|
Finnish court: It is alright to censor a website that criticizes censorship
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 26 August, 2013
The Supreme Administrative Court in Finland ruled today that Finnish police didn't break the law when a famous anti-censorship website was added to its censorship list.
Back in 2006 Finland implemented a censorship legislation that targeted websites distributing child pornography. Legislation handed the National Bureau of Investigation rights to add child porn sites to its secret block ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
jjmehm
Newbie
|
26. August 2013 @ 12:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
To that last bit, I thought that the only links to non-pornography-containing sites that were blocked anyway?
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
26. August 2013 @ 12:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
Wouldn't it be nice if all the Thought Police and the Politicians decided to hang themselves on Christmas Eve.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
26. August 2013 @ 13:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
26. August 2013 @ 13:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'll withhold judgment, until I know more about the actual contents of the site.
|
I hate titles
35 product reviews
|
26. August 2013 @ 13:58 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Bozobub:
I'll withhold judgment, until I know more about the actual contents of the site.
As the site isn't blocked from other countries, you can view its contents by visiting the site:
http://lapsiporno.info/
As I've cirvumvented the blocks several times to write news about the case to our Finnish readers, I can say that the contents of the site are still the same as they were when the site was blocked.
Basically the site criticizes the "build a censorship machine on the basis of 'protecting the children'" and the fact that by blocking the access to the child porn sites, the child porn itself wont go away from those sites, it is merely unviewable from one specific country, that's all (whereas using the same money to coordinate international efforts to actually shut down the sites would be probably spent much more wisely).
|
Senior Member
|
26. August 2013 @ 15:03 |
Link to this message
|
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. August 2013 @ 15:09
|
|
aeonstorm
Newbie
|
26. August 2013 @ 15:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well if his site contains child porn link then it should be banned. Unless he was to remove all those links in it. "the interests of the children must come before freedom of speech" They can use this excuse on a broader scale and unchallenge for example a website that sells guns they are crazy enough to do this
|
|
muzzybear
Newbie
|
27. August 2013 @ 11:02 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by aeonstorm:
Well if his site contains child porn link then it should be banned. Unless he was to remove all those links in it.
All such links were removed when found, I personally checked several hundred of those links before publshing the list and found no child porn anywhere. Afterwards it turned out a few of them actually contained child porn and I removed the links from the list.
However, the police claimed 100% of those sites were child porn sites, including top 4 hits from google search for "gay porn" - the biggest gay porn websites on the internet at the time. It's obvious somebody was maliciously targeting legitimate websites and reporting pictures from them in hopes of getting the sites blocked, and the legitimate sites did indeed end up getting blocked.
In some instances the police was blocking forum sites when the child porn was actually in completely different domain in linked images, yet the police didn't actually block the domain that hosted the images, only the domain that hosted thousands of forums. The police also blocked a few whole ISPs too, apparently thinking nobody would care about some homepages in Japan...
So yes, I published a list of sites blocked by the police. But I published them because I initially found no child porn on them at all, and even later only 1% of the sites ended up being somehow associated with child porn. Most of the actual child porn content on the blocked sites seemed to be there in the same way that Save The Children Finland's blog comment sections were once hosting child porn links for months; unwanted spam.
|
|
dannfpr
Newbie
|
31. August 2013 @ 16:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
I need uncensored information. Leave it to the few to jeopardize freedom of speech. I personally opt out when it comes to voyeurism. But courtrooms/governments should play no role in the flow of information. We have seen only too well, throughout history, how that plays out.
|
Senior Member
|
31. August 2013 @ 16:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Bozobub:
I'll withhold judgment, until I know more about the actual contents of the site.
Why would they need to censor it if it is against the law? Just bust the site(s).
As to censorship I'd say thumbs down to that!
|
|
muzzybear
Newbie
|
31. August 2013 @ 17:31 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Why would they need to censor it if it is against the law? Just bust the site(s).
Damn right!
But you know what? There actually was a criminal investigation five years ago, but the prosecutor concluded he had no chance of winning because there wasn't evidence that could be used against me. So the case never reached the courtroom.
Normally this would mean I'm innocent since I haven't been found guilty, but that's not how the censorship system works. The police has become the judge, and people are now guilty until proven innocent.
|
Senior Member
|
1. September 2013 @ 00:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yup! Exactly!!
And then corruption steps in and all mayhem breaks loose.... :D
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
1. September 2013 @ 02:30 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by Bozobub:
I'll withhold judgment, until I know more about the actual contents of the site.
Why would they need to censor it if it is against the law? Just bust the site(s).
As to censorship I'd say thumbs down to that!
I meant this as, "People are judging this case without sufficient information; I'll refrain, for now, because I'm aware I don't know enough about the circumstances, either way."
If more people admitted when they have insufficient information, a lot of the world's problems would disappear, honestly.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
1. September 2013 @ 03:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
I understood what you were saying, and I don't know all the particulars in this situation other then knowing the reasons governments use to lie about taking away our freedoms which I believe applies here. It's always a good cause to screw us and most people fall for the BS and don't realize they screwed themselves until it is too late.
At any rate you can always talk about situations and how things should be handled based on those situations which just might apply to the article you are discussing as I've done here.
One also could argue that you'll almost never have all of the facts so you do your best to read between the lines, much like a GOOD reporter would do, we don't have many of those these days.
|
