Monthly Archives: May 2020

All these developments have taken place under pressure from Washington and Brussels. In hearings over the past few years, Congress has criticized the companiesnot always in consistent waysfor allowing harmful speech. In 2018, Congress amended the previously untouchable Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to subject the platforms to the same liability that nondigital outlets face for enabling illegal sex trafficking. Additional amendments to Section 230 are now in the offing, as are various other threats to regulate digital speech. In March 2019, Zuckerberg invited the government to regulate harmful content on his platform. In a speech seven months later defending Americas First Amendment values, he boasted about his team of thousands of people and [artificial-intelligence] systems that monitors for fake accounts. Even Zuckerbergs defiant ideal of free expression is an extensively policed space.

Against this background, the tech firms downgrading and outright censorship of speech related to COVID-19 are not large steps. Facebook is using computer algorithms more aggressively, mainly because concerns about the privacy of users prevent human censors from working on these issues from home during forced isolation. As it has done with Russian misinformation, Facebook will notify users when articles that they have liked are later deemed to have included health-related misinformation.

But the basic approach to identifying and redressing speech judged to be misinformation or to present an imminent risk of physical harm hasnt changed, according to Monika Bickert, Facebooks head of global policy management. As in other contexts, Facebook relies on fact-checking organizations and authorities (from the World Health Organization to the governments of U.S. states) to ascertain which content to downgrade or remove.

Read: How to misinform yourself about the coronavirus

What is different about speech regulation related to COVID-19 is the context: The problem is huge and the stakes are very high. But when the crisis is gone, there is no unregulated normal to return to. We liveand for several years, we have been livingin a world of serious and growing harms resulting from digital speech. Governments will not stop worrying about these harms. And private platforms will continue to expand their definition of offensive content, and will use algorithms to regulate it ever more closely. The general trend toward more speech control will not abate.

Over the past decade, network surveillance has grown in roughly the same proportion as speech control. Indeed, on many platforms, ubiquitous surveillance is a prerequisite to speech control.

The public has been told over and over that the hundreds of computers we interact with dailysmartphones, laptops, desktops, automobiles, cameras, audio recorders, payment mechanisms, and morecollect, emit, and analyze data about us that are, in turn, packaged and exploited in various ways to influence and control our lives. We have also learned a lotbut surely not the whole pictureabout the extent to which governments exploit this gargantuan pool of data.

Link:
Internet Speech Will Never Go Back to Normal - The Atlantic

Independent journalism in Cuba, for decades, has had to deal with a penal code that criminalizes them when they do not work for state media, among other regulations that restrict their freedom. Since the new coronavirus arrived on the island, independent journalism has had to face the increasingly common fines of Decree 370, which penalizes the opinions of Cubans posted on social networks and digital platforms.

According to Maykel Gonzlez, director of Tremenda Nota, since the pandemic began, the persecution of journalists and cyberbullying have worsened. "We are all more muzzled than ever," Gonzlez told the Knight Center.

In the midst of the [COVID-19] epidemic, the police are mostly citing journalists [with Decree 370]. This law is not the only one against journalism, [but] it is only the only one that can be applied without the need for criminal proceedings. Decree 370 is of a minor nature [legally]. But therein lies its danger. There is no way to defend yourself in court," he said.

Since the COVID-19 crisis began, at least seven activists and journalists have been fined because of Decree 370, which was little used until recently, Hugo Landa, director of the site Cubanet, told the Knight Center.

The decree, created in 2018, was approved in May 2019 without going through the National Assembly of the People's Power, according to Periodismo de Barrio.

Decree 370, Art. 68, subsection i indicates as one of the violations associated with information and communication technologies, the dissemination, through public data transmission networks, information contrary to the social interest, morality, good customs and the integrity of the people.

We knew that subsection i would serve to repress, silence, punish, etc. public expression in online spaces, Elaine Daz of the Cuban site Periodismo de Barrio told the Knight Center about Decree 370, Article 68. "Subsection i was the legalization of Internet censorship," she added. But above all, what is published on social networks is censored, according to a note published by Periodismo de Barrio in 2019.

The fine imposed by this decree on natural persons is three thousand Cuban pesos (about US $120), and if the payment is not made within the indicated period, the penalties for not paying the fine and the threat of going to jail are greater. Another of the sanctions of this decree for those who violate article 68, is the seizure by the Ministry of Communications of the equipment and means used to commit the crime.

