Fabian Keil wrote: > Matej Kovacic <matej.kovacic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I would just like to let you know that Slovenian government (Slovenia is >> a member of European Union since last year) a week ago decided to block >> two on-line gambling sites, because they do not have a licence to >> operate in Slovenia. >> >> There are several problems with this, the major is that Office for >> Gaming Supervision sent a simple letter (not an official order!) to >> ISP's to block the site (what about "mere conduit" doctrine???) and >> major ISP's just did it. It is also funny, that European Court of >> Justice ruled in 2003 that across-border gambling like that is legal, >> because EU has free movement of services enacted (see case Gambelli). My >> personal opinion is that this cenzorship is illegal in many ways, but >> the problem is that ISP's dont want to oppose governemnt and they simply >> don't care about their users's rights. > > What is illegal about asking some providers to block some sites? > By the way, older members of the EU are (or were?) fond of > DNS blocks as well. NRW, Germany for example. > > Also my impression is that the European Court didn't rule that > across-border gambling is legal in the whole EU, but that > restrictions are only allowed if they happen in the public interest: > > |If a member state introduces restrictions on private games > |of chance, these must have the purpose of reducing the > |opportunities for gaming. > | > |In particular, this purpose is not achieved â reasoned the ECJ â > |if on the one hand a state prohibited private games of chance > |whilst on the other promoting state lotteries and games of chance > |in order to generate additional revenues for the Treasury. > <http://www.bwin.ag/2004/default.aspx?lang=en&id=5> > > (I'm aware what bwin Interactive Entertainment AG does, > but the description makes sense to me.) > >> So I just wanted to let you know that illegal cenzorship is not just >> something which is happening in China. And I hope a lot of people in >> Slovenia know about Tor now and see it as good anti-cenzorship tool. > > The Chinese government's censorship is done without > breaking Chinese law isn't it? Of course it still sucks, > but I don't see why it should be called illegal. > > Fabian Because it violates the Chinese Constitution. The Chinese Constitution is really just a 'goddammed piece of paper' in that it is completely ignored. But on paper the censorship is illegal. In reality, the guns are owned by the government. -- They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security --Benjamin Franklin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature