Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (60085)	12/5/2002 9:29:04 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<...Being critical of one's government doesn't strike me as anti-Americanism; rather quintessential Americanism...>> I couldn't agree more. regards, -Scott btw, here's one of my favorite quotes... 'Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it.' --Mark Twain

To: JohnM who wrote (60085)	12/5/2002 9:38:08 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Interesting REASON piece on the state of Internet Censorship. Filter Tips What Europe can learn from China's censors By Jacob Sullum Two years after a French judge ordered Yahoo to prevent his countrymen from seeing the Nazi memorabilia available through its online auction site, the company still has not complied. Yahoo Web pages accessible in France continue to hawk Nazi coins, Nazi stamps, even copies of Mein Kampf. The French consider this brazen display of Third Reich collectibles an outrageous violation of their sovereignty, since anything that incites racial hatred (as coins imprinted with swastikas and stamps depicting Hitler presumably are bound to do) is illegal in the land of Voltaire. To Yahoo, by contrast, the demand that a U.S. company operating on U.S. soil comply with French speech restrictions is an outrageous violation of the First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit grappled with these clashing views the other day, when it considered whether to uphold a lower court's decision siding with Yahoo. "All the French court's saying is, 'Whatever you do, don't impact France,' " suggested Judge Warren Ferguson. "That's called homeland security." Judge Melvin Brunetti seemed to see things differently. Yahoo's servers "are not doing anything at all to you," he told the lawyer defending the French court order. "They're just sitting in the United States." Fortuitously, a study released the day after oral arguments in the Yahoo case points the way to a resolution of this seemingly intractable conflict: Rather than compel American companies to shield French citizens from offensive speech, France should take a cue from China and do the shielding itself. Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain and technology analyst Benjamin Edelman have compiled a list of some 19,000 Web sites that "were inaccessible from China on multiple occasions while remaining accessible from the United States." These include sites run by human rights groups, dissidents, universities, foreign governments, news outlets, and religious organizations. Zittrain and Edelman tested about 200,000 potentially sensitive sites, of which fewer than 10 percent were blocked. You might therefore conclude that the Chinese government's shield is not very effective. Among the top 100 sites suggested by the Google search engine in response to the words "freedom china," for example, only 32 were blocked. On the other hand, "more than 60% of Google's top 100 'Tibet' sites were found to be blocked," along with nearly half of the top "Taiwan" sites. That suggests China's censors are doing pretty well where it matters most. Different countries have different censorship priorities. Zittrain and Edelman report, for instance, that only 13 percent of the sexually explicit sites they tested were blocked in China, compared to 86 percent in Saudi Arabia. Surely France could achieve similar success if it focused on material that inspires racial, ethnic, or religious hatred. And France would not be alone in this endeavor. It could draw on the help of all the other European countries that prohibit hate speech. The European Commission's proposal to harmonize hate speech standards across the continent should make it possible to work on a filtering system jointly. The scope for cooperation would be expanded further by the Council of Europe's Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime Concerningthe Criminalization of Acts of a Racist or Xenophobic Nature Committed Through Computer Systems. That treaty amendment would prohibit "distributing, or otherwise making available,...any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals based on race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion." Translating the protocol into filtering software may be tricky. Ideally, the filter should be sophisticated enough to catch a statement like, "Those French sure are thin-skinned and intolerant." But China has shown that you can make a dent in the problem of dangerous speech even if you can't be 100 percent successful. More important, filtering methods are bound to improve. Zittrain and Edelman note that China's censors are starting to look for key words or phrases on Web pages instead of taking the relatively clumsy approach of targeting entire sites. China also is experimenting with a technique that redirects people who try to visit sensitive areas of the Internet to safe substitute sites. Perhaps one day wayward Web users not only won't know what they're missing; they won't even know that they're missing it. With guidance from pioneers such as China and Saudi Arabia, France and other enlightened countries can dare to dream of that day.

To: JohnM who wrote (60085)	12/6/2002 3:45:44 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

