To make it clear: these sites are not blocked, you can still acess them. They just don't turn up when you search 'sick forbidden sex with animals' on search engines.
How far does censorship go? Where does 'protecting our kids' start? Some of these sites contain stuff that is clearly illegal here in Germany. Is prohibiting something always 'censorship'? I'd say no, it is a matter of fine adjustment which has to be carefully established and controlled.
It starts with parents, who's responsibility it is to supervise their children and educate them about how to use the Internet responsibly. If you're reliant on easily-circumvented blacklists to protect your kids, you're doing it wrong. Specifically, the responsibility (with regards to Internet content) does not rest with a government.
> Is prohibiting something always 'censorship'?
Yes (at least when the thing being prohibited is information). That's what censorship is.
One can validly argue about whether or not a particular instance of censorship is right or wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still censorship.
Prohibiting or limiting access to information is always censorship. Censorship of third-party information by governments is universally wrong. If you want to protect your children from certain types of information via censorship, that's not necessarily wrong, but it's entirely your own responsibility.
There would be absolutely nothing wrong with this censorship list if maintained by a private entity and voluntarily applied by individuals to their own Internet connections.
You believe that censorship by governments is universally wrong, but that view is not universal. German laws have been oriented to allow censorship since the allied occupation of West Germany. It is perfectly legal by German law as it is practiced where there is no contradiction with civil or European law.
The German populace was generally supportive of this censorship in the post-war period to mend the ideological rifts that drove society apart in the early part of the cold war. While views are certainly changing in the "information age," if the German populace changes its views on censorship then it needs only to change its own laws.
It is not as easy as it sounds. The law in question states (Article 5, German basic law):
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour.
---
In theory, it is quite easy to fix the problem: Remove (2) and you are done. In reality, no politician would ever try to do that. "You are against keeping children save?", "You are against honour?" and so on. Still, it would be for the best to remove it ... the government uses it to push every shit they want in regards with censorship - after all, basically everything can be restated to be "for the protection of young persons".
There is inherent risk in any type of censorship. If it needs to be applied, it needs to be done carefully and in the open.
In this case, this is hardly a misunderstanding in values as you argue. Most of the URLs are not political and have very little to do with national socialism.
The maintained list of URLs is sloppy and apparently done with little, if any, public oversight. That raises quite a few red flags. The fact that the German government is trying to intimidate Neocities raises many more red flags.
That's true, the whether censorship is morally wrong is open to discussion. However, it is also completely ineffective for practically any purpose, and has been abused in virtually all instances that it has been implemented.
I think both of these points show that it is an unnecessary and excessive restraint of individual and collective freedom.
The list is organized by a public institution, but the review teams (that actually put things on the list) are 75% non-government people. There's an appeals process, its use is opt-in.
You're missing the point a bit. Neocities isn't taking the position that the blocking is a bad thing. They are arguing that people should get to know what the government is blocking.
Today it's "sick forbidden sex with animals" but tomorrow it could be "your rights as a German" and if there's no transparency, the government can easily control the information that their people see. Which is a really big thing to control without any oversight or input.
No, I don't think I am missing the point. My question was basically: is censorship always a bad idea? If yes, how can we enforce the law otherwise (forbidden pictures)? Or should we make our laws towards "showing everything is allowed"? Where does it start and where does it end?
Censorship is mostly not about showing, but about looking. Censorship prevents you from seeing the world as it is (which includes seeing what people actually say), which is quite different from taking down a site that is infringing upon other people's rights. If you are prevented from looking at the world, that's a bad basis for democracy.
Censorship without accountability is always wrong.
I have no problem with censorship when done with full accountability and audit trail - iow. with an invididual court order per item censored. That way the party who demands censorhip has to make their claim and convince a (supposedly impartial) judge that the case is truly exceptional. There has to be a legal and valid reason!
The audit trail from court documents would then allow to see when the request was made, and when the censorship of the said item took place. Most importantly, it would enable the people demanding censorship to be held accountable for their actions. Named, always. Shamed, if necessary.
A censorship list compiled and distributed in private is ripe for abuses. There are always parties who would use such a system to further their own agenda. (Insert selection bias here.)
by "missing the point a bit" I meant "slightly off topic for the article". You had one of the initial replies to the article, and I was hoping to keep the discussion a bit more on the topic of the article, which is an interesting one.
To respond to your question: I default to trusting people. So in the grey area, I'm towards whatever side lets people decide their lives for themselves. But as to specifically where it starts and ends, that's not a specific call I'm informed enough to make. And I'm sure it differs from culture to culture. What's acceptable for my neighborhood is probably wrong for others. To me, that's where things get impossible to decide on one line for everyone. So I'd trust people to define their own community mores.
This is a very dificult and highly subjective topic. Free speech always ends where you start to hurt other people. So there is always 'censorship' in some way or another. The group of 'anti censorship' people (no censorship whatsoever) almost always neglect that point.
I think the only question is: how far should censorship go? Should we block sites? Should we block search engines (like in this case)? What material should be blocked? How can we make sure that the list of items that are censored does not 'overflow'?
That's easy. There should be no government mandated censorship.
First of all - because it doesn't work for the intended purpose. The Internet is so dynamic that no method of censorship can stop information from being disseminated. Your own children are all "safe" and protected, until a friend teaches them how to get passed that filter to view porn or whatever and your children will want to view porn, especially given a lack of education from parents. It's also a pretty dumb filter and governments are failing even at censoring PirateBay or WikiLeaks. Without proper supervision and education, it will just happen. Censoring extreme political views, or any political views that go against the system doesn't work either. It never did. Actually censorship helps in disseminating extreme political views and the only thing that helps is proper education.
Second of all, there are no lines to be drawn - what represents useful information for some people, may hurt the feelings of other people. Nobody is in a position to decide what information should be censored. And if I want to jerk off on people having sex with horses, why should anybody have a problem with that. Being tolerant of people that are different from us in one way or another is a lesson that the German people should have learned, otherwise we are bound to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
Speech can never hurt people, only actions can. (Unless we include "emotionally hurt", but given that even speech such as "I don't love you" can emotionally hurt and even scar people, I find it unreasonable to censor speech that has the potential of hurting people emotionally).
I don't see why we can't just call it "censorship" no matter what the reason.
If it makes you uncomfortable to call it "censorship" when blocking Nazi propaganda or whatever, well, good. Discomfort is a sign that you're thinking.
I am fine with the term 'censorship', but we should discuss: where does it start, where does it end? What kind of censorship is allowed, and what is not allowed?
That kind of discussion could benefit from some facts to discuss. For example, the list of sites being blocked. Unfortunately, the German government is trying to keep them secret, which hinders the discussion. Nicht wahr?
Every single law limiting access to information ends up being abused to create censorship in favor of somebody's selfish interest, political or otherwise. Privacy laws? Abused. Libel laws? Abused. Copyright? Abused all the god damn time.
When it comes to knowledge, taboos and restrictions are an archaic pre-rational way of dealing with dangerous ideas and should be put to rest right about now. There's simply no place for this kind of stuff in the modern society.
I agree with the sibling comment: The parents need to take care of their kids, not the state.
Putting that aside: Why the hell would you block content that already is illegal anyway? The same discussion came up with Ursula's braindead child born blocklist. It serves no purpose. It is dumb. And .. entirely arbitrary on top (who maintains the list? How do you add or remove things from that list?)
Defending this thing is hard, invoking "think of the children" is probably the only option here. But.. seriously?
Yes, I am serious. As a judge I hear a lot of people complaining about the laws (in Germany, that's the point). But when I ask them to give examples, they get always quiet.
How far does censorship go? Where does 'protecting our kids' start? Some of these sites contain stuff that is clearly illegal here in Germany. Is prohibiting something always 'censorship'? I'd say no, it is a matter of fine adjustment which has to be carefully established and controlled.