Navigation

Archive | Freedom of Speech

Sweden, an Orwellian state

By on May 19, 2017 in affairs, Censorship, Civil rights, Democracy, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Twitter

Something remarkable happened in Sweden this week: a list of 15,000 people with the wrong political opinions was used to block those people from the @Sweden account, and thereby preventing these people from communicating over Twitter with that part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The government tried defending the block as only concerning neo-nazi right-wing extremists, which was a narrative that held water in legacy media until somebody pointed out that the Ambassador of Israel (!) was among the blocked.

Falkvinge: What do you do when you realize your government has blocked you for Wrongthink? »

0

Is EU slowly killing the Internet?

By on May 17, 2017 in Censorship, Copyright, EU, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Internet

Article 13 (in the European Union’s draft Copyright Directive), fewer than 250 words, is designed to provoke such legal uncertainty that internet companies will have no option other than to block, filter and monitor our communications, if they want to have any chance of staying in business. Ultimately, only the current internet giants, shedding crocodile tears at the prospect, will be able to survive. From global internet to “Googlebook”.

Joe McNamee, EDRi: Killing parody, killing memes, killing the internet? »

0

Green Party pushing for Facebook censorship in Austrian court case

By on May 8, 2017 in Censorship, Facebook, Free Information, Freedom of Speech

Facebook is having a hard time lately amid claims of fake news, political bias and sexism. The European Union considered legislation to encourage a more unified response to such postings and Germany supports fines for social networks that ignore hate speech. Similarly, today an Austrian appeals court ruled that Facebook must delete hate postings written about the leader of the country’s Green party — and not just in Austria.

The original case was filed by the Austrian political party last December around posts written by a fake profile that called MP Eva Glawischnig a “rotten traitor” and a “corrupt tramp.” The Green party alleges that Facebook had not removed the posts after several requests to do so.

Rotten traitor and corrupt tramp… Are such statements really across the red line nowadays?

Engadget: Austria orders Facebook to delete hate postings »

0

»Fake news« overhyped?

By on May 8, 2017 in Big Data, disinformation, Facebook, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Google, Media, social media, Twitter

Our study of search and politics in seven nations – which surveyed the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain in January 2017 – found these concerns to be overstated, if not wrong. In fact, many internet users trust search to help them find the best information, check other sources and discover new information in ways that can burst filter bubbles and open echo chambers. (…)

We found that the fears surrounding search algorithms and social media are not irrelevant – there are problems for some users some of the time. However, they are exaggerated, creating unwarranted fears that could lead to inappropriate responses by users, regulators and policymakers.

The Conversation » Fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles: Underresearched and overhyped »

0

Stephen Fry to be charged with blasphemy?

By on May 7, 2017 in Censorship, Civil rights, Democracy, Free Information, Freedom of Speech

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’ »

0

EU AVMSD: It’s not censorship to censor legal content

By on April 27, 2017 in AVMSD, Big Brother, Censorship, Civil rights, EU, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Rule of law, social media

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

0

German social media law under fire

By on April 21, 2017 in Big Brother, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Germany, social media

Professor Schulz criticises the fact that the draft law covers a range of different types of offences, making it difficult to assess its necessity as a means of restricting freedom of speech. More damningly, he points to the key assumptions on which the law is based, arguing that they have been abandoned “for a long time”. Furthermore, he argues that “there are many effective ways of addressing fake news or hateful speech” that should be [implicitly, were not] taken into account to minimise potential negative effects on freedom of speech”.

EDRi: German Social Media law – sharp criticism from leading legal expert »

GNI: Proposed German Legislation Threatens Free Expression Around the World »

0

EU to regulate animated GIFs and morality of Youtube content

By on April 19, 2017 in Censorship, EU, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Internet

The current proposal, which proposes even more obligations on video-sharing platforms, is horribly contradictory and unclear. It does contain, however, a reasonable amount of comedy, which is an innovation for the EU institutions. For example, this legislation on “audiovisual” content covers, on the basis of Parliament compromise amendments, “a set of moving images”, which would cover, for example, an animated GIF. (…)

On a more serious note, the proposal requires badly defined video-sharing platforms to take measures to protect children from content that would harm their “physical, mental or moral development” (“moral” added by the Parliament to various new parts of the Directive). This involves measures to restrict (undefined) legal content.

EDRi on the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD): AVMS Directive – censorship by coercive comedy confusion »

0

Wikileaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service”?

By on April 17, 2017 in Assange, Big Government, Civil liberties, Civil rights, Deep State, Democracy, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Rule of law, US, Wikileaks

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 »

0