Slashdot: News for Nerds


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!

cancel ×


Thank god (-1)

Jean Marie le Penis (575842) | about 12 years ago | (#3855333)

Someone is finally doing something.

Re:Thank god (-1)

Jean Marie le Penis (575842) | about 12 years ago | (#3855337)

Oh yeah - FP for the CLiT.

FIX THE LINK (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855334)

Page not found

It's not enough to preview you have to check that links are correct

Re:FIX THE LINK (3, Informative)

mashx (106208) | about 12 years ago | (#3855339)

Try this one. []

Disagree with censorship (3, Funny)

JGoo (576968) | about 12 years ago | (#3855354)

I disagree with censorship in all instances. I wouldn't seek to take down sites which choose to blasphem, perhaps I would try and educate them. But if they are a lost cause, then they can burn in hell.

Re:Disagree with censorship (1)

Jondor (55589) | about 12 years ago | (#3855365)

IF they are a lost cause AND IF the church is right they probably will.

Re:Disagree with censorship (1, Funny)

Te1waz (453498) | about 12 years ago | (#3855406)

Send in the Spanish Iquisition..

A session in the 'comfy chair' will teach them not to do it again...

Re:Disagree with censorship (1)

JGoo (576968) | about 12 years ago | (#3855425)

Send in the Spanish Iquisition..
Noone expects the Spanish Inquisition! Off to jail with you! There is no need to censor these websites though, lies cannot damage truth, only have audience to those who choose to ignore it.

Re:Disagree with censorship (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855467)


God, Religion et al has not been proven.

Until then, each person has their own opinion

My opinion is that religion is just a comfort blanket for people.

A thought... (0, Flamebait)

JGoo (576968) | about 12 years ago | (#3855417)

The Catholic religion should not be confused with Christianity. Here is a quick 3 point ideology of truth: 1: It doesn't seek to refute lies, only to shine amongst them 2: It doesn't seek to censor those with a different opinion, only to provide the fact 3: It is very often twisted into a lie be removing a vital detail. Look at all the religions of the world, and you will see these three points present. Many countries have an imposed state of religion, if you are born that religion, then you are expected and forced to live by it, serving those who seek to profit from you. Christianity is forbidden here, and many Christians are persecuted by Muslims (more info on Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and many others, are forbidden to read the Christian bible, especially the Gospel. Many religions take the bible, the ideas of Jesus, and twist them, Krishnas and Jehovas witnesses for example. They will give you the same story right up until the Gospel. You might wonder why people would go to this length. Clearly some organised religion profits many people in power. Others are plainly, simply the work of satan. I would call upon /. reader worried about the ever increasing worries over privacy to read Revelation ch 13 ev+13&language=english especially verses 11-18 ev+13%3A11-18&language=english

Re:A thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855443)

HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

What a moron.

Re:A thought... (1)

JGoo (576968) | about 12 years ago | (#3855455)

What a moron.

Re:A thought... (1)

packeteer (566398) | about 12 years ago | (#3855491)

i see this is your first topic youve posted to one slashdot... maybe your new... let me fill you in on some things...

"I would call upon /. reader worried about the ever increasing worries over privacy to "

sorry but it aint going to happen... we prefer to sling our insults and take out our anger on slashdot with doing much else... as anyone else who has tried to start some type of movement on slashdot knows... it wont happen... we all like to sit around and tlak about the news but not do much about it... please dont call on them to do anything and you wont be dissapointed... this will probably be modded down...

it funny how once i get low enough to go below everyone's threshhold nobody can read me... on a censorship topic.. oh well bing it on cause i know /.ers love their modding down as much as they do hot grits...

hell (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855338)

holy Mary, fucking Jesus wept and God pissed on the lot of them !

Maybe it's just me but.... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855341)

Isn't this Italy's business?

Re:Maybe it's just me but.... (1, Redundant)

Patrick May (305709) | about 12 years ago | (#3855454)

It's just you.

"Italy" is not a monolithic entity. If some Italians don't want to view that kind of material, they should refrain from going to those sites. No one should tie up good Catholics and force them to view websites against their will.

Stopping the use of force against people who are doing nothing more than publishing words should be the "business" of everyone who values freedom.


Re:Maybe it's just me but.... (1)

Majin Bubu (455010) | about 12 years ago | (#3855522)

Italy might not be a monolithic entity, but neither is the world and /.ers should not be surprised that US laws don't apply to the rest of the world.
As somebody pointed out, our very Constitution forbids blasphemy (against ALL religions, not just Catholic) so the police merely followed the law.

URL doesn't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855342)

This one does though:

Confusion at the Vatican. (1, Funny)

King Of Chat (469438) | about 12 years ago | (#3855343)

A quick Google on "Madonna" and "blow-job", "anal", "rimming" etc. will probably turn up a lot of sites.

Re:Confusion at the Vatican. (3, Funny)

tunah (530328) | about 12 years ago | (#3855386)

Kids these days, too lazy to link [] .

