Finnish Court OKs Censorship Of Anti-Censorship Site
from the 'stop-pointing-out-our-failures!' dept
Government entities are irony-proof, especially those most humorless of government entities -- the censors. Case in point: the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court has decided that the Finnish police did nothing wrong when it added an anti-censorship site to its blacklist.
Getting from point A to point Z is mildly tangled and somewhat humorous, especially from a distance (i.e. not being the site's owner). Here's what happened. In 2006, the Finnish government enacted legislation that added sites distributing child pornography to a national block list. All well and good, except that, as most censorship efforts do, it also blocked some sites not distributing child porn.
One Finnish citizen decided to track the sites which were being blocked illegally.
As the process of blocking the sites is done in secret and the list of blocked sites has never been officially made public, an individual, Matti Nikki, decided to create a site called lapsiporno.info (translates as child porn dot info) criticizing the secretive process and the fact that there's no way to make an official complaint about one's site being listed on such block list. He also hosted on his site a list of sites known to be on the list, but didn't contain any child porn material whatsoever.So, as government agencies do, it assumed a site with "child porn" in the name hosted child porn. It also looked at the URLs contained on Nikki's site, compared them with its own list, and decided he was linking to child porn. Bang. Onto the list he went.
Nikki sued the NBI (National Bureau of Investigation) for including his non-child-porn-hosting site on its block list. The first decision went his way, but not because he wasn't hosting illegal content.
[T]he Administrative Court of Helsinki ruled that inclusion of his site was illegal on the grounds that the block list was meant to block only sites hosted outside Finland (whereas Nikki's site was hosted and maintained in Finland).But the higher court stepped in and overruled that decision, using an amazing amount of terrible logic.
The court found that as Nikki listed the links to the sites that are known to be included in the censorship list, his site was aiding people to find them. It found that even the fact that Nikki's site contained material that was clearly legal (articles criticizing the censorship legislation), the interests of the children must come before freedom of speech. It also stated that if it were to rule Nikki's site legal on the grounds that it hosts legal material, other child porn sites could also circumvent the legislation by adding non-child porn material to their sites.That's how that works out. No one bothered to verify whether all the sites on NBI's list contained child porn -- it was just assumed they did and that Nikki's linking was illegal. Why? The second sentence explains it all.
"...the interests of children must come before freedom of speech…"A completely legal site, one that pointed out errors in the NBI's block list, was shut down for the children. Nice. And then the court went even further claiming that if it ruled in favor of Nikki, existing child porn sites could attempt to be taken off the block list simply by adding legal content. If that's the case, the block list is a complete sham. Either a site hosts child porn or it doesn't. If a site hosts child porn but adds an unrelated blog, it still hosts child porn. If that's the standard for the block list, enforce it.
A site that doesn't host child porn, but points to other sites being wrongfully censored, STILL DOESN'T HOST CHILD PORN. Enforce the rule. Don't contort the rule just to shut down a site that criticizes NBI's overblocking and then claim the censorship effort is in the "interest of children."
If you're against sloppy filtering efforts, you're for abusing kids. That's the message this sends.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-censorship, censorship, finland, internet
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Interests of Children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interests of Children
So you could go to the UN and demand that they to do something about it. Of course, the best the UN can probably do is write a strongly worded letter of condemnation toward the host country, and that's on a good day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interests of Children
Exploit some children, your website gets blocked in one country.
Gotta have priorities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interests of Children
(Finnish population/World population)*(% of Finnish population that are sick pedos)*(% of Finnish pedos who don't know how to use a web proxy) = ? (I'm guessing less than 100)
What they should do is redirect the IP addresses (verified, not using their current list) to a honeypot, so they can at least bust some pedos. It would probably be more effective than playing whack-a-mole with their blacklist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Interests of Children
They won't bust pedos because the pedos give them an excuse to do whatever they want and shout down any opposition by painting them as supporting child abuse, when in reality they're the ones supporting child abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The stupid! It burns!
The court seems to be forgetting the fact that, uh, Nikki's site doesn't host child porn in the first place, so I really, really find it hard to follow the leap in logic this Finnish Court is making.
Even better is that this site is STILL available to everyone who lives outside of Finland (or knows how to use a basic proxy). Seriously. If you're going to censor a site that's located within your borders, at least do it properly.
Don't just censor the site, shut the thing down completely! [sarcasm]It's endangering the children all over the world![/sarcasm]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The stupid! It burns!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what? Just make the rules clear. If the site contains child porn, it's blocked. Doesn't matter if the site contains 99.9% legal content with a special page just for the pervs - it still contains child porn no matter how much other content is added so the block is enforced.
If the site removes child porn, however, then it no longer contains child porn. Therefore, blocking it is unjustified and the block is removed. If the site then re-adds such material later, it's blocked again. Either your site contains child porn and is blocked regardless of what else is there, or it doesn't and remains unblocked. If this is clear, you can't circumvent the legislation. the only way to legally route round the block is to not host child porn.
Why is this so complicated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Relentless but sound logic: "his site was aiding people to find them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Relentless but sound logic: "his site was aiding people to find them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Relentless but sound logic: "his site was aiding people to find them."
"He also hosted on his site a list of sites known to be on the list, but didn't contain any child porn material whatsoever."
The sites he was trying to find people find were the ones not hosting any child porn. Do you see the problem yet?
"I guess one possible solution is to protest the censoring without naming the sites"
I'm somehow not surprised that you support placing the entire burden of proof onto the innocent wrongfully accused while making it as difficult as possible for them to make their problem known. "Oh you can protest, just don't name the victims whose situation you're protesting!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two-Valued Logic
Well, I guess, if it's a purely exclusive either/or choice...sorry kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't irony...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't irony...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goodbye due process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And in other news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Children?
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blind and stupid leading the stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The court likes children so much
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It found that even the fact that Nikki's site contained material that was clearly legal (articles criticizing the censorship legislation), the interests of the children must come before freedom of speech"
Fortunately, its not in the US.....yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trololol
I heard you like to block websites, so I linked blocked websites to your not-yet-blocked-no-CP-websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]