insults – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Abusive Governments (And The Criminals They Employ) Are Going To LOVE The UN’s Cybercrime Treaty

from the baby-and-bathwater-trebuchet dept

Various treaties and multi-national proposals to combat cybercrime have been around for years. I’m not exaggerating. These have been floating around for more than a decade. (Do you want to feel old? This cybercrime treaty proposal would be old enough to legally obtain a social media account in the United States if it were still viable.)

The UN has been pushing its own version. But its idea of “crime” seems off-base, especially when it’s dealing with a conglomerate of countries with varying free speech protections. The “Cybercrime Treaty” proposed by the UN focuses on things many would consider ugly, distasteful, abhorrent, or even enraging. But it’s not things most people consider to be the sort of “crimes” a unified world front should be addressing — not when there’s plenty of financially or personally damaging cybercrime being performed on the regular.

As Mike Masnick noted last year, the UN’s proposal aims to regulate speech, even if its stated ends are making the internet safer for everyone. The treaty would target “hate speech,” an often ill-defined term that encompasses everything from targeted attacks to shitposting to honest criticism that just happens to criticize things the government likes: things like preferred religions, citizens, ceremonies, holidays, or political figures.

It’s built for abuse. A year has passed and the UN’s “Cybercrime Treaty” doesn’t appear to have improved. While there’s stuff in there targeting actual criminal activity, there are still plenty of mandates just waiting to be abused by governments to target people they don’t like.

The EFF has an extensive rundown on the treaty’s modifications, most of which just make things worse for everyone if they’re enacted. And that begins with the treaty’s beginnings. The priorities have been disrupted.

Rather than focusing on core cybercrimes like network intrusion and computing system interference, the draft treaty’s emphasis on content-related crimes could likely result in overly broad and easily abused laws that stifle free expression and association rights of people around the world.

For example, the draft U.N.Cybercrime Treaty includes provisions that could make it a crime to humiliate a person and group, or insult a religion using a computer. This potentially makes it a crime to send or post legitimate content protected under international law.

Even computer-focused criminal laws have been regularly abused by governments (holla back CFAA!). This one sidesteps this focus to target computer users who aren’t trying to engage in criminal activity. They’re just being assholes. But give a questionable government a tool like this to use, and it will ensure it treats any criticism as a form of hate speech if it can, silencing dissent and preemptively silencing those who might have been considering speaking up. As the EFF points out, most human rights abusers come from countries with state religions and this law would allow them to ramp up the oppression they already offer to residents they don’t care for.

Sure, the UN has attached a caveat warning countries considering abusing the treaty from abusing the treaty. But if we’ve learned nothing else about the United Nations during its nearly 70-year run as a Manhattan property owner, it’s that it’s pretty much incapable of deterring any government from doing anything it truly wants to do.

That’s why this is a problem. Like anything else with horrendous unintended consequences, the treaty is well-meaning. But it’s also a toolbox for autocrats and oppressive regimes. And they know it. There are enough dissenters who love everything bad about the proposal to derail the treaty unless even the most minimum of protections for the governed are removed.

[T]he draft U.N.Cybercrime Treaty introduces vague provisions that will compel states to pass laws authorizing the use of overly broad spying powers without these safeguards—placing people at an increased risk of harm, and curtailing civil liberties and defendants’ fair trial rights. Even worse, during draft treaty negotiations, countries including India, Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and Tonga proposed amendments to remove Article 5, a general clause that emphasizes respect for human rights and references international human rights obligations. Rubbing salt into the wound, Egypt, Singapore, Malaysia, Pakistan, Oman, Iran, and Russia requested the deletion of even the most modest limitations on government spying powers, Article 42, on conditions and safeguards.

Going hand-in-hand with the partial stripping of rights in many nations around the world is the mandated expansion of surveillance nearly everywhere in the free world. To keep an eye on people saying mean things to each other, governments will need more access to more internet communications, something the UN is apparently cool with mandating. And the proposal is open-ended, preemptively blessing surveillance techniques that haven’t even been designed, much less brought to market.

The draft treaty also oddly refers to allowing authorities to use “special investigative techniques,” again without ever defining what those are. The current language, indeed, could allow any type of surveillance technology—from malware to IMSI catchers, machine learning prediction, and other mass surveillance tools—as well as any tool or technique that may exist in the future.

If the UN wants oppressive countries to stop pretending it’s only now they’re taking their gloves off, this Cybercrime Treaty is exactly what’s needed. If it really wants to stop cybercrime, it should focus more on universally recognized computer crimes, rather than speech that, while terrible, is still protected. And it definitely should rewrite the proposal with an eye on the unintended consequences, because it’s those consequences that will contribute the most to the inevitable abuse of this treaty.

Filed Under: cybercrime, cybercrime treaty, free speech, humilation, information security, insults
Companies: un

Germany’s Government Continues To Lock People Up For Being Extremely Online

from the watch-your-fingers,-folks dept

Germany’s uncomfortable relationship with free speech continues. The country has always been sensitive about certain subjects (rhymes with Bitler and, um, Yahtzee), resulting in laws that suppress speech referring to these subjects, apparently in hopes of preventing a Fourth Reich from taking hold.

