Войти в систему

Home
    - Создать дневник
    - Написать в дневник
       - Подробный режим

LJ.Rossia.org
    - Новости сайта
    - Общие настройки
    - Sitemap
    - Оплата
    - ljr-fif

Редактировать...
    - Настройки
    - Список друзей
    - Дневник
    - Картинки
    - Пароль
    - Вид дневника

Сообщества

Настроить S2

Помощь
    - Забыли пароль?
    - FAQ
    - Тех. поддержка



Пишет Misha Verbitsky ([info]tiphareth) в [info]ljr_popechiteli
@ 2014-11-16 20:09:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
смена юрисдикции
Предлагаю заменить правило II.1

"II.1 Пользователи обязуются не использовать LJR с
целью нарушения законов РФ и их места проживания."

на

"II.1 Пользователи обязуются не использовать LJR с
целью нарушения законов США и их места проживания."

а также

"III.7 В любых случаях нарушения правил, общепринятых этических норм или закона РФ, окончательным арбитром является Попечительский Совет, рассматривающий жалобы в установленном порядке. "

на

"III.7 В любых случаях нарушения правил, общепринятых этических норм или законов США, окончательным арбитром является Попечительский Совет, рассматривающий жалобы в установленном порядке. "

http://lj.rossia.org/tos.html

Поскольку большинство серверов LJR находится в Америке,
эта замена представляется предпочтительной. Кроме того,
lj.rossia.org уже несколько месяцев недоступен на территории РФ
по требованию "Федеральной службы по надзору в сфере связи,
информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций".
Соответственно, любые требования судов РФ к ограничению
распространения запрещенной на территории РФ информации
на нашем сайте уже выполнены, либо невыполнимы в принципе.

Наконец, многим юзерам депутатский корпус, избранный
в последние несколько лет, представляется целиком
нелегитимным, а исполнение принятых этими депутатами
законов - оскорбительным. Думаю, нам стоит проявить
уважение к этим пользователям, особенно учитывая
противоречивость принятых законов и избирательный
характер их применения.

Привет


(Читать комментарии) - (Добавить комментарий)


[info]tiphareth
2014-11-18 00:01 (ссылка)
спасибо, ага
с Нидерландами проблема в том, что придется закрывать всех националистов,
там с этим довольно строго, со Швецией тем более

Sweden
Freedom of the Press 2013

Sweden has strong legal protections for press freedom under the constitution, a Freedom of the Press Law dating back to 1766, and the 1991 Fundamental Law of Freedom of Expression. However, the country’s laws criminalize expression that is deemed to be hate speech. In September 2012, the editor of Nordfront, a website for the extremist Swedish Resistance Movement, was sentenced to a month in jail for a comment posted by a reader that portrayed Jews as capitalist parasites. A month later, another editor for Nordfront was questioned by the police about hate speech in the site’s articles. There is considerable debate in Swedish media on the limits of free speech regarding the issue of immigration and Islam. Right-wing nationalists decry what they see as self-censorship in the Swedish media, but most of the mainstream media view criticism of immigration and Islam as a form of hate speech. In December, the tabloid Aftonbladet launched a campaign against nationalist blogs in order to test the limits of the hate speech law. It also directly called for a government intervention to shut down a number of the right-wing blogs. However, the initiative was criticized by other newspapers as an assault on free speech.

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2013/sweden



Last March, Geert Wilders, the controversial right-wing Dutch Parliamentarian best known for his stance against Muslims and Muslim immigration, stood before supporters at a campaign rally and asked a simple question: "Do you want more Moroccans, or fewer?"

He expected the question to raise enthusiasm among the crowd, and drive his party to greater Parliamentary success. It has also possibly landed him before the courts, to be tried for "hate speech" -- a crime in the Netherlands, which, despite its claims of "freedom of speech," still criminalizes speech that "offends" on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or even personal convictions and ideology.

Wilders, however, didn't make a statement: he simply asked others what they wanted. It was the Dutch people themselves who, in response, cried out, "Fewer! Fewer!"
The pending case also rips open other problems with European -- and particularly The Netherlands' -- limits on free expression. Restrictions have, in recent years, grown more repressive in response to allegations of "Islamophobia" and attempts by many in Europe's Muslim communities to censor expressions they consider offensive to Islam.

But is the cry of "fewer" really "hate speech"? Or is it the expression of a "personal conviction," perhaps based on a nationalist "ideology," held by many in the crowd -- and therefore, under Dutch laws, protected?

Such laws not only run counter to the basic principles of democracy; they are, in many instances, representative of a duplicitous selective application of the law in Europe. Why are prosecutors going after Wilders, and not, say, after Yasmina Haifi, a (now-former) Dutch intelligence agency employee who in August tweeted that ISIS is Zionist plot -- and insisted that "there is plenty of evidence for this"?

Is the criminalization of hate speech in the Netherlands now dependent only on whom you hate?

In the Netherlands, crime is five times higher among Moroccan youth than among indigenous Dutch. Also, according to statistics released earlier this week, anti-Semitism is rising in the Netherlands, largely among Moroccan and Turkish immigrants and their children.

The question Wilders raised may have been in poor taste; but the answer, arguably in even poorer taste, came from the people, who are entitled to a country in which they can voice their frustration and be heard.

Isn't this protection, too, what democracy is supposed to be about?

The Netherlands is hardly alone in limiting speech it calls "free." In Germany, "incitement of popular hatred" is punishable by five years in prison. In Iceland, insulting a person on basis of nationality, race, religion, or sexual preference can bring a two-year sentence. And earlier this year, Swedish Democratic Party member Michael Hess was fined SK32,000 (about $5000) for "insulting Muslims" when he asserted that rape is "deeply ingrained in Islamic culture."

В Штатах такое в принципе невозможно, первая поправка не позволит,
protected speech и все

Ну и серваки у нас в Штатах таки
(пробовали в Канаду переехать, так там сразу потребовали,
чтобы никакого национализма)

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)


(Читать комментарии) -