Beta

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!

'Extreme' Web Sites Under Fire From UK Police

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the and-such-small-portions dept.

Censorship 1154

An anonymous reader writes "A conference on electronic crime, taking place in London this week, has thrown up some interesting news. Britain's top hi-tech police officer has demanded a crackdown on Web sites devoted to 'abhorrent' subjects such as cannibalism and necrophilia. What happened to freedom of expression online?"

cancel ×

1154 comments

But... but... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386177)

When cannibalism is outlawed, only outlaws will be cannibals!

Re:But... but... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386202)

what ever happened to freedom of expression on slashdot? god i can't wait to dig the feces out of this corpse's rectum next to me and choke it down.

Re:But... but... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386294)

lol modded flamebait. you're all fucking idiots.

Re:But... but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386367)

If you were intelligent, you might notice that your post hasn't actually been deleted.

Re:But... but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386439)

it's as good as gone, faggot. how am i going to get my dead shit-eating message out to christians around the globe now, huh?

Dolphinsex is going down! (-1)

Captain Goatse (715400) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386180)


Worse Is Better
Richard P. Gabriel



The concept known as worse is better holds that in software making (and perhaps in other arenas as well) it is better to start with a minimal creation and grow it as needed. Christopher Alexander might call this piecemeal growth. This is the story of the evolution of that concept.


From 1984 until 1994 I had a Lisp company called Lucid, Inc. In 1989 it was clear that the Lisp business was not going well, partly because the AI companies were floundering and partly because those AI companies were starting to blame Lisp and its implementations for the failures of AI. One day in Spring 1989, I was sitting out on the Lucid porch with some of the hackers, and someone asked me why I thought people believed C and Unix were better than Lisp. I jokingly answered, because, well, worse is better. We laughed over it for a while as I tried to make up an argument for why something clearly lousy could be good.



A few months later, in Summer 1989, a small Lisp conference called EuroPAL (European Conference on the Practical Applications of Lisp) invited me to give a keynote, probably since Lucid was the premier Lisp company. I agreed, and while casting about for what to talk about, I gravitated toward a detailed explanation of the worse-is-better ideas we joked about as applied to Lisp. At Lucid we knew a lot about how we would do Lisp over to survive business realities as we saw them, and so the result was called Lisp: Good News, Bad News, How to Win Big. [html [dreamsongs.com] ] (slightly abridged version) [pdf [dreamsongs.com] ] (has more details about the Treeshaker and delivery of Lisp applications).


I gave the talk in March, 1990 at Cambridge University. I had never been to Cambridge (nor to Oxford), and I was quite nervous about speaking at Newtons school. There were about 500-800 people in the auditorium, and before my talk they played the Notting Hillbillies over the sound system - I had never heard the group before, and indeed, the album was not yet released in the US. The music seemed appropriate because I had decided to use a very colloquial American-style of writing in the talk, and the Notting Hillbillies played a style of music heavily influenced by traditional American music, though they were a British band. I gave my talk with some fear since the room was standing room only, and at the end, there was a long silence. The first person to speak up was Gerry Sussman, who largely ridiculed the talk, followed by Carl Hewitt who was similarly none too kind. I spent 30 minutes trying to justify my speech to a crowd in no way inclined to have heard such criticism - perhaps they were hoping for a cheerleader-type speech.


I survived, of course, and made my way home to California. Back then, the Internet was just starting up, so it was reasonable to expect not too many people would hear about the talk and its disastrous reception. However, the press was at the talk and wrote about it extensively in the UK. Headlines in computer rags proclaimed Lisp Dead, Gabriel States. In one, there was a picture of Bruce Springsteen with the caption, New Jersey Style, referring to the humorous name I gave to the worse-is-better approach to design. Nevertheless, I hid the talk away and soon was convinced nothing would come of it.



About a year later we hired a young kid from Pittsburgh named Jamie Zawinski. He was not much more than 20 years old and came highly recommended by Scott Fahlman. We called him The Kid. He was a lot of fun to have around: not a bad hacker and definitely in a demographic we didnt have much of at Lucid. He wanted to find out about the people at the company, particularly me since I had been the one to take a risk on him, including moving him to the West Coast. His way of finding out was to look through my computer directories - none of them were protected. He found the EuroPAL paper, and found the part about worse is better. He connected these ideas to those of Richard Stallman, whom I knew fairly well since I had been a spokesman for the League for Programming Freedom for a number of years. JWZ excerpted the worse-is-better sections and sent them to his friends at CMU, who sent them to their friends at Bell Labs, who sent them to their friends everywhere.


Soon I was receiving 10 or so e-mails a day requesting the paper. Departments from several large companies requested permission to use the piece as part of their thought processes for their software strategies for the 1990s. The companies I remember were DEC, HP, and IBM. In June 1991, AI Expert magazine republished the piece to gain a larger readership in the US.


However, despite the apparent enthusiasm by the rest of the world, I was uneasy about the concept of worse is better, and especially with my association with it. In the early 1990s, I was writing a lot of essays and columns for magazines and journals, so much so that I was using a pseudonym for some of that work: Nickieben Bourbaki [dreamsongs.com] . The original idea for the name was that my staff at Lucid would help with the writing, and the single pseudonym would represent the collective, much as the French mathematicians in the 1930s used Nicolas Bourbaki as their collective name while rewriting the foundations of mathematics in their image. However, no one but I wrote anything under that name.



In the Winter of 1991-1992 I wrote an essay called Worse Is Better Is Worse [dreamsongs.com] under the name Nickieben Bourbaki. This piece attacked worse is better. In it, the fiction was created that Nickieben was a childhood friend and colleague of Richard P. Gabriel, and as a friend and for Richards own good, Nickieben was correcting Richards beliefs.


In the Autumn of 1992, the Journal of Object-Oriented Programming (JOOP) published a rebuttal editorial I wrote to Worse Is Better Is Worse called Is Worse Really Better? [dreamsongs.com] The folks at Lucid were starting to get a little worried because I would bring them review drafts of papers arguing (as me) for worse is better, and later I would bring them rebuttals (as Nickieben) against myself. One fellow was seriously nervous that I might have a mental disease.



In the middle of the 1990s I was working as a management consultant (more or less), and I became interested in why worse is better really could work, so I was reading books on economics and biology to understand how evolution happened in economic systems. Most of what I learned was captured in a presentation I would give back then, typically as a keynote, called Models of Software Acceptance: How Winners Win [dreamsongs.com] , and in a chapter called Money Through Innovation Reconsidered [dreamsongs.com] , in my book of essays, Patterns of Software: Tales from the Software Community [dreamsongs.com] .


You might think that by the year 2000 I would have settled what I think of worse is better - after over a decade of thinking and speaking about it, through periods of clarity and periods of muck, and through periods of multi-mindedness on the issues. But, at OOPSLA 2000, I was scheduled to be on a panel entitled Back to the Future: Is Worse (Still) Better? And in preparation for this panel, the organizer, Martine Devos, asked me to write a position paper, which I did, called Back to the Future: Is Worse (Still) Better? [dreamsongs.com] In this short paper, I came out against worse is better. But a month or so later, I wrote a second one, called Back to the Future: Worse (Still) is Better! [dreamsongs.com] which was in favor of it. I still cant decide. Martine combined the two papers into the single position paper for the panel, and during the panel itself, run as a fishbowl, participants routinely shifted from the pro-worse-is-better side of the table to the anti-side. I sat in the audience, having lost my voice giving my Mob Software talk that morning, during which I said, risk-taking and a willingness to open ones eyes to new possibilities and a rejection of worse-is-better make an environment where excellence is possible. Xenia invites the duende, which is battled daily because there is the possibility of failure in an aesthetic rather than merely a technical sense.



Decide for yourselves.



... and in a related story... (5, Funny)

cookiej (136023) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386186)

I especially liked the cannibalism article that linked off this one -- and ended with:

"Meiwes made a video of the event, which was shown to the court during a closed session. He could be released early for good behaviour."

I assume good behaviour would be that he kept his napkin in his lap next time.

Duh (2, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386198)

What happened to freedom of expression online

Freedom of anything is going the way of the 8-track tape.

The terrorists seem to have won.

Re:Duh (5, Informative)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386350)

"What happened to freedom of expression online?"

Remember, the story refers to the UK, not the USA. Things are different there, government and law struture wise.

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386359)

Freedom of anything is going the way of the 8-track tape.

Because someone's complaining about eating human and fucking dead human websites?

You have a strange concept of freedom. Spare me the "well what are they coming for next?" comments too.

Re:Duh (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386373)

Yeah, because people should be free to do what they hell they like on-line, free from any kind of rules and regulations that are designed to protect our society.

Right....

Re:Duh (5, Insightful)

nodwick (716348) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386416)

Um, I know citing "freedom of expression" is a knee-jerk reflex here at Slashdot, but it applies only when you're not breaking any laws while doing so. The cliche'd example would be yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater.

From what I could gather from a quick Google, both necrophilia and cannibalism are illegal in the U.K. (someone correct me if I'm wrong), in which case posting web sites advertising that you're doing it would be pretty dumb. The parallel for Americans would be something like hosting child pornography on your server for public consumption -- not only would you be doing something illegal, but you'd be publicizing about it at the same time.

Re:Duh (0, Troll)

Red_Deth (733789) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386428)

I presume the winning terrorists to which you refer are the ones currently residing in positions of great power around the world?

I don't hear of many 'terrorists', in the conventional sense of the word, terrorising to ban necrophile and cannibal web sites. :/

Re:Duh (1, Insightful)

BillFarber (641417) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386437)

Freedom of anything is going the way of the 8-track tape.

Appearantly, your freedom of expression is intact given that you were able to post.

Other than carrying a knife on an airplane, which freedoms have I lost?

uh... (5, Funny)

borgdows (599861) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386207)

I want to judge by myself...

Can you post the URL of the 'abhorrent' sites please? :p

Re:uh... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386307)

www.goat.cx

Re:uh... (1, Offtopic)

hookedup (630460) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386421)

ogrish

add a .com
There may also be a .co.uk site...

IF it's illegal... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386208)

IF (and only IF) it's illegal and/or incites to commit illegal acts, then good riddance.

Freedom of expression is not freedom from responsibility.

And sadly, it's clearly not freedom from stupidity either.

Re:IF it's illegal... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386283)

And who decides whether something "incites [people] to commit illegal acts" or not?

Many people argue that everything from violent video games to Harry Potter causes people/children to commit illegal acts. Where do we draw the line, exactly, if not at no censorship at all?

Publishing (4, Interesting)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386362)

Does anyone know if its legal or not to publish a book on cannibalism and necrophilia with the same kind of content the web sites are showing??? In the UK and/or the US??? I know there are different laws in the different countries.

If you can publish a book or other writing on it then I wouldn't see a problem with it on the net.

Re:IF it's illegal... (0)

alanoneil (749691) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386409)

But then people will defend these sites, claiming something to the effect that "having an outlet for these [cannibalism & necrophilia] on the internet without having to commit the act itself is keeping me out of trouble..."

What about those who say that violent (computer) games are simply an outlet for violence, and actually reduce the number of people who go crazy and shoot people up for fun? I mean, instead of "hey I don't like the way this guy looked at me, I think I'll unleash my rifle on him", we get kids who say "I bet I could frag you good at Counterstrike."

Anyone?

Just get to it... (5, Funny)

Lord_Frederick (642312) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386217)

"The Internet is no place for people looking for 'perverse gratification', claims the police officer leading the UK's fight against e-crime."

Apparently they think that anyone who is attracted to corpses should not waste their time online and go straight to the real thing!

No right to free speech/press (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386219)

What do you expect in a country where there is nothing like a Constitutionally-protected right to free speech or free press (and where the major media outlet, the BBC, is a government organ?)

Of course, the US can't stand on high ground here: the US has no protected right to privacy, and about 1 in 10 Slashdot news items drive that home.

Re:No right to free speech/press (5, Informative)

gibbsjoh (186795) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386243)

Do your research, the BBC is publicly funded but (as the recent debacle proves) is anything _but_ a "government organ."

BBC = official UK government media (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386320)

"Publicly funded" is another term for "government controlled". The BBC debacle was just an internal dispute inside the British government.

Do your research. The BBC is the official media of the UK government. Sometimes there are internal disputes: it is like the publisher of a newspaper fighting with the editorial board.

Re:BBC = official UK government media (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386419)

"Publicly funded" is another term for "government controlled".

No it isn't. I suggest you do your reseatch and find out what a Royal Charter is and how TV Licensing operates and get back to us on that.

Hope that helps. Have a nice day.

Whew! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386221)

Good thing I only visit those "Extreme Linux" sites..!

Oh well (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386224)

First they came for the Cannibals
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Cannibal.
Then they came for the Necrophiliacs
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Necrophiliacs.
Then they came for the anarchists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade anarchists.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

You got it wrong (5, Funny)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386332)

Then they came to get me,but
Fist the anarchists killed me,
then the Necophiliacs fucked me,
then the Cannibals eat me,
and there was no one left for them to get...

Re:Oh well (1)

sik0fewl (561285) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386341)

I certainly hope there would be people left in this world after getting rid of the cannibals, necrophiliacs and trade anarchists.

Next time give credit! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386376)

...

Re:Oh well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386441)

So you'd like to be defended by cannibals, necrophiliacs and anarchists? Good luck, and say hi to Bubba.

Re:Oh well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386442)

Funny! It was probably not origional enough to be insightful; BUT FUNNY NO? I would say that the prose is deeply profound and applies directly to freedom of speech in general. This is exactly how society becomes desensitized to the atrocities that are brought upon it. It usually starts with the minorities. The 'abhorrent' that nobody is will to speak for. Then it goes to the next small, unpopular collective. Everybody says, "Well, we let them get away with it for the other marginally worse group. This group deserves is almost as much." It then proceed down the slippery slope until half of the group that used to be considered the good, normal group is now the victom. What then?

Freedom of expression is still legislated. (4, Interesting)

karmaflux (148909) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386227)

The same lawbook that holds protection freedom of expression also outlaws things like necrophilia. If you walked into a morgue to get a snack, you can expect to be put in jail. If you sold books containing HOWTOs on corpse-buggery, you would, in fact, get shit-hammered by the law. This is no different. If you want to act like a retard on the internet, you're better off doing it from a country that doesn't outlaw your particular brand of idiocy.

Wait wait wait (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386288)

So, because something is illegal to do, you believe it should be illegal to discuss? There's a difference in describing how to cook a human for eating, and in encouraging someone to go kill someone to eat.

Re:Freedom of expression is still legislated. (0)

kniLnamiJ-neB (754894) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386299)

I wonder if this will go the same way as sex offenders in the US... having to register with the town hall whenever you move in and stuff. I kinda hope so... I think I'd want to know if my new neighbor decided to invite me over for dinner...

Re:Freedom of expression is still legislated. (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386338)

You would no sooner go into a morgue to get fresh human food then you would pick up 3 day old racoon off of the road to eat. Haven't you watched Six Feet Under and seen what they do to corpses.

And are you to judge what is acting like a "retard" and what isn't. Perhaps wasting your time on a site like this is acting like a retard and should be banned?

Heh (2, Funny)

Bishop, Martin (695163) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386229)

"What happened to freedom of expression online?" I think Microsoft patented it [slashdot.org]

Oh no! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386231)

Where will I get my info on cannibalism now?!?!

Why is this a surprise? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386234)

We're talking about the United Kingdom here...heck..they don't even have freedom fries [cnn.com] there, how do you expect them to have freedom?

This is funny, not flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386322)

Everyone knows that the United Kingdom hates Freedom, err, France more than anyone.

What about Xtreme sports !?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386235)

Europe has no free speech clause like the USA right?

There is no "freedom of expression online" (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386238)

a) There is no "Freedom of expression online" - anything online is governed by regular laws in the "Real World"

b) There is no "Freedom of expression" law in the UK - it's not a right like in the US.

c) Yes, perhaps cracking down on the web-sites might be stupid...

Re:There is no "freedom of expression online" (-1, Troll)

relrelrel (737051) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386381)

The US bill of rights was derived (read: copied) from the British bill of rights.

