Tim Starling wrote:
According to ru.wp Arbcom member DR, the danger to Wikipedia was overstated, and the text of the proposed law was misrepresented.
I think that the interpretation to the bill given by DR is incorrect. In fact the proposed bill was not only about child pornography and extremism, but also about drugs and, about “information, prompting children to commit actions, making threat to their life and health”. That was a very loose clause, that could ban virtually anything. After the blackout this clause was removed from the bill and it is a clear achievement of the strike. On the other hand the final version of the bill contains another clause, that is even more hazardous to us. It is about “information of methods of producing and use of narcotic substances, … of methods and places of cultivation of narcotic plants”. We do have information of drug synthesis on Wikipedia, ways of its use (e.g. marijuana) and we do have thorough instructions of marijuana cultivation on wikibooks. That is why our achievements are ambiguous. On the one hand we have a removal of a loose clause about information harmful to children, but on the otherwe now have another clause that is even more dangerous. That is why we are still trying to do what we can via our contacts within the authorities to revise the passed bill.
But that is not all. The most important issue is extremism. According to the bill, the materials, that are banned for distribution in Russia should be included to the register of banned information on the ground of the court decision, banning the distribution of that information in Russia. We already have such court decisions and a list of extremist materials, distribution of which is prohibited in Russia. That list contains some really nasty materials, as e.g. nazi propaganda, but also Islamic texts (including those of famous non-terrorist Islamic authors e.g. Said Nursî), Saentologist, Jehova’s witnesses , Falun Gong, letters and materials of opposition in Russia, works of contemporary art, etc.
We *do have* banned extremist materials in Wikipedia. E.g. this image:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%... искусства.jpeg
is considered extremist and is banned for distribution in Russia. (Hopefully it was uploaded two years before it was regulated as banned by the court).
This letter in wikisource is also considered extremist:
http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BC,_%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE_%...
This is enough for banning the IPs of Wikimedia projects in Russia. And I am really afraid of this.
I guess DR is aware of discussion on this list, but anyway I will inform him of it. Maybe he has something to add.
According to Levg in his Arbcom application, again via Google Translate, "It should be noted that there are no objective reasons for such a 'sprint survey' did not exist, to discuss the bill on second reading has been known since at least last Friday."
That is our fault that we could not manage to get the information in time. The first hearing was on Friday, but the community and myself got to know about the problem only on Monday, 9th. What for me personally I haven’t read the news on the weekend (yes, it is bad, that I relaxed on the weekend and haven’t read the news), and I failed to get to know about the problem in time. I guess it is also true for others. If we start to organize on Friday, the result would be better. It is a fault, but anyway it was not a deliberate fault, as nobody has informed the community earlier.
But that is not all. The most important issue is extremism. According to the bill, the materials, that are banned for distribution in Russia should be included to the register of banned information on the ground of the court decision, banning the distribution of that information in Russia. We already have such court decisions and a list of extremist materials, distribution of which is prohibited in Russia. That list contains some really nasty materials, as e.g. nazi propaganda, but also Islamic texts (including those of famous non-terrorist Islamic authors e.g. Said Nursî), Saentologist, Jehovaâs witnesses , Falun Gong, letters and materials of opposition in Russia, works of contemporary art, etc.
"letters and materials of opposition in Russia" That is the issue. It's Russian McCarthyism.
Fred
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
But that is not all. The most important issue is extremism. According to the bill, the materials, that are banned for distribution in Russia should be included to the register of banned information on the ground of the court decision, banning the distribution of that information in Russia. We already have such court decisions and a list of extremist materials, distribution of which is prohibited in Russia. That list contains some really nasty materials, as e.g. nazi propaganda, but also Islamic texts (including those of famous non-terrorist Islamic authors e.g. Said Nursî), Saentologist, Jehova’s witnesses , Falun Gong, letters and materials of opposition in Russia, works of contemporary art, etc.
"letters and materials of opposition in Russia" That is the issue. It's Russian McCarthyism.
AFAIK, Huxley's Brave New World, as well, because it "promotes drug usage".
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
But that is not all. The most important issue is extremism. According to the bill, the materials, that are banned for distribution in Russia should be included to the register of banned information on the ground of the court decision, banning the distribution of that information in Russia. We already have such court decisions and a list of extremist materials, distribution of which is prohibited in Russia. That list contains some really nasty materials, as e.g. nazi propaganda, but also Islamic texts (including those of famous non-terrorist Islamic authors e.g. Said Nursî), Saentologist, Jehovaâs witnesses , Falun Gong, letters and materials of opposition in Russia, works of contemporary art, etc.
"letters and materials of opposition in Russia" That is the issue. It's Russian McCarthyism.
