German state to block US neo-Nazi sites
Posted by configure on 23 December 2002 - 07:47 · 11 comments & 544 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
configure
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
configureContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(7 replies)
#1 Posted by azazel- on 23 Dec 2002 - 07:51
- Um...good. Nazis suck ass.
-
#1.1 Posted by CoCoLUS on 23 Dec 2002 - 11:22
- yes, but stopping them from viewing any page they want is censoring and that, IMHO, sucks more than nazis...
-
#1.2 Posted by ElGato on 23 Dec 2002 - 11:41
- It's very ironic, but I think you'll find Nazi's have little regard for Freedom of Speech
-
#1.3 Posted by Neobond on 23 Dec 2002 - 11:41
- [neoquote=#1.1 by CoCoLUS]yes, but stopping them from viewing any page they want is censoring and that, IMHO, sucks more than nazis...[/neoquote] [quote]German law makes public spreading of Nazi ideology a crime, but the Internet offers a loophole to neo-Nazi sites based abroad. German officials have repeatedly made efforts to block such content in recent years.[/quote] I don't think thats "any page they want" if the Germans are "Censor Nazis" then so is Neowin, we also block hate-posts, have a swear filter and ban people from commenting on Neowin when they post inappropriate material. We have been forced to make extensive rules so that fools who think they are smart can't exploit loopholes (and we constantly learn from their actions). It's not about giving up your right to freedom of speech, its called learning from the mistake that was the Nazi party. Just because a minority has "steel plate in the head" syndrome doesn't mean the rest with a conscience has to allow it.
-
#1.4 Posted by Neobond on 23 Dec 2002 - 11:49
- [neoquote=#1.2 by ElGato]It's very ironic, but I think you'll find Nazi's have little regard for Freedom of Speech[/neoquote] Victims of their own policies, very ironic indeed
-
#1.5 Posted by azazel- on 23 Dec 2002 - 14:13
- [neoquote=#1.1 by CoCoLUS]yes, but stopping them from viewing any page they want is censoring and that, IMHO, sucks more than nazis...[/neoquote] So, lemme get this straight...you think that a bunch of people that are into hatred, attempted genocide and violence against people based on physical appearance and ethnicity being able to spread their ignorant social cancer is less offensive than them not being able to view a few webpages? I'm sorry, but I think your ideals have blinded you. It's not like these guys are wanting to share cookie recipes or case mods. More often than not, Nazi sites deal with little stuff like [b]killing jews[/b] and how their homicidal, genoicidal nuttbag of a leader was the best thing since sliced bread. Now, dunno about you, but I don't think that needs to be on the net.
-
#1.6 Posted by CoCoLUS on 23 Dec 2002 - 16:33
- you've all understand my posting _very_ very wrong. i'm totaly against nazis, and i'm against pages that offer nazi content. BUT, preventing us (i come from austria, so this matter is important for me) from viewing _information of any kind_ is, atleast for me, unacceptable and just _wrong_. it's like someone holding me off from going to the library... azazel-: the net is so big, there's just _anything_ on it, and even an ISP ban can't stop such people from putting such content online. some people may not like it, but it is too late to do something against it... neobond: good point, although i think that the "net" is not comparable with "neowin". these filters here are installed because the users of neowin.net don't want to see inappropriate content, and for respect in the community (which is perfectly right). but people searching for nazi sites are... well... "searching" for it. they _want_ to see it, we here at neowin don't.
-
#1.7 Posted by stockwiz on 24 Dec 2002 - 11:56
- Just think about this using a little logic... you don't ban free speech and literature unless you have something to hide. If Hitler was such a madman and his ideas were so brutal, then they should have a copy of "Main Kampf" in every library and school so everybody can see how much of a madman he was. Instead, they're banning the book, and any information related to the nazi party on the internet and elsewhere. So the real question would be the following: What don't they want you to know? :Are you getting the complete unbiased truth? Most people don't even know the circumstances surrounding World War 2 which went back all the way to World War 1, it's amazing how many people don't even know why the United States entered world war one. Had they not entered world war one, world war 2 would never have happened. I won't go any further on this issue here.. I suggest you do some research.
-
#2 Posted by Dashel on 23 Dec 2002 - 22:08
- Um, bad. Another country that does not believe in a free exchange of ideas.
-
#3 Posted by unisol54 on 24 Dec 2002 - 01:49
- free exchange of ideas that create neo-nazis !!!! nazism should've died with wartime germany and hitler..and it has for the most part.....these new skinheads are just ultra racist KKK type morons..and i totally agree with banning them and their websites..and yes i am a person of colour.
