HAX

Category: Freedom of Speech

  • Digital rights: What to expect in 2017

    EDRi: 2017 – another extremely challenging year for digital rights »

  • An absurd battle over free speech

    As you may have heard, last week we were sued for $15 million by Shiva Ayyadurai, who claims to have invented email. We have written, at great length, about his claims and our opinion — backed up by detailed and thorough evidence — that email existed long before Ayyadurai created any software. We believe the legal claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we intend to fight them and to win.

    There is a larger point here. Defamation claims like this can force independent media companies to capitulate and shut down due to mounting legal costs. Ayyadurai’s attorney, Charles Harder, has already shown that this model can lead to exactly that result. His efforts helped put a much larger and much more well-resourced company than Techdirt completely out of business.

    So, in our view, this is not a fight about who invented email. This is a fight about whether or not our legal system will silence independent publications for publishing opinions that public figures do not like.

    And here’s the thing: this fight could very well be the end of Techdirt, even if we are completely on the right side of the law.

    Techdirt: Techdirt’s First Amendment Fight For Its Life »

  • Italian call for state censorship

    Pitruzzella, head of the Italian competition body since 2011, said “EU countries should set up independent bodies — co-ordinated by Brussels and modeled on the system of antitrust agencies — which could quickly label fake news, remove it from circulation and impose fines if necessary.”

    Zerohedge: Italy Urges Europe To Begin Censoring Free Speech On The Internet »

  • EU: Privatised censorship and filtering of free speech

    The European Commission’s proposal on copyright attempts something very ambitious — two different measures that would restrict free speech, squeezed into a single article of a legislative proposal. (…)

    1) Requires internet companies to install filtering technology to prevent the upload of content that has been “identified by rightsholders”. (…)

    2) Seeks to make internet providers responsible for their users’ uploads. (…)

    3) Gives internet users no meaningful protection from unfair deletion of their creations.

    Medium: EU Copyright Directive — privatised censorship and filtering of free speech »

  • Fake news and the war over information

    Everybody seems to be obsessed with the phenomenon of »fake news«.

    But this is nothing new. If you have first-hand information, you will find that mainstream media are often wrong.

    When I used to work in the European Parliament for the Swedish Pirate Party, we established the principle »right enough«. If a piece of news only had minor errors, we let go and focused on something more important. To try to correct everything journalists get wrong will be much too time-consuming.

    A standard phone call from a (non-Brussels based) journalist normally started out with everything between five and 30 minutes of EU for dummies – where we had to explain who does what and how things actually work in this multinational bureaucracy. And in the end, it would to some extent end up incorrect anyway. You can only do so much.

    Journalists are not rocket scientists, their insights and knowledge are normally limited, and they have a tight time frame to collect and analyze the facts. They will always get some things wrong.

    And, of course, journalists and media organizations are biased – often without being aware of this fact themselves.

    However, the context at the moment is not about mainstream media. It’s about the competition.

    The political and media elite seems to have a strong aversion towards alternative media. Often new players don’t follow the same set of unwritten rules as journalists who are a part of the establishment. And this might be a good thing, as the latter often are more interested in cultivating their relations with people in power than reporting the actual news.

    Of course, alternative media is sometimes filled with fake news, satire, propaganda, opinions, biased reporting… and often with real, important news and a qualified analysis that doesn’t make it into traditional media.

    During the years 2009-14 in the European Parliament, we often used our blogs and social media networks to get the news out: Important news and first-hand information, that was not in any way covered in other media.

    This was often met with irritation from the political elite and the bureaucracy – and with a scornful attitude from Big Media. There are always people who, because of various reasons, find frank reports about real matters disturbing.

    Somehow, I fear that an elite of politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, and media organizations are taking advantage of the fact that there is a certain degree of fake news out there – to smear all new, alternative media.

    They simply don’t want others to interfere.

    Now we will see Facebook in cooperation with mainstream media start labeling links as »disputed«. Germany might go all Putin and fine those who publish »incorrect« information on the Internet. It is all quite Orwellian. And it opens up for abuse, censorship, and cover-ups.

    The media – new or old – rarely gets everything right. Sometimes it gets most things wrong. Usually, it has some sort of agenda. Therefore, its’ analyses should always be questioned. To get a somewhat complete picture – we need to turn to more sources, many different media organizations, and an abundance of disparate voices – not fewer.

