The post India asks Google, Facebook to screen user content appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Nicholas Lansman, Secretary-General of the Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA), which represents providers of Internet services in the UK and has over 200 members representing 95 per cent of the access market said: “ISPs are currently in a position where they may have to decide what bears defamatory meaning, putting the intermediary in a position of judge and jury over content. We therefore support the call for an innocent dissemination defence, that ISPs should only be forced to remove defamatory material that has been decreed defamatory by a court or competent authority, and to bring libel law into the twenty-first century through the creation of a single publication rule.”

Justine Roberts, CEO of Mumsnet said: “Mumsnet fully supports these proposals for the reform of our libel laws. Mumsnet Talk receives around 25,000 new posts each day; it is impossible for us to pre-moderate each one, even if we wished to do so. It is both impractical and unfair that we should be threatened with legal action (and the attendant costs) over individual posts by third parties. Problematic posts are usually surrounded by many more that put alternative points of view, meaning that damage to the reputation of individuals or corporations is rare. We take care to behave responsibly where people’s reputations are concerned, and are happy to remove posts that make damaging allegations that seem to lack an evidential basis; but the current laws require us to go much further than this, and to repeatedly delete posts that do no more than express a point of view, or outline an individual’s experience. The government’s new defamation bill must acknowledge the significant differences between online communications and printed materials, and provide a new legal context in which the free exchange of ideas and opinions is allowed to flourish.”

Jo Glanville, Editor, Index on Censorship said: “It is essential that libel laws are modernised to allow for the free exchange of information and discussion online. The revolution in technology over the past decade has redefined the very meaning of publishing and the law has not even begun to catch up. As a result, bloggers, ISPs and anyone who posts online are especially vulnerable to threats of legal action. As well as limiting the duration of liability for online publication, new legislation is urgently needed to differentiate between the different modes of online communication and to take account of context. The current lack of distinction only serves to stifle free speech at a time when we should all be enjoying the possibilities of new technology to the full.”

Tracey Brown, Managing Director of Sense About Science, one of the charities in the Libel Reform Campaign, said: “The internet has increased everyone’s ability to discuss issues such as local politics, medical treatments or the behaviour of institutions. We cannot expect, and the public do not credit, forum discussions with the same standards of fact-checking as national news outlets, but the law currently insists on this. We agree with the service providers that better protection for online discussion is needed in the Government’s new Defamation Bill.”

Dr Evan Harris of the Libel Reform Coalition said: “Radical law change is needed to prevent vested interest bullies chilling public interest debate on the internet. The Government need to listen to the concerns of the on-line world if we are to have the freedom of expression that the arts and the sciences really need in order to benefit from the new social media.”

Jean-Marc Fleury, World Federation of Science Journalists said: “Punitive British libel laws matter to science reporters anywhere. In recent years, foreign claimants have been bringing libel actions in English courts, often against defendants who are neither British citizens nor residents. This ‘libel tourism’ has been encouraged by the Internet, which means something published online that can be accessed from the U.K. could be considered ‘published’ there. So someone looking to squelch a scientific report it doesn’t like will sue them in a British court.”

Peter Noorlander, the Media Legal Defence Initiative said: “Many web publishers lack the expertise and financial resources to defend against libel actions and are particularly vulnerable to threats. In order to promote a vibrant online media environment, the Media Legal Defence Initiative aims to provide legal expertise that would otherwise not be available.”

www.libelreform.org

The post Facebook, Yahoo!, AOL, Mumsnet and the ISPA to David Cameron: libel reform needed to protect free speech online appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Pakistan: court orders Google ban appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post China tightens rules on protection of state secrets appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Australian internet censorship plans slammed by US appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Groups appeal for web freedom appeared first on Index on Censorship.

As readers well know, technology companies are under increasing pressure from governments all over the world to participate in network censorship and comply with laws that strain the bounds of human rights. It’s China of course, but it is also Turkey, where insult laws have blocked YouTube for months and Iran, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates, where all Internet traffic is reviewed and blocked by URL. And as the warrantless wiretapping scandal in the United States makes clear, the pressures to serve as the intermediaries in these activities are not limited to repressive and totalitarian regimes. The OpenNet Initiative continues to document a global rise in online censorship and surveillance and the demands on companies to cooperate with limiting access to content, even when that content is located outside the jurisdiction.

As the participants came to understand during the 18-month process that produced the key agreements and documents that frame this initiative, there are few bright line solutions to the challenges faced by global technology companies dealing with dozens of conflicting government demands. For that reason, the initiative does not set binary rules. Rather, it aims for a high level of corporate due diligence and risk management with respect to the demands they receive from government and greater user transparency about the impact of those demands on free expression and privacy in all markets where participating companies operate. However, these principles and guidelines are not merely aspirational: company fulfilment of these commitments will be evaluated through an independent and credible process for accountability. Just as important, all participants – each bringing their own ambit of experience and expertise – commit to collaborate in the shared task of advancing key human rights and addressing government policies that impact these rights. Finally, these are global issues, so this initiative seeks to have global application and impact – and yes, that does include the United States.

So what, in reality, will change? This initiative is not a silver bullet: governments are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the human rights of their citizens are protected. However, this initiative does create something that did not exist before – a mechanism for companies to assess and manage human rights risks, and a roadmap for managing emerging challenges as they arise. Responsible decision making processes, grounded in the human rights frame, will become the norm. The strength of this initiative also lies in the commitment of its participants to collaborate: shared learning and frequent examination of the group’s collective experiences and efforts amplifies the group’s ability to understand the complexity of the challenges faced and develop systematic, coordinated responses. Working together, the initiative’s participants are better positioned to influence government behaviour to be more protective of freedom of expression and privacy in the digital era.

We are fast coming up on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which first articulated a broad human right to freedom of expression regardless of borders. At that time, few could have imagined the global Internet and its extraordinary power to actualise that right. Most could have anticipated the resistance of governments to a medium without gatekeepers. Keeping the Internet open, innovative and free requires action on many fronts. The launch of the Global Network Initiative opens up a new approach, one that bring advocates and companies together in a common cause.

We have big ambitions for the GNI and this is just the first step: we now begin the hard work of implementation and capacity building among all participants to reach our goals. Over time, we aim for the principles and guidelines to take root as a global standard that will be adopted by companies worldwide, employed by diverse stakeholders for advancing human rights, and recognised by governments and international bodies. But that will require other companies to step up to the challenge, join the initiative, and participate in the hard work ahead.

Leslie Harris is the president of the Center for Democracy and Technology

The post Roadmap for free expression appeared first on Index on Censorship.