In short: Results 1 - 10 of about 9,260

Deep linking is illegal.. so heres the story (2, Informative)

f0dder (570496) | about 12 years ago | (#3855346)

Wednesday, July 10, 2002. Posted: 10:21:15 (AEDT) Italian police black out 'blasphemous' websites Italian authorities have shut down five Internet sites which reportedly carried blasphemies against God and the Virgin Mary, following a complaint by the Vatican's newspaper. The paper says a special police unit has taken over the sites due to what it has termed unrepeatable words which accompanied the name of the Madonna. The police have since blacked out pages on the sites, so that surfers can now only find the words: "Site seized by the Head of Rome's Special Police Force, on the orders of Rome's Chief Prosecutor." The paper says the police have also discovered a commercial network which sells t-shirts carrying the same blasphemous logos that appeared on the sites. Print Email

Re:Deep linking is illegal.. so heres the story (-1)

Jean Marie le Penis (575842) | about 12 years ago | (#3855389)

Copying and pasting is a copyright violation.

So, if you can't deep link, and you can't copy and paste, where does that leave Slashdot? Good lord, people might have to write their own material. Here's my first article:
L1nux is teh b0mb. M$ sux0rs. ru 1337 2? i run teh manham^H^H^Hdrake.

Gimme! (5, Funny)

ciryon (218518) | about 12 years ago | (#3855351)

1. Aren't there any mirrors? :-)
2. Where can I buy the 'blasphemious T-shirts'? They must be worth a fortune now!


Re:Gimme! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855488)

Here is the link:

URL (2, Insightful)

Jondor (55589) | about 12 years ago | (#3855355)

The URL doesn't seem to work. this one [] does.

As it seems speaking your mind is less and less accepted. Ones again the church is at the frontier of squelzing ideas and expressions they don't like.
And more and more I get the idea the world is on a one-way road to new dark-ages..

Re:URL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855379)

" the frontier of squelzing ideas and expressions they don't like."

"..I get the idea the world is on a one-way road to new dark-ages.."

I wasn't aware that microsoft was a religion?

Re:URL (1)

Jondor (55589) | about 12 years ago | (#3855478)

Not? Believing in a great afterlife isn't THAT much different from believing that the next version will be great, save and will make you more productive..

WinXP Shows where MS is Going by poopbot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855358)

Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.

"I've heard WinXP removed the cmd/command prompt."

No, Microsoft didn't remove the CMD.EXE or COMMAND.COM prompt from Windows XP. But Windows XP has reduced functionality, in many ways, not just in the command line. The command line is a big embarrassment because of its limited capabilities, but at least in Win 95 it worked. With every version since then it has worked less well. (There are two kinds of command prompt, and, according to Microsoft employees, the differences between them are not documented.)

The command line prompt sometimes begins to display short file names. Microsoft employees say that Microsoft has no fix, although someone not connected with Microsoft did make a work-around.

Cutting and pasting into a command line program often puts successive extra spaces before each line. Microsoft employees say that there is no plan to fix this.

The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft employees say there is no plan to fix this.

When using the command line interface, Windows XP doesn't always update the time. After several hours, the time reported to command line programs can be several hours in error.

There is a DOS program called START.EXE that can be used to start other programs. But it does operate the same way as in other versions of Windows. It starts a program, but cannot be made to return control to the command line program as previous versions did. There is no technical reason for this; it is just one of the shortcomings that are allowed to exist.

People often say that DOS has gone away. But Microsoft still calls the command line interface DOS, and in Windows XP Microsoft has added new programs for configuring the OS that work only under DOS.

Sometimes when you press a key while using Windows XP, it is seconds until there is any response. Apparently there is something wrong with the CPU scheduler in XP, because there are a lot of complaints about this in the forums and MS people have said that they are working on it. On one particular fresh installation of XP, on an Intel motherboard with either a Matrox G550 or an ATI Radeon video adapter, it requires 18 seconds to display a directory listing of 94 items. This is apparently related to a bug in the video software, not the adapter drivers.

Something is wrong with the Alt-Tab display of running programs under Windows XP. If there are a lot of programs, not all of them are displayed. The order jumps around in a seemingly random way.

Although articles often say negative things about Microsoft, I've never seen an article that fully documents how bad the situation really is. Microsoft's management is so bad that the company has become self-destructive. For example, Windows XP is spyware. Here is a list of ways Windows XP connects to Microsoft's servers:
  1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
  2. Fax Service
  3. File Signature Verification
  4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
  5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
  6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
  7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
  8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
  9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
  10. Microsoft Management Console
  11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
  12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
  13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
  14. MS DTC Console program
  15. Run DLL as an app
  16. Services and Controller app
  17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
  18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
  19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.
These are just the ones I know. There may be others.

So, if you use Windows XP, your computer is dependent on Microsoft computers. That's bad, not only because you lose control over your possession, but because Microsoft produces buggy software and doesn't patch bugs quickly. For example, as of July 7, 2002, there are 18 unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer [] . This is a terrible record for a company that has $40 billion in the bank. Obviously, with that kind of money, Microsoft could fix the bugs if it wanted to fix them. Since the bugs are very public and Microsoft has the money, it seems reasonable to suppose that top management at Microsoft has deliberately decided that the bugs should remain, at least for now.

It seems possible that there is a connection between all the bugs and the U.S. government's friendly treatment of Microsoft's law-breaking [] . The U.S. government's CIA and FBI and NSA departments spy on the entire world, and unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft software help spies.

Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications. The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents control by the user.

Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP. Look at Microsoft's policy about this: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation [] . Only those who work with Microsoft software will understand the true meaning of Microsoft's policy. Since almost all programs use the registry operating system file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other software companies that try to fix this, but they don't work well, and Microsoft can, of course, break their implementations, as they have often done with other kinds of competitors.

Because the configuration information for the motherboard and the configuration information for the are mixed together in the registry file, the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard drive to a computer with a different motherboard. That's another implication of the above Microsoft policy. So, if you have a motherboard failure, and a good complete backup, you may not be able to recover unless you have a spare computer with the same motherboard.

Note that Windows XP Professional can support only ten simultaneous incoming network connections. If you want more than that, you must use Windows 2000 server, and pay much, much more. (There is no Windows XP server yet.) Many businesses have very light network traffic; they just move files from staff member to staff member; they really don't need a dedicated server computer. The staff computers could easily handle the load except for this artificial limitation.

Apparently because the Windows XP GUI comes from Windows 98, Windows XP has the same problem with desktop icons that Windows 98 has. The icons sometimes flicker. Sometimes they move themselves around, particularly after the user switches monitor resolutions. Also, sometimes the taskbar settings un-configure themselves, as they do in Windows 98.

Only technically knowledgeable people know how to avoid signing up for a Microsoft Passport account during initial use of Windows XP. The name Passport gives an indication of Microsoft's thinking. A passport is a document issued by a sovereign nation. Without it, the nation's citizens cannot travel, and, if they leave, won't be allowed back in their own country. In Microsoft's corporate thinking, the company seems to be moving in the direction of believing that they own the user's computer. Most people are both honest and intimidated. Apparently about 95% do whatever they are asked on the screen. They give their personal information to Microsoft. They don't realize that, if they feel forced to get a Passport account, they should enter almost completely fictitious information, since the real question is not "What is your name and address", but "Can we invade your privacy". The honest answer to this is "No, you cannot invade my privacy", and the only effective way to communicate that is to give completely fictitious information. Since it is the educated people who have computers, Microsoft is building a database of the personal lives of educated people. Microsoft knows when they connect and from what IP address (which tends to show the area), what kind of help they ask, and information about what they are doing with their computers, including what music they like. It is not known, and there is no way to know, how much Microsoft or other organizations make use of this information, or their plans for future use.

Not only has Windows XP definitely gone further in the direction of allowing the user less control over his or her own machine, but with Palladium, Microsoft apparently intends to finish the job: Microsoft will have ultimate control over the user's computer and therefore all his or her data. Even now, under Windows XP, a recent security patch requires that the user agree to a contract that gives Microsoft administrator privileges over the user's computer [] . The contract says that if a user wants to patch his or her system against a bug which would allow an attack over the Internet, he or she must give Microsoft legal control over the computer. See this article also: Microsoft's Digital Rights Management-- A Little Deeper [] . You may need to be a lawyer to take apart the crucial sentence. "These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and [my emphasis] use other software on your computer" legally includes this meaning: "These updates may disable your ability to use other software on your computer." Note that the term "security related updates" is meaningless to the user because the updates have no relation to user security. So, the sentence effectively means that Microsoft can control the user's computer without notice and whenever it wants. That kind of sentence is known in psychology as "testing the limits". If there is no strong public complaint about this, expect to see more and stronger language like this.

This Register article shows the direction Microsoft is going: MS Palladium protects IT vendors, not you [] . Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Microsoft is well down that road. See this ZDNet article, also: MS: Why we can't trust your 'trustworthy' OS [] .

Microsoft's self-destructiveness does not mean that the user should be self-destructive. There is no need to apologize for using Microsoft software. The correct solution to abuse is persuading the abuser to stop being abusive. Once I posted to a Slashdot story a link to an article on a web site of mine. By far the majority of visitors from the Slashdot story used Microsoft operating systems. Rather than feel embarrassed because Microsoft is abusive, action needs to be taken to prevent the abuse. If you are against Microsoft abuse, you are not against Microsoft; you are more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates.

These Microsoft policies mean that any government which wants to be independent of the United States government, and any government which represents itself as controlled by the people, cannot use Microsoft operating systems, or other Microsoft proprietary systems.

- poopbot: news for turds, stuff that splatters

what were the words/logos ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855359)

"sites blacked out" well tell us what they were and we can google cache or way-back-machine them !!

You can not keep the voices quiet only pay them off.

Thank God for Landover (3, Informative)

GothChip (123005) | about 12 years ago | (#3855362)

I saw this news last night on teletext. So far I haven't heard what sites have been blocked and it appears to be restricted to Italian sites only. At least Landover Babtist [] is still up and running. Warning: This site is very funny. And you can still get your Cradle of Filth T-shirts here [] .

Re:Thank God for Landover (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855511)

so they will be going after ian paisly next

Relocate (1)

FiendBeast (461063) | about 12 years ago | (#3855363)

Is there any more information about this? For instance, were the pages in question held on servers located in Italy? If so why not simply move them somewhere less likely to care?

Vatican independence (1)

FiendBeast (461063) | about 12 years ago | (#3855378)

Anyway, I thought that the Vatican had been an independent state since Mussolini 'bought' their support in the 1920's, so the Italian authorities don't really need to pay heed to what they say or act on their complaints, or am I wrong?

