UncleBeer, I am mildly disturbed by one of your thread closures

The BBQ Pit
1

First things first: This ain’t a rant. I’m not planning on calling UncleBeer a Nazi jackbooted thug or any other such foolish thing. Those of you looking for venom, close this thread and find another. The only reason this is in the Pit is because that is the place for “discussion regarding administration of the SDMB.”

Now: UncleBeer, you closed PaulInSaudi’s thread “Playmates.” This, in and of itself, is no big deal. But your proffered reason for doing so is bugging me a bit, so I thought I’d open this thread up.

Most of Paul’s thread was about looking at nekkid boobies, but at the end of the thread the Saudi government had evidently shut down the proxy server he was using to look at said boobies and Paul requested that a Doper help him set up a proxy of his own. I, among others, pointed him to a roll-your-own proxy script.

OK, so at that point you shut down the thread, for the reason that “advice and effort are being actively solicited and supplied in an attempt to break the duly constituted laws of a sovereign nation.” Meaning, I take it, the laws of Saudi Arabia regarding permissible Internet content.

Now Paul just wanted to look at boobies, so his wasn’t a critical request. But I’m left wondering: if Paul was asking for a proxy so he could get unfiltered news content, would that be OK? What if Paul was a Chinese or Cuban dissident? Is it really the position of this board that the “duly constituted laws” of jackbooted totalitarian regimes regarding censorship require respect?

You even quote from the user agreement, specifically the agreement not to post anything that is “violative of any law.” I can understand that provision regarding U.S. law: the Chicago Reader wants to insulate itself from liability. But in this case, liability is going to come from…where? Unless the Reader is planning on opening a Riyadh office, it is effectively beyond the reach of the Saudi courts, at least on this issue.

(Just to be snarky – taken to its literal end, this view of “any law” would prohibit any thread on racy topics, because they too would violate the laws of Saudi Arabia. At the very least, it would require that Paul be more restrained than US members of the boards since he is actually in-country and thus subject to Saudi law.)

Now, like I said, I’m only mildly bothered by the thread closure. After I posted, I actually realized I probably shouldn’t have posted my link – not for reasons of Saudi law, but because I may have made it easier for the next wave of sock puppets. I can understand a “don’t talk about proxies” rule on those grounds. But I’m not too keen on the grounds you provided.

I would be interested to hear whatever comments you might have.

2

I don’t think UB has any real say: If France can get Google to stop selling Jackboots, I think Saudi Arabia could make the Chicago Reader dance to a marching tune.

I don’t agree, by the way, and I would be damned proud to run a proxy if I thought I could do it intelligently.

3

Fuck. Replace Google with Yahoo! Auctions in the above post.

:o

4

Rules is rules.

An unlikely, but still possible, scenario:

The Chicago Reader could be seen to facilitate the breaking of a law in some remote corner of the world. Doing so might leave the Reader liable to a suit under the Alien Tort Claims Act, if that facilitation results in harm (in the form of legal penalties) to a user of the board in that remote corner of the world. “My husband wouldn’t have had his hands cut off if it weren’t for your wicked message board. I’m suing the Chicago Reader for loss of income for the remainder of his life, as well as $100,000 in punitive damages. See you in court.”

5

I should provide the necessary caveat-- IANAL, and my grasp of ATCA is pretty foggy. At any rate, using the the SDMB to circumvent the law, even a foreign law, even a craptacularly stupid foreign law, is a Bad Idea.

6

Any countries have laws forbidding the criticism of their leaders?

Can we criticize said leaders?

Good thing we can’t post pictures - the German, French, and Austrian anti-nazi laws would be broken by a pic of Hitler.

So - where does respect for all laws, everywhere end and free exchange of opinion begin?

7

Question:

What if the content on this board breaks the laws of Saudi Arabia? Should PaulInSaudi be banned because of that?

8

Probably just about exactly when someone specifically asks for advice on how to break the laws in their jurisdiction.

9

So a Chinese dissident asking for leads to plans for a mini-statute of liberty is out of bounds?

A Cuban asking for money to escaped to Miami is, but how about a Burmese agitating for UN oversight of the Burmese military?

10

I think it’s a bit more complicated as there are several things that have to balanced. For example,

Kim Il Sung was a psychotic mass-murderer.
Kim Jong Il is a spoiled, clueless brat.

I’m quite certain that I have just broken at least half a dozen laws in North Korea, some of them probably punishable by death. I doubt, however, that either the Reader or the SDMB staff is recoiling in horror and reaching for the smelling salts. They, as am I, are willing to brave the wrath of the North Korean government in the defense of freedom of speech.

Similarly, lots of discussions in GD have almost certainly violated, at least technically, various German laws regarding encouraging racial hatred and holocaust denial. These discussions were allowed to continue because they justified the quite minimal risk that the SDMB would come to the German government’s attention and that the German government would makes some attempt to do something about it.

The Saudi case is quite different. Saudi Arabia does actively monitor – and block – internet sites that it believes violates its laws. The efforts to aid Paul in his quest for continued access to soft pornography might well have gotten the SDMB blocked by Saudi censors, thereby denying any registered members in Saudi Arabia (as well as who knows how many lurkers) continued access to the SDMB.

Now if this had been a discussion of Saudi foreign or domestic policy or a thread critical of Islam (of which there have been many) I’m quite sure the SDMB staff wouldn’t have even considered locking the thread even though it did violate Saudi law. But in Paul’s case, the game simply wasn’t worth the candle.

11

Eh, I don’t think these laws are that bad. But you might get in trouble for creating a webpage glorifying Hitler. A mere picture can serve a historical purpose as well.