Re:There is no "freedom of expression online" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386422)

The US bill of rights was derived (read: copied) from the British bill of rights.

Nope, the US and UK legal systems are based on completely different premises - the US is based on a set of inalienable rights, whereas the UK system is based on a set of things that are not allowed.

Certainly at the time the US bill of rights was written, there was no British bill of rights - the British scheme of law was part of the reason for the US separating off in the first place.

What happened? Thats easy. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386239)

What happened to freedom of expression online?

Some psycho killed a teacher and the Daily Mail and Sun needed a good campaign. The pedophiles-infest-the-web thing wasn't working out for them lately so this is a better angle for them to whip up a bit of hysteria. Apparently the necrophiliacs and asphyxia fans infest the Intarweb just as much as the pedophiles and terrorists, much to the surprise of the newspapers and general public.

Hysteria based on uninformed opinions; it's whats for diner!

Demanding... (1)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386244)

..ain't the same as getting.

UKers don't have freedom of speech (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386246)

UK citizens are subjects of the crown and not people living under a free state. They do not have a right to free expression.

What happened to freedom of expression online? (1)

hummassa (157160) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386248)

Died circa 1995 with the commercialization of the net. Oh I miss those glorious bitnet/fidonet days.

Re:What happened to freedom of expression online? (1)

emilng (641557) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386304)

Died and was involved in some necrophelia and cannibalism.

Re:What happened to freedom of expression online? (1)

RedShoeRider (658314) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386354)

IRC still lives on, though. That is if you're not being harrassed by some FBI agent posing as a 14 year old girl who would like to meet you.

Perhaps you don't understand (3, Informative)

asdfasdfasdfasdf (211581) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386249)

The First Ammendment to the US Constitution doesn't apply internationally..

dry (2, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386252)

Hynds' statement may also anger those who believe that one of the Web's great strengths is that it accommodates such a wide range of interests, free from censorship.

Ah, that British penchant for understatement.

Hi, I'm Troy McClure (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386255)

Hi. I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from such offensive websites as www.kennyGfans.com and www.WeStillBackHowardDean.yeaaargghhh.

And www.aintitcoolnews.com? That's me doing the font selections and colors.

Discrimination? (0)

3 am Eternal (754358) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386256)

Will they discriminate between consensual and non-consensual cannibalism? My right to be nibbles!

Obvious answer (3, Insightful)

mkro (644055) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386257)

What happened to freedom of expression online?

Somehow, I think it is connected to this whole "9/11" thing. Every authoritarian politician is looking at USA's increased fascist tendencies, thinking "If THEY can do it, we can too".

All we (who care) can do is yell. And try to make others care (and yell).

Re:Obvious answer (1)

kbahey (102895) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386397)

Excellent point!

We have seen dictators calling opposition "terrorists" in the wake of the changes in the USA after 9/11. For example Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has labeled his political opponents as such.

Worse, we saw Middle East despots trying to vindicate themselves, and saying that all the oppressive measures that they took against political dissidents were right, and "See! The USA is doing it now! We were criticized by the world when we did the same things! Now everyone knows we are right".

Sad ...

Re:Obvious answer (1)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386427)

And yet there are no crackdowns in the USA to keep us from talking about cannibalism or necrophilia.

Freedom of Speech (1, Interesting)

Jotaigna (749859) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386260)

I strongly feel that freedom of speech must be defended at all costs, however, there is content on the web that i dont want to see, and i just dont. But when i think of people that can see that content and make something bad of it, free speech doesnt guarantee my freedom anymore, giving someone the blueprints for a car bomb.
If you want freedom of speech, you should be responsable for your speech, in other words, i think anything that is posted on a website, can be related to an identifiable person. Perhaps your fingerprint or something. This is too controversial anyway, so if im troll please ignore.

This guy sounds like... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386262)

...he will soon be running for office. I love how some porno site gets blamed for a murderer's action. No one blames religion when some crazy says God told them to do it. This is just a blame at unpopular groups by some hairless-balled wannabe politician.

Chicken Egg Problem (5, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386268)

So did the guy who strangled the person decide to do it after visiting the necrophilia website or did he visit the website because he was already into necrophilia? I am not a big expert of necrophilia but somehow I don't think it is something you see a picture of and go - oh I liked to do that, let me go murder somebody.

