26 Jul 2013 | Comment, Digital Freedom, News and features, United Kingdom, United States
If we want the web to be a positive place for young people, we need to start talking about the positive things that happen there
Texan teenager Justin Carter was released on bail on 11 July, after his $500,000 bail was paid anonymously. His family had been unable to raise that amount previously.
The young man had been in a Texan prison since February, charged with making “terroristic threats” on Facebook.
What exactly did he say?
During an argument with fellow gamers, in which doubts had been cast on his sanity, Carter posted:
“I’m f—ed in the head alright. I think I’ma shoot up a kindergarten and watch the blood of the innocent rain down and eat the beating heart of one of them.”
Not pleasant, no. Not particularly funny. But is it an actual threat? I really don’t think so.
Carter’s lawyer insists that the teen posted “LOL” and “jk” (joke) immediately afterwards to clarify that he wasn’t serious. And yet he finds himself facing a terror-related charge, with a possible sentence of 10 years ahead of him.
Why?
Americans are often wrongly accused of not getting irony, but this is one of those awful cases where the letter of the law clashes with expression that is clearly not meant to be taken literally.
Britons will be all too aware that they cannot be too complacent about these cases. People such as Paul Chambers, Azhar Ahmed, Liam Stacey and Matthew Woods have all felt the full force of the law for inappropriate, ill-advised social media messages, under laws that have been clumsily applied and don’t really allow for context – the crucial component in all free speech cases (though the Crown Prosecution Service has at least attempted to offset this problem with its new recommendations).
It’s interesting that almost all these recent cases involve young men.
The only exception I can think of is 21 year-old British woman Deyka Ayan Hassan, who was recently sentenced to 250 hours community service for a tweet in the aftermath of the murder of Lee Rigby, in which she said anyone wearing a Help For Heroes t-shirt deserved to be beheaded.
A lot of social media at the moment is based on getting a reaction; our worth is based on how many likes or comments a post gets, or responses and retweets on Twitter. The most hardened editor will sit anxiously viewing how many times an article is tweeted.
This pushes content posted in certain directions: either mind-numbingly banal but well meaning to the point where people feel bad for not responding (RT IF YOU THINK CANCER IS BAD), or snarky and borderline – or just plain – offensive (CANCER IS LOLZ).
The latter type of comment is the one that’s getting young people in trouble.
A segment of the Olympic opening ceremony in London last summer made a great deal of the amazing power of communications technology in young people’s lives, with “founder of the web” Tim Berners Lee looking on benignly as a sweet love story played out between pretty teenagers wielding smartphones.
But the way we talk about the web now does not reflect that idealism. The current debate in the UK portrays the web overwhelmingly as the habitat of trolls, predators, bullies and pornmongers. And that, plus the police are watching too, ready to arrest you for saying the wrong thing.
I can’t help feeling that all this doom-mongering could be self fulfilling. If we keep thinking of the web as the badlands, that’s how it will be, like a child beset by endless criticism and low expectations. We need to talk more about the positive side of life online – the conversations, the friendhips, the opportunities – if we’re going to get the most out of it.
1 Jul 2013 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, Religion and Culture
The European Union Foreign Affairs Council last week released its guidelines on promoting and protecting religious freedom. The guidelines, designed to set standards for the EU’s external dealings, make, for the most part, encouraging reading, Padraig Reidy writes
The section on free expression sets out thus:
“Freedom of religion or belief and the freedom of expression are interdependent, interrelated and mutually reinforcing rights, protecting all persons — not religions or beliefs in themselves — and protecting also the right to express opinions on any or all religions and beliefs.”
The distinction made here between protecting “persons” as opposed to “religions and beliefs in themselves” is very important, boiling down to the simple notion that individuals have rights but ideologies don’t.
Further on, the guidelines suggest that the EU will recall, when appropriate, that the right to freedom of religion or belief, as enshrined in relevant international standards, does not include the right to have a religion or a belief that is free from criticism or ridicule.