Re:Relocate (1)

valdez70 (527820) | about 12 years ago | (#3855438)

Pages are hosted in USA, and still visible if you
bypass their homepage.

Re:Relocate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855504)

The sites where located on US servers. Actually the sites are not obscured, the police just renamed the home page and uploaded a new index.html, since the only access they could get is to the workstation used to upload the pages.
Any comment on the incompetence of the police (that calls for a "highly technical operation"!!!) is superfluous.

whoops! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855364)

guess they really wouldn't like the Church of Euthanasia [] .
then again, not many people do. except me, but im sick.

Is Linux Illegal in Italy? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855366)


Recently I've been introduced to an operating system known as Linux.

Lured by its low cost, I replaced Windows 98 on my computer with Linux. Unfortunately the more I use it the more I fear that this "Linux" may be an insidious way for the Dark One to gain a stronger foothold here on Earth. I know this may be a shocking claim, but I have evidence to back it up!

To begin with, Linux is based off of an older, obsolete OS called "BSD Unix". The child-indoctrinatingly-cute cartoon mascot of this OS is a devil holding a pitchfork. This OS -- and its Linux offspring -- extensively use what are unsettingly called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.) which is a program that hides in the background, doing things without the user's notice. If you are using a computer running Linux then you probably have these "demons" on your computer, hardly something a good Christian would want! Furthermore in order to start or stop these "demons" a user must execute a command called "finger". By "fingering" a "demon" one excercises an unholy power, much the same way that the Lord of Flies controls his black minions.

Linux contains another Satanic holdover from the "BSD Unix" OS mentioned above; to open up certain locked files one has to run a program much like the DOS prompt in Microsoft Windows and type in a secret code: "chmod 666". What other horrors lurk in this thing?

Consider some of these other Linux commands: "sleep", "mount", "unzip", "strip" and "touch". All highly suggestive in a sexual nature. I know that our Lord cannot approve of these, and I urge them to be renamed to something appropriate to the Christian community. Interestingly "CONTROL-G" (the sixth key from the left of the keyboard) does an abort. To write files a "VI" editor is included. All these are to ensnare the unsuspecting christian who could get tempted by typing "VIVIVI" all day long.

Fourth, Linux uses a flavor of DOS known as Bash. Bash is an acronym for "Bourne Again Shell". On the surface this would appear to be supportive of the Lord. However, remember that even Satan can quote the bible for his own purposes! While I believe Linux may be born-again, its obvious by the misspelling of "born" that its not born-again in an Christian church. Will the lies ever cease?

Additionally, one of the main long-haired hippies involved with the GNU Free Software Foundation supports communism, contraception and abortion. He has consistently supported 60's counter-cultural "values", and his web site even advocates government support of contraception. He also wears fake halos, and has quips about his made-up church that relates to his free software. I find such blasphemy to be extremely unsettling.

One must also remember that the creator of Linux, a college student named Linux Torvaldis, comes from Finland. I'm sure all the followers of Christ are aware of the heritical nature of the Finnish: from necrophilia to human sacrifice, Finnish culture is awash in sin. I find little reason to believe anything good and holy could arise from this evil land.

Finally, let us remember that there is an alternative to using the Satan-powered Linux. I think history has shown us that Microsoft is quite holy. I'm told that its founder, William Gates is a strong supporter of our Lord and I encourage my fellow Christians to buy only his products to help keep the Devil at bay.

I wish I had more time to expound upon my findings. Unfortunately a family of Jews has moved in across the street and I must go speak to them of Jesus Christ before they are condemned to eternal hellfire.

Please investigate this as you see fit and I'm sure you'll reach the same conclusions that I have.

Mod parent up +1 funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855462)

Come on guys...take it for what it is. It's relatively on-topic and it's funny. This is why slashdot is slashdot. Don't be gay and mod it away to oblivion.
Whoever modded it as a troll needs better things to do with their time...

correct link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855370)

The story has moved off teh main page and is now archived in the weekly section here []

Which Madonna? (1)

Te1waz (453498) | about 12 years ago | (#3855372)

I hope the authorities are absolutely sure the site wasn't about the well known (and controversial) American Singer.

For all we know she might have had the site created just to get some hype for her next album...

Another example of ignorance (1, Flamebait)

Diabolical (2110) | about 12 years ago | (#3855373)

This is another example of blatant arrogance of governments and religious entities. When are they gonna learn that the internet belongs to everyone, everywhere? What would the internet look like if every organisation, religous or otherwise, can block internet sites just because it offend's them?

BTW, I'm not religious in any way, i'm agnostic.

I don't have any problem with "blasphemous" or sexually explicit material because it's all in the eye of the beholder. If there are websites which offend someone then don't go to those sites, if they are visiting them, then they probably want to see the information or images.

I have some problems with for instance Hoewever i don't run around shouting that this site should not be allowed or such. If someone likes these kind of sites then hey, it's their personal business. Who am i to disagree with it..

I'm most certainly not in favor of censorship or any kind of control. The only exception is child pornography. Those kind of things can't be enough censored or condemned.

Re:Another example of ignorance (1)

hofer (84209) | about 12 years ago | (#3855429)

The only exception is child pornography.

Well, I would put in racial, sexual etc. and religious abuse, too. Of course, it is easier to recognise another skin colour, and maybe you cannot see how different the other person is, if he or she is religious. Religious hate speech, however, does hurt these "other people" the same way as racial hate speech does.

I believe that "free speech" that shall not be censored does not include hate speech in many countries around the world. At least that is true in Europe.

Re:Another example of ignorance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855489)

Well, I would put in racial, sexual etc. and religious abuse, too. Of course, it is easier to recognise another skin colour, and maybe you cannot see how different the other person is, if he or she is religious.

I wouldn't. Child pornography is a big no-no because the victims aren't mature enough to defend themselves and are often duped into being a part of it. Racial, sexual, and religious "abuse" is something different. Just because someone calls someone a dumb fucking porch monkey or a jungle bunny or nigger doesn't mean shit. You can call me white cracker honkey or stupid white trash fucknut all day long if you want and I'm fine with it. They're just stupid words. Another problem I have is with those stupid niggers in Africa cutting off the clits of their daughters so they don't feel pleasure. Fucking savages!!!

Re:Another example of ignorance (1)

hcdejong (561314) | about 12 years ago | (#3855497)

Religious hate speech, however, does hurt these "other people" the same way as racial hate speech does

The problem with this is, who decides what is "hate speech"? People could (in fact, have got) into trouble because they repeated verbatim what was written in their holy book of choice. The Koran calls for Jihad, the Bible also contains phrases non-Christians don't want to hear. What is acceptable, and what isn't? And where does it end? What's now merely 'politically correct' may become 'mandatory' tomorrow. 1984, here we come!

There's a tradeoff here between freedom of speech and religion on one side, and the illegality of discrimination on the other.

I'd much rather have freedom of speech (and live with the fact that I can't do much about people being insulted) than "clean up the internet", thus silencing thousands of voices.

In the words of Voltaire: 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

Re:Another example of ignorance (3, Insightful)

yatest5 (455123) | about 12 years ago | (#3855435)

Snipped rant saying everything should be allowed apart from this one thing you find offensive

Have you thought that maybe the Vatican finds these sites as offensive as you find those with child porn?

On the other hand, they might want to keep quiet about paedophilia ;-). Uh oh, maybe the vatican will take down this post...

Re:Another example of ignorance (4, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | about 12 years ago | (#3855442)

And yet again another reason why the Founding Fathers of the US knew what they were talking about when they created the constitution. I am not American, but I keep seeing the "old establishment" trying to take over.

This reminds me of the times when Catholic leaders tried to stop Copernicus and other thinkers, etc.

I am not saying that the websites are in good taste or even right. But to say the sites are blasphemous and restrict the right to make up one's own mind is thinking straight from 1200's.

Re:Another example of ignorance (1)

the bluebrain (443451) | about 12 years ago | (#3855480)

I'm most certainly not in favor of censorship or any kind of control. The only exception is child pornography. Those kind of things can't be enough censored or condemned.

Doesn't it make you somehow suspicious if you have a general sweeping rule that covers absolutely everything for a certain subject - and then one needlepoint of exception, where the rule is turned completely on its head?

Not wanting to get into the specific discussion the boogyman kid pr0n, I merely want to point out that other people have other exceptions: blasphemy (this case), violence (images of real-life ritual mass murder are "okay"? Real-life rape vids are "okay" as long as all participants are of [an arbitrary] legal age?), political views (e.g. Nazi memorabilia in Germany), technical info ("how to build a nulcear bomb in twelve easy steps"), etc.

In this case, an Italian site (as I understand) was banned. They might ban an international site for all Italian ISPs, but they're not attempting to close down a site outside of Italy. Unless someone can come up with a general rule that has _no_ exceptions, I figure we're stuck with the moral quandary of relative ethics to no lesser degree than we are off the net. I agree that this article is newsworthy ( /. worthy, even), but only as an example how the 'net is gradually meshing with meatspace, an "overlay" of the 'net onto a broad range of social environments, mores, histories. The Danish [] issue I find more alarming, although newsbooster is Danish site, too.

of cause (0, Troll)

cyborch (524661) | about 12 years ago | (#3855375)

IANAL but I think the law in Denmark (where I live) states that blasfemy is illegal and all illegal sites are shut down as quickly as they pop up. So they shut down a couple of illegal sites. Blesfemous or otherwise illegal, they have every right to shut them down and of cause they did, and prolly will do again inthe future...

In a word: "NO" (4, Informative)

Hektor_Troy (262592) | about 12 years ago | (#3855495)

Make that a "HELL NO!"

The danish constitution has a very interesting paragraph:

" 77
Enhver er berettiget til på tryk, i skrift og tale at offentliggøre sine tanker, dog under ansvar for domstolene. Censur og andre forebyggende forholdsregler kan ingen sinde på ny indføres. "

And in English:
" 77
Anyone is at liberty to publish his thought, be it printed, in writing or speech, but are accountable to a court of law. Censureship and other preventative meassures can never again be introduced."

Or something to that effect.

The Danish police have no right to shut down any web-sites - to do so you need a court order (freedom of speech with personal responsibility). This includes hate-speech, blasphemy, propaganda and otherwise.

You are obviously not a lawyer, and you had better try to back up your wild claims with relevant quotes next time around.

