EU Views Net Censorship As a "Trade Barrier"

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The European Parliament just passed a proposal to treat internet censorship as a trade barrier, in particular the 'Great Firewall of China.' If passed by the European Council, the issue would be raised in trade negotiations and could lead to economic sanctions and trade restrictions for those countries unwilling to remove oppressive Net censorship." We have discussed some of the ways in which the EU, and its member countries, engage in their own brand of censorship.

The EU May Be Censoring...

But they're doing it to PROTECT people. Everyone ELSE is doing it to OPPRESS people. HUGE difference.

Re:

Oppression and Protection are mostly matters of perspective. The Chinese argue that they filter internet access in order to protect their people from dangerous information. Personally I'm against censorship of any kind, but that's really not important for the purposes of this article.

Re:

Oppression and Protection are mostly matters of perspective.

~Hands you your Captain Obvious hat~

Re:

~Hands you your Captain Obvious hat~

Hmm... my sarcasm detector must be on the fritz again. Damn Chinese made piece of junk.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

Yes... that's the way to promote freedom. Cut oppressive governments further off from the outside world, so that they are even less inclined or able to change.

I still believe if we had extended full trade relations towards Cuba as soon as they revolted, their communism would have quickly changed into something more balanced.

Oppression can only exist in a vacuum. Opening your doors to such nations doesn't encourage them, it makes them interdependant, and exposes them to better systems. Just look at China - they are by no means perfect, but exposure to the free market has changed them drastically.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

Opening your doors to such nations doesn't encourage them, it makes them able to easily get into your country.

There, fix that for you.
So you're the one who let the terrorists in. Jerk.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

Opening your doors to such nations doesn't encourage them, it makes them able to easily get into your country.
There, fix that for you. So you're the one who let the terrorists in. Jerk.

I in no way support terrorists. In fact I denounce them. Or is that reject them? Denounce or reject... so complicated.

Re:

they flood our schools

Well, in that situation they pay market price for tuition, which at government universities is far higher than domestic students pay. Western universities make billions of dollars from Chinese students. Of course there is a price to pay in communications difficulties since differences in language and academic culture make teaching them, working with them and hanging out with them harder but this is the ultimately the choice of the university involved rather than some imposition from

Re:

If someone is going to do something dangerous with some information then its protection.

The only dangerous information is incomplete or wrong information. If after learning something someone does something dangerous there was either something wrong with that person to begin with, or they weren't given all the relevant information.

Re:

Last time I have checked (when USSR existed -- I speak Russian but not Chinese) Communists as a matter of policy applied their censorship almost exclusively to what they deemed to be propaganda materials, that they believed to be just that -- incomplete, wrong, or misrepresentation of opinions as facts. I am sure, they would see a year-old version of Wikipedia article on Holodomor [wikipedia.org] as a work of propaganda but current version [wikipedia.org] as merely some data they did not like but wouldn't bother censoring if presented th

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

Censorship is good in one case only; To protect children. I personally think in that case it is protection.

Think-of-the-children is a common tag line on slashdot for a reason. It is used to justify all kinds of trade offs of liberty for security. Parents must protect their children. The government should not and MUST NOT assume the position of a parent. Standards of "normal" vary and the government has no business protecting children from vulgar language any more than it has protecting them from "wrong" religions.

Re:

Then the gov't is utterly useless. I had to deal with this myself as a child, no matter how many times I reported neglect, it took me getting multiple adults to report the situation to Children's Services to get any sort of action taken. The worst part was, my father was willing and eager to take me, but the sexual bias in the court wouldn't let facts get in their way.

The only situation where I see censorship for a "think of the children" argument is in public school where they are mandated to serve "in loc

Re:

Everyone is saying they do it for the good of the people, but the sad truth is censorship apart from the very limited scope of national security is either bad or neutral with a cost. It never helps.

While I agree that some of the censorship in Europe is the more benign kind - I'm talking about the holocaust denial prosecution - it is probably less helpful than if society's moral self-censorship would be allowed to run it's course.

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

How is censoring sale of historical artifacts protecting anyone? I have an interest in history of warfare and would buy a nazi artifact, along with those of allied forces, japan or US civil war to get a concrete fill for the history that I didn't personally experience. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it and I don't see how censorship is doing anything good for the future of peace in Europe.

