Via Slashdot, I see that France has decided to censor its citizens’ Internet access:

The French state and internet service providers have struck a deal to block sites carrying child pornography or content linked to terrorism or racial hatred, Interior Minister Michel [sic] Alliot-Marie announced on Tuesday. […]

Under the French plan, internet users, via a platform, will be able to signal inappropriate sites and the state, receiving the complaints in real time, will then decide whether the sites are to go on a so-called black list to be passed on to internet service providers to enforce site blocks.

Sites containing what appear to be blatant crimes will be referred to judicial authorities, the minister said.

I wrote about why this is a bad idea back in 2006, when Canada implemented a similar blacklist scheme for child porn. In brief:

• Filtering is ineffective.
• Blacklists can and will be abused to silence dissenting voices.
• ISPs are access providers, not content providers; they should be absolutely neutral with respect to what passes through their networks.

But enough about the issues. The real reason I’m writing about this is to make fun of French Interior Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie.

“We can no longer tolerate the sexual exploitation of children in the form of cyber-pedopornography,” Alliot-Marie said.

Cyber-pedo-what?

[Alliot-Marie] insisted that the plan would not “create a Big Brother of the internet” and pledged her support for the “fundamental liberty that is internet access.”

I’m guessing that Alliot-Marie has not actually read 1984, because those two statements constitute a classic example of doublethink. Either that, or Allot-Marie is really so unbelievably stupid that she honestly believes a state-maintained blacklist that blocks access to online information is somehow not a Big Brother-style restriction on the “fundamental liberty that is internet access.”

Look, if you want to argue that child porn and hate speech are so odious that we need the state to keep us from viewing them, go ahead. But at least admit that you are using state power to place restrictions on free speech. To do otherwise demonstrates an utter lack of concern for the truth — and, well, philosophers have a technical term for that sort of thing.

Via Slashdot, I see that France has decided to censor its citizens’ Internet access:

The French state and internet service providers have struck a deal to block sites carrying child pornography or content linked to terrorism or racial hatred, Interior Minister Michel [sic] Alliot-Marie announced on Tuesday. […]

Under the French plan, internet users, via a platform, will be able to signal inappropriate sites and the state, receiving the complaints in real time, will then decide whether the sites are to go on a so-called black list to be passed on to internet service providers to enforce site blocks.

Sites containing what appear to be blatant crimes will be referred to judicial authorities, the minister said.

I wrote about why this is a bad idea back in 2006, when Canada implemented a similar blacklist scheme for child porn. In brief:

• Filtering is ineffective.
• Blacklists can and will be abused to silence dissenting voices.
• ISPs are access providers, not content providers; they should be absolutely neutral with respect to what passes through their networks.

But enough about the issues. The real reason I’m writing about this is to make fun of French Interior Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie.

“We can no longer tolerate the sexual exploitation of children in the form of cyber-pedopornography,” Alliot-Marie said.

Cyber-pedo-what?

[Alliot-Marie] insisted that the plan would not “create a Big Brother of the internet” and pledged her support for the “fundamental liberty that is internet access.”

I’m guessing that Alliot-Marie has not actually read 1984, because those two statements constitute a classic example of doublethink. Either that, or Allot-Marie is really so unbelievably stupid that she honestly believes a state-maintained blacklist that blocks access to online information is somehow not a Big Brother-style restriction on the “fundamental liberty that is internet access.”

Look, if you want to argue that child porn and hate speech are so odious that we need the state to keep us from viewing them, go ahead. But at least admit that you are using state power to place restrictions on free speech. To do otherwise demonstrates an utter lack of concern for the truth — and, well, philosophers have a technical term for that sort of thing.