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!

It's Hard To Run a Blog In Sweden

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the you-own-their-comments dept.

Censorship 299

mpawlo writes "Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt is being investigated by a prosecutor because of his blog. In a blog post, Mr. Bildt states that some 13.000 comments are posted (Swedish link) on his blog and that he and his staff try to erase all inappropriate comments. However, they apparently missed a comment proposing genocide of Palestinians. This prompted a Swedish leftist blogger to report the conservative foreign minister's blog and the comment to the authorities. Now a prosecutor is looking into the matter and the foreign minister will likely be held responsible for the comments due to poor Swedish legislation on freedom of speech relative to the Internet."

cancel ×

299 comments

It may be hard to run a blog... (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19612589)

But it's easy to run a train in Sweden. Check out what I wrote in my last blog post.

Runnin' a Train

Man, me and my gang ran a train on that Swedish bitch. She was tight at first but that bitch's pussy is like a bucket now.

MOD PARENT UP! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19613101)

A first post which is both on topic and insightful is not redundent.

Whichever dumb fuck 'moderator' modded this down should have his testicles removed so that he can't spread his seed. Although, given the likelyhood of the moderator being a lifelong virgin, removing his testicles may be redundent.

Re:MOD PARENT UP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19613821)

What would the punishment be if the moderator is a chick?

Suggestion: She has to let me bang her.

How much... (1, Interesting)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612591)

... do you want to bet that the leftist blogger is the one who posted the "comment"?

Re:How much... (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612633)

... do you want to bet that the leftist blogger is the one who posted the "comment"?

If people don't get drug into court for bullshit laws, the bullshit laws tend to stay on the books.

It's unfortunate that most of the world seems to work that way, but there you have it.

It's probably better for everyone if that sort of thing actually happens, especially if it happens to high-profile individuals. Even the individuals getting busted, in the long run (it's cold comfort when you're in court, though.)

Re:How much... (3, Interesting)

Sylver Dragon (445237) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612777)

I thought the same thing. If the law is that broken, a few high profile people need to get nailed with it. Sometimes, the best way to get a law changed, is to enforce it.

Re:How much... (1, Flamebait)

christus_ae (985401) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612941)

Well, I can say easily "I'm glad I live in America".

Re:How much... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19613025)

I'm glad you do too.

Re:How much... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19613521)

Don't [youtube.com] be [youtube.com] so [youtube.com] sure [youtube.com] .

Re:How much... (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 7 years ago | (#19614037)

Well, I can say easily "I'm glad I live in America".
... where you are dragged away by men in black to a secret military holding cell in some remote part of the world when you post something the government disapproves of, rather than *the sound of a SWAT-team breaking through the window interrupts the message*

Re:How much... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613027)

If people don't get drug into court for bullshit laws, the bullshit laws tend to stay on the books.

We've been imprisoning people for smoking cannabis for decades, doesn't look like that bullshit law is going away any time soon.

Re:How much... (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613255)

We've been imprisoning people for smoking cannabis for decades, doesn't look like that bullshit law is going away any time soon.

It's not universal. First, we're imprisoning mostly the wrong people for the aforementioned effect to occur, people who don't have any money. If you get busted for drugs, they're likely to take away all your money and claim it came from drugs whether it did or not; so see point 1.

Second, the War On Some Drugs is too profitable for too many influential groups for this to work. Think about all the beneficiaries! The biggest motivation to ban Marijuana originally came from Hearst (with his paper industry) and DuPont (with his plastics industry) but it also benefits the pharmaceutical companies, who get to sell bullshit drugs for things which can be treated with cannabis; the liquor industry, which would probably see a decline in sales; the private incarceration industry including both companies which build prisons and companies which run them; and of course, the justice system, which has dramatically higher volume with marijuana illegal than it would without it. There's also special organizations created just to reduce marijuana production, like CAMP, which would have no reason to exist without the prohibition (although they did cut CAMP's funding this year, or so I hear.)

