[forgotAgain]

Like the governance in England where the government decides what you should be watching? Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government. Or perhaps they'll adopt the Turkish attitude of jail time for those who speak the truth (if Turkey gets into the EU). How are they better than the American model of Uncle Sam lurking in the background of everyone's lives waiting for the wrong words to be written so the entrapment teams can be sent.

Government control of the internet, by any government, will inevitably lead to censorship.

Edit: to address comments

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Unit...

There is an ongoing program to introduce a broad system of default blocking of certain types of content to all Internet users in the UK. New customers have their Internet access filtered at the ISP level so that certain web sites are blocked

[juandopazo]

From TFA:

'Kroes said: “Some are calling for the International Telecommunications Union to take control of key Internet functions. I agree that governments have a crucial role to play, but top-down approaches are not the right answer. We must strengthen the multi-stakeholder model to preserve the Internet as a fast engine for innovation.”'

And the concrete actions they propose have more to do with 'Establishment of a clear timeline for the globalisation of ICANN and the “IANA functions”' and finding ways to resolve conflicts between the laws of different countries.

This does not look like government control, just change over the ICANN (a private US non-profit) and the formation of a global advisory group. Can it deviate into government control? Sure. But that doesn't seem to be what is being proposed.

[naich]

Slightly tinfoil hat rant there. The UK government does not decide what you watch, what they have done is pressure ISPs to provide optional filtering (set up by the ISP), with the default set to on. I don't like this and argue against it. It doesn't help my case when bullshit like this gets thrown about.

[toyg]

There is also Cleanfeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys...

So yes, the government (through a semi-governmental charity) does decide what we cannot watch, even when you disable ISP filters.

[eliasmacpherson]

I agree, but your wording is wrong. They provide default filtering, that you can optionally disable.

[douglasfshearer]

Still the wrong wording. ISPs can optionally provide filtering to their users, which is on by default and opt-out. Only the large ISPs have implemented the filtering, and only for new customers. Existing customers have no filtering.

[stefan_kendall]

Government rarely directly commands action. It's usually "pressure" in the form of mafia protection money.

"Maybe you implement this filter, maybe we don't break your fuckin' kneecaps."

[andyjohnson0]

"Government control of the internet, by any government, will inevitably lead to censorship."

You may be right about that specific point. So what's the alternative? Corporate control? UN?

If the net is governed by some form of institution, then that institution will need widespread legitimacy. I'm not saying that the current controllers have that, but a transfer of governance won't happen without it.

[Shivetya]

The UN is the last organization on earth to be given control or dominion over the net just based on the results of the Human Rights Council.

Its fine where it is, at least the US leadership can be picked on with near impunity if not vilified by the press to get a reaction, other countries less so

[davidnu2]

The UN in even worse, Russia, China, and Brazil are lobbying to get control over the Internet via ITU.

Current multi-stakeholder model has functioned diligently since the beginning, all these attempts to control the Internet by governments are politically motivated and with the aim of protecting legacy businesses and business models.

[andyjohnson0]

I agree with you on the UN in this instance. But if the current system of governance is so great, how did the net come to be so massively infiltrated by NSA/GCHQ?

The problem is that the internet has come to be seen as a political problem by an increasing number of governments, and the current institutions that provide governance (ICANN, ISOC, IANA, IETF, etc) have no political power with which to push back.

[davidnu3]

NSA/GCHQ 'infiltrations' had little to do with TLDs and IP block allocations.

Spy agencies did what they did with the help of over-broad court orders and legal justifications, non of the institutions you've listed had anything to do with it, either technically nor administratively (prove me wrong!).

These are just red-herring arguments by parties who want to take advantage of this moral panic and claim the they should control more of the Internet so as to protect it, it's opportunism and grandstanding, it has nothing to do with NSA.

[andyjohnson0]

"non of the institutions you've listed had anything to do with it". I agree, and I didn't say they did. What I did say is that they failed to stop it.

Look, the net has become a platform for large-scale trade, creation of news and social movements, dissent (e.g. occupy, arab spring), jihad (war on terror). These are all things that are of great interest to politicians, because they are either opportunities or threats to their power. Thats why so many of them (US/UK/FR/RU/TC/CN) have been attacking the net with censorship and surveillance. The Snowden revelations have brought this into the open and forced the issue of what to do. It seems to me that thats the context for this EU announcement.

Yes, the EU proposal is almost certainly an attempt at a power-grab, partly because thats what politicians do, but also because they fear some other group grabbing it first.

And the net has little power to resist any of this - because its governing institutions were not designed/evolved with that in mind. SOPA etc was only defeated because corporations with financial power [1] opposed it, not because the net somehow "defended itself". I worry that we might have reached a tipping-point where there net can't stay the same because the political pressure is too great, and all the feasible alternatives (such as UN control or full-on commercial control) are terrible.

In case its not totally clear, I'm not in favour of governments/EU/UN running the internet. I'd like to see a highly decentralised net, but I can't see how we get there from here.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Companie...

[Zancarius]

> What I did say is that they failed to stop it.

Isn't that kind of a strawman, though? I'm fairly convinced that of the organizations you listed, very few people (if any) were aware of the breadth of the NSA's information gathering.

I fail to see how placing control of IP and TLD assignments under the EU or UN would have done anything to stop the NSA/GCHQ, which was the crux of your initial argument. If anything, it might have made it worse, because lawmakers could have been frightened into far more material support of extensive surveillance under the guise of "we don't control that."

[marcosdumay]

You are right on the specifics, SOAP and similar actions (lots of what really go on, under the US supervision) are what is related to TLDs.

Nobody managed to create a problem with IP block allocations yet, mainly because IPv4 is about dead, and IPv6 is plenty enough. There is no way that can change in the UN hands.

Anyway, the US has almost total control of the UN, what are you really complaining about?

[louhike]

As a french, I'm quite surprised about what you are saying for France. We have a lot of satirical newspapers, TV shows, etc. Where have you seen that?

[patrickaljord]

I'm French and I agree with him. There's no freedom of speech in France or at least it's seriously limited. It's easy to accuse anyone of hate speech for example and get him banned and fined. There's also offenses against the president and not to forget journalists getting mysteriously fired all the time because they were a bit too critical of the government.

France is also the biggest censor of tweets http://www.numerama.com/magazine/28312-la-france-fait-explos...

[mercurial]

> It's easy to accuse anyone of hate speech for example and get him banned and fined.

Are you trying to say that laws against hate speech are a bad thing, or that they are abused in France? If they are abused in France, I'd appreciate relevant examples. Not Dieudonné, as this unfortunate character has made his bread and butter of antisemitism the last few years.

> There's also offenses against the president

Fair enough. I'd like to point out, though, that the last person to be condemned for "offense to the head of state" had to pay 30 euros after insulting Nicolas Sarkozy. That's not exactly financial ruin, but I'd like this law to go away entirely.

> journalists getting mysteriously fired all the time because they were a bit too critical of the government.

Which ones in particular?

[Zancarius]

> Are you trying to say that laws against hate speech are a bad thing, or that they are abused in France?

I may regret this, but I'll step out on a limb and say yes. I know nothing of French politics, but I think hate speech laws are counter to the notion of free speech. Either you allow all speech or you allow none. Obviously, France may lack the protections citizens of other countries enjoy, and perhaps supporting such limits on free speech then becomes a matter of personal pride, making it a rather contentious issue.

Hate speech laws are almost Orwellian in a sense: Free speech is good, but some speech is baaaaaaad. In my opinion, free speech is lost the instant you start eroding it with heinous laws that limit it. Here in the US at least, anti-hate speech proponents tend to use the "fire in a crowded theater" argument time and again as proof of limits on free speech rights, in spite that it's out of context and incorrect [1]. The other problem is that everyone generally agrees that free speech is fine, but there's a certain disagreement on what parts of speech should be considered taboo or outright illegal.

The question then, in my mind, isn't whether or not governments should ban certain types of speech. I don't think they should, because it's counter to free speech protections. However, the messier question is whether social sanctions should be imposed upon citizens by non-government actors whenever hateful or potentially offensive speech is used. For instance, should an employer be allowed to fire someone because of public racist remarks? What if that employer is the government? What if the remarks were offensive to the government (think anti-war)?

