[FACT comments: Although this exact issue will not be decided in Thailand’s courts—Joe Gordon has plead guilty—we expect to see countries extending criminality to hyperlinks.]
Switzerland: Hyperlink liability disproportionately infringes on free expression
Article 19: November 14, 2011
ARTICLE 19 has submitted an Amicus Brief to the European Court of Human Rights regarding Mouvement Raelien Suisse v. Switzerland arguing that imposing liability on one website for the content of another website to which it has hyperlinks to will have an insidious chilling effect on the right of freedom of information.
The case concerns the refusal by the Swiss authorities to allow a public billboard campaign by the Raeliens – a religious group based in Switzerland that believes mankind was created by extra-terrestrials – said by the authorities to engage in “immoral activities” contrary to public order. In justifying the refusal, the Swiss authorities alleged that the Raeliens promote human cloning and “geniocracy”, “theoretically” advocate for paedophilia (via the practice of “sensual meditation”), and contain members that are the subjects of criminal complaints of sexual practices concerning children.
On 13 January 2011, the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights held that the advert displayed a large invitation to visit their website and that the website’s content therefore needed to be assessed. The website itself however, contained no mention of “geniocracy”, cloning, or “sensual meditation”. Instead, the decision focussed on material that was accessible via hyperlinks on the website.
In particular, the Court took into consideration a link to the website for “Clonaid”, a scientific research laboratory that is operationally independent but closely linked to the Raeliens. While no civil or criminal measures have been directed against the Clonaid website, the Court noted that the organisation both advocated for and practiced an activity that was constitutionally prohibited in Switzerland. The Court ruled therefore that the restriction had been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued (prevention of crime and the protection of health and morals) and that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the European Convention.
In its submission to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, scheduled for 16 November 2011, ARTICLE 19 calls on the Court to recognise both the importance of the internet as a medium for sharing and disseminating ideas and the role hyperlinks play in facilitating this process. The Court should have regard to the fact that hyperlinks are primarily used for reference purposes and that users have a free choice as to whether or not to follow them.
Since hyperlinks remain constant as the content of the linked-to website varies over time, imposing liability for hyperlinks would be to impose liability for material over which the hyperlinking website provider has no control. Penalising a website merely on the basis of a hyperlink will therefore have an insidious chilling effect on the right of freedom to impart information. As such, where no legal proceedings have been brought against the linked-to website and where there is no indication that the provider of the hyperlink knew the content to be illegal, restricting speech on the basis of a hyperlink cannot be said to be proportionate.
ARTICLE 19 therefore urges the Grand Chamber to establish a strong precedent for internet freedom and to affirm an important principle of proportionality: that only in the most exceptional circumstances is it reasonable to penalise one website for providing a link to another.
Notes:
- For more information, please contact Gabrielle Guillemin, ARTICLE 19 Legal Officer, at gabrielle@article19.org or +44 20 7324 2500.
- The Chamber Judgement in Mouvement Raelien Suisse v. Switzerland, is available at: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=879868&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649.
- Further information on Mouvement Raelien Suisse v. Switzerland is available at: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/portal.asp?sessionId=81047773&skin=hudoc-pr-en&action=request
DOWNLOADS
[FACT comments: This all comes down to keeping govts honest. Govts lie and cheat and steal and…get away with murder. Bradley Manning is a hero. May a thousand Bradley Manning bloom!]
Activist Dan Choi: U.S. is on trial, not Bradley Manning
Eric W. Dolan
Raw Story: December 18, 2011
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/18/activist-dan-choi-u-s-is-on-trial-not-bradley-manning/
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53OzqrIA-Y
Famed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” resister and gay activist Dan Choi spoke in defense of U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning during a rally outside the gates of Fort Meade in Maryland.
Manning is suspected of downloading 260,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, videos of U.S. air strikes and U.S. military reports from Afghanistan and Iraq while serving as a low-ranking intelligence analyst in Iraq, and then providing them to WikiLeaks. One of the videos showed an American helicopter attack in Iraq that killed 11 civilians, including a Reuters journalist.
Choi was discharged from the Army in 2008 after he revealed that he was gay. He noted that as a servicemember he swore an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States.
“We fight here today on different battlefields but with the same goal, freedom and justice,” the West Point educated Iraq veteran and Arabic translator said. “Our war has not ended. My name is Lieutenant Dan Choi and I am reporting for duty.”