-
#4 Posted by mko on 24 Dec 2002 - 02:32
- Hmm ok some people think that freedom of speech lets you talk about anything anywhere. Well your wrong... Do you think that posting videos of the US reporter having his head severed by terrorists is freedom of speech? Or somebody posting how to make homemade bombs is freedom of speech? Or letting neo-nazis bring back memories of a time when millions of Jews and other victims such as civilians, soldiers, even German soldiers were killed all because of the sick thoughts that Hitler had? I'd agree that the Internet is a place where people can show their thoughts, but this kind of stuff only broods hate and destructions, and doesn't have any place in society.
The verdict followed months of legal wrangling between North Rhine-Westphalia’s top new-media official, Juergen Buessow, and 18 Internet providers based in the state, who said they could not be held responsible for the sites’ content.
“We don’t want such content to be available to everyone,” said Ulrich Schiefelbein, a spokesman for Buessow’s office. He refused to name the US sites or the providers, citing German privacy laws.
German law makes public spreading of Nazi ideology a crime, but the Internet offers a loophole to neo-Nazi sites based abroad. German officials have repeatedly made efforts to block such content in recent years.
In the latest case, a district court in the city of Arnsberg ruled Dec 12 that Buessow’s order for providers to block access to the two US websites was legal.
The providers are appealing to a higher state court and have threatened to leave North Rhine-Westphalia for other German states that don’t have limiting regulations.
If the verdict against the providers stands, it could set a legal precedent in Germany that could have far-reaching implications for providers nationwide.
V-MAIL BANDWAGON LOADING UP
A number of Internet service providers are betting consumers will make the leap to voice and video e-mails. ISPs AT&T WorldNet, Microsoft Corp.'s WebTV, Britain's BT Openworld, Japan's Nifty, a unit of Fujitsu Ltd., plus Web portal Yahoo, to name a few, have all jumped on the v-mail bandwagon.
All that's required is a standard Web cam (popular models include the Logitech QuickCam, the Philips Toucam and the Intel PC Camera) and video-mail software.
Some suppliers charge a monthly fee for either an unlimited or set amount of v-mails. For example, Video Express Email (www.videxusa.com) charges $6.99 per month for unlimited video mails. Or for a $99.99 annual subscription, the company will throw in a Web camera.
Others, including AT&T WorldNet and Yahoo, include v-mail as a free feature for their e-mail offering. Yahoo offers the service through technology partner SpotLife, Inc. of San Mateo, Calif.
America Online, the world's largest ISP with over 35 million subscribers, said it may add the feature to its service.
Industry observers say instant messaging software equipped with video playback will become a common feature in the coming years.
"I see this as penetrating the market and proliferating quite a bit," said Fabrice Hamaide, president and chief executive of Talkway Communications, a Fremont, Calif.-based firm that provides v-mail technology to nine Internet service companies, including AT&T WorldNet.
There are roughly 100,000 subscribers signed up for Talkway's v-mail services, Hamaide said, predicting: "We should see a dramatic acceleration in the market in the second half of 2003."
Talkway says that usage levels go up dramatically once a person gets the hang of it. The average number of v-mails sent in the first month is six, but by the third month, it jumps to 20, the company reports.
MISSING THE MARK
Bullish predictions are nothing new. Two years ago, analysts incorrectly estimated that two out of every five e-mails would come replete with moving pictures and sound.
But observers failed to take into account that consumers would be turned off by the cumbersome e-mail and software compatibility issues. For example, a Microsoft Outlook e-mail user in the past had difficulties sending a video e-mail to an AOL user's e-mail.
Many of these incompatibility kinks have been worked out. And, some v-mails, such as Talkway's, come embedded in the body of the e-mail, meaning it can whiz past most corporate fire wall filters.
Talkway (www.talkway.com) and Smith Micro's VideoLink Mail 3.0 (www.smithmicro.com), two popular v-mail technologies, have been fine-tuned, compressing the video messages to a manageable size.
For example, Talkway says a one-minute video measures 300 kilobytes -- or about 1/10th the size of an MP3 file of a three-minute pop song. "That's much smaller than a PowerPoint attachment," Hamaide said.
While the technology is predicted to make in-roads in one's in-box, it will likely be a while before it becomes a favored tool of advertisers, predicts Forrester's Nail.
"Quite frankly, marketers are not ready for it," he said.
From another point of view, video spam, thankfully, may not be ready for primetime