But the censorship of speech extends far beyond the lingering aftereffects of Germany’s supremely troubled past. The government has passed laws outlawing speech with the vaguest of contours, like “hate speech” and “fake news.” And it has swung a pretty powerful hammer to ensure cooperation, stripping away intermediary immunity to hold platforms directly accountable for user-generated content. You know, like a nation run by authoritarians, except ones that enact penalties for references to a certain former authoritarian.

Germany may wish to escape its abusive past. But its speech-related laws encourage abuse by powerful people. Allow this timeline to run without interruption long enough, and you’re staring down the barrel of history.

Maybe it won’t be the second coming of national socialism. But it might just be the conversion of Germany into something resembling the USSR farm team East Germany was until the fall of the Berlin Wall. As this New York Times report details, people are being arrested for being careless online — something that suggests far too many local politicians desire a Stasi of their own.

When the police pounded the door before dawn at a home in northwest Germany, a bleary-eyed young man in his boxer shorts answered. The officers asked for his father, who was at work.

They told him that his 51-year-old father was accused of violating laws against online hate speech, insults and misinformation. He had shared an image on Facebook with an inflammatory statement about immigration falsely attributed to a German politician. “Just because someone rapes, robs or is a serious criminal is not a reason for deportation,” the fake remark said.

The police then scoured the home for about 30 minutes, seizing a laptop and tablet as evidence, prosecutors said.

If the police already had copies of the posting, it doesn’t make much sense for them to search a home and seize devices. But that’s what they do. And, according to the New York Times article, this happens nearly one hundred times a day all over the nation, day after day after day.

Normally, when someone suggests efforts like these produce a chilling effect, governments issue statements affirming support for free speech and obliquely suggest the original commenter is misinformed or misinterpreting these actions. Not so with Germany. The chilling effect is the entire point — something the government freely admits.

German authorities have brought charges for insults, threats and harassment. The police have raided homes, confiscated electronics and brought people in for questioning. Judges have enforced fines worth thousands of dollars each and, in some cases, sent offenders to jail. The threat of prosecution, they believe, will not eradicate hate online, but push some of the worst behavior back into the shadows.

This means the earlier efforts — those forcing social media platforms to immediately and proactively remove anything the German government might find offensive — haven’t worked as well as politicians hoped. It was an impossible demand, one made by people who don’t believe anything is impossible if it’s backed by a government mandate and (most importantly) entirely the responsibility of other people.

Since the government can’t make social media companies perform the impossible, prosecutors have decided to go after internet users, who are far easier to threaten, intimidate, and jail into silence. Chilling is what we do, say prosecutors, citing the supposed success similar tactics have had in the fight against online piracy(!):

Daniel Holznagel, a former Justice Ministry official who helped draft the internet enforcement laws passed in 2017, compared the crackdown to going after copyright violators. He said people stopped illegally downloading music and movies as much after authorities began issuing fines and legal warnings.

“You can’t prosecute everyone, but it will have a big effect if you show that prosecution is possible,” said Mr. Holznagel, who is now a judge.

Since it’s almost impossible to tell what will trigger police action and prosecution, German citizens are likely engaging in self-censorship regularly. Sarcasm, irony, parody, shitposting… all of this is under scrutiny, since it’s apparent the government isn’t capable of performing anything but a straightforward reading of user-generate content. It would be almost comical if it weren’t for the police raids, prosecutions, device seizures, and jail time.

No national figures exist on the total number of people charged with online speech-related crimes. But in a review of German state records, The New York Times found more than 8,500 cases. Overall, more than 1,000 people have been charged or punished since 2018, a figure many experts said is probably much higher.

This effort siphons resources from law enforcement agencies asked to police more serious criminal acts — the kind that result in actual victims who can show actual harm, rather than the theoretical harm posed by posts that fall outside of the boundaries set by the German government’s escalating desire to regulate speech.

But that doesn’t mean local police aren’t welcoming the new duties. Some seem to particularly relish literally policing the internet.

Authorities in Lower Saxony raid homes up to multiple times per month, sometimes with a local television crew in tow.

Internet use is under constant surveillance. This always-on monitoring provides law enforcement with targets. Arrestees who refuse to submit to device searches aren’t slowing down investigators. Electronics are sent to crime labs and subjected to forensic searches by Cellebrite devices. Millions of dollars fund these efforts… and for what?

Swen Weiland, a software developer turned internet hate speech investigator, is in charge of unmasking people behind anonymous accounts. He hunts for clues about where a person lives and works, and connections to friends and family. After an unknown Twitter user compared Covid restrictions to the Holocaust, he used an online registry of licensed architects to help identify the culprit as a middle-aged woman.

“I try to find out what they do in their normal life,” Mr. Weiland said. “If I find where they live or their relatives then I can get the real person. The internet does not forget.”

That’s what the government is going after. Germany is in the business of punishing stupidity. But only certain forms of stupidity. Far more threatening posts are ignored by law enforcement. An activist interviewed by the NYT said she was doxxed and threatened by online commenters. When she took this info to law enforcement, officers responded by giving her a brochure about online hate and telling nothing that was said broke any laws. Doxxing is ok. Threats are ok. Making an extremely terrible analogy? A criminal offense.

So is this:

Last year, Andy Grote, a city senator responsible for public safety and the police in Hamburg, broke the local social distancing rules — which he was in charge of enforcing — by hosting a small election party in a downtown bar.

After Mr. Grote later made remarks admonishing others for hosting parties during the pandemic, a Twitter user wrote: “Du bist so 1 Pimmel” (“You are such a penis”).

