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
Related Stories
[Janrinok says: You may remember this story from a few weeks ago. Basically, the relevant bodies in Munich had decided that e-books of an extreme sexual nature could only be sold online between the times of 2200 and 0600. We discussed it, laughed at the concept of 'time' restrictions on something that covered the entire globe, and then we moved on... Well, yesterday we received a submission/letter from Joanna Kamermans, the author of the e-book in question, pointing out that she had read our story and comments and that she was appreciative of the publicity that her book had received. Not just the publicity from our site but from others that had also decided to publish or comment on the story. I will not print her letter here as it (and the links within it) are most definitely NSFW - but, of course, it can be found via the Original Submission link at the bottom of this story. It just goes to show that what we write and say here can travel far further than we might initially imagine. Those of you who wish to communicate further with Ms Kamermans may do so away from this site, but I should warn you that she describes herself as Johanna Kamermans (1938) - perhaps it is just a very common name in Bavaria or, perhaps not...]
Don't worry, the next story will be along in a moment.
(Score: 1) by plnykecky on Wednesday June 24 2015, @05:32AM
As if there wasn't a problem already to get the young people to read books.
Did they realize deep night in Germany is plain daylight somewhere else?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @07:54AM
They try to protect the German youth. Protecting the American youth is not their business (not that many Americans could read German language books anyway).
Whether the measures are meaningful is, of course, another question. I mean, staying awake longer than you are supposed to is not exactly unheard of.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 24 2015, @02:37PM
The measure isn't meaningful because it's puritan nonsense. The notion that children will somehow be harmed by adult books is unproven and subjective. And most importantly, this sounds like blatant censorship (If you have X on your website before Y time, you'll be punished.), which would, by itself, make this measure intolerable.
The "for the children" crowd needs to vanish and never be given power over anything.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 24 2015, @03:19PM
blatant censorship
"Time Preference" based insult. Much like claiming alcohol drinkers are too dumb to buy liquor before 9pm so if we just stop sales at 9 nobody will get drunk is supposed to insult/anger drinkers into not drinking, the theory is if you cut off purchases for erotica readers at certain hours they'll be too dumb/angry to schedule around it. Its a law based on being weirdly insulting. Like those judges that provide punishments like standing on street corners holding up a sign and stuff like that.
If on the other hand it was censorship they'd be banning the kids from buying entirely, not just certain hours, much like my local pr0n shop is restricted by the municipality to only allow in 21 yrs and over, because no one under 21 has sex, or something equally weird.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 24 2015, @04:22PM
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.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 24 2015, @04:52PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 24 2015, @07:09PM
f on the other hand it was censorship they'd be banning the kids from buying entirely
Nope. Censorship at specific hours is still censorship, and this is government-mandated censorship at that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @09:21AM
You're confusing the measure with the goal. What you do is to criticize the goal. But whether a method is meaningful is completely independent of whether the goal you try to achieve with it is worthwhile.
For example, you surely will agree that maximizing the number of deaths is not a worthwhile goal. Nevertheless throwing a nuclear bomb over every major city of the world is a meaningful method to achieve that goal (assuming you have the power to do so). On the other hand, just asking all people to kill themselves is not a meaningful method to achieve it.
In the case here, the goal is to prevent children from having access to porn. You can argue whether that is a worthwhile goal, or a misguided one, but that's irrelevant for the question of whether the measure of only selling it in the night is a meaningfol method to do it. To decide that, you have to look at whether it does what it is meant to do, namely prevent children having access to porn.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @05:49AM
I appreciate the time zone-adjusted hours. Do they take American Express?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @06:04AM
They do take it, but there's no saying what they do with it once taken.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday June 24 2015, @06:48AM
When I first went to Germany in the mid-1980's I was introduced to a large advertisement for a sex shop in the Frankfurt am Main airport. The ad had a fully naked woman, save for the little pasties covering her nipples. Now, if the Germans are unafraid of introducing naked women to little children and not so little in the airport, why are they so concerned about the distribution of fuck novels to them?
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @06:56AM
Indeed. Are libraries required to hide naughty volumes during daylight hours?
