19 Oct 12 | Uncategorized
A peaceful protest against the Innocence of Muslims in London – Brian Minkoff/Demotix
The Innocence of Muslims controversy put a spotlight on whether offensive online content should be censored or criminalised, as violence in Egypt, Libya and beyond meant many were tempted to argue for the removal of the video from the web.
Most states have laws to control clear and direct incitements to violence; but causing offence is neither an incitement to violence nor a reason to respond with violence. Yet since the initial protests, many countries have queued up to ask Google to block the offending video. Google initially blocked it in Egypt and Libya without even a government request, and then unblocked it.
Should companies, rather than governments, ever be the censors — arbiters of acceptability? Is it more palatable if companies are served with court orders to block access to Internet content? Or that, in keeping with its policy to abide by local laws, Google blocked the video in India and Indonesia because it was ruled illegal?
But more importantly, has a clear line been drawn between the direct incitement to violence (which should absolutely not be protected as free speech) and whether people choose to respond with violence to something they find offensive?
Rwanda is often cited as a case where the balance between safeguarding free speech and preventing violence is particularly relevant, given the severe ethnic conflicts resulting in the 1994 genocide following callings for violence. Local officials and government-sponsored radio incited ordinary citizens to kill their neighbours, and those who refused to kill were often murdered on the spot. The genocide-inciting radio broadcasts shouldn’t have been allowed. There is a clear dividing line.
But The Innocence of Muslims is not in the same category. And if Internet censorship is used because there is crowd violence — and in anticipation of violence, where does it end?
“The big story here is the crack-down on the Internet” William Echikson told me in a telephone interview from Brussels. “The pressures have grown dramatically. And we are doing our best to protect free expression. ”
Echikson is Head of Free Expression Policy and PR, Europe, Middle East & Africa at Google.
According to different reports, Innocence of Muslims was also blocked in India, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia as a result of court orders. Google also blocked the video in Malaysia after receiving an official complaint from the Communications and Multimedia Commission, according to AFP. Reporters without Borders said the video was also blocked in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Russia via court orders on grounds of being “extremist”. And in Pakistan, it was blocked by the Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf, who issued a directive to the Ministry of Information Technology.
The key, original censors here seem to be violent demonstrators and restrictive governments. Of the 150 countries where Google operates, in about 30 its service has been “affected one way or the other”, adds Echikson.
Governments are indeed cracking-down on the web, either because they already censor blasphemous and other offensive material (even without any likelihood of violence) or because they are giving in to actual or threatened violence. But if governments continue doing that, couldn’t it become an incentive for any fanatical group to threaten or act violently, and get censorship as a result? Isn’t this very similar to the mechanisms of terror: you terrorise or hurt one to scare a thousand?
That is why it is so vital that everyone understands the difference between incitement to violence, and violence in response to offense, an idea that, weeks after the video furore, has vanished from the agenda.
A country such as China may shed some light on where we are heading.
After a series of huge protests and ethnic riots (many of which were organised using instant messaging services, chat rooms, and text messages), China is reported to have intensified its efforts to neutralise online criticism. According to Amnesty, China has the largest number of imprisoned journalists and cyber-dissidents in the world, while the number of “Internet police” is rumoured to be higher than 30,000.
The reason for all this political censorship.
Many of the violent reactions to The Innocence of Muslims were for political reasons, using offence as an excuse. In fact, some analysts and US officials have reported that Benghazi attack of 11 September, which killed the US ambassador to Libya, appeared to have been planned in advance, and had nothing to do whatsoever with the video.
So for the Internet, where does all this end? With the annihilation of McLuhan’s global village and the beginning of a new era of of separate, isolated, over-scrutinised, parochial Internets.
Miren Guitierrez is editorial director of Index on Censorship
19 Oct 12 | Russia
In July the Russian parliament approved a bill designed to increase the Kremlin’s control of the internet. The new laws grant the government sweeping powers to block access to internet resources.
Russian Wikipedia blacked out to protest the law claiming that it would “lead to the creation of a Russian analogue to China’s great firewall”. Campaigners fear the new rules will lead to widespread censorship. Even though the law doesn’t come into effect until November, Russian internet service providers are already coming under pressure to block internet resources and services.
