Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> This is to say, they're specifically interested in stopping the next 
> Nazi regime

  By building up a similar regime of censorship, propaganda and limitation
of basic human rights.

  Honestly, how probable it is, in the current world, that a "nazi regime"
can form, even without these types of totalitarian laws, especially given
that we are talking about Europe? I think it's next to nil.
  If a country starts behaving in ways similar to the nazi party, it will
quickly be shut down by surrounding countries. I don't believe there is
any danger of this happening.

> not playing Big Brother to your personal dislike of 
> Mohammed McMuslim

  They will attack any webpages which are critical of islam and/or
immigration in general, using the new laws. Heck, it's happening already
even without any supporting laws, there isn't even need to predict it. When
their behavior gets de jure support, it can only become ten times worse.
(We have precedent: The RIAA and the DMCA.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp escribió:
> (We have precedent: The RIAA and the DMCA.)
> 

http://mafiaa.org/

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   If someone writes in his webpage his opinion that immigration is
> detrimental to the western society, can that be considered "material
> containing expressions of xenophobia"? Technically it *is* xenophobia
> (regardless of whether it's based on rational argumentation or not).

I'd say it depends on how vehement it is.  If it's just "ho hum, I don't 
really like these immigrants, they're taking our jobs and diluting our 
culture the way cultures have been being diluted and turned into what 
are really other cultures since forever", it'll have a different 
reception than "stupid foreigners with their lazy lifestyles that are 
incapable of doing anything on their own merit that are robbing our pure 
and decent hardworking close families and talking so I can't understand 
them and we gotta drive them out and bomb their homelands and cross the 
street when you see one on the sidewalk because they're dirty and so forth".

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Honestly, how probable it is, in the current world, that a "nazi regime"
> can form, even without these types of totalitarian laws, especially given
> that we are talking about Europe? I think it's next to nil.
>   If a country starts behaving in ways similar to the nazi party, it will
> quickly be shut down by surrounding countries. I don't believe there is
> any danger of this happening.

Considering the Nazi regime got its foothold because common folk had 
justified resentment over how they perceived the government was not 
handling things, I'd say it's pretty likely, considering the vocality of 
a good number of 'ordinary' Europeans against supposed police states and 
insisting that 'freedom of speech' is more important than the reality of 
needing to reduce hatred of 'others' (which is ironically amplified by 
the legislative efforts, but that doesn't mean what the legislation is 
trying to accomplish is bad).

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> "ho hum, I don't 
> really like these immigrants, they're taking our jobs and diluting our 
> culture the way cultures have been being diluted and turned into what 
> are really other cultures since forever"

  Btw, I find this cliche quite curious, given that the real problem is
more or less the exact opposite.

  The problem is not that they are "taking our jobs", but that they are
not taking any jobs at all. For example here there are some groups of
immigrants with over 60% of unemployment, and as much as some people
would like to, all of it cannot be explained by racism and discrimination.
(One argument pro heavy immigration is that the labour force is increased.
However, 60% unemployment doesn't increase labour force, but the opposite.)

  Also "diluting our culture" would implicate that they are integrating
into the hosting culture and adding elements of their own. The real problem
is that they are *not* integrating and are segregating themselves on their
own will, isolating themselves from the surrounding culture. They do not
contribute. This only causes problems.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> Considering the Nazi regime got its foothold because common folk had 
> justified resentment over how they perceived the government was not 
> handling things, I'd say it's pretty likely

  I disagree. The cultural and historical context was completely different.
Today the western world is extremely careful and watches very closely any
country which shows any symptom of fascist-style ideologies.
  This has actually happened recently in Europe (I can't remember the
country right now).

  For a fascist nation to be born in modern Europe something very radical
has to happen (for example a big-time economical crash), and if that happens,
I don't believe an european totalitarian censorship law is going to prevent
it from happening at all.

  In the end, the (fallacious) principle is simply what Orwell expressed
in his famous book: If people don't have the means to communicate their
opinion, the opinion will die (the basic idea of "newspeak").

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   For a fascist nation to be born in modern Europe something very radical
> has to happen (for example a big-time economical crash), and if that happens,
> I don't believe an european totalitarian censorship law is going to prevent
> it from happening at all.

Exactly.  Statistically, a big-time economical crash is bound to happen 
again.  It's not exactly unheard of, historically.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> I think you misinterpret that. You can still believe that only just a 
>> negligible number of Jews died in WW2. You can privately and publicly 
>> express that. The only thing you can not do is write that down in a 
>> pamphlet and hand that out in the streets. Makes sense to me.
> 
>   I'm not saying it's a good thing that wackos can spread their conspiracy
> theories. I'm just worried about how far they will go with this questionable
> limiting of freedom of expression.

I think it does not change any law in the Netherlands. I am not familiar 
enough with Finish law to judge if this constitutes a limiting of the 
freedom of expression there.
Take also into account that in these times freedom of expression is also 
hampered by people that shout a lot of profanities towards other groups. 
This makes an intelligent debate difficult and prevents a lot of people 
from saying anything because they don't want to be associated with any 
of it. Such a law may therefor also increase the /de facto/ freedom of 
expression.

> 
>   If someone writes in his webpage his opinion that immigration is
> detrimental to the western society, can that be considered "material
> containing expressions of xenophobia"? Technically it *is* xenophobia
> (regardless of whether it's based on rational argumentation or not).

That is a valid point of concern. I guess that in practice if you put 
something like that on your personal weblog there is no problem. If you 
place it in a more public place it will be. And if you are prosecuted 
for other offenses they can and will take it into account to increase 
the punishment.

>>>   Yes, I am being a paranoid. This is all normal and good. Just ignore
>>> everything.
>>>
>> And this is where I am completely lost. I recognize all words but in 
>> this order they don't seem to make sense.
> 
>   It was sarcasm.
> 
I guessed that much, and still it did not make sense. ;)

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   For a fascist nation to be born in modern Europe something very radical
> > has to happen (for example a big-time economical crash), and if that happens,
> > I don't believe an european totalitarian censorship law is going to prevent
> > it from happening at all.

> Exactly.  Statistically, a big-time economical crash is bound to happen 
> again.  It's not exactly unheard of, historically.

  Maybe, but my point was that this law will not prevent a fascist nation
from emerging in that case, and thus it's useless for that purpose.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
>> This is to say, they're specifically interested in stopping the next 
>> Nazi regime
> 
>   By building up a similar regime of censorship, propaganda and limitation
> of basic human rights.
You are overreacting.
> 
>   Honestly, how probable it is, in the current world, that a "nazi regime"
> can form, even without these types of totalitarian laws, especially given
> that we are talking about Europe? I think it's next to nil.
I disagree, Pim Fortuijn (who was far too intelligent to be a xenophobe 
no matter what his adversaries made of him) was heading for a landslide 
victory that might have got him the position of MP before he was 
assassinated. One of his main items was immigration. After his death 
that was taken over by some less intelligent people that saw an easy way 
to increase their personal exposure by leaving out all nuances. ATM 
people that think that their personal problems could be solved by 
harsher measures towards foreigners amount for about 20 places in our 
parliament (out of 150). If the political 'leaders' of this movement can 
block any improvement in the situation for a couple of years they could 
increase their influence even more.
If this law could help in defusing the debate so that finally things can 
be done about the real problems of the immigrants and the people living 
near them I would be very happy.

>   If a country starts behaving in ways similar to the nazi party, it will
> quickly be shut down by surrounding countries. I don't believe there is
> any danger of this happening.

Wishful thinking, they won't interfere unless they are at risk 
themselves. You could make a case that Russia is sliding towards a 
dictatorial regime. I haven't seen any surrounding country taking steps, 
but perhaps there is a new role for Finland here.

>> not playing Big Brother to your personal dislike of 
>> Mohammed McMuslim
> 
>   They will attack any webpages which are critical of islam and/or
> immigration in general, using the new laws. Heck, it's happening already
> even without any supporting laws, there isn't even need to predict it. When
> their behavior gets de jure support, it can only become ten times worse.
> (We have precedent: The RIAA and the DMCA.)
>

Post a reply to this message