The democratic legacy of Wikileaks

Ten years ago today, the whistleblower site Wikileaks went online.

There has been controversy, turbulence, and drama. It has been ten very interesting years. Books have been written about Wikileaks and its editor in chief, Julian Assange. And more books are to be written, for sure.

But a day like this, I would like to address the core issue: Wikileaks contribution to a democratic society.

For democracy to be at all meaningful, the people must know what its political leaders are up to. Voters can elect or remove politicians and governments. They can hold people in power accountable for their actions. But to be able to do this, the people must be informed about what their leaders are and have been up to – in the name of the nation, in the name of the people and on taxpayers expense.

These ten years, Wikileaks has exposed politicians cheating, lying, double-crossing, betraying, misleading and robbing the public in countries all over the world.

All of this in a landscape where traditional media organisations sometimes have been unable or even unwilling to investigate and expose those in power.

This is what really matters. This is the democratic legacy of Wikileaks.

/ HAX

1

ECJ and EC on streaming

This week the European Court of Justice heard a crucial case that will give more clarity on the infringing nature of unauthorized streaming. Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN and the Spanish authorities argued that offering or watching pirate streams is a violation of the EU Copyright Directive. However, the European Commission believes that consumers who watch unauthorized streams are not breaking the law. (…)

Based on the hearing the Advocate General will issue a recommendation later this year, which will be followed by a final verdict from the EU Court of Justice somewhere early 2017.

TorrentFreak: Watching Pirate Streams Isn’t Illegal, EU Commission Argues »

0

Thoughtless and dangerous EU approach to free speech online

There is a lot of ambiguity when it comes to the EU cooperation with Facebook, Twitter, Youtube/Google and Microsoft to censor the Internet – the Joint Referral Platform.

On the one hand, it has been marketed as a tool to stop »radicalization« that could lead young people to religiously motivated violence, e.g. terrorism or joining the Islamic State in the Middle East.

On the other hand, in documents and speeches the EU is totally focused on this project to stem »illegal online hate speech«, e.g. when it comes to racism and Islamophobia.

On that account, what is deemed to be »illegal« adds to the confusion. Incitement to violence is clearly and reasonably within this definition. But when it comes to the broader definition of hate speech, laws vary between EU member states.

Reason Magazine writes…

Recent “hate speech” investigations in European countries have been spawned by homily remarks by a Spanish Cardinal who opposed “radical feminism,” a hyperbolic hashtag tweeted by a U.K. diversity coordinator, a chant for fewer Moroccan immigrants to enter the Netherlands, comments from a reality TV star implying Scottish people have Ebola, a man who put a sign in his home window saying “Islam out of Britian,” French activists calling for boycotts of Israeli products, an anti-Semitic tweet sent to a British politician, a Facebook post referring to refugees to Germany as “scum,” and various other sorts of so-called “verbal radicalism” on social media.

A practical dilemma is that »hate« is something very subjective. Who is to define what is legitimate criticism and what is hate?

For instance, religion often has very real implications on how people are supposed to live their lives, how society should be organised and what kind of laws we should have. Clearly, you should be allowed to debate this freely in the same way that you debate politics. Yet, the tendency is that what is allowed to be said when  it comes to religion is becoming ever more narrow compared to politics.

Then, you have the problem that some laws against hate speech awards some groups of people different sets of rights compared to others.

When something becomes illegal to say about someone, but not someone else – you are treating people in different ways. This is a huge democratic problem and not the way to do things under the rule of law. What this can lead to, we can learn from history.

Finally, there is the general problem that this is all about censorship, about limiting free speech. You either have free speech or you don’t. If you stop people from expressing their opinions, by definition you do not have free speech. It’s as simple as that.

/ HAX

Links:
• Euro Logic: We Must Kill Free Speech to Promote Free Speech »
• United Against Hate Speech on the Web: Where do we stand? – Speech by Commissioner Jourová at Conference with German Justice Minister Maas »
• Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Microsoft Agree to Hate-Speech Code of Conduct »
• European Commission and IT Companies announce Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech »
• EU code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (PDF) »

1

Big Brother in Switzerland

Swiss citizens have backed by a large margin a new law that will expand government surveillance powers, following a national referendum held in Switzerland on Sunday.

In total, 65.5 percent were in favour, and 34.5 percent against. Under the new law, Switzerland’s intelligence agency, the Service de renseignement de la Confédération (SRC), will be allowed to break into computers and install malware, spy on phone and Internet communications, and place microphones and video cameras in private locations.

Ars Technica: Switzerland votes for meatier surveillance law by large margin »

0

Pardon for Chelsea Manning!

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is not the only one who deserve a US presidential pardon.

Wikileaks source Chelsea Manning is serving a 35-year prison sentence – allegedly having exposed the truth to the people.

Manning is accused of leaking the so-called Iran and Afghanistan war diaries, exposing what US military has been up to in the name of the American people, paid for with American tax dollars. This glimpse into reality is unacceptable, according to the US military and the US administration. They seem to take the position that the people cannot handle the truth.

Manning is also accused of leaking a vast number of classified US embassy cables. These have been a real embarrassment to the White House and the US State Department – as they expose how the government has been sending double messages. It has told the American people one thing – but in reality done something totally different. This is a very real democratic problem: How can the American voter make an informed decision who to vote for, if he or she is kept in the dark about what the country’s leaders are up to?

And then we have the war video Collateral Murder, exposing the awful reality of war – as a US helicopter kills a group of journalists, their translators, and guides in Iraq. This was clearly something the general public was never supposed to know about.

Chelsea Manning has contributed to transparency and democracy. She has made the American people aware of what is really going on in its name. She has exposed lies, disloyalty, falseness, and two-facedness. She ought to be given a medal, not a prison sentence.

Manning has already spent many years in imprisonment. It is time for president Obama to pardon her.

Youtube »

Also read: Experts decry solitary confinement for Chelsea Manning after suicide attempt »

0