“I come from the gay community, the only community in the world that bases its membership on one thing, integrity,” he continued. “In the face of consequences you show courage. They told us under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ that certain information about us should be classified and hidden from other people because they said that good order and discipline would be compromised. The truth of ourselves, our identity, what’s in our soul, our reputation as human beings, can never be hidden because it pollutes our soul — it hurts the mission and everybody around us.”
“Today, we deal with a society that has repealed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in the military. And I don’t want to live in a society that replaces that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ with a new ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in society and national security. It is time that we unclassify the truth that we deserve to know. For that is what we swear to uphold, those Army values.”
“We see the situation where our comrade is in shackles and chains, he is on trial. But I remind all of us gathered here today because Bradley Manning stood up for the truth, he is the most free among all of us. He is not the one on trial, the United States of America is on trial today. Our reputation, and what our country stands for.”
Manning is facing charges that could potentially send him to prison for the rest of his life and the hearing on this sprawling U.S. military base is being held to decide whether he should face a court-martial.
The pre-trial hearing, which began Friday and could last up to a week, is being held in an austere courthouse at Fort Meade, headquarters of the top secret National Security Agency.
Manning’s supporters have been holding vigils and rallies outside the gates of Fort Meade and a number of his backers are attending the hearing.
Outside the court on Saturday some 200 activists protested the trial, denouncing U.S. authorities for suppressing information Manning allegedly sought to expose.
With AFP.
Eric W. Dolan has served as an editor for Raw Story since August 2010, and is based out of San Diego, California. He grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and received a Bachelor of Science from Bradley University. Eric is also the publisher and editor of PsyPost. You can follow him on Twitter @ewdolan.
[FACT comments: Govts are continually trying to restrict the boundaries of free speech, the cornerstone of democracy. There is no democracy without freedom of expression. Just because there are plans for an H-bomb on the Internet doesn’t mean you’ll build one!]
Does Posting Jihadist Material Make Tarek Mehanna a Terrorist?
How the outcome of Mehanna’s trial could rewrite the line between speech and crime.
Mother Jones: December 16, 2011
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/tarek-mehanna-terrorist
Does posting militant videos on the internet make you a terrorist?
For Tarek Mehanna it just might. Arrested in 2009, Mehanna is a Massachusetts resident whom prosecutors describe as a longtime terrorist wannabe. He isn’t just being prosecuted for trying (and failing) to acquire terrorist training in Yemen and lying to federal investigators. He’s also being tried for posting pro-jihadist material on the internet.
Mehanna’s indictment says that since the early 2000s, he and his friends watched extremist videos on the web and discussed going abroad to receive training in Pakistan and later Yemen. When Mehanna and his alleged accomplice finally reached Yemen in 2004, they were turned away by an old man who told them “all that stuff is gone ever since the planes hit the Twin Towers.” Returning home, prosecutors say, Mehanna committed himself to battling the West by other means: spreading Al Qaeda’s ideology to the masses by translating extremist documents and posting terrorist propaganda on the Internet, in the hopes of converting more to the cause.
“This case is being used by the government to really narrow First Amendment activity in dangerous new ways,” says Nancy Murray of the Massachusetts branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. “It might be speech that horrifies people, but it’s the nature of the First Amendment to protect that speech, unless it’s leading to imminent lawless action.”
Civil liberties advocates say the case represents a slippery slope. In the 2010 case Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, which decided whether or not providing nonviolent aid (such as legal advice) to terrorist groups constitutes material support for terrorism, the Supreme Court ruled that even protected speech can be a criminal act if it occurs at the direction of a terrorist organization. Based on that ruling, you could be convicted of materially supporting terrorism merely for translating a document or putting an extremist video online, depending on your intentions.
“If he’s doing it on behalf of a designated group, he’s providing a service, and that’s the crime,” says Georgetown University law professor David Cole, who argued against the government in Humanitarian Law Project. “It doesn’t matter if the speech is itself violent or nonviolent.” The question is whether Mehanna’s actions were done at the direction of a terrorist group or whether his actions constituted “independent advocacy.”
Convicting Mehanna on conspiracy charges stemming from his alleged attempt to seek terrorist training or lying to investigators is one thing. Convicting him based on his alleged pro-jihadist internet advocacy could establish a legal path to stamping out extremist propaganda on the web. At the same time, in the view of some civil libertarians, the case could narrow the right to free speech by allowing the government to successfully prosecute the expression of radical or unpopular views as a crime. The verdict could come as soon as next week.
The Mehanna prosecution followed a series of terrorist incidents, including the 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas, where the internet played some role in the individual’s radicalization. In September, the Obama administration announced it had killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical US-born Imam whose ability to give sermons in colloquial American English made him the symbol of a new era of homegrown extremism. Though administration officials insisted Awlaki’s activities in support of terrorism weren’t merely rhetorical, he was never indicted—his death was approved by a secret national security panel.
“The dominant narrative right now among Western counterterrorism experts is that because Al Qaeda can’t undertake a big attack in the United States, they’re advocating these lone-wolf attacks, and a big part of that is pushing out that stuff online,” says Will McCants, a former counterterrorism official at the State Department. For English-speaking extremists in particular, McCants says, the internet has been a crucial tool for finding kindred souls. Though “radicalization primarily takes place in the physical world,” McCants says, “you can point to a few cases where someone has been radicalized solely on internet material.”
Testifying before Congress in April, FBI Director Robert Mueller warned: “The increase and availability of extremist propaganda in English can exacerbate the problem. Ten years ago, in the absence of the internet, extremists would have operated in relative isolation, unlike today.”
Mehanna’s defense team has argued that his views have been misrepresented and that he doesn’t share Al Qaeda’s extremist worldview. Holding radical or abhorrent beliefs, however, is still protected by the Constitution. The basic legal standard for when speech becomes criminal is referred to as the “Brandenburg test.” Stemming from a 1969 Supreme Court case, the rule essentially stipulates that speech can’t be criminalized unless it is deliberately meant to incite “imminent lawless action” and there’s a reasonable belief that action could take place.
After all, if the government can kill someone for posting extremist sermons on the internet, why can’t it put someone in prison for doing the same thing?
“That’s a very hard standard to meet,” Cole says. “The court saw from experience that prosecutions for advocacy of illegal conduct often became politically motivated prosecution of dissenters where there was no actual nexus to crime.”
But, as Cole points out, the decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project created a key terrorism-related exception making even nonviolent, nonmonetary aid to a terrorist organization a crime.
The government has tried to argue that Mehanna’s speech isn’t protected for two reasons. One, that his actions reflect Al Qaeda’s call for its followers to preach its twisted gospel to Westerners. The second is that Mehanna posted extremist propaganda and responded to requests to translate materials from individuals associated with terror groups.
Scholars of Islamic extremism, however, frequently translate and post jihadist material on the internet for the purpose of study—something Mehanna’s attorneys have noted in their defense.
“The Supreme Court says the law makes a distinction between independent advocacy and advocacy at the direction and control of a group,” Cole says. Prosecuting someone for obeying a “general call” for extremists to spread Al Qaeda’s message, Cole says, seems like a reach.
The indictment alleges that Mehanna edited and translated materials at the request of known terrorists, saying of one video that he hopes it “leads to action.” Whether Mehanna acted on the direct suggestion of a terror group or not could ultimately make a huge difference.
The government has tried to prosecute other people on the basis of online activities in the past—without much success. In 2003, a University of Idaho graduate student named Sami Omar al-Hussayen was prosecuted for administering a website that linked to extremist sermons and jihadist sites that solicited donations to extremist groups.
Hussayen’s attorneys argued that he was a nonviolent man who wasn’t responsible for the material. When it came time to offer up a defense, his attorney relied on one man’s testimony—a former CIA official named Frank Anderson, who testified that people don’t become terrorists just because of what they read on the Internet. Hussayen was ultimately acquitted.
“Recruitment is personal and requires the identification, assessment, and persuasion of ‘candidates,’” Anderson told Mother Jones in an email. “Hussayen was involved in none of that…It’s not that it can or can’t be conducted over the internet.” Mehanna’s defense team is trying a similar gambit, calling former CIA official Marc Sageman to testify that Al Qaeda’s ability to recruit people over the internet is overhyped.
The political landscape has shifted dramatically since Hussayen was acquitted. Since then, the United States has killed at least two American citizens abroad whose roles, it appears, were primarily as Al Qaeda propagandists. Administration officials convicted them in a court of public opinion rather than law, testifying not on the stand but through anonymous statements to reporters. If the prosecution manages to convict Mehanna over posting and translating extremist materials without showing that he was acting on directions from people he believed to be Al Qaeda members, it could open the door to prosecution based on actions that have traditionally been seen as protected speech.