What I find particularly annoying about this issue, though, is that the American public is being pretty fucking stupid by going along with the bullshit arguments. I don't know about you but I learned in school (partly in college, but just a lame two-year) that prohibition was an abject failure all along, and that it was terminated because it essentially provided endless positive PR for organized crime; they could make people happy and grateful by breaking the law! And, of course, make the usual pile of money in the process. It made gangsters famous instead of infamous and made them rich to boot. But we have precisely the same situation today with the other controlled substances; plus it is honestly true that some import drug sales fund terrorism. (Of course, so did paying OBL's Taliban to combat opium production in afghanistan, but never mind that for just now.) So the government is telling us "don't buy drugs, because they fund terrorism" while at the same time literally creating a market for foreign drugs by outlawing their production (and use of course) here in the states! And on top of that, it harms the US economy by sending that money out into the world instead of having it spent here and remain in local communities, let alone in the country.

I don't understand how so many people in this country can continually vote to keep drugs illegal except to believe that they did not at all learn the lessons of prohibition of alcohol - the only constitutional amendment ever passed that limits freedoms. And, of course, an amendment which was later revoked.

Re:How much... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19613633)

I think you bring up an interesting point as well, in that during alcohol prohibition the Congress actually went through the proper procedure and passed a constitutional amendment. Today they have the arrogance to just pass and enforce laws against drugs without any constitutional authority to do so. And the courts have backed them, because they've become as corrupt as the legislature. It's outrageous.

Re:How much... (2, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613733)

the only constitutional amendment ever passed that limits freedoms

What? The 13th amendment limited my freedom to hold slaves. No? Not buying that? Neither do I, but it's the same argument people make when they say the GPL is "less free" than BSD.

Man I can not stay on topic today. heh.

Re:How much... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19612685)

I don't know about the "left" in Sweden, but 'round these parts, everyone accuses the "left" of wanting to go out and hug the suicide bombers and tell them everything will be alright and give them flowers, or variations on the above.

Based on that, anyone accusing the left of being anti-palestine must be a right-winger trying to hide the fact that they want to blow everyone who isn't like them to bits.

Re:How much... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19612811)

Are you a fucking retard? The point of the grandparent was that the left winger who reported him probably left the statement about the genocide of Palestinians while posing as a right winger in the comment section of the blog.

-1, Flamewar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19612797)

that is all.

-1, Priestbait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19613013)

That is all my young alter boy.

Re:How much... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612891)

... do you want to bet that the leftist blogger is the one who posted the "comment"?
What?
You don't think that anyone on the far right in [any country] would be willing to suggest genocide as a solution to the Israeli/Palestine problem?

Whatever horrible stereotypes you have about left/right/other, there will be at least one person on the internet who is even worse than you thought possible.

Re:How much... (1)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612919)

yes, because no one says that when they actually mean it.

you're new to the internets, arent you?

Re:How much... (1, Insightful)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613635)

However, they apparently missed a comment proposing genocide of Palestinians. This prompted a Swedish leftist blogger to report the conservative foreign minister's blog and the comment to the authorities. Now a prosecutor is looking into the matter and the foreign minister will likely be held responsible for the comments due to poor Swedish legislation on freedom of speech relative to the Internet."

Huh? What's wrong with free speech in Europe that it is apparently illegal to propose genocide of Palestinians? That solution sounds disgusting and I don't support it, but someone who feels differently damn well should be allowed to suggest it. On or off the Internet.

I know Europe is supposed to be some paradise or something where no-one ever gets sick and everyone has health care, but I think I'll stick to the United States, even if it's supposedly fascist. Yeah, right.

Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (4, Insightful)

goldspider (445116) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612635)

Pay attention everyone; expecially those of you who support hate crime and speech laws. This is what happens when you regulate certain "unacceptable" kinds of speech with the intent of "correcting" unpopular beliefs.

"Thoughtcrime" won't be relegated to fiction for long.

Re:Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (1)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612733)

But... but... how else can we spread tolerance if we tolerate the tolerant of the intolerant?!

Re:Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (1)

doombringerltx (1109389) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612751)

I really hate to plug a band like this, but this song has a lot of insight on "thoughtcrimes" in Sweden. A while back a racist band named Max Resist got arrest for giving the straight arm salute at a show there. The song is called Battle of Brottby. Its got a fair amount of news clips on the intro and outro to the song. Granted they are knuckle-dragging biggots, but they do a good job of telling their story of being thrown in jail for expressing beliefs outside the mainstream.