Re:

Talking of Nazism, the release of a single Nazi-porn film is causing MPs in the UK to call for new censorship powers [timesonline.co.uk].

They claim they want to give the public more power - in fact, the film was approved years ago after the BBFC relaxed its censorship policies, after consulting with the public. What they actually mean is, they want the power to ban films everytime there is a media uproar from a vocal minority (who haven't even seen the film).

Of course they string out Nazism as the worse example, but we know th

Re:

Nothing is served by allowing a freedom you find annoying? Were you saying you were or were not part of this neonazi subculture? I lost track. Your position is that the government should act to crush and destroy subcultures that you disapprove of, no?

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

Your position is that the government should act to crush and destroy subcultures that you disapprove of, no?

No, actually, that's not what he was saying.

He was saying that the government should crush and destroy those subcultures that are trying to gas dozens of millions of people in gas chambers and use them as fertiliser.

And I have no problem with any such subculture being crushed and destroyed, as I think that mass genocide and world war is something completely different than "annoying freedom". Unfortunately, censorship is not the answer.

Re:

This isn't about whether mrudering Jews should be illegal, though that's a nice strawman. This is about censoring ideas. It can be illegal to murder Jews, but legal to advocate removing such a law! Freedom of speech is precisely freedom of speech that offends you, especially offensive political speech! Freedom to say things that most people agree with is hardly an interesting freedom.

Asking the state to censor an idea because you find it wrong and offensive is advocating totalitarian oppression, plain a

Re:

As the present and unbroken line leading to the current Chinese government has, sadly during its various terrors unleashed by its still hero, Chairman Mao, killed far more than the nazis in Europe, is your position that you advocate the censorship and blocking of everything Chinese? The Chinese government recently looked like it would finally acknowledge how bad Mao was, but in the end, they concluded "he was more good than bad."

Maoist groups have a similar political standing in Germany as neo-Nazi groups, as both are considered anti-constitutional.

The difference in what is banned has to do with the fact that there were dozens of millions of Nazis in Germany half a century ago, and there are still many out there right now, whereas there have been approximately 200 Mao supporters in the entire history of Germany (a slight hyperbole here). Maoists IN GERMANY don't pose any threat whatsoever, and probably never will. Just like Nazis

Re:

I challenge the logic of your charisma comparison on the grounds of any speech Hitler has ever delivered. This guy had Charisma. It may not be very accessable for many of us, but whether you like it or not, that guy had it.

That's exactly what makes the whole thing still dangerous after 60 years. He was charismatic. He could win people to his side. He could speak to the masses. He could play with the emotions of the people. This is why it is still outlawed to broadcast his speeches in full and uncommented on

Re:The EU May Be Censoring...

So the Chinese government is not PROTECTING its people from the DANGERS of porn? And EU officials are not OPPRESSING those who have views they find DETESTABLE? Of course, MAYBE you were just being SARCASTIC. Either way, why are we typing like THIS?

Re:

China does it to protect, too - If you were able to read about certain events, you would ask questions that would result in broken bones, see?

Re:

Hee :) Mod this guy up. He gets it.

Re:

Yes, the EU is trying to censor the internet...
EU Moving to Ban Online Hate Speech [slashdot.org]

Re:

Pot and kettle, meet wok.

Mind reading CAPTCHA? barbecue

Re:

The last two links in the summary go over some of the censorship that's been in the EU, and it's not even counting the child porn filter that one country put in (it was overzealous and somehow filtered some sites that the government didn't like but weren't child porn).

Finnish Censorship Expanding

>> That country is Finland.

It was discussed on /. last week ...

Finnish Censorship Expanding
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/19/0252236 [slashdot.org]

This one was a surprise to me. Link provided for those who don't want to hit Google to find WTF.

Positive movement

Even if it is somewhat hypocritical in some cases, it's a nice step forward--because, after all, this will mean that the member states will have to eventually reduce or eliminate censorship in order to comply with the EU regulations.