Freedome of expression my ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386278)

It is only my opinion, however I view cannibalism, necrophelia, beastiality and pedophelia all part of the same taboo categories that should never be accepted by humanity. Freedom of expression? Shit, it more like freedom to be a completely degraded individual? Well if it's not against the law now, it should be. That shit is just plain offensive to 99.999% of the population. Freedom of expression? I'd rather have people know there are limits to how low a person should go before they have debased themselves and humanity by indulging their sick fantasies. We've relaxed things a lot (I personally enjoy lots of kinds of legal porn) on the Internet and TV. There are just some things that shouldn't be tollerated - cannibalism, necrophelia, beastiality, and pedophelia. Period.

Whether they are accepted or not is irrelevant... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386369)

It's the web, man. What are you going to do about it? Nuke the providers that host the content?

Remember, these people aren't preaching their content to their masses (unlike some other annoying organizations I could name). They are pretty secluded (AFAIK) and I fail to see how this is an issue for the rest of the populace of the world. The world is not all happy butterflies and sunny summer afternoons. The world has a lot of evil, disgusting crap in it too. But, trying to stop that is an endless fight. There will always be that counterbalance of depravity and perverseness in the world. We're human! That's what being human means! Each individual human makes a choice, of which they will be. That doesn't mean that you should keep people from making those choices; if you do, we become little better than mindless automatons.

Re:Freedome of expression my ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386382)

What about gay websites which are offensive to 80%* of Christians, or what about all those anti-Government websites which the Chinese government pull? Or what if you support Liverpool FC and hate Manchester United, should those websites be pulled too?

* I pulled that figure out of my ass, but you get my drift

Leave them alone (5, Funny)

Brad Mace (624801) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386279)

The more time they spend working on some website no one's ever going to look at, the less time they have for actually *doing* weird creepy stuff. I say 'leave their websites alone.'

Re:Leave them alone (0)

3 am Eternal (754358) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386331)

Totally agree, ban them and they'll just go underground... sorry for the bad pun.

Human rights (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386280)

Freedom of expression should not be placed above human rights. Eating people and defiling their corpses isn't freedom of expression, it is abuse of human rights. Put things in perspective and things seem a bit clearer.

Re:Human rights (2, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386408)

People will do this whether there are sites or not. You are among the same deluded crowd that thinks violent movies creates killers, that Janet Jackson's breast will create rapists, and that using Linux makes you a communist.

Your taboos may vary... (5, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386281)

Here in the USA, we have a big fuss over seeing one female breast exposed on national TV. Meanwhile, in London there's a newspaper that makes a point of publishing a photo of a topless model on one of the first few pages.

In parts of Europe, pro-Nazi material that we're willing to tolerate in the USA is absolutely forbiden, particularly in the places that were invaded during World War II. We can write off Nazis as political loonies, but those places feel terror when the topic is brought up since they saw it first hand.

So, what's taboo here might be fine there, and what's taboo there might be fine here. It's one of the problems that the Internet runs into as the first truely global medium.

Re:Your taboos may vary... (1)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386425)

> we have a big fuss over seeing one
> female breast exposed on national TV

No, we had a fuss over a television station violating FCC regulations.

If you want the regulations changed, fine, but enforcment of existing regulations shouldn't surprise anyone.

"What happened to freedom of expression online?" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386285)

It was modded out of existance.

But (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386286)

In Soviet Russia, the cannibals get you. Wait. What's going on here. How is this making sense even in Soviet Russia?

better hope (2, Insightful)

musikit (716987) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386290)

we better hope no one from slashdot commits a high profile murder 'cause then law enforcement will ask that all website related to Linux and anti-Microsoft ways and conspiracy theories be taken down/blocked because only a murderer would be into high technology, equal rights and the belief that only people who publish their source code have nothing to hide.

Kill the moderators (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386375)

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ, *this* bullshit got modded insightful? Maybe /. should be taken down.

Re:better hope (0)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386417)


They'd need a lot of warrants to search those hundreds of thousands of parents' basements.

