Daily Archives: February 23, 2015

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argues that in an age of semi-personal online communication via media such as Facebook and Twitter, the two Acts are outdated and stifling freedom of speech.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 "It is arguable that the outdated nature of the law is why we are seeing an increase in legal cases involving comments made on social media," claims the report.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".

Go here to read the rest:

Big Brother Watch calls for reform of social media communications laws

South Africans must stand together in multitudes to hold politicians accountable for disrespecting our democratic institutions before the whole world.

Our freedom was won through the collective efforts of millions of in our country. We need to stand together in our multitudes, even now, to safeguard our democracy, says Brand SA. (Oupa Nkosi, M&G)

COMMENT

Many of us would have eagerly awaited President Zumas State of the Nation Address last Thursday 12 February. We may have had different reasons although we would have wanted to hear the President pronounce on the progress made in South Africa and the way forward for the next year.

The evening may have concluded differently for many of us.

What the evening showed is that undoubtedly freedom of speech and expression is alive and robust and that our democracy is vibrant and well entrenched. It also shows that citizens are aware of their rights and are able to express them.

What should concern us though is that Parliament, which is one of the principle institutions mandated to safeguard our democracy, has in the expression of these rights, become a terrain of struggle that sees South Africans on both sides of the debate on our freedom of expression.

Political parties are elected by the people of our country to represent our interests in Parliament. We must ask whether this is being achieved as we deliberate on the work of Parliament.

I am confident that work that impacts positively on the lives of citizens of our country is being done at Parliament, but what should concern us is that we hear less of the work being done and more about the issues between the personalities doing the work. The expression of these issues between personalities is increasingly overshadowing the work of this principal institution of our democracy. Some of this is impacting negatively on the reputation of our country and our institutions.

Can we really serve the will of the people by bringing one of the principle institutions of our democracy into disrepute?

Go here to read the rest:

South Africa: Post the State of the Nation Address