Re:Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (2, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612795)

So you think there should be no limits on speech?

Does this include death threats? Incitement to kill people? Instructions for how to make nuclear weapons? Fundraising for terrorists? Lying to courts? The president lying to the people? Fraud?

Re:Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19612939)

Instructions for how to make nuclear weapons?
Prior restraint anyone? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (2, Insightful)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613157)

There's no limit on baking cakes either, that doesn't mean you can make an arsenic cake for your mother-in-law. There is nothing wrong with "expressing a death stress", what's wrong is the threat to kill, be it in form of speech, explicit, implicit etc. In the cases you mention, speech is just a vehicle for a crime (breach of contract, death threat etc), it doesn't make speech *the* crime.

There ought to be no limit on free speech means that speech should not be limited *for itself*. Hating someone is not a crime, therefore, spreading hateful messages isn't either.

Re:Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613253)

"Death threat" is a crime that can exist independently of speech? I don't think you can untangle the speech and the crime just quite as easily as you think.

If "death threat" is a crime, then what's wrong with "advocating genocide" being a crime?

Re:Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (2, Interesting)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613543)

When I silently point a gun at you in a dark alley, I am making a death threat without speaking. The point is that speech should not be limited *for itself*, for being speech.

Advocating genocide is somehow a death threat but it is to vague to constitute a crime, you are not involved in the crime. There's a difference between saying "quick, shoot that guy over there" and "death to group X".

Re:Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613989)

Advocating genocide is somehow a death threat but it is to vague to constitute a crime,

That's pretty subjective. Lots of people would disagree with that claim, and enough do that it is considered a crime in Sweden. Since it is a crime, then by your argument it is not a limitation on freedom of speech, yes?

Re:Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19613961)

>So you think there should be no limits on speech?

Absolutely.

>Does this include death threats?

Intent to murder is a crime. What's the need for a law against death threats?

>Incitement to kill people?

That's their problem, if they go through with it. The only exception would be inciting a mentally ill individual to do this. However, I would argue this would be assault/abuse, since the mentally ill are often protected like this (and deserve to be).

>Instructions for how to make nuclear weapons?

Considering they're already public, and have been for decades, I think that's proof enough that any worry over this is far overrated.

>Lying to courts?

Perjury is a crime only because the results of it put innocent men in prison. The crime isn't in the speech, it's in the results of it (much like all your previous examples).

>The president lying to the people?

That's nothing new and we are supposed to vote him out of office for that. If we choose not to, that's our fault.

>Fraud?

It's not the speech, again. It's the broken contract. You agree to do X for Y compensation but you don't. That's a simple contract case.

The ultimate test for all your questions is this: Could I publish a book with the questioned content -- in the case of your death threat question, you may need to depersonalize it so you don't actually make an individual believe you are going to kill them. If the answer is yes, that speech is free. The basic idea is, legally speaking, if you remove the mens rea from the act, can you do it? If so, the crime isn't unilaterally illegal -- it requires actual intent.

Re:Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (0)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612879)

I agree with the insightful parent, such laws are sad indeed. But look at the bright side: at least we may get rid of one of those pesky bloggers. Blogs are an evil invention. Some people attempt to use them for good...but that is difficult being that they are inherently evil.

Re:Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613103)

The concept is fine, it's words like blog and blogosphere that are hate crimes against the English language.

Re:Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19612905)

What about "illegal" don't you understand? That guy comes to Sweden and breaks the internets law; deport him back to America

Re:Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613085)

Thought crime already exists. The thoughts induced by THC, LSD, morphine, cocaine, etc, have all been deemed too dangerous to allow. Attempting to have such thoughts will get you imprisoned.

Re:Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613833)

I had the same feelings as an American living in Germany a few years ago. Great country, had a great time, but there were a few things where there was a complete cultural divide and one of those was the freedom of speech. Mien Kampf, or at least parts of it, was required reading back in some of my college classes. Especially the ones dealing with the history around WWII. Yet it remains a banned book back in Germany, and this may have changed, but I remember that it almost took special permission for academic/historical research from the government to read the book. Again, being a product of American values, there was a part of me that just wanted to say, "Yeah, it was a bad time, but burying your heads in the sand trying to forget it isn't good either".