    The entire discussion over »fake news« might just be tactics in the endless war of power over information, over the agenda. Obviously, the establishment is not amused with the new competition.

    / HAX

  • War on fake news and hate speech to open Pandora’s box?

    What is truth?

    Facebook will start to flag content as »disputed«. Obvious fake news will be flagged by Facebook itself. And disputed »real« news content will be subject to third-party fact-checking with e.g. Snopes, Factcheck.org, ABC News, the AP, and Politifact.

    Are they to draw a line between »fake« and »wrong«? While »fake« in many cases might be assessed on reasonably objective grounds, »right« or »wrong« can be a very complicated and delicate matter.

    At the same time, there is a proposal in Germany to fine Facebook € 500,000 for each identified piece of fake news or hate speech that is not removed within 24 hours.

    To its nature, »hate speech« is a definition that lies very much in the eye of the beholder. Even where there is a legal definition, things might prove problematic – as such laws often give different groups different sets of »rights« (like protection from verbal or written abuse). This being a deviation from the principle that all people should be equal before the law.

    These are extremely complex issues. No doubt these rules will lead to disputes over freedom of speech. Here also lies inherent conflicts between mainstream media and alternative media, between the political elite and popular opposition, and between conflicting sets of values. This might prove to be a modern version of Pandora’s box.

    And – in a wider perspective – the very notion that there will be some sort of »Ministry of Truth« is deeply disturbing.

    / HAX

    • Wired: Facebook Finally Gets Real About Fighting Fake News »
    • Deutsche Welle: 500,000 euro fines for fake news on Facebook in Germany? »
    • Quartz: Germany threatens to fine Facebook €500,000 for each fake news post »

  • EU producing a lot of hot air trying to curb free speech

    A press release from the European Commission caught my eye: EU Internet Forum: a major step forward in curbing terrorist content on the internet »

    At today’s second high-level meeting of the EU Internet Forum convened in Brussels by Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship Dimitris Avramopoulos and Commissioner for the Security Union Julian King, key internet companies presented an industry initiative, which constitutes a significant step forward in curbing the spread of terrorist content online. As part of the industry-led hash-sharing initiative, participating companies can use hashes to detect terrorist images or videos, review the material against their respective policies and definitions, and remove matching content as appropriate.

    Well, that is only a part of the story.

    The Commission totally ignores the fact that this form of censorship is conducted outside the rule of law.

    The concept is that Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft should remove illegal terrorist content. But what is illegal? As a matter of fact, the press release doesn’t touch on this question. The word illegal is not even mentioned. And there might be reasons for that.

    In a democratic society, censorship should strictly be a matter for the courts – as they are the ones qualified to make the delicate decisions about what is legal or not. And naturally, there must be a possibility to appeal.

    But that is not how the EU Internet Forum / The Joint Referral Platform will work.

    It’s all about using these social networks terms and conditions to block content. The decisions will be made by the companies abuse departments, with no possibility of redress. There will be no proper legal procedure, cases will be handled by people who are not legally trained and there is an obvious risk of overreach.

    That is not a proper way to approach the delicate issue of free speech.

    This is all about EU politicians having established a way to limit free speech without the inconvenience of having to create new law under public scrutiny – and without having to bother with proper legal procedures. It is an approach to limit free speech without getting your fingers dirty.

    And there is more.

    The same instrument is to be used to curb »hate speech« and other statements that politicians disapprove of. There are no real limitations, no oversight, and no transparency. This project doesn’t have a democratic mandate. And the European Commission has been very secretive and unwilling to share information about what is going on. This is totally inappropriate.

    The people’s elected representatives in the European Parliament must look into this matter – to defend our civil rights, democratic process and the rule of law.

    / HAX

  • Links to need pre-clearance?

    This is worrisome…

    (A) Hamburg court ruled that the operator of a website violated on copyright by publishing a link to material that was infringing, even though the site operator was unaware of this fact.

    Ars Technica: Commercial sites must check all their links for piracy, rules Hamburg court »

    Pre-clearing all links with the linked websites would be a very complicated and time-consuming task – for both parties. Not to mention all the paperwork to document this, to avoid future problems.