The Chicago Reader always errs on the side of caution when it comes to (potentially) breaking local jurisdictions, be it American or otherwise. Of course, we do not know every legal system in the world by heart, so this means applying common sense in most cases. Here, a poster deliberately tried to circumvent local laws by using a proxie to surf for porn, and stated so, clearly. At that stage, we decide that the SDMB can not be a vehicle for breaking or circumventing local laws.

If a Dutch poster posts a GQ asking where he can purchase a hand gun for domestic protection in Amsterdam, it’ll probably get shut down as well. Why? Because over here, it’s illegal for citizens to own a hand gun (with a few rare exceptions), especially merely for protection. Chances are the mods of the applicable forum would be suspicious, find out what the local gun laws are, and lock it down.

This is not to say that such a transgression sometimes will pass unnoticed. As said, it’s hard to know EVERYTHING about EVERY legal system in the world. But threads about circumventing local legislature can indeed be closed when we spot them.

And yes, that would apply in the case of using proxy servers to get to CNN.com from China as well. We may disagree with certain laws in some countries, but that doesn’t give us the right to help locals break them.

Truth Seeker is in the clear, since he posts from the US, where there is freedom of speech. Had he posted his words from North Korea, we probably wouldn’t be too happy with them either.

12

I agree. Proxy servers are legal in the USA and in most countries and they serve useful purposes. A discussion on proxy servers and what they do and how to use them is perfectly legal and appropriate. We are not in Saudi Arabia and I cannot see how we should be expected to abide by their laws. I think it was a mistake to close that thread on that account.

13

Hm…

I thought the rule was “Don’t post info that’ll break (or help someone break) the laws where the mighty SDMB Server resides (IE: Chicago, Il)”

That’s not particularly in conflict with what you said, but it is a different emphasis. The upshot is that I thought we only needed to be concerned with Chicago laws/US laws and what you’re saying is somewhat broader in scope.

Or are you saying that a discussion of proxy servers would be just dandy (since they’re legal in Chicago) but coming right out and saying “Here’s how you use proxy servers to break the laws of your country” is just too blatent?

Fenris

14

Information about how to use proxy servers is not country-specific and is perfectly legal in the USA. Maybe I should just open a thread in GQ “How do I configure IE to use a proxy server and can someone give me a list of proxy servers I can use?” Without mentioning any specific countries that seems perfectly fine to me.

Some time ago I started a thread in GQ asking why I cannot reach one single site (MSNBC) in the entire Net. There was never a good answer and the thread died. I mentioned I could reach it if I used a proxy server but I didn’t go into discussing proxies because I know full well how to use them. But a discussion of proxies there I think would have been fine.

I understand the Chicago reader is obligated by law to comply with the laws of the jurisdiction to which it is subject. Beyond that, it is only a matter of judgment and principles. i understand that it would generally not help break the laws of countries which are considered free and pretty similar in values to those of the USA but we should have some principles and moral values.

We say we are at war with terrorists and what they represent. We should be willing to stand up for the values we believe in and freedom of expression is one of them. The Chicago Reader is well within its rights to publish information on how to use proxies and the fact that it would choose not to do it because it hurts the kind of people who would want to destroy the USA and all it stands for seems to me quite negative. Freedom of expression is one of the issues being decided in this war against terrorism. Do we want a world where people are free to express themselves or do we want a world where people are controlled by their governments? On what side of this is the Chicago Reader?

15

Personally, I’m amazed. This is going to sound odd, so bear with me folks…

A while back, I inaugerated my return to the Board with a series of questions about Absinthe. Tuba closed them, as Absinthe is illegal-ish in the US.

I complained.

Folks were lined up for about a block to bitch slap me for questioning this closure, and to explain in small words the rules for me. I know the rules, I just thought the closure was stupid.

However, Tuba was right.

Now, we have someone who posted asking for information that is just as illegal, where he is, as posting how to grow the best hydro. But because it’s a law folks disagree with, in a place that is a backwards regime in some respects, folks appear to be lining up around the block to complain.

Paul, who seems like a stand up guy, was breaking the law. He got the same treatment as someone asking how to make Absinthe, dispose of a Sawed off shotgun, or grow their own weed.

16

Regardless of what side they’re on, they might just want to decide for their own selves when to join battle and when not to, rather than to have the decision made for them by you or me.

17

I can see how “what is the history of Absinthe?” might pass, or even “what were the main ingredients?” scrape by, but specific brewing instructions be unacceptable.

In the same way, I can see how “how do proxy servers work?” or “what is a proxy server?” might get by, but “how do I get a list of proxies accessable in Dubai?” would not.

The Chigago Reader basically has to cover its back, and fair enough. If you really are stuck for information that is questionable in certain countries then there are other ways to search than a straight search engine. I have found Google Groups very useful. Then again, I haven’t been searching for “polar +bear +porn” or “+nuclear +missile +construction +kit” :wink:

It’s always going to be a grey area: as I think previous posters have pointed out, oral sex is technically illegal in certain US states, but posts on every TMI detail of it get by here. From what I recall of the absinthe topic, those were also slightly archaic laws.

All in all, you can’t dispute that it’s better to be safe than sorry. If Chicago Reader is forced to close the board we will all suffer.

18

Well, that’s a non-answer to a question which was not asked. But thanks anyway.

19

Pretty much. Questions about proxy servers are fine, but if your question reads “How can I use proxy servers to break the law?”, we’d be inclined to close such threads, even if the broken laws aren’t the Illinois or US ones.

20

So oral sex and sodomy are legit in Illinois?!

Just don’t move that server to Riyadh, hoo boy…