18 Nov 2011 | Uncategorized
George Washington University’s Cyber Security Policy and Research Institute recently hosted an event to discuss the constitutionality and legality of cell phone and Internet blackouts. The issue came to a head in the United States this past August when San Francisco’s public transportation system, BART, shut down the system’s underground cell phone network for several hours to prevent protestors from executing plans to disrupt train service.
The event focused on a central question: Are cell phone and Internet blackouts by government agencies unconstitutional and illegal, absent a declared national emergency? In an amicable debate on the subject, Gregory Nojeim from the Center for Democracy and Technology argued in favor of the premise, while Paul Rosenzweig of Red Branch Law and Consulting argued against it. Both sides emphasized that while they agree on other issues, this is a topic that even reasonable minds can disagree about.
Challenges in applying old law to new technology were endemic. The BART station itself was clearly a public forum, but what about the airwaves and networks that formed the “virtual forum” above the platform? What legal precedents apply? How does one ensure that any regulations regarding future cell phone shutdowns will be content-neutral?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation characterised BART’s shutdown of cellular service as an overt assault on freedom of expression, comparing the situation to recent Internet shutdowns in Egypt:
“Cell phone service has not always been available in BART stations. The advent of reliable service inside of stations is relatively recent. But once BART made the service available, cutting it off in order to prevent the organization of a protest constitutes a prior restraint on the free speech rights of every person in the station, whether they’re a protester or a commuter. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. Censorship is not okay in Tahrir Square or Trafalgar Square, and it’s still not okay in Powell Street Station.”
Nojiem agreed with this position, holding up his PDA and declaring “It’s your soapbox and the government is trying to kick it out from under you.” He argued that the protestors posed no imminent safety risk, citing Brandenburg vs. Ohio: which stated:
“….constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
On the contrary, Rosenzweig argued that governments needed to be given wider discretion in controlling cell phone and Internet services. He maintained that preventing government access to shutting down these services is not a “slippery slope to China’s great fire wall” and implored participants to have some faith that the government would in the public’s best interest. BART, he suggested, should have clearly defined, content neutral policies that would allow them to effectively respond to urgent situations.
This argument is supported by the precedent set by Clark, Secretary of the Interior, et al. versus Community Creative Non-Violence:
“Expression, whether oral or written or symbolized by conduct, is subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. We have often noted that restrictions of this kind are valid provided that they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”
This is an important discourse to continue. The BART shut down highlights that, even in a country with strong protections for freedom of expression, there is a struggle to develop a core understanding of how we measure free speech. Mayor Bloomberg recently struggled to develop consistent rhetoric in addressing Occupy Wall Street movement in New York. “There is no easy answer,” Mr. Bloomberg told the press. “But there is a right answer, and the right answer is allow people to protest, but at the same time enforce public safety, provide public safety and quality-of-life issues, and we will continue to do that.”
18 Nov 2011 | Uncategorized
In an Afghanistan prison, one woman is serving a 12-year sentence for being the victim of a rape. Another woman is serving time for running away from 10 years of abuse from her husband. These women want to tell their stories, and in late 2010, they were given the chance to speak out in an EU funded film. But post-production, the film has been blocked by the EU, leaving these women with the weight of their stories, and no forum for them to be heard.
With the help of the European Union, London based film maker Clementine Malpas set out to expose the plight of women convicted of “moral crimes” in Afghanistan. After working on the film for three months, gaining the trust and support of the Afghan women interviewed, Malpas was told the film “In-Justice: The story of Afghan women,” would never be released.
50 per cent of women imprisoned in the country are there for moral crimes, namely running away from home, or having sex outside of marriage, including rape as well as adultery and consensual sex outside wedlock, and Malpas wanted to broadcast this issue to the world.
Initially, the partnership between Malpas and the EU was to create a documentary film which followed a female politician through her election campaign, right up to the election date, but this plan fell through. Malpas presented the EU with other options, and the concept for the film on moral crimes was approved.
Malpas said: “I got into documentaries to show human rights abuses, to shine a light on awful situations, and tell the world what is going on, so I was glad to do the film about the women in prison. It’s something I feel passionately about.”
In the film, two women, imprisoned for moral crimes explain how they ended up in prison. 19-year-old Gulnaz, who was particularly passionate about having her story told, was arrested after her cousin’s husband tied her hands and feet together and raped her.
26-year-old Farida fled from an abusive husband who had chased her around their house with an iron rod, and threatened to urinate in her mouth. She was arrested whilst staying with the family of another man. Police said they could tell she had committed adultery, because she was not a virgin — but Farida had been married for ten years, and had a baby.
Both women gave their consent for the documentary to be made, both on film, and in writing. Gulnaz said “I have no other option, you have to tell my story. I want everyone to know that I am innocent.” But the EU have cited concerns over the safety of the women as their reason for blocking the film.
Malpas said: “After making the film and beginning distribution, I was told this film is never going to be broadcast. It’s such an important story. I really wanted to get the message out. It would be even more powerful if the story comes from these women, rather than from me talking about them.”
Heather Barr, Afghanistan researcher for Human Rights Watch, agreed that it was essential to give these women a chance to discuss what has happened to them.
“It sounds to me like an overwhelming majority of these women in prison haven’t committed crimes under the penal code. These women are invisible. People don’t know that this issue exists. It’s important to talk about this – these women are imprisoned for being victims of abuse.”
She added: “These imprisonments tell a story about how little progress has been made since the fall of the Taliban, and it shows the terrible state the justice system is in.”
Malpas explained that the EU’s decision not to release the film had been a blessing in disguise — the film, and therefore the subject, is getting more press coverage and interest than it would have, had it been approved.
“For me, it’s not about the EU blocking the film, it’s about the story getting out there,” she says
An EU representative told Associated Press:
“The EU decided to withdraw the film only because there were very real concerns for the safety of the women it portrayed. Their welfare was and continues to be the paramount consideration in this matter.”
Malpas explained that since the press coverage began, she has received widespread support. MP’s and MEP’s from around the country have written to the film-maker advocating the documentary, and the issue has been discussed in European Parliament.
But despite that, Malpas doesn’t believe the film will ever be released. She said:
“There’s a hold on this film – and it’s never going to be let go.”
18 Nov 2011 | Leveson Inquiry
A provisional list of witnesses and hacking victims giving evidence next week in the Leveson Inquiry has been announced.
The schedule is as follows:
Monday 21 November
Bob Dowler
Sally Dowler
Hugh Grant
Graham Shear
Joan Smith
Tuesday 22 November
Steve Coogan
Mary-Ellen Field
Garry Flitcroft
Margaret Watson
Wednesday 23 November
Sheryl Gascoigne
Mark Lewis
Gerry McCann
Tom Rowland
Thursday 24 November
“HJK”
Sienna Miller
Max Mosley
JK Rowling
Mark Thomson
Monday 28 November
Charlotte Church
Anne Diamond
Ian Hurst
Chris Jefferies
Jane Winter
After David Sherborne’s scathing illustration of the British tabloids on Wednesday, next week’s sessions are expected to be even more damaging to the reputation of the press.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
