Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

British Telecom ordered to blacklist Usenet search engine

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: British Telecom ordered to blacklist Usenet search engine

#11

Post by ashconnor »

jasonjei wrote: post #8

While the US doesn't exactly have an untarnished record with free speech, at least it is a constitutional right. The UK, on the other hand, doesn't guarantee freedom of speech and has in recent years banned certain forms of literature. Michael Savage is banned from entering the UK and was compared to violent religious and racial zealots, even though he never told anyone to use violence. From Wikipedia: > "On 6 Decemb…

Although the UK doesn't have a constitution, Freedom of Speech is guaranteed in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

That being said, the number of clauses in which freedom of speech is 'restricted' means that the UK doesn't strictly have freedom of speech. You are even free to speak as you want or not. The UK falls into the latter category.

Re: British Telecom ordered to blacklist Usenet search engine

#12

Post by aes256 »

rjd wrote: post #6
hippich wrote: post #3

hm. Since source code available, just deploy site to new server under new domain name. If for every domain blocked Hollywood lawyers will need to ask court - this become unprofitable soon =))

Probably not, depending ont he final wording of the court decision a reasonable demonstration its the same site the same ruling could be applied without going back to court.

Surely such a demonstration would require another court order, though? If not, who is to judge the extent to which two sites are the same site?

If the Newzbin source code is released — and to be clear the issue here is not the software itself but what people do with it — and a hundred Newzbin clones pop up overnight with entirely different branding, domains, hosting arrangements, etc., surely one court order against Newzbin is not enough to force ISPs to block all of them?

To reiterate, the software behind Newzbin is entirely legitimate. Passing a court order that enables blocking orders for all websites using the same software would be akin to one that enabled the blocking of all Wordpress blogs because one such blog had been used for illegal purposes.

The thin edge of a very large wedge indeed...

Re: British Telecom ordered to blacklist Usenet search engine

#13

Post by antihero »

aes256 wrote: post #12
rjd wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not, depending ont he final wording of the court decision a reasonable demonstration its the same site the same ruling could be applied without going back to court.

Surely such a demonstration would require another court order, though? If not, who is to judge the extent to which two sites are the same site? If the Newzbin source code is released — and to be clear the issue here is not the software itself but what people do with it — and a hundred Newzbin clones pop up overnight with entirely different branding, domains, hosting arrangements, etc., surely one court order against…

There's a project called Newznab directly written for the purpose of allowing people to set up indexing sites easily.

Re: British Telecom ordered to blacklist Usenet search engine

#14

Post by radu_floricica »

ashconnor wrote: post #11
jasonjei wrote: post #8

While the US doesn't exactly have an untarnished record with free speech, at least it is a constitutional right. The UK, on the other hand, doesn't guarantee freedom of speech and has in recent years banned certain forms of literature. Michael Savage is banned from entering the UK and was compared to violent religious and racial zealots, even though he never told anyone to use violence. From Wikipedia: > "On 6 Decemb…

Although the UK doesn't have a constitution, Freedom of Speech is guaranteed in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. That being said, the number of clauses in which freedom of speech is 'restricted' means that the UK doesn't strictly have freedom of speech. You are even free to speak as you want or not. The UK falls into the latter category.

Yelling fire in a theater? Absolutes are of no use in this kind of discussion... better to go with "more" and "enough".

Re: British Telecom ordered to blacklist Usenet search engine

#15

Post by ashconnor »

radu_floricica wrote: post #14
ashconnor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although the UK doesn't have a constitution, Freedom of Speech is guaranteed in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. That being said, the number of clauses in which freedom of speech is 'restricted' means that the UK doesn't strictly have freedom of speech. You are even free to speak as you want or not. The UK falls into the latter category.

Yelling fire in a theater? Absolutes are of no use in this kind of discussion... better to go with "more" and "enough".

Then the offense should be "endangering the public" through wreckless actions than the speech itself.

Re: British Telecom ordered to blacklist Usenet search engine

#16

Post by rjd »

aes256 wrote: post #12
rjd wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not, depending ont he final wording of the court decision a reasonable demonstration its the same site the same ruling could be applied without going back to court.

Surely such a demonstration would require another court order, though? If not, who is to judge the extent to which two sites are the same site? If the Newzbin source code is released — and to be clear the issue here is not the software itself but what people do with it — and a hundred Newzbin clones pop up overnight with entirely different branding, domains, hosting arrangements, etc., surely one court order against…

Yeah it would depend on the wording of the final decision. But courts aren't stupid, and criminals trying to alter behavior to side step a ruling is nothing new either. These cat and mouse games have been going on since laws started.
Post reply on HN