SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Germany Says You Can't Sell Adult Ebooks Until After 10 PM
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 51 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 25 2015, @01:36AM
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
> 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
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.