Censorship

WIA Releases Report on Arrests of Bloggers, Does It Overcount?

Arthur Bright — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:25:41 -0400

According to a new report by the World Information Access (“WIA”) Project, 64 independent bloggers have been arrested since 2003, suggesting governments around the world are growing more aware of blogs and more likely to act to silence bloggers.

In the report, WIA researchers write that they used Google and LexisNexis to find arrests of bloggers who were unaffiliated with news organizations. The researchers found that the number of reported arrests appeared to increase over the years, with just five arrests during 2003, but totaling 36 in 2007. Arrests were most frequent in China (11), Egypt (13), and Iran (8), and overall Asia and the Middle East accounted for the lion’s share of WIA’s data. But western nations were not blameless – researchers recorded a blogger arrest in each of Britain, Canada, and France, and three arrests in the U.S. as well (Josh Wolf, Jack McClellan, and Daniel Aljughaifi). On the whole, WIA reports that the arrested bloggers tended to be males between the ages of 21 and 45, and the durations of their arrests ranged from a few hours to eight years.

The researchers observe that blogger arrests seem to increase during “times of political uncertainty,” noting for example that most of Egypt’s arrests took place during its 2007 elections. The researchers predict that 2008 will likely see a further increase in the arrests of bloggers, as China, Iran, and Pakistan all have elections this year.

The researchers also acknowledge that there are likely more arrests than they’ve managed to include in the report, noting for example that according to a list kept by the Committee to Protect Bloggers (“CPB”), 344 Burmese have been arrested, and some of those may be bloggers. (The CPB wrote after the WIA report’s release that it is indeed likely that some of the 344 are bloggers, though certainly not all of them.)

Unfortunately, while acknowledging the survey’s undercounting of arrested bloggers, the researchers appear to have inadvertently overcounted the arrests instead. Despite the report’s stated intent to “record[] only bloggers who were arrested for using electronic media . . . to discuss or record political issues and events,” it often seems to fudge the distinction between arrests for blogging, the survey’s purported goal, and arrests of bloggers, where blogging was not itself the grounds for arrest. I counted at least 13 instances where, from the articles cited in their data, it was either unclear or unlikely that the blogger’s online activities directly related to his or her arrest.

Take blogger Alaa Abd El-Fatah, one of the report’s data points. Fatah was one of some ten people arrested for taking part in a peaceful demonstration. Judging by the article cited by the report, Fatah is a prominent Egyptian blogger. It is likely that his arrest will chill the speech of other Egyptian bloggers. But is his blogging relevant to his arrest? From the article’s description, it doesn’t appear to be. Rather, his arrest seems to stem directly from participating in the protest.

Similarly, two of the three U.S. blogger arrests that the report cites seem loosely tied to the bloggers' online activities. Jack McClellan, a self-proclaimed pedophile who posted photos of children he had taken in public places on his blog, was arrested for violating a restraining order against coming within 30 feet of any child in California. Daniel Aljughaifi was arrested for undergoing terrorist training in Africa and for conspiring to use a destructive device. Of the three U.S. bloggers' arrests, only that of Josh Wolf, arrested for refusing to turn over to a federal grand jury footage he filmed and posted of a burning police car, seems directly tied to blogging. The fact that McClellan and Aljughaifi have blogs appears coincidental, not causal, to their arrests.

Is it helpful to include arrests like those of Fatah, McClellan, and Aljughaifi in the WIA survey? I’d argue no. While it is commendable to analyze the efforts of governments around the world to muzzle bloggers, it is the repression of free speech that is the concern. By including the arrests of those who happen to be bloggers in their count, the WIA researchers diminish the impact of their report, because they blur the value of that which they mean to defend.

(Arthur Bright is a second-year law student at the Boston University School of Law and a CMLP Legal Intern.)

Senator Lieberman Asks YouTube to Take Down Radical Islamist Videos

Sam Bayard — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:33:00 -0400

On Monday, Senator Joe Lieberman wrote to Google's CEO Eric Schmidt, asking the company to remove content produced by Islamist terrorist organizations from YouTube. The May 19 letter pointed out that many videos posted by radical groups violate YouTube's own terms of service because they contain "graphic or gratiuitious violence." But Sen. Lieberman went much further -- he complained that YouTube's terms of service do not prohibit the posting of any content "that can be readily identified as produced by Al-Qaeda or another [Foreign Terrorist Organization]."