Re:Positive movement

Even if it is somewhat hypocritical in some cases, it's a nice step forward--because, after all, this will mean that the member states will have to eventually reduce or eliminate censorship in order to comply with the EU regulations.

Correct. The real power in Europe is not found in Brussels, but in Paris and London and Berlin. The member states are very powerful and independent; the Brussels government is really just a jumped-up trading association, whose remit is to unify the European market for free trade, and to speak on behalf of the member states as a union in disputes with foreign powers such as the US and China.

So, the EU directives tend to have to do with trading standards - hence the standardisation of weights and measures, the ongoing harmonisation of labour laws, and the project to establish a common currency. The member states make their own decisions about media censorship, based on local standards: hence the famous ban on Nazi memorabilia in Germany.

However, EU directives are binding on the member states and do have to be implemented - at least in theory. So this might well be a good thing. Not sure it's the best precedent, though; it reminds me more than a little of the way the American federal government abuses the 'interstate commerce' rule to usurp the states' power. That's not something even I want to see in Europe, and I'm way over on the federalist side of the spectrum.

So self-righteously inflicted self-harm?

So, the EU would have to begin sanctioning itself?

Man, I always thought that they were somewhat self-destructive but damn...

Re:

On the other hand, applying double standards is better than applying no standards at all to noone.

Social justice will create better markets

I like it. I can't help but believe that unfettered world wide access to information will lead to a more informed populations that will shun oppression and xenophobia in favor of participatory government and ethno-religious tolerance. This, in turn, will lead to more prosperity and consumer spending.

Re:Social justice will create better markets

A nice hope, but unfortunately many people prefer echo chambers to debating tables.

This is why there are many vibrant communities for the support of racism, discrimination, xenophobia, and suspicion of conspiracies by Other People.

Re:Social justice will create better markets

I like it. I can't help but believe that unfettered world wide access to information will lead to a more informed populations that will shun oppression and xenophobia in favor of participatory government and ethno-religious tolerance. This, in turn, will lead to more prosperity and consumer spending.

Because the internet is such a haven of enlightened tolerance now.

This move could be a big mistake

This could come back to haunt the EU. Their argument isn't very different from the arguments that the Americans use to try to ram their entertainment industry down the throats of other countries while the others argue that they need to protect their culture. The Chinese want to protect their culture (and, they would argue, their social stability) while the West wants more open access to what they perceive as nothing more than a huge consumer market.

France, for example, could wind up with a lot worse than old Jerry Lewis movies if the US is able to to turn this argument against the EU.

No, the should never have let China into the WTO until there were *real* advances made in China's human rights record.

Re:

Why should anyone have the right to "protect their culture"? You want the right to force other members of your "culture" to live the way you want them to, not the way they want to? How about we let each individual choose what culture they find appealing, and let the culture that no one finds appealing die?

Germany?

So I would assume Germany would be the first to get economic sanctions right? They refuse to let their citizens engage in online purchases of Nazi books and clothing. Give me a break...

nazi ban

This ban on anything related to nazis has been in place since the end of WWII and I don't think you find many people in the affected countries disagree with the ban, except for the batshit crazy few neo nazis but they seem to get around it rather nicely in some countries.

And that is basically the only thing banned, else you are free to say or do anything. I have no problems with the nazi ban, large portions of my family (non jewish) suffered dearly under the nazis and as far as I'm concerned it's a crimin

Re:nazi ban

So basically you're against censorship, unless it's something you don't like - then it's to censor it.

Re:

Even if something is censored, it's important for the people to know what is censored and to be able to argue with the reasons.

Re:nazi ban

So why aren't Roman artifacts banned as well?

Because Germany doesn't have gangs of Roman youth beating up non-Aryan people and setting them on fire right now.

I'm against censorship, but some people lack any perspective whatsoever....

Re:nazi ban

Could you give me some examples of "destroying historical artifacts"?

Using Nazi symbols is explicitly allowed in Germany, if it is used for historical reasons, in documentaries, movies depicting that time, or any scholarly purpose. The museums are full of historical artifacts from that time. What "destruction" are you talking about?