The only way to avoid this fine, specifically, is by not having social media or not posting anything critical of the government. In Cuba there is no separation of powers, Cuban journalist Mnica Bar told the Knight Center. You have no legal recourse to defend your rights; First of all, you do not have civil and political rights," she said.

Bar was fined on April 17 after being summoned for questioning conducted by an agent of the Interior Ministry. According to the journalist, the interrogation was not about her publications on social networks, but rather about the sources of financing for the journalistic projects of the magazine El Estornudo and the site Periodismo de Barrio, the media outlets where she collaborates.

Given the fine, the two options she has left, according to Bar, is to file a claim or go to court and then jail. "I do not have credentials, I am not recognized, my work does not exist. In fact, at the time when I was fined, they asked me Where do you work? I said at the magazine El Estornudo, and they said well, she doesn't work. My work in Cuba is illegal," Bar said.

According to Daz, from Periodismo de Barrio, it is no coincidence that they are applying the decree with greater zeal during this crisis of the pandemic. That there are independent journalists who report and others who prefer to remain silent implies that we do not know exactly how many are being threatened; but we know that they are being threatened and that these are not isolated cases, she said.

Gonzlez from Tremenda Nota said that police officers demanded over the phone that "he should not denigrate the Cuban government" in his publications while the epidemic lasts. I told them that I have never done it, that this is not the purpose of my work. They threatened to use the 370. In the past few weeks they have summoned me twice. I was summoned today (April 24), but they said they will confirm it by phone and they did not, he said.

Journalist Camila Acosta of Cubanet was also fined, in late March, for publishing information about the new coronavirus in Cuba on her Facebook profile, according to Cubanet. In addition to the fine of three thousand pesos, Acosta's cell phone was confiscated. During the interrogation, she was given a warning after being accused of living in Havana illegally, according to what Acosta said during an interview published on the YouTube channel of Radio Mart. She is from the Isla de la Juventud, a Cuban island south of Havana. "The major Alejandro, the repressor, already warned me, they are going to mount common offenses to sanction me and condemn me to prison, she said in the interview.

Hugo Landa, director of Cubanet, based in Miami, told the Knight Center that the Cuban government has "dusted off" new decrees to "legalize" the repression. In addition to Decree 370, Landa mentioned Decree 349 that regulates the work of artists, Law 88, known as the "gag law," and the legal concept of "usurpation of functions." The latter, according to Landa, has been applied against journalists who do not have a university degree and who are not members of the official Union of Journalists of Cuba.

"Cuba should urgently review Decree 370 which, as CPJ warned when it was enacted, has become an additional device in the regime's ever-expanding toolkit to target critical voices and silence the press, said Natalie Southwick, Central and South America Program Coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

They are not just censoring individuals, they are censoring another narrative about the impact of a pandemic in the country. They are censoring the only ones who can challenge the official story. That is why so many, that is why now, Daz said. Let's stop seeing them as isolated cases because they are not. Together, they are the network of alternative voices that are telling what is happening with COVID-19 in Cuba.

See more here:
Cuban government imposes more limitations on independent journalism by censoring content on social networks during pandemic - Knight Center for...

In the context of World Press Freedom Day, Amnesty International, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Article 19 are sending an open letter to President Miguel Diaz-Canel urging him to take immediate measures to guarantee press freedom and protect independent journalists in Cuba.

The organizations also sent this letter in light of recent worrying reports regarding independent journalists in the country who have reportedly been fined or intimidated by state security agents because of their work.

In the COVID-19 era its even more vital to guarantee freedom of the press and access to truthful and timely information. Its shameful how the censorship of independent journalists in Cuba, which we have documented for decades, seems to be worsening in recent weeks, with complaints from independent journalists fined for reporting on the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the country. No journalist should have to decide between silence or jail. We demand that the Daz-Canel administration take immediate action to guarantee freedom of the press, said Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas director at Amnesty International.

In the open letter, the organizations demand that the Cuban authorities immediately and unconditionally release Roberto Quiones Haces, a 63-year-old Cuban prisoner of conscience who has been held since September 2019 for practicing independent journalism and who is now at risk from COVID-19.

