Wikileaks shutdown raises censorship questions

The muckraking website Wikileaks was ordered shut down earlier this week by a Federal Judge in San Francisco, in response to a request made by Swiss bank Julius Baer (the site can still be accessed via its IP address http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks).

Wikileak's mission is to provide a repository for "untraceable mass document leaking and analysis." Whistleblowers can post to Wikileaks anonymously. The site made a splash in late 2007 when it posted a military manual with details of the daily workings of the Guantanomo Bay detention facility.

We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.

Predictably, there has been much online discussion of the shutdown order -- most of it disapproving. Palo Alto, CA internet attorney Julie Turner told CBS News that the order "is akin to seizing all the copies of The New York Times, locking the doors and ordering the landlords not to let anyone back in the building."

Whoa!

While conceding my belief that Wikileaks undoubtedly provides an aggregate benefit to society, allow me to indulge in a bit of devil's advocacy. Looking at the injuction request with my untrained legal eye, it seems pretty clear that Julius Baer sought only the "temporary and preliminary" shutdown of the site until the removal of the documents could be verified. As the bank alleges that the documents were pilfered by a "disgruntled employee" and subsequently altered, their continued display causes the bank "further irreparable harm."

Now, we could all potentially agree that the bank is probably lying here. And we could all see eye-to-eye on the likelihood that the bank will lose this case, and rightly so. But, wouldn't we also agree that property rights (these documents are the bank's property) and privacy rights (they refer to client's financial information ) are the bedrock rights of our legal system?

"But what about Wikileak's First Amendment rights," you say?

Good question. We should be ever vigilant. But should those rights extend to stolen property? We know that they don't.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but at the very least, I think disputes of this sort should play out in court, not online. Some jurisdictions may not allow a transparent and impartial setting for whistleblowers to make their case, but San Francisco is certainly not one of them.

The fact is, we are not talking here about a rogue judge shutting down The New York Times without cause or warning. This is a legal dispute in which one side is seeking legal protection and the other is displaying potentially prejudicial evidence in public.

Canada wrestles with speech laws

This past week, Canadian authorities announced an investigation into the blog postings of Solman Hossain, a University of Toronto student. Although he has not yet been charged with a crime, the government is monitoring and reviewing Hossain's activities online. The case promises to test Canada's controversial free-speech laws.

At issue are posts, such as those found on this comment thread, that Hossain made urging the killing of Canadian soldiers training for deployment in Afghanistan under NATO's banner. Hossain writes:

Canadian soldiers on Canadian soil who are training to go to Afghanistan or Iraq are legitimate targets to be killed. Now it is possible and legitimate ... believe me, if we could have enough of our soldiers killed, then we'd be forced to withdrawn (sic) from Afghanistan.

From the Associated Press report:

In a December post Hossain wrote that he hoped the Taliban would kill Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay during his December visit to Afghanistan. Hossain also writes many anti-Semitic blogs.WHEN DO I GET TO SHOOT A FEW JEWS DOWN FOR ATTEMPTING TO BLOW UP DOZENS OF MOSQUES IN AMERICA RIGHT AFTER 9-11?

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" to "everyone" in Canada. However, the Criminal Code of Canada (section 319) criminalizes anyone who issues "statements in any public place, [and] incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace."

Hossain's posts appear to fit that bill. But Canada is a multicultural, multilingual society struggling to define the limits of appropriate speech. (You can read some of the vexing details of the recent Canadian trend toward political correctness on the issue of speech here and here.) Investigators are therefore proceeding cautiously.

The Hossain case is merely the latest contentious debate between Canadian muslims and a Canadian institution to play out in public. Four muslim law students filed complaints with several Canadian governmental bodies in late 2007, alleging that their human rights had been violated by a series of articles in Maclean's magazine. One of these articles, "The future belongs to Islam" by author and columnist Mark Steyn, highlights demographic trends in Europe that seem to indicate a greater political role for Islam in the near future.

In a few years, as millions of Muslim teenagers are entering their voting booths, some European countries will not be living formally under sharia, but -- as much as parts of Nigeria, they will have reached an accommodation with their radicalized Islamic compatriots, who like many intolerant types are expert at exploiting the "tolerance" of pluralist societies....Wherever one's sympathies lie on Islam's multiple battle fronts the fact is the jihad has held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you're not shy about taking on the Israelis and Russians, why wouldn't you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Spaniards?

In the filing, the students charge that Maclean's "targets the Muslim community, promotes stereotypes, misrepresents fringe elements as the mainstream Muslim community, and distorts facts to present a false image of Muslims." You can read Steyn's reply to the charges here.

Canada's hate speech law seem in for a real test. In a story on the Maclean's flap, the Canadian Broadcasting Company quotes Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association: "Even truthful articles describing some of the awful situations in this world could run afoul of this law, it is so broad and such a potential threat to freedom of speech." That organization's motto is "The Freedom of no one in safe unless the freedom of everyone is safe."

Easier said than done.

South African Journalist Fired for Blogging

South African journalist Llewellyn Kriel was fired from the newspaper Sowetan last Thursday after blogging about the company's mismanagement on Thought Leader. The official reasoning was that Kriel disclosed confidential information about Sowetan, which the company sent out in an email to employees. Others, Kriel included, viewed the decision as an infringement on freedom of expression. Journalist Arthur Goldstuck quotes Kriel:

“Here is an organisation whose entire existence is premised on freedom of expression. It’s an organisation that continually calls on private and public institutions to account for their behaviour. Yet, they don’t want to be measured by that yardstick.

“If a company is putting out a moratorium on new appointments, surely this is something you can argue is in the public interest to be known? Nothing in the email, and nothing in the way it was distributed, gave any indication of sensitivity or confidentiality at all.”

Sowetan published an article just a week earlier on employees' constitutional right to criticize their employer's management practices.

Andrew Trench ponders what the case may signal for the future of intellectual property rights:

WiIl we see employment contracts in media restricting staff from blogging without the permission of their employer, much like freelance writing clauses which are pretty standard in contracts these days?

What if a staff writer developed a popular blog independently within their own time and was able to sell advertising to generate income from it? How would this be dealt with?

Syria blocks access to Facebook

In my last post, I mentioned the wonderful site Global Voices Online -- a sort of clearinghouse for international blogs. The site "aggregates, curates, and amplifies the global conversation online – shining light on places and people other media often ignore."

And fair play to them.

At the top of Global Voices tonight is this post from Amira Al Hussaini, detailing the censorship in Syria of the social networking site Facebook. (Access to Google's Blogger, which hosts The Ethical Blogger, is also blocked in Syria.) Hussaini links us to the Syrian blogger Golaniya, who claims to be "neither an 'Arab' nor a 'Syrian', not even a 'female'." She blogs "for the right to be a citizen."

What follows is bold, brave and truly inspiring.

...recently there has been a cultural awakening [in Syria]; people are starting to organize their interests in concerts, galleries, conferences, plays, screenings…etc. and Facebook is facilitating the process which is very hard to do in an inactive militarily controlled society. There are no cultural institutions in Syria, no private independent NGOs, no civic institutions, who represent the populations except the government? Syrian Facebookers are trying now to represent themselves. Those who cannot be activists in a "real" Syria can be one in a virtual Syria. Facebook is becoming a tool to bring together these very individuals to promote their socially, religiously and politically prohibited thoughts. We are not talking about blocking of a social networking tool, we are talking about blocking an awareness networking tool, a chance to express, to finally speak and do something about it. It's high time to demand our right to seek ALL and ANY information regardless of its source, we have the mind to decide for ourselves what we should/should not read or believe.We have the right to organize ourselves and activate our numb citizenship. We want to be socially and politically active. We want to campaign for human rights, we want to be civilians instead of abstract "Syrians," instead of mere Muslims and Christians. We want to engage in building our nation. We don’t want to be permitted to act; we want to be voluntarily and spontaneously acting. We want to be doers and actors. We want Syria uncensored!

As we discourse here on the appropriate use of profanity and anonymity in fora such as this, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that freedom of expression remains out of reach in some corners of the globe.

As Ian Bremmer points out so eloquently in his book The J Curve, authoritarian regimes rely heavily on state control of the media to keep the citizenry in the dark.

...the slightest influence on their citizens from the outside could push the most rigid...states toward instability. If half the people of North Korea saw 20 minutes of CNN (or of al Jazeera for that matter), they would realize how egregiously their government lies to them about life beyond the walls. That realization would provoke widespread social upheaval. The slightest improvement in the ability of a country’s citizens to communicate with one another—the introduction of telephones, email, or text-messaging into an authoritarian state—can likewise undermine the state’s monopoly on information.

No doubt the Syrian regime feels mortally threatened by the latent power of sites such as Facebook. It is not hard to see how easily the political opposition in Syria (such as it is) could leverage these sites, both at home and abroad, to destabilize the government of Bashar al-Assad. Even the lowliest technology (think of the role of the cassette tape in the Iranian revolution of 1979) can conceivably be employed to illuminate "life behind the walls."

We should acknowledge and commend the brave struggle of dissidents such as Golaniya.