I challenge you to consider how it could be any other way - if the onus is on the other side, why stop at the website operator for not blocking Germans from their site? Is the host not also responsible? The ISP? Should FedEx be responsible for not inspecting their packages for illegal chocolates? Your implications here are in utter contradiction to existing international law concerning the import and export of goods. They can block my blog - that's also fine. Germany can sieze my chocolates in customs - that's fine. If I run a blog in America, and somebody in Germany comments 'Heil Hitler', I should not expect to get arrested if I have a layover flight in Berlin because I didn't delete that comment. If I sell chocolates in America, and somebody in Germany where I have zero presence buys them, I should not expect to get arrested if I step foot on German soil because I used an ingredient banned in Germany. If the app or website is illegal in Germany, Germans who use it are the ones breaking the law here. In the case of Project Gutenberg and Telegram, the German side is the consumer, so it's entirely comparable. I can even confirm this is the case in Europe, as I once lived in the EU and paid import duties myself on something I imported from America. If you think stopping nazis is authoritarianism, then you'd be the same kind of person that lets authoritarianism bootstamp all over them in the name of freedom. (You know with the eugenics and everything!) I's not about "disparaging things about the ", it's about running a website or service and not reacting to the fact that actual nazis are using the service. >It would be evil and unethical for the USA to, e.g., use the US government to attack a French website for disparaging things about the USA That changes when the "wholly USA" website is being used by German citizens, who are under jurisdiction. > wholly based in the USA because it does not like things on the website that are no only legal in the USA, protected by the fundamental rights and laws of the land, and are in line with all principles of human rights. The operators of the channel have an open arrest warrant for inciting hatred, denying the holocaust and death threats against public and private persons. If illegal actions are being perpetrated (e.g., death threats) then prosecute them. You either support freedom, free speech, and human rights or you don't there is no freedom and human rights light. But that never lasts once the trap doors are slammed shut. We are entering a really dangerous situation where people are sleepwalking into supporting authoritarianisms, simply because they are conditioned to think they are part of the in-group. It would be evil and unethical for the USA to, e.g., use the US government to attack a French website for disparaging things about the USA or even just negatively discussing actions and behaviors of Americans, just as much as it would be evil for anyone else to do that. Just consider the implications of a foreign government taking action against a US website, wholly based in the USA, because it does not like things on the website that are no only legal in the USA, protected by the fundamental rights and laws of the land (Constitution), and are in line with all principles of human rights. The German government has even tried attacking Gab, and regardless of what you may think of Gab, it is not a good thing if you do not want to find yourself one day having overslept living in a totalitarian regime. What this is all about is incremental conditioning towards normalizing censorship for "local law" violations … the same kinds of wanton "laws" conjured up by all the dictatorial regimes that all the western societies are quickly drifting towards. So, with the cards being clearly drawn, let’s jump on the ship and let the sail begin towards the best Adult Telegram channels 18+.This is clearly a bait and switch.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |