17 Jun 2013 | In the News
CANADA
Free speech doesn’t cover libel or slander, in any language
It was back in 2006 that Vancouver lawyer Roger McConchie warned in a CanWest News Service interview that libel cases were on the increase in Canada and that the Internet was “the single most important reason for the increase.” His law firm, McConchie Law Corp., has kept track of Canadian cases since the first Internet libel suit was launched in 1995, with one Julian Fantino awarded $40,000 in damages.
(Times Colonist)
CHINA
Is Hong Kong really free or does Beijing call the shots
The flight of a government whistle-blower – or possible fugitive from justice – to the quasi-democratic Chinese enclave of Hong Kong has given this former British colony a bit of free PR.
(Patriot-News)
EGYPT
Egyptian Politician: Jews Use Human Blood for Passover Matzos
The Muslim world is keeping the centuries old “matzah blood libel” alive and well – even in Egypt, with which Israel has a peace treaty.
(Arutz Sheva 7)
EUROPEAN UNION
EU deal to protect film, TV, sets the stage for transatlantic trade pact
Compromise protecting film, TV from market liberalisation permits progress on transatlantic talks but could stoke protectionism in US
(South China Morning Post)
INDIA
EU not ready to give India ‘data secure’ status
The European Union has picked holes in India’s data security system and suggested that a joint expert group be set up to propose ways on how the country should tighten measures to qualify as a data secure nation.
(The Hindu)
MIDDLE EAST
Lifting of censorship boosts Arab media
Lifting of media censorship in Arab Spring countries has boosted local channels which have stepped into the role Aljazeera had been playing in the region for years, according to a new book.
(The Peninsula)
UNITED KINGDOM
Met chief ‘faces libel claim over Plebgate’
Britain’s most senior police officer faces being called to testify on oath over leaks in the Andrew Mitchell ‘Plebgate’ affair.
(Daily Mail)
The home of free speech closes down for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden
The news that the Government is trying to prevent whistleblower Edward Snowden from travelling to this country by telling airlines not to accept him as a passenger has made me furious.
(The Independent)
DIY YouTube directors to self-regulate under new censorship scheme
Film watchdogs in three countries including UK are to pilot a program in which amateur video-makers can self-regulate
(The Observer)
UNITED STATES
First Amendment Ban on ‘gruesome images’ threatens free speech
For those of us who worry about the vitality of free speech in the “land of the free,” recent news isn’t good. On June 10, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a Colorado appeals court decision banning anti-abortion activists from displaying “gruesome images” of mutilated fetuses that might be seen by children.
(Pantagraph)
14 Jun 2013 | Comment, Europe and Central Asia, News and features
Russia’s new blasphemy law is censorship under the guise of protection for believers, says Padraig Reidy
In his speech on Russia’s Constitution Day in December 2012, Vladimir Putin bemoaned the decline of spiritual values.
“Today, Russia suffers an apparent deficit of spiritual values,” said Putin, as his Orthodox ally Patriarch Kirill nodded along.
The former KGB man continued: “We must wholeheartedly support the institutions that are the carriers of traditional values.”
So far, so Mother Russia.
What was interesting was that the president went on to say that it would be “amoral” to create laws governing spirituality. Putin commented ““Any attempts of the government to intervene with people’s beliefs are effectively a sign of totalitarian rule. It’s absolutely out of the question. It’s not our way.”
This would seem at odds with this week’s passing of a new blasphemy law, which will impose prison sentences and fines on people convicted of “public actions expressing clear disrespect for society and committed with the goal of offending religious feelings of the faithful”.
But it is in fact very much in the mould of the current trend for religious defamation law.
Traditionally, blasphemy was the crime of causing offence to God himself; now it is recast as causing offence to believers. Blasphemy laws are here to protect us. Look back at the testimony durings Pussy Riot’s trial, and again and again you hear the stories of poor innocent believers who were shocked by the women’s behaviour; even if the Patriarch and the president had wished to forgive the punk group, they had to think of the poor pious babushkas who had been rocked to the very core by an act that some admitted to not actually having witnessed.
Shamefully, Ireland has led the way in this trend. The Irish Defamation Act of 2009 established definitions and punishments for blasphemy where none had previously existed (in spite of the fact that the 1937 constitution recognised blasphemy as a crime, it did not define what blasphemy was, and thus, there had never been a conviction for blasphemy, or even a full trial, in the country).
The Irish law defines religious defamation as any action likely to cause “outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion”, with fines of up to e25,000 payable by those found guilty.
The wording of the Irish bill was used as a template in the Organisation of Islamic Conference’s attempts to get the UN to recognise religious defamation as a crime.
Of course, the old-fashioned definitions of blasphemy still exist: in Egypt this week, writer Amer Saber was given a five-year sentence for “contempt of religion” for authoring a short story collection called “Where is God?”. And in Syria, a teenager was reportedly shot in front of his family merely for uttering the name of Muhammad. The abuses of blasphemy law in Pakistan are only too well known.
But the justification for blasphemy laws, as with many other censorious impulses, is increasingly tied up in the idea that people should be protected from offence, from controversy, even from being challenged.
Perhaps the most offensive notion is that we cannot deal with ideas, even aggressively expressed ideas, that we disagree with. Government’s such as Putin’s are all too happy to shut down free speech and repackage censorship as benign protection.
11 Jun 2013 | In the News
CANADA
Rob Ford wins partial costs in wake of failed libel suit
Boardwalk Pub restaurateur George Foulidis must pay mayor and Bruce Baker $137,000, judge ruled Monday. (Toronto Star)
CHINA
Beyond the Great Firewall: How and What China Censors
China’s lack of transparency has long posed a daunting challenge to outside observers trying to understand what the government’s interests, goals, and intentions are. Gary King, a Professor in Government at Harvard University, has provided telling new insights into these questions with his research on the government’s censorship of social media websites. (The Diplomat)
EGYPT
Maspero in crisis: report
The AFTE also claimed former head of the state-run TV sector Essam El-Amir resigned last December because of intervention in the coverage of the presidential palace clashes. (Daily News Egypt)
HONG KONG
Yes, Free Speech Is Big in Hong Kong—Because They Must Constantly Defend It
Hong Kong has a strong tradition of free speech.” That’s how Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old leaker who slammed National Security Agency surveillance as an “existential threat to democracy,” described his decision to flee to China. (New Republic)
RUSSIA
Accusations of censorship as more exhibitions are shut down at Perm festival
The White Nights festival in Perm has come under pressure after four of its exhibitions have been closed, seemingly at the request of unhappy local politicians. In response, Marat Guelman, one of the festival’s organisers has accused critics of political game-playing. (Calvert Journal)
UNITED STATES
Should the Lubbock AJ host Blogs?: Freedom of Speech Issues
In the spring of 2012 I was invited to begin a blog hosted on the Lubbock AJ on-line site. Having been drawn into the arena of public debate during the effort to close the city’s Health Department I felt that such an opportunity to encourage civic involvement was a good idea.
(Lubbock Avalanche-Journal)
‘Free Speech’ Doesn’t Include Showing Dead Fetus Posters to Kids
The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of an anti-abortion protestor who claimed his free speech was violated by the state of Colorado. By declining to hear the case, the Court allowed a lower court ruling barring certain types of anti-abortion protests in public areas to stand, which, on its surface, might sound like a good thing. But the truth’s a little messier.
(Jezebel)
As libel trial losers battle $1M legal bill, FBI probes claimed mid-trial DUI set-up of their lawyer
The trial in a defamation case between two radio shock jocks in Florida has been over for months. But there’s no end in sight to continuing issues involving the law firms for both sides, the Tampa Bay Times reports.
(ABA Journal)
A twist in the tale of the Christian valedictorian
You’ve probably heard about the South Carolina high school valedictorian who tore up his prepared speech at graduation ceremonies and instead recited the Lord’s Prayer, to cheers and applause. But there is a twist in the tale of Roy Costner IV, who has become a poster boy for Christian conservatives.
(Los Angeles Times)
VIETNAM
Vietnam bans action movie despite removal of violent scenes
Vietnam latest action movie about gang fights in Ho Chi Minh City’s Chinatown has been officially banned after the censors disapproved of the new, censored version. (Thanh Nien)
10 Jun 2013 | Middle East and North Africa
Buffeted by internal and external forces, the Jordanian government’s recent move against hundreds of websites underscores the fragile nature of free expression in the country. Ramsey George reports
The country has seen an explosion of news sites that cover local politics and have become a thorn in the side of the government. A well-educated population and clever manoeuvres from the government have helped keep the political and social situation calm. At the same time, Jordan’s internet, media and cultural scenes have been growing — upsetting a delicate balance in the country.
Over the past several years, the government has repeatedly tightened efforts to censor and police the internet. Media observers see these actions as being in direct response to the rise of political news sites and expanding social media use among Jordanians.
Three high-profile cases have highlighted the Jordanian government’s attitude toward freedom of expression. Jamal al-Muhtasib was detained in 2012 for political reasons after posting an article about corruption. Mwafaq Mahadin and Sufyan al-Tell have been pursued by state prosecutors for publicly criticising Jordan’s foreign policy. While the cases were initially dismissed, all three face renewed charges and are back in court.
Related: Jordan blocks over 200 ‘unlicensed’ websites
Middle East and North Africa
Free speech in post-Gaddafi Libya | Social media grows across the Gulf | Free speech in Tunisia: New year, same fears | What future for free speech in the new Egypt?
Recently, amendments made to the Kingdom’s notorious press and publications law have demonstrated the state’s intentions. The amendments have forced sites to register, purchase a license from the press and publications department and assign an editor-in-chief who is a member of the Jordan Press Association (JPA). Moreover, the amendments hold new websites responsible for any “inappropriate” comments left on their platforms, and give the government permission to force the deletion of comments deemed “irrelevant” to a particular article. These requirements severely restrict news websites from joining the media landscape in Jordan and impact the ability of existing sites to function. Additionally, the amendments to the press and publications require significant resources from the government to enforce.
News sites would also have to store comments and user information for at least six months. Meanwhile, the government has also declared its intentions to formulate a new telecommunications law that would force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block pornography sites, or any material the government believes to be in contradiction to the country’s moral fabric.
In 2010, the government attempted to block over 50 news sites throughout government buildings, citing a 30-day official study that claimed public sector employees were wasting three hours per day surfing such sites. This policy was coupled with the introduction of a controversial Cyber Crimes draft law that included articles targeting news sites, including the ability to impose fines on media outlets publishing articles deemed to be “defamatory” or allow the authorities to raid offices and confiscate computers.
After pressure from interest groups that included bloggers, cyber activists and journalists, these articles were removed from the law, and the government’s policy of blocking news sites was reversed. Nevertheless, the Jordanian government has continued to find new ways to restrict and regulate new media in the country–especially in the post-Arab Spring era.
The context of these moves must also be considered, and there is perhaps nothing more that stands out as a contributing factor the state’s newfound direction than the advent of the Arab Spring and the lingering presence of domestic discontent. Jordanians, for instance, have taken to Facebook and Twitter to form new groups and hashtags, while using these platforms to mobilize people, create discussion, launch protests, or simply voice discontent with the economic, social and political status quo. By some estimates, there are over 2.4 million Facebook users in Jordan, and this includes a quarter million new users in the past six months alone. With some of the biggest Jordanian pages and groups on Facebook being media related or political in nature, both the usage and user base on Facebook alone has changed dramatically since the Arab Spring began, with Jordanians finding a new political voice, and articulating it online.
Ramsey George is a co-founder of 7iber.com, a citizen media platform based in Amman, Jordan.
