The Pirate Bay has opened a blogging site, and is promising not to remove anything as long as it doesn't break Swedish laws. Baywords.com opened yesterday issuing secure hosting and freedom of speech to all. A posting from administrator brokep said: "Many blogs are being shut down for uncomfortable thoughts and ideas. We will …
The Swedish press ombudsman is trying to get blogs shut down for "abusing" free speech, so in this case I suspect the caveat about "swedish law" makes it likely that they won't be allowing people to have certain uncomfortable thoughts regarding, say, immigration - which would be hets mots folkgrupp, or "saying nasty things about a group of people", a criminal offence in Sweden that encompasses complaints about religion, ethnicity, sexual preference and just about anything else you can imagine and can be applied just for saying things like "I wouldn't let my daughter marry a gay man" - or... well, just about anything the establishment, as you might call it, didn't like to hear.
Great copyright laws, lousy speech laws. That's about the sum of it.
Whilst the idea and application of this is all good, what makes me sick to the stomach is that it is at all necessary.
The western world is supposed to have the freedom of speech. Every year some new law or precedent is set that erodes that little bit more.
A forum I frequent has now banned the naming of companies in case somebody utters a bad word and they get sued.
These freedoms should be a basic right - our forefathers fought for them and we are slowly losing them again to our own governments.
Mines the tin foil one.
Why is this news?
Someone's going to host a blog that you can post to if you don't break the law.
What's the news part of this? Isn't this, like, 99.99% of all blogs?
Is it that it's the Pirate Bay that's hosting it, that makes it news?
Down with the Government
Am I still allowed to say down with the .... humm what's that thwak thwak noise in the background.
It's news because
"Someone's going to host a blog that you can post to if you don't break the law.
What's the news part of this? Isn't this, like, 99.99% of all blogs?"
Some places will pull blogs that are critical of, ooo, I dunno, say, Scientology, at the drop of a Cease and Desist email. So long as criticising Scientology isn't against Swedish Law, Pirate Bay promise to ignore the Cease and Desists.
The problem here is when people use this for anonymous and unsubstantiated personal attacks on people. After a badly-broken relationship, for example.
Having said that, there's always the chance of interesting photos, so maybe it's a good idea!
I seem to remember that TPB were given a load of cash a few months ago by a far right politician. It will be interesting to see what the content of these "say what you like" blogs will be...
Freedom of speech my backside
I think most people grossly misunderstand the concept of "freedom of speech" and it's such a cliché to hear people complain about their freedom of speech being taken away when no such thing is happening.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak against the authorities (within reason) and not be arrested, harassed or persecuted by the authorities for doing so i.e. if you think the authorities are acting in a draconian or tyrannical manner, you are free to discuss how to ensure such authorities cannot be elected into power again without the threat of the police knocking on your door. Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say what you like, even if it incites hatred or violence e.g. Islamist preaching against Western governments are locked up as they incite hatred and violence whereas others who preach against Western governments who do not incite violence or hatred are "tolerated".
Similarly, freedom of speech also means you don't have to give a shit or even listen to what anybody else says, provided you accept whatever the consequences of such apathy are.
Always remember that freedom of any kind ALWAYS comes at a price - tolerance.
There is no "Freedom of Speech"
There is a long standing misconception that we have freedom of speech in the west. We don't, and never have had. Some countries have laws which limit interference with the press, but that is about as far as it goes in terms of freedom. Almost every country has laws covering 'incitement to violence', 'incitement to hatred', defamation, sedition etc., all of which could be considered to rely on a third parties subjective opinion as to what is, or is not, acceptable speech, and (as far as I know) Swedens laws are no better and no worse then any other country in this area.
I presume that what TPB intend, is to host blogs that will only be removed after a successful approch to Swedish courts, as apposed to the more usual "we will remove it just in case'.
Maybe you have it right in the UK, Mr. Lovell
but in the US - at least under the Constitution - freedom of speech is a wholly different right from freedom to speak against the authorities.
Freedom of speech refers to the prohibition against Congress (and state governments, under the 14th amendment) "abridging the freedom of speech."
Freedom of the press refers to the prohibition against Congress (and state governments, under the 14th amendment) "abridging the freedom ...of the press."
Freedom to yell at the authorities refers to the right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Freedom is about fairness
If incitement to violence is against the law, then every officer who rallies the troops is a criminal.
I would say that if after a speech someone commits an act of violence, then the words are not to blame - but rather the lack of freedom.
There are no caveats to freedom of speech, they are just words, and as long as the audience is not captive or harassed they are free not to listen. When the association of speech with a future act of violence laws came into place all of us gave up our freedom.
The detainment of someone for the words they spoke, is itself an act of violence, the hypocrisy of that position is just self evident.
Re: Freedom of speech my backside
Freedom of speech is EXACTLY the right to say whatever the fuck you want about anything and everything.
It doesn't mean that you're right, or that people have to like you for what you say.
It's not about being 'fair' or 'polite', it's about being able to say whatever the fuck you want and avoiding prosecution by the Thought Police.
I think this quote sums up my position on it:
"Freedom of speech is not a guideline or a suggestion. It is not the freedom to say things that don’t upset people—there’s no need for a constitutional amendment ensuring that. It is nothing less than the freedom to be arrogant, disrespectful assholes, or it isn’t anything at all."
( http://www.buffalobeast.com/93/LaughRiot.htm )
Indeed it is. The whole point of such freedom is to express your opinion on anything, even if it's offensive, misguided, or misinformed. By the same right, I can say what I think, even if it's offensive, etc.
The catch is however, that everyone else has the right to ignore you. I think that people should excercise *that* one a bit more than they do now.
@ Anon -2
I think you should punch your boss out.
And get a co-worker to Youtube and post the link.
Coz we need a laff on a Friday afternoon.
Good grief. Seems there isn't even agreement as to whether reasonable limitations apply to "free speech" or not. So does that make the term meaningless ?
Well, there's one obvious type of legal-but-bannable-everywhere blogs
Well, there's one class of blogs that aren't illegal, but that all the existing blogging sites will delete on sight - blogs where the auther admits he's a paedophille. Pro-sex with children posts tend to speed matters up, but aren't necessary - even bloggers who find the idea morally wring still get the boot. The way Blogger handleds it is particularly interesting, with the result that there's a whole ggroup of people who dedicate their time to getting blogs terminated and then thijacking the URL for their own fleet of identical anti-paedophile blogs.
|Oh, and the people who go after these blogs are interesting in and of themselves; for example, they believe that all gays are paedophiles.)
Let's have a look
I don't think this is such a big deal. Paul Smith (above) summed it up: "I presume that what TPB intend, is to host blogs that will only be removed after a successful approch to Swedish courts, as apposed to the more usual "we will remove it just in case'." Well, that is a good thing anyway.
So what are we going to see there? Well, let's have a look:
Hmmm, the word booring comes to mind, but doesn't quite go far enough. Hopefully after the first rush, or maybe with a bit more careful scrutiny than I've applied, there will be some gems.