A Look At Internet Censorship Around The World
from the free-speech-isn't-free dept
Shocklee points us to some fantastic infographics about global internet censorship, including this first one highlighting levels of internet censorship around the globe. Frankly, it looks like in some of the areas where there’s “no censorship,” it might just be that there’s not much internet usage. Also, I do wonder how accurate or up-to-date some of it is. For example, it says there’s no internet censorship in Venezuela, but we were just discussing some content regulations there.
Filed Under: censorship, internet
Comments on “A Look At Internet Censorship Around The World”
All of the graphics are cute, but to get to the underlying data, you have to buy a book, at least that is what it appears to be.
US with “some censorship”? What, like they shut down child porn?
Re: Re:
“US with “some censorship”? What, like they shut down child porn?”
No, like rojadirecta.com. Child porn they just email to people and then arrest them for receiving it.
Re: Re: Re:
See, that wouldn’t be censorship, any more than shutting down a child porn site would be. Is there any real difference?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are two conclusions I can draw from what you’ve said:
1) You believe rojadirecta.com was as bad or worse than child porn, and therefore deserved to have any and all content contained therein to be excised from the internet without regard for collateral content loss.
2) You believe child porn is innocuous and should be pervasively spread throughout the internet.
Of course these are merely reflections of my opinion of your stated opinion as neither is an intellectually honest statement, similar to the callous lack of perception presented by your first statement.
And to answer your question: “Is there any real difference?”
Yes.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
1) No I don’t. But I also don’t see taking action against sites that are breaking US law as “censorship”. That is a pretty broad use of the term.
2) Nope. Didn’t even suggest that.
My point only is that the definition of “censorship” is very slippery here. Is anything other than absolute free speech (which would include child porn, hate mongering, and so on) considered censorship? Where is the line?
Without the data being out there, the graphics are infoporn. Something nice to mentally whack off to, but absolutely meaningless.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“taking action against sites that are breaking US law as “censorship””
The servers are in Spain. Last I checked Spain isn’t one of the 50 states and rojadirecta was declared legal in Spain. The only action that should have legitimately taken place is more crying by MAFIAA execs over the shrinking relevance of their empire. They sound more and more like Julia Roberts every time they complain: “I have money! I have money! Somebody pay attention to me!”
“Something nice to mentally whack off to, but absolutely meaningless.”
You just described MAFIAA stats. 🙂
“the definition of “censorship” is very slippery here”
This intrigues me. I will have to get back to you on this later. I haven’t the time for that kind of real conversation just yet.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
rojadirect.com was registered to a tld in the US, which makes it subject at least in passing to US law. The site was not shut down, only the domain disabled.
That isn’t censorship. That is the difference between laws in different countries, and the risks of operating in more than one jurisdiction.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Why isn’t it censorship? Because you say so?
It’s censorship because the US government is trying to make it harder for users to visit the site. That it’s not totally successful and reaching that goal doesn’t make it not censorship.
Besides, rojadirect.com was not even found guilty of violating any US law, yet its domain was stolen by the US government. The Spanish government in contrast tried through the courts (and failed).
That’s the difference between a country which abides by the rule of law (Spain) and a banana republic (the US).
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Banana republic? LMAO. Sorry for being off-topic here but I couldn’t let this one go. So is that to say the U.S. has only 1 export that they depend on for their entire economy?
We may be politically corrupt but are politically stable. And the last I checked we were not buy a small self-elected group of elite.
Perhaps I am inaccurate of what a Banana Republic is.
Maybe I am so far down the rabbit hole that everything is obfuscated
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Banana Republic:
– Unstable government.
– One main agricultural export dependent.
– ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, corrupt politico-economic plutocracy or (oligarchy)
The United States of Bananas.
– Stable government.
– Depends heavily on tech companies with the bananas part being entertainment products as they are cheap to produce and do not require any higher education to accomplish.
– Well here is an eery commonality with banana republics.
