7 Jun 2013 | In the News
AZERBAIJAN
Europe criticizes Azeri leader over Internet defamation law
European institutions criticized Azeri President Ilham Aliyev yesterday for signing legislation making defamation over the Internet a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment as the country prepares for an autumn presidential election.
(Free Malaysia Today)
EGYPT
Columnist sentenced to prison for libel
Writer Osama Ghareeb did not know he had already been sentenced to one year in prison by a Cairo court until being summoned to Moqattam Police Station on Wednesday, according to the writer’s Twitter account. (Daily News Egypt)
GLOBAL
Gallery: Five free expression exiles
IFEX marks World Refugee Day, 20 June 2013, with profiles of five people living in exile for practicing the right to free expression through their professions (IFEX)
INDIA
Safeguards needed to protect privacy, free speech in India: HRW
The Indian government should enact clear laws to ensure that increased surveillance of phones and the Internet does not undermine rights to privacy and free expression, Human Rights Watch said today. (Business Standard)
Standing up to censorship central
A recent judgment on the airing of ‘low value’ television programming misinterprets the proportionality doctrine and raises the question: should the state be giving advice to adults? (The Hindu)
MALAWI
(Censorship Board Says Does Not Regulate Material On the Internet
The Malawi Censorship Board has said it does not censor materials on the Internet because it is not mandated to do so.(AllAfrica.com)
NEW ZEALAND
Racial stereotypes pervade
It was interesting watching the response last week after cartoonist Al Nisbet was allowed to draw cartoon stereotypes in the Marlborough Express about Maori and Pacific Islanders. (Auckland Now)
SINGAPORE
Web ‘blackout’ in Singapore to protest new online rules
Over 130 Singaporean bloggers blacked out their homepages Thursday to protest new licencing rules for news websites they say will muzzle freedom of expression. (NDTV)
TURKEY
Protests expose the extent of self-censorship in Turkish media
Only days after Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called social media “the worst menace to society”, the country arrested 25 social media users in Izmir for allegedly “spreading untrue information” on Twitter. Sara Yasin gives a rundown on Turkey’s Twitter phobia. (Index on Censorship)
Turkey’s prime minister vows to continue Gezi Park development
Despite mass protests, Recep Tayyip Erdogan to push ahead with construction, saying it will make Istanbul more beautiful (The Guardian)
UKRAINE
Censorship by violence
One of my friends recently told me a story about the son of her friends. He had to be taken to a psychologist after watching news on TV about a mother killing her child. (Kyiv Post)
UNITED STATES
Documents: U.S. mining data from 9 leading Internet firms; companies deny knowledge
The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets, according to a top-secret document obtained by The Washington Post. (Washington Post)
Drawing Line On Free Speech
The freedom to say what we think, no matter how repugnant to others, is one of the greatest glories of our system of government. It also is the foundation supporting our other liberties. (The Intelligencer)
Lindsey Graham Hates Free Speech
Are we starting to get under the skin of U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (RINO-S.C.)? At first glance it would appear that way … Graham, a frequent target of this website’s criticism (due to his frequent awfulness), suggested this week that bloggers don’t deserve one of the most basic freedoms guaranteed to all Americans under the U.S. Bill of Rights.
(Fits News)
IRS Attorney Carter Hull Sent Targeted Letters to ACLJ Tea Party Clients from Washington, D.C.
The Wall Street Journal reports that transcripts of interviews by congressional staffers point the finger to IRS attorneys in Washington, further confirming that the targeting of conservative groups originated by the IRS in Washington, D.C. and that it was not the mistake of a couple of rogue, low level IRS agents in one Cincinnati office as the Obama Administration and the IRS continue to claim. (ACLU)
New York Post hit with libel lawsuit over ‘Bag Men’ Boston bombings cover
Two Massachusetts residents sue New York Post on claims it falsely portrayed them as suspects in Boston Marathon attack (The Guardian)
ZAMBIA
Kasonokomona Wins First Round of Court Battle
Zambian activist Paul Kasonkomona has won an important first round in his court battle. In an interview on Zambian television in April he called for the recognition of gay and lesbian rights, as well as the rights of sex workers. He was arrested after the interview and charged under section 178(g) of the Zambian Penal Code. (AllAfrica.com)
30 Apr 2013 | Digital Freedom
Washington DC was awash this weekend with some of the biggest names in journalism, technology, civil society and government — and not just for the star-studded White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
On Friday, Google hosted its first Big Tent event in DC with co-sponsor Bloomberg to discuss the future of free speech in the digital age.
Each panel was guided by hypothetical scenarios that mirrored real current events and raised interesting free speech questions around offence, takedown requests, self-censorship, government leaks, national security and surveillance. The audience anonymously voted on the decision they would have made in each case, but as Bill Keller, former executive editor at the New York Times, acknowledged, “real life is not a multiple choice question”. Complex decisions are seldom made with a single course of action when national security, privacy and freedom of expression are all at stake.
The first panel explored how and when news organisations and web companies decide to limit free speech online. Google’s chief legal officer David Drummond said that governments “go for choke points on the internet” when looking to restrict access to particular content, meaning major search engines and social media sites are often their first targets regardless of where the offending content is hosted online. Drummond said that Google is partially blocked in 30 of the 150 countries in which it operates and cited an OpenNet Initiative statistic that at least 42 countries currently filter online content. Much of this panel focused on last year’s Innocence of Muslims video, which 20 countries approached Google to review or remove. Drummond questioned whether democracies like the US, which asked Google to review the video, are doing enough to support free expression abroad.
Mark Whitaker, a former journalist and executive at CNN and NBC, said staff safety in hostile environments is more important in deciding whether to kill a story than “abstract issues” like free speech. Security considerations are important, but characterising freedom of expression as “abstract” and endorsing self-censorship in its place can set a worrying precedent. Bill Keller argued that publishing controversial stories in difficult circumstances can bring more credibility to a newsroom, but can also lead to its exile. Both the New York Times and Bloomberg were banned in China last summer for publishing stories about the financial assets of the country’s premier. This reality means that news organisation and web companies often weigh public interest and basic freedom of expression against market concerns. Whitaker acknowledged that the increased consolidation of media ownership in many countries means financial considerations are being given even greater weight.
The second panel debated free speech and security, with Susan Benesch of the Dangerous Speech Project standing up for free speech, former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales coming down hard on the side of security, and current Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Jane Holl Lute backing up Gonzales while recognising the vital role free speech plays in a functioning society.
In the first scenario posed to this panel, audience members were split on whether mobile networks should be shut down when a clear and imminent threat, such as the remote detonation of a bomb, arises. Lute said, “the first instinct should not be to shut down everything, that’s part of how we’ll find out what’s going on,” whereas Benesch focused on the civil liberties rather than surveillance implications of crippling communications networks.
In cases of extremism, which the panel agreed is often more easily and quickly spread via digital communications, Benesch endorsed counter speech above speech restrictions as the best way to defend against hate and violence. 94 percent of the audience agreed that social media should not be restricted in a scenario about how authorities should react when groups use social media to organise protests that might turn violent.
Google’s executive chairman Eric Schmidt closed the event by highlighting what he considers to be key threats and opportunities for digital expression. Schmidt believes that the world’s five billion feature phones will soon be replaced with smartphones, opening new spaces for dissent and allowing us “to hear the voices of citizens like never before”. Whether he thinks this dissent will outweigh the government repression that’s likely to follow is unclear.
Big Tent will make its way back to London next month where Google hosted the first event of its kind two years ago. The theme will focus on “innovation in the next ten years” with Ed Milliband, Eric Schmidt and journalist Heather Brooke as featured speakers.
Google is an Index on Censorship funder.
15 Apr 2013 | Newswire
Digital rights activists from around the UK met in Manchester for Open Rights Group’s first ever ORGCon North on Saturday.
John Buckman, chair of the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), delivered the keynote speech: “Britain, under the thumb of…”
He filled in the blank with references to the copyright industry, the new Royal Charter on press regulation, overreaching child protection restrictions, the EU, the US, and private web companies, all of which pose significant challenges to digital freedom of expression in the UK.
The rest of the day was split between four panel sessions and eight impromptu “unconference” sessions for which participants pitched ideas and convened small groups to discuss them.
I spoke on a panel about the right to offend, alongside ORG’s Peter Bradwell and The Next Web’s Martin Bryant. Overly broad and outdated legislation, most notably Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act and Section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act, are regularly used to criminalise freedom of expression both online and offline in the UK. Despite a successful campaign to drop “insulting” words from the grounds on which someone can be prosecuted for offence under Section 5, the fact that neither of these provisions address the speaker’s (or tweeter’s) intentions continues to chill freedom of expression in the UK.
