French to Block Child Pornography, Terrorism and Hate Websites

June 11th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

The French government has struck a deal with Internet providers ‘have struck a deal to block sites carrying child pornography or content linked to terrorism or racial hatred, Interior Minister Michel Alliot-Marie announced Tuesday.’

 The plan, part of a larger effort to fight cybercriminality, is to go into effect in September when a “black list” will be built up based on input from Internet users who signal sites dealing with the offensive material, the minister said.

The announcement comes on the heels of a similar deal in the United States, also announced Tuesday. There, three service providers — Verizon, Sprint and TimeWarner Cable_ have agreed with New York state officials to block child pornography sites nationwide.

Alliot-Marie said all service providers in France have agreed to block offending sites but did not name them.

Although one can certainly understand the need to block websites that display child pornography it becomes a bit more difficult to ban ‘hate speech websites’ and terrorism websites. After all, what constitutes hate speech? Means disagreeing with the French government on controversial subjects equal ‘hate speech’?

Additionally one has to wonder whether the French care about the freedom of speech. Don’t most of us agree that we have the right to offend other people?

Although terrorism websites are obviously meant to take aim at the West as a whole, I feel that it is important to point out that supporting terrorism in words should fall under the freedom of speech as well. Of course, at the moment those websites start giving information to wannabe terrorists about how to commit terrorist attacks and where, the situation changes. But here too we have to worry about definitions.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  1. Claudia, Assistant Editor
    June 11th, 2008 at 13:12
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Agreed. The "terrorism" part worries me especially, given how loose American politicians are with what constitutes supporting terrorism.

    I don’t really see the need for this. Generally speaking, illegal activities should remain illegal online, which covers child pornography and conspiring with terrorists. Blocking child pornography is certainly good, but on the other hand online child porn busts allow authorities to identify and detain child predators that otherwise might pass under the radar.

  2. John Maszka
    June 12th, 2008 at 02:52
    Reply | Quote | #2

    New Release: Terrorism And The Bush Doctrine by John Maszka ISBN-13: 9781606100103 Pub. Date: May 2008  "Terrorism and the Bush Doctrine is a must read for anyone concerned with terrorism. This title is both sensitive to the issue of terrorism and persuasive in its approach to solving it."   Terrorism is perhaps the greatest challenge facing mankind in the twenty-first century. It has been researched, debated, analyzed and contemplated by some of the greatest minds on the planet. And yet no known solution exists. When putting out a fire, while it is important to know what type of fire it is before attempting to put it out, firefighters understand that the key to putting out any fire is to remove its source of oxygen. Likewise, terrorism depends on popular support to sustain itself. Without popular support, the majority of funding, recruits and overall acceptance will disappear. Therefore, the primary goal for eliminating terrorism is to eliminate the sources of popular support. This book argues that this has to be the standard approach and strategy. These pages examine three primary components of contemporary American foreign policy: unilateralism, preemption and military hegemony, as well as how they impact terrorism. 

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.


Warning: is_writable() [function.is-writable]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(error_log) is not within the allowed path(s): (/home/p6525pol:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php:/tmp) in /home/p6525pol/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 500