UK != US (2, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386291)

Despite our common language, many laws are quite different between the US and UK, freedom of speech exists, just not to the same degree as we like to think it does here in the states.

RE: What happened to freedom of expression online? (-1)

F_SMASH (670239) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386293)

IT'S DEAD JIM! But seriously, someday 'the man' will get it and realize that the 'net is not something that can be oppressed.

Freedom (1)

RedShoeRider (658314) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386300)

Freedom of speech online is going the same place freedom of speech in the US is: down the tubes. (look at all of the BS and crackdowns that have come in the wake of Janet Jackson's (ugly) boob shot. The FCC is "reigning things in"....effectively restricting free speech).

What happened to freedom of expression online? (4, Insightful)

JohnGrahamCumming (684871) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386301)

It doesn't exist, get over it.

In case you hadn't noticed different countries have different standards of what's considered "acceptable" behavior:

In the US it's acceptable for the government to kill people who have be convicted of certain crimes if sentenced to death by a court.

In France it's acceptable for a TV ad for shower gel to show a naked woman soaping her breasts.

In Iran it's acceptable for women to be stoned to death for adultery.

So web sites should be no different. If in the UK it's considered unacceptable to have these types of sites then it's OK for the UK to not wanted them hosted there.

It might go against your "First Amendment" nirvana principles, but try this one out in the US to test "your rights online": start a free web site with pictures of child pornography; I think you'll find that that's considered unacceptable in the US.

John.

Re:What happened to freedom of expression online? (3, Funny)

Lord Graga (696091) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386415)

In France it's acceptable for a TV ad for shower gel to show a naked woman soaping her breasts.

URL???

Better block www.amazon.com.uk (3, Funny)

LittleGuy (267282) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386313)

Britain's top hi-tech police officer has demanded a crackdown on Web sites devoted to 'abhorrent' subjects such as cannibalism and necrophilia.

burp..... [amazon.co.uk]

Umm..... (2, Insightful)

Scrab (573004) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386319)

How would this even begin to be enforced? If we start cracking down here, all the websites will relocate to China, or else somewhere where we don't have jurisdiction, and nothing will change.

Most Abhorent Quote (5, Insightful)

RevDobbs (313888) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386325)

"For it [the Internet] to continue to grow as a mainstream medium for businesses, education and entertainment, it must design out the minority factors that inhabit cyberspace for their own perverse gratification," Hynds added.

I cringed when I read that. Everyday the internet is becoming more of a corperate-controlled broadcast medium.

I for one... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386403)

I for one welcome our corporate-controlled media overlords.

What's so sad is that's not a joke anymore =/

idiot. (0)

relrelrel (737051) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386334)

What happened to freedom of expression online?

Idiot. These things are illegal, why should they suddenly be legal just because they're online instead? It's still the law. It's not them taking down sites for the sake of it, they're doing it to abide by the laws which were brought in by our elected-leaders.

Freedom of expression... (2, Informative)

BassettHound (595956) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386337)

...is not a guaranteed right in the UK, like in the US.

What happened to freedom of expression online? (2, Interesting)

Belisarivs (526071) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386349)

Ask the people in China and Saudi Arabia what happened. It's not a matter of freedom of expression online, it's a matter of freedom of expression in various nations. The Internet is only as free as where you live.

Great firewall of . . . Britain? (1)

ottffssent (18387) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386352)

Yes. Let's mandate that British ISPs block access to 'abhorrent' material. And while we're at it, let's add pornography and spam too. It's worked so well everywhere else in the world, it's a wonder the Brits haven't done this earlier.

These guys don't even need to *read* history! It's only been happening for as long as there's been an internet, and yet they still manage not to notice.

Rob's Fantasy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8386353)

ONFG Cmdr. Taco is a Necro!!!
A HREF="http://www.burknet.com/robsfantasy/"Look at this !

come on! (3, Insightful)

bmac (51623) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386364)

There must be accountability on the web. Period.

And not every permutation and combination of human desire *should* be expressed. Yes, we must have the freedom to express political dissent, but, for crying out loud, if there's not going to be self-restraint, then the restraint has to come from somewhere else. And, sure, I'd rather not the govt be doing this, but are you going to put your ps2 controller down to solve the problems of pedophilia and terrorism?

