Editing material which originates in Iran, North Korea, Cuba and other nations with which most trade is banned without a government license may be illegal. It is interpreted as aiding the enemy. No corrections of spelling or grammar would be allowed under this interpretation, only use of camera ready copy. Theoretically correcting a spelling mistake by Osama ben Ladin would fall into this category of crime.
This potentially affects us as we can in the routine conduct of business, without even knowing, accept imput from these nations, from a user who simply appears to be an ordinary user.
One could interprete this to apply only to input the origin of which is clearly identified.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/national/28PUBL.html?th
New York Times login required
Fred
This doesn't apply to WP for 2 reasons: 1. WP authors give up all rights to the public domain. Once it is uploaded onto the WP servers it no longer is a work belonging to any one person. 2. Trade requires that the writer gets money or other tangible goods in exchange for services. WP is one way.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Fred Bauder Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 5:44 AM To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Trading with the Enemy
Editing material which originates in Iran, North Korea, Cuba and other nations with which most trade is banned without a government license may be illegal. It is interpreted as aiding the enemy. No corrections of spelling or grammar would be allowed under this interpretation, only use of camera ready copy. Theoretically correcting a spelling mistake by Osama ben Ladin would fall into this category of crime.
This potentially affects us as we can in the routine conduct of business, without even knowing, accept imput from these nations, from a user who simply appears to be an ordinary user.
One could interprete this to apply only to input the origin of which is clearly identified.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/national/28PUBL.html?th
New York Times login required
Fred
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The original author still has a copyright although it is licensed through the GNUFDL. Most material on Wikipedia is not in the public domain.
Fred
From: "David Speakman" david@speakman.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:05:16 -0800 To: "'English Wikipedia'" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Trading with the Enemy
- WP authors give up all rights to the public domain. Once it is
uploaded onto the WP servers it no longer is a work belonging to any one person.
David Speakman wrote:
- WP authors give up all rights to the public domain. Once it is
uploaded onto the WP servers it no longer is a work belonging to any one person.
This is not true. Where did you get that idea? You should probably study up on the differences between the GNU FDL and "public domain".
- Trade requires that the writer gets money or other tangible goods in
exchange for services. WP is one way.
That isn't what the story says. But if you're right, that's great, although it tempts me personally to find and pay an author in one of those countries $1 to contribute to Wikipedia, and then to edit it.
I'll ask Larry Lessig and Eugene Volokh (both 1st Amendment scholars) to comment on this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/national/28PUBL.html
I just assumed that Fred was joking or exaggerating about what this story says. But he's reporting it accurately.
I will say that we should cautious about believing all the quotes in the story. One of the scholars quoted suggests that this sort of editing "would constitute aiding and abetting the enemy". I very much doubt if that's accurate. I don't think that violating a trade embargo would lead to that sort of charge (treason) exactly.
As for me personally, I intend to just plain and simple ignore this as bureaucratic fantasy. I can't imagine this passing constitutional muster for even a second. I defy the government to bring a case against me or any of you or the Wikimedia Foundation over this. They'll look like complete idiots and be laughed out of court.
--Jimbo
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/national/28PUBL.html
I just assumed that Fred was joking or exaggerating about what this story says. But he's reporting it accurately.
Nyarly H. Hotep on a rubber raft. Does anybody have an Iranian article I can edit? I'm willing to stand up and be a test case if WikiMedia is willing to be my publisher.
Absolutely.
Sean Barrett wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/national/28PUBL.html
I just assumed that Fred was joking or exaggerating about what this story says. But he's reporting it accurately.
Nyarly H. Hotep on a rubber raft. Does anybody have an Iranian article I can edit? I'm willing to stand up and be a test case if WikiMedia is willing to be my publisher.
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 17:34, Sean Barrett wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/national/28PUBL.html
I just assumed that Fred was joking or exaggerating about what this story says. But he's reporting it accurately.
Nyarly H. Hotep on a rubber raft. Does anybody have an Iranian article I can edit? I'm willing to stand up and be a test case if WikiMedia is willing to be my publisher.
[[User:Roozbeh]] is editing from Iran, so...
At 05:43 PM 2/28/04 +0000, Abi wrote:
On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 17:34, Sean Barrett wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/national/28PUBL.html
I just assumed that Fred was joking or exaggerating about what this story says. But he's reporting it accurately.
Nyarly H. Hotep on a rubber raft. Does anybody have an Iranian article I can edit? I'm willing to stand up and be a test case if WikiMedia is willing to be my publisher.
[[User:Roozbeh]] is editing from Iran, so...
So I took a look. The article [[Majlis of Iran]] needed copyediting, so I've done so. I am a US citizen, resident within the United States. (I thought Roozbeh had created it, but the creation was from an IP address which my handy converter can't resolve but that traceroute gets me to a comcast machine on.
I'll keep looking.
At 03:59 PM 2/28/04 -0500, I wrote:
At 05:43 PM 2/28/04 +0000, Abi wrote:
On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 17:34, Sean Barrett wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/national/28PUBL.html
I just assumed that Fred was joking or exaggerating about what this story says. But he's reporting it accurately.
Nyarly H. Hotep on a rubber raft. Does anybody have an Iranian article I can edit? I'm willing to stand up and be a test case if WikiMedia is willing to be my publisher.
[[User:Roozbeh]] is editing from Iran, so...
So I took a look. The article [[Majlis of Iran]] needed copyediting, so I've done so. I am a US citizen, resident within the United States. (I thought Roozbeh had created it, but the creation was from an IP address which my handy converter can't resolve but that traceroute gets me to a comcast machine on.
I'll keep looking.
Looking a little further, the article [[Yas-e-no]] was created by Roosbeh. The edit history now has two additional edits by Roosbeh, and one by me.
Vicki
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
At 03:59 PM 2/28/04 -0500, I wrote:
At 05:43 PM 2/28/04 +0000, Abi wrote:
On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 17:34, Sean Barrett wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/national/28PUBL.html
I just assumed that Fred was joking or exaggerating about what this story says. But he's reporting it accurately.
Nyarly H. Hotep on a rubber raft. Does anybody have an Iranian article I can edit? I'm willing to stand up and be a test case if WikiMedia is willing to be my publisher.
[[User:Roozbeh]] is editing from Iran, so...
So I took a look. The article [[Majlis of Iran]] needed copyediting, so I've done so. I am a US citizen, resident within the United States. (I thought Roozbeh had created it, but the creation was from an IP address which my handy converter can't resolve but that traceroute gets me to a comcast machine on.
I'll keep looking.
Looking a little further, the article [[Yas-e-no]] was created by Roosbeh. The edit history now has two additional edits by Roosbeh, and one by me.
Vicki
Vicki - I support you whole-heartedly,
Caroline / Secretlondon
Jimmy Wales wrote:
As for me personally, I intend to just plain and simple ignore this as bureaucratic fantasy. I can't imagine this passing constitutional muster for even a second. I defy the government to bring a case against me or any of you or the Wikimedia Foundation over this. They'll look like complete idiots and be laughed out of court.
I agree, we should just ignore it. Even the NYTimes article says "in theory---and almost certainly only in theory", so this is unlikely to be prosecuted. So while I admire people's willingness to offer themselves as test cases, I don't see it as very likely that you're going to convince the US government to sue you, so we might as well just ignore it.
-Mark
Fred Bauder wrote:
Editing material which originates in Iran, North Korea, Cuba and other nations with which most trade is banned without a government license may be illegal. It is interpreted as aiding the enemy. No corrections of spelling or grammar would be allowed under this interpretation, only use of camera ready copy. Theoretically correcting a spelling mistake by Osama ben Ladin would fall into this category of crime.
Is this a suggestion that the servers should be moved to a free country?
This potentially affects us as we can in the routine conduct of business, without even knowing, accept imput from these nations, from a user who simply appears to be an ordinary user.
It would seem absolutely unwiki to discriminate against an individual because of his national origin. The attitude of the U.S. regime against his government has nothing to do with how we treat individuals from that country. The flip side of your argument would have all of us outside of the United States treat every American individual as though he were an unqualified supporter of Bush and his cronies. I could not in good conscience treat every American that I meet in that way, and you woulkd do well not to treat individual Iranians, North Koreans or Cubans in that way.
