Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
Just a quick comment on this:
This line of thinking is in my opinion stupid, ignorant of history and as such extremely dangerous. (Unfortunately it's also common.)
First of all, you can never know what the intentions of others are. History is full of examples where deals or laws were made supposedly without Intent X, and immediately or soon after used exactly and specifically for X.
As an example, an internet censorship law was recently passed here in Finland. It was sold on the premise of fighting child pornography in the internet, in a truly classical "think of the children" tactic. Those for the law were adamant that the law was not intended to be used to suppress uncomfortable criticism or censor legal material.
Yet it was immediately used to shut down websites that critiqued the actions of the Finnish central police, plus numerous gay sites.
|
Not to de-rail the topic, but I'm a bit curious about this. Was it Lex Karpela you're referring to? I don't read a speck of Finnish, so I can't understand the written law (and sites don't seem to provide enough information on it), but what's the parralel between this and the US created SOPA possibilities?
I know SOPA seems to state you require a court order (allowing for human interpretation of the spirit of the law as oppose to loose writing, capable of multiple interpretations) and is very specific in what it can target (sites under American juristiction, which distribute streaming or other illegal spreading of copyrighted materials), and at what limit of estimated losses it would begin to pursue at...but it seems to be read much differently by most people. Did Lex Karpela (or whatever act you were referring to...I'm assuming here) have court required intervention first to ensure the spirit, not letter, was followed? Also, did it have very, very specific writings, or was it very loose in interpretation? The link on Wikipedia has very vague descriptions of both catagoies.