Category Archives: Free Speech

from the thanks-I-hate-it dept

Whatever ills there are in the world, the French government is pretty sure American tech companies should solve them. Or, at the very least, agree to be punished for failing to prevent the unpreventable.

Having decided Google should pay French newspapers for sending them traffic, the French government is finally enacting its long-threatened "hate speech" law -- one that took all the bad/backfiring ideas from Germany's hate speech legislation, reformatting it slightly for French sensibilities.

Officials claimed it was more difficult to remove anti-Semitic speech than it was to remove pirated content, which must have come as a surprise to several incumbent industries. The law falls into one of those "we'll know it when we see it" gray areas that tech companies will be forced to police. Facebook has already helpfully offered to forward user info to French authorities to ensure no online stupidity goes unpunished. And special interest groups have already offered their input, asking the government to treat things like the online disparagement of agriculture and livestock breeding as a criminal act.

The law is now in place, reports Politico.

After months of debate, the lower house of Parliament adopted the controversial legislation, which will require platforms such as Google, Twitter and Facebook to remove flagged hateful content within 24 hours and flagged terrorist propaganda within one hour. Failure to do so could result in fines of up to 1.25 million.

The law, which echoes similar rules already in place in Germany, piles more pressure on Silicon Valley firms to police millions of daily posts in Europe's two most populous countries.

Apparently this legislation has been at the top of the French government's to-do list for a couple of years now. Politico points out it's the first non-Covid-related legislation to have come up for a vote since the middle of March. Supposedly the French public demanded action, albeit indirectly.

"During the lockdown, hate speech online has increased ... We can no longer rely on the platforms' goodwill..." Junior Digital Affairs Minister Cdric O told the National Assembly ahead of the vote.

Having more people online more often is going to increase anything, not just "hate speech" the French government believes it can regulate into nonexistence. The bill's passage also comes front-loaded with irony. MP Laetitia Avia, one of the sponsors of the law, has been accused of making racist, homophobic, and sexist comments to her assistants.

The law has received plenty of criticism on its way to a vote, but nothing seems to have stopped its momentum -- not even the EU Commission's assertion that France's hate speech law is not compliant with EU law.

What's next for platforms is more of the impossible: moderation at scale targeting speech that isn't easy to target. Expect collateral damage, starting with satire and moving on to those who attempt to highlight hateful speech by others, only to find themselves censored and/or prosecuted for pointing out the bigotry of others.

This hate speech law has been cobbled onto existing anti-terrorism laws, turning law enforcement into the final arbiters of perceived offenses. Any notions of due process have been eliminated, streamlining the consolidation of power to a single branch of the government. This is digital rights group NGO La Quadrature's assessment of the law.

The separation of powers is entirely ruled out : it is the police who decide the criteria for censoring a site (in law, the concept of "terrorism" is broad enough to give it wide discretion, for example against demonstrators ); the police decide whether a site should be censored; it is the police who execute the sanction against the site. The judge is completely absent from the entire chain that leads to site censorship.

At the very least, the law is a handy way for the French government to insert itself into the moderation efforts of companies located halfway around the world. Setting up impossible mandates guarantees failure by those affected by them. And it's not just going to make companies like Facebook and Google reconsider their offerings in other countries. It's going to prevent new platforms and services from entering the market, since they'll be asked to do the impossible the moment they start hosting content created by French users. Meanwhile, French citizens are being asked to fund the diminishing of their own free speech rights -- all under the guise of stopping hate and terrorism. All the while, regulators can sit back on watch the tech company-targeting money printer go brrrrr.

