The saga of Matti Nikki's anti-child pornography website, http://lapsiporno.info, continues. I wrote about it for the first time last year; to sum up, Nikki runs a website dedicated to criticizing the way the Finnish government and most European countries are handling the problem of child pornography. Nikki's view is that no real action is being taken to stop it, and all anti-child pornography measures being taken here are ineffective.
When Finland enacted a law that permits the police to block access to foreign websites containing child pornography, they blocked access to Nikki's site. It isn't a foreign site and doesn't contain child pornography, but censored it remains.
**
At the end of May, the Finnish courts and justice ombudsman both decided that Nikki has no grounds for complaint and that his case will not be tried in the second tier of Finnish courts. The view of the official bodies involved is that the decision of the Finnish police to censor a website is an administrative decision by the police, and is not subject to judicial review.
The Finnish constitution is generally held to forbid censorship. However, the justice ombudsman has, in his wisdom, ruled that in this case, censorship is not censorship. Therefore the law is not unconstitutional, basically because they say it isn't.
**
Electronic Frontier Finland is taking the case to the Finnish supreme court (their press release, in Finnish, here); I applaud their efforts, but they are in vain. The Finnish courts routinely ignore the Constitution, which quite simply has no force in Finnish law or practice.
As it stands at the moment, the Finnish police can block access to any Internet page on the World Wide Web. We now basically have a court decision that says the police can, under the law that provides for blocking foreign websites that contain child pornography, block a foreign or domestic website that either does or does not contain child pornography. That is to say, any website on the World Wide Web. And anyone whose website is blocked will not even be informed, and cannot file a complaint.
This is not a free country.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Game 5 thoughts
Finally, Detroit showed up! If the Wings play this differently with and without Pavel Datsyuk, give him the Hart Trophy right now.
In the first two games in Pittsburgh, the biggest story in my mind was Detroit's failure on the offensive and the power play. Apparently getting Datsyuk back fixed both of these problems instantly, and Detroit now has a 3-2 lead in the series. Now, for the first time in this series, Detroit looks like the team that beat the Ducks in what I believe was the best playoff series this year. If they can keep it up, they can wrap the series on Tuesday.
However, I wouldn't put money on it. Even Game 5 was a lot closer than it looked. Pittsburgh came out real strong, and had they got the first goal, they might have won the game.
**
On the subject of officiating, maybe it was Rory Boylen's childish blog rant that provoked them, but some of the Hockey News' senior writers have been commenting on the refereeing.
Ken Campbell:
In the first two games in Pittsburgh, the biggest story in my mind was Detroit's failure on the offensive and the power play. Apparently getting Datsyuk back fixed both of these problems instantly, and Detroit now has a 3-2 lead in the series. Now, for the first time in this series, Detroit looks like the team that beat the Ducks in what I believe was the best playoff series this year. If they can keep it up, they can wrap the series on Tuesday.
However, I wouldn't put money on it. Even Game 5 was a lot closer than it looked. Pittsburgh came out real strong, and had they got the first goal, they might have won the game.
**
On the subject of officiating, maybe it was Rory Boylen's childish blog rant that provoked them, but some of the Hockey News' senior writers have been commenting on the refereeing.
Ken Campbell:
What drives people to distraction is how obstruction can go unpunished by both teams countless times during the game, then get called midway through the third period, the way it was on Jonathan Ericsson, which led to the game-winning goal.
Isn’t it supposed to be different? In the new NHL, wasn’t an infraction in October supposed to be treated the same way as one in the Stanley Cup final?
All the players and the coaches want is consistency because they have a remarkable ability to adapt to any situation. Their attitude is to either call everything or nothing, but be consistent with it.
Senior editor Jason Kay sums it up like this:
Two minutes or not two minutes? That is the question.
There has been much chatter the past week about an obstruction crackdown slip during the Stanley Cup final. After many, many months of vigilance, the referees suddenly decided to let ‘em play.
The short-term, myopic benefits are fewer whistles and power plays. The big picture downsides are stunted skill displays, confusion and a greater potential for huge controversy.
That's very well put. I thought Game 5 was the first game where the referees actually called the game the way it was going on the ice. This time, it meant a big difference in penalties between the Pens and the Wings. The fact was, the Pens fouled much more, so the penalties were deserved. Who knows how they'll call Game 6?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
500 - Internal Server Error
Under nördfester såsom E3 brukar Neogaf braka samman, och enär denna knytpunkt för allehanda bisarra och intressanta nyheter varit tämligen död. Nu har jag inte hängt med speciellt mycket i spelsvängarna under veckan då det har funnit många andra intressanta saker (åttondelsfinaler, kvartsfinaler etc), men en del ting har jag snappat upp:
- Nya Mario-spel till Wii. Glädjande för min del, då jag har en Wii och Mario brukar vara synonymt med stor underhållning.
- PlayStation Motion Controller. Lamt och fantasilöst att i stort sett apa efter Nintendo, och någon större framgång blir det väl antagligen.
- Microsofts Project Natal. Jag läste det först som Project Nadal och trodde att det var en tröst till den fallna grusspecialisten, men icke; det verkar lovande. Lite Minority Report-vibbar över det, men jag tror att man måste ha någon form av spelkontroll för att ge interaktivitet. Att sparka i luften mot en boll som inte finns låter inte så roligt, men det är en kreativ lösning och känns som ett led framåt i spelutvecklingen.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The uneven surface: Game 3 replay
As was predicted on this blog, Game 3 of the Stanley Cup finals was nearly a rerun of the third game of the Washington-Pittsburgh series: the referees stepped up. As with that series, the problem is not that the penalties being called on Detroit aren't penalties; it's that Pittsburgh is constantly getting away with the exact same fouls. The crowning irony of the night was that the game-winner was scored on an interference penalty on Detroit to Jonathan Ericsson. Arguably, Ericsson was guilty, but it was a soft call.
What makes it unacceptable is that throughout the finals, Pittsburgh's defensemen have been blatantly interfering with Detroit's forwards every time they chip the puck in, and haven't been called on it once. Hal Gill is apparently allowed to grab passing Wings with both hands, because he keeps doing it and has yet to take a penalty. Pittsburgh's defense is notoriously weak, but they can compensate for it by not playing clean.
If that wasn't enough, CBC showed a replay of an extended offensive zone shift where the Penguins had six players on the ice. Then their announcers praises the referees. It makes me want to throw up.
It's fairly clear that there are two different rulebooks in play, like there were against Washington. These games have all been very close; remember that the game last night was tied 2-2 until the ridiculous penalty on Ericsson was called. In a game like this, when the referees clearly favor one side, it counts for a lot when all the other factors are so even. So far, over three games of the finals, one team has played some of the cleanest playoff hockey ever and the other team constantly fouls them. And yet they're getting the same amount of penalties. That kind of refereeing gives the edge to the team that plays dirty.
Of course, none of the mostly Canadian-run hockey media are going to even notice the six players on the ice or the other liberties the league and referees are constantly giving the Penguins. After all, Sidney Crosby, the anointed messiah of Canadian hockey, is playing against a team that consists mostly of Europeans.
It looks like this year, the league has really decided that the Penguins will win the Cup. If the next game doesn't go Pittsburgh's way from the start, the referees will be stepping up even more.
**
I've recently learned, though, that if you agree with anything I'm saying here, you're not a hockey fan.
Rory Boylen: THN.com Playoff Blog: Shut up and enjoy the games
What makes it unacceptable is that throughout the finals, Pittsburgh's defensemen have been blatantly interfering with Detroit's forwards every time they chip the puck in, and haven't been called on it once. Hal Gill is apparently allowed to grab passing Wings with both hands, because he keeps doing it and has yet to take a penalty. Pittsburgh's defense is notoriously weak, but they can compensate for it by not playing clean.
If that wasn't enough, CBC showed a replay of an extended offensive zone shift where the Penguins had six players on the ice. Then their announcers praises the referees. It makes me want to throw up.
It's fairly clear that there are two different rulebooks in play, like there were against Washington. These games have all been very close; remember that the game last night was tied 2-2 until the ridiculous penalty on Ericsson was called. In a game like this, when the referees clearly favor one side, it counts for a lot when all the other factors are so even. So far, over three games of the finals, one team has played some of the cleanest playoff hockey ever and the other team constantly fouls them. And yet they're getting the same amount of penalties. That kind of refereeing gives the edge to the team that plays dirty.
