• Twitter won’t autoban neo-Nazis because the filters may ban GOP politicians

    Is booting neo-Nazis from Twitter a simple process? Probably not. Can steps be taken at the very least to punish racist tweets? Probably, but not everyone will be happy with whose hate speech gets scrubbed as a result.

  • Is NSO Group’s infamous Pegasus spyware being traded through the EU ?

    When sophisticated surveillance systems are sold and used effectively without constraint, it puts civil society, free expression, and our democracies in the crosshairs. The brutal murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi remains a grim reminder of the vulnerability of those speaking out for human rights. In the European Union, there are export controls designed to prevent sales of these kinds of systems to certain countries with troubling human rights records. The question is, how well (...)

    #NSO #Pegasus #spyware #exportation #activisme #sécuritaire #hacking #surveillance #journalisme #web (...)


  • UN Human Rights Council Should Address Human Rights Crisis in Cambodia at its 42nd Session

    Dear Excellency,

    The undersigned civil society organizations, representing groups working within and outside Cambodia to advance human rights, rule of law, and democracy, are writing to alert your government to an ongoing human rights crisis in Cambodia and to request your support for a resolution ensuring strengthened scrutiny of the human rights situation in the country at the upcoming 42nd session of the UN Human Rights Council (the “Council”).

    National elections in July 2018 were conducted after the Supreme Court, which lacks independence, dissolved the major opposition party, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP). Many believe that this allowed the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) under Prime Minister Hun Sen to secure all 125 seats in the National Assembly and effectively establish one-party rule. Since the election, respect for human rights in Cambodia has further declined. Key opposition figures remain either in detention – such as CNRP leader Kem Sokha, who is under de facto house arrest – or in self-imposed exile out of fear of being arrested. The CNRP is considered illegal and 111 senior CNRP politicians remain banned from engaging in politics. Many others have continued to flee the country to avoid arbitrary arrest and persecution.

    Government authorities have increasingly harassed opposition party members still in the country, with more than 147 former CNRP members summoned to court or police stations. Local authorities have continued to arrest opposition members and activists on spurious charges. The number of prisoners facing politically motivated charges in the country has remained steady since the election. The government has shuttered almost all independent media outlets, and totally controls national TV and radio stations. Repressive laws – including the amendments to the Law on Political Parties, the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations, and the Law on Trade Unions – have resulted in severe restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association.

    It is expected that a resolution will be presented at the 42nd session of the Human Rights Council in September to renew the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia for another two years. We strongly urge your delegation to ensure that the resolution reflects the gravity of the situation in the country and requests additional monitoring and reporting by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Mandated OHCHR monitoring of the situation and reporting to the Council, in consultation with the Special Rapporteur, would enable a comprehensive assessment of the human rights situation in Cambodia, identification of concrete actions that the government needs to take to comply with Cambodia’s international human rights obligations, and would allow the Council further opportunities to address the situation.

    Since the last Council resolution was adopted in September 2017, the situation of human rights in Cambodia, including for the political opposition, human rights defenders, and the media, has drastically worsened. Developments since the 2018 election include:

    Crackdown on Political Opposition

    On March 12, 2019, the Phnom Penh Municipal Court issued arrest warrants for eight leading members of the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party who had left Cambodia ahead of the July 2018 election – Sam Rainsy, Mu Sochua, Ou Chanrith, Eng Chhai Eang, Men Sothavarin, Long Ry, Tob Van Chan, and Ho Vann. The charges were based on baseless allegations of conspiring to commit treason and incitement to commit felony. In September 2018, authorities transferred CNRP head Kem Sokha after more than a year of pre-trial detention in a remote prison to his Phnom Penh residence under highly restrictive “judicial supervision” that amounts to house arrest. Cambodian law has no provision for house arrest and there is no evidence that Sokha has committed any internationally recognizable offense.

    During 2019, at least 147 arbitrary summonses were issued by the courts and police against CNRP members or supporters. Summonses seen by human rights groups lack legal specifics, containing only vague references to allegations that the person summoned may have violated the Supreme Court ruling that dissolved the CNRP in November 2017.

    Human Rights Defenders and Peaceful Protesters

    In November 2018, Prime Minister Hun Sen stated that criminal charges would be dropped against all trade union leaders related to the government’s January 2014 crackdown on trade unions and garment workers in which security forces killed five people. However, the following month, a court convicted six union leaders – Ath Thorn, Chea Mony, Yang Sophorn, Pav Sina, Rong Chhun, and Mam Nhim – on baseless charges and fined them. An appeals court overturned the convictions in May 2019, but in July 2019 the court announced its verdict in absentia convicting Kong Atith, newly elected president of the Coalition of Cambodian Apparel Workers Democratic Union (CCAWDU), of intentional acts of violence in relation to a 2016 protest between drivers and the Capitol Bus Company. The court imposed a three-year suspended sentence, which will create legal implications under Article 20 of the Law on Trade Unions, which sets out among others that a leader of a worker union cannot have a felony or misdemeanor conviction.

    In December 2018, Thai authorities forcibly returned Cambodian dissident Rath Rott Mony to Cambodia. Cambodian authorities then prosecuted him for his role in a Russia Times documentary “My Mother Sold Me,” which describes the failure of Cambodian police to protect girls sold into sex work. He was convicted of “incitement to discriminate” and in July 2019 sentenced to two years in prison.

    In March 2018, the government enacted a lese majeste (insulting the king) clause into the Penal Code, and within a year four people had been jailed under the law and three convicted. All the lese majeste cases involved people expressing critical opinions on Facebook or sharing other people’s Facebook posts. The government has used the new law, along with a judiciary that lacks independence, as a political tool to silence independent and critical voices in the country.

    In July 2019, authorities detained two youth activists, Kong Raya and Soung Neakpoan, who participated in a commemoration ceremony on the third anniversary of the murder of prominent political commentator Kem Ley in Phnom Penh. The authorities charged both with incitement to commit a felony, a provision commonly used to silence activists and human rights defenders. Authorities arrested seven people in total for commemorating the anniversary; monitored, disrupted, or canceled commemorations around the country; and blocked approximately 20 members of the Grassroots Democracy Party on their way to Takeo province – Kem Ley’s home province.

    Attacks on Journalists and Control of the Media

    Prior to the July 2018 election, the Cambodian government significantly curtailed media freedom, online and offline. In 2017, authorities ordered the closure of 32 FM radio frequencies that aired independent news programs by Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Voice of America. RFA closed its offices in September 2017, citing government harassment as the reason for its closure. The local Voice of Democracy radio was also forced to go off the air.

    Since 2017, two major independent newspapers, the Phnom Penh Post and The Cambodia Daily, were subjected to dubious multi-million-dollar tax bills, leading the Phnom Penh Post to be sold to a businessman with ties to Hun Sen and The Cambodia Daily to close.

    Social media networks have come under attack from increased government surveillance and interventions. In May 2018, the government adopted a decree on Publication Controls of Website and Social Media Processing via Internet and the Law on Telecommunications, which allow for arbitrary interference and surveillance of online media and unfettered government censorship. Just two days before the July 2018 elections, authorities blocked the websites of independent media outlets – including RFA and VOA – which human rights groups considered an immediate enforcement of the new decree.

    Since then, Cambodian authorities have proceeded with the politically motivated prosecution of two RFA journalists, Yeang Sothearin and Uon Chhin. They were arrested in November 2017 on fabricated espionage charges connected to allegations that the two men continued to report for RFA after RFA’s forced closure of its Cambodia office. They were held in pre-trial detention until August 2018. Their trial began in July 2019 and a verdict on the espionage charges is expected late August. They face up to 16 years in prison.


    The Cambodian government’s actions before and since the July 2018 election demonstrate a comprehensive campaign by the ruling CPP government to use violence, intimidation and courts that lack judicial independence to silence or eliminate the political opposition, independent media, and civil society groups critical of the government.

    We strongly urge your government to acknowledge the severity of the human rights situation and the risks it poses to Cambodia’s fulfillment of its commitments to respect human rights and rule of law as set out in the Paris Peace Accords 1991. It is crucial that concerned states explicitly condemn the Cambodian government’s attacks on human rights norms and take steps to address them.

    For these reasons, we call on the Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requesting the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to monitor and report on the situation of human rights in Cambodia and outline actions the government should take to comply with its international human rights obligations. The High Commissioner should report to the Council at its 45th session followed by an Enhanced Interactive Dialogue with participation of the Special Rapporteur on Cambodia, other relevant UN Special Procedures, and members of local and international civil society.

    We further recommend that your government, during the Council’s September session, speaks out clearly and jointly with other governments against ongoing violations in Cambodia.

    We remain at your disposal for any further information.

    With assurances of our highest consideration,

    Amnesty International
    ARTICLE 19
    ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
    Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
    Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC)
    Cambodian Alliance of Trade Unions (CATU)
    Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)
    Cambodian Food and Service Workers’ Federation (CFSWF)
    Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC)
    Cambodian League for the Promotion & Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO)
    Cambodian Youth Network (CYN)
    Cambodia’s Independent Civil Servants Association (CICA)
    Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights (CENTRAL)
    CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
    Civil Rights Defenders (CRD)
    Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
    Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)
    FIDH – International Federation for Human Rights
    Fortify Rights
    Human Rights Now
    Human Rights Watch (HRW)
    International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
    Independent Democracy of Informal Economy Association (IDEA)
    International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
    Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC)
    National Democratic Institute (NDI)
    Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières - RSF)
    World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)

    #Cambodge #droits_humains #arrestations #opposition #liberté_d'expression #censure #presse #médias #lese_majeste #Kem_Ley #Rath_Rott_Mony #Kong_Raya #Soung_Neakpoan #réseaux_sociaux

  • International Cities of Refuge Network (ICORN)

    The #International_Cities_of_Refuge_Network (#ICORN) is an independent organisation of cities and regions offering shelter to writers and artists at risk, advancing freedom of expression, defending democratic values and promoting international solidarity.

    Writers and artists are especially vulnerable to censorship, harassment, imprisonment and even death, because of what they do. They represent the liberating gift of the human imagination and give voice to thoughts, ideas, debate and critique, disseminated to a wide audience. They also tend to be the first to speak out and resist when free speech is threatened.

    ICORN member cities offer long term, but temporary, shelter to those at risk as a direct consequence of their creative activities. Our aim is to be able to host as many persecuted writers and artists as possible in ICORN cities and together with our sister networks and organisations, to form a dynamic and sustainable global network for freedom of expression.


    #villes-refuge #art #écrivains #artistes #solidarité #liberté_d'expression

    Ajouté à la métaliste :

  • Prison avec sursis pour des étudiants qui avaient chanté « un flic suicidé à moitié pardonné »
    Le Progrès, le 4 juillet 2019

    Ils étaient prévenus d’avoir, le 29 avril dernier, alors qu’ils étaient venus soutenir un gilet jaune devant le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, chanté devant les policiers déployés sur le parvis : « Elle est où la capitaine, pan, pan, pan ! » et « Un flic suicidé à moitié pardonné ».