Its shameful how the censorship of independent journalists in Cuba, which we have documented for decades, seems to be worsening in recent weeks, with complaints from independent journalists fined for reporting on the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the country

The threat of imprisonment and the imposition of fines have functioned as dissuasive and inhibiting tools for the body of independent journalists on the island. In this sense, the imprisonment of journalist Roberto Quiones since September 2019 has become a clear warning to all critical journalists and media workers, even though there have been widespread calls for his release. Without doubt, these demands are more valid than ever today, as there is real risk of contagion with coronavirus, particularly for the elderly and even more so for those held in jails like the Guantnamo Provincial Prison, where, according to the journalists own testimony, the conditions are inhumane, said Ana Cristina Ruelas, regional director of the Article 19 office for Mexico and Central America.

Cuban authorities must release imprisoned journalist Roberto de Jess Quiones Haces and ensure that journalists on the island do not face harassment, threats, intimidation, or jail time simply for reporting facts. As long as they remain behind bars, Roberto Quiones and other imprisoned journalists face an elevated risk of contracting COVID-19, as they cannot isolate, maintain social distance or follow other health guidelines. Journalism must not carry a death sentence, now or ever, saidCPJ Central and South America Program Coordinator Natalie Southwick.

The imprisonment of journalist Roberto Quiones since September 2019 has become a clear warning to all critical journalists and media workers, even though there have been widespread calls for his release

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and its Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression recently reiterated their concern about the state of freedom of expression in the Americas during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cuba remains the only country in the Americas to which Amnesty International and other human rights monitoring mechanisms do not have access.

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Duncan Tucker: duncan.tucker@amnesty.org

See the original post:
Cuba must guarantee press freedom in the COVID-19 era - Amnesty International

There is disagreement in the medical community over how much longer many parts of the country should be under strict lockdown orders. In California, two Bakersfield-area doctors are pushing for Gov. Gavin Newsom to lift the order.

Their recommendation came after looking at the statistics from their urgent care facility, which they said showed coronavirus was similar to the flu. Other doctors in the state disagreed.

The video, which featured Dr. Daniel Erickson, was viewed millions of times but then was removed for violating YouTubes terms, which Fox Newss Tucker Carlson found to be the most troubling aspect of the story.

If there is one thing Americans need more of right now, it's informed debate, he argued, and that's exactly what authorities don't want.

Carlson's remarks came after YouTube removed ahighly circulated videofeaturing Dr. Daniel Erickson of Bakersfield, Calif. In the video, Erickson alleged that doctors were encouraged to link deaths to COVID-19 to amplify concerns about the pandemic. (FoxNews.com)

"Viewers of Erickson's video wereshocked and transfixed by this.Theyforwarded the videos tofriends, who forwarded it on totheir friends and suddenlymillions of people who spent thelast six weeks on a diet of'Tiger King' and internet memeswere watching sober-mindedmedical researchers reading fromcharts of statistics," Carlson said.

"Last night, the doctor's video was pulled off of YouTube. It wasn't an accident, YouTube admitted doing it. The company cited a violation of company guidelines and didn't apologize."

"When this is all over, its likely we'll look back on this moment, what YouTube just did,asa turning point in the way welive in this country, a sharpbreak with 250 years of law andcustom," Carlson said.

He noted that the video was made by a local news station and there was absolutely no reason to remove it other than the fact that it disagreed with those in power.

"It was a form of dissent from orthodoxy. YouTube and its parent company Google have now officially banned dissent," Carlson said.

YouTube's CEO Susan Wojcicki said Sunday that content considered "problematic" and that went against the World Health Organization's recommendations would be removed.

Carlson of course pointed out how absurd it was to follow that standard since the WHO has been wrong about the pandemic from the start, at first reassuring people there was no human-to-human transmission, that travel shouldn't be restrict, then saying face masks don't work.

"Those are lies and they were welcome on Google's platforms. Doctors who were treating patients with the virus, meanwhile, have just been banned," Carlson said. "So no. This is not about science Censorship never is about science, it's about power. Big technology companies are using this tragedy to increase their power over the population."

Editor's Note: Want to support Townhall so we can keep telling the truth about China and the virus they unleashed on the world? Join Townhall VIP and use the promo code WUHAN to get 25% off VIP membership!