...there are two things getting mushed together here. One is the worldwide negative sentiment about the US. I think it's been there for sometime but the policies of the Bush folk have made it worse. There is a second process, however, and it's the one that disturbs me, in which certain commentators think it's a good idea to accuse the American critics of Bush's policies of anti-Americanism because they are critical. The original string came out of discussion of the appointment of the somewhat shop soiled Elliott Abrams. Which because I'm not US citizen and don't live there is not of great interest to me. I thought Tek's comment was apposite - why can't they appoint new untarnished right wing loonies? - or something to that effect. The discussion eventually diverted to the more interesting one of the sources of the criticism of US policy. Bill is very strong on the idea that a lot of it is based in erroneous description (although he doesn't use the term). His view, as I understand it, is that the erroneous descriptions are the result of too great reliance on theory ultimately derived from Marx's writings and the interpretations of them. ("It all goes back to some scribbler"). He posted an interesting article by Lee Harris, "The Intellectual Origins of America-Bashing", from Policy Review which has the intent of tracing these origins from marxist writing. Harris is quite clear what he means by 'america-bashing': America-bashing is anti-Americanism at its most radical and totalizing. Its goal is not to advise, but to condemn; not to fix, but to destroy. It repudiates every thought of reform in any normal sense; it sees no difference between American liberals and American conservatives; it views every American action, both present and past, as an act of deliberate oppression and systemic exploitation. It is not that America went wrong here or there; it is that it is wrong root and branch. The conviction at the heart of those who engage in it is really quite simple: that America is an unmitigated evil, an irredeemable enormity. Well now! Is there such a thing? He cites some examples and I've read and heard some of it also, from all sorts of places inside and outside the US. I think it does qualify as anti-americanism. (If we could find a new label, it might be easier for you folk to talk about it, don't you think?) What I did find interesting was Harris's explanation of how folk got to such a view. I think it may be a valuable thing to know how folk got to such a mistaken belief and to perhaps to some less extreme but also mistaken beliefs. Bill summed it up nicely in a reply to me: Frank, the key point to me is this shows you where the idea that the "USA is getting rich by impoverishing the Third World" originated from. It stated with Marxists,who spread it, and is now being repeated mindlessly by people who would not know Karl Marx and his followers if they walked up and bit them on the rear. It is the ideological basis that Chomsky and his followers run on. 911 gave them a great platform to push the point of view that American is the fountainhead of evil. I find it is much easier to combat an Ideology if you understand where it came from. The crucial phrase is "USA is getting rich by impoverishing the Third World." That is what a lot of America-bashers do say. It's powerful, lots of normative content there. It's also wrong. It doesn't fit reality, the marxist objective conditions, without which ideas will be fantasist and utopian. Describe what's actually going on and we see the USA (and the EU) is actually getting less rich by impoverishing 3rd world; to the tune of at least 311 billion dollars a year, which at the margin is not chump change. (Remember the article from WSJ about African ag we discussed yesterday or day before). If the "opposition's" aim is skewed how can it be effective in changing the conditions it deplores? Bill is right to be upset with the likes of Chomsky, who is far more intelligent than me or Bill, extremely scholarly, very influential, and has it extremely, horribly wrong. (I've no doubt Chomsky believes he's a great patriot but he's still got it wrong). How could he be so wrong? What lens is he looking through? Harris has a description of the manufacture and astigmatism of that lens and the nature of the error contributing to the astigmatism. That is, its distorted even in marxist terms which themselves are already discredited by objective reality. I say the view through such a lens leads to an inaccurate description which leads to erroneous ideas and lots of extra unintended consequences arising from their application. I don't see Bill attacking the patriotism of those he says are saying anti-american things and I do see him attacking their ideas. And I'm sure that's why he posted Harris's article. Like I said, you guys need a new label so you can talk about these things. Having said THAT. Here is my outsider's sermon for you guys: Right now the US 'left' and 'right' are talking past each other. The 'right' says things like, you lefties don't get it, and how can you say these things about America, where's your patriotism? The 'left' says things like you're right wing war mongers, baby starvers, McCarthyites. Neither side is useful to themselves or the other with this stuff. You live in a modern country. You must believe in the two big things democracy and reason. The US Democrats right now are jammed by defeat - they have to examine all their premises. The US Republicans are stuck with victory and have to examine all their premises because they are in power - their mistakes matter right now. The 'right' and 'left' must oppose each other on the field of ideas otherwise what they do is a vast exercise in narcissism. There is real gold in hostility. What's the deep idea being defended? End of sermon. But there is a point: Am I missing your point? Perhaps. I'm not entirely sure of this: One is the worldwide negative sentiment about the US. I think it's been there for sometime but the policies of the Bush folk have made it worse. My guess is that if the proper distinctions are made in the surveys it's the classic distaste for the government and a like for the American people. The Bushies have done only one really clumsy thing and that was put forward preemption as a principle. It was unnecessary. If you have to preempt, you do it and it's always an exceptional thing. It's about the world wide anti US sentiment. That the folk who are against the US like US citizens individually, is not relevant. They vote, they influence policy makers in democratic countries, and are a convenient shield for rulers to hide behind in undemocratic ones.