“Is a propagandist for Al Qaeda someone who works with Al Qaeda, or someone who just says positive things about Al Qaeda, or anyone the government has said is furthering the ends of Al Qaeda?” asks the ACLU’s Murray. In the post-Awlaki era, the line between “independent advocacy” and “direction or control” may not matter all that much to a jury. After all, if the government can kill someone for posting extremist sermons on the internet, why can’t it put someone in prison for doing the same thing?
Adam Serwer is a reporter at the Washington, DC bureau of Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter. Email tips and insights to aserwer [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | TWITTER
Internet circumvents anti-piracy bill before it even passes
Eric W. Dolan
Raw Story: December 20, 2011
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/20/internet-circumvents-anti-piracy-bill-before-it-even-passes/
Software developers have already found a way around the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which the House Judiciary Committee will not markup until sometime early next year.
Most critics say the bill would create an Internet “blacklist” that forces ISPs, search engines, financial firms and advertisers to de-list websites accused of copyright infringement, all without any actual court hearing or oversight. The legislation takes aim at the Internet’s domain naming system (DNS), which translates domain names like www.google.com to numerical Internet protocol (IP) addresses.
But an add-on for the popular Internet browser FireFox, called DeSopa, would circumvent DNS blockades with the click of a button.
“I feel that the general public is not aware of the gravity of SOPA and Congress seems like they are about to cater to the special interests involved, to the detriment of Internet, for which I and many others live and breathe,” DeSopa developer T Rizk explained to TorrentFreak.
“It could be that a few members of congress are just not tech savvy and don’t understand that it is technically not going to work, at all. So here’s some proof that I hope will help them err on the side of reason and vote SOPA down,” he added.
In a recent speech, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said the bill would essentially “criminalize linking and the fundamental structure of the Internet itself,” adding that SOPA’s goal is “reasonable,” but that its “mechanism is terrible.”
“What they’re essentially doing is whacking away at the DNS system and that’s a mistake,” Schmidt explained. “It’s a bad way to go about solving the problem.”
Lobbyists for the entertainment industry insist that the radical changes to the Internet’s structure are necessary to prevent copyrighted material from being shared between sometimes hundreds of users at a time, which they claim costs movie studios billions of dollars every year, although that claim is not borne out by the facts.
With prior reporting by Stephen C. Webster
Eric W. Dolan has served as an editor for Raw Story since August 2010, and is based out of San Diego, California. He grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and received a Bachelor of Science from Bradley University. Eric is also the publisher and editor of PsyPost. You can follow him on Twitter @ewdolan.
[FACT comments: Not only Thailand but many other countries share this backward view of the Internet as dangerous and lawless. The beauty of the Internet is that it represents civil society, the public and not govts, a society which depends upon all of us being…civil.]
Indian court summons Google, Facebook and other websites
BNO News: December 24, 2011
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/521212-indian-court-summons-google-facebook-and-other-websites/
An Indian court on Friday issued a summons to social networking website Facebook, search giant Google, Yahoo!, video-sharing website YouTube and seventeen other websites to stand trial for allegedly publishing ‘objectionable contents.’
New Delhi Metropolitan Magistrate Sudesh Kumar claimed that the websites contain obscene pictures and content offensive to Hindus, Muslims and Christians. The court’s order comes just three days after another court restrained these websites in a civil case from publishing any ‘anti-religious’ or ‘anti-social’ content which promotes hatred or communal disharmony.
“It is also evident that such contents are continuously, openly and freely available to everyone who is using the said network, irrespective of their age and even the persons under the age of 18 years have full and uncensored access to such obscene contents,” the court said, as quoted by the Press Trust of India (PTI).
Earlier this month, the Indian government vowed to stop what it calls ‘offensive and defamatory’ content on internet websites. However, several major websites immediately rejected the plan and Indian officials complained their requests fell on ‘deaf ears’.
Telecommunications minister Kapil Sibal said on December 6 that the government does not want to interfere with the freedom of the press. However, he said, if the social networking websites are not willing to cooperate, then it is “the duty of the government” to ensure “blasphemous material” does not appear on the internet.
Social networking site Facebook, which has more than 25 million users in the country, said it would remove any content that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity from the service. “We recognize the government’s interest in minimizing the amount of abusive content that is available online and will continue to engage with the Indian authorities as they debate this important issue,” Facebook said in a statement earlier this month.
Google said it would abide by local laws and take any material off if it violates its policies. “But when content is legal and does not violate our policies, we will not remove it just because it is controversial, as we believe that people’s differing views, so long as they are legal, should be respected and protected,” the company’s spokesperson said, as quoted by PTI.
India has about 100 million internet users, the third-largest number after China and the United States.
[FACT comments: Take heart from Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, the Dalai Lama, Vaclav Havel and many others who were imprisoned before govt gave up and the public proved them right. No one will remember the Sutheps or the Chalerms of this world.]
Vaclav Havel: “We became dissidents without actually knowing how”
Index on Censorship: December 19, 2011
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/12/vacla-havel-index-on-censorship-ludvik-vakulik/
In 1979, Vaclav Havel responded to fellow Czech dissident Ludvik Vaculik, who had commented on ordinary people’s role in combatting authoritarianism. Havel was arrested shortly after the rebuttal was published in Index on Censorship.
Without exaggeration: none of us can know in advance how much we can bear, nor what we may be made to bear. That can only be known by your calculating model of a sensible, decent man within the limits of the law. None of us decided in advance that we wanted to go to jail, indeed none of us made a conscious decision that he or she wanted to become a dissident.
We became dissidents without actually knowing how, and we found ourselves behind bars without really knowing how. We simply did certain things we had to do and that it seemed propert to do: nothing more, nor less. Happy are those who are decent and haven’t landed in jail. But why should those who had that misfortune be set apart from the others? Is it not usually quite arbitrary who lands in it and who doesn’t? Those whom you call heroes, suggesting that they are overdoing things, didn’t get locked up for their ambition to become martyrs — they were locked up because of the indecency of those who put people in jail for writing novels or for playing tapes with the music of unofficial musicians.
No one wants to go to jail. If people were to take your advice and calculate the risks involved in the fashion of a thief deciding whether to burgle ad supermarket, there would, for long time now, have been in our country not a single expression of solidarity with an unjustly persecuted person, not a single truthful novel or free song, not even a single feuilleton. For how can we be sure that tomorrow that won’t start putting people away for single feuilletons?
Maybe all you meant to say was that the quiet and inconspicuous humiliation of thousands of anonymous people was worse than the occasional arrest of a well-known dissident. Undoubtedly. But the question surely is, why did they arrest the dissident? Mainly, if you think about it, just because he had tried to tell the truth about that quiet and inconspicuous humiliation of thousands of anonymous people.
The US govt, more specifically, Secty of State Hillary Clinton, has been touting Internet freedom for the past three years. Furthermore, State’s democracy division gave away $36 million to develop strategies to circumvent govt Web blocking in the same period.
The US has gone on record to sanction tech companies, some US-based, which sell the means to foreign govts to block the Internet from their citizens.
This is nowhere more blatant than the efforts of Thai govt which now blocks more than three-quarters of a million webpages. Thai govt has approved buying foreign censorship technology for 400 million baht, nearly 13 million US dollars to block its Internet from Thai citizens and stifle all dissent.
The US has a duty to prevent transfer of the technology which will enable Thailand to muzzle its Internet.
An American citizen, Joe Gordon, has been given a five year sentence in Thailand for computer “crimes” committed in the US. Of course, hyperlinking is simply not a crime in the US (with a few significant exceptions) so Mr. Gordon’s is barred from seeking a prisoner transfer to the US. His only option is to seek a Royal pardon from the very monarch he allegedly insulted.
Let’s make sure this never happens again by taking back the power from tyrants. FACT demands a block on technology transfer to Thailand and the trade sanctions which have proved effective in other totalitarian regimes.
Has the US just paid lip-service for democracy or is it willing to defend Internet freedom with its teeth?
Govt admits only 200 L-M websites, will spend $64,000 each to block them-Daily News/Bangkok Post
14-12-11
[FACT comments: “MICT has a list of 200 websites in Thailand which are considered offensive to the monarchy” yet Thai govt is blocking 767,626 URLs today. None of the websites blocked by the military agencies CRES and CAPO from April 10 to December 22, 2010 during the Democrat regime’s “emergency” suspending rule of law have been unblocked.
Now the elites and their henchman are telling us about “technology which can ‘cut the signal’ of websites from abroad” requiring “a budget of 400 million baht” to block (wait for it!)…200 “websites” touting “lèse majesté”.