I say that the U.S. is half way there, if tech companies go down, the government probably will become unstable and you will have a complete banana republic.
The funny part, most entertainment companies are not even American LoL
Most music that sells come from Europe, production of movies is being outsourced(source) and some how those companies still manage to pass laws to protect the big names.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Obviously that supposed to be a bit of a provocative joke…
But since you ask: the single export product of the US these days is entertainment. Come to think of it might be government bonds considering how much debt you have.
You have a two party system that seriously limits entry into the political elite by people outside of the “self-selected” elite.
As for the definition of Banana Republic, to me it’s synonymous with: not ruled by law, but by the person or group with the most power and money. That’s pretty much how things appear to work in the US right now.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Coke and Pepsi.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
no, your understanding of banana republics is accurate.
id say absurdistan is the more accurate description here…
yes.. absurdistan is a real term….
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Gee lets see, the US economy teeters on the brink. Their currency is falling like a stone on the world markets. Unemployment is rife and the government is running around the world banging on drums about how they are being victimised.
As for the single product, it is not bananas, it is this nonsensical product called intellectual property. It is nothing it is vapour, just like everything that comes out of the US today. Hot air and other assorted vapor, neatly wrapped in 10,000 words of legalese about how they have a copyright or a patent or something on oxygen so the rest of the world needs to pay them for the right to breath.
Yep sounds like a Banana republic to me.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Gee lets see, the US economy teeters on the brink. Their currency is falling like a stone on the world markets. Unemployment is rife and the government is running around the world banging on drums about how they are being victimised.
As for the single product, it is not bananas, it is this nonsensical product called intellectual property. It is nothing it is vapour, just like everything that comes out of the US today. Hot air and other assorted vapor, neatly wrapped in 10,000 words of legalese about how they have a copyright or a patent or something on oxygen so the rest of the world needs to pay them for the right to breath.
Yep sounds like a Banana republic to me.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The servers are in Spain. Last I checked Spain isn’t one of the 50 states and rojadirecta was declared legal in Spain.
Unfortunately .com is a US registration. That makes them subject to US law or at least their registration subject to US law and they were not declared legal in the US so seasure of their registration was possible.
If they want to maintain servers in Spain and avoid US legal issues then they should use a Spanish registration.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Unfortunately .com is a US registration. That makes them subject to US law or at least their registration subject to US law and they were not declared legal in the US so seasure of their registration was possible.
Was that done by “due process” or just “a process”? The true Banana Republic style difference don’tcha know.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“But I also don’t see taking action against sites that are breaking US law as “censorship”.”
By that definition there isn’t any censorship anywhere in the world, because all those countries are doing in banning sites that “break” local laws.
Censorship is censorship, whether legalized or not.
Re: US has some censorship
For example, tjic.com was taken down by the feds.
Recently a radical leftist shot some lefty politician for
pretending to be a moderate leftist, (she probably was not a
a real moderate, because her entourage got shot up too, and one of those shot up turned out to be pretty much the same ideology as the shooter – typical leftist fratricide) A right wing blog, tjic.com, cheerfully said. “One down, four hundred to go”. He was raided, and his server was seized. DNS eventually redirected tjic.com to a new server, which does not respond either.
The seizure of domain names as done recently by ICE, in cooperation with a slew of other federal agencies, and particularly the DOJ, is hardly in the same league with the type of censorship apparently practiced by authoritarian regimes. These censor speech. Within the US law enforcement is directed against actions not compliant with the strictures of US law.
Given the balance struck between copyright law and the First Amendment, I submit that using the word “censorship” borders on hyperbole at best, and an inaccurate characterization of US law at worst.
Re: Re:
but… but…. CENSORSHIP!
Re: Re:
So it would be cool to start a religion where my Godhead is Superman, and take His image and begin to publicly preach about the wonder of Superman and hand out literature with His image on it?
No one would try to stop me?
Re: Re:
The seizure of domain names as done recently by ICE, in cooperation with a slew of other federal agencies, and particularly the DOJ, is hardly in the same league with the type of censorship apparently practiced by authoritarian regimes. These censor speech. Within the US law enforcement is directed against actions not compliant with the strictures of US law.
First, I would like to point out that I made no mention of the domain seizures in this post. Odd that you would bring it up out of nowhere.
Second, you do realize that the other countries that censor the web also make the exact same claim. “Within China law enforcement is directed against actions not compliant with the strictures of Chinese law.” Such as mentioning rogue political parties.
That’s what I find so amazing about people like you. The rationalization of how this form of censorship is any different than other countries is astounding.
Furthermore, to claim that seizing a domain name of a server hosted in another country with NO review of First Amendment violations and no adversarial hearing to review the other side. Or, seizing the domain of a blog with plenty of non-infringing speech? That’s absolutely censorship.
Given the balance struck between copyright law and the First Amendment, I submit that using the word “censorship” borders on hyperbole at best, and an inaccurate characterization of US law at worst.
What “balance” is that? Where in that balance does it allow seizing a blog that had music sent by the labels with no adversarial hearing and no opportunity to present the evidence on the other side?
I’m sorry, but in no rational thinking world is that balance. That you would support such blatant censorship is disappointing.
Re: Re: Re:
seizing the domain of a blog with plenty of non-infringing speech? That’s absolutely censorship.
No, that is your opinion.
I like how you have slid down the scale on this one (without ever admitting that you were wrong about it. When you start out, they were “innocent blogs”, not they are sites with “plenty of non-infringing speech”.
Where in that balance does it allow seizing a blog that had music sent by the labels with no adversarial hearing and no opportunity to present the evidence on the other side?
So you feel that a car or truck that is used to deliver drugs should not be allowed to be seized and held until a court ruling? Do you feel that search warrants and court orders to seize pending hearing are all incorrect? Do you feel that someone who has committed armed robbery should be allowed to keep what they have “allegedly” stolen until ruled on in a court of law, passed appeals, and perhaps dragged all the way to the supreme court?
What about seizing the computer of someone who distributes child porn? There are plenty of non-infringing uses for his computer. Maybe they also run a blog about song birds. Would seizing their computer be censorship because it stops the song bird blog from being updated, perhaps even shut down if the person cannot maintain it?
I think that your dislike for copyright (and all IP) colors your views on this one. The only thing blatant is your narrow view on the topic.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Talking for myself. No I don’t think my house should be seized merely because a commercial companies accuses me of something. Neither do I think it’s right for them to hold on to my property without even formally filling a complaint and setting a court date.
Your comparisons with drugs fail on many grounds, but let’s just go along with your comparison for a while, as it’s amusing.
Let’s suppose we have two drugs dealers driving a car that carries several kilos of drugs. Normally the police seize the drugs and the car and arrest the dealers.
If the drugs are the copyrighted files, the car is the server they are on and the dealers are the owners of the site. Then what US law enforcement just did is this:
– They did not seize the drugs as there were none to be found in the car (server).
– They did not seize the car (server).
– They did not arrest the dealers either.
This really begs the question, what did they do? Well that’s easy:
– They took the car’s license plate (domain name) and let the “dealers”, the car and the “illegal” goods go.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s because the car is being driven in Spain with US plate. So they revoked the plate, which is the only thing they can do at this point. If the car came to the US, they would likely seize it.
But back on point, let’s consider the obvious here: When it comes to freedom, US is pretty much number one. If you were to make a “freedom” map, the US would be one of the best. So following US law (which exists only under those freedoms) means that the law generally doesn’t infringe on free speech rights, and thus doesn’t censor anything.
It is easy to look at an “act” and consider it censorship. Yet, you can access every website in the world, without restriction, and without editing.
It seems to be that the only places that have “no censorship” are countries that are too busy dealing with base issues to care.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Try accessing Wikileaks from an army base which is a government institution nonetheless.