Of course, none of the mostly Canadian-run hockey media are going to even notice the six players on the ice or the other liberties the league and referees are constantly giving the Penguins. After all, Sidney Crosby, the anointed messiah of Canadian hockey, is playing against a team that consists mostly of Europeans.
It looks like this year, the league has really decided that the Penguins will win the Cup. If the next game doesn't go Pittsburgh's way from the start, the referees will be stepping up even more.
**
I've recently learned, though, that if you agree with anything I'm saying here, you're not a hockey fan.
Rory Boylen: THN.com Playoff Blog: Shut up and enjoy the games
The way the refs have put their whistles away and not called the chincy little taps by the defender that simply let the attacking player know he’s there – without slowing anything down – has provided us with some great games unimpeded by man-advantages that shouldn’t be a main story in any battle for the glorious Dominion Hockey Challenge Cup.
But, amazingly, there are still complaints. They focus not just on the refereeing, but a range of topics from the instigator rule to conspiracy theories. This really sticks in my craw, because if all you can do is whine and complain while this great display of skill, grit, desire and hunger is going on in front of us, then, I’m sorry, ya just ain’t a hockey fan.
Boylen then goes off on a childish tirade about how everyone except him is ruining hockey. His strawman argument is that anyone who complains about the refereeing or the suspensions wants to destroy hockey and to ban bodychecking. Yes, he actually said that. He makes the most moronic variation yet of the Mike Milbury argument, basically saying that unless you agree with Evgeni Malkin's non-suspension, then you want to remove bodychecking and emotion from the game. Also, he explicitly states that anyone who complains about Malkin not being suspended would also have complained if he had been suspended. That's pretty strange too, but then again, Rory Boylen would know more about me than, well, me.
I don't know how they do things in Canada, but I at least want to see a fair game. I'm not seeing that, and it pisses me off. The great display of hockey that is the Stanley Cup finals just isn't all that great when the ice is tilted one way. Am I supposed to enjoy seeing a team get a free pass from the referees all the way to the Cup final?
The only way I can really reply to this is to say that if Mr. Boylen has watched the same games I have, and calls the fouls Pittsburgh doesn't get penalties on "little taps", then he isn't a hockey fan either, because he can't tell an interference foul from a "tap". That is, hands down, the most idiotic column/blog/excrement I've ever read on the Hockey News.
One of his colleagues, Adam Proteau, said pretty much the same things I did about the Malkin suspension in his column. I guess he isn't a hockey fan either. Funny how restrictive these categories are when you're given the incredible wisdom and insight of Rory Boylen. I sometimes quite violently disagree with what Adam Proteau says, but I've always assumed that we both care a great deal about the game of hockey. Heck, I thought that was the reason we wrote about it. But now that I've experienced the Boylen Revelation, I realize that me and Adam aren't hockey fans at all. After all, we disagree with Rory.
This kind of argumentation belongs in the kindergarten, not The Hockey News. Do they let anybody write on their website? Maybe I should apply. It doesn't look like there are any standards.
Monday, June 1, 2009
The uneven surface: suspension, schmuspension
The Pittsburgh Penguins' star player Evgeni Malkin attacked Detroit's Henrik Zetterberg in frustration in the last minute of play in Game 2 of the Stanley Cup finals. He was quite properly given a five-minute major penalty for fighting as well as an instigator penalty for basically attacking Zetterberg for no reason.
Taking an instigator penalty during the last five minutes of play results in an automatic one-game suspension, unless you play for Pittsburgh.
NHL.com: NHL's Campbell rescinds Malkin suspension
Taking an instigator penalty during the last five minutes of play results in an automatic one-game suspension, unless you play for Pittsburgh.
NHL.com: NHL's Campbell rescinds Malkin suspension
Following that review, Campbell said: "None of the criteria in this rule applied in this situation. Suspensions are applied under this rule when a team attempts to send a message in the last five minutes by having a player instigate a fight. A suspension could also be applied when a player seeks retribution for a prior incident. Neither was the case here and therefore the one game suspension is rescinded."
It's funny he should say that, as it seems that the entire hockey-watching world, including but not limited to such people as the CBC announcers, thought the entire point of Malkin's outburst was to "send a message", and "seek retribution" for the fact that Zetterberg has been shadowing Pittsburgh's stars for the whole two games and effectively stopped them from scoring anything.