The point to free speech (generally, at least in the US) is that it enables one to say what they wish without government intervention. It doesn't, however, protect them from consequences of their speech imposed against them by other citizens (boycotts, firing, etc.).

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...

[mercurial]

> In my opinion, free speech is lost the instant you start eroding it with heinous laws that limit it.

I don't know about heinous, but, say, incitation to murder shouldn't be protected free speech (see, eg, Rwanda). So you have to live with limitations in a civilized society, the debate is only on where to set these limits.

> However, the messier question is whether social sanctions should be imposed upon citizens by non-government actors whenever hateful or potentially offensive speech is used. For instance, should an employer be allowed to fire someone because of public racist remarks?

In my mind, employers should abide by the law. Otherwise, it's just as easy to fire somebody for expressing political opinions you disagree with. This shouldn't be a ground for termination.

> What if that employer is the government? What if the remarks were offensive to the government (think anti-war)?

French civil servants are supposed to be neutral in terms of politics, just like soldiers give up a number of rights during their time of service.

[Zancarius]

> I don't know about heinous, but, say, incitation to murder shouldn't be protected free speech (see, eg, Rwanda). So you have to live with limitations in a civilized society, the debate is only on where to set these limits.

I think you're moving the goal post a bit. In the post I was responding to, you were specifically calling out hate speech. Inciting murder and using hateful, racist language are often separate. Yes, I realize the two can be conflated (e.g. racist language inciting violence), but generally, hate speech laws attempt to limit speech that is construed as hateful, typically against a specific racial, ethnic, or other minority. Of course, I suppose I have libertarian leanings that wire me in a manner that make it very difficult to understand why government intervention is seen as a panacea

That said, I'm not precisely sure your example is quite as clear cut in terms of free speech as there are other laws which deal with matters of public safety, premeditation and the sorts, and calling for someone's murder could easily fit into categories outside free speech, depending largely on the circumstances. But, that's a matter for the courts and has been debated ad nauseum for centuries.

[kybernetikos]

Your argument seems to suggest that you think that speech should be entirely unrestricted. I don't know of any country in the world that has ever had such a policy. Even though it may be one of the countries in which speech is most protected, there are still a fair few limitations in the US [1].

So I'm not clear whether you're arguing for a radical position of no limits at all to speech, or if you're trying to put forward your own particular view of which parts of speech should be considered legal and which illegal (which as you rightly point out is problematic unless the distinctions and reasons for them are made very clear, which you don't seem to do).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

[Zancarius]

I'm using the extremist position as illustrative rather than prescriptive, because my personal conviction is that hate speech legislation can ultimately be more harmful toward public dialog, particularly if it is abused. That's not to say hate speech isn't without its consequences. I suspect you understood that given the remainder of your comment.

What ultimately bothers me most is the knee-jerk "ban all hate speech" approach as a solution for deeper societal problems that aren't simply going to be fixed by censoring words, which is what started this thread.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia link you shared addresses points I didn't have in mind when I posted my comment (namely obscenities, child porn, etc. that have all be attempted in some form or other to be protected under "free speech"). Specifically, I had in mind the written or spoken word rather than necessarily depictions or offense (but then that leads us to the debate of what is "art" and whether or not specific artwork could be construed as free speech or otherwise--it's a broad topic).

The curious thing with regards to obscenity is that cultural restrictions on it have loosened over time. Larry Flint's success before SCOTUS in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell [1] comes to mind as an example. This is why "free speech" is a contentious issue, because it seems that no one can generally agree on what should or shouldn't be protected and what should or shouldn't be censored by the government or by governmental agencies.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

[valarauca1]

The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations.

Law for Trust in the Digital Economy (LCEN) Article 18 grants the French Government the ability to remove any content that may destabilize the public, hurt nation defense, or physically harm persons.

That being said currently France is ranked #6 out of all nations in terms of Internet Freedom, due to internet policing while being possible rarely exercised.