I think there was an equal disconnect in understanding on the part of my German friends of my view that, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to the death to say it." It was interesting to me to realize that freedom of speech is one thing that United States does have that just doesn't seem to exist most other places. Just about every country in Europe has some restriction or another.

"Hate" crimes, "Hate" speech, etc. scare me more than anything else.

I disagree. (2, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613843)

This is what happens when laws blame those who are innocent and hold guiltless the guilty. Now, I have no objection to the prosecuting of conservatives, and think law enforcement agencies should be encouraged in the practice.... when the person is actually guilty of something more than not happening to be a god.

Censorship, hate-crime laws and speech restriction laws can be entirely valid, fair and appropriate. When they are, they should exist - no matter who doesn't like it. But when they exist, they should be balanced with common law principles of reasonableness and fairness. The sole purpose of such principles is to prevent useful laws from being abused, which is wont to happen when unreasonable and abusive use of the law is tolerated.

True free speech is actually much rarer in countries that tolerate the abuse of laws, because you can usually be prosecuted for something. Litigation-happy cultures do exist, sad to say, and they suffer horribly for it. America may nominally require freedom of speech, under the first amendment, but what's the reality? One potential case in Sweeden that may never go anywhere versus how many actual convictions for "unlawful" speech in the US this year?

Before we slam Sweden too much for one minor incident and call it "thoughtcrime", I'd point out that it's hard to compare this with, just for example, the crimes the CIA are now admitting to carrying out on those who thought wrong. I'd also point out that the Scandanavian countries - for all their laws on speech - are most unlikely to carry out such abuses. Freedom of speech is entirely right and proper, but it seems very clear that protecting freedom of speech is more complicated than simply saying that it's a nice idea.

Re:Logical progression of hate crime/speech laws (1)

quintesse (654840) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613863)

Sorry but it has nothing to do with "correcting unpopular beliefs", this is just a relatively simple case of who is responsible for comments published on a website: the author of said comment or the owner of the website.

Because believe it or not, there are certain kinds of speech that are illegal in your precious US of A as well (defamation for example) which would generate the exact some problem if the law doesn't know how to handle it.

So yes, this is one of those cases where it's unclear what to do but I prefer their system to your anything goes and fuck the consequences.

but ... (0, Redundant)

eneville (745111) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612639)

I thought the responsibility for the material always fell on the owner of the premisses where the data/site is provided from. Have things changed, is there now some responsibility on the 'login' owner to keep things clean?

Re:but ... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19612735)

No, it's still the same, but they've introduced these new things called "countries that aren't the US and have different laws". Some other things you may come across in these "non-US countries" include people who speak funny, people who have never heard of Oprah and people with national health coverage...

It's hard to run a blog in Sweden... (4, Insightful)

doombringerltx (1109389) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612643)

but trolling one couldn't be easier

Re:It's hard to run a blog in Sweden... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19612827)

Trolls in Scandinavia? Well, it is their native land.

In Sweden... (1)

orzetto (545509) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612663)

...the opposition censors the government!!

Re:In Sweden... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19613913)

Oh, that's not the opposition...

and the problem is? (3, Insightful)

Serapth (643581) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612667)

I don't get what the problem is? Genocide of the Palestinians would be a valid answer.

Not a very good one mind you, but it would be effective.


I kid. I kid.

All countries go through stuff like this because laws arent fast enough to keep up with technology. Or, the people creating laws don't understand the technology. Happened before and will happen again, in every country around the globe.

Re:and the problem is? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612803)

I don't get what the problem is? Genocide of the Palestinians would be a valid answer.

Not a very good one mind you, but it would be effective.


Better yet, genocide of the Palestinians and the Israelis. Might as well be equal opportunity about it.

Re:and the problem is? (1, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612867)

Better yet, genocide of the Palestinians and the Israelis. Might as well be equal opportunity about it.
While we're at it, jail time for the rapist and the victim. Fighting back is assault, right?

Re:and the problem is? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613011)

Oh, so the Israelis are the victim? Completely blamelss, eh?

I can see you're not a parent.

When you got two kids fighting, most of the time both of them did something wrong.

That being said, my post was a joke. Chill out.