Anyways that is not the point, the point is that what you are effectively implying is that people should no be concerned because the government is MOSTLY not doing something wrong, which is bad, that is how you end up with PATRIOT ACTs and loose everything that was paid with blood to be gained.
People need to be vigilant and call the government out when they do stupid things, it is good for democracy to have people watching each and every move people in power do.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Try to access porn from work, or your favorite gaming site. Blockages like this aren’t censorship. When the soldier returns home from deployment or the base, he can get online and access the site. The employer made a choice, which is within their rights to do.
Censorship would have wikileaks blocked in the US period. That isn’t the case, is it?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Are you dumb or something?
The U.S. government is trying very hard to censor it, they just can’t get past the PR nightmare it would create for them.
But they did go after the financing, they did made companies stop doing business with Wikileaks that is censorship idiot.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The US incarceration rate, from Wikipedia:
(References omitted.)
Anyhow… USA NUMBER 1! USA NUMBER 1! USA NUMBER !!1!!!!1
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So you admit it’s nothing like trying to prevent a drug dealer from continuing his business until a court hearing, because the drugs weren’t seized and the dealers not arrested.
In fact this is a case like a company claiming you owe them money and having the police evict you from your house without trial and without even filing charges.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
If they have an eviction notice, they can get it done. Of course, they would have to show some rights to the house to get it, right?
Sorry, you are trying hard, but you can’t make it work out.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Sad that the United states, looks uponthe .com TLD as something that is licensed under their laws. They also for some reason that escapes me think their laws apply outside their country.
What you are talking about here is a group of children. They are miffed so they took their ball. Gee I feel sorry that they don’t like stuff.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Child porn is so sort of magic wand? Have you read about the witchcraft hunt in Salem and how it ended?
Seizing anything without due course is horrible specially in sensitive cases I find it ominous that people can just say child porn and all reason goes out the window and people revert to some kind of state dominated by stupidity.
Rape and sex exploitation of children is a bad thing, but so is accusing children for playing with each other of a crime, or having someone wrongly accused of those things, the repercussions are serious and specially on those cases people should fallow the law to the letter and fallow a very hard bar that includes having those people have a chance to explain themselves, not just go there take whatever they want and make up accusations that is just asking for abuse to be conducted in the name of the law and that is shameful or you think those things are ok?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“seizing the domain of a blog with plenty of non-infringing speech? That’s absolutely censorship.
No, that is your opinion. “
Censoring free speech is censorship. That’s not opinion, it’s fact.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting that you never addressed this part: “That’s what I find so amazing about people like you. The rationalization of how this form of censorship is any different than other countries is astounding.”
Re: Re: Re:
seizing a domain with out due process, regardless of the reason IS censorship.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“seizing a domain with out due process, regardless of the reason IS censorship.”
bs. If authorities (whom were elected or put in place by people we elected) decide that someone is committing a crime than action to stop the crime doesnt have to wait until the lawyers have had their day in court.
Compare it to any other crime that is taking place. Nope, cant stop the rape cause their hasnt been due process.
Are there going to be false positives? Sure. Is it better to error on the side of being safer? Probably.
Your kind just picks out the possible false positive and runs with it and acts like it is the norm.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
According to chilling effects more than 50% of all DMCA’s ever send are to stop other business, so we already know that the side of caution it is to have due process on the matter because people have all incentives in the world to try to block competition, which is unlike rape, how much of a percentage rapists are off of the entire population?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Also I would like to point out that no crime was committed, infringement of copyrights is not a crime is an infraction, unlike rape that is a crime.
And so you know, they even filled that stuff under civil because they couldn’t prove criminal activity, which makes even more troublesome.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
rape:
– Physical contact.
– Use of violence.
Copyright infringement:
– No physical contact.
– No proof of harm.
– No use of violence.
– No depriving of use or commerce.
WTF are you trying to compare?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Should those clowns that mimic people on the streets go to jail for copying others expressions and movements because it is like rape?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
What is truly funny is watching you answer yourself like you are two different people. Instead, you are just an assclown trying to push your own views on everyone else and disrupt the discussion.