That being said, I know of no contributors to the Wikimedia family who are from those countries, so the argument may be moot.
One could interprete this to apply only to input the origin of which is clearly identified.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/national/28PUBL.html?th
New York Times login required
I have no intention of using the NYT login system.
Ec
Where would you suggest? In France, it's illegal to criticize the government. In Germany, it's illegal to display Nazi memorabilia. In the UK there's the Official Secrets Act to deal with.
RickK
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: Is this a suggestion that the servers should be moved to a free country?
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
Rick a écrit:
Where would you suggest? In France, it's illegal to criticize the government. In Germany, it's illegal to display Nazi memorabilia. In the UK there's the Official Secrets Act to deal with.
RickK
May I *seriously* suggest that you consider avoiding libel and comments that might anger your peers RickK ?
Anthere wrote:
Rick a écrit:
Where would you suggest? In France, it's illegal to criticize the government. In Germany, it's illegal to display Nazi memorabilia. In the UK there's the Official Secrets Act to deal with.
RickK
May I *seriously* suggest that you consider avoiding libel and comments that might anger your peers RickK ?
Well, according to the World Press Freedom Committee's document "Insult Laws: A Insult to Press Freedom" (http://www.wpfc.org/site/docs/pdf/Publications/Insult%20Laws-An%20Insult%20t...):
"...the primary form of this crime became known as 'insult to the president of the republic,' whose classic form was set in the French press law of 1881. It remains the basic press legislation in France today. The 1881 law also carries serious penalties for insulting foreign chiefs of state, foreign ministers or ambassadors of friendly countries, and official bodies like parliament, the judiciary, and armed forces... Similar provisions are on the books in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Spain."
The report goes on to note that the French law was last actually used under Charles de Gaulle in the 1960s, when a spectator was arrested for crying out "hoo hoo" at him. More recently the Sun was threatened with a lawsuit for insulting Chirac, though this never materialized.
The report also notes that the French law has served as an example for many laws in other countries, especially less-developed countries, and especially former French colonies, that *are* enforced, and those countries defend their law under "well, France has such laws, so why shouldn't we?"
So "illegal to criticize" is going too far, but it's not entirely without basis either.
-Mark
Delirium a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Rick a écrit:
Where would you suggest? In France, it's illegal to criticize the government. In Germany, it's illegal to display Nazi memorabilia. In the UK there's the Official Secrets Act to deal with.
RickK
May I *seriously* suggest that you consider avoiding libel and comments that might anger your peers RickK ?
Well, according to the World Press Freedom Committee's document "Insult Laws: A Insult to Press Freedom" (http://www.wpfc.org/site/docs/pdf/Publications/Insult%20Laws-An%20Insult%20t...):
"...the primary form of this crime became known as 'insult to the president of the republic,' whose classic form was set in the French press law of 1881. It remains the basic press legislation in France today. The 1881 law also carries serious penalties for insulting foreign chiefs of state, foreign ministers or ambassadors of friendly countries, and official bodies like parliament, the judiciary, and armed forces... Similar provisions are on the books in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Spain."
The report goes on to note that the French law was last actually used under Charles de Gaulle in the 1960s, when a spectator was arrested for crying out "hoo hoo" at him. More recently the Sun was threatened with a lawsuit for insulting Chirac, though this never materialized.
The report also notes that the French law has served as an example for many laws in other countries, especially less-developed countries, and especially former French colonies, that *are* enforced, and those countries defend their law under "well, France has such laws, so why shouldn't we?"
So "illegal to criticize" is going too far, but it's not entirely without basis either.
-Mark
So...wait a minute here...
If I understand well...
There is a law that says it is illegal to criticize the french governement
That law was used only *once* in 125 years.
It was exactly *44* years ago
And *we* should be considered responsible that freedom of speech is *not* respected in *other* countries, because other countries took example on us ?
And *that* would be an argument to claim France does not respect freedom of speech and should not host Wikipedia ?
And *this* is not meant to be insulting ?
Please, consider this very carefully
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/france.ht... http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/usa.htm
Compare http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/israel-is...