Sen. Lieberman maintained that YouTube can easily identify this content because of the logos used by media outfits linked to Al-Qaeda and allied organizations. I hadn't realized that such logos existed, but sure enough I was able to dig up a few examples by consulting a recent report prepared by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Government Affairs (chaired by Lieberman) and searching for a few minutes on YouTube:

I'm OK with Sen. Lieberman asking YouTube to enforce its own terms of use, and YouTube responsibly worked with Sen. Lieberman's staff to identify and remove a large number of offending videos. But, I reject wholeheartedly his suggestion that YouTube should censor material based only on its source (i.e., radical Islamist groups allegedly tied to terrorist activities) and applaud Google for standing up for freedom of expression on this point. That Islamist organizations use YouTube to "disseminate their propoganda" and further the "process of radicalization" may be objectionable from a security perspective, but it is entirely consistent with a vision of free speech that protects unpopular and critical viewpoints. In case Sen. Lieberman didn't notice, that is precisely that kind of free speech ideal we have in this country.

Not that this is necessarily a legal issue, at least not yet. Sen. Lieberman is free to ask YouTube to engage in viewpoint censorship because that's all it is -- a request. YouTube is a private actor and it can choose what to put in its terms of service without concern for the First Amendment. Certainly, if Congress passed a law that compelled YouTube to prohibit all speech originating from specified (or worse, all) radical Islamist organizations, rather than just material fitting within the few narrow categories recognized by the Supreme Court as unprotected speech (e.g., threats, direct incitement to imminent violence, so-called "fighting words"), then YouTube would have a good legal argument that its First Amendment rights as a publisher were being violated. (Lawyers: note the odd tension here with section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.) Of course, any U.S. citizen whose speech was taken down because of a hypothetical compelled change to YouTube's terms of service -- say, because they actually were involved with such a group or alternatively because they stuck an Islamist logo (see above) on a video of their cat flushing the toilet -- would have an even better First Amendment argument. Perhaps because of these potential legal difficulties, a bill introduced in the House of Representatives last year only recommended that video-hosting websites take steps to keep "enemy propoganda" off their sites. (The bill is stuck in the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet and has not become law.)

My problem with Sen. Lieberman's request (and the proposed bill) lies elsewhere -- on grounds of simple logical consistency and concern for the U.S.'s legitimacy on the international stage. Now, I'm not sure about Sen. Lieberman's history when it comes to freedom of speech or human rights -- maybe he's never been a big champion of these values and so this latest foray is no great deviation from the norm. But, anyone who claims to be fighting "the terrorists" should be wary of this kind of censorship. Isn't the idea that those big, bad, scary terrorists "hate us for our freedoms" and oppose our (supposedly) enlightened way of life and open form of government? Doesn't our current government routinely accuse radical Islamists of being intolerant of opposing viewpoints and disrespectful of human rights? It undercuts our country's position in the world when we turn around and exhibit a lack of tolerance and a willingess to curtail free expression (recognized as a human right in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). To be sure, Sen. Lieberman's gambit is a relatively benign instance of this sadly persistent ironic reversal.

I know I said this is not about law, but this is one of those (relatively) rare intances where the voice of the law is eloquent. In the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (who is pretty much my hero):

[W]hen men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

For additional commentary, see CNET and Ars Technica.

Saudi Blogger Fouad Ahmad Al-Farhan Released

Sam Bayard — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:33:40 -0400

After four months, the Saudi Arabian government has released popular Saudi blogger Fouad Ahmad Al-Farhan without charge. Authorities arrested Fouad in December after warning him about posts supporting an activist group on his blog at فؤاد أحمد الفرحان. From the time of his arrest, Interior Ministry officials were evasive about the reason for his detention, explaining only that it was not related to state security. Bloggers, journalists, and human rights groups around the world rallied around Fouad, denouncing his detention and calling for his release. Spearheading the effort, the Free Fouad site provided updates, collected press coverage, and offered "Free Fouad" badges for placement on supporters' blogs and websites. In February, protesters demonstrated against the arrest in front of the Saudi embassy in Washington, according to the Washington Post. It's great to hear that Fouad's been released, but chilling to consider the vulnerability of journalists and dissidents under the Saudi regime.

There's lots of coverage out there if you want further details:

International Olympic Committee Thinks Blogging Is Not About Journalism

Sam Bayard — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:31:38 -0500

Ars Technica reports that the International Olympic Committee has lifted its ban on blogging. Athletes competing in Beijing 2008 will be allowed to blog about the Olympics, so long as they follow some, well, restrictive guidelines. Most notably, athletes will not be permitted to report on the overall competition or relay information from third parties; instead, the guidelines require that they focus on their own personal experiences. This is because, in the IOC's view, blogging is "a legitimate form of personal expression and not a form of journalism." Whew, I'm glad they resolved that tricky ontological question.

Additionally, athlete bloggers may not post any photographs of the sporting events (although they may post their own photos from inside and outside official Olympic areas), and their posts must be "dignified and in good taste." They also may not host any advertisements or create an affiliation with a specific company (fair enough). It's easy to make fun of all these restrictions, but it is a step forward, and it may make for some fascinating material, even within the guidelines.