As trolls go, you aren’t any good. You even troll yourself!
Re: Re:
But then you see stories like the recent DOJ recmmendation of a tech company explicitly saying it will break the law to discredit an American Citizen. But that’s not censorship either in your world.
And if it’s not censor ship, then why did ICE attempt to seize the .es TLD, as well as the .net, .org and .eu domains, too.
completely in denial if you think the U.S. doesnt have censorship. Atleast China seems upfront about their “great firewall”, if only because its glaringly obvious. How long until the U.S. wont even bother to deny it, thats my only question.
Re: Re:
well there are 2 more committees coming/forming for censoring http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110210/14261513044/why-is-president-obama-setting-up-ip-enforcement-committees-rather-than-ip-effectiveness-committees.shtml
id give it a month after these get to their full potential
I think the censorship in the US has moved beyond national security. It would be hard to claim that the most recent domain seizures were about national security. I think they would fall under social values (i.e. values surrounding concepts of property).
Re: Re:
Former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, on the link between copyright and terrorism:
That statement by a senior Bush administration official came back in 2005. It was easy to find. Google a little harder for more recent statements from across the aisle.
It’s easy to claim that anything and everything is national security.
Re: Re: Re:
It is also remarkably easy to claim that IP does “harm”, yet nobody is really able to show it (without first ignoring all the business and all the progress going on around them). Yet we have a blog dedicated to it.
Go Figure.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
troll, lurk more they have study s that say so from time to time
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
yeah, written not remarkably by the same anti-copyright people who tend to think that copyright violates the first amendment.
Can you say “finger on the scale”?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People already showed you how it can harm you just choose to ignore it, maybe people should just start ignoring you also since you are not here to do anything except being antagonistic.
Re: Re: Re:
senior Bush administration official
There’s your problem – Not that Obama has done much to remedy it, but still.
Re: Re:
The Venn diagram is really weak. Zero entries in the overlap between national security and political stability? And there needs to be a fourth category. I don’t think censorship for copyright rightly falls under traditional social values. To put in accurately I think you would have to call it censorship to preserve legacy business models, or to respond to campaign contributions, but those would probably be too controversial for a report like this.
The conversation here seems to be stuck on the political ethics of domain seizures when this is the rarest form of censorship. The most common form of censorship in the US is creating regulations for ISP’s and hosting companies to block and remove references to sites that are known to be explicitly illegal in the country. Many sites on how to make bombs, child pornography, and terrorist sites are blocked or removed from indexing by ISP’s and search providers making it difficult though not impossible to access these servers hosted in countries where these things are not illegal.
about technology
Your article is very good
Re: about technology
Your attempt at spamming your site however is not very good.
The U.S. also censors due to copy’right’ infringement. Look at all the domain name seizures.
Kuwait has heavy censorship
Only way to surf porn in Kuwait is a VPN
Many proxy are blocked too
Australian here.
What the hell does under surveillance mean?
Under Surveillance by who, and for what?
Is this something because Connroy proposed a dead in the water internet censorship bill? Who the hell is ‘surveying’ us and what fucking business is it of theirs?
If it’s some great push by USA for freedom of internet, hey how about sorting your own shit out first before you worry about other countries. Connroys censorship may be vile and repulsive but honestly I’d take it over the government shutting down sites based on what big business tells them to any day.
Images are well out of date...
According to the images Australia does not have ‘free’ internet.
This is because of Conroy’s proposed ISP level filter.
A filter that is clearly NOT going to be implemtented under the current Australian parliment.
The filter has not been mentioned since ALL political parties (apart from Conroy’s Labor) declared they would NOT support a filter (and would vote against it) in the run up to the 2010 election.
Re:
I’m a bit late to this party, but this is what is known as “international law”.
In the end, if you are doing business in the US, or stealing from people in the US, where you are physically located is actually utterly irrelevant.
Spain has obligations under international law due to treaties it has signed.