OMG! What a threat to the “institution"!
Bottom line for the Thai taxpayer? Two million baht ($64,000 US) to block each website!
We’re fairly certain you could send the admins of those websites a govt cheque for somewhat less and every one of them would shut down voluntarily!
(Note to self: What a great idea for a home business!)]
Chalerm set to crack down on websites
Daily News: December 13, 2011
http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/2947
Deputy Prime Minister Pol Capt Chalerm Yubamrung is set to begin his crackdown on websites offensive to the monarchy, and has sought a budget of 400 million baht to buy new equipment to block foreign websites.
On 12 Dec, before a meeting of his recently appointed committee to suppress inappropriate internet content at the Royal Thai Police, Chalerm said that previous governments had tried to deal with inappropriate content but had failed. Some people claimed that because some websites were located abroad, it was difficult to take legal action against them, but for websites in the country they could not make any arrest. So they just lied. Websites abroad cannot be banned, but can be blocked, he said.
He said that an expert, a Deputy Commander of the police Technology Crime Suppression Division, had told him that there was technology which can ‘cut the signal’ of websites from abroad and requires a budget of 400 million baht. So he had told the Prime Minister’s Secretary to have the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology prepare the budget and procurement.
He said that he and the Police Chief did not want to manage the budget themselves, but the police would be willing to work.
From now on, offensive content must decrease, and harsh measures will be taken, he said.
Chalerm said that some people were concerned about the image of the country in the eyes of NGOs and other countries, but this was Thailand, and this was not a violation of people’s rights.
When reporters raised the point that some anti-monarchy groups were associated with red shirts, Chalerm said that whoever broke the law must be arrested, no matter what colour.
According to the meeting, the MICT has a list of 200 websites in Thailand which are considered offensive to the monarchy, and is prepared to deal with these websites in coordination with the police.
It was reported that on 6 Dec, Chalerm and Police Chief Pol Gen Priewpan Damapong had lunch with Army Chief Prayuth Chan-ocha and Minister of Defence Gen Yutthasak Sasiprapha, and concerns were raised about offensive content on the internet. The Prime Minister appointed this committee on the following day as proposed by Chalerm.
Source:
http://www.dailynews.co.th/politics/2849
[FACT comments: And…the empty-headed dinosaurs approve! We marvel at the customary efficiency of Thai govt—this was just proposed yesterday! Wonder whose pockets are getting greased...]
B400m for lese majeste web-taps
Bangkok Post: December 14, 2011
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/270770/govt-new-tool-to-combat-lese-majeste
The cabinet has approved a 400 million baht budget for the Information and Communication Technology Ministry (ICT) to buy equipment to lawfully tap into websites to detect lese majeste content, Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung said on Wednesday.
Mr Chalerm, chairman of the committee for suppression of lese majeste websites, said the ICT has been assigned to purchase the equipment, which would be used to obtain communications network data pursuant to lawful authority for the purpose of analysis or evidence.
Mr Chalerm said that since after its establishment his committee had, with an order and warrant issued by the Criminal Court, suspended broadcasting of texts and pictures deemed lese majeste on five websites after searching five locations in Nakhon Pathom and Bangkok and seizing a number of computers, mobile phones, and other communications equipment for examination.
He said the authorities, in doing so, tried not to violate the rights of individuals while aiming to prevent the high institution from being insulted.
Mr Chalerm admitted the committee might not be able to block all lese majeste messages and pictures sent from outside the country, but it would try to stop them from being spread further.
We are all Akong!
Pix: http://prachatai.com/journal/2011/12/38271
On Constitution Day more than 150 people from many walks of life joined a silent march from Victory Monument to Ratchaprasong. Noted social critic and academic Sulak Sivaraksa has been charged four times with lèse majesté and has authored at least three banned books and was a prominent marcher. I felt honoured to be able to march against fear with this octogenarian tiger.
Many marchers had written ‘Akong’ in Thai on their hands to support Uncle SMS Amphon Tangnoppakul who was sentenced last month to 20 years in prison for lèse majesté. Some protest was creative with posters equating lèse majesté with Les Misérables and a marcher with an empty picture frame which, of course, included himself—any of us is subject to capricious political arrest.
In nearly a quarter-century as an academic in Thailand, I have never marched before in public protest. But desperate times call for desperate measures. It is not only the right of all those who love Thailand to protest injustice, it is our duty and responsibility.
I marched for Joe Gordon.
I marched for Grandpa Amphon, my own proud grandfather,
for all grandfathers, including King Bhumibol.
I marched because I am a grandfather, the same age as Akong,
the same nationality as Joe.
I marched for single father Tantawut, for Darunee, for Surachai.
As friend and colleague, I marched for Somyot and Chiranuch.
This march was not about politics—freedom of expression transcends politics. It was to protest the very human censorship of prosecutions and gaolings. Politics never changes but our global conversation can make Thailand live up to its name: “Free people”.
I marched because I’m mad as hell. I’m outraged that judges and politicians and bureaucrats and generals presume they can speak for the wishes of my king. That’s the real lèse majesté. These baboons think to prove their loyalty by their preening, their fawning, their bowing and scraping. But they’re still just baboons, with empty heads and red, hairless asses from dragging them on the ground. True loyalty needs no protection from insult because it’s true. And I’m not going to take it any more.
Thai government is blocking a quarter of a million web pages, 2,500 books are banned. A political prison is being planned for political prisoners, and an even more draconian computer law has been tabled in Parliament, along with a law against public demonstrations exactly like this one.
Good Germans didn’t speak out over the atrocities of the Nazis. Good Burmese didn’t speak out over the rise of the generals, the censorship, the political prisoners. Good Cambodians didn’t speak out over the brutal excesses of the Khmer Rouge. All these happened in a single instant in history. Don’t let tyranny rule our beloved Thailand.
The time to raise our voices loud for justice is now. It’s high time to stop being sheep. It’s certainly time to stop being afraid.
Marching today, I realised, for the first time, I AM NO LONGER AFRAID.
I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore! Enough!
FREE ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS!
CJ Hinke
Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)
PLEASE JOIN FACT AT THIS SILENT WITNESS. IT’S TIME FOR AN END TO FEAR.
เพื่ออากง เพื่อนักโทษการเมือง เพื่อเสรีภาพ
เพื่อสังคมที่ปราศจากความกลัว
*ภย หรือ ภยา หมายถึง ความกลัว
อภย หรือ อภยา หมายถึง ปราศจากความกลัว
ขอเชิญชวนเพื่อนๆพี่ๆน้องๆแต่งชุดดำร่วมเดินอย่่างสันติและปราศจากเสียง (peaceful and silent protest) เพื่อไว้อาลัยให้กับความยุติธรรม เสรีภาพและความเป็นมนุษย์ที่กำลังตายจากไปจากสังคมไทย
ร่วมกันเขียนป้ายรณรงค์กรณีอากง นักโทษการเมือง นักโทษม.112 ในหลากหลายภาษา เพื่อสร้างการตระหนักรู้ (awareness) ให้เกิดขึ้นในสังคมไทย
ร่วมแสดงพลังเงียบเพื่อประกาศให้โลกรู้ว่า “เราไม่กลัว” และเราจะสู้เพื่อสังคมที่เป็นธรรม
สิ่งที่ต้องเตรียมมา
1 สวมชุดดำ
2 ป้ายหลากหลายขนาดที่เขียนข้อความประท้วง รณรงค์ และให้ความรู้เรื่องนักโทษการเมืองและม.112
3 ใจที่ไม่ยอมรับความอยุติธรรม
เจอกันสี่โมงเย็นที่อนุเสาวรีย์ชัยสมรภูมิ บริเวณจตุรัสกลางวงเวียน ทิศที่หันไปทางถนนพญาไทมุ่งหน้าสยาม
ร่วมแสดงความคิดเห็นเกี่ยวกับกิจกรรมที่เราอาจจะทำได้ที่อนุเสารีย์ชัยหรือที่ราชประสงค์ได้ที่ comment ด้านล่างนี้
ช่วยประชาสัมพันธ์เพื่อร่วมกันแสดงพลังต่อต้านความไม่เป็นธรรมในทุกรูปแบบ
สอบถามข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมติดต่อ เฟย์ วันรัก 080-274-7772
“Fearlessness walk” a peaceful and silent protest: For Ahkong, for all political prisoners, for freedoms, and for a fearless society!
Saturday 10 Dec., 4.00 – 5.30 pm.
Start walking from the Victory Monument to Rajchaprasong intersection. Let’s meet at the Victory Monument, facing Phayatai road side.
Please all wear black and bring banner(s) with messages written in different languages with you.
Coordinator Fay Wanrug 080-274-7772