And consider http://www.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/guantanamo/index.html
Anthere wrote:
So...wait a minute here...
If I understand well...
There is a law that says it is illegal to criticize the french governement
That law was used only *once* in 125 years.
It was exactly *44* years ago
And *we* should be considered responsible that freedom of speech is *not* respected in *other* countries, because other countries took example on us ?
And *that* would be an argument to claim France does not respect freedom of speech and should not host Wikipedia ?
And *this* is not meant to be insulting ?
Please, consider this very carefully
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/france.ht m
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/usa.htm
Compare
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/israel-is raeliadmin.htm
And consider http://www.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/guantanamo/index.html
I believe recent discussion (ie, the posts starting this thread) pointed out that the US is very far from perfect on these matters. Just because people are pointing out that France has some very nasty laws doesn't somehow make the US legal code's flaws go away. And a statement isn't libel if it's true. Frankly, if you don't want repressive laws on information and free discourse, you're limited to places like Sealand.
-- Jake
Jake Nelson wrote:
I believe recent discussion (ie, the posts starting this thread) pointed out that the US is very far from perfect on these matters. Just because people are pointing out that France has some very nasty laws doesn't somehow make the US legal code's flaws go away. And a statement isn't libel if it's true. Frankly, if you don't want repressive laws on information and free discourse, you're limited to places like Sealand.
The problem is not just the flaws in the U.S. system, but that the United States actively promotes itself as the archetype of democratic virtue. Those of us who are outside of the United States do not see the President of the United States as the leader of the "free world"; we see him only as the leader of those countries in the free world where the majority voted for him.
Citizens of other countries resent the dictatorship of a foreign tyrant far more than that of a home-grown tyrant.
A little humility goes a long way.
Ec
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:10:27 UTC, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Those of us who are outside of the United States do not see the President of the United States as the leader of the "free world"; we see him only as the leader of those countries in the free world where the majority voted for him.
Not to get political or anything, but Which are those? There's only one country where the majority could have voted for him, and it didn't. Where does that leave us?
Dan Drake wrote:
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:10:27 UTC, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Those of us who are outside of the United States do not see the President of the United States as the leader of the "free world"; we see him only as the leader of those countries in the free world where the majority voted for him.
Not to get political or anything, but Which are those? There's only one country where the majority could have voted for him, and it didn't. Where does that leave us?
Down a rabbit hole? :-)
Ec
It's very simple : If I write "Jacques Chirac est un .....bip..." it's an insult, it's illegal. If I write "Jacques Chirac est le président le plus nul que la France a connu, sa politique est débile." it's a critic, it's legal. Insulting anyone is illegal in France, for instance. If I write "Anthere est une ...bip..." she can sue me. The penalty is just worse for the President (and not for the whole governement). This law is never applied since Valery Giscard d'Estaing promised not sdue anyone. I don't think any President will go back as long as France remains a democracy. Thus if you want to insult someone in France insult the President it's less risky than insulting anyone else.
Eric Demolli
----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthere" anthere8@yahoo.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 4:20 AM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Trading with the Enemy
Delirium a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Rick a écrit:
Where would you suggest? In France, it's illegal to criticize the government. In Germany, it's illegal to display Nazi memorabilia. In the UK there's the Official Secrets Act to deal with.
RickK
May I *seriously* suggest that you consider avoiding libel and comments that might anger your peers RickK ?
Well, according to the World Press Freedom Committee's document "Insult Laws: A Insult to Press Freedom"
(http://www.wpfc.org/site/docs/pdf/Publications/Insult%20Laws-An%20Insult%20 to%20Press%20Freedom-1996%20booklet.pdf):
"...the primary form of this crime became known as 'insult to the president of the republic,' whose classic form was set in the French press law of 1881. It remains the basic press legislation in France today. The 1881 law also carries serious penalties for insulting foreign chiefs of state, foreign ministers or ambassadors of friendly countries, and official bodies like parliament, the judiciary, and armed forces... Similar provisions are on the books in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Spain."
The report goes on to note that the French law was last actually used under Charles de Gaulle in the 1960s, when a spectator was arrested for crying out "hoo hoo" at him. More recently the Sun was threatened with a lawsuit for insulting Chirac, though this never materialized.
The report also notes that the French law has served as an example for many laws in other countries, especially less-developed countries, and especially former French colonies, that *are* enforced, and those countries defend their law under "well, France has such laws, so why shouldn't we?"
So "illegal to criticize" is going too far, but it's not entirely without basis either.
-Mark
So...wait a minute here...
If I understand well...
There is a law that says it is illegal to criticize the french governement
That law was used only *once* in 125 years.
It was exactly *44* years ago
And *we* should be considered responsible that freedom of speech is *not* respected in *other* countries, because other countries took example on us ?
And *that* would be an argument to claim France does not respect freedom of speech and should not host Wikipedia ?
And *this* is not meant to be insulting ?
Please, consider this very carefully
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/france.ht...
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/usa.htm
Compare
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/israel-is...
And consider http://www.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/guantanamo/index.html
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thank you Erik for giving a very good laugh today :-)
ant
Eric Demolli a écrit:
It's very simple : If I write "Jacques Chirac est un .....bip..." it's an insult, it's illegal. If I write "Jacques Chirac est le président le plus nul que la France a connu, sa politique est débile." it's a critic, it's legal. Insulting anyone is illegal in France, for instance. If I write "Anthere est une ...bip..." she can sue me. The penalty is just worse for the President (and not for the whole governement). This law is never applied since Valery Giscard d'Estaing promised not sdue anyone. I don't think any President will go back as long as France remains a democracy. Thus if you want to insult someone in France insult the President it's less risky than insulting anyone else.
Eric Demolli
Delirium wrote:
More recently the Sun was threatened with a lawsuit for insulting Chirac, though this never materialized.
In the interests of corrected a misperception which I inadvertantly fell into the other day, is it actually true that the Sun was "threatened with" such a lawsuit? Or is it merely that observers (at the Guardian, for example) noted that such was a theoretical possibility?
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,900093,00.html
--Jimbo
I spent a good while looking for a reference that would support the claim the government threatened the sun of the 45000 euros fine.
In french, the number of references I found is laughable. In short, the topic is not mentionned but by a couple of blog and forum. French just do not know of that law, which is a good measure of how refrained in their freedom of speech they feel. Also, some discussions mentionning the law and the fine, indicated that some people thought The Sun attack was a two level construction First : insulting the president very badly Second : spreading the word this is illegal to do so, hence that no freedom of speech is allowed in France.
I may be wrong, but I suspect that if the Elysées porte parole had only even "mentionned" the law in a private dinner at her sister house, that would have been reported everywhere immediately, with quotation, the food that was in her plate, and the dress she was wearing that evening. I found no such thing. I tend to believe that if any official had said such a thing on behalf of the government, that would have made enough noise, so that such an information would be very easily found even now. I don't think France bashers would have missed such a delicacy :-)
Actually, what I found is many english reports saying "the Sun could be fined 45000 under a french law".
The most frequent report is this one "The tabloid's controversial stance breaks a French law that makes it a criminal offence to insult the president. Breaking the law carries a fine up 45,000 euros."
Most reports seemed to be copies of this one (from Jimbo reference).
You could note that there is absolutely no indication of the name of any french official who would have reminded Murdoch of that law. Nor of any date or event when that happened.
So, again, I may be wrong...and will recognise I am if anyone can find a reference of a french government porte parole either * threatening to sue the Sun or * actually announcing the french governemnt is suing the Sun.
But I think the current accusations carried by RickK are not very far from libel. As they do not stand on any reality. It is certainly true that there is a theoretical possibility that french people could be restrained in their liberty of speech since that law exists, but in practice, there is no fact proving that our governemnt is actively limiting or even thinking of limiting our freedom.
This said, I hope I use the right words.
-------
As for what angered me RickK, I can't believe you are so insensitive as not to see that free and undeserved nation bashing is bound to anger their inhabitants. I will consider that you were just not realising :-)
--------
Jimmy Wales a écrit:
Delirium wrote:
More recently the Sun was threatened with a lawsuit for insulting Chirac, though this never materialized.
In the interests of corrected a misperception which I inadvertantly fell into the other day, is it actually true that the Sun was "threatened with" such a lawsuit? Or is it merely that observers (at the Guardian, for example) noted that such was a theoretical possibility?
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,900093,00.html
--Jimbo
Anthere wrote:
I spent a good while looking for a reference that would support the claim the government threatened the sun of the 45000 euros fine.
In french, the number of references I found is laughable. In short, the topic is not mentionned but by a couple of blog and forum. French just do not know of that law, which is a good measure of how refrained in their freedom of speech they feel. Also, some discussions mentionning the law and the fine, indicated that some people thought The Sun attack was a two level construction First : insulting the president very badly Second : spreading the word this is illegal to do so, hence that no freedom of speech is allowed in France.
That sounds likely, in light of some further reading. It seems that the Sun were both trying to insult the President, and also trying to get themselves sued for it, which would've been very good for their public relations most likely. In fact, after they didn't get sued for the "Chirac is a worm" one, they tried an even more outrageous story in which they caricatured Chirac as Saddam Hussein's prostitute, and their accompanying text seems similarly goading: "Last month we accused Chirac of behaving like a worm. Today we say to the people of France: we did not go far enough. Your president is not just a worm. He has behaved like a Paris harlot." (http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,918987,00.html).
Which all makes it somewhat odd that the law still exists. If it's not going to be enforced even in such egregious cases as this, why not just repeal it?
-Mark
Delirium a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
I spent a good while looking for a reference that would support the claim the government threatened the sun of the 45000 euros fine.
In french, the number of references I found is laughable. In short, the topic is not mentionned but by a couple of blog and forum. French just do not know of that law, which is a good measure of how refrained in their freedom of speech they feel. Also, some discussions mentionning the law and the fine, indicated that some people thought The Sun attack was a two level construction First : insulting the president very badly Second : spreading the word this is illegal to do so, hence that no freedom of speech is allowed in France.
That sounds likely, in light of some further reading. It seems that the Sun were both trying to insult the President, and also trying to get themselves sued for it, which would've been very good for their public relations most likely. In fact, after they didn't get sued for the "Chirac is a worm" one, they tried an even more outrageous story in which they caricatured Chirac as Saddam Hussein's prostitute, and their accompanying text seems similarly goading: "Last month we accused Chirac of behaving like a worm. Today we say to the people of France: we did not go far enough. Your president is not just a worm. He has behaved like a Paris harlot." (http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,918987,00.html).
I would dare to compare the Sun to some of our vandals. If we are inclusionists, we tolerate their existence, however problematic they might be (ie, we try to bear our vandal existence) If not inclusionists, we try to have that tabloid close its business by repeated huge fines (ie, we try to have the committee ban them)
Either way, none of this is a threat to freedom of speech.
Ihmo
Which all makes it somewhat odd that the law still exists. If it's not going to be enforced even in such egregious cases as this, why not just repeal it?
-Mark
I guess when you are an old country, you have old laws. It is not entirely impossible some of them are as old as begining of the XIXth century. And rather than to discuss them, and spent time on them, you just stop referring to them and stop using them. They are just forgotten.
Meaningfull would be to see more exactly the context in which that law was voted. If it was created and voted, there probably was an event that explained it. I am no historian.
Anthere wrote:
And rather than to discuss them, and spent time on them, you just stop referring to them and stop using them. They are just forgotten.
The problem is that laws restricting the freedom of speech in France are not all forgotten, but are prosecuted with some regularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Bardot
--Jimbo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jimmy Wales wrote: | Anthere wrote: | |>And rather than to discuss them, and spent time on them, you just stop |>referring to them and stop using them. They are just forgotten. | | | The problem is that laws restricting the freedom of speech in France | are not all forgotten, but are prosecuted with some regularity. | | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Bardot | | --Jimbo
That was a civil lawsuit. If I call you a child molestor, or call someone a ni**** here, and it causes emotional harm or constitutes libel, they can most definately sue me. I doubt there's any democracy where that isn't the case.
