European Court of Justice cements legal basis for censorship

The European Court of Justice has approved measures to block access to illegal Internet sites. The verdict has been welcomed by some while others fear a second round of heated debate over online freedom.

On Thursday, March 27, the court's judges in Luxembourg ruled that Internet providers would be obliged to block illegal content online if the laws of one European member state dictate it. The case came to the court because an Austrian cable network operator had taken legal action against film industry proposals to block sites used for downloading. In Germany, where there are no such restrictions, the verdict was welcomed by film producers but received with unease across much of the political spectrum.

European Court of Justice cements legal basis for censorship

i thought this may be interesting in regards to the recent bans of twitter and youtube in turkey.

enjoy the read

further related articles.
www.techdirt.com... gal-content.shtml

www.hurriyetdailynews.com...

reply to post by april1

In 2009, Ursula von der Leyen, the minister for family affairs at the time, suggested blocking online access to child pornography. Internet activists protested heavily against the measures...

Huh? Protesting against blocking child porn? Am I missing something here?

AugustusMasonicus
reply to post by april1

 

In 2009, Ursula von der Leyen, the minister for family affairs at the time, suggested blocking online access to child pornography. Internet activists protested heavily against the measures...

Huh? Protesting against blocking child porn? Am I missing something here?

if i remember right, the law has been passed, but there was a huge discussion about it, since in germany the "constitution" prohibits any kind of censorship. activists thereby feared it will be one first step in the direction of global censorship. but this topic is still a bit more complex in itself, due to german jurisdiction and laws.

maybe this article (of many) can help you: netzpolitik.org...

the funny thing is though, recently politicians (edathy) and people in the bka (its like fbi) have been found guilty of downloading childporn from canada.

april1

 

in germany the "constitution" prohibits any kind of censorship.

Isn't it illegal to talk about Hitler in Germany?

reply to post by april1


Is this law only worded to block child porn sites, or can it be interpreted to mean anything that any European Union country finds "illegal" (like the Hitler comment, or holocaust denying threads - so ATS can be blocked - or any other "illegal" activity?). If this is open-ended it's not only a slippery slope, it's the whole slope.

greencmp

april1

 

in germany the "constitution" prohibits any kind of censorship.

Isn't it illegal to talk about Hitler in Germany?

haha, no. but the swastika and many other symbols of the 3. reich are prohibited. xenophobia and sedition are also prohibited, for example in literature or music. this is also a whole topic on itself.

Aleister
reply to post by april1

 

Is this law only worded to block child porn sites, or can it be interpreted to mean anything that any European Union country finds "illegal" (like the Hitler comment, or holocaust denying threads - so ATS can be blocked - or any other "illegal" activity?). If this is open-ended it's not only a slippery slope, it's the whole slope.

yeah, thats what i was saying before, although the german and eu laws are not in direct connection with each other - for most cases. anyway activists feared that the german government is trying to implement a framework for global censorship on anything, an instrument to restrict access to any content a government may regard 'illegal' in whatever context. so, yes, basically it would be possible to block even ats in this regard.

Hasn't this already happened around Europe and Britain?
I was reading recently how torrent sites, music sharing, movie streaming and all kinds of similar sites have been banned by Virgin Media and other ISPs.
Or is this now officially the whole of Europe.

Those who think this is about dangerous content or child porn, have been duped.
We are now at a very dangerous juncture, the internet is on the brink of ceasing to exist as we know it.
It will become completely subscription and PPV based and there will be no more free movies, music, unedited news content or media, no more file sharing or free ebooks etc.
It will all be done under the guise of safety, protection and security.
The free exchange of info we now enjoy, well make the most of it

stargatetravels
I was reading recently how torrent sites, music sharing, movie streaming and all kinds of similar sites have been banned by Virgin Media and other ISPs.

I am always astounded by this mentality.

Next time you head out of the house stop by and gas up your car and not pay.

Next head to the grocery store and pick up your week's requirements, I bet they would be happy to give that away too.

You can then head on over to the department store and grab some free clothing.

Why the hell should anyone get stuff for free that someone else worked to make be it music, movies, food, etc.?

I hope they stop people from stealing music, movies etc. Because eventually no one will bother doing it since they could not make a living with all the crooks who feel entitled to take their effort for free.

The only time you should not have to pay is if that is what the artist(s) intended.

AugustusMasonicus

stargatetravels
I was reading recently how torrent sites, music sharing, movie streaming and all kinds of similar sites have been banned by Virgin Media and other ISPs.

I am always astounded by this mentality.

Next time you head out of the house stop by and gas up your car and not pay.

Next head to the grocery store and pick up your week's requirements, I bet they would be happy to give that away too.

You can then head on over to the department store and grab some free clothing.

Why the hell should anyone get stuff for free that someone else worked to make be it music, movies, food, etc.?

I hope they stop people from stealing music, movies etc. Because eventually no one will bother doing it since they could not make a living with all the crooks who feel entitled to take their effort for free.

well, if the EU did not give the banks 700.000.000.000 € but instead the people, they could buy a lot with it. if the world would not spend another thousands of billions on military and bull# every year, the people could buy a lot with it. i think we can all agree that capitalism is a fail and a fraud as well. and do you pay your friends when you watch a movie with them at their place, or borrow the dvd or a book from them? do you think the world has become a better place since we all payed our taxes? why would you even care to add another zero to the balances of another entertainment, oil or financial empire? do you think its legit when a person gets paid millions, while other people rot on the streets? would you pay to breathe air? etc. etc.

and these restrictions are about immaterial benefits, like mostly media, music, books, movies, etc.. its something different when you talk about food or fuel. it simply does not matter if 1000 ppl buy a song or 10000 or 100000 or if the same ammount shares it for free on the internet or listens to it on youtube. it wont cause any substantial harm to the real life industry and in most cases eventually people end up buying the things. all the industry wants to have is maximizing their money input, because they are greedy like hell, not because they need it to expand or make things better. its just absolute greed.

april1
and do you pay your friends when you watch a movie with them at their place, or borrow the dvd or a book from them?

No, because they own the copy and are allowed to screen it in their home as many times as they want and with anyone they want.

...do you think the world has become a better place since we all payed our taxes? why would you even care to add another zero to the balances of another entertainment, oil or financial empire? do you think its legit when a person gets paid millions, while other people rot on the streets? would you pay to breathe air? etc. etc.

Your analogy is flawed, this has nothing to do with paying taxes.

No one says you need to go to the movies and if people stopped, or reduced their trips to the same, the cost of movies would come down. Same for anything else. I rarely go to the movies, it has been so long I cannot even tell you what film it was.

Your self-destructive entitlement behavior is more dangerous than any government as this is exactly the type of citizen that sustains their big spending ways.

AugustusMasonicus

april1
and do you pay your friends when you watch a movie with them at their place, or borrow the dvd or a book from them?

No, because they own the copy and are allowed to screen it in their home as many times as they want and with anyone they want.

...do you think the world has become a better place since we all payed our taxes? why would you even care to add another zero to the balances of another entertainment, oil or financial empire? do you think its legit when a person gets paid millions, while other people rot on the streets? would you pay to breathe air? etc. etc.

Your analogy is flawed, this has nothing to do with paying taxes.

No one says you need to go to the movies and if people stopped, or reduced their trips to the same, the cost of movies would come down. Same for anything else. I rarely go to the movies, it has been so long I cannot even tell you what film it was.

Your self-destructive entitlement behavior is more dangerous than any government as this is exactly the type of citizen that sustains their big spending ways.

edit on 28-3-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer

nope, my analogy is not flawed, because the flaw is the financial system in itself. and its also not the small people like you and me creating all this inflation. its the too big too fail facilities. and the only self-destructive thing about humanity is governments and armies, not my or anyones attitude about it.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

AugustusMasonicus
Huh? Protesting against blocking child porn? Am I missing something here?