The instigator penalty was created for exactly this kind of situation, where a player just goes out and attacks another player. I'm not aware of the automatic suspension that comes with it ever having been rescinded before, and everyone who follows the NHL knows it wouldn't have been rescinded for a Brooks Orpik or a Craig Adams. But it is for Malkin.
You can bet anything that if a Detroit player drops the gloves during the last five minutes of Game 3, they're getting suspended.
**
Predictably, Pittsburgh found something to whine about despite having practically every call go their way. In the NHL.com game recap, head coach Dan Bylsma:
Marian Hossa took the puck away from Pascal Dupuis on the left side, but the Penguins' cries for a penalty went unheeded and Hossa got the puck on net where Tomas Holmstrom was keeping everyone in a white jersey occupied. The puck popped out to Fleury's left and Filppula was able to get enough on his stick on the puck to backhand the puck over the sea of bodies in front.
"I think the way I saw the replay that our guy was trying to get the puck out," Bylsma said. "Hossa came in and used his stick to lift up the guy's stick. You can make the judgment. The referee made the judgment that it wasn't a hook. I can slow it down and look at it myself and make my own judgment, but that was what happened. We failed to clear it with that hook and it led to the goal."
Maybe someone should try telling Bylsma that if a player lifts another player's stick, it isn't hooking. Basically here Bylsma is admitting that it was a good play and shouldn't have been a penalty. That's how we saw it, and that's how the refs saw it.
It's telling that he still thinks they should have got a call. But then again, he does coach in Pittsburgh.
Another hilarious case of pots and kettles:
TSN.ca:
The Red Wings are a puck possession team, and they displayed that in the faceoff circle in Game 1 where they won 71% of the draws. Penguins captain Sidney Crosby only won 30% of his faceoffs, with Jordan Staal just better than that. Conversely, Henrik Zetterberg won 15-of-20 draws.
I spoke to Crosby after the game, and he believed that the Red Wings took advantage of being on home ice, where the home team player is allowed to come into the face-off second, which allows them to take advantage by timing when the puck is going to be dropped, and cheat on the play to win the draw.
Crosby believes when the series moves back to Pittsburgh that those numbers will shift in favour of the Penguins.
I haven't seen Detroit cheat on the draw. However, through the entire Eastern Conference playoffs, I have seen Crosby cheat on nearly every draw he took, except in these finals where the linesmen haven't let him. I wrote about it earlier. In the first game where they were stopped from constantly breaking the rules on the draw, the faceoffs were 70% Detroit, 30% Pens.
They'll likely be 70-30 Penguins at Pittsburgh, because the linesmen will let Crosy cheat again there.
**
Expect the referees to step up in Game 3 like they did in the Washington-Pittsburgh series. It was the same story there: Washington wins the first two games, and in the third Pittsburgh gets seven power plays to Washington's one. That game was so close it's very possible to argue that disparity in penalties, totally unjustified on the basis of what was happening on the ice, swung the game. The refs are going to try to swing Game 3 of the finals as well if it starts going badly for Pittsburgh; the head office already started with the Malkin suspension. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't suspend Zetterberg.
Most Popular
Under dessa dagar sker två stora händelser: E3 och Roland Garros. Det är emellertid tennisturneringen som jag följer med ett älskvärt intresse, av flera orsaker:
Cirstea till vänster, Janković till höger. Vem skulle du hejat på?
- Tennis är en nobel idrott. Ett prima exempel är vår mycket döda konung Gustaf V som 1980 blev upptagen i International Tennis Hall of Fame.
- Det är roligt att spela tennis.
- Det är roligt att se på tennis.
- Andelen vackra kvinnliga utövare är skapligt hög.
Cirstea till vänster, Janković till höger. Vem skulle du hejat på?Utseende är onekligen viktigt, synnerligen för damtennisspelare, vilket Anna Kournikova bevisade. Hon vann trots allt inte en enda titel. Anledningen till att jag tar upp det är att tennislöftet Simona Halep - en spelare jag upptäckte när jag såg att de populäraste bilderna på Roland Garros visade just henne - ämnar utföra en bröstförminskning. Orsaken skall tydligen vara att hennes bröstomfång hindrar hennes spel, men då har hon måhända inte hört talas om Serena Williams... som ju har en tagit hem en del Grand Slam-titlar. Dåraktigt beslut, med tanke alla potentiella (manliga) fans hon går miste om (och reklamkontrakt).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)