STFU.

Peace & Blessings,
bmac

exxciting (0, Troll)

PipoDeClown (668468) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386365)

of course this is much more exciting than chasing bicycle thiefs and rapists. staying inside the office with "hot coffee and donuts" is much more comfortable than writing parking fines in the rain. or maybe a new "special task force" / department is taking care of this nonsense?

What happened to freedom of expression online? (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386371)

What happened to freedom of expression online?

This article takes place in the UK. I believe that limited freedoms is one of the things that made the people now living in the US want to split from Britain. But at the pace things are going, it looks like those wanting freedom will have to create a new country.

Umm .. There is a World outside of the US (2, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386386)

IANALANAUC (I am not a lawyer and not a US Citizen) but isn't the concept of "Freedom Of Expression" a US law only?

While the concept is interesting and has its good and bad points(*), I am sure it is only a legal concept in the US. The rest of the world in general gives some lip service to the idea, but does not have it codefied in laws.

And there are many regimes around the world that do not grant such rights at all .. take China or North Korea for instance.

So why are you suprised when some non US regime says that there should ne a crack down on websites that they object to?

And if you think that you really have free speach in the US try having a discussion on paedophilia and see how far you get. Not that I advocate it, but the subject is so highly charged that you risk being pilloried just for mentioning it.

*I was in in Pittsburgh one year when the KKK was given the right to march and hold a rally espousing their racist views. Is this what Freedom of Speech was meant for?

But I will say it was entertaining .. I learnt how far a protester could throw a stone, that some Neo Nazis don;t know which hand to salute with, and that pathetic little Amps cranked up to 11 distort the sound so much that you couldn't hear what the KKK had to say in the first place.

Links please (1)

memmel2 (660484) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386396)

I don't see how I can comment without actually reviewing these sites in person. Links please :) If someone whats to post links to less contraversial non mainstream sites involving naked bodies I'd be happy to review those too.

Necrophiliac Cannibal? (1, Funny)

MooseByte (751829) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386411)


So is a necrophiliac cannibal someone who plays with their food before they eat it?

In related news... (1)

ScottSpeaks! (707844) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386412)

...experts have called for a crackdown on the police, citing overwhelming evidence that most serious offenders have a history of prior exposure to the law enforcement officers.

Meanwhile, a shocking report has just been released indicating that most practising cannibals and necrophiliacs have repeatedly ridden in automobiles, trains, or other methods of high-speed transportation. Detective chief superintendent Len Hynds - who has been witnessed operating an automobile at high speed, and is rumoured to be a frequent passenger on British Rail and the London Underground - could not be reached for comment.

Freedom of Speech has never meant say anything (1)

Buddy_Gilapagos (583062) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386418)

You folks who see a slippery slope in shutting down necro and cannibal sites are foolishly overacting. The first amendment has never meant that we have the freedom to say anything we want. There are certain forms of speech that have long be recognized as not falling under the protection of the first amendment, e.g. Commercial Speech, Obscene Speech & Speech that endangers public safety. And despite these limitations, free speech in this country endures. Yeah sure every now and then we have set backs, the sedition act, macarthyism, the patriot act, but We have a history of recognizing those mistakes and correcting them so freedom of speech may live on. Defend the speech of necro-loving all you want, but it is a loser issue.

What are laws for? (5, Insightful)

Serious Simon (701084) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386434)

There may be limits to the freedom of expression, but they are, and must be, regulated by law.

If the contents on a website are illegal, then it must be shut down. If the contents on a web site are considered extremely objectional, but if they are not illegal, then the police should simply leave it alone.

This guy may be applauded for trying to make "the Internet a more law-abiding place" as long he remembers it's not for him to define "law-abiding".

Sorry to burst your bubble... (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8386448)

Hynds' statement may also anger those who believe that one of the Web's great strengths is that it accommodates such a wide range of interests, free from censorship.

That's just something that's not true. The Internet may be designed in a censorship-resistant way that makes it a whole lot easier to publish things, but the laws that regulate published material still apply. The First Amendment might limit how much censoring can go on in the USA, but other places don't have such limits.
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

Loading...