Read the rest here:
Carlson Blasts YouTube Over Censorship of Coronavirus Video - Townhall

ByAshley Rae Goldenberg (American Greatness)

Modern reliance on technology has never been more evident than now. During the COVID-19 pandemic, modern technological advances have gone from conveniences to life-saving resources.

But not for everyone.

For people banned from tech platforms, the potential emergency resources these platforms provide are out of reach. Banned from Twitter? Reduced access to breaking news.Banned from Uber Eats? Good luck getting food while maintaining social distancing recommendations.Banned from PayPal,Venmo, orGoFundMe? Sending, receiving, and raising money for emergencies becomes a lot harder. Banned fromFacebook? Find another way to connect with loved ones during this difficult time. This is the reality for people whose political speech runs afoul of tech censors or who have been targeted by powerful groups for having the wrong political beliefs.

Groups like theSPLC,Color of Change,SumofUs, andSleeping Giantsgleefully try to get their political opponents banned from social media and cut off from payment processors. Tech companies arepressuredbyadvocacy organizationsandagenda-driven journalists.

When trying to get a wrongthinker kicked off social media or cut off from funding sources, organizations, journalists, and companies claim theyre helping people take a moral stand against bigotry. When Laura Loomer was banned from PayPal, the company toldNewsweek: Our decision and actions are values-based, not political.

However, the people pushing these bans, and enacting them, have trouble explaining exactly how it is moral to limit some peoples access to food because their opinions fall outside the mainstream. How is it moral to cut people off from their support systemsfrom their friends, families, and neighborsbecause they say things some people find offensive? How is it moral to take away peoples ability to pay their bills because their political views are on the fringe of current accepted norms?

In reality, these moves are meant to silence and punish politically unpopular opinions. This precedent creates a chilling effect on free speech. People have a right to say controversial, offensive, and even hateful things. American companies should realize now, more than ever, that they should not suppress the free exchange of thoughts and feelings, nor the exchange of resources, for expressing constitutionally protected speech.

Theres no question these are not normal times, but neither are the companies doing the banning merely private companies.

At a press conference, President Trump promoteda Google websiteto determine whether people should seek medical treatment for coronavirus. The website was created by Verily, a sister company to Google, under the umbrella of Alphabetbut a Googlelog inis apparently required. Meanwhile, Googlefires engineersover their opinions,bans peoplefrom YouTube, refuses to allowcertain adsto run, and, in extreme instances, and bansentire Google accounts. The White House has alsopartnered with Appleto create an app to track coronavirus information. At the same time,Apple bans appsfrom their app store,removes controversial podcasts, andblocks consumersfrom viewing chat messages that might contain offensive information.

Twitter, a platform relied on for breaking information and used by government officials and government services,removed a tweetfromThe Federalistafter it sharedan opinion pieceabout the best way to handle the coronavirus epidemic. Twitter alsoremoved tweetsby Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani for allegedly violating Twittersnew rulesabout discussing the coronavirus outbreak.

In January, remember, the World Health Organizationposted on Twitterthat China found no evidence of human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus. That has been proven to be an utter lie, but the tweet still remains online. So do tweets claiming the virus originated inthe United Statesand blamingAmerican militaryfor spreading the virus to China.

The coronavirus epidemic is causing people across the world to reevaluate their principles. Perhaps its time to rethink the role large companies play in policing perfectly legalalthough sometimes controversialspeech. And perhaps its time for American companies to uphold the spirit of the First Amendment, especially when lives are at stake.

Read the original post:
Big Tech Censorship is Dangerous , In Time Of Pandemics - The Jewish Voice

It is no secret that Japan censors some of its manga's most scandalous moments, but fans of One-Punch Man did learn recently how far the series has gone to outwit those guidelines. Over on Reddit, the conversation cropped up after a user pointed out an alleged instance of bypassed censorship which you can never unsee. So if you want to still be able to look at Puri Puri Prisoner without flinching, you better turn around now!

You can thank the user birdofnoel on Reddit for pointing out the rather salacious fact. The fan made a post on Reddit showing off One-Punch Man volume six which can be seen here. It is there fans can see Puri Puri Prisoner standing tall in all his muscular glory upon the volume's first page, but he is nude. As censorship laws dictate, the man's genitals are whited out to keep things kid-friendly... but artist Yusuke Murata found a way to rig the system.