The protests were not against blocking child porn, but against the formal legislation Von der Leyen suggested, which was very vague and could have been misused by the Government to also block or bann content totally unrelated to child porn.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


You can be as astounded as you like.
It is the start of a very dangerous road.
Reminds me of “First they came …” by Martin Niemöller. You may say this is over dramatic but so many rights and freedoms have already been lost under the guise of legal and criminal reasoning.
ATS has already posted themselves about the dangers of censorship to ATS as a site, and there are things being dreamed up and planned as we speak that would block access to sites like ATS, again for security and legal reasons.
It isnt simply about not paying for things or wanting file sharing or downloading movies and music, far from it, I only mentioned those because they are the first wave of sites to be closed.
It is about a plan, a process beginning, that ends with the destruction and dismantling of the internet as we know it.

You can cheer all you want about the file sharers, but when they close the esoteric sites, block content to things considered weird or occult or conspiracy, filter everything before you get to see it, you may look back and wish you had spoken out.

AugustusMasonicus

april1
and do you pay your friends when you watch a movie with them at their place, or borrow the dvd or a book from them?

No, because they own the copy and are allowed to screen it in their home as many times as they want and with anyone they want.

...do you think the world has become a better place since we all payed our taxes? why would you even care to add another zero to the balances of another entertainment, oil or financial empire? do you think its legit when a person gets paid millions, while other people rot on the streets? would you pay to breathe air? etc. etc.

Your analogy is flawed, this has nothing to do with paying taxes.

No one says you need to go to the movies and if people stopped, or reduced their trips to the same, the cost of movies would come down. Same for anything else. I rarely go to the movies, it has been so long I cannot even tell you what film it was.

Your self-destructive entitlement behavior is more dangerous than any government as this is exactly the type of citizen that sustains their big spending ways.

edit on 28-3-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer

yeah and this i wanted to add:

torrentfreak.com...

In a recommendation to the Australian Government, Google warns that draconian anti-piracy measures could prove counterproductive. Instead, the Government should promote new business models. "There is significant, credible evidence emerging that online piracy is primarily an availability and pricing problem," Google states.

reply to post by greencmp

greencmp
Isn't it illegal to talk about Hitler in Germany?

No. It is illegal to glorify Hitler and his Regime, or to propagate national-socialism.
How else could we process and debate our history in educational, scientific, or cultural contexts?
Using NS-symbolic in documentaries is also legal (and by now also more and more tolerated in entertainment).

reply to post by april1


It is completely flawed as this thread has nothing to do with the amount of taxes we pay, however obscene they may be.

reply to post by stargatetravels


You can equate it any way you choose. If you feel you should be entitled to steal other people's work so be it,

reply to post by april1

april1
the funny thing is though, recently politicians (edathy) and people in the bka (its like fbi) have been found guilty [...]

Neither Edathy nor BKA-agents have been convicted yet, so the presumption of innocence still applies to them.
For my part, I remain skeptic about the whole Edathy-afair. Edathy might have been set up...
He was head of the investigating committee in the NSU-terrorist case... maybe he found something he wasn't supposed to.
(This IS ATS afterall...)

ColCurious
reply to post by greencmp

 

greencmp
Isn't it illegal to talk about Hitler in Germany?

No. It is illegal to glorify Hitler and his Regime, or to propagate national-socialism.
How else could we process and debate our history in educational, scientific, or cultural contexts?
Using NS-symbolic in documentaries is also legal (and by now also more and more tolerated in entertainment).

Thanks for the clarification, I heard about this long ago and always thought that it would be difficult to conduct a debate if a possible position has been made illegal to express.

Regardless of the obvious desirability of not hearing pro-nazi rhetoric, I would be hard pressed to not call it censorship.

After all, we hear Hitlerian opinions expressed on ATS all the time. The fact that they happen to not reference the man seems irrelevant to me.