(Score: 1) by epl on Wednesday June 24 2015, @11:51AM
No, but (hardcopy) books have different rules to abide by that eBooks since even though the actual content is the same, the laws aren't because eBooks are now considered "telemedia".
German law differentiates between media on an "index", which is mainly hardcore porn, excessive violence and ultra-right material; this media is considered not suitable for children. As books are less interactive and graphic of nature than movies etc. they can be real/borrowed/bought by children unless they're on this index.
"Telemedia", he afformentioned movies, videogames and now eBooks, are handled differently and may only be sold to people who have reached the according age (categories 6, 12, 16 and 18).
As it's a digital medium ebooks are classed as Telemedia, although there is no difference in content to hardcopies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @07:11AM
Sounds like someone forgot that women have genitals too. Now that's sexist!
(Score: 2) by romlok on Wednesday June 24 2015, @08:15AM
In many countries and cultures, nudity is not considered pornographic in and of itself.
(Score: 1) by jalopezp on Wednesday June 24 2015, @03:37PM
A naked sunbather might not be pornographic in germany, but I'm pretty sure any way you look at it a naked woman wearing pasties and advertising a sex shop would be pretty pornographic.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday June 24 2015, @06:28PM
I disagree - if the advert was shown in an airport then it was probably not what anyone in Europe would consider 'pornographic'. Opinions differ considerably. The subject being advertised might be pornography, but the advert could show a partly clothed woman (pasties etc) without most people even noticing it.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 24 2015, @07:35PM
Cf. "partly clothed" vs. "mostly naked"...you have to cover like, what, 5% of your body to be legally clothed on a beach?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @07:04AM
Thanks so much! I don't like it when people are shoulder surfing while I'm buying smut.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by deimios on Wednesday June 24 2015, @07:48AM
Nobody has any problem with violence, not even the children. However everybody is up in arms when it comes to porn. Guess what, if you make a big deal then the kids will consider it a big deal and be more interested in it.
If everyone would just say "it's just porn" and get on with their lives then maybe we could start teaching kids AND parents about having a healthy sexual habits.
I'm pretty sure that the general public embarrassment regarding sex results in way too many cases of infertility or even fatalities through STDs or unwanted pregnancies.
Are there any studies about kids who grew up in households where porn use is common and where parents actually teach kids the right things about sex?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @08:05AM
I was born in the 1980's, and grew up with an Internet connection starting around 1995. I've seen it all! I should be in a study!
I've never understood the big deal about protecting people from porn, or being protected from it. The only thing that having access to an endless supply of porn for the past 20 years has done for me is mentally scar me with the knowledge that I like red-haired girls more than blondes.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday June 24 2015, @08:15AM
Germany is, on the whole, very tolerant regarding nudity, sexual activity and the realities of relationships - far more so than many other nations. I am surprised, therefore, that such a law is being suggested. I note that it is based on other legislation regarding advertising and teleshopping dating back to 2002, so perhaps there will be some changes to bring it more up to date.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @09:50AM
This is Germany we are speaking about here. In Germany, people are far more sensitive to violence than to nudity. Indeed, I guess quite a few things we see on regular TV (including some stuff shown before 22:00) would be considered pornographic in the US. OTOH something can well be adult rated because of violence, without having any sexually explicit material at all.
And BTW, I've heard that in the US you cannot even show a condom on TV. While in Germany, when AIDS was a hot topic, we even had official TV advertisements for using condoms.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 24 2015, @03:33PM
I wonder about the age distribution. In the USA TV skews extremely old. Average fox news viewer is like 70. If some 80 year old dude still needs condom ads then he's doing REALLY well. I have noticed older people tend to tolerate violence pretty well, I mean they grew up in era of corporal punishment and nuns beating schoolchildren and the holocaust and all that, so "Fight Club" isn't really going to be a big deal. Aside from agitprop the "normal" TV viewer of boring prime time stuff is assumed to be at least a baby boomer aka basically retirement age. Its possible that in Germany non-blue-hairs watch TV and in that case non-blue hair commercials make sense.
