French Government Starts Blocking Websites With Views The Gov't Doesn't Like
from the liberte?-egalite? dept
We had been noting, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France, how the country that then held a giant "free speech" rally appeared to be, instead, focusing on cracking down on free speech at every opportunity. And target number one: the internet. Earlier this week, the Interior Minister of France -- with no court review or adversarial process -- ordered five websites to not only be blocked in France, but that anyone who visits any of the sites get redirected to a scary looking government website, saying:You are being redirected to this official website since your computer was about to connect with a page that provokes terrorist acts or condones terrorism publicly.
"I do not want to see sites that could lead people to take up arms on the Internet," Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said.Except... it already appears that France is really just censoring websites with messages it doesn't like. In that first batch was a site called "islamic-news.info." The owner of that site not only notes that he was never first contacted to "remove" whatever material was deemed terrorist supporting (as required by the law), but that nothing in what he had posted was supporting terrorism. He has written a public statement posted on the French news site Numerama, in which he makes it clear that he's a one-man operation, and that he's been doing everything based on a 50 euro/month hosting plan, and that he doesn't support ISIS or Al Qaeda at all. His site is opinionated, but mostly just against current Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. In fact, he notes that he specifically avoided topics that might be misinterpreted to suggest that he supported terrorists. He did not share ISIS propaganda or similar content. He even points out how he denounced a Syrian fighter who argued for attacks on Europe, saying that such things would reflect poorly on Muslims in Europe.
"I make a distinction between freedom of expression and the spread of messages that serve to glorify terrorism. These hate messages are a crime."
But, with no judicial review, no due process at all, the French government declared the site to be a terrorist supporter and now it's gone.
All that talk about France and free speech quickly fade into nothing. As Glenn Greenwald, at the Intercept, points out in response to all of this, blatant government censorship is far more damaging than terrorist attacks (while also noting that governments around the globe are moving in similar directions):
In sum, far more damage has been inflicted historically by efforts to censor and criminalize political ideas than by the kind of “terrorism” these governments are invoking to justify these censorship powers.France's "motto" is supposedly Liberté, égalité, fraternité. I have difficulty seeing how blatantly censoring websites you disagree with, without any sort of due process, fits with any of those three ideals.
And whatever else may be true, few things are more inimical to, or threatening of, Internet freedom than allowing functionaries inside governments to unilaterally block websites from functioning on the ground that the ideas those sites advocate are objectionable or “dangerous.” That’s every bit as true when the censors are in Paris, London, and Ottawa, and Washington as when they are in Tehran, Moscow or Beijing.
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: blocking, censorship, france, free speech, terrorism, websites
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
France fundamental belief: Not to be like and fight against ISIS.
The irony, if it wasn't so blatantly terrifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone tell him that you can have free speech, or you can block speech that you disagree with. You cannot have both, and by blocking the terrorist message you:
1) Make it more attractive to those who will be influenced by it.
2) You are doing the same as every totalitarian, including the terrorists, wants to do. That is trying to force your views and beliefs on other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the measurement the success rate in 'destroying the rights of people with the help of fearmongering governments' however, then yeah, terrorism has been insanely effective, scoring victories over entire countries, though for the most part that's been thanks to government action, rather than some piddly 'terrorists' blowing up a few bombs.
Governments love terrorism, as it gives them the excuse they need to grab as much power as they can, therefor it's in their best interests to hype it as much as possible, doing far more to strike fear into the public than some whackjobs with bombs could ever dream of doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I the only one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Am I the only one
But at least you now know how to use TOR, so it's not a total loss!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Am I the only one
In the video game industry, my complaint about most games that approach controversial subjects (rampage killings, extremist ideology, racist propaganda) is that they're invariably bad, and not a game that anyone would actually want to play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Am I the only one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Am I the only one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Humans have short memories.
~ Why we don't like power centralized to too few.
~ Why society has to favor critical thought over obedience.
~ Why human rights are extended to all people, foreign or domestic no how odious the such people might be.
~ Why free speech specifically includes speech we don't like, don't agree with or even find offensive.
Waiting to turn on the showers
And fire the ovens.
Waiting to follow the worms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Humans have short memories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then they came for the social websites, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a social website.
Then they came for the isp's, and I did not speak out—Because I was not an isp
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Equality: Everybody's rights will be trampled.
Fraternity: Publicly shouting racist chants since before SAE was even founded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Been there, done that...
We just need a political cartoon of the Interior Minister of France dressed as the Queen of Hearts, yelling "OFF WITH HIS WEBSITE!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rise of the guillotine was post enlightenment.
This is not to say that the window of death did not exist in various forms, but Guillotine's namesake came from his suggestion that it would be a more humane form of execution than hanging, that often resulted in a slow strangulation.
But the Reign of Terror was definitely post enlightenment yet before they were capable of setting up an edifice of human rights, such as free speech. Even Emperor Napoleon was challenged in that regard when the fiction of the Count de Sade was popular, yet disagreeable to gentler minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Been there, done that...
The censoring of extremism is a pan-european movement. It is no surprise when UK and France are leading that charge. Both have some pretty problematic minorities internally.
I would personally look at going the other way around and improve the information around the religious works instead of playing wack-a-mole. Extremism is easiest to fight by making moderate interpretations easier to acquire, not by trying to stop extremistic interpretations by secterianists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Been there, done that...
Actually the reverse could also work. Making extremist interpretations well known will drive people away from the whole ideology - reducing the pool of potential extremists.
Most extremists start as moderates - or are drawn into the ideology in the first place by moderates so fewer moderates is actually a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tis has happened far too many times in history to count. It is about controlling your population to conform to how you see things.
Somebody is setting themselves and their party up for dictatorial powers in the future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tis has happened far too many times in history to count. It is about controlling your population to conform to how you see things.
No it is always about being seen to be doing something. In our current style of democracy that is what politicians believe will work to keep them in power.
It is the only way to explain the grotesque interventions overseas - which cost many lives - supposedly in the cause of freedom, whilst at home freedoms are sacrificed - supposedly in the cause of saving lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of the Press?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom of the Press?
I imagine they would claim that no "legitimate" reporter would want to do so, thus making the reporter into a non-reporter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HTTPS all the things!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And just as I was about to post a comment ...
Hey, where did TechDirt go? Ce qui se passe?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quelle surprise!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coming to an Internet near you
Why else does every other paragraph of the so-called "net neutrality" regulations use the qualifier "lawful content"?
They are from the government and they are here to HELP you.
Unfortunately, every bit is not equal, and in this case: Neutral = Neutered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coming to an Internet near you
Ergo, "lawful" as a qualifier has its use. I'll grant you in the current clime, "unlawful content" creeps outward like kudzu, mostly to favor locking up intellectual property.
As Monroe noted, we are not angels, so some degree of government is necessary. But people in power like to believe they are angels, and so shield themselves from the very checks and balances that keep them in line.
And that is where government and regulation fails, not in its mere existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Coming to an Internet near you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use their weapons against them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because Anonymous and Lulsec are both voluntary services
They also need to set up the infrastructure that makes them untraceable. It takes time and work.
It's a good suggestion for them though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]