Filed Under: censorship, content moderation, france, free speech, hate speech, law enforcement, takedownsCompanies: facebook, google

Read the original here:
French Government Passes Hate Speech Law, Will Allow Law Enforcement To Run The Internet - Techdirt

Update (April 23rd): The tv premiere was a great success! If you missed it, the film will be re-broadcast several more times (through May 7th) on Free Speech TV (all times in Eastern Daylight Time):

Free Speech TV can be watched on DISH channel 9415, DIRECTV channel 348, and by streaming on Roku, Apple TV, Sling TV, and at freespeech.org)

Were proud to announce that our award-winning micro-budget film, The Response: How Puerto Ricans are Restoring Power to the People, will be premiering nationally in the United States this Wednesday, April 22 (4:00pm PT / 7:00pm ET)!

On the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day, Shareable and Free Speech TV (FSTV) will host a special online simulcast of the film which will immediately be followed by a panel discussion about community-led disaster response, collective resilience, and mutual aid.

Register for this free event to secure your spot at the screening and panel discussion.

The 30-minute film explores how, in the wake of Hurricane Maria, a quiet revolution percolated on the island of Puerto Rico. What began as an impromptu community kitchen meant to help feed survivors in the town of Caguas quickly grew into an island-wide network of mutual aid centers (Centros de Apoyo Mutuo) with the ultimate goal to restore power both electric and civic to the people.

The panel after the film will be hosted by producer Tom Llewellyn (Shareable) and feature Susan Silber (NorCal Resilience Network), Tr Vasquez (Movement Generation), Juan C. Dvila (The Response film director), and Christine Nieves (co-founder of Proyecto Apoyo Mutuo Mariana).

The special will air on Free Speech TV (DISH 9415, DIRECTV 348, and stream on Roku, Apple TV, Sling TV, and at freespeech.org).

More information can be found on the FB event page and at shareable.net/the-response-film.

Please feel free to contact theresponse@shareable.net with any questions.

Here is the original post:
The Response film will air on Free Speech TV through May 7th - Shareable

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced both individuals and companies to adopt new practices and new technologies quicklysometimes creating serious risks to our civil liberties. Join EFF for a livestreamed video discussionabout what we've learned as online platform moderation becomes more automated, with platforms like Facebook flagging and censoring morecontentthan ever before.Following that discussion will be a conversation aboutprivacy, apps, and digital rights, and how to protect yourselfasyou adopt new technologies like Zoom, and as companies like Google and Apple create new apps and products intended tofight the pandemic.

We're excited to be joined byJeff Deutchof Syrian Archive and Mahsa Alimardani of Article 19 for a discussion ofcontent moderation, moderated by EFF's Director for International Freedom of Expression, Jillian C. York. EFF Legal Director, Corynne McSherry, will also join. Then, Legislative ActivistHayley Tsukayamawill moderate a panel on the pandemic, apps, and privacy, with EFF Staff Technologist Bennett Cyphers, Project Manager Lindsay Oliver, and Grassroots Advocacy Organizer Rory Mir.

Register Here

Have questions now? Sendthem to jason@eff.org.

This event will be livestreamed viaTwitch, where you can chat and ask questions. It will also be streaming onFacebook LiveandYouTube Live. (ForTwitch'sPrivacy Policy, see here.)

A recordingwill be made available.

EventTime:Wednesday, April 22, 12:00PM Pacific / 3:00 PM Eastern (check your local time here)

Social media has never been more crucial than it is right now: its keeping us informed and connected during an unprecedented moment in time. At the same time, the content moderation challenges faced by social media platforms have not disappearedand in some cases have been exacerbated by the pandemic. In the past weeks, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook have all made public statements about their moderation strategies at this time. While they differ in details, they all have one key element in common: the increased reliance on automated tools. Learn how this pandemic has changed our ability toshare information with one another nowandpossibly,forever.

EFF's Corynne McSherry and Jillian C. York will be joined by Mahsa Alimardani, a freedom of expression researcher at Article 19 who is also working on her PhD at the Oxford Internet Institute; and Jeff Deutch, the lead researcher at Syrian Archive and a PhD candidate at the Humboldt-University in Berlin.

Pianist MC Angebot will join us for a few songs during our break.

Zoom might've received the most attention in the last few weeks, but plenty of new apps and tools that are being implemented during the pandemicoften without much oversightare cause for concern. What could the "proximity tracing" that companies like Apple and Googlehave been talking about mean for our civil liberties? When it comes to working from home, what privacyshould remote workers expect? And, due to many reports EFF has received about the use of privacy-invasiveproctoring tools for students shifting to remote learning and testing, we'll be discussing the various ways that these sorts of apps often burrow themselves into user's machines.

EFF Legislative ActivistHayley Tsukayama will be joined by EFF Staff Technologist Bennett Cyphers, Project Manager Lindsay Oliver, and Grassroots Advocacy Organizer Rory Mir.

Read more here:
At Home With EFF: COVID-19, Free Speech, and Privacy - EFF

Sonali Kolhatkar speaks with Bradford R. Kane.

Even as a large majority of the American public supports the coronavirus-related lockdowns of their states, small but vocal groups of protesters, egged on by some city and state level leaders, and most of all provoked by President Trump are calling on governors to liberate them from quarantine. They say their liberty is more important than anything including life itself.

Now, a long-time government insider has written a book about what he called Pitchfork Populism and attempted to analyze how American democracy has dramatically changed since the fall of 2016.

Bradford R. Kane, has served in the US Congress as Legislative Counsel to Congresswoman Cardiss Collins; as Counsel to the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection; and as a member of President Clintons Task Force on Health Care Reform. He also worked for the state of California as Deputy Controller, Legislation, and then as a Deputy Secretary of Information Technology. His latest book is called Pitchfork Populism: Ten Political Forces That Shaped an Election and Continue to Change America.

Rising Up with Sonali is a radio and television show that brings progressive news coverage rooted in gender and racial justice to a wide audience.

Rising Up With Sonali was built on the foundation of Sonali Kolhatkar's earlier show, Uprising, which became the longest-running drive-time radio show on KPFK in Los Angeles hosted by a woman.

RUS airs on Free Speech TV every weekday.

Missed an episode? Check out Rising Up on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org.

Bradford R. Kane Election Free Speech TV GOP Political Politics Republican Party Rising Up with Sonali Sonali Kolhatkar United States

See original here:
Rising Up With Sonali Ten Political Forces That Shaped an Election Ten Political Forces That Shaped - Free Speech TV

Olly Mann and The Week delve behind the headlines and debate what really matters from the past seven days.

In this weeks episode, we discuss:

BBC Twos The Restaurant that Burns Calories was met with backlash after being accused of triggering people with eating disorders. But do the public health concerns over obesity justify it being aired? Are Brits particularly guilty of overeating? And are eating disorders being taken seriously enough?

The UK had slipped two places to number 35 on the annual press freedom index, below countries including Costa Rica, Ghana and South Africa. What's the reason for the fall? Does the UK value a free press? And how will the coronavirus crisis affect journalists and media groups around the world?

One of America's biggest investment banks has just said that it expects the gold price to soar to $3,000 an ounce in the next 18 months,which would be more than 50% above gold's previous all-time high. Isthat reasonable? What would have to happen to drive the price that high? And what's the point of gold anyway?

You can subscribe to The Week Unwrapped on theGlobal Player,Apple podcasts,SoundCloudor wherever you get you get your podcasts.

Link:
The Week Unwrapped: Food, free speech and gold - The Week (UK)

Take Back the App! We need platform co-ops now more than ever. If the 19th and 20th centuries were about storming the factory and taking back the means of production, then the 21st century is about storming the online platforms like Facebook, Google, and Amazon, and the apps that increasingly control our economy and our lives. Increasingly, were living online, controlled, and manipulated by secretive, for-profit companies, but there are alternatives. This week, Laura talks with coders, activists, and tech entrepreneurs who are at the forefront of the platform cooperative movement. If we take the cooperative route, they argue that tomorrows online world could distribute rather than concentrate powerbut will we? Recorded before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, this conversation about the companies that mediate our lives is more relevant now than ever.

