On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 03:05:17PM +0100, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> Prosecuted according to sec. 3g will be who publishes denial,
> belittlement, approval or compurgation of the national socialist
> genocide via print-media, broadcast or in any other media or in a way
> that is accessible for a lot of people.
I don't see any reason why we should pander to the insanely fascist
censorship policies of an obscure state.
> Conclusion:
>
> If SimNazi is included into the main archive and distributed to Austrian
> mirrors this would put our fellow mirror sponsors and the project itself
> including our DPL, who is Austrian, in danger of imprisonment.
I am quite sure that I am in no danger of imprisonment by the Austrian
Gestapo, any more than I am by the Libyan regime. The whole reason why
we have armies is to protect us from these oppresive powers. Therefore
there's no reason to think they are somehow a threat to the project.
People unlucky enough to have been born under such a government will
just have to look after themselves. They have many options available
to them.
All this is stunningly irrelevant though, given that Austria is a
member of the EU these days, and this law is a blatant breach of
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. So it's invalid
and should get struck down. Any European citizen who is afflicted by
this law can and should appeal to the European Court of Human Rights,
who routinely overturn this sort of thing. Quoting from Karhuvaara and
Iltalehti v. Finland (nothing special about it, just the most recent
judgement on a claim against Article 10 with an English
transcription):
37. According to the Court's well-established case-law, freedom of
expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a
democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its
progress and each individual's self-fulfilment. Subject to
paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to
"information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded
as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those
that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism,
tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no
"democratic society". This freedom is subject to the exceptions
set out in Article 10 § 2, which must, however, be construed
strictly. The need for any restrictions must be established
convincingly (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8
July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, § 41, and Nilsen and Johnsen
v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
Which should give a fair indication of their opinion about this sort
of thing.
Using their search tool for appeals against Austria under Article 10
makes for amusing reading. Apparently they do this sort of thing a
lot. Most of them are upheld.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature