There is a lot of buzz about »fake news«. But there is very little discussion about what it is that is supposed to be fake.
Maybe, there isn’t that much real fake news. (Dissent doesn’t qualify as fake.) Maybe it’s about stuff we don’t really want to know about. Or are not supposed to.
»Fake news« seems to be a mirage that will vanish if you try to pin it down.
It might also be that we are already so entangled in lies that we can no longer recognize the truth, even in its presence.
/ HAX
This one will have our full attention.
Police in the Republic of Ireland have launched an investigation after a viewer claimed comments made by Stephen Fry on a TV show were blasphemous.
The alleged crime…
Fry said: “How dare you create a world in which there is such misery? It’s not our fault? It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?”
He went on to say that Greek gods “didn’t present themselves as being all seeing, all wise, all beneficent”, adding “the god who created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish”.
The law prohibits people from publishing or uttering “matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion”.
Really? Not even if it´s objectively true or scientifically proved? What does »grossly abusive« even mean? Exactly what? Who can predict the whats and the whys, when it comes to why people go bananas? What is »a substantial number«? 17, a lot or most?
And why shouldn’t we be allowed to criticize religion? It makes claims about how things should be done and organized in society – so, we must be allowed to criticize and even mock it.
BBC: Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments »
Update, The Independent: Irish police drop Stephen Fry blasphemy investigation due to ‘lack of outraged people’ »
The Verge: Watch Edward Snowden and Cory Doctorow imagine our hopeful, dystopian future »
Journalist and writer Barrett Brown, who was imprisoned after exposing private sector surveillance – has been detained again. The Intercept:
Brown quickly became a symbol of the attack on press freedom after he was arrested in 2012 for reporting he did on the hacked emails of intelligence-contracting firms. Brown wrote about hacked emails that showed the firm Stratfor spying on activists on behalf of corporations. Brown also helped uncover a proposal by intelligence contractors to hack and smear WikiLeaks defenders and progressive activists. (…)
According to his mother, who spoke with Brown by phone after his arrest, Brown believes the reason for his re-arrest was a failure to obtain “permission” to give interviews to media organizations. Several weeks ago, Brown was told by his check-in officer that he needed to fill out permission forms before giving interviews.
The Intercept: Formerly imprisoned journalist Barrett Brown taken back into custody before PBS interview »
The EU is in the process of updating the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).
As one could expect, this opens the floodgates when it comes to regulating and censoring content such as video (and even animated GIF:s) on a number of platforms. This includes otherwise legal content.
Today the EU E-Commerce Directive gives service providers and platforms some reasonable protection. EDRi explains…
That Directive protects freedom of expression by ensuring that internet companies are not unduly incentivised to delete content. It does so by limiting liability to situations where they fail to act diligently upon receipt of a notice of the illegality of the content in question.
But with the revised AVMSD things might change…
The Council and the Parliament want a wide variety of content to be regulated – anything that (based on the wisdom of the provider, in the first instance) might impact the physical, mental and moral development of minors. At the same time, video-sharing and (some) social media platforms are expected to restrict content that is an “incitement to violence or hatred” by reference, for example, to sex, racial or ethnic origin, disability, age, or sexual orientation.
The content that the providers will be required to regulate is not, or not necessarily, illegal. As a result, it is argued that this privatised regulation of freedom of expression does not breach the E-Commerce Directive, because the obligation is to regulate content. In short, restriction of legal content is not a breach of rules that cover illegal content.
So… according to EU logic, it’s not censorship if you censor legal content?
The Council also wants video-sharing and social media platforms to regulate live-streamed video.
This revision is turning into a mess. And for once it’s not the copyright industry that is pushing the changes. It’s politicians – aiming to regulate what you can or cannot say (or even joke about).
If this becomes law, platforms like Youtube and Facebook will have to introduce new terms and conditions narrowing down the scope of what is acceptable for users to upload. Doing so, they most certainly will be overly cautious – to stay on the safe side when it comes to EU regulation.
It all boils down to the EU – once again – pushing private companies to use their terms and conditions to limit in other ways legal free speech.
EDRi: AVMS Directive: It isn’t censorship if the content is mostly legal, right? »
/ HAX
In a speech Thursday at a Washington DC think tank, CIA Director Michael Pompeo called the whistleblower site WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service” and said news organizations that reveal the government’s crimes are “enemies” of the United States. (…)
Referring to WikiLeaks’ founder, Pompeo declared that “Julian Assange has no First Amendment freedoms.” (…)
In his remarks, Pompeo said, “We have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us. To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.”
WSWS: CIA Director calls WikiLeaks an “enemy,” says Assange has “no First Amendment freedoms” »
Update, also read:
Techcrunch: Hypocritical CIA Director Goes On Rant About Wikileaks, Free Speech »
The Intercept: Trump’s CIA Director Pompeo, Targeting WikiLeaks, Explicitly Threatens Speech and Press Freedoms »
Once again, a senseless terror attack.
Once again, politicians are telling us that we must stand up for a free and open society.
Of course we must. But do they?
Western democracy is slowly being hollowed out. It’s getting ever more secretive and less transparent. Power is being centralized and is moving further away from the people. It is getting ever more difficult to participate in and to scrutinize the decision-making process. Free citizens are being reduced to subordinates.
Civil and human rights are being eroded – e.g. when it comes to the rule of law and the right to privacy.
Free speech is being curbed, the Internet is being censored and people are being told what to think. The so-called fake news is being fought by trying to limit free information instead of giving people more, different sources.
Of course, terrorists and religious fanatics are very real threats to a free and open society. But so are our politicians.
/ HAX
That a major U.S. company had to rely on WikiLeaks to learn about security problems well-known to U.S. intelligence agencies underscores concerns expressed by dozens of current and former U.S. intelligence and security officials about the government’s approach to cybersecurity. (…)
Across the federal government, about 90 percent of all spending on cyber programs is dedicated to offensive efforts, including penetrating the computer systems of adversaries, listening to communications and developing the means to disable or degrade infrastructure, senior intelligence officials told Reuters.
Reuters: A scramble at Cisco exposes uncomfortable truths about U.S. cyber defense »
Ars Technica: Activists want to know why feds are searching more devices at the border »
Pakistan has asked Facebook and Twitter to help identify Pakistanis suspected of blasphemy so it can prosecute them or pursue their extradition.
Under the country’s strict blasphemy laws, anyone found to have insulted Islam or the prophet Muhammad can be sentenced to death.
The Guardian: Pakistan asks Facebook and Twitter to help identify blasphemers »