Or will it? As if all these rules weren't enough, recall that the Chinese government also filters the Internet in a serious way. According to Ars,

Blogs from common hosts, such as Blogspot and WordPress, have been blocked off and on within China for some time now, so Olympic athletes looking to post about their experiences may not even be able to access their sites without some sort of contingency plan. That's not the only place they'll have to compromise, either—other taboo topics include the local police, government, as well as the likes of Falun Gong, Nazi Germany, and Tiananmen Square.

The CMLP wishes all the sporty bloggers luck in the face of adversity.

Saudi Blogger Detained

Sam Bayard — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:04:07 -0500

The mainstream press (here, here) reports that the Saudi Arabian authorities have detained Fouad Ahmad Al-Farhan, a popular Saudi blogger whose blog has been a platform for criticism of government corruption and advocacy for political reform. Al-Farhan was arrested on December 10, but apparently it took a while for the story to break -- it was picked up last week by bloggers in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Bahrain. A statement from the Saudi Ministry of the Interior posted on Al-Farhan's blog states that Al-Farhan was detained "to investigate (with him) the violation of regulations not related to state security." Since his arrest, friends have continued posting entries on the blog and put up "Free Fouad" banners in Arabic and English. Also posted on the site is a letter that Al-Farhan put up days before his arrest (typos in the original):

I was told that there is an official order from a high-ranking official in the Ministry of the Interior to investigate me. They will pick me up anytime in the next 2 weeks.
The issue that caused all of this is because I wrote about the political prisoners here in Saudi Arabia and they think I’m running a online campaign promoting their issue. All what I did is wrote some pieces and put side banners and asked other bloggers to do the same.
he asked me to comply with him and sign an apology. I’m not sure if I’m ready to do that. An apology for what? Apologizing because I said the government is liar when they accused those guys to be supporting terrorism?

To expect the worst which is to be jailed for 3 days till we write good feedback about you and let u go.

there may be no jial and only apologizing letter. But, if it’s more than three days, it should be out. I don’t want to be forgotten in jail.

One hopes that the international media attention will help Al-Farhan's cause.

In related news, on December 26 Egyptian authorities detained blogger Musa'ad Suleiman Hassan, aka Musa'ad Abu Fagr. Musa'ad's blog,"Widna Ne'eesh" (We Want to Live) deals with political and social issues in the Sinai Peninsula, which has seen several terrorist attacks (and the associated government crackdowns) in recent years. The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information issued a statement calling for Musa'ad's release. (Thanks to 3arabawy for the tip.)

YouTube Suspends Account of Prominent Egyptian Blogger and Anti-Torture Activist

Sam Bayard — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:10:26 -0500

I've blogged before about Wael Abbas, an Egyptian blogger and political activist who has gained renown by, among other things, posting videos on YouTube revealing brutal scenes of torture from inside Egypt's police stations. According to Reuters Africa, YouTube has recently suspended Abbas's account due to complaints about the content of his postings:

Wael Abbas said close to 100 images he had sent to YouTube were no longer accessible, including clips depicting purported police brutality, voting irregularities and anti-government demonstrations. YouTube, owned by search engine giant Google Inc., did not respond to a written request for comment. A message on Abbas's YouTube user page, http://youtube.com/user/waelabbas, read: "This account is suspended."
"They closed it (the account) and they sent me an e-mail saying that it will be suspended because there were lots of complaints about the content, especially the content of torture," Abbas told Reuters in a telephone interview. Abbas, who won an international journalism award for his work this year, said that of the images he had posted to YouTube, 12 or 13 depicted violence in Egyptian police stations.

Elijah Zarwan, a human rights activist and blogger living in Egypt (and a personal friend), told Reuters that he found it unlikely that YouTube had come under official Egyptian pressure, and was more likely reacting to the graphic nature of the videos.

I wonder if the people making account-suspension decisions at YouTube realize that they're blocking an important distribution channel for some of the most important journalistic work to come out of Egypt in years. It would be a shame if this is happening because of some squeamish and/or paternalistic YouTube users who can't be content to simply turn their own eyes away. Then again, that's slightly less disturbing than YouTube caving in to Egyptian government pressure. I'll keep my eyes on this one.

Citizen Media Law Podcast #3: News Media Clampdown in Pakistan; Sam Bayard Interview on Internet Solutions v. Marshall

Citizen Media Law Podcast — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:48:40 -0500

This week, David Ardia talks about threats to the Internet in Pakistan and Colin Rhinesmith speaks with Sam Bayard about a recent entry in our new legal threats database.

Download the MP3 (time: 7:30)

Music used in this podcast was sampled and remixed from a track titled "Jazz House" by the Wicked Allstars, available on Magnatune.