Re:and the problem is? (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613095)

it's interesting that you assume it that way - i thought they meant it the other way round.

Dude! You are so gonna get down-modded! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19613747)

Don't you know that in the USA you're not permitted to criticize Israel? It's treason or something. Israel is the promised land, and Israelis are the chosen people. Hell, why do you think we gift Israel all those billions of dollars every year?

Re:and the problem is? (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612829)

To be honest, I wonder if all laws are destined to be behind technology by a generation. My guess is that in twenty years, when you have a whole generation of people who grew up ripping CDs and trading them over the internet, laws governing copyright will be banned and the RIAA will be much more powerless. In twenty years net neutrality debates will be a thing of the past because people who actually understand the internet will be old enough to realize the difference between metering by packet types and meter by packet origin. There are a lot of issues that are further muddied by the fact that the average age of Congress is over 50. Working under the assumption (and I know a lot of you will disagree, but I think it's a good one) that these laws will be straightened out and sent right, I believe it will take an average of 15 years for technology to have the legal atmosphere it deserves.

Re:and the problem is? (1)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613071)

Interesting idea, that laws/etc are a generation behind technology. I wonder if this applies outside/before the world of computers. Are there any laws/regulations which were done away with due to technology 100 years ago? 200?

Re:and the problem is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19613935)

If a law can't adapt to changing circumstances it's almost always because it's a bad law. Look at the US Bill of Rights: It's over 200 years old and everything in it is as valid as it was the day it was ratified. You say net neutrality, well, think about it: The only reason we need net neutrality is because the government has idiotically created a broadband duopoly. If there was sufficient competition that anyone could find a provider who respects net neutrality principles then legislation would be unnecessary.

Re:and the problem is? (1)

Dragonshed (206590) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612839)

Mod +1 Horrible Joke

Re:and the problem is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19612991)

Meh, life is a sexually transmitted disease with no known cure and that is always fatal. I recommend genocide of the whole human race to get rid of it this horrible plague.

Re:and the problem is? (2, Insightful)

aminorex (141494) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613433)

It's odd that advocating the status quo should be considered hate speech, don't you think?

Re:and the problem is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19613881)

i think genocide is a good idea in this case. these bunch of faggot cowards need to go. hopefully the hard way.

Send Him... (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612697)

To the Star Chamber!

Put it in perspective. (4, Insightful)

Xoltri (1052470) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612699)

Would the owner of an apartment building be liable if someone posted a similar message on a bulletin board along side all of the for sale ads from other tenants?

Re:Put it in perspective. (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613453)

No, in this case the issue is with a law specifically dealing with the internet.

-Rick

Yowza. (4, Insightful)

capologist (310783) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612703)

I don't know anything about Swedish law (except that Pirate Bay seems to get away with anything they want), but if the blog host is making reasonable good faith efforts to remove inappropriate comments and missed one, it seems morally reprehensible to hold him responsible.

Re:Yowza. (2, Informative)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612975)

...if the blog host is making reasonable good faith efforts to remove inappropriate comments and missed one, it seems morally reprehensible to hold him responsible.
Bingo. And he's not being held responsible... the problem is that the law rather untried at this point in time so the prosecutor needs to make a preliminäry investigation (in Swedish "förundersökning"). So pretty much: new law, more vigilance with the preliminary investigations until the legal situation has gelled a bit... which it does pretty fast since Sweden is Civil Law system where precedents carry much less weight than an Common Law systems because the more extended codification process in Civil Law.

And I just wanted to point out that being a prosecutor in Sweden is not an elected official but a civil servant. (Not much lawyers in politics in Sweden actually)

oblig. (5, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612721)

A Møøse once blogged my sister.

Re:oblig. (3, Funny)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612801)

No realli! She was Karving her initials on the bløg with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink".

midsommar (3, Funny)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612739)

they need to chill out, hop around a pole like frogs and knock back a bunch of liquor - have a few brawls and then everybody can love each other again.

Tough cookies (1, Troll)

Burz (138833) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612781)

Incitement to violence isn't protected speech anywhere, and bloggers have to police their comment areas for such comments (or else leave yourself in the position of promulgating them).

