the rest of the posting was made up in an attempt to be funny? never mind, /.ers will just absorb it and repeat it in later postings. really, this issue of internet free speech is a doozy, always gets the punters posting. My Rights, they all squawk. i'd wager very few would know which of their rights were being upheld ot infringed at any moment - it's just some cant to advertise their "radical" attitudes. You hate Nazi's but you hate government censorship more? one poster wrote. Then you are a fool. people die and suffer under nazi attitudes to this day and they deserve better understanding than the whinging poses of pimply American students. Naziism is a real world issue, a Hate Crime, not just backstory for a computer game. It warrants criminal prosecution and anything else that governments and individuals can do to stamp it out. When the Nazis came to power in Germany, (and wherever else they've gained a foothold), they' did it with the collusion of a lot of people who thought it was best if they washed their hands of action. These people were called Appeasers. They talked a lot about Rights of Expression also. Get this - it doesn't apply to criminals, and Nazis and racists are criminals.

local vs global censorship (1)

zottel (412831) | more than 13 years ago | (#305901)

I think the thing to remember here is that germany has always (since the end of WWII that is) been censoring any kind of (neo)nazi-propaganda... you may not even display swastikas in public (unless it's for "educational" purposes). The reasoning behind this is that naziism is trying to destroy the current democratic system. You also cannot form a political party with a stated goal of turning germany into anything else but a democracy. Considering this I think it is undertandable that the government would like to outlaw nazi-propaganda on the net, too. Many people in germany say that this is because the "Weimar" constitution, which was very liberal, helped Hitler to come to power, and obviously nobody wants to see this happen again. The problem here is that there has never (again since the end of WWII) been an absolute freedom of speech (like the US like to believe they have) in Germany.
(Personally I think they shouldn't be censoring at all, but if they have to maybe they should consider blocking those sites from being viewed from germany instead of DOSing them so they don't conflict with other countries' legal systems)

freedom != freedom (1)

lodsb (413742) | more than 13 years ago | (#305904)

The article seems to be tranlated in a wrong way and not completely shown , so your agitation might be misplaced here ... But the idea behind this behavior seems not to be *that*reprehensible to me . Look , Nazis are extremly right wing organized and diposed towards to protect and force their attitude / convictions , this means that they would make use of violence and/or incite ppl to follow their ideology. Now the law comes into play : freedom , even freedom of speech has its limits on the freedom of others . It`s proven that a *huge* group of violent/criminal/fanatic ppl (like Nazis) will allways restrict their needs on the peace and freedom of those who are not involved in their diology and/or have minor power. And with the background of Germany`s history , the german court will allways see Nazis and right wing parties in a sceptical way.

Re:war (1)

int0x3 (416024) | more than 13 years ago | (#305906)

>If an airport or an univeristyhospital is between the attacker and the target people may die.

Ok, I am off topic here, but... do you really think anyone would depend on the Internet where lives are at risk? That is something I find very hard to believe. I am sure most of them would be connected to a LAN, have other means of communication, control of electronics, and backup power generators in case a power plant is somehow affected.

Re:I hate nazis (1)

daviddeshetler (441820) | more than 13 years ago | (#305907)

well, aint that just a bunch or something or other. censorship or mass murdering psychopaths..hmm...tough choice. always sarcastic - Id say that nazis take the cake, but since we arent in danger of another WW with a hitler wannabe, id have to agree with ConsumedByTV.

Re:Government oppression (1)

slashb0t (441845) | more than 13 years ago | (#305908)

why won't you find something better to do?

Re:Government oppression (1)

slashb0t (441845) | more than 13 years ago | (#305909)

I don't know. You tell me. Petty jealousy?

Re:Government oppression (1)

slashb0t (441845) | more than 13 years ago | (#305910)

You don't even know who I am... but if you did, you'd be suprised.

Oman has no age of consent at all for M-F sex (1)

slashb0t (441845) | more than 13 years ago | (#305911)

I wonder what that means.

Does it mean that no M-F sex is allowed at all, or that all M-F is allowed regardless of the age of participants?

Age of consent around the world (2)

slashb0t (441845) | more than 13 years ago | (#305912)

Here's [ageofconsent.com] all you've ever wanted to know about the age of consent around the world.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?