As an argument against modern versions of blasphemy laws: laws which claim to “protect religious feelings”. Russia recently passed such a law, criminalising “public actions expressing clear disrespect for society and committed with the goal of offending religious feelings of the faithful”. The Organisation of Islamic Conference, meanwhile, is seeking to have “defamation of religion” recognised at United Nations level. Any EU attempt to curb this move is somewhat undermined by the fact that the OIC has copied its definition of blasphemy from Ireland’s 2009 Defamation Act.
The guidelines suggest that the EU should resist attempts to curb religious speech as long as there is not a “prima facie case that this expression constitutes hates speech”. But they do also raise the expectation that Europe should condemn any violence carried out in relation to “offensive speech”.
The European Platform on Religious Intolerance and Discrimination (EPRID) has welcomed the guidelines. In a statement, it said:
“Promoting freedom of religion or belief is therefore not only a moral or legal obligation, but also a strategic political choice. The adoption of these Guidelines today gives a strong signal that [it] is now a priority for the EU.”
16 Apr 2013 | Newswire
David Fowler / Shutterstock.com
There are some fears that the funeral procession of Margaret Thatcher tomorrow could turn into a debacle of protest and arrest.
The Observer reported on Sunday that Commander Christine Jones, the police officer who will be in charge on the day, “warned” that police officers will have the power to arrest protesters under Section 5 of the Public Order Act on the day.
This isn’t exactly unusual; after all, the police always have the law at their disposal.
But it’s worth noting how problematic Section 5 of the Public Order Act can be, particularly in situations like tomorrow’s.
The section makes it an offence to engage in language (including writing on a placard) or behaviour “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”.
This has led to problems for free speech and free protest in the past, from the arrest of Christian preachers to the conviction of Al Muhajiroun poppy-burner Emdadur Choudhury.
Considering the mix of Thatcher fans, tourists and events junkies who will line the route of the funeral cortege tomorrow along with the expected protesters, it is conceivable that any protest could be construed as likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” to someone. The issue is whether that likelihood alone enough to cause the police to intervene? Or should the deployment of the Public Order Act be limited to times when there are genuine threats to public order?
Tomorrow’s funeral, while not a “state funeral” as such, is most certainly a public event.
And being a public event, it will be open to protest: the police officers on duty tomorrow will need to bear in mind that they have a duty not just to safeguard the funeral proceedings, but to safeguard free expression too.
Padraig Reidy is senior writer at Index on Censorship. @mePadraigReidy
16 Apr 2013 | Uncategorized
David Fowler / Shutterstock.com
There are some fears that the funeral procession of Margaret Thatcher tomorrow could turn into a debacle of protest and arrest.
The Observer reported on Sunday that Commander Christine Jones, the police officer who will be in charge on the day, “warned” that police officers will have the power to arrest protesters under Section 5 of the Public Order Act on the day.
This isn’t exactly unusual; after all, the police always have the law at their disposal.
But it’s worth noting how problematic Section 5 of the Public Order Act can be, particularly in situations like tomorrow’s.
The section makes it an offence to engage in language (including writing on a placard) or behaviour “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”.
This has led to problems for free speech and free protest in the past, from the arrest of Christian preachers to the conviction of Al Muhajiroun poppy-burner Emdadur Choudhury.
Considering the mix of Thatcher fans, tourists and events junkies who will line the route of the funeral cortege tomorrow along with the expected protesters, it is conceivable that any protest could be construed as likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” to someone. The issue is whether that likelihood alone enough to cause the police to intervene? Or should the deployment of the Public Order Act be limited to times when there are genuine threats to public order?
Tomorrow’s funeral, while not a “state funeral” as such, is most certainly a public event.
And being a public event, it will be open to protest: the police officers on duty tomorrow will need to bear in mind that they have a duty not just to safeguard the funeral proceedings, but to safeguard free expression too.
Padraig Reidy is senior writer at Index on Censorship. @mePadraigReidy