It's too easy to cop-out with "oh someone else posted that comment" if one's intent is to spread violence. If the blogger left the comment there for a significant period of time, then he is probably guilty. And if the comments were too much for him to police himself, then he should have hired someone or limited the number of comments.

Re:Tough cookies (2, Interesting)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612837)

you can't legislate intent - you can only legislate action. i know, people try but they are stupid. but even so - this blog post is not going to incite violence - period. there aren't a bunch of swedes waiting to hop on the next boat to the middle east to start shooting palestinians. it's ridiculous to say that there is any real damage done here.

Re:Tough cookies (1)

Burz (138833) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613121)

That's a main point in my GP post: The intent doesn't even matter because using the comments area as loophole to publish violent rhetoric could be a part of someone's M.O. And accidentally spreading the rhetoric is negligent anyway.

Re:Tough cookies (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613511)

what is violent rhetoric? i would say it is rhetoric that has caused violence. these kinds of posts don't cause violence.

Re:Tough cookies (2, Funny)

corbettw (214229) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613991)

these kinds of posts don't cause violence.

Fuck you! I'll kill you!

Re:Tough cookies (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612845)

It's too easy to cop-out with "oh someone else posted that comment" if one's intent is to spread violence. If the blogger left the comment there for a significant period of time, then he is probably guilty. And if the comments were too much for him to police himself, then he should have hired someone or limited the number of comments.

I simply don't monitor comments on my website (some other types of content besides blog posts permit them, or I would have said "blog") and frankly I think that is the way to go. Because if you remove some comments, you can be stuck removing other comments... but then, this is the US. I still reserve the right to remove whatever I like, of course, and if something is illegal or just nasty and I notice it then I remove it. But if I had a policy of policing then I would have to follow that policy.

Sorry to hear it's different in Sweden, I would run my blog out of a less oppressive country (in terms of freedom of speech, that is.)

Re:Tough cookies (1)

Burz (138833) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613069)

I simply don't monitor comments on my website (some other types of content besides blog posts permit them, or I would have said "blog") and frankly I think that is the way to go. Because if you remove some comments, you can be stuck removing other comments... but then, this is the US. I still reserve the right to remove whatever I like, of course, and if something is illegal or just nasty and I notice it then I remove it. But if I had a policy of policing then I would have to follow that policy.


If you provide some of the content on your site (the blog entries and misc. comments) then you may be responsible for the other comments posted there if they are violent, even here in the USA.

Re:Tough cookies (1)

Shihar (153932) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613957)

No, that really is not true at all. You can call for the murder of all Palestinians, Jews, French, Canadians, whoever, and not only do you not need to censor it, but it isn't even illegal. In order to get in trouble for your speech in the US, you need to be committing conspiracy to commit murder. You can get in trouble for conspiracy (i.e. you need to be taking active steps to commit a crime), but that is about it. There are lots of things to dislike about US laws, but US protection of free speech is not one of them.

Re:Tough cookies (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613501)

Incitement to violence isn't protected speech anywhere

If you are not allowed to advocate the overthrow of your government, your free speech is exactly worthless.

Re:Tough cookies (1)

Shihar (153932) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613855)

Incitement to violence isn't protected speech anywhere, and bloggers have to police their comment areas for such comments (or else leave yourself in the position of promulgating them).
That actually is not true. For all of its faults, the US has extremely strong free speech protections and you basically have to be convicted of conspiracy before your speech can get you in trouble. I can merrily call for all the Jews, Palestinians, Blacks, Whites, anyone to go die without even the slightest worry of legal recourse. On the other hand, if I had a stockpile of weapons in my basement, armed some crazy neo-nazis, loaded the weapons, and drew up a plan to go kill some Jews, then I would actually be in trouble. Though, the charge would conspiracy to commit murder, not any sort of anti-hate speech transgression. You basically need to be making a good faith effort to be looking to harm someone before the authorities can actually act.

The result is that hate groups are relatively free to gather and talk about whatever it is that gets their twisted little minds off so long as they are not actively planning to go harm someone. While this isn't exactly a good thing, the protection cuts both ways. There is not a slim chance in hell you could ever get in trouble because someone posted that they want to kill all the Palestinians in your blog. Hell, you could make the post and have no worries about legal troubles.