The Laura Flanders Show leads the field in new economy media, reporting on the social critics, artists, activists, and entrepreneurs who are building tomorrows world today. While mainstream media looks for ways the world is falling apart, The LF Show brings us stories that will piece it back together better.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku and online at freespeech.org

#coinsence #commons #criticalmaking #digital #digitaldivide #openscience #opensource #P2P #platformcoop #weneedcommons Amazon App development Cooperative Coronavirus Coronavirus epidemic COVID-19 Facebook Free Speech TV FSTV Google Laura Flanders tech The Laura Flanders Show

Read more:
Take Back the App! - Free Speech TV

Shams Ghoneim Published 8:35 a.m. CT April 23, 2020

Shams Ghoneim(Photo: Special to the Press-Citizen)

The reported Islamophobic, homophobic, uglyand appalling online comments by Muscatine County jail administrator Dean Naylor must be condemned and promptly addressed by both Johnson and Muscatine counties' leaderships, including city councils and mayors.

The Johnson County sheriff has had a 10- to 12-year contract with Muscatine County, allowing him to send overflow inmates to relieve overcrowding in our jails. These inmates are as yet to be charged and/or are awaiting trial.

Maybe it is time that this agreement is evaluated or ended in view of this latest serious incident.Free speech is protected under the Constitution, but federal lawand the U.S. and Iowa constitutions protect against discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, age, race, national originand disability.

According to news reports, inmates in Muscatine jails have been complaining of discriminatory treatment. The ACLU of Iowaclarified the position regarding free speech as long as that speechdoes not lead to discriminatory action by a government employee/entity. Nevertheless, when an employee hateful speech results in creating a hostile work environment causing disruption or discrimination at the workplace, that protection becomes null. Such speech can also be used as evidence against the individuals if and when it is related to civil rights claim or other legal action taken. This would be the case when personal beliefs spill into the management of the jail and negatively affects both staff and inmates.

The Johnson County Board of Supervisors and leadership are commended for their prompt response to this reprehensible behavior by a government employee of a partner Iowa county. This incident should be a warning to anyone that may be engaged in civil rights violations that can readily lead to a class action suit be brought against any government official involving discrimination of protected communities as identified by law.

Even though currently there are no policies in either county to respond to such allegations,I urge both Johnson and Muscatine county officials to formally establish future guidelines to address such hateful and potentially illegal speech.

We cannot allow government employees paid by our own tax dollars to freely engage in hateful speech leading to discriminatory behavior against protected minorities.

Shams Ghoneimwas born and raised in Cairo, Egypt, immigratedformallyto the U.S. from Canada in 1967 and has lived in Iowa City for 52 years. She graduated from the University of Iowas graduate college, was on the universitys professional scientific staff for 32 years and has served on the Press-Citizens Editorial Board since retiring in 2008.

Read or Share this story: https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/2020/04/23/shams-ghoneim-there-no-place-hate-speech-iowa/5152221002/

Here is the original post:
There is no place for hate speech in Iowa - Iowa City Press-Citizen

The recent election in Wisconsin was unusual in many ways, with voters forced to choose between protecting their health and exercising their rights. But in more than a dozen communities across the state, something that has become increasingly routine took place as voters endorsed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics.

Seventeen communities voted on April 7, by overwhelming margins, in favor of resolutions supporting a constitutional amendment stating that only human beingsnot corporationshave constitutional rights and that money is not a form of speech and, therefore, limits on political contributions do not violate the First Amendment.

Such an amendment would essentially overturn past Supreme Court rulings that found campaign finance regulations to be unconstitutional and ensure that the federal government and states can enforce limits on money in politics.

The 17 communities, which all backed the resolutions by 77% or more, are just the latest of the 163 total Wisconsin communities that have endorsed a constitutional amendment.

People are getting it more and more that this is needed, both conservatives and liberals.

The effort has been led by Wisconsin United to Amend, a volunteer-led operation that started organizing around money-in-politics reforms shortly after the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision.

In the Citizens United ruling, the court determined that limitations on election-related expenditures by groups that are independent from candidates and political parties violated the groups free speech rights, empowering corporations, unions, nonprofits, and wealthy individuals, to spend unlimited amounts of money on political contests. Since the ruling, outside groups have spent at least $4.5 billion on federal races, often dwarfing the amounts controlled by candidates and political parties.

According to Wisconsin United to Amend organizer George Penn, the constitutional amendment has only become more popular in the state since his group has been active.

We started out in 2013 at about 73% and every year it has gone up. People are getting it more and more that this is needed, both conservatives and liberals, Penn said. The average yes vote increased from 80% to 81% across the state because we had a record 85% yes vote for the 17 referendums.

Every community that has voted on the constitutional amendment in Wisconsin so far has passed it, Penn told Sludge.

Wisconsin United to Amend works with other groups in the state to find leaders in communities who can push the resolutions onto their local ballot.

When we find a champion and we start working with them, we have handbooks on our site that give them all of the details, all of the processes, and all of the forms they need, so we make it easy for them, Penn explained. They go to events like farmers markets, county fairs, and anything else they can find to try to get what little they can from local media. They look into what they find most effective, and we just support them with language and whatever they ask us for.

Sludge is reader-supported and ad-free. If you appreciate our independent journalism, Become a member today.

Article V of the Constitution describes two ways for the Constitution to be amended: an amendment can be referred to the states for ratification by being passed by two-thirds majority of both chambers of Congress, or Congress can be called to hold a constitutional convention by petitions being passed by two-thirds of state legislatures.

While groups like Wisconsin United to Amend make progress at the state levelto date, 20 state legislatures have called for a constitutional amendment, as have over 820 towns, villages, cities and countiesothers are working primarily at the national level.

Move to Amend, a California-based nonprofit that says it is committed to social and economic justice, ending corporate rule, and building a vibrant democracy, is one of the most prominent pro-amendment groups working to bring members of Congress on board.

We have used the local resolutions as a pressure tactic, but generally in most states folks have moved directly to pressure of House members, said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, the national director of Move to Amend.

Currently, a resolution introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) that calls for a constitutional amendment to address corporate personhood and the regulation of campaign finance has 72 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

Another amendment proposed by Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) has amassed 220 co-sponsors, including one Republican. While Jayapals amendment declares the constitution applies only to natural persons and says that governments shall regulate campaign finance, Deutchs resolution says that Congress and the states may distinguish between natural persons and corporations and may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates.

A version of Deutchs amendment has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Tom Udall (D-Minn.) and currently has 7 co-sponsors.

The Deutch amendment resolution was introduced with support from multiple prominent good government groups, including Public Citizen, Common Cause, and People for the American Way.

Sopoci-Belknap told Sludge that Move to Amend had identified a lead to introduce the We the People Amendment in the Senate but [was] working on a group to co-lead introduction right before the pandemic hit.

Any version of the amendment still has a long way to go before being enacted. While House Democrats voted unanimously for H.R. 1, a sweeping campaign finance bill that includes and expression of support for a constitutional amendment, Republicans have shown very little interest in the issue, besides Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.) who co-sponsored the Deutch resolution.

Sign up to get our next investigations over email:

Joe Biden, the likely Democratic nominee for president, states on his website that he would introduce a constitutional amendment to entirely eliminate private dollars from our federal elections. Bidens candidacy has been backed by multiple super PACsa type of political committee formed after the Citizens United ruling that can raise and spend unlimited sumsand his campaign recently endorsed one of the PACs, saying in a statement to reporters that it is an organization of proven effectiveness and the work they are doing to elect Joe Biden and defeat Donald Trump is absolutely critical.

While national politicians like Biden send signals and attend bundler-hosted fundraisers, local organizers are continuing their work to build a movement.

It is our premise that we need to build a bona fide movement for this, like suffrage and civil rights. They are too powerful, its going to take a movement, Penn said. This is not a Wisconsin movement, it is a national movement, or it is no movement at all.

Read more Democracy coverage from Sludge:

Dark Money Pours Into Wisconsin Supreme Court Race

Slammed by Trump, Vote-by-Mail Gathers Momentum In States During Pandemic

Seeking Signatures, Ballot Campaigns Face Social Distancing Challenges

ALEC Launches Effort to Protect Gerrymandering from Judges

Opposition to South Dakota Amendment to Regulate Lobbyists Funded by Lobbyists

Every day, the reporters at Sludge are relentlessly following the money to reveal the hidden networks and conflicts of interest that drive political corruption. We are 100% ad-free and reader supported, so were counting on our readers to help us continue calling out powerful politicians and lobbyists. If you appreciate the work we do, please consider becoming a member for $5 a month to support our investigative journalism. We cant do this work without your support.

See the original post:
Campaign to Overturn Citizens United Keeps Racking Up Wins - Sludge

The American Booksellers for Free Expression (ABFE) joined with 30 free speech groups, led by the National Coalition Against Censorship, in condemning an April 14 tweet posted by the Raleigh, North Carolina, police department that declared: Protesting is a non-essential activity.

As organizations dedicated to protecting civil liberties and the First Amendment, the undersigned groups are deeply disturbed by this statement and other remarks and actions by public officials suggesting that peaceful protest can be outlawed during a national crisis, the groups wrote in a public statement. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic cannot be used to justify the suspension of First Amendment rights. People must be free to express disagreement with government decisions, even when it involves criticism of essential public health measures.

Dissent and protest are protected by the First Amendment, the groups stressed, noting that these rights are fundamental to the nations democracy. They cannot be sacrificed even, and perhaps particularly, in times of public emergency, they wrote.

David Grogan, director of the American Booksellers for Free Expression, said that its imperative to be vigilant about free expression during times when people are fearful for their health and safety. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, our worries over a future possible attack helped to pave the way for the Patriot Act, Grogan said. Despite ABFEs and many other groups concerns that the law violated our civil liberties, we were assured that the Patriot Act was just a temporary measure. But the Patriot Act was anything but temporary. Today, we are in a similar crisis. And while our health and safety are critical during and after the current pandemic, we must not allow our concerns to justify federal or state government actions that strip us of our constitutional rights.

Read the groups letter in full below.

THE RIGHT TO PROTEST DURING THE PANDEMIC

Dissent and protest are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees freedoms of speech, assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These rights are fundamental to our democracy. They cannot be sacrificed even, and perhaps particularly, in times of public emergency.

On April 14, 2020, the police department in Raleigh, North Carolina, tweeted, Protesting is a non-essential activity, as an explanation for breaking up a protest. As organizations dedicated to protecting civil liberties and the First Amendment, the undersigned groups are deeply disturbed by this statement and other remarks and actions by public officials suggesting that peaceful protest can be outlawed during a national crisis. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic cannot be used to justify the suspension of First Amendment rights. People must be free to express disagreement with government decisions, even when it involves criticism of essential public health measures.

Upholding First Amendment rights need not be at odds with the governments authority and obligation to protect public health and safety. The emergency decrees that call for social distancing, wearing of face covers or masks, and limits on the size of public assemblies can regulate the manner in which protests occur. However, regulations should be narrowly tailored to what is necessary to protect public health and cannot be so broad that they ban protest completely or so poorly drafted that they restrict peaceful demonstrations.

Most protesters have been exercising their constitutional rights without threatening the health of their fellow citizens: wearing masks and standing six-feet apart outside hospitals and other places of business to protest inadequate safety precautions; participating in car demonstrations in Arizona, California and Michigan, and launching digital campaigns.

Public officials in Ohio and Michigan have included explicit protections for First Amendment rights in their emergency decrees. Some states have also acknowledged information-gathering and reporting as essential services.

We urge all public officials to recognize their obligation to defend First Amendment rights while they protect public safety. These rights are critically important during uncertain times like these.

Co-signed:

National Coalition Against CensorshipAmerican Booksellers for Free ExpressionAmericans for Prosperity FoundationAssociation of American PublishersThe Authors GuildThe Buckeye InstituteCaesar Rodney InstituteThe Center for Media and DemocracyCivil Liberties Defense CenterCoalition for Policy ReformThe DKT Liberty ProjectDefending Rights & DissentFirst Amendment Lawyers AssociationFirstAmendment.comFree PressFree Speech CoalitionFreedom ForumFreedom Foundation of MinnesotaFreedom to Read FoundationIdaho Freedom FoundationInstitute for Free SpeechKurt Vonnegut Museum and LibraryMackinac Center for Public PolicyMississippi Center for Public PolicyPEN AmericaPEN America Childrens and Young Adult Books CommitteeRestore the Fourth, Inc.United for MissouriWoodhull Freedom FoundationDavid A. Schulz, Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School (institution listed for identification purposes only)

Read this article:
ABFE Responds to Raleigh Police Tweet That Protest Is Non-Essential Activity - BTW

While dissent is nipped in the bud instantly, hate speech flows with impunity. Just a year after the Easter bombings, the highly organised anti-Muslim discourse-generating machine is once again propagating a familiar tale in which Muslim communities are constructed as the enemy Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

By Ramya Kumar

In responding to epidemics, states are compelled to resort to restrictive measures to contain the spread of infection, including quarantine and isolation procedures, travel bans, lockdowns, and curfews. With such restrictions on movement, draconian measures are often swiftly implemented as a subdued citizenry remains compliant, in support of national efforts to combat an unknown enemy. In Sri Lanka, we are seeing strict censorship alongside the fast and furious implementation of policies and measures that would otherwise have faced widespread protest and dissension.

Restrictions on free speech are detrimental to public health efforts. Dr. Li Wenliang, the whistleblower who succumbed to coronavirus in February, is now deemed a martyr in China for having alerted colleagues about the novel coronavirus through social media. Instead of responding appropriately to contain the spread of the virus, Chinese authorities interrogated the doctor on the grounds of spreading fake news and silenced him, in effect, delaying its response to the epidemic. Similarly, a number of healthcare workers in the United States have been fired after speaking out about their risky work conditions.

In Sri Lanka, there seems to be substantial self-censorship within the Ministry of Healths COVID-19 control program. Apart from the numbers reported by the Epidemiology Unit, we do not know on what basis decisions are being made to quarantine communities, or to extend (and lift) curfews. We do not know who is involved in making these decisions. There are concerns that the military is overriding the Ministry of Healths authority in such matters. This lack of information is enabling the spread of wild rumours, including allegations of falsified COVID-19 statistics. In this context, it may be useful to consider the World Health Organizations recommendation for a national COVID-19 risk communication strategy:

Proactively communicate and promote a two-way dialogue with communities, the public and other stakeholders in order to understand risk perceptions, behaviours and existing barriers, specific needs, knowledge gaps and provide the identified communities/groups with accurate information tailored to their circumstances. People have the right to be informed about and understand the health risks that they and their loved ones face. They also have the right to actively participate in the response process. Dialogue must be established with affected populations from the beginning. Make sure that this happens through diverse channels, at all levels and throughout the response.

Has there been two-way dialogue? Have communities been involved in this process? Unfortunately, no. Furthermore, there has been very little critical analysis of the COVID-19 response in Sri Lanka. We only hear of the glowing and well-deserved tributes to frontline healthcare workers and others involved in control efforts. There has been little engagement with communities affected by the crisis. In fact, we do not even have the space to question our pandemic control strategynow a matter of national pride.

Last week in Jaffna, we heard that 12 new cases of COVID-19 had been detected at quarantine centres. As Dr. Murali Vallipuranathan, Consultant Community Physician, reasonably opined, these cases may have been new cases that emerged after an extended incubation period or the result of cross-infection at quarantine centres.