Three months later, six police officers raided the house of the man who had posted the insult, looking for his electronic devices.

While it’s somewhat understandable that speech restrictions have been put in place in hopes of preventing history from repeating, the government’s desire to turn ignorance into criminal activity is hugely problematic. Laws like this are never taken off the books. They either linger forever or are subjected to endless expansions, allowing the government to start serving its own interests rather than those it imagines the general public values. There’s no impending slippery slope here. Germany is already headed down it.

Filed Under: chilling effects, content moderation, fake news, free speech, germany, hate speech, insults, piracy, surveillance

Malaysian Government Claims Insulting The Queen With A Spotify Playlist Is A Threat To National Security

from the to-be-fair,-your-highness,-it-does-have-some-absolute-bangers dept

The government of Malaysia has never been shy about censoring uppity citizens for doing things like, say, exposing massive government corruption. But it also has some royalty to shield from the content created by disgruntled citizens. That’s why it recently welcomed a “fake news” law into the fold, giving the government (and the royalty it ultimately serves) yet another censorial weapon to deploy.

A local artist is the latest under the jackboot, accused of making Queen Tunku Azizah Aminah Maimunah feel bad by compiling a [checks report] Spotify playlist.

Malaysian police arrested an artist on Friday for allegedly insulting the queen by posting a satirical playlist online.

The playlist riffed off a recent controversy over the royal family and coronavirus vaccines.

The artist was detained for uploading a playlist featuring a portrait of the queen and songs that included the word “jealously,” senior police official Huzir Mohamed said in a statement.

Fahmi Reza actually had to take his seditious business to Apple after Spotify kept taking down his playlist. It’s still up at Apple Music for the moment (archived here) and it contains plenty of songs containing variations of the word “jealous.”

Yeah, it’s kind of just one joke, really. But it’s obviously an effective one. The playlist turns the Queen’s dismissive response to concerned subjugates against her. According to local reports, the Queen secured COVID vaccines for herself and her family through some powerful United Arab Emirates connections. When residents complained, the Queen pithily asked them if they were “jealous.”

So, obviously a deserving target of criticism. But when the most deserving target has all the power, things tend to turn out badly for those doing the criticizing. Somehow, this jealousy-focused playlist threatens the security of the Malaysian people.

Fahmi was being investigated for breaking Malaysia’s sedition and communications laws. He faces up to three years if convicted under the act, Huzir said.

“Tough action will be taken without any compromise against anyone who intentionally threatens public security,” the police official added.

Three years for a one-joke playlist. And it makes the point with all the subtlety a 101-song playlist composed with the assistance of a single search term can. But equally unsubtle is the government’s response. Insulting the royal family may be bad form but it shouldn’t be illegal. And this definitely doesn’t threaten the security of the nation. It only highlights the insecurity of the family sitting at the top of the country’s org chart.

Filed Under: fahma reza, free speech, insults, malaysia, playlist, queen, sedition, tunku azizah aminah maimunah
Companies: apple, spotify

Kentucky Senators Pass Bill That Would Make It A Crime To Say Mean Things To Cops

from the finally-getting-'contempt-of-cop'-added-to-the-law-books dept

A bill [PDF] that’s likely headed to a dead end at the governor’s desk or a state court targets protected speech that might make some cops angry. The bill may end up dead, but the Kentucky Senate still needs to explain how it let the bill pass, considering it contains this very, very stupid addition, presumably courtesy of the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Danny Carroll — a former police officer.

The bill converts free speech into a second degree misdemeanor. And it only targets speech that targets certain public employees.

Accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.

That’s right. Seven of ten Senators want to make it illegal to say bad things to police officers. Anything that “provokes” a cop is off-limits. And it assumes cops are “reasonable and prudent people.” Maybe they are. But “reasonable and prudent” public servants — especially those frequently engaged in heated situations where they’re supposed to be the keepers of peace — should have a higher bar to reach before they react to these undefined fighting words.

We should expect more from our cops. These state Senators want us to expect less. This conduct was never illegal before, but following protests in the state over killings by cops, people like Danny Carroll want to codify “contempt of cop.”

Carroll insinuates cops are weak individuals who aren’t able to keep their cool when confronted by unhappy members of the public. Maybe this is what’s actually true. And a law like this allows them to act on their worst impulses and — never mind the First Amendment — actually punish people for engaging in what should be protected speech.

Behold your jackbooted snowflakes, apparently in need of protection from… syllables.

“In these riots, you see people getting up in officers’ faces, yelling in their ears, doing everything they can to provoke a violent response,” Carroll said, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.

Yeah. That’s kind of thing is going to happen during protests. And it’s not a crime anywhere. According to Carroll’s former cop mentality, it’s the people who need to be punished for making cops angry, rather than cops for violating people’s First Amendment rights.

The beatings will continue until police morale improves.

“I’m not saying the officers do that, but there has to be a provision within that statute to allow officers to react to that. Because that does nothing but incite those around that vicinity and it furthers and escalates the riotous behavior,” he continued.

Carroll could not be more wrong. Cops should not be “allowed” to “react” to angry people saying angry things — not by internal policy and very definitely not by state mandate. That’s not how the law works and that sure as shit isn’t how the Constitution works.

Everything Carroll offers in defense of his indefensible bill is… well, indefensible.

Carroll noted the bill wasn’t about limiting lawful protest “in any way, shape, form or fashion.”

“This country was built on lawful protest, and it’s something that we must maintain — our citizens’ right to do so. What this deals with are those who cross the line and commit criminal acts,” he said.

Ah, but it does limit lawful protests. It makes it illegal to say mean things to cops, which is something that happens at lawful protests. And no one crosses the legal line by being mean to cops. The law makes the logic of his statement conveniently circular. Make something that wasn’t previously illegal illegal and suddenly things that never “crossed the line” into criminality will now will cross the line into criminality.

Saying protesters shouldn’t do things that are illegal is incredibly disingenuous when you’re passing an anti-protest omnibus that makes angering a police officer using nothing more than words a criminal offense.

And that’s not the only thing the bill does. It redefines “riot” to mean any group of more than five people that “substantially obstructs law enforcement or other government functions.” It provides sentence enhancements for engaging in rioting even if the person did not directly engage in the riots but committed a crime anywhere else “with knowledge that a riot was occurring.” It denies probation or early release for anyone convicted of this new crime. It turns resisting arrest and obstructing traffic from misdemeanors to felonies if it occurs while a riot is taking place.

And it fights defunding efforts by mandating steadily increasing funding for law enforcement agencies:

Governmental entities responsible for the funding of the various law enforcement agencies shall maintain and improve their respective financial support to the Commonwealth’s law enforcement agencies…

It’s a whole pile of retaliation with some stupid dumped on top of it. These legislators think cops shouldn’t have to deal with the consequences of their actions — consequences that sometimes include violent riots. But then they don’t think cops should just have to stand there and take when angry people shout angry things at them. These legislators are wrong about almost all of this, but especially wrong about that. If the governor doesn’t send this pile of idiocy packing, a court will soon enough.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, insults, kentucky, police, speech, taunting

Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him

from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept

President Trump has continued to throw his little temper tantrum in response to #DiaperDon trending on Twitter. When that happened, he suddenly demanded a full repeal of Section 230 — which would not stop Twitter from showing #DiaperDon trending when the President throws a temper tantrum like a 2 year old. Then, yesterday, we heard that the White House was really pushing for the Senate to include a 230 repeal in the must pass NDAA bill that funds the military.

Late last evening I heard from people in touch with various Congressional offices saying that this entire effort by the White House was dead in the water, because almost no one had an appetite to even try to attempt it, and despite the whackadoodle conspiracy theories from the President and Senators Ted Cruz, Marsha Blackburn, and Josh Hawley, it turns out that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doesn’t care about 230 reform.

Of course, even later last night, things took an even stupider turn, as Trump declared on Twitter that unless the NDAA included a full repeal of Section 230, he would veto it. This is all sorts of stupid and we’ll break it all down in a moment, so bear with me.

That says:

Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to ?Big Tech? (the only companies in America that have it – corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity. Our Country can never be safe & secure if we allow it to stand….. Therefore, if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk. Take back America NOW. Thank you!

We’ll get into why nearly everything in that statement is wrong, dangerous, and stupid, but I want to be crystal clear about what is happening here.

President Donald J. Trump is threatening to defund the US military, because he’s upset that enough people mocked him on Twitter that it started trending.

That’s it. That’s the reality. This is the world we live in. And it’s so insane, it needs to be repeated.

President Donald J. Trump is threatening to defund the US military, because he’s upset that enough people mocked him on Twitter that it started trending.

Oh, and it’s even stupider. On so many levels. First off, taking away Section 230 wouldn’t stop #DiaperDon from trending on Twitter, because that’s protected by the 1st Amendment and has nothing to do with Section 230. If anything, it would give much more incentive for Twitter to remove Donald Trump and his followers accounts entirely to avoid the suddenly increased legal liability.

But, now, let’s take a deep breath, take a step back, and look at how incredibly stupid Trump’s statement is.

Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to ?Big Tech? (the only companies in America that have it – corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity.

None of this is even close to reality. This is pure nonsense. Section 230 applies to all websites for any 3rd party content they host. The claim that “big tech” are the only companies that have it is belied by this simple point: Donald Trump himself has invoked Section 230 in court. Multiple times. Incredibly, in 2017, he argued that he shouldn’t be liable for the content of a retweet he did, because of Section 230. In fact, in court, Trump argued that Section 230 “should be given an ‘expansive’ reading” in order to protect himself from defamation claims. He’s right. Section 230 should protect him in those cases, but it also highlights how it’s absolutely bullshit to claim that it only protects “Big Tech” and that big tech companies are “the only companies in America that have it.” It’s just not true.

As for the claim that Section 230 is a “threat to our National Security,” let’s play a little thought exercise: which is a bigger threat to our national security: a law that says internet websites are not liable for the actions of their users or defunding the entire military? I’ll give you a minute to think about it.

Because here’s the point where I remind you that President Donald J. Trump is threatening to defund the US military, because he’s upset that enough people mocked him on Twitter that it started trending.

Oh, and then there’s the claim about “election integrity” and… what? What the fuck does election integrity have to do with Section 230? The answer is absolutely nothing. He’s just spewing words.

I could go on, but it’s all just incredibly stupid. It’s one thing to say that Trump is an blundering fool, but here is a legitimate threat to national security, entirely because people are making fun of him. It’s frightening beyond all belief.

And this is the point that in a functioning Congress, everyone would stand up to the President and say “no, this is not how this works.” Congressional Republicans need to stop enabling this utterly dangerous nonsense. Because President Donald J. Trump is threatening to defund the US military, because he’s upset that enough people mocked him on Twitter that it started trending. That should not be allowed to happen.

Filed Under: donald trump, insults, intermediary liability, military spending, ndaa, section 230

Turkish President Sues Dutch Lawmaker Over A Bunch Of 'Insulting' Tweets

from the who-is-the-real-terrorist-here,-Recep dept

If anyone’s to blame for this latest Erdogan related debacle, it’s the thin-skinned “leader” of Turkey, R.T. “Gollum” Erdogan. In fact, I’d be hard pressed to find anyone else to blame if the Dutch government hadn’t been an enabler of this bad behavior.

Back in 2018, the Dutch government, inexplicably, decided to prosecute one of its own citizens for “insulting” a world leader located in an entirely different country. For whatever reason, the Dutch government has yet to wipe its “insulting a foreign leader” law from its books and that’s the weapon Erdogan wielded to engage in extraterritorial protection of his easily bruised skin.

A law may be on the books, but there’s nothing compelling a country to enforce it, especially when the request comes from the Turkish consulate on behalf of an insulted foreign leader who, as the word “foreign” specifies, resides in another country altogether.

Having set this stupid precedent, the Dutch government has to take some of the blame for recent developments, which involve President Erdogan targeting a member of the Dutch government over some online besmirchment.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is suing Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders after the anti-Islam politician posted a series of tweets against the Turkish leader, including one that described him as a “terrorist.”

The state-run Anadolu Agency said Erdogan’s lawyer on Tuesday filed a criminal complaint against Wilders at the Ankara Chief Prosecutor’s office for “insulting the president” — a crime in Turkey punishable by up to four years in prison.

Wilders posted a cartoon depicting Erdogan wearing a bomb-resembling hat on his head, with the comment: “terrorist.”

Fortunately, at least one person is handling this latest Turkish broadside against free speech with all the respect it deserves.

Wilders, who leads the largest opposition party in the Dutch Parliament, shrugged off the Turkish criminal complaint and described Erdogan as a “loser.”

This is not to say Wilders is an upstanding individual without troubling views on foreigners and religions other than his own. But the insulted leader of a foreign country shouldn’t be able to do anything more than complain about it like normal people complain about things: to anyone willing to listen to someone complain about stuff. Involving courts and foreign governments shouldn’t be part of the equation. There’s no defamation here and nothing credibly, legally actionable. It’s just Erdogan being insulted, which is something that happens regularly.

If the Dutch government doesn’t meet this with a strong “why don’t you just go fuck yourself” statement, it will only encourage Erdogan to engage in more extraterritorial litigation over speech he doesn’t like. That’s something no one needs, especially now that Turkey has passed China in the number of journalists jailed and has prosecuted more than 29,000 people in the last half-decade for “insulting” the eminently insultable president.

Filed Under: criminal complaint, geert wilders, insults, lawsuits, netherlands, recep tayyip erdogan, turkey

French Government To Make Insulting Mayors A Criminal Offense

from the we-love-free-speech-but-[unrolls-growing-list-of-exceptions] dept

French government entities continue to clamp down on speech. Following a terrorist attack on a French satirical newspaper, government leaders vowed to double down on protecting controversial speech. The govenment then fast-tracked several prosecutions under its anti-terrorism laws, which included arresting a comedian for posting some anti-semitic content. It further celebrated its embrace of free speech by arresting a man for mocking the death of three police officers.

A half-decade later, that same commitment to protecting speech no one might object to continues. The country’s government passed a terrible hate speech law that would have allowed law enforcement to decide what content was acceptable (and what was arrestable.) Fortunately for its citizens, the country’s Constitutional Court decided the law was unlawful and struck down most of it roughly a month later.

But that’s not the end of bad speech laws in France. Government officials seem to have an unlimited amount of bad ideas. Some government officials are being hit with far more than objectionable words. Assaults of French mayors continue to occur at the rate of about once a day. Mayors assaulted and unassaulted have asked the French government to do more to protect them from these literal attacks.

The government has responded. And it’s not going to make mayors any more popular or make them less likely to be physically attacked.

Any insult targeted at a French mayor will now be treated as contempt – an offence that carries a maximum penalty of community service or a €7,500 fine – France’s justice minister has announced.

“Any attack perpetuated against a mayor is an attack perpetuated against the Republic”, warned French Minister of Justice Eric Dupond-Moretti on Wednesday after a ministerial meeting to which local mayor associations were invited, according to BFMTV.

Assault is already a crime, so the government has ways to deal with those who physically attack government officials. This new wrinkle makes being mean to them a crime. The Republic as a whole will feel every insult targeting a town mayor. So will the people uttering the insults. $7,500 fines and/or 280 hours of community service await those who like to fight with their words, rather than their fists.

This may trim down the number of public insults but it’s hardly going to make the government any more popular with the governed. If French citizens are physically attacking mayors 300+ times a year, there’s something more going on that just a little bit of assholishness that’s gotten out of hand. Protecting people from violence is something any government should do. But protecting them from being insulted is something only authoritarians do.