What is not allowed is glorifying the Nazi regime and holocaust denial, as well as reselling Nazi symbols. Mein Kampf is not banned, or illegal, it just can't be printed. There are plenty of copies floating around. But it's illegal to take a copy to school, and then try to convince kids that it's full of great ideas and that they should try them on their colleague with immigration background. Which happens right now, in Germany.

I agree that banning things is not the way. But some people act as if Germany is doing it out of some childish spite, not real historical and political reasons. Millions of people were executed in concentration camps by the Nazi regime and there are many people still around who are trying to repeat that today. Comparing TODAY's Nazi gangs with Romans and Carthage shows complete lack of perspective.

Re:

In the US they are allowed free speech, freedom of assembly, etc.

They are allowed free speech, freedom of assembly, etc. in Germany too.

In the USA, you're not allowed to openly advocate murder of somebody or issue death threats-- it is illegal and will land you in jail. In Germany, you are not allowed to glorify the holocaust or the Nazi regime in addition to that. There are still Nazi political parties in Germany, and they are represented in some smaller local parliaments. Only they can't directly praise the third reich or the holocaust. Their programme is not that dif

Sucessssss like Cuba?

Perhaps I ought to bow to the intellectual gods who populate the European Parliament and give them whatever rights I have left, because although this sounds pretty contradictory to me, I'm sure they are correct! After all, they are from the government, therefore their job is to help me!

The trade embargo with Cuba hasn't seemed to have worked...it's proponents have had enough time to prove it. So why would sanctions just magically work here? How would oppressing the already oppressed people China in the EU help?

Their logic is like this: some people are oppressed a bit it in some other country far away that makes stuff for us cheaply. So the way to fix it is to oppress the country even more, while simultaneously oppressing home! Why can't these do gooders leave people alone? Perhaps they can't get a job anywhere else? Also, kind of ironic that China looks like it is getting freer, in contrast to the EU.

What an earth would we do without the EU? I can't imagine life without it, the world would surely collapse, society would be in ruins!

Re:

So why would sanctions just magically work here?

That's an important question, but trade sanctions did help to end apartheid in South Africa. So why does it work sometimes and not at other times? Looking at Cuba - having trading partners left which are willing to help you (like Russia, and several Latin American countries) could be one factor. Another could be whether you have segments of the population which have some economical and political power and stand to lose from the embargo. The central governmen

Re:

The trade embargo with Cuba hasn't seemed to have worked...it's proponents have had enough time to prove it. So why would sanctions just magically work here? How would oppressing the already oppressed people China in the EU help?


I'm not saying that I think the EU's plan would work, but one big difference here is that a big part of China's economy is based upon exporting stuff to the West. As far as I know a big part of Cuba's economy isn't?

There are other western countries than the USA that trade with Cuba -- e.g. Netherlands, Germany, Canada. I can't easily find anything saying how much of Cuba's economy depends on this.

not likely

Give me a break. I suggest the European Parliament is about as truly influential in international trade affairs as would be any random twelvepack of supercaffeinated intense humorless baristas from the local java shop.

To the extent there is any actual organized power in international trade relationships -- I mean, power other than that collectively wielded in an unorganized, ad hoc way by various bilateral agreements between concerned nations -- it resides in the G8.

Just because people call themselves an i

Re:not likely

You do know that the G8 consists of: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Together, these countries represent about 65% of the world economy. Half the G8 is European and can vote as a block for European interests. Aside from a 2 country North America block, the other countries have no reason to be unified, unlike the European countries.

So in fact the EU Parliament does have huge influence in the G8.

Re:

Quite simple, while the EP is involved in the process, it has very limited power to enact new laws, but they are part of the process to ratifice ones proposed by other parties. As the summary of this /. post mentions, the Council (which is basically a fancy names for the leaders of the national governments) also has to pass it. The European Parliament only wields direct power when the Commision or the Council wants something badly and are ready to bargain. It should also be mentioned that, for now, many kin

Re:

LOL, This is awesome. Especially since depicting nazis in a videogame will get it banned in Germany...

OUR censorship isn't bad, but other people's cencorship is...

Do you have a source for that claim? I'm not aware of any ban on depicting Nazis in computer games in Germany. In fact from what I understand WW2 games have traditionally sold especially well in Germany where the Nazis are typically considered to be a separate entity and culture from modern Germany.