    On n’a pas le droit de le dire, mais on peut citer cet article :
    « Elle est où la capitaine, pan, pan, pan ! »
    « Un flic suicidé à moitié pardonné ! »

    #police #justice #injustice " #outrage " #liberté_d'expression et aussi #Montpellier

    • Sursis aussi pour Brassens ?

      Or, sous tous les cieux sans vergogne,
      C’est un usag’ bien établi,
      Dès qu’il s’agit d’rosser les cognes
      Tout le monde se réconcilie.
      Ces furies perdant toute mesure
      Se ruèrent sur les guignols,
      Et donnèrent je vous l’assure
      Un spectacle assez croquignol.

      En voyant ces braves pandores
      Être à deux doigts de succomber,
      Moi, j’bichais car je les adore
      Sous la forme de macchabées.
      De la mansarde où je réside
      J’excitais les farouches bras
      Des mégères gendarmicides
      En criant :"Hip, hip, hip, hourra !"

  • Montpellier : Des étudiants condamnés pour avoir entonné des chants saluant le suicide de policiers

    Quatre étudiants ont été condamnés jeudi par le tribunal correctionnel de Montpellier, dans l’Hérault, à trois mois de prison avec sursis pour outrage, pour avoir entonné, le 29 avril dernier, des chants saluant le suicide de policiers.​

    Ils étaient accusés d’avoir, le 29 avril dernier, alors qu’ils étaient venus soutenir un « gilet jaune » devant le tribunal de Montpellier, chanté devant les policiers déployés sur le parvis : « Elle est où la capitaine, pan, pan, pan ! » et « Un flic suicidé à moitié pardonné ». Une capitaine de police, mère de deux enfants, s’était suicidée quelques jours auparavant, le 18 avril, dans son bureau de l’hôtel de police de Montpellier.


    Les quatre condamnés, deux jeunes femmes et deux jeunes hommes, ont également été condamnés à verser 500 euros à chacun des huit policiers qui se sont portés parties civiles, et 500 euros au syndicat de police Alliance. Le juge leur a expliqué ce jeudi matin en rendant son délibéré que sa décision était notamment fondée sur les témoignages de huit policiers assermentés, et sur des vidéos.

  • Grandeurs et misères de la caricature
    Jean-François Nadeau, Le Devoir, le 15 juin 2019

    Voici une poire. Un dessin de poire. Mais regardez mieux. Dans un second dessin, la poire semble mûrir un peu vite. Au bout d’un enchaînement de quatre dessins, la tête d’un roi gras, Louis-Philippe, est là, à la place de la poire… La poire devenue roi. Et vice versa. Tout le monde rigole de cette audace du dessinateur. Vive la poire ! Vive le roi ! Nous sommes en 1831. La première version de ce dessin, qui connaîtra plusieurs déclinaisons, est un grand succès. Elle est l’oeuvre d’Honoré Daumier, selon une idée de Charles Philipon, directeur du journal La Caricature.

    En ce roi terne, Charles Philipon voit un barrage contre la liberté de la presse. C’est dans des saillies pareilles, portées par la caricature, que la presse gagne, au XIXe siècle, le droit d’exprimer librement des idées.

    Pour Ersy Contogouris, professeur au Département d’histoire de l’art de l’Université de Montréal et spécialiste de l’histoire de la caricature, « le gouvernement de Louis-Philippe attendait un prétexte pour essayer de limiter davantage la liberté d’expression ». En 1835, une tentative d’assassinat contre le roi, commise avec une arme artisanale, forgée de 25 canons, donne l’occasion à l’État de limiter la liberté d’expression. On en a particulièrement contre le dessin de presse, dit Ersy Contogouris, parce qu’il peut être vu et compris même par ceux qui ne savent pas lire. Avec le temps, la censure incline à censurer tantôt le dessin, tantôt l’écriture.

    Auteure d’une histoire de la caricature au Québec, Mira Falardeau juge que « c’est très grave ce qui se passe en ce moment dans l’univers de la caricature ». Pour elle, la censure constante dont fait de plus en plus l’objet cette discipline « n’a rien d’anecdotique » et devrait inquiéter au plus haut point.

    « Il y a en effet de quoi s’inquiéter », observe lui aussi Robert Aird, auteur d’une Histoire politique du comique au Québec. « Il y a eu plusieurs cas de caricaturistes muselés. Au Venezuela, au Nicaragua, en Russie. Aux États-Unis, les caricaturistes Nick Anderson et Rob Rogers, jugés trop anti-Trump, et maintenant le New York Times. »

    « On le sait, de tout temps, la caricature est détestée par les dictatures, rappelle Mira Falardeau. Or, ce n’est plus du côté des dictatures qu’on fait la guerre à la caricature. Qu’un journal comme le New York Times décide désormais qu’il vaut mieux arrêter les caricatures plutôt que de les prendre pour ce qu’elles sont — des objets de discussion —, cela participe d’un mouvement social inquiétant, le même qui invite à faire reculer le droit à l’avortement pour les femmes. On veut taire la caricature, pour toutes sortes de raison. C’est un très gros coup qui est porté. Ce n’est pas anecdotique. Le New York Times, qui est tout de même un pilier dans le monde du journalisme, envoie un signal inquiétant. Très inquiétant. »

    Il existe des lois contre la diffusion de messages haineux. Mais dans les limites de ces législations, on se montre néanmoins toujours plus frileux. C’est ce qu’estime en tout cas Mira Falardeau. « Dès qu’il est question de religion, on entre dans une frilosité pas possible. Les journaux sont hyperfrileux. Lorsqu’un débat éclate, on voudrait nous faire croire soudain qu’une caricature publiée n’est avalisée par personne, qu’un rédacteur en chef n’approuve pas la publication au préalable. Et on pénalise la caricature seule, le caricaturiste. On commence à écraser la caricature, mais où est-ce que cela va finir ? »