Puri Puri Prisoner is on the other side off the volume's title page. On that title page, the text "One-Punch Man Vol. 6" can be found, and it is positioned strategically. That means if you were to, say, shine a light on this thin page that a secret image would reveal itself. It turns out the "6" on the title page is positioned so that it resembles the genitals which Puri Puri Prisoner had to obscure to appease the manga censors.

And if that is not equal parts genius and diabolical, then nothing is. Sure, this isn't the first time something like this has been done in manga, but fans are a bit surprised Murata went to such lengths. One-Punch Man isn't an ecchi series by any means, but its artist knows the tricks of that trade.

But before you go looking for this cover up, you will want to hit the pause button. The English version of volume six does not contain this secret, and the same goes for other translations from Brazil and beyond. It seems like this slip only made it past the first run or so of the Japanese volume, so Puri Puri Prisoner has been censored for good.

Did you ever notice this clever work around? Or do you wish you could unsee the One-Punch Man scene? Let me know in the comments or hit me up on Twitter @MeganPetersCB to talk all things comics and anime!

Disclosure: ComicBook is owned by CBS Interactive, a division of ViacomCBS.

Link:
One-Punch Man Fans Discover the Lengths the Manga Went to Avoid Censors - ComicBook.com

On April 29, Cointelegraph participated in a fireside chat event organized by the Webit Foundation. The panel, with the title of Can blockchain be a solution for the upcoming economic crisis, featured Roger Ver from Bitcoin.com as the main speaker.

Like all events during the Coronavirus pandemic, the panel was held virtually, with its participants dialing in via video conference. The talk was hosted by Dr. Plamen Russev, executive chairman of Webit Foundation. The chat featured Roger Ver, Bitcoin.coms executive chairman, and Kristina Lucrezia Cornr, managing editor at Cointelegraph, as a Q&A moderator.

Vers answers at the panel can be summarized as a deep belief in freedom and libertarian economics. He believes these ideals to be the answers to the crisis at hand. He also focused on censorship an issue that has regained relevance amid the Coronavirus pandemic.

Ver was greatly disturbed by the harsh censorship policy enacted by Youtube in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He cited an example of two doctors who made statements going against the mainstream narrative behind the pandemic, and whose video was deleted a few days after it was published.

The policy is allegedly the culprit behind a new wave of bans to crypto content creators, which recently hit high-profile influencers like Tone Vays and Crypto Lark.

Ver explained his view against censorship:

I think the solution to people saying crazy or wrong things is other people being able to rebut those things, not massive censorship.

When discussing censorship, Ver also threw several jabs against the Bitcoin community, and said that his biggest regret throughout the years was not being even louder when speaking out against censorship in the cryptocurrency community.

This refers to 2015, when the moderators of the /r/Bitcoin Reddit forum began censoring any discussion relating to Bitcoin XT a proposal for larger blocks in Bitcoin (BTC) that can be considered as the ideological ancestor to Bitcoin Cash (BCH).

Ver holds a utilitarian view of the purpose of cryptocurrency, focusing heavily on its use as a censorship-resistant payment system. He emphasized that it is free trade that creates wealth in the world, while the lockdowns destroy the ability to trade freely and thus, the economy. He also considers the multi-trillion dollar stimulus package to be theft of a similar nature to counterfeiting money.

Cryptocurrency, as the freest form of money, would be the best tool to escape the governments excessive control, according to Ver. But he also believes that it can only happen when cryptocurrency is used for payments, which is something that Bitcoin is no longer useful for, he claimed:

The sad part about what everybody is calling Bitcoin today, it doesnt have those characteristics that made the early investors and adopters so excited about it early on. Most of those people are now working on things like Bitcoin Cash or Ethereum.

He claimed that most of its current supporters are either speculators betting on future speculation, or people who still didnt figure out that the project is no longer trying to be cash for the world.

You can check out the full panel by clicking on this link.

See the original post:
Bitcoin Is Not Cash For the World: Recap of Webit Fireside Chat with Roger Ver - Cointelegraph

Actor Pankaj Tripathi, who has tasted success on the big screen as well as the digital space, says that when it comes to the debate on web censorship, a dialogue is very important.

"Everything should have a debate because a dialogue is important. The storytellers get to tell their stories the way they want to, without the censors on the platform. They have freedom," opined Pankaj, who gained a major fan base as Guruji in Sacred Games and Kaleen bhaiya in Mirzapur.

However, not everything can be defended in the name of creative freedom, he feels.

"There are some people who just want to spread sansani (sensationalism). They too have some freedom because there are no censors. So, there are pros and cons of having censorship, and if there is a debate only then will people arrive at some conclusion," the actor pointed out.

On the acting front, Pankaj will next be seen in Kabir Khan's 83.

Read more from the original source:
Pankaj Tripathi on censorship in digital space: There are some people who just want to spread sansani - Cinema Express

Newspaper headline posters display the main headlines for the Zimbabwean daily newspapers. (Photo: EPA-EFE/AARON UFUMELI)

On 14 April ZBC News online, the official Twitter page of Zimbabwes only TV station, posted a video of President Emmerson Mnangagwa saying that he was aware of a false statement on social media saying he would be extending lockdown until 3 May. He said he would ask the Central Intelligence Office (CIO) to investigate it and that if the person responsible was caught they should get at least 20 years imprisonment for spreading falsehoods.

An example needs to be made, the President said.

The CIO operates under the Office of the President. Many of Zimbabwes abductions, extrajudicial murders and enforced disappearances are said to be committed by the CIO. The head (minister) of State Security which oversees the CIO, Owen Mudha Ncube, was recently added to the US sanctions list for Human Rights violations. Emmerson Mnangagwa himself was the minister responsible for the CIO during the Gukurahundi genocide that left 20,000 civilians dead in Matebeleland.

Hearing the president take the trouble to publicly threaten whoever wrote the statement with CIOs was unsettling. We all feared the worst not just for whoever the president was threatening but also for ourselves.

However, on Sunday 21 April, what was meant to be the last day of the lockdown, the president announced that he was extending it until 3 May 2020, just as the allegedly fake statement had said. This gave rise to several questions and suspicions. Had the statement truly been fake or was the president a victim of a leak from his office? Many wondered what the alleged falsehood mongerer would be charged with if found, now that the president had announced exactly what the statement had said he had decided.

Was this fake news after all and, will the fake news charge stick? people asked.

On 20 April the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) tweeted that they had arrested Lovemore Zvokusekwa for Publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the state as defined in section 31 (a) (i) of the Criminal law (Codification and reform) act Chapter 9:23.

As the president had stated in the video this crime attracts 20 years in jail and because the president had vowed to make an example of this case, there was an outcry from the public. Some questioned the word circulating in the charge.

Did Zvokusekwa produce the letter or had he just circulated it as hundreds of other Zimbabweans had when the letter fell into their inboxes and on their timelines?

Were they going to find and arrest everyone who had forwarded the letter?

Some argued that the law Zvokusekwa was being charged with had long since been ruled to be unconstitutional by the constitutional court in the case of Chimakure vs the Attorney General, rendering the arrest and charge an illegality and an abuse of Zvekusekwas rights. Some simply asked was it fake news that the lockdown had been extended when the president had in fact extended it?

All these questions did not stop the state from dragging Zvekusekwa before a magistrate on 20 April and remanding him in custody until 13 May a total of 23 days.

Something to be laughed at

The case of Zvokusekwa, whose surname in Shona ironically means something to be laughed at, illustrates a dangerous trend seen elsewhere. Covid-19 has provided an excuse to authoritarians to ramp up the stifling of dissent. The destination of choice has been attacks of freedom of expression and the media.

In Zimbabwe, starting with the case of the late Zororo Makamba, the first person to test positive in the country, the government has been accused of manipulating information on the true status of infections and its response to it. The digital or social media space has been the go-to alternative for a country hungry for information. It has also been a revolutionary space for government criticism, exposure of corruption and other excesses and demands for accountability. That, it seems, is the space the government has its eyes on.

But it faces a dilemma.

The government itself needs the digital media space for its own propaganda. The national broadcaster, ZBC, maintains a Twitter handle which it actively uses to churn out propaganda. On the page they post stories about everything the president does as well as stories highlighting the generosity and benevolence of the president and the first lady.