Hmm (5, Insightful)

tjensor (571163) | about 12 years ago | (#3855385)

Wonder how Italy squares this with the fact that they are a signatory to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [] , which should protect 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion' as well as 'freedom of expression'.

ho hum.

Re:Hmm (1)

Maggot75 (163103) | about 12 years ago | (#3855399)

That don't mean they can say no bad things about Jesus' Momma!

Re:Hmm (4, Informative)

dtosti (447364) | about 12 years ago | (#3855487)

.. signatory to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [], which should protect 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion' as well as 'freedom of expression'.

well, Italian government has signed a special convention with the Catholic Church (in the 1920s) long time before signing the Council of Europe Convention (in the 1950s).

This agreement with the Church is written in the Italian Constitution (dated 1947) and it obliges Italy to act against people who dare to slander the common religious sentiments.

Note that "freedom of expression" != "freedom of slandering" !!!

The real fact is: that guy who sold t-shirt with anti-religious sentences will probably be accused not only of slandering common religious sentiments, but of having evaded tax and VAT too, because the "special police force" mentioned in the article is the Italian equivalent of the american ATF (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms) plus the duty of hunting tax evasors.

So, as an Italian, I'm not worried at all for the freedom of expression question, because those policemen works for the Treasury Minister and they receive a percentual on the tax recovered... :)

The Spanish Inquisition (2, Funny)

Te1waz (453498) | about 12 years ago | (#3855391)

They should have sent the 'Spanish Inquisition'

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."
I guess they're tired of hearing this one...
Apologies to Python(Monty) Ltd.

running apache 1.3.9? get a new admin! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855392)

They may be munging the URL, but they seem to be running apache 1.3.9, someone should go down there and bitch-slap their admin before they get haxored

In Italy "blasphemia" is prohibited (1)

Kruemelmo (21012) | about 12 years ago | (#3855394)

As read on the heise article [] (German), blasphemia is prohibited in Italy - although the authorities rarely care.

God Save The Queen (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855395)

God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us;
God save the Queen!

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!

Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign;
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen!

Not in this land alone,
But be God's mercies known,
From shore to shore!
Lord make the nations see,
That men should brothers be,
And form one family,
The wide world over.

From every latent foe,
From the assassins blow,
God save the Queen!
O'er her thine arm extend,
For Britain's sake defend,
Our mother, prince, and friend,
God save the Queen!

Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the Queen!

article 19 (1)

australopithecus (215774) | about 12 years ago | (#3855397)

italy's constitution:
Article 19 [Freedom of Religion]
All shall be entitled to profess their religious beliefs freely in any form, individual or in association, to promote them, and to celebrate their rites in public or in private, provided that they are not offensive to public morality

as well as article 21, section 6:(6) Printed publications, performances, and all other exhibits offensive to public morality shall be forbidden. The law shall lay down proper provisions for preventing and repressing all violations.

While your at it (2, Funny)

Mattygfunk (517948) | about 12 years ago | (#3855403)

Italian authorities have shut down five Internet sites which reportedly carried blasphemies against God and the Virgin Mary...

Since Bill is the devil is next?

Was the Vatican in error? (1)

HiQ (159108) | about 12 years ago | (#3855407)

Did they think that the blasphemous sites were about *the* Madonna, or just Madonna?

Re:Was the Vatican in error? (1)

GreMi0 (227008) | about 12 years ago | (#3855514)

it sould be "porca madonna".
Ergo Google search []

MSNBC are also running the story (5, Informative)

marnanel (98063) | about 12 years ago | (#3855408)

MSNBC are covering the story [] . It has a bit more information:
Investigators first learned about the sites, with names that translate into phrases including "Pig Madonna" and "Blasphemy," in 2000.
Sooo, if any Italian-speaking Slashdotters can tell us what "Pig Madonna" is in Italian, we can google for it, since it's been up for two years, and find out what the site was.

Re:MSNBC are also running the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855428)

Pig Madonna stands for 'Porca Madonna'.

Re:MSNBC are also running the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855452)

So in German it would be...

Schweine Madonna?

Re:MSNBC are also running the story (2, Interesting)

dtosti (447364) | about 12 years ago | (#3855500)

well...the exact translation of the italian
blasphemy should be "Mary is a bitch", not "pig Madonna"..

sometimes babelfish is more blasphemous than those censored sites...

I'm glad I don't live in Italy (maybe) (0)

qubit64 (233602) | about 12 years ago | (#3855410)

I'd like to know more about why they were shut down, sadly the article didn't quite say exactly what was said on there. That being said, if I want to say "the virgin mary sucks" or maybe something more crude, I should be able to be the idiot I am and do so. There may be a limit as to what I think could be said on a t-shirt in public, and maybe being arrested for expressing certain opinions in public is a good idea. (being charged with a crime wouldn't be quite right but maybe confiscating the shirt or something would be good) Before I get flamed, here's an example: I wear a t shirt in manhattan stating "I love osama" (picture maybe something along those lines but much worse to see what I'm really talking about). Now, some may say "fine, no problem..." but, I'm putting myself in great danger wearing this shirt and for my own protection should be stopped. If I want to wear it behind closed doors or whatever, that's fine, but doing something like that that is just going to incite someone to beat me up. I'm not sure this case can compare exactly, but, it's just a thought.