    Ersy Contogouris expose le cas de deux caricatures dessinées autour de l’affaire SNC-Lavalin. Elles montrent Justin Trudeau boxer contre Jody Wilson-Raybould. Les deux dessins ont tous les deux été publiés le 15 février dernier. « Il y a eu tollé sur les réseaux sociaux à cause de la question de la violence représentée ou sous-entendue, qui a été jugée particulièrement problématique étant donné que Mme Wilson-Raybould est une femme autochtone. Un des caricaturistes, Michael de Adder, s’est excusé et a dit qu’il serait plus sensible à cette problématique, qu’il ne dessinerait plus d’images de femmes dans des situations violentes, alors que l’autre, Graeme MacKay, a dit que c’était une question de liberté d’expression et qu’il avait donc le droit de montrer ce qu’il voulait. » Selon l’historienne, les caricaturistes sont peut-être plus conscients désormais du caractère potentiellement sexiste, racisme, homophobe ou autre de leurs caricatures. Ils font sans doute plus attention. Mais « la censure qui vient du haut, de l’État ou des éditeurs et propriétaires de publications » soulève un tout autre type de problème, insiste-t-elle. Il ne faut pas tomber dans le piège de confondre les deux.

    Pour Robert Aird, il existe plusieurs angles d’analyse aux récents cas de censure. « La crise de la presse écrite affecte le dessin de presse comme le reste de l’information », dit-il. Par souci d’économie, au nom du profit, plusieurs journaux se sont séparés de leur caricaturiste attitré pour faire plutôt affaire avec des pigistes, moins payés, moins mordants aussi, explique Robert Aird. « Depuis plusieurs années, la presse engage des agences qui vendent des dessins de presse. Je me disais, en regardant ce phénomène, que cela engendrerait des caricatures plus inoffensives… Et voilà que le New York Times se fait reprocher la publication d’une caricature venant justement d’une agence ! » Dominic Hardy, professeur d’histoire de l’art à l’UQAM, observe aussi les piètres conditions de travail qui priment désormais chez les caricaturistes.


    Certes, reconnaît Mira Falardeau, les caricaturistes ne sont pas toujours très subtils. « Certains, disons, ont le trait un peu gros… Mais quoi qu’on pense par exemple de cette caricature particulière du New York Times, l’idée de supprimer complètement la caricature est un geste totalement inadmissible. »

    Aller jusque-là, insiste Robert Aird, voilà qui dépasse les bornes. « Dans le cas du New York Times, admettons que la caricature était d’un goût douteux, fallait-il cesser la publication d’autres caricatures ? Que fait-on des milliers d’autres qui ne causaient pas de controverses ? C’est abusif. »

    La caricature est peut-être dans une période de recul, après l’affranchissement qu’elle a connu au XIXe siècle, à la suite d’une lente maturation. « Cette forme graphique existe de longue date dans la tradition hollandaise, rappelle Ersy Contogouris. On y parle beaucoup de religions, contre le catholicisme en particulier. » Mais la tradition de la charge du dessin vient d’Italie, en particulier des frères Carracci qui, dans leurs ateliers, voient un côté très classique au dessin. Au XVIIIe siècle, les grands touristes anglais qui voyagent en Italie se font caricaturer. Ce travail est gravé puis diffusé en Angleterre. Ce mélange de tradition hollandaise et italienne va prospérer en Angleterre, dans un esprit de tolérance qui fera la fortune du genre.

    Pour Dominic Hardy, le contexte immédiat invite à penser que « la possibilité même d’une pensée complexe par le visuel » est désormais placée « sous haut soupçon, sous haute attaque ». Mais, dit-il, « je préfère encore de loin qu’on me dérange qu’on me dise que je n’ai pas le droit de penser, de réfléchir, de réagir, de ne pas être d’accord. »

    #BD #caricature #censure #liberté_d'expression

  • Un technicien a-t-il été renvoyé après avoir interpellé Castaner sur les violences policières à Rouen ?

    « Il a interpellé Christophe Castaner dans le cadre de ses fonctions professionnelles. Il représente mon entreprise. Il n’a pas été impoli, mais on ne peut pas mélanger le travail, avec la politique ou la religion », justifie-t-il. Il insiste aussi sur le fait qu’il ne s’agit pas d’un licenciement, puisque le technicien n’était pas salarié, mais auto-entrepreneur, d’après lui.

    #liberté_d'expression #lèse-majesté

  • Pourquoi les infractions d’« outrage et rébellion » sont-elles critiquées ? - Libération

    Dissimuler les violences policières

    La critique du délit d’outrage ne s’appuie pas que sur ces considérations financières. « Toute la difficulté de ces infractions c’est que ceux qui établissent les PV sont aussi victimes », pose Sophie Legrand, du syndicat de la magistrature. Un argument qu’on retrouve déjà dans une tribune de 2008 dans Libé, rédigée par le Collectif pour une dépénalisation du délit d’outrage (Codedo).

    Aussi, il est reproché aux forces de l’ordre de mobiliser les infractions de rébellion et d’outrages pour camoufler des violences et des erreurs policières. « Très souvent, les violences policières sont dissimulées derrière des outrages et rébellions. Si une personne blessée porte plainte alors qu’il n’y a pas de preuves, les policiers se retournent contre elle en parlant d’outrages et de rébellions. La victime des violences devient accusée. Dans un tribunal, c’est la parole des policiers contre la parole d’un jeune, qui ne fait pas beaucoup le poids. », déclarait l’actuel directeur de l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales, Didier Fassin, à Franceinfo au début de l’affaire Théo en 2017.

    Sur le même mode, l’Acat (Action des chrétiens pour l’abolition de la torture) écrivait dans un rapport en mars 2016 sur « l’usage de la force par les représentants de la loi » que « le risque d’être ainsi poursuivi constitue un obstacle dans le recours à la justice à double titre : d’une part il dissuade un grand nombre de personnes de porter plainte, d’autre part il participe à décrédibiliser le plaignant et à déconsidérer sa plainte. Dans ce type d’affaires, les plaintes pour outrage et rébellion participent de facto à une stratégie de défense contre les accusations de violences policières et aggravent le climat d’impunité. »

    #maintien_de_l'ordre #police

  • Images interdites

    Alors que le Festival de Cannes vient de boucler son édition 2019, deux auteurs, un sociologue et un philosophe, s’intéressent à la liberté d’expression et à ses possibles limites, à l’aune du traitement réservé à certaines images de cinéma, notamment pornographiques.

    #ESSAIS #Liberté_d'expression,_contrôle,_Arnaud_Esquerré,_Cinéma,_violence,_films,_réception,_classement,_Censure,_images,_Denis_Ramond,_spectateurs,_Pornographie

  • Myanmar: Surge in Arrests for Critical Speech | Human Rights Watch

    Myanmar’s authorities have in recent weeks engaged in a series of arrests of peaceful critics of the army and government, Human Rights Watch said today. The parliament, which begins its new session on April 29, 2019, should repeal or amend repressive laws used to silence critics and suppress freedom of expression.

    The recent upswing in arrests of satirical performers, political activists, and journalists reflects the rapid decline in freedom of expression in Myanmar under the National League for Democracy (NLD) government. In the latest blow to media freedom, on April 23, the Supreme Court upheld the seven-year prison sentences of two Reuters journalists accused of breaching the Official Secrets Act. Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, who won Pulitzer prizes earlier in April for their reporting, had been prosecuted in apparent retaliation for their investigation of a massacre of Rohingya villagers in Inn Din, Rakhine State, that implicated the army.

    “Myanmar’s government should be leading the fight against the legal tools of oppression that have long been used to prosecute critics of the military and government,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “During military rule, Aung San Suu Kyi and many current lawmakers fought for free expression, yet now the NLD majority in parliament has taken almost no steps to repeal or amend abusive laws still being used to jail critics.”

    #Birmanie #liberté_d'expression #répression #prix_nobel_de_la_paix

  • Dozens of university dons concerned Singapore’s anti-fake news laws will stifle academic freedom

    Over 80 academics from around the world have written to the Singapore government expressing concerns over how recently proposed laws against online falsehoods could threaten academic freedom in the city state.

    The Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill, tabled in parliament on April 1, has raised eyebrows for the sweeping powers it would hand the government.

    In their letter, sent to Singapore’s education minister on April 11 and made available to the media on April 13, the academics focused on how the proposed powers to police falsehoods could backfire on researchers. “The legislation may also set negative precedents, with knock-on effects on the global academy,” wrote the academics.

    They noted that much of academic work focuses on disputing apparently established “facts”, which are confirmed or denied through research, and continuously reappraised as new data becomes available.

    #université #censure #liberté_d'expression #liberté_académique #Singapour #anti-fake-news #loi

  • „Reisebüro GIZ

    Die Entwicklungshilfeagentur GIZ ist für mich die am wenigsten transparente Einrichtung der Bundesregierung. Manch einer hat sie schon als „Staat im Staate“ bezeichnet. Sie umgibt ein Grundrauschen aus Interessenkonflikten und Missmanagement – den einen, großen Skandal hat es jedoch noch nicht gegeben.

    Die Journalisten, die sich gerne von der GIZ zu Pressereisen einladen lassen, wie das Medienmagazin Zapp in dieser Woche berichtet, dürften ihn jedenfalls nicht aufdecken."

    [SPOTLIGHT - Correctiv Newsletter]


    #GIZ #presse #voyage_de_presse #liberté_d'expression #développement

  • #Columbia_University cancels panel on Turkey due to pressure from Turkish government”

    Colombia University effectively canceled a panel discussion on Turkey two days before the event, citing “academic standards.”

    Steven A. Cook, one of the panelists and a senior fellow for Middle East & Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, has tweeted that the decision was made after “the university came under pressure form Turkish government.

    “Disappointed to learn that @Columbia ‘s Provost effectively canceled this panel two days before the event, citing “academic standards.” One can only assume that the university came under pressure form the govt of #Turkey and its supporters. Terrible precedent,” Cook tweeted.

    The panel discussion was about the Turkish governments increasing authoritarian tendencies and human rights violations in the country since a coup attmept on July 15, 2016.

    Daniel Balson invited the university administratrion to explain “what (specifically) about this panel does not meet its “academic standards.”

    “This is stunning – @Columbia should be pressed to explain what (specifically) about this panel does not meet its “academic standards”. If they think the facts are wrong they should publicly correct. Too serious a precedent to ignore. @KachaniS, @ColumbiaVPTL @ColumbiaSpec,” Balson tweeted.

    #université #Turquie #censure #liberté_académique #liberté_d'expression #USA #Etats-Unis #standards_académiques

  • #Twitter refuse une pub du gouvernement français, afin de respecter la #loi « relative à la #manipulation de l’#information »

    Pour ne pas enfreindre les nouvelles règles des publicités politiques sur Internet, imposées par la loi dite contre les « fake news », Twitter a décidé de ne pas diffuser une publicité incitant à s’inscrire sur les listes électorales pour les élections européennes.

    #France #censure #liberté_d'expression #élections_européennes #fake_news #réseaux_sociaux #publicité

  • University of Arizona will charge 2 students over protest of Border Patrol event on campus

    Two students at the University of Arizona will be charged with misdemeanors after a video showing them protesting a Customs and Border Protection event on campus went viral, UA President Robert Robbins announced Friday.

    The potential charges stem from a Border Patrol presentation to a student club, the Criminal Justice Association, on campus on March 19.

    Video of the incident showed two Border Patrol agents in a classroom giving a presentation, with people outside the door recording them and calling them “Murder Patrol,” "murderers" and “an extension of the KKK.”

    After the agents leave the classroom, a group followed them until they left campus, chanting “Murder Patrol,” video footage on social media shows.

    Conservative media and commentators shared the video on social media and blogs as an example of free speech issues on college campuses.

    In the letter sent to students posted online, Robbins said the protest represented a “dramatic departure from our expectations of respectful behavior and support for free speech on this campus.”

    UA police determined Friday that they “will be charging” two students involved in the incident with “interference with the peaceful conduct of an educational institution,” which is a misdemeanor. A Class 1 misdemeanor could result in up to six months of jail time.

    Charges have not been filed yet, UA Police Chief Brian Seastone said in an email. The names of the two students have not been released.

    Robbins wrote that UA police will continue to investigate the matter for potential “additional criminal violations.” The Dean of Students’ office also is reviewing the incident to determine if the student code of conduct was violated.

    Separately, Robbins said the university would conduct a “probe into actions involving UA employees.” It’s unclear what role employees played in the situation.

    Robbins also has directed staff members to examine university policies “to ensure we are working effectively to help prevent similar incidents in the future” while still maintaining First Amendment rights.
    ’Protest is protected … but disruption is not’

    “At the core of these inquiries is the University of Arizona’s commitment to free speech,” he wrote. “The student club and the CBP officers invited by the students should have been able to hold their meeting without disruption. Student protest is protected by our support for free speech, but disruption is not.”

    In the days after the March 19 incident, Robbins wrote a statement affirming the university’s commitment to free speech.

    Top officers from the Associated Students of the University of Arizona, the school’s student government organization, wrote a letter dated March 21 that said unannounced visits to campus by Border Patrol were “unacceptable.”

    The letter pointed to an arrest by Border Patrol a few miles from campus the same day as the UA presentation, saying the concerns of undocumented and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals students were valid.

    Students should be notified in advance of Border Patrol visits to campus, the letter said. And there should be an understanding that the “mere presence” of Border Patrol on campus can negatively affect DACA and undocumented communities, it stated.

    On Monday, DACA recipients who attend UA also released a letter saying they face “discomfort and fear” when they see Customs and Border Protection.

    “As DACA recipients at the university, the presence of CBP on campus has a traumatic impact on our overall well being and impedes us from fully engaging with our academics. In a space where all students are given the right to pursue an education, their presence was and will always be an infringement on that right,” the letter states.

    Since the video was released, students have been “bombarded with threats to their physical and emotional well being,” the letter claimed.

    Robbins’ announcement of criminal charges for two students proves “the swiftness with which institutions criminalize people of color,” the letter said.

    The DACA recipients wrote that they are in “full support” of students who spoke out against Border Patrol on campus.

    #liberté_d'expression #résistance #criminalisation #USA #Etats-Unis #frontières #protestations #délit_de_solidarité

  • Confronting racism is not about the needs and feelings of white people

    Too often whites at discussions on race decide for themselves what will be discussed, what they will hear, what they will learn. And it is their space. All spaces are.

    I was leaving a corporate office building after a full day of leading workshops on how to talk about race thoughtfully and deliberately. The audience for each session had been similar to the dozens I had faced before. There was an overrepresentation of employees of color, an underrepresentation of white employees. The participants of color tended to make eye contact with me and nod – I even heard a few “Amens” – but were never the first to raise their hands with questions or comments. Meanwhile, there was always a white man eager to share his thoughts on race. In these sessions I typically rely on silent feedback from participants of color to make sure I am on the right track, while trying to moderate the loud centering of whiteness.

    In the hallway an Asian American woman locked eyes with me and mouthed: “Thank you.” A black man squeezed my shoulder and muttered: “Girl, if you only knew.” A black woman stopped me, looked around cautiously to make sure no one was within earshot, and then said: “You spoke the truth. I wish I could have shared my story so you’d know how true. But this was not the place.”

    This was not the place. Despite the care I take in these sessions to center people of color, to keep them safe, this still was not the place. Once again, what might have been a discussion about the real, quantifiable harm being done to people of color had been subsumed by a discussion about the feelings of white people, the expectations of white people, the needs of white people.

    As I stood there, gazing off into the memory of hundreds of stifled conversations about race, I was brought to attention by a white woman. She was not nervously looking around to see who might be listening. She didn’t ask if I had time to talk, though I was standing at the door.

    “Your session was really nice,” she started. “You said a lot of good things that will be useful to a lot of people.”

    She paused briefly: “But the thing is, nothing you talked about today is going to help me make more black friends.”

    I was reminded of one of the very first panels on race I had participated in. A black man in Seattle had been pepper-sprayed by a security guard for doing nothing more than walking through a shopping center. It had been caught on camera. A group of black writers and activists, myself included, were onstage in front of a majority-white Seattle audience, talking about the incident. Fellow panelist Charles Mudede, a brilliant writer, film-maker and economic theorist, addressed the economic mechanisms at work: this security guard had been told that his job was to protect his employers’ ability to make a profit. He had been told that his job was to keep customers who had money to spend happy and safe. And every day he was fed cultural messages about who had money and who didn’t. Who was violent and who wasn’t. Charles argued that the security guard had been doing his job. In a white supremacist capitalist system, this is what doing your job looked like.

    Well, at least he was trying to argue that point. Because halfway through, a white woman stood up and interrupted him.

    “Look, I’m sure you know a lot about all this stuff,” she said, hands on hips. “But I didn’t come here for an economics lesson. I came here because I feel bad about what happened to this man and I want to know what to do.”

    That room, apparently, wasn’t the place either. According to this woman, this talk was not, or should not have been, about the feelings of the man who was pepper-sprayed, or those of the broader black community, which had just been delivered even more evidence of how unsafe we are in our own city. She felt bad and wanted to stop feeling bad. And she expected us to provide that to her.

    At a university last month, where I was discussing the whitewashing of publishing and the need for more unfiltered narratives by people of color, a white man insisted that there was no way we were going to be understood by white people if we couldn’t make ourselves more accessible. When I asked him if all of the elements of white culture that people of color have to familiarize themselves with just to get through the day are ever modified to suit us, he shrugged and looked down at his notebook. At a workshop I led last week a white woman wondered if perhaps people of color in America are too sensitive about race. How was she going to be able to learn if we were always getting so upset at her questions?

    I’ve experienced similar interruptions and dismissals more times than I can count. Even when my name is on the poster, none of these places seem like the right places in which to talk about what I and so many people of color need to talk about. So often the white attendees have decided for themselves what will be discussed, what they will hear, what they will learn. And it is their space. All spaces are.

    One day, in frustration, I posted this social media status:

    “If your anti-racism work prioritizes the ‘growth’ and ‘enlightenment’ of white America over the safety, dignity and humanity of people of color – it’s not anti-racism work. It’s white supremacy.”

    One of the very first responses I received from a white commenter was: “OK, but isn’t it better than nothing?”

    Is it? Is a little erasure better than a lot of erasure? Is a little white supremacy leaked into our anti-racism work better than no anti-racism work at all? Every time I stand in front of an audience to address racial oppression in America, I know that I am facing a lot of white people who are in the room to feel less bad about racial discrimination and violence in the news, to score points, to let everyone know that they are not like the others, to make black friends. I know that I am speaking to a lot of white people who are certain they are not the problem because they are there.

    Just once I want to speak to a room of white people who know they are there because they are the problem. Who know they are there to begin the work of seeing where they have been complicit and harmful so that they can start doing better. Because white supremacy is their construct, a construct they have benefited from, and deconstructing white supremacy is their duty.

    Myself and many of the attendees of color often leave these talks feeling tired and disheartened, but I still show up and speak. I show up in the hopes that maybe, possibly, this talk will be the one that finally breaks through, or will bring me a step closer to the one that will. I show up and speak for people of color who can’t speak freely, so that they might feel seen and heard. I speak because there are people of color in the room who need to hear that they shouldn’t have to carry the burden of racial oppression, while those who benefit from that same oppression expect anti-racism efforts to meet their needs first. After my most recent talk, a black woman slipped me a note in which she had written that she would never be able to speak openly about the ways that racism was impacting her life, not without risking reprisals from white peers. “I will heal at home in silence,” she concluded.

    Is it better than nothing? Or is the fact that in 2019 I still have to ask myself that question every day most harmful of all?

    #racisme #inégalité #subalternité #silence #pouvoir #trauma #traumatisme #safe_place #porte-parole #espace_public #parole_publique #témoignage #liberté_d'expression #Noirs #Blancs #USA #Etats-Unis

  • [Europe1] 30 ans après sa création, que faudrait-il changer au Web ?

    Matthieu Belliard embarque les auditeurs pour écrire avec lui ce “Grand journal du soir”. Trois heures d’actualité avec toute la rédaction d’Europe 1 et de nombreux invités. Coups de gueule, coups de cœur, témoignages, ils interviennent…

    #censure_et_filtrage_du_Net #Cite_La_Quadrature_du_Net #liberté_d'expression #Revue_de_presse #Vie_privée_-_Données_personnelles #revue_de_presse

  • [ActeursPublics] Débat : L’État face aux géants du Web

    Chaque mois, Écrans publics propose de débattre autour de documentaires qui interrogent les politiques publiques. Ce mois-ci, la diffusion du documentaire Apple, Google, Facebook, les nouveaux maîtres du monde, de Yannick Adam de Villiers, a…

    #censure_et_filtrage_du_Net #Cite_La_Quadrature_du_Net #liberté_d'expression #Revue_de_presse #Surveillance #Vie_privée_-_Données_personnelles #revue_de_presse

  • [BFMTV] 30 ans du Web : HTTP, URL… ce que signifient ces acronymes qui nous connectent

    Créées à la fin des années 80, ces technologies constituent encore aujourd’hui les bases du Web, tel qu’il est utilisé par la plupart des internautes dans le monde. “Vague, mais prometteur”. C’est ainsi que le projet…

    #Cite_La_Quadrature_du_Net #liberté_d'expression #Revue_de_presse #Vie_privée_-_Données_personnelles #revue_de_presse

  • French resist effort to censor criticism of Zionism
    Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada, le 4 mars 2019

    The French president’s move, praised by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is part of a transatlantic campaign to weaponize often false accusations of anti-Semitism to smear and silence critics of Israel.