Personally, I don't believe hate speech crimes do anything productive other then suck the occasional innocent bystander. I love Europe, but when I look at the US and most of Europe, I see very little practical difference in the levels of racism. I doubt many people have given up racist views just because it is illegal to speak them. If anything, the illegality of it helps feed and insulate a subculture instead of exterminating it.

Wait... (1)

vigmeister (1112659) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612789)

Why is the guy being prosecuted? Should it not be the 'publisher' which would be wordpress.com? Wordpress is just as much responsible for Bildt's blog as Bildt is responsible for a comment to the blog... ergo... "Psychic spies from China crying to pass deregulation... Little girls from Sweden dream of free speech legislation... If you want these kind of dreams, just come to Colbert Nation..."' Cheers!

On the other side (1)

saibot834 (1061528) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612819)

On the other side, the pirate bay in Sweden is still legal... do one need to understand that kind of logic?

Re:On the other side (1)

janrinok (846318) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613199)

Of course, in Sweden, TPB is not doing anything illegal. It is not storing copyright material, it is simply indicating where such material can be found. Therefore it is fully compliant with the relevant Swedish laws. Now why do you have difficulty understanding that? Is it because your laws might be different? That is one of the marvelous things about all these different countries. They are all completely independent of each other and can have their own customs, laws and beliefs. So why don't you consider the opposite of what you are hinting at; rather than claim that there is something illogical because TPB is not being declared illegal in Sweden, why don't you try to have your law changed so that such an act wouldn't be illegal in your own country?

Re:On the other side (1)

alfrin (858861) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613773)

On the other side, the pirate bay in Sweden is still legal... do one need to understand that kind of logic?
Maybe this poor blog should just relocate their server to the United States to avoid the Swedish laws then.

Bad (1, Offtopic)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612825)

"poor Swedish legislation"

That would be bad Swedish legislation. "Poor" isn't a simply a grammatically superior version of "bad".

-Peter

American Heritage dictionary disagrees with you (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613063)

poor adj. poor.er, poor.est

3. Not adequate in quality; inferior: a poor performance.

bad adj. worse (wûrs), worst (wûrst)

1. Not achieving an adequate standard; poor: a bad concert.

disturbance liability (4, Informative)

PerlDudeXL (456021) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612831)

So apparently Sweden has the same problems with blogs and web-boards as Germany. Over here the
blog/board owner can be held responsible for any offensive/illegal content posted by someone on
the discussion board or comments. Even if the owner isn't aware of any such posting. This is called
"disturbance liability". If he is sued and agrees to remove the incriminating content there are some
stiff financial penalties if the poster is continuing.

Some courts think it is technically possible to monitor a web-board with 200k comments per month
like http://heise.de/ [heise.de]

Re:disturbance liability (0, Troll)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612883)

it is possible - just unwieldy and expensive - but definitely possible.

Re:disturbance liability (1)

he-sk (103163) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613943)

This is according to the ruling of ONE judge, hotly debated in Germany right now, and likely to be reversed on appeal.

At least he didn't... (3, Interesting)

gillbates (106458) | more than 7 years ago | (#19612949)

Quote Old Testament scripture with respect to homosexuals... Then he'd be in *real* trouble.

The interesting thing about freedom of speech is that it's not absolute, not even in the most liberal of countries. In the more liberal countries, you're free to say anything you like, as long as your speech doesn't have the effect of prompting action.

Which kind of makes the so called "Freedom of Speech" pointless.

The sad fact of the matter is no matter how much we'd like to believe otherwise, people will be judged by what they say, and even by words of the people with whom they associate. Even though this was probably a smear tactic, the realization of freedom of speech requires that we live in some kind of fantasy world where speech never has an effect on the *actions* of people. In such a world, you could say whatever you want.

Instead, we ought to consider the consequences of speech before we speak. Speech with political consequences shouldn't be restrained, but speech with violent consequences ought not be protected. Drawing the line between the two isn't easy, because political speech often has violent consequences.

Re:At least he didn't... (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613115)

it's a fantasy world where a blog post sends armed swedes to the middle east to kill palestinians.

Re:At least he didn't... (3, Insightful)

computational super (740265) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613297)

Which kind of makes the so called "Freedom of Speech" pointless.

