Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday June 24 2015, @05:18AM   Printer-friendly
from the you-can't-make-this-up dept.

Techdirt reports that the German government, armed with a law that has its origin in more captive content (movies -- the kind shown in theatres) and attempting to apply it to the internet (ebook sales).

Heise.de (German) and Boersenblatt (German) reported on Friday and Thursday that the Jugendschutzbehörde (Youth Protection Authority) has handed down a new ruling which extended Germany's Youth Media Protection Law to include ebooks.

As a result of a lawsuit (legal complaint?) over the German erotica ebook Schlauchgelüste (Pantyhose Cravings), the regulators have decided that ebook retailers in Germany can now only sell adult ebooks between 10 pm and 6 am local time (4 pm and midnight, eastern US).


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 24 2015, @04:22PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday June 24 2015, @04:22PM (#200454)

    At this juncture, it's time to remind American readers that even cable channels in the US have to wait past a certain time (10PM?) to broadcast softcore porn. To "protect the children" from accidental exposure (or more precisely, their parents from awkward explanations).
    Germany and France, and probably most of the rest of Europe, have the same requirement.
    (The UK and AUS .gov would love the internet to be the "safe" too, but censoring IP is troublesome.)

    Physical porn stores don't have this limit, but you don't get age verified when you grab the remote. It's a compromise accepted by broadcasters, and which the Germans seem to have decided applies to e-readers, because they could get a few central entities to accept it.
    The content of the TV will rot your brain, but is "safe" for children because of labeling, editing and censorship. The e-readers "should" be safe for your children the same way, according to those people who'd rather see you hand an e-book than a remote to your kids. And I'm sure some people would object that you could get a dedicated service which doesn't provide porn, or just plain not allow your damn children to preview or buy stuff without your consent, but mommy's tablet is right there on the table (next to the remote) and she's locked the browser but left the e-reader function on.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 24 2015, @04:52PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 24 2015, @04:52PM (#200466)

    Are the ebooks that fast? I read "Fanny Hill" (A pretty interesting story BTW) and I could trivially order it at 3am when I usually wake up and not get to the fun parts until church bells are ringing, well, at least if I read really slowly. Ditto if I got an ebook copy of Huckleberry Finn if I read slowly enough it could be grade school time by the time I read my first "N word". On the other hand if I somehow tuned into 2G1C the latency from the tv to my eyeballs is measured in nanoseconds. So that aspect is weird. Then there's the classic usenet story groups, r/gonewildstories, places like that. Admittedly not written in German.

    I guess I'm saying I've read several ebooks that have been censored and/or erotica but I feel that if the .gov is doing whacko stuff I must be missing something really good. I used to be really good at finding the "good stuff" when I was a teen boy and if teen boys today are finding stuff I don't know even exists I'm feeling more than a bit left out.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 24 2015, @05:19PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday June 24 2015, @05:19PM (#200476)

      It might all be the second phase of a ploy by the device manufacturers and content providers, to remind us that there is still smut to be read.
      The first phase worked absolutfabulously, which the "shades" crap, but you know about attention span.

      (e-books let you search for the smutty parts, but I don't need that kind of features, since I'm not 13 anymore)

  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 24 2015, @07:14PM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday June 24 2015, @07:14PM (#200535)

    At this juncture, it's time to remind American readers that even cable channels in the US have to wait past a certain time (10PM?) to broadcast softcore porn.

    Which is completely intolerable and unconstitutional, by the way.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 24 2015, @07:40PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday June 24 2015, @07:40PM (#200544)

      For anyone broadcasting using public airwaves, the people can add whichever speech restriction they feel to the license agreement. Take it or leave it.
      For anyone installing their cable/fiber using government subsidies, the same is true.

      For anyone installing their own infrastructure without any government help of any kind, I completely agree with you (under the current legalese that companies programming copyrighted contents is Protected Speech). But has it ever happened?

      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 24 2015, @11:57PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday June 24 2015, @11:57PM (#200672)

        For anyone broadcasting using public airwaves, the people can add whichever speech restriction they feel to the license agreement. Take it or leave it.

        Incorrect. The fact that something happens in public or using public resources doesn't mean the first amendment no longer applies. Tyranny of the majority isn't a good concept.

        Who gets access to public airwaves should be on a first-come-first-serve basis, regardless of content.

        For anyone installing their cable/fiber using government subsidies, the same is true.

        I disagree. This just seems like a very underhanded way of silencing speech you don't like by saying that the first amendment magically doesn't apply any longer once the government becomes even slightly involved. The first amendment doesn't make any mention of this exception, however, which is what really matters.

        But has it ever happened?

        Obscenity laws. Anti-child porn laws criminalize the mere possession and distribution of images and videos, rather than merely criminalizing the rape. There have been attempts (though I don't think they have yet succeeded) to ban simulated or drawn pictures of children having sex, as well, which is even more nonsensical. Furthermore, copyright enforcement requires censorship.

