The teenaged members of Kashmiri all-girl band Pragaash decided to shelve their music career after being harassed online, and a fatwa issued against them. Mahima Kaul reports on how the controversy has unfolded
(more…)
Indian intellectual Ashis Nandy is facing a police investigation after remarks about underprivileged people made at the Jaipur Literary Festival. Nandy was quoted as saying that “Most corrupt people come from Other Backward Classes, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.” Nandy later claimed that he had meant that most people prosecuted for corruption were from the lower castes, as they did not have the means to defend themselves. But complaints have reportedly been made to police.
Writers including novelist Hari Kunzru were threatened with prosecution at the Jaipur festival last year after they read extracts from the work of Salman Rushdie, who had been forced to withdraw from appearing at the event following threats.
Irina Khalip with husband Andrei Sannikov and son Danil
Belarusian journalist Irina Khalip is to apply to leave the country to visit the UK and Russia. Khalip, who is married to former presidential candidate Andrei Sannikov, is currently subject to a two-year suspended sentence, handed down after a crackdown on opposition journalists and activists in the wake of Belarus’s 2010 presidential election. Her husband has been granted asylum in the UK.
Egypt’s Prosecutor General has ordered the arrest of all members of alleged anarchist group “Black Bloc”.
The newly-emerged Black Bloc, adopting tactics from international anarchist protest movements, and wearing distinctive black hoodies and balaclavas, has been denounced as “barbaric” by Muslim Brotherhood-aligned media. But some commentators have likened the crackdown on the tiny grouping to a panic over heavy metal fans during the Mubarak era.
Philippines Solicitor-General Francis Jardeleza has said that “liking” a libelous post on Facebook could lead to criminal prosecution.
Jardazela’s addmission, during a discussion on the Philippines cybercrime law, prompted one Supreme Court judge to admit that he would now be “reluctant to express [his] view on the web.
A Bangladeshi blogger is in critical condition after being stabbed by three unknown attackers on 14 January in Dhaka, the country’s capital. Asif Mohiuddin, 29, is the author of a blog about atheism widely read in Bangladesh. His posts often satirise religion, with one post referring to god as “almighty only in name but impotent in reality.” Press reports have referred to Mohiuddin as a “militant blogger”, although there is no suggestion that his work incited violence. Shortly after the attack, the South Asian Meeting on Internet and Freedom of Expression was held in Dhaka, and participants called on the government to protect journalist’s human rights under the constitution of Bangladesh, and bring the perpetrators to justice.
– Blogger Asif Mohiuddin was stabbed on 14 January
A Nigerian newspaper editor was shot dead on 12 January. Ikechukwu Udendu was killed in the southeastern city of Onithsa by an unknown assailant, who then phoned the victim’s brother to instruct him to collect the dead body. The editor was on his way to supervise the printing of the mothly newspaper Anambra News when he was attacked. Arrests and attacks on the Nigerian media are frequent but rarely resolved. On 26 April 2012, the offices of daily newspapers in the cities of Abuja and Kaduna were bombed.
Last week saw widespread attacks on the media in Greece, after bombs were placed outside of the homes of five journalists on 11 January. Homemade devices were used to carry out arson attacks on Chris Konstas, Antonis Liaros, George Oikonomeas, Petros Karsiotis and Antonis Skyllakos, members of the Journalists’ Union of Athens Daily Newspapers. Anarchist group Lovers of Lawlessness said they committed the attacks in protest against the journalists for allegedly covering the government favourably since the financial crisis began in 2009.
An editor of investigative weekly Alaan Magazine has been charged with defamation in Morocco, after alleging that a government official had ordered champagne to his hotel room during a business trip. Youssef Jajili printed a hotel receipt under Minister of Manufacture and Trade Abdelkader Amara’s name, which charged him for the alcohol while he was away at the expense of taxpayers. Amara denied the claim, saying that someone had ordered the champagne while he was out of the room. Jajili will appear in court on 28 January, and faces one year imprisonment and if found guilty under section 52 of Morocco’s defamation laws. Even though alcohol is widely available in Morocco, it is forbidden to followers of Islam, who make up the majority of the country.
On 15 January, Facebook announced a new format to its search facilities: “graph search”. The new tool will allow users to search for specific content, people, or images on the site. Critics suggest that the move could undermine Facebook’s privacy policy and allow users less control over their personal information, but Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the graph search is “privacy aware,” since the new tool will only search content already shared with the user.
UPDATE: An appeals court in Milan acquitted today three Google executives of violating the privacy of an Italian boy with autism, in the so-called “Vividown” case. “We’re very happy that the verdict has been reversed and our colleagues’ names have been cleared. Of course, while we are delighted with the appeal, our thoughts continue to be with the family who have been through the ordeal,” said Giorgia Abeltino, Google Italy Policy Manager, in an statement.
The European Union Directive on electronic commerce is not the most inspirationally named document. The title would barely fit on a placard, and scans awkwardly for sloganeering (“What do we want?” “Implementation of the Electronic Commerce Directive!” “When do we want it?” “Within an agreed scheduled framework period, subject to negotiation between neighbour states and key stakeholders!”)
But the eCommerce Directive, as it is known by, er, some people, states a principle that is absolutely crucial to how the web works.
Article 12 of the directive, adopted in 2000, establishes the principle of the “mere conduit”. That is the idea that an Internet Service provider is not liable for content hosted on its platform, provided it “(a) does not initiate the transmission; (b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and (c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.”
This idea means that, at least in theory, Facebook, YouTube etc. can allow users to post anything on their platforms without worrying about having to account for it legally.
I say “in theory”. Today (21 December), an appeal will take place in an Italian court over a ruling which severely tested the concept of “mere conduit”.
In September 2006, Italian secondary school students posted a video of a boy with Down’s Syndrome being taunted and beaten by other teenagers. The video remained online until November that year, when it was removed by YouTube following a request by Italian police.
In 2010, three Google executives were found guilty of breach of privacy by an Italian court in a case brought by Down’s Syndrome charity Viva Down. The appeal comes to court on Friday.
Google protests that it acted as soon as it was notified by the authorities that the video may be illegal. Prosecutors claim that YouTube should have responded to private complaints sooner.
Videos of bullying are unpleasant to say the least, but the people responsible for the harassment of the boy, and the uploading of the video, have been convicted.
The 2010 conviction of Google employeees seriously breaches the idea of ISP as “mere conduit”, and with that, the way the web works. If social platforms are to be held responsible for all content, the consequences could be catastrophic for the way we operate on the web. Even the Chinese Internet police cannot pre-moderate every single piece of content uploaded, which is what ISPs may feel obliged to do should they be held responsible for content. The alternative might be an automated “banned words” list, perhaps. Either way, we would see an enormous escalation of censorship. What’s more, we would be establishing, even more than already exists, a system of privatised censorship. By handing over responsibility for what we say online from individuals to ISPs, we would be allowing private companies even more power than the state has to govern our speech.
Already this week there has been uproar over Instagram’s (attempted, then hastily withdrawn) grab for users’ content, itself perhaps a breach of mere conduit status.
And if this ruling is upheld in Italy, we’ll be facing another blow to individuals’ free use of the web. Already, a huge deal of our communication happens across private networks. If they are legally responsible for every word, picture and video, they will be inclined to caution, and our space to speak ever more narrowed.
Padraig Reidy is news editor at Index on Censorship