Maybe a clearer example is two groups of protestors, for example, pro-life vs. pro-choice. If there is going to be a massive protest it is a good idea to keep them FAR apart just to keep the peace. I'm not saying silence them or anything, far from it. However, them being next to each other is not a good idea. Another thing is that GAP group I've seen at my Uni a couple of times showing images of aborted babies. Those people were really asking for it and while I think it's fine if they go out and have some sort of a protest, let people know where they can come for more info, that's fine, but making me see that is just asking for a little bit of the old ultra violence. again, we need to know more info before we can really comment on this...


Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855413)



Maggot75 (163103) | about 12 years ago | (#3855418)

Way to go shithead. Now the pope will send people around and shut down Slashdot.

In defense (1)

sprzepiora (160561) | about 12 years ago | (#3855420)

The Vatican newspaper has every right to complain, it was up to the Italian police to decide what to do. If it was against the law then hurray for justice. If not then thats another story.

Heck... (3, Funny)

gusnz (455113) | about 12 years ago | (#3855421)

I hope none of these Roman Prosecutors ever try browsing Slashdot at -1... going by the posts so far on this article we'd be censored in no time :).

Re:Heck... (1)

dtosti (447364) | about 12 years ago | (#3855507)

ah ah :)

Of course, they cannot censor sites located outside of Italy.. :)

Amazing (5, Interesting)

heikkile (111814) | about 12 years ago | (#3855422)

Vatican authorities complain to Italian police. The act is reported in an Australian paper, and referred to in a U.S. site (./). I read about it in Denmark, after the story has already gone once around the whole world.

Seriously, this really shows how the net is international indeed, and local authorities will have to adjust a lot. Wonder how the world will look like in 20 years? 50? 100?

well... i'm american... (-1, Troll)

edrugtrader (442064) | about 12 years ago | (#3855423)

even though i'm religious and normally well mannered man, i would like to execute my american rights....


mod it down you communists, i don't give a fuck... in fact... FUCK MODERATORS.

were you offended? oh well, we live in america, you have to understand that sometimes you will be... but it is all for the greater good.


Re:well... i'm american... (3, Interesting)

rjw57 (532004) | about 12 years ago | (#3855445)


Seriously... how long would you last wearing a 'FUCK AMERICA - UBL FOR PRESIDENT' T-shirt in the US? Its the same with 'blasphemous' T-shirts in the Vatican -- except the Vatican doens't kill people who try that anymore.

Re:well... i'm american... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855479)

"except the Vatican doens't kill people who try that anymore" I bet many miss those grand old days. Fuck them all, all that do!

Re:well... i'm american... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855472)

dude snapped
don't go postal on us, buddy!

Re:well... i'm american... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855505)

Freedom of speech? No such thing. Imagine my popularity in NYC wearing my t-shirt that says - "NYFD are bad at their job".

Here's one of the sites (I guess) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855424) []

And they didn't delete the whole site (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855433)

The main page []

If anyone ever sued me for Blasphemy (1)

ThatbookwritingWheel (553383) | about 12 years ago | (#3855434)

...they'd have to proove first that god exists. That should keep the courts busy for a while.

Re:If anyone ever sued me for Blasphemy (2, Insightful)

h4mmer5tein (589994) | about 12 years ago | (#3855458)

Actually they wouldnt. They'd just prosecute you under whatever blasphemy laws applied. The existance of god is moot in this instance. It was a legal issue not a religeous one.

However the fact that the Vatican is seemingly able to lean on the Italian police sufficiently to get them to take such drastic action tells us something about the power of religeon in an otherwise secular society.

For italian speaking only (2, Informative)

sintesi (139041) | about 12 years ago | (#3855437)

You could find more on this here 0
italian only sorry...
I'm starting to be a bit scared living here...
the new spanish inquisition is starting...

Re:For italian speaking only (1)

FiendBeast (461063) | about 12 years ago | (#3855451)

Why don't you Translate [] before posting??? Far from perfect but with some thought you can get the meaning of it.

Also, Another suppressed website [] in Italy.

Re:For italian speaking only (1)

kwishot (453761) | about 12 years ago | (#3855477) client&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Epunto%2Dinformat ico%2Eit%2Fp%2Easp%3Fi%3D40880

Google toolbar is my friend ("Page Info->Translate into English")

Fair enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855444)

...sounds reasonable to me to shut them down.

All this wouldn't be necessary, if people would use the web for constructive purposes, instead of just a slanging-match, "oh, I'm better than you", "XYZ is rubbish, etc,etc.".

Convention for Human Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855450)

Excerpt from the European Convention for Human Rights:

Article 10 - Freedom of expression1

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

I hoped that the convention would ban this kind of activity from the state, alas I was wrong...

If this carries on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855456)

I don't know what the actual content of the sites was, but if this carries on, how long will it take before they're closing down sites about the Koran, Buddhism, [...] as "blasphemic"?

Maybe we ought to block the .va top level domain as blasphemous from the viewpoint of other religions. Submit it to your firewall manufacturers for their next update.

Testing testing (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855459)

Just testing if the editor dictators are still censuring me.

Re:Testing testing (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855471)

They wasn't.

This is a public notice to the slashdot editors.