Here, Andrei Soldatov tells us what Russia censored in September
Click here to find out what Russia censored in October
(more…)
18 Oct 12 | Uncategorized
Twitter this week announced that it had blocked the account of German far-right group Besseres Hannover.
The small anti-immigrant group is accused of inciting racism and Neo-Nazism, and has been banned under Germany’s strict anti-Nazi laws.
A letter from Hanover police informed Twitter of this ban, and requested that they block the site: the platform complied, and since 25 September, the account has been unavailable. 
It’s important to note the “in Germany” part. Besseres Hanover’s twitter account is still available in the rest of the world, though until today it had not been updated since the ban.
Back in January, Twitter announced that it would be introducing a system where it would comply with national blocking orders while keeping content available outside the relevant jurisdiction.
Interestingly, the blog post announcing this policy specifically mentioned Germany’s anti-Nazi laws:
As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression. Some differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there. Others are similar but, for historical or cultural reasons, restrict certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content.
Until now, the only way we could take account of those countries’ limits was to remove content globally. Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why.
The reaction to this announcement was mixed: some initially screamed “CENSORSHIP!”, but probably the fairest analysis came from EFF’s Jillian C York, who wrote:
Let’s be clear: This is censorship. There’s no way around that. But alas, Twitter is not above the law. Just about every company hosting user-generated content has, at one point or another, gotten an order or government request to take down content. Google lays out its orders in its Transparency Report. Other companies are less forthright. In any case, Twitter has two options in the event of a request: Fail to comply, and risk being blocked by the government in question, or comply (read: censor).
… I understand why people are angry, but this does not, in my view, represent a sea change in Twitter’s policies. Twitter has previously taken down content — for DMCA requests, at least — and will no doubt continue to face requests in the future. I believe that the company is doing its best in a tough situation… and I’ll be the first to raise hell if they screw up.
It’s a realistic view, and I’d be very surprised if Jillian raised hell about today’s case. Twitter is a private company, and while it has a decent record on free speech, it cannot be expected to go to the barricades for every issue. Moreover, Germany is a huge and wealthy market.
Twitter has complied with the law, and been open about it. The German law itself is the problem. Banning far-right views and Nazi-inspired historical revisionism is anachronistic for a modern liberal democracy. And these laws are pointed to as an example when the EU attempts to lecture the world on free speech.
In this case, Germany is censoring a tiny organisation whose main spokesman is a man in a furry outfit called Abschiebär, who appears in videos making Hitler salutes and mocking kebab shop workers. Interestingly, Abschiebär’s videos are still available on YouTube. 
Nonetheless, it’s worth keeping an eye on this development: In our enthusiasm for social media, we often forget that we are communicating on platforms run by private companies. In order to function, private companies must obey the law of the land. The privatisation of social space is going to be a crucial factor in free speech debates.
11 Oct 12 | Egypt
It’s been nearly two years since the mass uprising that toppled President Hosni Mubarak, but Egypt’s film makers are still plagued by censorship they say is stifling their creativity. Religion and sex remain high on the censors’ list of “taboo issues” as a tide of conservatism sweeps the country under Islamist rule. The recent rejection by the censorship committee of film maker Amr Salama’s script for a film on sectarianism recently stirred a new wave of controversy, fuelling fears of further restrictions on free expression under new Islamist President Mohamed Morsi. Seeking to allay the concerns, Egypt’s newly appointed Minister of Culture Saber Arab has given the green light for Salama’s script, affirming that “no changes are needed”.
Egyptian Film maker Amr Salama
Salama’s new film features a Coptic Christian adolescent seeking acceptance from his classmates after being transferred to a public school. Belonging to a different social class, he initially finds it difficult to fit in and decides against revealing his faith for fear of further discrimination. The barriers of class and religion are finally overcome however, as the boy succeeds in winning over his classmates, earning their friendship and respect. It is a story about tolerance and identity, depicting a teenage boy’s struggle to gain approval and overcome social and religious differences.