For years the Zimbabwean government has used twin devilish and draconian pieces of legislation to stifle political activity and dissent and public criticism: the Public Order and Security Act (Posa) and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA).

The former, in requiring police permission for public gatherings, has been used to stop opposition from holding its rallies, while the latter has been used to intimidate and prevent journalists from doing their work. When he tried to show potential Western investors that he and his government were different from the late former president Robert Mugabe, Mnangagwa promised to repeal the two laws. Replacement drafts have been tabled but are no different. Meanwhile, Posa was used in August 2019 to stop opposition protests.

Code for repression

It is now clear that while all attention has been focused on Posa and AIPPA, the real devil is in the Criminal Code used to arrest Zvokusekwa which is equally draconian but carries far more severe penalties.

The obvious glee by the president in announcing to a nervous nation his eagerness to set his dreaded CIO on a citizen and then send that citizen to jail for spreading falsehoods demonstrates the importance of this piece of legislation in the repression toolbox of the regime. The governments intention to use the Criminal Code to turn up its autocratic volume during the lockdown was exposed by the Permanent Secretary of Information hours before the publication of the regulations establishing the lockdown, when he threatened that people would soon see themselves in jail for spreading falsehoods.

The Covid-19 statutory instrument did not disappoint, importing verbatim the entire provisions of the code related to criminalising the publication of falsehoods. What seemed lost to the government, which does not seem to respect its own laws, let alone its own courts, is that this entire provision of the Criminal Code was struck down by the constitutional court in the Chimakure case six years ago. The Minister of Justice cited in the case at the time was none other than Emmerson Mnangagwa, now president. Nothing demonstrates the levels of lawlessness and lack of accountability more than this. This is clearly a government that does not consider itself bound by anything or accountable to anyone.

War on digital democracy

It is clear that digital or social media will continue to be a new battleground for repression in Zimbabwe.

In the wake of Covid-19, the disastrous policy failures in the governments response have been accompanied by allegations of shocking levels of procurement-related grand corruption and abuse of Covid-19 aid. Last week it was reported that a company run by (the presidents son) Collins Mnangagwas business partner, Delish Nguwaya, was awarded a $60-million contract to deliver pharmaceuticals related to Covid-19. The story was broken in digital media.

The Minister of Finance announced a programme to provide livelihood support via cash transfers to vulnerable households. The contract to disburse this money was awarded to a telecoms company closely linked to the political elite.

To make matters worse, the process to determine who is eligible for the government funding remains clouded in mystery. The only explanation the Minister of Finance gave was that they used a complex algorithm to select beneficiaries. With such opaque explanations and poor accountability, it is clear that even this money is likely to have been looted. In Covid-19 the government has found a new golden goose for its voraciously corrupt appetite.

In all this, the digital and social media space stands fast in ensuring that these scandals come to light, that the president is called to answer for his videos threatening citizens, the Minister of Health is asked to explain his policies and reports on Covid-19 and the Minister of Finance is asked to justify how government money is spent.

The power of digital and social media to counter state propaganda was also witnessed last week when the secretary of information posted this tweet:

We received 65 Zimbabweans from the UK. Available place of quarantine is Belvedere Teachers College. They are refusing this accommodation demanding hotels. Govt cant afford. Why come from a Covid-19 hotspot during a lockdown & demand posh facilities at stretched public cost?

The returnees managed to expose the government lying by posting videos from the college where they were quarantined showing that the reason why they were asking to be moved to a better place was that there was no running water and more than 20 people were sharing just two toilets. The plan to deceive the public about why the returnees were rejecting the quarantine facility backfired terribly. The videos, by default, also served to expose the dire conditions under which students at the teachers college have been living in for years.

With a crumbling and discredited state media enterprise, the government needs the digital space. It will continue to need it for its propaganda, for PR exercises for the president and first lady and for Covid-19. But, with its tendency to capture and monopolise everything, it has yet to find a formula to control the digital media space beyond unconstitutionally switching off the internet. It has also yet to find a legal way to stop Zimbabweans from sharing information that exposes its failures besides provisions of the Criminal Code struck down by the constitutional court but brazenly used to detain a civilian for almost one month.

In all this, it remains clear that if ever the falsehoods law was constitutional and anyone needed to be jailed, it would be the government and its litany of propagandists. It also highlights that in crying only for Posa and AIPPA to be repealed, citizens have ignored a greater danger the devil is in the Criminal Code.