On the other hand, you're unlikely to get sued here for holding a KKK parade or whatever, but that's more a matter of what the judicial standards are. Someone could certainly try to sue every pro-life demonstrator, etc, in their town, but I doubt they'd get far.
Nathan
I read that whole article very carefully Jimbo, and I failed to see where it is mentionned that the governement was preventing Brigitte Bardot to speak up :-)
However, I saw that some organisations (which are not the governement) were suing Brigitte Bardot for her opinions. How does that mean that the governement is not respecting people freedom of speech ?
Also, do you mean that *preventing* these organisations to complain about Brigitte Bardot opinions, would be the best way to insure freedom of speech is guaranteed ? Whose freedom of speech and opinion are we talking about ? * Brigitte right to speak ? * or the organisations right to complain ?
I also note that though legal proceedings are mentionned in the article, no conclusions are given about them. So, that does not mean Brigitte will be put in jail with tape on the mouth.
I also noticed that regardless of the feedback I offered with regards to the nearly libelous accusations against my government, not only did you choose not to recognise there hasn't been any accusation made by my governement against the Sun, but that on top of it, you choose to redirect accusations toward independant organisations.
I have the unconfortable feeling that whatever facts I will bring to your attention, you will not be very motivated to consider it. Still, let me provide you a last reference.
Currently, Wikipedia mentions this article
http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=4116
That is the "first worldwide press freedom index"
Exactly the topic we are currently discussing I guess
Here is the top ranking
Rank Country Note 1 Finland 0,50 - 2 Iceland 0,50 - 3 Norway 0,50 - 4 Netherlands 0,50 5 Canada 0,75 6 Ireland 1,00 7 Germany 1,50 8 Portugal 1,50 9 Sweden 1,50 10 Denmark 3,00 11 France 3,25 12 Australia 3,50 - 13 Belgium 3,50 14 Slovenia 4,00 15 Costa Rica 4,25 - 16 Switzerland 4,25 17 United States 4,75 18 Hong Kong 4,83 19 Greece 5,00 20 Ecuador 5,50 21 Benin 6,00 - 22 United Kingdom 6,00
My best Ant
Jimmy Wales a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
And rather than to discuss them, and spent time on them, you just stop referring to them and stop using them. They are just forgotten.
The problem is that laws restricting the freedom of speech in France are not all forgotten, but are prosecuted with some regularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Bardot
--Jimbo
And yes, that was my last comment on the matter. Already a year old discussion, clearly going no where. That is unfortunate. I will try not to bug anyone anymore on this :-)
I am seriously asking what is wrong with what I posted here. Please explain what I said that angered you, and what is libelous?
RickK
Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com wrote:
Rick a �crit:
Where would you suggest? In France, it's illegal to criticize the government. In Germany, it's illegal to display Nazi memorabilia. In the UK there's the Official Secrets Act to deal with.
RickK
May I *seriously* suggest that you consider avoiding libel and comments that might anger your peers RickK ?
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
I am seriously asking what is wrong with what I posted here. Please
explain what I said that angered you, and what is libelous?
RickK
If RickK knows what he is talking about more than 50% of the time, I'm a Dutchman. I just hope the trade in cheap cracks continues to be one-way and West-to-East across the Atlantic.
Charles
Look. Somebody made a crack that the United States is "undemocratic". I responded with a completely truthful post. There is absolutely nothing in what I said that was libelous, nor even incorrect. It's common practice on Wikipedia to make attacks on the United States, but it's unacceptable when Americans (yes, that's the term) respond with anything other than a cowering "yes, we're evil."
RickK
Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I am seriously asking what is wrong with what I posted here. Please
explain what I said that angered you, and what is libelous?
RickK
If RickK knows what he is talking about more than 50% of the time, I'm a Dutchman. I just hope the trade in cheap cracks continues to be one-way and West-to-East across the Atlantic.
Charles
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
Look. Somebody made a crack that the United States is "undemocratic". I
responded with a completely truthful post. There is absolutely nothing in what I said that was libelous, nor even incorrect. It's common practice on Wikipedia to make attacks on the United States, but it's unacceptable when Americans (yes, that's the term) respond with anything other than a cowering "yes, we're evil."