[bausson]

>> The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations.

Well, in almost every country, police force recruit among the least brilliant. Hatred of differences is what stupid people do. Violence is what stupid people do when given power to do so (intelligent people handed power preferring control over violence). So no big surprise here when it come to police.

The government point is more worrying, but I don't remember any incident of that kind under current government.

[pessimizer]

The French Government had videos [of Police officers mocking minorities] removed from various news organizations.

The italics show the important part in this context, which is not the behavior of the police.

[weddpros]

You can read (in french: http://hollande-demission.fr/) how the government BURNT protesters' banner... and other similar illegal actions, like taking "stealing" their car with no legal ground (they pretend "Hollande démission" is an ad) This group calls for the dismissal (démission) of president Hollande.

[mercurial]

Sounds like a perfectly balanced source of information.

[weddpros]

That's how you can tell if newspapers are objective or not: you don't hear much about him in "balanced sources of information"... and you definitely don't hear about his banner or car.

He has complained in court against these actions... We'll see how it goes.

In the meantime, you can watch his videos, and see the cops take his car (quite objective and balanced source of information :-)

[mercurial]

> That's how you can tell if newspapers are objective or not: you don't hear much about him in "balanced sources of information"... and you definitely don't hear about his banner or car.

I don't have French TV here (or French newspapers) but judging from the little I can find on the Internet about this character, I'm not convinced much of his activities is particularly newsworthy.

[davidnu]

What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act? his material maybe reprehensible but in the US he'd have first amendment protection. Your country also has draconian and stringent liable laws, and I don't want it to have anything to do with Internet governance.

[mercurial]

> What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act?

Well, what about him? France is not the US, you have hate laws here. Nobody is trying to ban him because he is criticizing the government.

That's not parent is saying anyway: Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government. Last time I checked, the Figaro and le Point (conservative newspapers) were alive and well.

[davidnu2]

Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US.

"Hate laws" are censorship. "Hateful" speech is equally protected under the US constitution, and any political movements it might inspire will not be infringed upon by the government.

The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor.

The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's.

[mercurial]

> Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US.

Exactly right about what? The original claim is that the French government is trying to muzzle criticism. You then bring up the case of a humorist condemned for his antisemitic views as a supporting example. This doesn't make any sense, unless you're going for some weird conspiracy theory - in which case, I'll believe any conspiracy theory as long as comes with convincing evidence, of which there doesn't seem to be any.

> The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor.

> The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's.

I'm on the fence about it. Besides, even in the US there are limits on freedom of speech.

[pessimizer]

>widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries

Billionaire Compares Outrage Over Rich In SF To Kristallnacht

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/26/266685...

JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon: Anti-Banking Sentiment 'A Form Of Discrimination'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/jamie-dimon-discrim...

[agumonkey]

Don't mind this story. It is 10% social pacification[1] and 90% hopeless PR stunt conflating many issues into one for they're barely capable of managing anything else. If they ever spend time on low-hanging things like this they will create more pain for themselves.

[1] there were many people diverting his 'jokes' into offensive acts, not by his call but he kept the heater on when asked to tame it down.

[kubiiii]

He'd be somewhat protected, but most certainely under heavy surveillance and most probably on a no fly list because of his friendship with Iran.

[Signez]

> make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government.

What?

I'm sorry but I think you don't know anything about France, french politics, citizens or whatever related to the Hexagon.

[davidnu]

You don't have a free speech clause in your constitutions that is above all else (neither does the UK). You ban or at least attempt to ban questionable comedy/satire. You have ridiculous liable laws (so does the UK). You're government mustn't be allowed within a mile (1.60934 km) of an Internet governing body.

[SEMW]

> You don't have a free speech clause in your constitutions that is above all else (neither does the UK)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Conv...

[davidnu2]

First it's not "above all else" seeing that it's "Article 10".

Second, the second clause basically negates the first one in its entirety:

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

The USA's first amendment of the constitutions includes no such concession nor limitations.