Say, shouldn't a site like slashdot that (according to themselfs) stands for free speech allow free speech?

I understand if people who are posting crap, goatsex links, offensive material or something like that gets blocked but for just posting some FACTS politly or some opinions that isn't the same as theirs?

You have a quite screwed up idea of what free speech means (it isn't warezing mp3's).

Silver Lining (0, Flamebait)

HappyPhunBall (587625) | about 12 years ago | (#3855461)

The good news is that it is still acceptable to bugger little boys! Especially alter boys...mmmmmm alter boys.
Seriously, the Catholic Church is in no position to impose their morals on anyone at this point.

Not there yet... (1)

Jesus IS the Devil (317662) | about 12 years ago | (#3855483)

Yet again we see how the world is still backwards thinking. They can't even provide one spec of evidence that god exists, and yet they fight this hard to censor any negative comments about their imaginary friend.

Yeah mod me down all the regligious folks. It's not like the /. mod system was ever fair, especially in the hands of pious (sp?) individuals.

Re:Not there yet... (1)

valdez70 (527820) | about 12 years ago | (#3855518)

Stop for a moment. If you don't like something is your right to say that. On the other hand, is not your right to insult others' beliefs.

So the solution is: be constructive, not offensive.

Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855486)

Give me a break. In what way is the Vatican actually harmed by these sites? "Waaaaah....Waaaaah....they said not nice woooords about us! Waaaaaah!" Blasphemous? Well, only if you belong to that faith I suppose, and even then that does not give them the right have the sites taken down. Ridiculous.

Amusing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855496)

The local paper did a bit about removing the part about imaginary friends from the pledge a few weeks back.

All the catholics were whining about how they're being imposed upon by a single person. *chuckle*

Funny, it looks like a very small group of people (Or even one person, can't seem to get through to the article) are being imposed upon by a large group of catholics.

I'd like to show my support for upstanding Italians everywhere, by issuing the following heretical claim:

I am God, and thus I spake, and spake I did thus, and thou shalt sacrifice thine Cola upon mine altar. Thou shalt drink but the sacred bean of coffee, and thou shalt have no other drink but it, aside from the revered and blessed alcohol.

More info (2)

plaa (29967) | about 12 years ago | (#3855498)

Found searching Google: []

More info, according to it they have been mixing pornography with religion.

"They then went on to show a nun in suggestive clothes [and] other things in poor taste."

Re:More info (4, Interesting)

plaa (29967) | about 12 years ago | (#3855520) []

Even more interesting quote: (I didn't notice it at first.)

The officers were involved in an international operation to catch the website operators because, although they were created in Italy, the internet service providers were based in Washington DC and California.

Way to go. (1)

z_gringo (452163) | about 12 years ago | (#3855502)

I tried both links, and couldn't read the article. Someone please post it, I'd love to read it. I didn't realize the italians were so sensitive about this stuff.

I'm going out on a limb here, and NOT posting anonymously, so moderators, please be kind.

I myself have often wanted to start a website poking a bit of fun at some of those things, but never had the balls to go through with it. One would be When is that pope guy going to die?!?! There should be some pool,and the one(s) who pick the closest date get the money.. ( or something).. That would be great. As long as it's not, because they might shut it down.

And, What's with the whole virgin having a baby thing? Seriously!! I mean somebody fucked her! right? Or is it just me who finds that hard to believe?

The main thing I want to know is what are those three sites that were shut down? Someone please post the links!!

The Tiger Lillies said it best... (2, Informative)

JimPooley (150814) | about 12 years ago | (#3855510)

I'm crucifying Jesus, banging in the nails,
And I am so happy, because old Jesus failed.
I'm crucifying Jesus, nail him to the cross,
The poor old bastard bleeds to death and I don't give a toss.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm crucifying Jesus, in my piss he bathes.
I think I am a pervert, I think I am depraved
I'm crucifying Jesus, beat him to a pulp,
I stick my organ in his mouth and on it he must gulp.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

You see that crown of thorns upon his head?
Well that was my idea.
I think I might be going to hell,
Oh dear!

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

All Text By Martyn Jacques
Copyright Misery Guts Music

Offensive speech (2, Interesting)

pubjames (468013) | about 12 years ago | (#3855513)

In this case, I believe these sites were deliberately trying to cause offense to Catholics. I don't have any problem with the Italians having laws against speech that deliberately incites hated or deliberately tries to offend. It's a very different situation to say, having laws against speech that criticises the Catholic Church or supports other religions.

There have to be limits, and I think it is sensible to have laws against deliberately offensive speech that is just intended to upset and provoke. To those that say it is bad to have this type of law, I say, where do you draw the line? Is it ok for me to put a billboard next to a hospital that says "Has someone you loved just died of cancer? Ha ha ha! That's funny!" Is that ok?

Not only blasphemy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3855523)

Theve five sites have been closed not only for blasphemy (which is still a offence here in Italy)(Damn, we have the Vatican... Anyone would like to buy it? ;-)), but for prOn, crackz and fraud...
So, this is not a matter of "freedom of speech": it's a matter of breaking the law...
A stupid law (AFAIR, it should be a relic of the fascist's period (1920-1940)), obviously, but a law anyway...
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>
Create a Slashdot Account