Also troubling is the fact that other states, India and the UAE for example, point to these and other British laws as justification to prosecute offensive expression in their own jurisdictions. I argued that protecting everyone’s fundamental right to freedom of expression is more important than protecting the feelings of a few people who might take offense to satirical, blasphemous or otherwise unsavoury views. For freedom of expression to be preserved in society, potentially offensive expression requires the utmost protection.
Another panel addressed the proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation, which intends to strengthen existing privacy principles set out in 1995 and harmonise individual member states’ laws on data protection. Provisions in the proposal around consent, data portability and the “right to be forgotten” aim to give users greater control of their personal data and hold companies more accountable for their use of it. Many companies that rely on user data oppose the regulation and have been lobbying hard against it with the UK government on their side whereas some privacy advocates argue it does not go far enough.
There were also discussions on the open rights implications of copyright legislation and the UK’s Draft Communications Data bill (AKA Snooper’s Charter), which looks set to make a comeback in the Queen’s speech on May 8.
The “unconference” sessions addressed specific causes for concern around digital rights in the UK and abroad. I participated in a session on strategies for obtaining government data in the UK and another on the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008. This Act, along with the Protect America Act of 2007 legalised warrantless wiretapping of foreign intelligence targets. Digital rights activists took notice of the laws because the rise of cloud computing means even internal UK and EU data is potentially susceptible to US surveillance mechanisms.
Other “unconference” sessions focused on anonymity, password security, companies’ terms of service, activism and medical confidentiality.
The full OrgCon North agenda is available here. ORG’s national conference will take place on 8 June and will feature EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow who wrote the much circulated and cited “Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” in 1996.
Brian Pellot is Digital Policy Adviser for Index on Censorship. Follow him @brianpellot
15 Apr 2013 | Uncategorized
Digital rights activists from around the UK met in Manchester for Open Rights Group’s first ever ORGCon North on Saturday.
John Buckman, chair of the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), delivered the keynote speech: “Britain, under the thumb of…”
He filled in the blank with references to the copyright industry, the new Royal Charter on press regulation, overreaching child protection restrictions, the EU, the US, and private web companies, all of which pose significant challenges to digital freedom of expression in the UK.
The rest of the day was split between four panel sessions and eight impromptu “unconference” sessions for which participants pitched ideas and convened small groups to discuss them.
I spoke on a panel about the right to offend, alongside ORG’s Peter Bradwell and The Next Web’s Martin Bryant. Overly broad and outdated legislation, most notably Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act and Section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act, are regularly used to criminalise freedom of expression both online and offline in the UK. Despite a successful campaign to drop “insulting” words from the grounds on which someone can be prosecuted for offence under Section 5, the fact that neither of these provisions address the speaker’s (or tweeter’s) intentions continues to chill freedom of expression in the UK.
Also troubling is the fact that other states, India and the UAE for example, point to these and other British laws as justification to prosecute offensive expression in their own jurisdictions. I argued that protecting everyone’s fundamental right to freedom of expression is more important than protecting the feelings of a few people who might take offense to satirical, blasphemous or otherwise unsavoury views. For freedom of expression to be preserved in society, potentially offensive expression requires the utmost protection.
Another panel addressed the proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation, which intends to strengthen existing privacy principles set out in 1995 and harmonise individual member states’ laws on data protection. Provisions in the proposal around consent, data portability and the “right to be forgotten” aim to give users greater control of their personal data and hold companies more accountable for their use of it. Many companies that rely on user data oppose the regulation and have been lobbying hard against it with the UK government on their side whereas some privacy advocates argue it does not go far enough.
There were also discussions on the open rights implications of copyright legislation and the UK’s Draft Communications Data bill (AKA Snooper’s Charter), which looks set to make a comeback in the Queen’s speech on May 8.
The “unconference” sessions addressed specific causes for concern around digital rights in the UK and abroad. I participated in a session on strategies for obtaining government data in the UK and another on the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008. This Act, along with the Protect America Act of 2007 legalised warrantless wiretapping of foreign intelligence targets. Digital rights activists took notice of the laws because the rise of cloud computing means even internal UK and EU data is potentially susceptible to US surveillance mechanisms.
Other “unconference” sessions focused on anonymity, password security, companies’ terms of service, activism and medical confidentiality.
The full OrgCon North agenda is available here. ORG’s national conference will take place on 8 June and will feature EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow who wrote the much circulated and cited “Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” in 1996.
Brian Pellot is Digital Policy Adviser for Index on Censorship. Follow him @brianpellot
