Government, Social Media - the Fine Line Between Censorship and Order.

Submitted by admin on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 10:48

An article of the Trinidad Express, which is no longer online but can be found in the Internet's cache, states:

...online information exchange Jahaji Bhai, Bahen was shut down yesterday after its moderators were warned that some of its internet posts might be in violation of the current State of Emergency in Trinidad and Tobago.

The nature of the posts has not been revealed, but it seems an opportune moment to explain to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago that on the Internet people have their own identities and express their own opinions - and that the closure of any site, any email list, any Facebook group or any other form of expression on the Internet is folly because those willing to express their opinions will do so elsewhere.

Heavy handed threats to publishers for the postings of others is not something unfamiliar in Trinidad and Tobago; indeed, KnowTnT.com has received emails from lawyers in the past that culminated in some blog entries having comments frozen or locked. That lawyers confuse blog posts with comments is disconcerting enough - but this latest development demonstrates the government apparently lacks the capacity to understand that an email list or Facebook Group is not the owner of the opinions expressed.

If people are breaking the laws of Trinidad and Tobago under the State of Emergency through publication of opinion on, for example, a Yahoo Group, it would seem that the government will threaten the coordinators of the group with jail - as alluded to by Mr. Deosaran Bisnath in the article:

...Our moderators perform a voluntary service, 2 or 3 hours every day, but we cannot cope with moderating thousands of messages, posts, and comments every week. We cannot afford to hire full-time moderators; we cannot afford lawyers to represent us in court; and none of us wants to spend time in jail...

Why should a moderator spend time in jail for an opinion expressed by another? An email sent to a list is easily tracked, traced to its source and dealt with accordingly. To fault the moderators is akin to faulting Yahoo, to fault Yahoo is akin to faulting the Internet - and faulting the Internet leads to draconian attempts by government to block internet access. That hasn't worked too well in the past.

The government needs to get a better handle on what social media is, what social media means, and only after those things are done should it consider strategies in dealing with whatever form of postings that could cause issues.

You just can't play chess with the rules of draughts. It is in the government's interests to get this right.

 

Blog: 
Trinidad and Tobago
Censorship
socialmedia

Comments

Submitted by Edmund Gall on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 11:29.

I'm waiting for the lawyers to offer (free) advice on whether fb group admins can actually be held accountable for the postings of their members.  I'd have thought they couldn't be liable, especially if (a) their terms of use says members are responsible for their own postings, (b) any moderation they do is limited to adding members, and (c) the impact of jurisdiction (i.e. if the servers hosting the group's posts are in the US, does it matter that the poster is, and the posts can be read, in T&T?).

However, fb's own guideline's for ads posted on fb state that they must comply with all applicable laws (and they go on to cite specific requirements for alcholo-related ads which cannot be shown in certain Middle Eastern countries due to these countries' laws - see https://www.facebook.com/ad_guidelines.php).

Also, fb's definition of group admin says they're responsible for membership *and* content (see: https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=146441348760878).

So if the same ad principles apply to all postings on fb (ads, public group posts, maybe even private e-mail?), maybe the TEAM UNC admins have taken appropriate action. Your thoughts?


Regarding your comment on governments failing in the past to hold ISPs accountable for content, that may be changing:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2389375,00.asp
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2011/07/08/247218/Communications-...


There are certain circumstances when ISPs can be held liable (http://www.ehow.com/facts_7507965_liability-isps.html). For example, if an admin was also a poster (i.e. a creator of content) on the fb group, can they successfully argue they can't be held accountable for the content created by others on their fb group when they have the power (granted by fb) to remove any objectionable content from the group?

Submitted by admin on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 11:51.

if FB does bow to the local laws of a government, though Twitter and Facebook have been used by people throughout the Middle East - and we know how that went.

However, the point of what was written was not whether local applies or not but what those local laws and their implementation should be. Threats to those who run websites seems impractical when the means of finding individuals is quite easy to do.

Submitted by Edmund Gall on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 13:10.

... In general I agree with the principle that the person responsible for an offending action should be held responsible.  But this principle doesn't hold in other areas of law, so I'm wondering if it's a matter of time for it to be inapplicable in Internet content.

For example, in the corporate world, if a mid-level manager or junior employee was the root cause for the company breaking the law, one or more directors may be held liable for failing to prevent it (through corporate controls). In the case of murder, recall one of the guys prosecuted and hanged with Dole Chadee was just the driver who took the killers to the victims' house (he didn't pull the trigger - neither did Dole - but they both were hanged).

So while I believe the person directly responsible for creating the content should be targeted, I'm wondering if folks who are able to discover and remove the content but fail to do so in a timely manner are jointly responsible.

Law enforcement can ask facebook to close groups or personal accounts (see https://www.facebook.com/safety/groups/law/ and https://www.facebook.com/help/?page=211462112226850). Fb's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities makes it clear that individuals should not 'use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory' and users should not 'facilitate or encourage any violations of this Statement' (https://www.facebook.com/terms.php).

So should group admins be required to (a) spot or be informed that content on their group is potentially illegal, (b) make a competent assessment that the content is indeed illegal, and (c) remove the illegal content in a timely manner? Are they liable when the content is created (i.e. posted on their fb group) or only when they fail to take action once they knew about it? The way the Express story paints it, it's like those admins were advised that they are liable once the content is created: that, to me, is wrong. Just as the law enforcement can inform fb of illegal content and request action (through defined channels), then fb admins should have an opportunity to act to remove content they did not create.

However, given our culture in T&T to say we don't believe what we hear, but we'd act as if we believe just in case, I think the way this has played out was practical.  Even though it is technically possible to determine who actually made a specific post on fb, the government can threaten content managers (e.g. fb group admins) in T&T because enough of those content managers won't bother to find out if such a state command is valid.

I read that the UK police (and I'm sure other jurisdictions) monitor online forums in the course of investigations. I don't know to what extent they ask the forums' technology providers/creators (e.g. fb) to take action, but I'd think if they did contact fb it was because allowing the content to remain online would continue to be a violation of the existing law.

Ultimately, the government has to uphold the law, as imperfect as it may be. So:

  • given that under the State of Emergency, citizens can't possess documents that may 'influence public opinion in a manner likely to be prejudicial to public safety and order' (http://knowtnt.com/node/346), and
  • we agree that the power of social media's facitily for influencing public opinion to break existing law was well-demonstrated with the Arab Spring of Discontent and UK riots, and
  • anecdotal opinion that T&T is making more use of social media when commenting on political issues

then the T&T government will need to ensure that social media is addressed in their law enforcement actions at this time (I'm presuming that online posts will be treated like documents, which is another assumption to be tested). The generic threat to one admin (albeit perceived supporters of the UNC) and any media comment on it would be an easy step for them to make.

Further to my questions on the existing law, can existing practice regarding slander/libel offer guidance?  In the case of print media, are the editors/directors of the media house liable if the articles that led to the case contain the source of the libel/slander puts the offending text in quotes attributable to other named third-parties? Or are they only liable if the source is directly attributable to the paper's editor or employees?

Submitted by admin on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 13:30.

And I won't pretend to be one. What I will say is that when there is a State of Emergency declared and the government's stance is unclear (can you cite an Act?) regarding freedom of expression on the Internet, rash decisions can work against the government.

The Laws, as you say the government must uphold - I ask, "Where are they when it comes to social media?"

The tools - the Laws that the government has - do not scale well with Social Media, apparently. As written in the last line, you can't play chess with the rules of draughts.

What, exactly, was used to incite? What were the things said? You see, that is the problem. We do not know. And where you do not know the limits, you cannot avoid the problems. What were the problems? Do you know? 

Basically, it seems your arguments stem from a faith in the government to do the right thing. This is not necessarily wrong. But as a de facto publisher, I have to consider whether the voices on this site are given fair hearing in this climate, and as such I do not have the luxury of faith in the government doing the right thing. There are nothing but vague guidelines and the fact that one aspect of Trinidad and Tobago social media voluntarily closed down and in the same breath wrote that they didn't want to go to jail for simply moderating comments... well, you see the difference I hope.

Submitted by richjob on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 12:47.

This isn't about all that.  This is about suppressing talk contrary to The government's Story. Plain and simple.  Once the talk isn't where they can see it visibly, they will be happy.

Submitted by admin on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 18:13.

But the government really hasn't given me much to work with. Which, of course, was the point of the post.