        So, yes, the first amendment is being blatantly violated all the time.

        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 25 2015, @12:00AM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday June 25 2015, @12:00AM (#200673)

          Just curious, but do you think it would be legitimate to ban religion on public airwaves? What if we banned pro-republican speech but not pro-democrat speech, or vice versa? Maybe we could even ban people from talking about atheist or agnosticism on the public airwaves, if that's your thing. Relying on the authoritarian majority to dictate what's acceptable isn't a good idea, and it's not even constitutional.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @09:26AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @09:26AM (#200857)

            I always thought it's the electromagnetic waves that are restricted. Airwaves (aka sound) are to be used by anyone however he pleases, as long as he keeps the volume in a tolerable range.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 25 2015, @12:32AM

          by bob_super (1357) on Thursday June 25 2015, @12:32AM (#200684)

          > Who gets access to public airwaves should be on a first-come-first-serve basis, regardless of content.

          That's patently absurd.
          The People have the right to demand the best use of our assets. That's why we get frequency auctions between bidders, and carve out what's necessary for public services (safety and .mil). That's why you pay licenses for the use of the land, and so on...

          > using public resources doesn't mean the first amendment no longer applies

          Next you're gonna tell me that TV channels started doing Evening News because they like to waste money on journalism. Exclusivity on the airwaves came with a few requirements of Proper Behavior. Sure, you won't go to jail for speaking your mind, but the FCC is allowed to better allocate the frequencies when it's renewal time. It's in the contract.

          > This just seems like a very underhanded way of silencing speech you don't like by saying that the first amendment magically
          > doesn't apply any longer once the government becomes even slightly involved.

          The gov can't make laws restricting speech, but it also doesn't have to provide my tax money for you to put your cable into the ground.
          You get subsidies because you provide a community improvement, and the community decided to give you that money because you abide by their standards. You won't get sued for telling them to go to hell afterwards, but break the standards and you won't get public money the second time.
          There's a space between "free speech" and "I'm free to do anything with the collectivity's resources"

          >>But has it ever happened?

          You unsurprisingly didn't understand that point. read again.

          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 25 2015, @01:36AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday June 25 2015, @01:36AM (#200713)

            The People have the right to demand the best use of our assets.

            No, you don't have a right to silence speech you don't like because it happens in public or on public airwaves. Public airwaves are being used either way; the content absolutely does not matter.

            Exclusivity on the airwaves came with a few requirements of Proper Behavior.

            I see you're an authoritarian, as only an authoritarian would usually use a phrase like "Proper Behavior" (and capitalize it, no less). The FCC has no such authority to censor speech.

            The gov can't make laws restricting speech, but it also doesn't have to provide my tax money for you to put your cable into the ground.

            No, it doesn't have to, but it also shouldn't discriminate against people for their speech. If you don't want someone to get a government subsidy, you absolutely must come up with a better reason than "I don't like their speech!" Alternatively, provide no government subsidies at all (or provide them regardless of the content of someone's speech) and the problem vanishes. Pick one.

            I see no reason to allow the tyrannical majority or the government to enforce speech restrictions, but that's because I'm not a hardcore authoritarian.

            There's a space between "free speech" and "I'm free to do anything with the collectivity's resources"

            Whereas you seem to be perfectly fine with discriminating against people for their speech using the government as your lackey; that's basically a punishment in and of itself. If you hold these views, no public resources for you.

            What nonsensical puritan values should we uphold? I'm getting tired of that religious thing. No religious people should be able to use the public airwaves. If the rest of the public decided that, it would be okay for you. In fact, it might very well be okay for you, but that would be because you've revealed yourself as an authoritarian.

            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:56AM

              by bob_super (1357) on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:56AM (#200810)

              > I see you're an authoritarian, as only an authoritarian would usually use a phrase like "Proper Behavior" (and capitalize it, no less).

              Would you have preferred quotes, to help you grasp advanced speech concepts?

              > The FCC has no such authority to censor speech.

              Please volunteer your best explanation for the lack of nipples on American TV, and the heavy fines levied against their occasional accidental appearance.

              • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 25 2015, @02:37PM

                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday June 25 2015, @02:37PM (#200971)

                Would you have preferred quotes, to help you grasp advanced speech concepts?

                The notion of "proper behavior" is completely subjective, and in this case, designed to regulate speech.

                Please volunteer your best explanation for the lack of nipples on American TV, and the heavy fines levied against their occasional accidental appearance.

                The government is violating the constitution. Would you say that the government has a legitimate authority to murder anyone it wants if it simply started doing so? If a power is not mentioned in the constitution, the federal government simply does not have it. Furthermore, freedom of speech is explicitly mentioned, and no exceptions are listed or implied. The treacherous swines in every branch of the government do not deserve to be in any position of power.