I think you're confusing "pointless" with "ignored". I support freedom of speech - total, absolute, unregulated (and whatever your "what about" question is, the answer is, "yes, damn it"). A lot of people say they support freedom of speech, but don't really support it because they fear it. If you think that there ought to be freedom of speech with some regulations, then that's pointless, but that's you. If there are any regulations, then it's no more "free" than China or Stalinist Russia; it's just a different sort of lack of freedom.

Re:At least he didn't... (1)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613345)

Quote Old Testament scripture with respect to homosexuals... Then he'd be in *real* trouble.
Not quite. Just wanted to throw my 5 öre worth of facts regarding that specific type of speech. It's legal to refer to gays a "cancerous growth on the society" as one pastor did here in Sweden. So there's actually pretty much leeway when it comes to restricted speech.

The solution (1)

Aaricia (1023589) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613031)

I propose the genocide of all Slashdot readers! But what was the problem again?

Oh yeah, i feel suicidal.

Well i guess ALT+F4 will do this time.

It's a damn shame... (1)

TaleSpinner (96034) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613191)

...that he doesn't live in a free country.

Of course, neither do we - since 9/11 - so I guess I shouldn't throw stones.

Contradictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19613197)

Slashdotters always say that filtering illegal or pirated content must automatically make you responsible for everything that slips through your filters. Or does that only apply when the target is an big American company that those Slashdotters don't like?

More and more censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19613285)

Europe continues its progress toward facism. Censorship keeps rising (ask Ernst Zundel about how far it goes). Even in the US, censorship is becoming our favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, shut down Imus and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Free Speech forever (especially for blogs).
Last link (before Stark Conuty District library caves to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived (book) [iuniverse.com]

remember liberals are only tollerant (0, Flamebait)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613291)

if you agree with them...

Original source? (1)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613311)

Somehow neither link seems to back up the claims in the article.

I can't really read Swedish, but Carl Bildt doesn't seem to mention that he's under investigation (wouldn't he'd got immunity while in office anyway?).

Re:Original source? (2, Informative)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613495)

The link to the Wordpress blogg confirms it (albeit in Swedish) "...nås jag nu av informationen om att detta har lett till att en åklagare inlett förundersökning om brott." which translates to "... now I've been reached by the information that a prosecutor has begun a preliminary investigation if there has been a breech of the law".

An english language site of swedish news is thelocal.se also has it at http://www.thelocal.se/7674/20070621/ [thelocal.se] .

And no, politicians do not have immunity while in office here in Sweden (thank god). I belive the King has some limited immunity but that's about it.

I dont see anything wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19613321)

"However, they apparently missed a comment proposing genocide of Palestinians."

And the problem is? Muslim Arabs simply do not belong in the Holy Land.

It's Hard to be the Government (2, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613383)

How can you tell the difference between an unacceptable post that was missed by a less-than-perfect process for removing it, from one that was left by an admin who wants to post it, so "missed it" on purpose?

Government ministers have so much power, the public takes so much risk giving it to them, that they have to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing. Because it's often so hard to tell the difference, and the difference often doesn't matter to the results

Is this the same Sweden? (1)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613409)

Is this really the same Sweden that hosts Pirate Bay? Something seems really wrong with this picture: PB can thumbs its nose/flip the bird/gesture of your choice at copyright, and pretty much get away with it, because of Swedish law. And they're looking at prosecuting someone because of a comment posted on his blog site by someone else? Whether you think PB is doing anything wrong or not, there's something rotten in s/Denmark/Sweden/ if the law there says PB is OK but a blogger is criminally liable for anything unsavory posted on his blog by a third party.

He knew about it, but didn't act (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19613413)

This has been in the works for some time as he, in an interview on april 21th, has said he had seen the comments and thought they were unsuitable. But he didn't act on it as he doesn't think it's any use because they would still be in the archives (Google cache etc).

Article in swedish [www.dn.se] .

Liberal Genocide (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#19613529)

I read the links from the Slashdot story, including an autotranslation [tranexp.com] of the Swedish report, but I saw nothing describing the person who reported the ugly post. Nothing to indicate they're a "leftist" (whatever that means). Who says it was a "leftist", other than mpawlo, who submitted the story to Slashdot?
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...