I'm just trying to envision one of those stereotypical agitprop channels where the viewers are all retired senior citizens shouting at their TV about liberals and the ads are all for old people pills, suddenly having a condom ad just to get them all wound up and generate PR via the controversy itself ("Why the nerve, my johnson hasn't had action since the Johnson administration and those darn liberuls put this condom ad on my TV!")
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @05:35PM
Why would they need a condom? They'd just have their property get tubal ligation if it was still in child-bearing age.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @10:31AM
I would generally agree with your assessment in regard to violence, but when it comes to Germany this is way off, they have very strict censorship of violent video games as one example, a lot of movies broadcast on TV are also censored with violent scenes often cut out abruptly (try watching the German cut of Starship Troopers).
(Score: 1, Spam) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday June 24 2015, @07:57AM
http://nsfwjobs.com/ [nsfwjobs.com]
theyre in seattle.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @08:15AM
mod down -1 Spam
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday June 24 2015, @08:40AM
i found them while researching my computer employer index.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @09:33AM
Buy Penis Pills [natural-gain-plus.com]
I am not affiliated with Natural Gain Plus. I only found them while searching for penis pills onine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @09:56AM
I see why you are posting anonymously. ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @10:58AM
Because of the spelling error?
(Score: 2) by GoonDu on Wednesday June 24 2015, @08:45AM
As a person from Asia, I am glad I can buy an erotica from Germany at 4am in the morning just in time to appreciate the sunrise after a good wanking. Thank you Germany!
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Wednesday June 24 2015, @09:28AM
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 24 2015, @01:32PM
Germany has an interesting relationship with sexuality. In medieval times the Catholic church there ran the brothels in some places, because it was believed giving the men an outlet for their passions prevented other social ills (sorry, guys, I don't have a link handy or time to google my way to one now). It's also true you can see nudity on regular television and in magazines and newspapers. The Reeperbahn in Hamburg is a well-known red light district that rivals Amsterdam in Europe.
And yet, you occasionally see moves like this.
For my money, though, the Japanese leave the Germans in the dust for complicated sexuality. You could write volumes. Actually, volumes have been written. And manga. And anime.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @03:24PM
I don't think there is any base of fact in the church running brothels.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Wednesday June 24 2015, @06:50PM
Try this link: http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gfg_prostitution.htm [badnewsaboutchristianity.com]
and from here [wikipedia.org]:
Or you could try this. [thecrimson.com]
There are, of course, sites denying that the church actually 'ran' the brothels, but that they permitted them to be operated and supported them by financial assistance, 'ministering' to prostitutes, and providing protection from those who wished them to be closed down. It's hard to find anyone with any unequivocal evidence either way, but I certainly wouldn't discount it out of hand. The more recent disclosures regarding sexual abuse by priests indicates that they are as fallible as everyone else. Furthermore, the fact that many such abusers were known to the church but provided with 'protection' suggests that the church is entirely able to do things that are criminal when it suits its purpose.
(Score: 1) by slothroplives on Wednesday June 24 2015, @09:11PM
A bishop running some brothels is not the same as the church running them.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:21AM
Did you bother to read the links?
Now I suppose those 'great throngs of courtesans' frequenting Saint Peter's Palace could have been tourists but, in 1501, I don't think so.
The reference to Avignon [wikipedia.org] is because there were several people claiming to be the true Pope - but both catholic centers had similar problems with sexual activity, and each supported and protected 'courtesans' inside the church grounds. Now where I live, that is enough to result in a charge of either causing or inciting prostitution for gain, or controlling prostitution for gain [...] .
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 24 2015, @03:37PM
Catholic church there ran the brothels in some places
We also have those in the supposedly Puritan USA, but its only for priests and altar boys.
(Score: 1) by Type44Q on Wednesday June 24 2015, @04:18PM
For my money, though, the Japanese leave the Germans in the dust for complicated sexuality. You could write volumes. Actually, volumes have been written. And manga. And anime.
Having grown up there in the mid 70's to early 80's, boy could I tell you stories...!