Filed Under: france, free speech, insults, mayors, politics

Philippines Senator Targets Critics With 'Cyberlibel' Law, Gets Hailed As A Son Of A Bitch By Thousands Of Citizens

from the reap-sow-repeat dept

The most dangerous cybercriminals in the Philippines are the ones who swear. When not locking up critics and journalists under the country’s “cyberlibel” law, government officials are sending the cops after people for not being sufficiently respectful.

The president of the country — Rodrigo Duterte — portrays himself as a fearless destroyer of criminals. He’s openly encouraged the extrajudicial killing of drug dealers and drug users. But the tough guy image is just that. The man can’t handle being criticized (see arrests of journalists above). When citizens start getting lippy, Duterte and his favored officials call in the cops to help them abuse a law whose sole reason for existence is to be abused by powerful people.

Just two months ago, a 41-year-old salesman was arrested for his Facebook post, in which he (accurately) described Duterte as “crazy” and an “asshole.” Under most definitions of libel, opinions such as these aren’t defamatory, especially when describing a public figure. Under the nation’s law, anything Duterte doesn’t like is considered to be libelous. The country’s cybercrime law codifies the president’s expansive and self-serving definition of this term.

Now, another public official — and a good buddy of Rodrigo’s — is abusing the same law to send law enforcement after another foul-mouthed critic. Sammy Westfall has more details at Vice:

Christopher “Bong” Go, a Philippine senator and a close confidante of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, has requested authorities investigate several of his critics under the country’s controversial cyberlibel laws, leading to several being subpoenaed—and to a chorus of even stronger criticism online.

In his statement to the press, Senator Go claimed he had been the “victim” of “fake news” and had tasked the National Bureau of Investigation with looking into some recent online besmirchment. One of several hit with government subpoenas was a college student accused of sharing a post “containing fake news against the Senator.”

The contents of the targeted posts were not revealed by Senator Go. The NBI says everyone’s due process rights will be respected, though.

NBI Cybercrime Division Chief Vic Lorenzo said that the subpoenas allow for the verification of the complaint and are part of the due process that allows the defendant to be heard and validated as the person who posted the material in question.

Yes, the accused will be provided the opportunity to agree they engaged in cyberlibel. Hopefully, this process involves telling the accused what they’re accused of, because it seems like that important detail has been overlooked by Go and the NBI.

In addition to the subpoenaed student, Rappler reported that another subpoena had been sent to another person by the same law firm. The person, who was not named, confirmed to Rappler that he also shared a post critical of Go.

Rappler noted that among three others who received similar subpoenas, none were told which post triggered the subpoena, nor were they told that Go was the complainant.

As Westfall reports, this is cyberlibel standard operating procedure. Seventeen Philippines residents were hit with cyberlibel subpoenas earlier this year. None of the recipients were informed which of their social media posts were considered criminally defamatory.

But if it’s libel Senator Go wants — under his fuzzy and convenient definition — citizens are more than willing to supply it.

By Friday morning, as news of the subpoenas spread, the hashtag #TanginaMoBongGo—which literally translates to “Son of a Bitch Bong Go”—was trending on Twitter, with netizens slamming the senator for what they characterized as his heavy-handed response to online criticism. By Friday evening, there were more than 65,000 posts with the tag.

That’s how the game is played, Senator. Be a jerk, get treated like one. Of course, citizens can’t haul Go up on charges, hide the details from him, and demand he make himself available to investigators. But they can make him increasingly miserable.

Filed Under: bong go, christopher bong go, cyberlibel, free speech, insults, philippines, rodrigo duterte

Philippines Government Uses Cybercrime Law To Arrest A Citizen For Calling The President An 'Asshole'

from the shame-truth-can't-be-used-as-a-defense dept

All things are cyber these days, including handy government tools meant to shield thin-skinned leaders from criticism. For a guy who goes around bragging about killing drug dealers, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte seems oddly unable to handle being called what he is.

Police arrested on Wednesday, May 13, a 41-year-old salesman in Butuan City for a Facebook post where he called President Rodrigo Duterte an “asshole” and “crazy.”

Caraga police said in a Facebook post that they arrested Reynaldo Orcullo for allegedly committing cyberlibel, or violation of Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Law.

Police said Orcullo is now under the custody of the Police Regional Anti-Cybercrime Unit.

Good old libel, but with 100% more “cyber.” Whatever due process might have been in place for regular libel is pretty much gone now that it’s been stapled to an abusive “cybercrime” law that allows the government to punish critics with impunity. Truth is no defense when charged with “cyberlibel.” Nor are opinions considered protected, even though the country’s constitution says otherwise. Call the president an “asshole” and you get to go to jail, even it’s an opinion that’s arguably true.

This is more of the same for President Duterte, whose government has continually harassed (and arrested) journalists for simply reporting the news. This continues to happen in a country with a bill of rights that forbids the government from abridging citizens’ free speech rights, including the freedom of the press.

But this is also a country that routinely engages in extrajudicial killings and state-ordained kidnappings. So, a post that criticized Duterte resulted in an arrest, which only served to highlight the president’s hypocrisy. Other critics (who remain unarrested at the moment) pointed out cursing at Duterte shouldn’t be considered offensive when the president himself hurls obscenities towards his political enemies in nationally televised speeches.

Then there’s this response from the police department, which sets some pretty arbitrary standards for “free” speech.

