International delegation to Bahrain calls for an end to free expression violations and for human rights defenders to be freed
Egyptian-American journalist Mona Eltahawy tweeted to say she had been arrested and beaten in Cairo this morning. Eltahawy, who writes for Canada’s Toronto Star, Israel’s The Jerusalem Report and Denmark’s Politiken, is said to have been detained by Police in Tahrir Square. Following her arrest, the journalist tweeted “Beaten arrested in interior ministry” around 4am (EET).
Her arrest sparked outrage on Twitter, and the campaign to #FreeMona began trending worldwide.
It is also believed that activist Maged Butter, who was with Eltahawy, was also arrested, and a similar #freemaged campaign began on Twitter. Unconfirmed reports on the micro-blogging site suggest Maged has since been freed.
Also, documentary film-maker, Jehane Noujaim, best known for her documentary “Control Room” about the pan-Arab news station, Al-Jazeera, was detained, and her camera confiscated.
The US State department responded to the rumours of the arrests on Twitter: “Reports of @monaeltahawy and @pangeaworld detention very concerning. @USEmbassyCairo engaging authorities. #FreeMona“.
Images calling for the release of Mona and Maged also appeared on Twitter, as well as an image showing Maged’s injuries, following his release.
Mona tweeted “I AM FREE” shortly after 12.20 EET, and said she could barely type following “12 hours with Interior Ministry bastards and military intelligence combined.” Mona also alleged she had been sexually assaulted by 5 or 6 members of the Egyptian security forces, who “groped and prodded my breasts, grabbed my genital area.”
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.”
Cross posted from Felix Arabia
I did not expect that the very same experience would be repeated after five years. After a revolution in which we have ousted the tyrant, I go back to jail?
The memories of being incarcerated have returned, all the details, from the skills of being able to sleep on the floor with eight colleagues in a small cell (2 x 4 metres) to the songs and discussions of the inmates. But I am completely unable to remember how I secured my glasses while asleep. They were trampled upon three times in one day. I realise suddenly that they are the very same pair I had when I was jailed in 2006, and that I am imprisoned, now, pending investigation under similarly flimsy accusations and reasons of that incarceration. The only difference is that we have exchanged state security prosecution with military prosecution: a change fitting to the military moment we are living in.
The previous time, I was joined in detention by 50 colleagues from the Kefaya movement, but on this occasion I am alone, together with eight wrongly accused.
As soon as they realised that I was from the “Youth of the Revolution” they started cursing at the revolution and how it failed in “sorting out” the Interior Ministry. I spent the first two days listening to stories of torture by the police force, which is not only adamantly resisting reform, but also seeking revenge for being defeated by the downtrodden, the guilty and the innocent.
From their stories I discover the truth of the great achievements of the restoration of security. Two of my colleagues are in jail for the first time, simple youth without a grain of violence. And what is it they are accused of? Forming a gang. Now I understand what the Interior Ministry means when it reports that it has caught armed gangs. I congratulate the country for the restoration of security then.
In the following few hours, sunlight will enter our always dim cell, we read the creative Arabic engravings of a former colleague, four walls from floor to ceiling covered in Quran, prayers, supplications, thoughts and what appear to be the will of a tyrant to repent.
The next day we discover in the corner the date of the inmate’s execution and we are overwhelmed by tears.
The guilty plan on repenting, but the innocent do not know what to do to avoid a similar fate.
On the radio I hear the speech of his Excellency the General inaugurating the tallest flag pole in the world, one which will certainly enter the record books. And I wonder: Was the inclusion of the name of the martyr Mina Daniel as one of the instigators in my case also a record in audacity? On the basis of it not being sufficient for them to be first to kill the victim and to walk in the funeral but also to spit on the corpse and accuse it of a crime?
Or perhaps this cell can win the record of the number of cockroaches? My thoughts are interrupted by Abu Mailk: “I swear to God Almighty, if the wronged are not absolved, this revolution will not succeed.”
The third day, 1/11/2011Cell 19, Prison of Appeal, Bab Al KhalqAlaa Abdel Fattah