AFAIK, Huxley's Brave New World, as well, because it "promotes drug usage".
There are limits. For example, I am aware of a technique for tattooing the whites of your eyes. I'm afraid I have self-censored with respect to that matter; there is enough evil nonsense already; idiots can put their tongues on frozen lamp posts...
Fred
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
But that is not all. The most important issue is extremism. According to the bill, the materials, that are banned for distribution in Russia should be included to the register of banned information on the ground of the court decision, banning the distribution of that information in Russia. We already have such court decisions and a list of extremist materials, distribution of which is prohibited in Russia. That list contains some really nasty materials, as e.g. nazi propaganda, but also Islamic texts (including those of famous non-terrorist Islamic authors e.g. Said Nursî), Saentologist, Jehova’s witnesses , Falun Gong, letters and materials of opposition in Russia, works of contemporary art, etc.
"letters and materials of opposition in Russia" That is the issue. It's Russian McCarthyism.
AFAIK, Huxley's Brave New World, as well, because it "promotes drug usage".
There are limits. For example, I am aware of a technique for tattooing the whites of your eyes. I'm afraid I have self-censored with respect to that matter; there is enough evil nonsense already; idiots can put their tongues on frozen lamp posts...
Fred
Well, the new law is now being considered for application to block YouTube in Russia. Make of that, what you will.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19648808
Well, the new law is now being considered for application to block YouTube in Russia. Make of that, what you will.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
I have never understood anyone who thinks that showing contempt for the Prophet was a smart thing to do. Only great evil comes from it. Not great spiritual trouble or lightning bolts from God; I'm not superstitious, but simply a dirty mess that results in a great deal of damage to innocent people. That Muslims should "grow up" is a given, but so should everyone else. It is simply not possible for Russia to permit showing of such material nor for India, or possibly even France; it's inflammatory.
Not publishing pictures of the Prophet and being reasonably respectful toward him is pretty much the first lesson anyone who hopes to have a decent relationship with Muslims is taught. Going out of your way to heap contempt on him is just stupid; unless making trouble is your purpose.
I think any laws should be couched in terms of damaging foreign relations or inciting to riot. I'm not sure they would be unconstitutional even in the United States. When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is reduced to begging a fundamentalist preacher in Florida to cool it, something is out of whack.
Fred
On 20 September 2012 04:56, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I have never understood anyone who thinks that showing contempt for the Prophet was a smart thing to do. Only great evil comes from it. Not great spiritual trouble or lightning bolts from God; I'm not superstitious, but simply a dirty mess that results in a great deal of damage to innocent people. That Muslims should "grow up" is a given, but so should everyone else. It is simply not possible for Russia to permit showing of such material nor for India, or possibly even France; it's inflammatory.
Given what Russia has been up to in Chechnya and Ingushetia I'm not sure they are too worried about being inflammatory.
Not publishing pictures of the Prophet and being reasonably respectful toward him is pretty much the first lesson anyone who hopes to have a decent relationship with Muslims is taught. Going out of your way to heap contempt on him is just stupid; unless making trouble is your purpose.
We never did get to the bottom of the Russian apartment bombings.
Free speech in the US is, I believe, generally considered to exclude both "fighting words" and "shouting fire in a crowded theatre".
On 20/09/2012 04:56, Fred Bauder wrote:
I think any laws should be couched in terms of damaging foreign relations or inciting to riot. I'm not sure they would be unconstitutional even in the United States. When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is reduced to begging a fundamentalist preacher in Florida to cool it, something is out of whack. Fred _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I wonder if a few iconic Islamic related expressions could not also be included such as burning or threatening to burn a copy of the Koran? There would have to be scienter, knowing its significance, of course; a fact that was not present in a recent case in Pakistan where a developmentally handicapped young woman was charged.
Fred
Free speech in the US is, I believe, generally considered to exclude both "fighting words" and "shouting fire in a crowded theatre".
On 20/09/2012 04:56, Fred Bauder wrote:
I think any laws should be couched in terms of damaging foreign relations or inciting to riot. I'm not sure they would be unconstitutional even in the United States. When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is reduced to begging a fundamentalist preacher in Florida to cool it, something is out of whack. Fred _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Today, the outgoing Arbitration Committee of Russian Wikipedia finally decided that the decision to go on strike was too hasty, and the community consensus was not established. One of the organizers of the "poll" on the strike, as well as the admin who technically switched the access off, were desysopped.
The losing party already declared an intention to appeal (which is not permitted by policies, but sometimes people do not care).
Cheers Yaroslav
Tim Starling wrote:
According to ru.wp Arbcom member DR, the danger to Wikipedia was overstated, and the text of the proposed law was misrepresented.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org