“Again I remind our social media users to think thrice before posting on any social media platform. Be responsible netizens. We do enjoy the blessings of democracy but never go beyond from what you think is right without minding you violate the provisions of the law,” [police chief Joselito] Esquivel said.

Enjoy your free speech, citizens. But self-censor when you do. Otherwise, expect to spend some time being subjected to a criminal justice system that has had every one of its excesses blessed by the man running the country.

Filed Under: cyberlibel, free speech, insults, philippines, reynaldo orcullo, rodrigo duterte

Don't Let The Bret Stephens Bite: NY Times' Hypocritical 'Free Speech' Columnist Flips Out After Being Called A Bedbug

from the a-streisanding-for-the-ages dept

I will admit being only marginally aware of Bret Stephens in the past — as someone the NY Times seems to employ to write really dumb opinion pieces that get people angry with how dumb they are. This latest bit of Bret Stephensisms isn’t going to improve that impression. One of Stephens’ big things, apparently, is whining about “the left” not believing in free speech any more, and complaining about things like “safe spaces on campus.” Here are two recent examples:

If you’re unable to see those, they’re two columns by Stephens, with the first one entitled “Free Speech and the Necessity of Discomfort,” and the second one entitled, “Leave Your Safe Spaces: The 2017 Commencement Address at Hampden-Sydney College.” No matter what your stance is on “the necessity of comfort” or “safe spaces,” once should at least conclude that Bret Stephens has positioned himself as one who believes that free speech is important, and people should chill out before getting offended.

Oh, and he sometimes tweets about free speech too, and has some more tweets that he’s likely to regret before all this is over:

In the first tweet, he’s quoting David French, saying “Our nation cannot maintain its culture of free speech if we continue to reward those who seek to destroy careers, rather than rebut ideas.” Remember that one. And the second is “The right to offend is the most precious right. Without it, free speech is meaningless. That’s what Charlie Hebdo was about.”

Okay. That’s a little background on Bret Stephens’ professional opinion on free speech and people being offended when he’s acting all intellectual-like. Now let’s take a look at Bret Stephens’ unprofessional opinion on free speech and people being offended, when someone calls him a bedbug.

On Monday morning, an assistant editor of the NY Times opinion section, Stuart Thompson, tweeted: “Breaking — There are bedbugs in the NYT newsroom.” Lots of people made jokes about this. My favorite, from Lindsey Barrett, mocked the NY Times’ unwillingness to call racism racism by rewriting it as: “I think you mean there’s an insect-tinged problem in the NYT newsroom.” She made some more jokes about bedbugs, including a fake headline by Bret Stephens: “‘There Are No Bedbugs and If There Were, The Caustic Twitter Socialists Put Them There and Bed Bugs Are Good, Actually’ –half a column by bret stephens, who was itching too vigorously to finish it” That one got lots of likes and retweets. But it’s not the tweet that exposed Bret Stephens as the free speech hypocrite many people seemed to always assume he was.

Instead, it was a not even that funny tweet from Dave Karpf, an Associate Professor at George Washington University:

Then, last evening, Karpf noted that while that original tweet (cue ominous music: at the time…) had only 9 likes and 0 retweets, and did not in any way tag Stephens himself, Stephens took it upon himself to not just complain about the tweet to Karpf, but to cc his university provost:

We’ll get to the contents of the letter in a moment. But, first, let’s revisit those tweets from Stephens about free speech. He talked about how the right to offend was so important. And also was apparently against “those who seek to destroy careers rather than rebut ideas.” Of course, there’s no good reason for Stephens to cc the GWU provost except in a weak, thin-skinned, hypocritical attempt to destroy Karpf’s career.

And let’s not avoid the contents of Stephens’ email. Because, it’s weird.

Dear. Dr. Karpf,

Someone just pointed out a tweet you wrote about me, calling me a “bedbug.” I’m often amazed about the things supposedly decent people are prepared to say about other people — people they’ve never met — on Twitter. I think you’ve set a new standard.

I would welcome the opportunity for you to come to my home, meet my wife and kids, talk to us for a few minutes, and then call me a “bedbug” to my face. That would take some genuine courage and intellectual integrity on your part. I promise to be courteous no matter what you have to say.

Maybe it will make you feel better about yourself.

Please consider this a standing invitation. You are more than welcome to bring your significant other.

Cordially,

Bret Stephens

It certainly sounds like Stephens “took offense” to Karpf’s random joke. Perhaps he felt being a NY Times Opinion columnist gave him a “safe space” from criticism? It must be that, or otherwise, to think that calling him a “bedbug” is a “new standard” of Twitter-based discourse, suggests someone who is so shielded from the way Twitter arguments normally play out as to be a poor judge of what the “new standards” are of insults. And, yes, you could argue that Stephens’ creepy invite to come over to his house (with Karpf’s significant other) and insult him to his face, is a request for “more speech,” in response to “speech.” But, we should remind everyone that Stephens’ cc’d the George Washington University provost.

Anyway, if you couldn’t already guess what happened next, I should tell you that Merriam-Webster chose last evening to (not for the first time), tweet out their explanation of the Streisand Effect. Whenever the dictionary starts adding to my own mentions, you know something good is going down.

And, so, yes, within just a few hours, Karpf’s tweet mocking Stephens, that had just 9 likes and 0 retweets, has many thousands of retweets and tens of thousands of likes. And, tons and tons of people are now associating Bret Stephens with bedbugs. Here’s just a few fun tweets.

