17 Dec 11 | Asia and Pacific
A crowd of 200 royalists staged a protest at the United States Embassy in Bangkok on 16 December, accusing it of interfering in domestic affairs.
Protesters criticised Ambassador Kristie Kennie for her comments on recent lese majeste prosecutions, including that of of Joe Gordon, a Thailand-born US citizen.
“We call on the US embassy and Ambassador Kristie Kenney to apologise to all Thai people for their improper action towards our beloved king,” protest leader Chaiwat Surawichai reportedly said to AFP.
Both US and UN officials had expressed concern about the sentencing of Joe Gordon, also known as Lerpong Wichaikhammat, on 8 December and Amphon Tangnoppakul on 23 November. Gordon, 55, faces two-and-a-half years in prison for translating parts of a banned biography of King Bhumibol Adulyadej and posting them online, while Amphon, 61, was sentenced to 20 years for sending four text messages insulting the monarchy.
Members of royalist group Siam Sammakkhi (United Siam) submitted letters to the United Nations headquarters and the Ambassador urging them not to comment on the lese majeste law. Some of them carried placards which read “Kristie Kenney Shut Up”, “We will protect Article 112 with our lives” and shouted for the Ambassador to “get out”.
At about 6:00pm local time, Kenney posted on her Twitter account that the “protest was peaceful, protestors included respectful conversation with Embassy staff to exchange views. Freedom of expression”. Earlier the US Embassy posted a statement on its website stating “the United States government has the utmost respect for the Thai monarchy, the royal family and Thai culture”, and they “respect Thai laws and do not take sides in Thailand’s internal affairs. We support freedom of expression around the world and consider it a fundamental human right.”
According a report from The Nation, angry commentators had this week lashed out at the Embassy on its Facebook page with postings containing abusive language and images. After its administrator posted a request urging for civility to no avail on 15 December, the messages have been apparently deleted. There was barrage of messages following Kenney’s remarks during a chat with Twitter users last week, including one that read she was “troubled by prosecutions inconsistent with international standard of freedom of expression”.
On 9 December, the UN Office of High Commissioner on Human Rights called for Thailand to amend its lese majeste law. During the Universal Periodic Review in October, countries with monarchs, such as the UK and Norway, urged Thailand to safeguard freedom of expression. Countries without that did not comment during the session included the US.
02 Dec 11 | Uncategorized
The Motion Picture Association announced this week that it would consider changes to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) to address concerns raised by tech companies such as Google and Yahoo. In a phone briefing this week, Michael O’Leary, senior executive vice president for global policy and external affairs of the Motion Picture Association of America, anticipated that opponents of SOPA and PIPA would remain unhappy with the bill, but that the ultimate goal was to have it passed in some form. He declined to give details of specific changes.
Proponents of the bill are trying to push it through the House of Representatives by 15 December, but are facing strong opposition. Critics of the bills are likely to see any effort at revision or toning down of language as grossly inadequate. If the bill fails to pass during this session, it is likely that next year’s election will make passing legislation even more difficult. Opponents have also gained Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) endorsement against SOPA. She has now publicly said in a statement:
I am fully supportive of the need to pass legislation in this Congress to combat intellectual piracy, specifically dealing with rogue digital theft sites. It is incumbent on the parties that are concerned by the current proposal to offer changes that would effectively deal with piracy. We must work together for an effective solution.
Cynthia Wong of the Center for Democracy and Technology recently expressed concerns that SOPA and PIPA could harm freedom of expression, privacy, and innovation online.
Another problem not addressed in O’Leary’s interview is the issue of DNS filtering, which has been deemed ineffective and technically problematic by experts. Researchers at the Department of Energy’s Sandia National Labs recently wrote a letter to Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California), stating that they believe DNS filtering would be ineffective, would negatively impact U.S. cybersecurity efforts and internet use, and would hinder security improvements to DNS. At one point the letter states that “one staff member characterised the proposed DNS filtering mandate as a ‘whack-a-mole’ approach that would only encourage users and offending websites to resort to low cost work-arounds.”
There are also signs of a potential bipartisan alternative to SOPA, proposed by Senators Wyden (D-OR), Cantwell (D-WA), Moran (R-KS), and Warner (D-VA); Reps Chaffetz (R-UT), Campbell (R-CA), Doggett (D-TX), Eshoo (D-CA), Issa (R-CA), and Lofgren (D-CA). The new plan is rumored to take responsibility in this area away from the Attorney General, and place it with the Internet Trade Commission (ITC). Happily, it is rumored that the proposed alternative would not include website blocking by ISPs and DNS providers, nor would search engines or others be required to remove links to such content.
18 Nov 11 | 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 11 | Americas, News and features
As debates continue around the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), Cynthia M Wong argues that US policy makers must look more closely at whether the bill truly supports free expression
(more…)