    #antisémitisme #antisionisme #Palestine #censure #Liberté_d'expression #BDS #criminalisation_des_militants

    Compilation sur le sujet :

  • L’antisionisme est une opinion, pas un crime - Libération

    Tribune. Monsieur le Président, vous avez récemment déclaré votre intention de criminaliser l’antisionisme. Vous avez fait cette déclaration après en avoir discuté au téléphone avec Benyamin Nétanyahou, juste avant de vous rendre au dîner du Crif.
    inRead invented by Teads

    Monsieur le Président, vous n’êtes pas sans savoir que la Constitution de la République énonce en son article 4 que « la loi garantit les expressions pluralistes des opinions. » Or, l’antisionisme est une opinion, un courant de pensée né parmi les juifs européens au moment où le nationalisme juif prenait son essor. Il s’oppose à l’idéologie sioniste qui préconisait (et préconise toujours) l’installation des juifs du monde en Palestine, aujourd’hui Israël.

    L’argument essentiel de l’antisionisme était (et est toujours) que la Palestine n’a jamais été une terre vide d’habitants qu’un « peuple sans terre » serait libre de coloniser du fait de la promesse divine qui lui en aurait été donnée, mais un pays peuplé par des habitants bien réels pour lesquels le sionisme allait bientôt être synonyme d’exode, de spoliation et de négation de tous leurs droits. Les antisionistes étaient, et sont toujours, des anticolonialistes. Leur interdire de s’exprimer en prenant prétexte du fait que des racistes se servent de cette appellation pour camoufler leur antisémitisme, est absurde.

    Monsieur le Président, nous tenons à ce que les Français juifs puissent rester en France, qu’ils s’y sentent en sécurité, et que leur liberté d’expression et de pensée y soit respectée dans sa pluralité. L’ignominie des actes antisémites qui se multiplient ravive le traumatisme et l’effroi de la violence inouïe dont leurs parents ont eu à souffrir de la part d’un Etat français et d’une société française qui ont largement collaboré avec leurs bourreaux. Nous attendons donc de vous que vous déployiez d’importants moyens d’éducation, et que les auteurs de ces actes soient sévèrement punis. Mais nous ne voulons certainement pas que vous livriez les juifs de France et leur mémoire à l’extrême droite israélienne, comme vous le faites en affichant ostensiblement votre proximité avec le sinistre « Bibi » et ses amis français.

    C’est pourquoi nous tenons à vous faire savoir que nous sommes antisionistes, ou que certains de nos meilleurs amis se déclarent comme tels. Nous éprouvons du respect et de l’admiration pour ces militants des droits humains et du droit international qui, en France, en Israël et partout dans le monde, luttent courageusement et dénoncent les exactions intolérables que les sionistes les plus acharnés font subir aux Palestiniens. Beaucoup de ces militants se disent antisionistes car le sionisme a prouvé que lorsque sa logique colonisatrice est poussée à l’extrême, comme c’est le cas aujourd’hui, il n’est bon ni pour les juifs du monde, ni pour les Israéliens, ni pour les Palestiniens.

    Monsieur le Président, nous sommes des citoyens français respectueux des lois de la République, mais si vous faites adopter une loi contre l’antisionisme, ou si vous adoptez officiellement une définition erronée de l’antisionisme qui permettrait de légiférer contre lui, sachez que nous enfreindrons cette loi inique par nos propos, par nos écrits, par nos œuvres artistiques et par nos actes de solidarité. Et si vous tenez à nous poursuivre, à nous faire taire, ou même à nous embastiller pour cela, eh bien, vous pourrez venir nous chercher.

    Premiers signataires : Gilbert Achcar universitaire Gil Anidjar professeur Ariella Azoulay universitaire Taysir Batniji artiste plasticien Sophie Bessis historienne Jean-Jacques Birgé compositeur Simone Bitton cinéaste Laurent Bloch informaticien Rony Brauman médecin François Burgat politologue Jean-Louis Comolli cinéaste Sonia Dayan-Herzbrun sociologue Ivar Ekeland universitaire Mireille Fanon-Mendès France ex-experte ONU Naomi Fink professeure agrégée d’hébreu Jean-Michel Frodon critique et enseignant Jean-Luc Godard cinéaste Alain Gresh journaliste Eric Hazan éditeur Christiane Hessel militante et veuve de Stéphane Hessel Nancy Huston écrivaine Abdellatif Laâbi écrivain Farouk Mardam-Bey éditeur Gustave Massiah économiste Anne-Marie Miéville cinéaste Marie- José Mondzain philosophe Ernest Pignon-Ernest artiste plasticien Elias Sanbar écrivain, diplomate Michèle Sibony enseignante retraitée Eyal Sivan cinéaste Elia Suleiman cinéaste Françoise Vergès politologue.

    Liste complète des signataires disponible sur : https://bit.ly/2BTE43k

  • Réactions à l’assimilation #antisémitisme / #antisionisme

    L’antisémitisme ne passera pas !
    BDS France, le 18 février 2019

    Du bon usage de l’antisémitisme en politique
    Michel Tubiana, Médiapart, le 18 février 2019

    L’antisémitisme n’est pas le racisme le plus virulent mais le plus manipulé
    Michèle Sibony, Etat d’Exception, le 18 février 2019

    Antisionisme, antisémitisme et idéologie coloniale
    Alain Gresh, Orient XXI, le 19 février 2019

    Macron says France will define anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism
    Middle East Eye, le 20 février 2019

    Intégrer l’antisionisme à l’antisémitisme, l’annonce polémique d’Emmanuel Macron
    Middle East Eye, le 21 février 2019

    Aux ordres d’Israël, Macron a choisi de diviser la France
    AFPS, le 21 février 2019

    Redéfinir l’antisémitisme pour taire les défenseurs des droits des Palestiniens
    Plateforme des ONG françaises pour la Palestine, le 21 février 2019

    Priviously on seenthis sur ce sujet :


    #Palestine #censure #Liberté_d'expression #BDS #criminalisation_des_militants