Goodnight, sleep tight, don't let the Bret Stephens bite.

— Jessica Valenti (@JessicaValenti) August 27, 2019

same rule for me: if you?ve ever mocked me online, please go have dinner at Bret Stephens?s house

— Owen Ellickson (@onlxn) August 27, 2019

Bret Stephens: The biggest threat facing our society today is the stifling of free speech on college campuses.

Also Bret Stephens: I?m going to try and get a college professor fired for a joke he tweeted that didn?t get a single retweet.

— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) August 27, 2019

WTF. You had this your feed 10 days ago, and now you've narced on some college professor because he called you..checks notes..a "bedbug." Motherfucker, any day I don't get addressed here as a libtard, cuck, Hollywood Jew and (((David Simon)))? I'm not even trying. You hypocrite. https://t.co/vQlKUV8ieU

— David Simon (@AoDespair) August 27, 2019

Please bear in mind that Brett Stephens, who thought this would turn out well, was hired by the New York Times to explain society to us.

— SeductiveReasoningHat (@Popehat) August 27, 2019

911 OPERATOR: what?s your emergency?

BRET STEPHENS:

911 OPERATOR: Bret I swear to Christ this better not be about twitter…

BRET STEPHENS: *hangs up the phone*

— Michael Tannenbaum (@iamTannenbaum) August 27, 2019

sometimes i think of the deluge of cruelty folks like jemele hill and jamelle bouie and other folks get and they basically have to sit on their hands. meanwhile bret stephens got called a third-grade insult and tattled to the dude?s boss. he would never make it if he was us.

— Joel D. Anderson (@byjoelanderson) August 27, 2019

bret stephens would not survive 3 minutes of being a woman on twitter tbh

— Talia Lavin (@chick_in_kiev) August 27, 2019

Subject line: From Bret Stephens, New York Times
Dear Merriam-Webster twitter account,
It was brought to my attention that you subtweeting me. Would you dare do this in front of my wife & kids? Put up your dukes, dictionary!
Bret Stephens
cc: Your manager. https://t.co/D021TA7lLG

— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) August 27, 2019

Since we?re all picking our favorite parts of this Bret Stephens email, I will go with him saying calling someone a ?bedbug? sets a ?new standard? for nastiness on Twitter. This is the sort of risible analysis we would expect in one of his columns. https://t.co/crJE84Wiaj

— Josh Barro (@jbarro) August 27, 2019

Is Bret Stephens for fucking real.

I would LOVE for someone to call me a bedbug. The shit I get called on here on a daily basis? ?Bedbug? would be a welcome respite.

Get the entire fuck out of here.

— Imani Gandy? (@AngryBlackLady) August 27, 2019

The line to Bret Stephens?s house to tell his family that he?s a bedbug and a terrible columnist would look like the cars pulling up to Ray Kinsella?s farm at the end of FIELD OF DREAMS. Bret could be there playing catch with a ghostly relative. I?d tell the ghost the same. pic.twitter.com/OkBl54jf8C

— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) August 27, 2019

Maybe Bret Stephens would stop denying climate change if he found out that it caused his skin to become perilously thin https://t.co/xspO9mKxaG

— andi zeisler (@andizeisler) August 27, 2019

I think you're all being very mean to Bret Stephens, who at 45 years old is clearly doing something right considering the average bed bug only lives 6-12 months.

— Tony Webster (@webster) August 27, 2019

The punishment for mildly joking about Bret Stephens on the internet is having to hang out with Bret Stephens in real life. https://t.co/SvrMmLyoUP

— Robyn Pennacchia (@RobynElyse) August 27, 2019

Like bedbugs, those tweets just keep on coming. On my Twitter account, at least, Bret Stephens, was the top “trending” topic for many hours last night. Note how many likes and retweets all of those tweets have. Bret Stephens has taken a throwaway line that most people ignored and ensured that, for years, people will associate him with bedbugs.

Incredibly, overnight, rather than realizing that he’d fucked up, Stephens apparently decided to dig deeper and make it worse. First, he shut down his Twitter account, laughably claiming that Twitter “is a sewer” that “brings out the worst in humanity.” He then went on MSNBC and compared being called a “bedbug” to the worst “totalitarian regimes,” while also (laughably, ridiculously) trying to argue that cc’ing the GWU provost wasn’t about trying to get Karpf fired. He claims he just wanted the provost to know what his staff was doing. Which… come on. No one believes that.

On MSNBC, Bret Stephens characterizes Dr Dave Karpf referring to him as a metaphorical "bedbug" on Twitter as akin to language used by "totalitarian regimes," adds that he had "no intention whatsoever to get him in any kind of professional trouble" when he tattled to Karpf's boss pic.twitter.com/iNJAvzPnMt

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 27, 2019

Of course, like bedbugs, I’m guessing that the NY Times won’t get rid of Bret Stephens either.

He says he's leaving but experts say you have to go three weeks without seeing one before you know they're gone for good https://t.co/aGjSmk2mt2

— Matt MAYBE MORE FOLLOWERS THAN JOHN DELANEY Negrin (@MattNegrin) August 27, 2019

Filed Under: bedbugs, bret stephens, david karpf, getting people fired, hypocrite, insults, offensive speech, safe spaces
Companies: george washington university, ny times