To subscribe to the Citizen Media Law Podcast, visit our Subscriptions page or go directly to the podcast feed.

Opposition News Sites Blocked in Kazakhstan

David Ardia — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:15:15 -0400

The OpenNet Initiative is reporting that four opposition news sites in Kazakhstan have been recently blocked, including www.kub.kz, www.zonakz.net, www.geo.kz, and www.inkar.info. The oil-rich Central Asian country has been facing increasing criticism for cracking down on independent and opposition media.

According to the OpenNet Initiative:

It has been conjectured that the possible motive for the blocking is that the sites posted transcripts of telephone conversations of high-ranking Kazakh officials related to the Aliev’s case. Rakhat Aliyev is the former son-in-law of the Kazakh president, Nursultan Nazarbaev. Formerly a close member of Nazarbayev’s inner circle and senior official, Mr. Aliev is now sought by Kazakh police on kidnapping and illegal financial activities charges. Allegedly, someone related to Mr. Aliev posted the information in the sites’ chat rooms to tarnish the image of the Kazakh president and his administration. Shortly after the posting the four Web sites were shut down. The Kazakh government has denied any involvement in the blocking.

You can follow the unfolding situation in Kazakhstan on the OpenNet Initiative's blog.

(Note: the Citizen Media Law Project and the OpenNet Initiative are both projects of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society.)

ONI Releases Bulletin on Internet Shutdown in Burma

Sam Bayard — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:52:00 -0400

Yesterday, the OpenNet Initiative released an excellent report on the recent Internet shutdown in Burma, entitled "Pulling the Plug: A Technical Review of the Internet Shutdown in Burma." Besides the eye-popping technical analysis ONI was able to carry out in a matter of weeks, the report contains a great overview of the dramatic events of late September and early October 2007, including the role that citizen journalists and bloggers played in getting information about the crackdown out to the international community. As for the government's response, the report explains that the government imposed a total Internet outage from September 29 to October 4, followed by a period of regulated outages all day except during the period between 22:00 and 4:00 (Burmese time) from October 4 through October 12. Wow.

The authors of the report put the Internet shutdown into historical/technological perspective and nicely capture the causal relationship between increased citizen journalist activity and this drastic move:

One of the mainstays of the Burmese government's strategy for restricting information flows in Burma had been Internet filtering, which prevented access to information offered up outside the country. Websites and blogs are easily blocked as they tend to occupy a distinct, persistent location on the Internet. In this case, however, the junta attempted to sever the bi-directional flow of information so that the picture of reality for people on both sides of the Burmese border would remain distorted. As a result, the targets for censorship expanded exponentially from Web sites that are critical of the junta to any individual with a camera or cell phone and direct or indirect access to the Internet. Moreover, the raw footage coming out of Burma provided a striking narrative of the unfolding events, including some 'unforgivable and unforgettable photos,' from views of cheering protesters and protective human chains to the fatal shooting of a Japanese journalist caught on film. This was citizen media in its simplest form, utilizing the cheap sensors and network that have helped to spawn the information revolution without the need for additional editorial input or elaborate post-production work. This distributed form of reporting is, in practical terms, impossible to block completely, prompting the extreme measures taken by the Burmese regime.

Great stuff - but chilling too, to the extent that it gives a glimpse of how other repressive regimes might respond to the viral quality of citizen journalism in the future.

Reading the entire report is well worth your time.

(Note: The Open Net Initiative and the CMLP are both affiliated with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society.)

Bloggers Expose Torture in Egypt

Sam Bayard — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:22:12 -0400

The San Francisco Chronicle has an interesting article today about Egyptian bloggers posting cell phone videos to document endemic police torture in their country (thanks to 3arabawy for the tip). The most recent iteration of this phenomenon is a clip of a thirteen-year-old boy from Mansoura who died from injuries inflicted in police custody after he was arrested for stealing a few bags of tea a week earlier:

The explicit 13-minute clip is the latest of some dozen amateur videos - mostly from cell phone cameras - that have surfaced on blogs within the past year, showing systematic torture in Egyptian police stations. The videos have thrust a once rarely mentioned subject onto the front pages of Cairo newspapers.
Some activists hope the incriminating videos will spur a wave of reforms within the justice system.

"Activists that have worked to end torture have told me: 'You've done more in a few days what we were not able to do in 10 years,'" said Wael Abbas, a 32-year-old Egyptian blogger, who recently received the 2007 Knight International Journalism Award by the International Center for Journalists in Washington for posting police torture videos on his Web site.

It's encouraging to see the continued influence of bloggers on the mainstream press in Egypt, but it's been rough couple of month for journalists and activists of every stripe. If you're interested, the Christian Science Monitor has some informative reports on the recent crackdown (here and here).