It is unacceptable that the president of Zimbabwe, who himself has never spent a single day in custody for any of his crimes from genocide to looting minerals in the DRC and running down Zanu-PF companies as alleged by Mugabes administration before the coup can arrest and threaten a man with 20 years in prison for circulating fake news that turned out to be true. DM/MC

Thandekile Moyo is a writer and human rights defender from Zimbabwe. For the past four years, she has been using print, digital and social media (Twitter: @mamoxn) to expose human rights abuses, bad governance and corruption. Moyo holds an Honours degree in Geography and Environmental Studies from the Midlands State University in Zimbabwe.

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or if you are already an Insider.

Continue reading here:
Censorship in Zimbabwe: When fake news is true and official news is fake - Daily Maverick

In the early days of the coronavirus outbreak, President Trump referred to the virus as the China virus and the Chinese virus. But in a press briefing on March 18, the president got pushback from the media. A reporter asked why he was calling it the "Chinese virus" when there were reports of bias against Chinese Americans.

Trumps immediate response (because it comes from China), as well as his references to Chinas conspiracy theory implicating the U.S. military, made everything clear. But in the days following, he changed his wording to COVID, COVID-19, the virus, and sometimes plague.

So what about Taiwan? I ask this question because the small, vibrant democracy is effectively independent of China yet mostly Chinese in ethnicity. Not surprisingly, Taiwanese people would also have a problem with the term Chinese virus. Instead, government officials have long been using Wuhan virus and Wuhan coronavirus interchangeably with more general names. They are also reminding the world where the virus started.

Dr. Alexander Chieh-cheng Huang is a professor and former deputy minister of the Taiwanese governments Mainland Affairs Council. He also served as a senior consultant at Taiwans representative office in Washington. When I asked his thoughts on the virus language, Huang noted its political nature.

I guess everyone knows well that using Wuhan matches the anti-China public sentiments stirred up since 2019, when Beijings image in Taiwan had drastically deteriorated due to Xi Jinpings one country, two systems statement and the anti-extradition movement in Hong Kong lingering even after Taiwans 2020 presidential campaign," he said.

As it becomes clearer that Chinas censorship and cover-ups exacerbated this crisis, officials in the United States could follow Taiwans example. Lets call it the "Wuhan virus" to memorialize the human tragedy that China's authoritarian government has created. Lets call it the "Wuhan virus" to remind us of continued vigilance against the lack of transparency in China.

Dr. Li Wenliang of Wuhan tried to send warnings through Weibo, Chinas Twitter, that there was a mysterious and deadly outbreak afflicting patients and medical providers. Wuhan police threatened criminal charges against Li, who later succumbed to the virus himself and died. There was an uncommon public uprising in China over the doctors treatment. People began calling for freedom of speech and an end to government censorship. Eventually, the central government ruled that Wuhan police acted unlawfully and inappropriately. While there is evidence that Beijing also engaged in a cover-up of sorts, it is clear that the crackdown on speech started in Wuhan.

Wuhan residents were trying to get the word out. They were trying to say that the true death toll in their city was far higher than reported. They pointed to thousands of urns being shipped to the city. Far worse has also been alleged. One famous Wuhan resident, writer and poet Fang Fang, was posting daily reflections and revelations during Wuhans lockdown. She openly criticizes the local government, even as censors and trolls harass her to this day. In response to Fang Fang and people like her, Beijing passed tougher legislation on March 1 to control online content. Finally, last month, Beijing acknowledged that the toll in Wuhan was underreported. But considering the government's track record, even those numbers may not be accurate.

Wuhan authorities have still not closed the wet markets, where many health officials believe the virus was first transmitted.

Although we will probably never know, intelligence officials reportedly believe that there is a high possibility that the virus may have come from a Wuhan research lab. Lax security and standards could have resulted in an infected official or animal before the virus got out later into the community.

Taiwans early detection of something wrong in Wuhan and its strong mitigation efforts have won the island praise. It got one more thing right the name.

Dr. Guy Redmer is an English professor and author currently teaching in Taipei, Taiwan.

See more here:
One more thing Taiwan got right about the virus: Its name - Washington Examiner