No need for censorship on the internet

At an event in Berlin, it was concerned with the question of whether the ever-enchanted call for censorship against Nazipropaganda or child pornography makes sense

Actually, the pointed title promised a lot of audience and a controversy discussion. Finally, various human rights organizations such as the Humanist Union and the International League for Human Rights on Thursday evening in Berlin for discussion with the question: must the Internet be censored?. In the invitation it bothered: "Nazipropaganda, pornographic representations of children and calls to violence on the internet drove again and again loud calls after a censorship of these texts"

Only Ca. 40 ZUHORER, some of whom acquaintances to have no idea about the Internet. Even for a censorship neither in the public still wanted to pronounce someone in the audience. Maybe it was the dedicated lecture of the publicist Burkhard Schroder. "Censorship is incompatible with the Basic Law and also technically not possible", he said briefly and scarce. Nobody goes to the right because he’s on the internet on Nazipropaganda Stobe, stressed Schroder. On the contrary, rights could be unsettled if they were only forced to endure the Internet’s prison of the US Hitlerimitator Gary Laeck a long than 10 minutes.

Also Ansgar Baums, which is stated for right-wing extremism at the Berlin State Office for catching protection, could not contradict Schroder. There was no real policy strategy of the rights on the Internet. Basically, you only use your own clientele that romp on the internet: discourse-oriented rights such as Horst Mahler and its German colleague, adolescents and the recruitable free comrades. With the increasing Internet Prison, the right propaganda did not increase as a whole because the importance of scene shops and magazines was jerked. Trees quoted the former operators of the right thulatory law, which have set the project with the fundamentation that the Internet had not fulfilled the hopes of a strong politicization, but contributed to coarse fragmentation.

The Federal Chairman of the Association of Democratic Jurists and Lawyers, Martin Kutscha, could not be awaited for censorship on the internet. He even thunderously with some national links, he confessed. For example, the Landesverband North Rhine-Westphalia has buried the blocking of a right website by the government sprayers of Dusseldorf (commitment to censorship?To). Although Koutscha did not want to complete legal instruments against rights propaganda, but was primarily for civil society initiatives against the right. Hans Coppi excluded himself from the union of the persecuted of the Naziregime / Confederation of the anti-fascists. Also in his association were otherwise quite prohibition claims to horen. So Schroder remembered that a VVN activist does not link his side with the budgetary, he also listed there for rights to right websites.

Schroder, however, did not simply mitigate in the apparent consensus to demand all civil society measures against rights propaganda. There was a lot of good muggy, but at best ineffective, not infrequently counterproductive activities against right.

The debate showed that the censorship futures have become quieter and maybe even think their positions. This was able to give room for a discussion about pragmatic and effective maws against right, the Schroder requested several times.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: