AIB trying hard about freedom of speech
This video was uploaded from an Android phone.

By: PRAJWAL JOSHI

See more here:

AIB trying hard about freedom of speech - Video

Microblogging platform Twitter, Inc. (TWTR) has gained a reputation for going to great lengths to preserve freedom of speech, at times leaving up accounts of hackers, trolls, and those sympathizing with violent terrorist movements. Now its cofounder and employees have found themselves the target of a death threat by supporters of the so-called"Islamic State" who were enraged at the American internet service firm's interference with their efforts to recruit new jihadis on social media.

I. Militant Microblogging

In 2014 Twitter struggled with the issue of the "Islamic State", better known as ISIS. The Sunni extremist militia, which controls territory in parts of Syria and Iraq, increasing took to posting execution photos and video on its news feeds to rally its supporters on Twitter. On the one hand ISIS's vocal presence on the site was damaging to Twitter's image. And ISIS supporters seemed in clear violation of the"Rules" subsection ofTwitter's Terms of Service (ToS), which ban:

According to ABC News, in the last week it has suspended 2,000+ user accounts who appeared to be active ISIS members or sympathizers with the movement. Also suspended were 13 out of 16 of the group's Twitter news feeds.

ISIS has leaned heavily on the social platform to connect with and radicalize both jihadis looking to travel to its territory the Middle East and those looking to carry out so-called "lone wolf" terrorist attacks overseas. The group has supporters in as many as 90 different countries who it communicates with via Twitter, according to intelligence experts.

II. ISIS Murder Threat Targets Twitter Founder and His Employees

Faced with losing a key recruitment tool some ISIS supporters decided to get more aggressive with Twitter. An Arabic language post to Pastebin like anonymous sharing site "JustPasteIt" carried a threatening tirade which lashed out at Twitter cofounder and chairman Jack Dorsey for the account crackdowns.

Alleged supporters of the terrorist group reportedly wrote:

Your virtual war on us will cause a real war on you. How will you protect your employees and supporters, helpless Jack, when their necks officially become a target for the soldiers of the Caliphate?

Read the original here:

ISIS Supporters Threaten "Charlie Hedbo style" Attack Against Twitter Employees

Blogger of the Year PETER RHODES on the unmasking of Jihadi John, freedom of speech on campuses and the rise of shower paranoia.

SO Jihadi John was a grand young lad until MI5 started harassing him. At that point he reacted as any young man would, by going to Syria and chopping people's heads off. Does anyone buy this narrative? Or is the truth that Mohammed Emwazi was, from his early years, as mad as a box of frogs?

I'D be interested to hear the views of his classmates at the age of about 14 when kids have an uncanny ability so spot contemporaries who are, as they charmingly put it, mental (or more commonly men'al, with a silent T). How many former pupils of Quintin Kynaston Academy have witnessed the unmasking of men'al Emwazi and muttered: Told you so.?

MEANWHILE, in the continuing war on terror, the Government wants to limit free speech on university campuses. So we aren't Charlie, after all?

ON the continuing theme of politicians robbing one generation to pay another, a reader says there are times in life when low interest rates are useful, and other times when higher rates and a dash of inflation are very helpful. The truly lucky ones, he declares, are those of us who managed to be first young, and then old, at just the right times.

AS good advice goes, the above item is about as helpful as the old tip on how best to avoid heart attacks: don't have parents who had heart attacks.

IT is not enough to be born of the blood royal. It is not enough to prove your valour as a rescue-helicopter pilot. It is not enough to marry a beautiful woman and produce heirs. In order to achieve full status as a prince of the British Monarchy you must also go to faraway places and wear a silly hat. Arise, William, the Samurai warrior.

I WROTE recently about the Conservative David Tredinnick who says astrology could have a role in health care. Tredinnick is an old Cornish name and I'm disappointed the MP doesn't mention the benefits of befriending a pisky, the Cornish equivalent of leprechauns. If you want extra luck, offer an incantation to the Queen of the Piskies, Joan the Wad. For all dental problems consult the Tooth Fairy.

A SURVEY on the nation's showering habits has generated an enormous, angst-ridden response, mostly from women journalists. No surprises there. Thousands of years of religion and culture have convinced women that they are sinful and unclean and generally in need of a good purification. As religion declined, the multi billion-dollar cosmetics industry took over with the relentless advertising message that women are not only sinful, unclean and impure but also wrinkly, hairy and yellow-toothed. No wonder that so many women have been driven to hygiene-paranoia. This survey, by a skin-care company, assumes that we should all shower at least once a day. Well, who says so? Was the human skin ever intended to be drenched in hot water and stripped of its oils every 24 hours? And once you assume a daily shower is essential, how easy it is to convince yourself that two or more showers a day are even better. It becomes a sort of mania. Show me someone who has three showers a day and I'll show you someone whose problem lies not in the armpits but between the ears.

MY own personal-hygiene arrangements are brisk and regular. Every three months Mrs Rhodes hoses me down in the back yard. Whether I need it or not.

See the original post here:

Not so Charlie now?

Updated: Tuesday, March 3, 2015, 13:16 [IST]

Washington, March 3: A bipartisan group of six US Congressmen has asked Secretary of State John Kerry to ensure that those behind the brutal murder of American-Bangladeshi blogger Avijit Roy is brought to justice.

"We must stand strong for freedom of speech and freedom of thought," said the letter signed by Congressmen Mike Honda, Ed Royce, Eliot Engel, Grace Meng, Steve Chabot and Ami Bera. Noting that the attacks around the world by religious fanatics against freedom of speech advocates was growing, they said the US cannot allow extremists to operate with impunity.

"The US Embassy and Department of State must remain engaged, and work with Bangladesh's government, to insist that Roy's killers are brought to justice, and to ensure that threats to other secularists, and writers in Bangladesh are taken seriously," the letter said.

"Were writing this letter to reiterate the United States commitment to combat extremism, stand strong for freedom of speech and freedom of thought, and seek justice under the rule of law," Honda said.

"The United States and Bangladesh must work together to protect the fundamental right to freedom of speech that Avijit Roy embodied. I urge the State Department and US Embassy to act swiftly to bring justice to those responsible for Roys murder," Bera said.

Roy, known for his critique of religious extremism, was hacked to death in the university area in Dhaka by machete- wielding assailants who attacked the writer as he was returning from the book fair with his wife on Thursday.

PTI

Read the rest here:

John Kerry asked to act on murder of Avijit Roy

Matt Evans 12:15 p.m. CST March 2, 2015

Matt Evans(Photo: Special to the Press-Citizen)

Freedom of speech, one of the most revered hallmarks of our democracy, is endangered on college campuses across the United States. Consider this small selection of cases, just from the past year:

A University of Tulsa student was suspended because of posts his partner made online that were critical of the university.

Peace activists at Western Michigan University were denied access to university spaces for an activism event.

Montclair State University students faced financial penalties after circulating pro-Palestine literature on campus.

And right here on the University of Iowa campus, students are required to seek official administrative approval before exercising their rights and freely expressing their ideas in an organized demonstration.

Last week, students gathered across the UI campus to speak out against these blatantly unconstitutional policies. This institution's policies are particularly troublesome because it is partially funded by taxpayers who expect their constitutional rights to be protected. Permit or not, other young citizens and I will take our message to students and the community to make clear we won't stand for free speech restrictions of any kind.

Thousands of UI students have been troubled this year by the restrictive climate manufactured by our university administrators, who tell us that our Bill of Rights is somehow at odds with respect and inclusiveness. We demand that our college administrators make a clear and vocal commitment to free speech rights.

Authorities, whether they be federal or university, shouldn't be in the position of deciding what's offensive. The First Amendment isn't designed to boost prevailing sentiment and the most popular ideas; it's meant to protect things that make us uncomfortable. Our state and federal rights do not end when we step foot on campus, and if we believe in the rule of law, we have to defend the First Amendment throughout our state institutions, college campuses included.

See the original post here:

Students stand up for free speech at UI

Rebel Ratepayer Raps 4 Freedom of Speech in City of Melton, Melbourne
What if the waste management department of your local council/municipality, told you, a retired senior in the community, not to call a dump site shop for rec...

By: Karen Ellis

Go here to see the original:

Rebel Ratepayer Raps 4 Freedom of Speech in City of Melton, Melbourne - Video

Dangerman - Freedom Of Speech
Rainbow Sounds RS 001 Darker Shade Of Black Jah Send Mi Come Michael Danger.

By: ElTchoTcho

Read more:

Dangerman - Freedom Of Speech - Video

The Death of Freedom of Speech on the Internet
French president Francois Hollande is now giving Internet service providers 24 hours to remove terrorist content. The law sets the same conditions as for chi...