RickK
I didn't say anything there was libelous, or incorrect. My word was 'cheap'. I'm in the UK, we have an Official Secrets Act. Anthere disputes your claim on the 'illegality' of criticising the French government (we have had another ill-informed post on that). I'll leave aside what you said on Germany, for reasons well known in Usenet discussions.
These are _not_ the knock-down arguments you seem to think they are. They seem more like a blind need to hit back with anything at hand.
I have had the advantage of having worked in the USA for a year. Can I just make one point? Wikipedia is not, actually, about American national identity.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
I didn't say anything there was libelous, or incorrect. My word was 'cheap'. I'm in the UK, we have an Official Secrets Act. Anthere disputes your claim on the 'illegality' of criticising the French government (we have had another ill-informed post on that). I'll leave aside what you said on Germany, for reasons well known in Usenet discussions.
These are _not_ the knock-down arguments you seem to think they are. They seem more like a blind need to hit back with anything at hand.
I have had the advantage of having worked in the USA for a year. Can I just make one point? Wikipedia is not, actually, about American national identity.
I don't care all that much one way or the other, personally, but I think the main point was that if we're going to suggest that the servers need to be moved out of the US because of a theoretical possibility of legal troubles over copyediting Iranian posts, then we need to be concerned about all sorts of other theoretical possibilities in other countries, including Official Secrets Acts, laws about insulting presidents, and so on.
In reality, we probably don't need to worry about any of these.
-Mark
Delirium wrote
I don't care all that much one way or the other, personally, but I think the main point was that if we're going to suggest that the servers need to be moved out of the US because of a theoretical possibility of legal troubles over copyediting Iranian posts, then we need to be concerned about all sorts of other theoretical possibilities in other countries, including Official Secrets Acts, laws about insulting presidents, and so
on.
The comments by RickK were aimed at supposed restrictions on freedom of speech, or freedom of publication, or whatever. It is a more than theoretical possibility that web sites based anywhere might have *some* restriction on content based on the laws of the land. But why is this is considered an argument? Locating servers that were theoretically subject to the UK's Official Secrets Act, which is a 'non-freedom of information' measure, might well be better than locating them in a USA where a wiki might theoretically might have to self-police to avoid any 'trading with the enemy' under the wide definition. After all, those posting official secrets to a web site probably know damn well they are doing that; while someone innocently editing a page that happened to be written by an Iranian gets 'criminalised' unwittingly.
Charles
Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com writes:
Rick a écrit:
Where would you suggest? In France, it's illegal to criticize the government. In Germany, it's illegal to display Nazi memorabilia. In the UK there's the Official Secrets Act to deal with.
I am seriously asking what is wrong with what I posted here. Please explain what I said that angered you, and what is libelous?
Well, you seem pretty ignorant of the scope of the Official Secrets Act for a start. Let me quote Section I for the gist:
1. (1) A person who is or has been? (a) a member of the security and intelligence services; or (b) a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection, is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information, document or other article relating to security or intelligence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as a member of any of those services
So (i) It applies to employees of the government (ii) Its about prevent the dissemination of classified information
Its applicability to wikipedia is precisely nil, unless you have reason to believe British security personnel are posting classified information.
Do the laws that convicted [[Robert Hanssen]] impinge on wikipedia's operation?
I believe in chutzpah, so I will suggest the People's Republic of China! By latest reports our Chinese contributors have been having free access. Imagine! Our 5th special 2008 Olympic Edition being issued from Baijing as evidence that there is free speech in China.. :-) :-)
Ec
Rick wrote:
Where would you suggest? In France, it's illegal to criticize the government. In Germany, it's illegal to display Nazi memorabilia. In the UK there's the Official Secrets Act to deal with.
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Is this a suggestion that the servers should be moved to a free country?
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/national/28PUBL.html?th
New York Times login required
I have no intention of using the NYT login system.
I have never used the NYT login system either -- except when someone on Slashdot would post usernames & passwords for all to use like "cypherpunk/cypherpunk". (And no, this account no longer works.)
But I discovered 6 months ago anything worth reading on the NYT website could be accessed thru http://news.google.com. Just plug in the likely keyword for Google to search, & you can privately read the article.
Geoff