Arab’s nod of approval for the film came after Salama publicly criticised the restrictions imposed by censors in a televised interview on an independent satellite channel. The Head of the Censorship Committee, Sayed Khattab, meanwhile defended the committee’s decision to ban the film . In a live telephone call to the TV channel, he insisted it was “brutal to show a child being mistreated for his faith”. The committee had earlier cited “incitement to discrimination against Egypt’s minority Christian population” as a reason for the boycott. It had requested that Salama alter the script to focus on class rather than religious differences. The censors also claimed that the script was fiercely critical of Egypt’s educational system, portraying it in bad light. Under Egypt’s censorship laws, film makers are still required to get their screenplay approved before the shooting of the film, which then has to be viewed by censors who decide if it is fit for screening.
In a post on Twitter, Salama stated that he would not make the requested changes but would “keep the original script as is”. In an interview with a local daily, he said his lawyers had advised him against altering the script, saying it was his “legal right to express himself freely”. The real reason for the censors’ rejection of the script, he alleged, was the film’s acknowledgement of discrimination against Copts in Egypt. “The fact is discrimination still exists,” Salama noted. “It is not a figment of my imagination.”
Egypt’s Christians (who make up an estimated 12 to 15 per cent of the population) often complained of discrimination under President Mubarak. They needed a presidential decree to build or repair churches and said they were not appointed to senior positions in state institutions. Their situation, however, has further deteriorated following the rise of Islamists to power. In the transitional post-Mubarak period, churches have been torched by extremists and many Christian families have left the country to settle abroad, fearing their freedom and their lives were at risk.
In his inaugural speech shortly after his appointment, Egypt’s first democratically-elected President, Mohamed Morsi — who hails from the Muslim Brotherhood — had promised to be a leader for all Egyptians. He had also vowed to appoint a Christian Vice President. Bowing under pressure from the ultra-conservative Salafists, he has instead appointed a Christian Presidential aide — a position that some Christians have said is “largely symbolic and designed to fill a quota of Christians on the President’s advisory team.”
Coptic Christian women wait in line to vote in the first presidential election after Mubarak’s fall
The forced evacuation of Copts from their homes in Dahshur, a village on the outskirts of Giza, and more recently from the North Sinai border town of Rafah (after Christians received threats from extremists ) has fuelled Christians’ fears they were being targeted for their faith in the “new” Egypt. More recently, two Coptic children — aged 9 and 10 — in the Southern Egyptian region of Beni Sweif were jailed for blasphemy but were released days later after the charges against them were dropped. Meanwhile, Alber Saber, a Computer Science graduate and a Copt-turned-atheist remains behind bars pending an investigation after being accused of allegedly posting the anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” on a Facebook page he administers. His trial for contempt of religion has been postponed to October 17.
Egyptian filmmakers and others working in the film industry are meanwhile becoming increasingly worried that their freedom of expression may be curtailed under Islamist rule. Many are speaking out against censorship. “Egypt’s censorship laws remain unchanged,” lamented cinematographer Kamal Abdel Aziz, who heads the National Cinema Center. “Censors should watch films only to determine whether they fall into an unrestricted age category or a restricted one,” he told Index, adding that he looks forward to the day when all censorship is abolished.
The tight censorship isn’t the only concern. A verbal attack on Egyptian actress Elham Shaheen by an ultra-conservative Salafist Sheikh has fuelled fears that Islamists were using methods of intimidation similar to those used in the nineties to force bellydancers and artistes to quit the profession. The Sheikh criticised Shaheen on his show on the conservative TV channel El Hafez, saying she was “cursed and would never go to Heaven”. The insult triggered an outcry from artists and liberals who, considering an attack on art and culture, expressed solidarity with Shaheen in both the traditional media and on social media networks. Shaheen has filed a lawsuit against the Sheikh.
Salama too is threatening to file a lawsuit if the Minister of Culture rescinds on his promise to lift the ban off his film. He said he was “waiting to see if Islamists really encourage freedom of expression as they claim.”
Journalist Shahira Amin resigned from her post as deputy head of state-run Nile TV in February 2011. Read why she resigned from the “propaganda machine” here.