By: UNRAVELING THE MATRIX

More here:

The Death of Freedom of Speech on the Internet - Video

Freedom of speech and expression is very important for a healthy, civilized society. Its how most technological and artistic innovation takes place. A healthy debate or discussion between members of a society is the most efficient way to solve problems. It is how the classical societies in Greece and Rome came up with the most influential pieces of literature that we still study today. Without this right, many ideas, beliefs and inventions would not exist, leaving the majority of the society living in ignorance.

It is considered a basic human right by the U.N. charter and is the basis of functioning democracies. In addition to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, many state constitutions and state and federal laws protect freedom of speech. One of the major reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union was the build-up of anger over years because ordinary citizens couldnt express themselves. Its a classic example of societal breakdown because dissenting opinions were suppressed.

However, I have noticed that people become increasingly agitated upon hearing opinions that they consider too dumb or too ignorant, and the discussion quickly descends to insults, comebacks, accusations, unfair comparisons and hyperbole.

This is especially true on the Internet. We have to understand that just because somebody has a differing opinion, that is not an indicator of their intelligence or a marker of how much respect they deserve.

Australian actor Leo McKern said, It is easy to believe in freedom of speech for those with whom we agree. It does not cast doubt over ones status or ability to serve as productive as a member of society. Rather, it shows their willingness to contribute to our society in the way they think best and that is commendable. Insulting someone for an opinion that they hold casts doubt over our faith in democracy and ability to tolerate other people and different opinions.

I love living in a society where people are allowed to express their opinions regardless of how politically incorrect they may be. Regardless of who you are, every human deserves a degree of respect. Disagreements do not necessarily have to result in disputes. We are bonded not by our faiths, our race or our political opinion, but by the air we breathe, the water we drink, the planet we all share and a common desire to better our lives and to secure a bright future. Every other difference is trivial and every other disagreement must be solved, for our future is tied to one other.

Here is the original post:

Freedom of speech means tolerating opposing viewpoints

The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted rules on internet governance to support net neutrality and the open internet, and protect freedom of expression and innovation.

The term net neutrality refers to the idea that all packets of data moving around the internet should be treated exactly the same.

Some internet service providers (ISPs) want to have the power to charge internet companies and users based on how much usage they make of the underlying network infrastructure.

Net neutrality advocates fear that, if this were allowed, it would lead to the creation of a two-tier internet where data traffic flows are controlled and regulated based on ones ability to pay.

They believe this will stifle innovation, start-up culture and, most importantly, freedom of speech and expression.

The close three to two FCC vote came weeks after commission head Tom Wheeler U-turned and set out new proposals. Wheeler spoke in favour of net neutrality, saying: The internet must be fast, fair and open.

It comes after a surge in public interest in net neutrality in the US four million people participated in the consultation and a wave of protest by high-profile internet-based firms, including Twitter and Netflix.

The FCC said it had long been committed to protecting and promoting net neutrality, but previous attempts to implement regulation had been struck down by the courts.

At the core of the FCCs ruling the Open Internet Order is one simple change; the reclassification of broadband internet access as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act.

This means the internet will now be afforded the same protections that have historically ensured telephone networks remain open in the US.

See the rest here:

Net neutrality lobby victorious after FCC ruling

CPDP 2015: Online privacy versus freedom of speech. Balancing rights in the EU context.
Organised by Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL) Chair: Arno Lodder, SOLV Advocaten (NL) Moderator: Tijmen Wisman, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL) Panel: Mag...

By: CPDPConferences

The rest is here:

CPDP 2015: Online privacy versus freedom of speech. Balancing rights in the EU context. - Video

The FCC ruled today to reinstate the concept of net neutrality. The commission says that its new rules are rooted in legal authority and serve promote freedom of speech and expression.

The new ruling labels the internet as a public utility under Title II, eliminating the ability for providers to throttle back service or create a fast lane for paid, faster access. Mobile broadband will also fall under the new strictures.

The guidelines create three bright line rules for the internet. Broadband providers may not block access to legal material, including applications and services. ISPs may also not throttle back lawful internet traffic. Finally, paid prioritization, which made the news in 2014, is abolished.

The FCCs new rules address the ever-changing nature of the internet by creating a tenet to guide practice. In short, the ISPs cannot unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage the ability of consumers to select, access, and use the lawful content, applications, services, or devices of their choosing.

The move doesnt include all elements of Title II. The FCC may investigate consumer complaints and enforce rules. However, unlike some utilities, there will be no regulation of rates. Your ISP can still set its own prices.

Telecommunications providers have already started speaking out against the move. Verizon suggests that the FCCs ruling is a throwback to rules created in the 1930s. It shared this message to voice its complaint (the translated message can be read here).

The FCC today chose to change the way the commercial Internet has operated since its creation, Verizon senior vice president Michael Glover writes. Changing a platform that has been so successful should be done, if at all, only after careful policy analysis, full transparency, and by the legislature, which is constitutionally charged with determining policy. As a result, it is likely that history will judge todays actions as misguided.

[Source FCC, Verizon]

Here is the original post:

FCC Reinstates Net Neutrality, Protecting Open Internet

By JULIUS KAIREY

If Israel were an Arab country, it would receive near-universal praise as a paragon of justice. Its robust protections of freedom of speech, along with frequent and open elections, would make it the only Arab state in which people have a real say in the operation of their government. Israel would be celebrated as the only gay-friendly state in a region of rampant anti-gay persecution. Its strict prohibition of the traditional practice of honor killings where women accused of disgracing the family name are murdered by their male relatives would be lauded as proof of its progressive and egalitarian values. And its modern capitalist economy, driven by a dynamic high-tech sector, would be the model for other Arab nations seeking to lift their people from the depths of poverty.

Of course, Israel isnt an Arab nation, and it is treated according to this double-standard. It is the worlds only majority-Jewish state, and it is surrounded by Arab theocracies, dictatorships and monarchies, each of which have gone to war in a failed bid to end its existence. And yet, Israels remarkable history of repeated triumph in the face of seemingly insurmountable adversity receives little sympathy among some left-wing segments of communities across the nation.

While Israels actions are put under a microscope its every flaw magnified to the maximum possible extent its enemies are given a free pass.

It is not immediately obvious why this is so. Israels history reads like a liberal success story. The Jewish people have refused to consent to their exile from the land of Israel, perpetrated by the Romans nearly 2,000 years ago. Rather than submit to oppression and injustice, Jews returned home over the centuries. In the 19th century, this movement for national liberation, called Zionism, sought to establish a modern state in the Jewish national homeland. This place would be a refuge from the forces of bigotry and hatred a place where Jews from around the world could gather for collective security whenever their lives or livelihoods came under threat. To this day, thousands of Jews migrate to Israel annually most recently from France for safety from the resurgence of anti-Semitism.

But you will not hear any of this from Israels detractors. They subject Israel to a constant torrent of demonization, all while applying a moral standard on Israel that is applied to no other country on Earth. Zionism is equated with racism and Israel is called a terrorist state, even the moral equivalent of apartheid South Africa, a country that maintained a total and systematic separation between Whites and non-Whites. These accusations continue in total disregard of the fact that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Jews and Arabs live alongside one another in substantial numbers, vote in the same elections and serve together in the same national legislature.

While Israels actions are put under a microscope its every flaw magnified to the maximum possible extent its enemies are given a free pass. Hamas brazenly indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli cities which even the Palestinian Authority has called war crimes are either encouraged as necessary for resistance, or dismissed as insignificant. Hamas genocidal charter, which calls not just for the destruction of Israel but for the murder of Jews worldwide, is attributed to a harmless overreaction to Israels non-existent occupation of the Gaza Strip, not to be taken seriously. Where else is the threat of genocide not to be taken seriously?

So why cant Israel get a fair hearing in certain segments of campus communities and elsewhere? It comes down to Israels character.

Israels first crime is that it is a Western nation. In the minds of Israels critics, to be Western is to be suspect, especially when your country is juxtaposed with non-Western nations. Israeli actions are confused with colonialism by those who erroneously insist that, to this day, imperialism drives relations between Western and non-Western peoples. To attack Israel is to give non-Westerners a leg up in these supposedly colonial interactions.

Israels second offense is that it is pro-American. It is little surprise that Israels fiercest opponents are also militant critics of the United States. They deride Americas invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as modern-day imperialism and look forward to a day when America will be forced to relinquish its superpower status. Because Israel and America have such strong links, Israel is tarred as a mere instrument of Americas supposedly nefarious interests abroad. Bashing Israel is just their way of expressing contempt for the policies of the United States, and as such serves as an outlet for virulent anti-Americanism. They treat the Jewish State as America in the Middle East.

Read more here:

THROWDOWN THURSDAY: The Four Causes of Anti-Israelism

The Deutsche Welle Governing Board decided unanimously in favor of Raif Badawi, said Deutsche Welle Director General Peter Limbourg.

"He stands, in an exemplary way, for the brave and fearless commitment to the human right of freedom of expression. Our award sends a signal and contributes to bringing his fate into the public spotlight. We hope this will increase pressure on those responsible in Saudi Arabia to release Badawi."

Badawi's wife Ensaf Haidar told DW she was overjoyed. From her home in Canada, she said the DW Freedom of Speech Award sends a clear message to the Saudi regime. "It is a disgrace that Raif is still sitting in prison - especially at a time when Saudi Arabia fights against the Islamic State group and its disregard for human rights. I am extremely thankful to Deutsche Welle for its support."

Ten years in jail, 1,000 lashes

The 31-year-old blogger was sentenced by Saudi authorities in May 2014 to 1,000 lashes, 10 years in prison and a major fine. The first 50 lashes were administered in public on January 9. He was meant to receive 50 lashes every Friday from then on, but the public flogging has been postponed more than once, reportedly for health reasons.

DW presented the Freedom of Speech award for the first time this year, in the framework of the 11th annual competition of " The Bobs Best of Online Activism," commending outstanding online activists and projects.

The winner of the Freedom of Speech Award as well as the winners of The Bobs' three jury categories will be recognized on June 23 at the Global Media Forum in Bonn, Germany.

Courageous advocate for the freedom of expression

Raif Badawi has been fighting for the freedom of expression in his country for many years. On the Free Saudi Liberals website, he attacked political and social grievances in Saudi Arabia. He published sarcastic articles on the religious police, called a prominent Saudi university a den of terrorists and wrote about Valentine's Day, which is strictly forbidden in Saudi Arabia.

In 2008, Badawi was arrested for the first time for allegedly creating an "electronic site" that "insults Islam." He left the country for a few months, only to return when the charges were dropped. In 2009, the Saudi government imposed a travel ban, and on June 17, 2012, Badawi was arrested again and put on trial, accused of insulting Muslim religious leaders on his website

Read the original here:

DW Freedom of Speech Award for Raif Badawi

Topic Tuesday #39 - Freedom of Speech? (Minecraft Survival Games Gameplay)
What are your thoughts on the topic? Let me hear them in the comments! Want Your Own Minecraft Server? http://bit.ly/1D6JEaJ Subscribe: http://to.ly/f7xV ...

By: MeBashButtons

Link:

Topic Tuesday #39 - Freedom of Speech? (Minecraft Survival Games Gameplay) - Video

Should there be limitations on freedom of speech?
This video is about My Movie 1.

By: The Volante

See the article here:

Should there be limitations on freedom of speech? - Video

NO surprises that the thorny subject of sectarian singing should prompt a major backlash on yesterdays Hotline.

After Keith Jacksons column savaged both sides of the Old Firm support with a particularly fierce blast at Rangers for their songs of hate at Starks Park the outraged Whataboutery defence was as predictable as it was depressing.

Chris Lowe, Glasgow, emailed: So Rangers get a kicking once again from the media.

Compare and contrast to Celtic Park only 24 hours earlier where clear, audible pro-IRA chants were heard, something Celtic have been fined for in the past by UEFA .

The Celtic support were largely praised all round for creating a magnificent atmosphere and not one person reported what their fans were chanting let alone go seeking the match observer to ask if he would be including it in his report.

Whatever happened to the whole of Europe claiming freedom of speech and the right to offend after Paris? Are Rangers fans exempt?

RAITH ROVERS 1 RANGERS 2 - VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS:

Robert Forrest emailed: I have no problem with Keith Jackson criticising Rangers fans singing banned songs, it is not right.

However, he fails to point out the difference in the way the support of either team has been treated by the authorities. A Rangers supporter was jailed for singing a banned song but no Celtic fan, and I could include their player Leigh Griffiths, has been anywhere near this.

He also completely ignores the offensive banner on display at Hampden.

See the rest here:

Sports Hotline: What happened to freedom of speech - have Rangers fans lost their right to offend?

Free speech trumps religious sensitivities, but Canadians split on whether national media should have republished

The majority of Canadians support the decision by French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo to publish cartoons lampooning Muhammad, but are split on whether Canadian media outlets should or should not have made the same decision.

The latest survey from the Angus Reid Institute of more than 1,500 Canadian adults shows that nationally, seven-in-ten said it was right for Charlie Hebdo to publish cartoon images of the Prophet Muhammad.

Publishing the cartoons, which went against Muslim strictures banning images of their prophet, led to the January 7, 2015 attack on the Paris office of the magazine that left 11 people dead. There is also speculation the decision to publish also inspired the February 13th attack on a Copenhagen caf that killed two more.

Key Findings:

Did Charlie Hebdo make the right decision?

As already noted, the majority (70%) of Canadians stand behind Charlie Hebdo magazines decision to publish the cartoon images of the Prophet Muhammed. In Quebec, support for the magazines rises to nearly four out of five (78%), followed by Alberta (73%) and British Columbia (69%). Atlantic Canada residents were the least supportive (59%) although it is still the majority view.

Men were more inclined than women (75% versus 65%) to believe it was acceptable to print the cartoons, with support strongest (72%) in the 35-54 age group. The more that people knew about the attack, the more they agreed that the magazine was right to publish its cartoons 74 per cent in favour among those who knew a lot compared to 65 per cent among those who said they knew a little.

Support for Charlie Hebdo also crossed federal party lines in Canada. Three-quarters (74%) of people who voted for the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) in the last federal election, along with 65 per cent of past Liberal Party of Canada voters and 74 per cent of those who voted for the New Democrats agreed with Charlie Hebdos editorial policy on publishing images of Muhammad.

See the original post here:

Freedom of Speech: Canadians support Charlie Hebdos choice to publish images of Prophet Muhammad

Britain's communications laws need to be reformed to take account of the explosion in online communications wrought by broadband internet.

That is the conclusion of a report by civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, which claims that there were 6,329 people charged or cautioned under either the Communications Act of 2003 or the Malicious Communications Act of 1988 in the three years between November 2010 and November 2013.

Avon & Somerset Police head the table for the total number of charges and convictions under the two Acts, with Lancashire, Suffolk, Northumbria and Great Manchester Police also particularly active.

Big Brother Watch argues that in an age of semi-personal online communication via media such as Facebook and Twitter, the two Acts are outdated and stifling freedom of speech. Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003, it added, can be dated back to the Post Office (Amendment) Act of 1930, which was intended to reduce abuse of telephone operators in the days before automated exchanges.

It was followed by the Telecommunications Act 1984, which contains very similar wording to Section 127. This legislation enables a court to convict you based on whether it deems a message to be 'grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character'. "It is arguable that the outdated nature of the law is why we are seeing an increase in legal cases involving comments made on social media," claims the report.

Guidelines drawn up to govern the prosecution of social media cases did not address the key concerns, claims Big Brother Watch.

The two main problems with Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003, claims the organisation, is that it was drafted to deal with one-to-one communications, rather than one-to-many, but was nevertheless extended into the social media area by case law. It was also originally aimed at public utilities, but has been extended to cover any communications company, including social media service providers.

Big Brother Watch has called for the repeal of Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003 and the removal of the phrase "grossly offensive" from the Malicious Communications Act of 1988.

"The phrase 'grossly offensive' is highly subjective and causes more problems than it solves. More importantly it shouldn't be a crime to cause offence. The wording sets a very dangerous precedent, without a clear definition it is very difficult to ensure a standardised approach across police forces in the types of cases that require their attention," it concludes.

The report, wrote John Cooper QC in the foreword, highlighted "in clear terms the problems that the present criminal law has with adapting to the fresh and vibrant world of social media". He added that there was an "urgent need for a rationalisation of existing law to reflect the new mediums at a time when cash-strapped police forces across the country are struggling to cope with social media-related complaints".

Original post:

Big Brother Watch calls for reform of social media communications laws

Fa Abdul | February 24, 2015 Free Malaysia Today

How come freedom of speech is limited to a select few who can say what they please while the majority spend a night in the lock-up for doing the same?

COMMENT

When I was growing up, reading the daily newspaper and watching the 8pm news was a must in my home. And every day during family time, my dad would open the floor for discussion. We used to discuss (and sometimes debate) various issues politics, social, religion, entertainment, the works. Sometimes we got too excited over certain issues that we continued the same discussion for a few days.

Thanks to my dad, my brothers and I grew up having the ability to form our own opinions on matters that concerned us. And having strong opinions meant standing up to it as well.

But lately, Ive begun to wonder if my dad made a big mistake having raised us the way he did. Because of my dad, I now have a tough time keeping my thoughts to myself and my mouth shut.

Like the other day, when I wrote about why I wasnt offended by the Charlie Hebdo cartoons I received piles of hate messages.

And then there was one time when I politely advised the security guards in my apartment that it was against the law for them to hold a visitors important documents and the head of security raised his baton over my head.

Since when did freedom of speech and expressing oneself become an offence?

This reminds me of an acquaintance of mine who was arrested recently on a sedition charge for criticising the Federal Court judgement over the Anwar Ibrahims sodomy case.

Here is the original post:

Comment on Have an opinion? Stuff it! by boh-liao