    And exactly what constitutes a »commercial site«?

    The Hamburg court ruled that even though the link in question was not used to generate revenue directly, the site as a whole was commercial, since it sells learning materials via one of its Web pages.

    So – I guess – if you have ads on your site, if you sell stuff or if you lead your readers to anything of commercial interest (like services that you provide) the purpose can be deemed »commercial«. This resulting in most sites on the net falling into this category.

    This is leading to a very real dilemma. Links are the nerve system of the Internet. Most site owners would love to have you link to their pages. And for reference, an open and democratic debate and knowledge building links are essential. (Like in this blog post.)

    But according to the Hamburg court, you can get in serious trouble if you don’t obtain a pre-clearance.

    Even if you have the time and resources to pre-clear every link – it is likely that people running the sites you would like to link to simply do not have the resources to reply to every request to link.

    So if you run a blog or a site that you want people to link to, you better state that it is published under Creative Commons license CC=BY or CC=0.

    / HAX

  • Civil rights are not in the interest of the ruling political class

    Democracy and civil rights. It would be difficult to find anyone in the western world who does not subscribe to these principles. At least in public.

    Yet, we are steadily moving away from these values.

    It is being done in many small steps. Always justified with the best of intentions – like security, fighting serious crime, child protection, the war on drugs, copyright protection and combating hate speech. Just to mention a few.

    Nevertheless – without a doubt – we are limiting privacy, free speech, rule of law and equal rights. It seems to be a non-reversible process. And sooner or later, the many small steps will end up being a giant leap.

    Democracy and civil rights can only be curtailed so many times before the consequences will be dire.

    »We have to strike a balance between fundamental rights and security« politicians say. And every time that is being done, civil rights are hollowed out. When you repeat this process time and time again – fundamental rights will be reduced to empty words.

    This is extremely serious. But nobody really seems to care.

    One day we will wake up to a society where you cannot speak your mind, where everything you do is observed and scrutinized, where courts no longer is a guarantee for fair trials, and where it doesn’t matter if you are innocent or guilty – you will have everything to fear.

    You will have to be blind not to see the writing on the wall.

    Please, do not trust politicians with upholding our fundamental rights. They have a different agenda. They are the ones limiting them.

    Our civil rights can only be upheld, protected and won back by the people. It is in no one else’s interest.

    / HAX

  • Sweden to outlaw… what, exactly?

    For years, online hate speech and cyber-bullying have been on the political agenda in Sweden. Now there will be some new laws, covering a wide range of actions and statements.

    Let’s have a look at »Insulting behaviour« (PDF, summary in English, page 42-43).

    Under the wording we propose, criminal liability will presuppose that someone through accusations, disparaging comments or humiliating behaviour acts against another person in a way that is intended to violate the other person’s selfesteem or dignity.

    What does this even mean in real terms? OK, there is an attempt to clarify…

    The assessment is to be based on the circumstances in the individual case. However, criminal liability must be determined on the basis of a generally held norm for what represents unacceptable behaviour and what individuals should not be expected to tolerate. This is expressed by the provision stating that the act must have been intended to violate someone’s self-esteem or dignity.

    First of all, there seems to be a lot of subjectivity for a law. »Disparaging comments« – isn’t that in the eye of the beholder? »Self-esteem« and »dignity« is something personal, referring to experiences and feelings about a certain situation. It’s very subjective. And »a generally held norm«? Who is to define what that is?

    I guess the Supreme Court will have some very difficult decisions to make.

    This is sloppy lawmaking in the »safe space« era, where the line between real insults and arguments is blurred. And it gets worse. Page 34, »Our starting points«:

    Protection of privacy is also protection of the free formation of opinions and, ultimately, of democracy. There may be a risk that threats against journalists, debaters or opinion-makers result in the person threatened refraining from expressing him- or herself or participating in the public debate.

    First of all, take note of the Orwellian twist: To defend free speech, we must limit it.

    Second, as one would suspect, it’s not really about teenage bullying in school – but to protect the inner peace and self-image of e.g. journalists and politicians. Suddenly the term »disparaging comments« stands out, in a new light.

    So, colorful criticism of politicians might or might not be illegal – on a case by case basis.

    Big Brother will be busy.

    / HAX