said by qworster :

It's not a crime to list trackers any more then it's a crime to talk about them.

Of course, in the Corporate States of America, free speech is already on the run as corporate interests' ca$h is all that matters to the politician$.

said by joebear29 :

In Sweden you can be criminally prosecuted for speech that is not politically correct.

»www.brusselsjournal.com/node/538

said by kamm :

Ummm wrong. Check your link: there's a hate crime in that case.

Instigating against minority/race/ethnic or gender is a crime everywhere. That's not part of free speeech, never been nor should be ever.

said by joebear29 :

You might want to read the first admendment. Hate speech is not a crime (in the United States) nor should it be.

said by kamm :

You're confused: hate crime != hate speech

And I was talking about EU - sorry if I wasn't clear.

said by joebear29 :

I edited my previous post to add another link. The whole premise that I replied to originally was speech was more free in Sweden. Since you agree that hate speech is illegal in EU/Sweden, and it is not in the U.S., then do we agree speech is not more free in Sweden?

said by kamm :

Oh, of course. I never said it's more free - all I was saying it's just as free as here.

said by joebear29 :

But it's not just as free there.

I'll make it simple:

U.S. - "Blacks are inferior" = you are an idiot, but speech is protected

EU - "Blacks are inferior" = you go to jail

See the difference?

said by P2PPirate2 :

I dont know about EU, but here in the State if you used the "N" word in front of the Black people you might not get arrested but you definately will feel some body pain after they get throught with you and even worst Al Sharpton will haunted you for the rest of your life. Still think free speak is protected?

said by Cyphre Lou :

I have a question.You call it freedom what the Bush administration is doing to US? And the world? Tell me about privacy, in 2 or 3 years from now ... even now.Look at "antiterorist" regulations etc.

said by joebear29 :

I'm sorry, please explain how George Bush has changed free speech laws.

said by joebear29 :

I'm sorry, please explain how George Bush has changed free speech laws.

said by joebear29 :

You might want to read the first admendment. Hate speech is not a crime (in the United States) nor should it be.

Edit:

Try this link:

»writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary···tel.html

Another Contrast: In Europe, Hate Speech Is Often Illegal

Second, "hate speech" - First-Amendment-protected in America, except in rare cases - is often deemed outright illegal in Europe.

Throughout Europe, there is legislation specifically limiting speech, including speech denying the Holocaust. For example, Germany, France, and Austria, all have such legislation.

Denmark, too, has related anti-hate legislation: Its law penalizes expressions that threaten, deride or degrade on the grounds of race, color, national or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation. Indeed, in the Jersild case, the Danish government attempted to enforce these laws against a television journalist.

Though the European Court of Human Rights drew the line on criminal prosecution on these grounds, and found there had been an attempt to counterbalance the racist views, the Court recognized the legitimate countervailing values at stake. And what's more, so did the Danish government.

While freedoms of speech and of religion are protected in Europe, there is also always a limit. One might see the arrangements as 'balanced rights." Dating back to the abuses of World War II, all the postwar conventions, such as the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, expressly limit advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

Anti-religious hate speech, is particular, is illegal in Europe. Blasphemy is still prohibited in many countries in Europe - whereas in the U.S., it is plainly First- Amendment-protected.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) made clear quite recently that it approves of some regulation of anti-religious speech, based on offensiveness.

In 1994, in Otto Preminger v. Austria, the ECHR upheld Austria's censorship of a satirical film that mocked Christian religious beliefs. Given the high percentage of Catholics in Tyrol, the European Court deferred to the national authorities "to ensure religious peace in that region" so that people shouldn't "feel the object of attacks on their religious beliefs in an unwarranted and offensive manner."

said by qworster :

In Sweden, free speech is likely more respected then in the USA. That's what I was pointing out.

said by maartena :

Most European countries are also not that sue-happy like us Americans.

said by maartena :

Nope. Actually, most European countries have less free speech then the United States.

They just have better copyright laws.

By the way...WHEN (not if) they get their servers back, they should sue the police for harassment and loss of revenue.

---

Most European countries are also not that sue-happy like us Americans.

said by KoolMoe :

So I generally agree with what you're saying and the overall arugment against such sites...
...but to say they're 'helping reduce our trade deficit'? Come on. Even you can't believe that's at all significant. Nice keyword to throw out though. I appreciate many of your counter arguments but throwing in such silly aspects reduces their value.
KM

said by MIllIlITER :

US movies and music is one of the biggest exports of the US. To not attempt to protect those exports from piracy would be foolhardy. In fact, much of our Commerce Dept's dealings with China is over this very issue. Now piracy comes in many forms. Bittorrent sites is currently the least of our worries. Outright creation of copied CD's and DVD's is much more prevalent and where China is the worst culprit. But as the CD/DVD problems get resolved thru WTO involvement with China, then the internet access becomes more important. It is better that the US and EU get ahead of the game now and not wait until it can't be controlled at all.

said by MIllIlITER :

US movies and music is one of the biggest exports of the US. To not attempt to protect those exports from piracy would be foolhardy. In fact, much of our Commerce Dept's dealings with China is over this very issue. Now piracy comes in many forms. Bittorrent sites is currently the least of our worries. Outright creation of copied CD's and DVD's is much more prevalent and where China is the worst culprit. But as the CD/DVD problems get resolved thru WTO involvement with China, then the internet access becomes more important. It is better that the US and EU get ahead of the game now and not wait until it can't be controlled at all.

said by ross :

Pirate Bay should get their equipment back without delay once the Swedish police realize they have been duped, and made to look foolish, by the bigger pigs at the RIAA.

said by qworster :

They don't have to have any evidence, just a suspicion - and that suspicion can be given to them by someone else (like the **AA).

said by qworster :

Ideed, in some cases they don't even need the warrant, just "probable cause" of a crime.

said by qworster :

For example, if a cop comes by your car and smells what he believes is pot, he can search your car without any warrant. The fact is that you might be wearing cannabis perfume and there's no pot is irrelevant. Or even worse, they can seize your car, impound it, tow it away, tear it apart, store it, then charge YOU thousands of dollar$ in fees to get it back - ripped apart - even though no crime was committed or evidence was found (of course, this assumes that they don't place a baggy under your seat - and don't kid yourself, it happens all the time!!

said by qworster :

The whole purpose of a search warrant is do GET evidence - and they are abused all the time!

said by backness :

isn't that the same thing a bit torrent tracker does?

links you to a computer with the file?

said by FiL :

Ive come to believe those "anon" posters are either A- mods and site admins wanting to "stir up" the conversation, or B- TKJunkmail trying his hardest to show us he's got friends on his side...

said by HMS1 :

If anyone is going to read MPAA propaganda, please also read the statement of Pirate Party principles from Christian Engstrom.

»slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=187···15435271