[SEMW]

> The USA's first amendment of the constitutions includes no such concession nor limitations

As a Brit, my knowledge of US law is limited, but that seems pretty clearly false. The exceptions and limitations are set out in case law rather than in the text of the amendment (as they are in A.10), but that doesn't mean they don't exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_excep... lists the main ones (Miller v. California, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, etc.). The areas covered seem at a glance to be broadly similar to those in A.10(2).

I think it's probably true that exceptions to the US 1st amendment are narrower than those to A.10 -- the US does indeed have fairly strong free speech protection -- but that's a long way from saying there aren't any!

(I don't think I'd want free speech to be an unqualified right, either. Many of the limitations in the US and EU seem broadly sensible - obvious example: there are good consequentialist reasons for restricting the distribution of child pornography).

[polymatter]

* They aren't like Asmiov laws. The order doesn't matter. In either the Articles or the order of the Constitution. They are numbered more for convenience than anything else.

* There are similar restrictions on the US 1st Amendment. Crying "fire" in a theater is the common example. I note that the 1st Amendment didn't protect Manning for very similar reasons. The EU law is just being more explicit.

[Dylan16807]

It.. the order doesn't do anything..

[riffraff]

you are aware that "amendment" means "correction"?

That means it's the first bugfix of the constitution. There are 7 articles and a preamble before that, each of which has many sections.

[arethuza]

I think you mean libel and England and Wales rather than the UK.

[robin_reala]

To be fair, the UK doesn’t have a right to free speech in its constitution because it doesn’t have a constitution at all.

[hipsters_unite]

To be fair, the GCHQ mass surveillance in the UK arguably contravenes the European Commission charter on human rights, it's just that the UK gov/GCHQ aren't being held accountable.

[waps]

The EU commission has several directives MANDATING member states implement internet surveillance. If you think "human rights" means no surveillance ... Where do you even get that idea ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive

The EU commission mandates that any ISP and/or Telco stores for 6-24 months the full list of everyone you've contacted, on phone, on the internet.

They are proposing, right fucking now, that that information is mandated to include all searches done one the internet (that such is technically not possible - currently - does not bother lawyers, and I think you'll find all EU commissars are lawyers. They'll just force search engines to give them their ssl root keys).

Note that they also had a court case against Ireland when it refused to order it's ISPs to spy on everyone, and won. In other words they forced internet surveillance on the one country that wasn't already doing this.

Likewise this proposal would enable them to force this on non-member states and you can bet that's exactly what they're looking to do.

[hipsters_unite]

Article 8 & 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

Well aware that they are proposing stupid stuff, but surely that's unenforceable? In any case, it's one of those where I'd argue the problem is therefore up to them to reconcile the stupid surveillance laws with their more fundamental principles.

[waps]

In one of our courses on copyright law I heard this from the professor teaching that class :

"While yes, there are a lot of exceptions to contract law, I would like to state that only a fool signs a contract he thinks to be unenforceable"

Likewise I'd adopt the attitude of not letting laws pass no matter how unenforceable you think they are.

[GunlogAlm]

> in England where the government decides what you should be watching

ISPs voluntarily (yes, voluntarily) agreed to ask new customers if they want to block certain categories of content (gambling, violence, adult material, etc.).

This is not censorship. At first I could understand some people being ignorant of the situation and assuming it was some Firewall of China for porn, but now it's taking the piss.

[StavrosK]

That's true, so I think the "omg big brother" people should calm down a bit. That having been said, this is the first step to softening people up so they'll accept more stringent/imposed censorship down the line, so it's still something we should argue against (but misrepresenting the issue does us no favors, I agree).

[tomp]

Nobody is seriously saying that this is censorship. The main worry is that it's a slippery slope that promotes, technically and culturally, censorship in the future.

[GunlogAlm]

Maybe not here, and I suppose my comment was more of a reaction to the people who are completely ignorant of the "porn block", but I've heard people go as far as making comparisons to dictatorial countries.

I agree it's a slippery slope and I do oppose it, but the hyperbole and sensationalism from "our" side of the debate does nobody any good.

[LBarret]

> Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government

Source needed. I live in France and you can say whatever you want about the french, but being silent (online or not) about their government is not one of their sins.