When Dr. Vallipuranathan posted his comments on social media, the authorities could either have responded with facts to counter his theory, or, alternatively, taken speedy action to investigate and remedy the situation. Instead, Dr. Vallipuranathan was vilified for questioning the COVID-19 control program. In a letter dated 17 April, the Government Medical Officers Association (GMOA), which is supposed to be a trade union fighting for the rights of doctors, complained to the Director General of Health Services that Dr. Vallipuranathan who has a controversial and racist previous history expressed views detrimental to the Health Department and Sri Lanka Army.

To make matters worse, earlier in April, the IGP instructed the Police to take strict action against those who criticise Government officials engaged in COVID-19 control. A number of arrests were subsequently reported in the media over the spread of so-called fake news. While the details of these seemingly arbitrary arrests are not known, we should be very concerned when even a mere questioning of the countrys COVID-19 control strategy is viewed to be unpatriotic. While dissent is nipped in the bud instantly, hate speech flows with impunity. Just a year after the Easter bombings, the highly organised anti-Muslim discourse-generating machine is once again propagating a familiar tale in which Muslim communities are constructed as the enemy. We are being told that Muslims are conspiring to transmit infection; they deserve en masse quarantine in (unsafe?) centres; and that it is acceptable to enforce cremation in lieu of burial. Even the medical profession is complicit here as evidenced in an earlier version of the GMOAs proposals for a COVID-19 exit strategy, which shockingly included the size of the Muslim population in a DS division as a variable for risk stratification.

Earlier in April, the Ministry of Health helpfully issued guidelines for media reporting, stipulating that personal details of patients with COVID-19, including their ethnicity, should not be reported. They called for reporting that builds solidarity in this time of crisis. In this context, the adoption of compulsory cremation as Government policycontrary to WHO guidelinesseems to demonstrate a double standard, particularly when we see mass burials taking place in other countries ravaged by the pandemic.

Moreover, the Ministry of Health has failed to issue statements to counter insinuations made by the media, as well as some political leaders, that have served to stigmatise Muslim communities as disease-laden, insular groups who are unwilling to follow public health measures. It is hardly surprising then that sections of these communities may be wary of interacting with the public healthcare system.

Even as dissent is repressed, and hate speech is nurtured, the Government is acting fast, facing little or no resistance. We saw the appointment of numerous military officials to key positions in the pandemic control program that should rightfully be occupied by civil administrative officials. Such militarisation has resulted in an autocratic style of governance with very little information sharing. For instance, we have not been informed on what basis the decision was made to partially lift the curfew on 20 April. Neither do we know who was involved in the decision-making process. It is hardly surprising then that many have arrived at the conclusion that Parliamentary Elections are being prioritised over public health.

This style of governance is also seeping into our institutions. As university teachers, we have received orders from the University Grants Commission (UGC) to commence online teaching as soon as possible. With no discussion of the merits of online teaching or the urgency for its implementation, we are adopting new pedagogical methods via Zoom and/or Moodle. Meanwhile, studentsincluding those from farming families experiencing dire financial difficulties in the Vanni and other areas (where network coverage may be weak)are expected to engage in learning activities through their smart phoneseveryone has a smartphone. The lack of foresight in decision-making is mindboggling, as is our silence.

With the curfew being partially lifted, this is a call to critically engage with the measures that are being swiftly implemented at this time of crisis. Lets demand that the citizenry be involved in processes of decision-making at all levels. Lets insist that public sector officials with the relevant expertise and experience are placed at the helm of this national pandemic control effort. And, finally, lets condemn the ongoing anti-Muslim attacks and resist ethno-chauvinist mobilisations in the run up to the elections.

(The writer is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, University of Jaffna, and is a member of the Public Health Writers Collective)

See original here:
Free speech, hate speech, and COVID-19: Why are we silent? - ft.lk