Showing posts with label Internet freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet freedom. Show all posts

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Freedom of speech and the 'Bedreigen Wilders' speech crime - future projects

In that aftermath of the "Innocence of Muslims" hate film as "freedom of speech" an opportunity has now opened to demonistrate the hypocracies of the Western notions of what is freedom of speech and what is speech crime.  We now accept the notion that radical anti-Muslim and Islamophobic extremists can make videos that cause an international crisis, while it is strafbaar to make anti-Wilders videos in the Netherlands where one must face the rechtbank for the bedreigen Wilders speech crime.

...and as is typical with "Muslim control" in the Netherlands - everything is shamefully justified -SURPRISE! SURPRISE! - from narrative of the murders of "Pim and Theo."

[youtube id="5VHP6iVIUwo" w="300" h="300"] [youtube id="QIKaM4EuFRg" w="300" h="300"]

We know that this American extremists who made the anti-Muslim hate film  (some are also backers of Wilders) claim "freedom of speech," but their record is that they are actually opposed to freedom and liberty for their critics and opponents. Geert Wilders in the Netherlands trampled over the freedom of speech of his critics and people have been prosecuted criminally for speech crimes against Geert Wilders. In the video above, a Rotterdam rapper is getting straf (punishment) for creating a bedreigen Wilders (to threaten Wilders) video. I will be working on a full academic paper (in PDF also) about those victims who have been persecuted for this speech crime (and I may even try to contract some of these victims) and post some of their videos...

Crazy religious extremist talk is also freedom of speech!!! The are also a couple of goofy groups running around Belgium and the Netherlands calling themselves "Sharia4Holland" and "Sharia4Belgium." Most people laugh at these loud and obnoxious groups as they shout how much they'd like sharia for their countries (not likely to ever happen).

[youtube id="hMK34cG80eA" w="300" h="300"]

As a (near) flaunt speaker of Dutch, I can understand about 85% of what this fellow is saying. People DO have the freedom of speech to talk crazy and talk about sharia and the economic crisis in our streets! I applaud these religious zealot-nutcases for their courage!  BLIJVEN PRATEN!  Deze zijn je mensenrechten!

Now - this fellow above was fined 450 euro for his speech crime against Cry Baby Geert Wilders (the real juvenile delinquent here) - an act of speech crime that is actually harmless compared to the anti-Islam film that has deliberately cause harm between the US and the Arab world.Shouting that you want sharia law to rule in Belgium and the Netherlands should not - in a democratic and free societyNEVER warrant any national security investigations, or intelligence spying, having your bank accounts sifted ----- let allow charges for a criminal act. However - knowing the AIVD (Dutch intelligence service) like I do, this is no laughing matter. The AIVD is as genuinely Islamophobic of an organization as one can imagine, and I suspect the AIVD uses the discredited NYPD  "radicalization model"- and given this assumption - the fellow and his friends have probably been labeled as "radicalized Muslims" a long time ago.

Not all 'threats' should be viewed as legitimate. Usually, but never the case with the bedreigen Wilders speech crime, what is a legitimate crime is weighted against the ability to carry out a threat. The fellow has no ability to harm Geert Wilders as much as getting his sharia law dreams for Europe. We must realize that this fellow  simply has no means with which to carry out his threats against Wilders.  These public statements being heard by people in the street have the appearance of street theater, not actual threats to take action against Wilders.

If somebody wanted to actually harm Wilders, he would not tell people in such a public place and he would be an expert assassin, and such an expert assassin would not waste his time on Wilders. It is highly likely that al-Qaeda has higher value targets than Geert Wilders.  So, we should see the occasional reports of "somebody threatened Wilders oh my" as childish methods to bring about social control of Muslims and justify the speech crime of bedreigen Wilders. We know that  Geert Wilders in the Netherlands trampled over the freedom of speech of his critics and people have been prosecuted criminally for speech crimes against Geert Wilders.

Geert Wilders has NO claim to be some "protector of freedom of speech!"

In reality, it's the AIVD that is becoming quite radical and this intelligence agency works against freedom of speech (as well as other freedoms) for Muslim citizens. I have some projects for the future that are going to expose the AIVD and the Dutch counter-terrorism unit NCTb and their brand of Islamophobic bullshit to the free world. In reality, AIVD needs something else better to do than Muslim social control!

Here's an ad from the CDA political party against the PVV and Wilders that avoided the prospect of criticizing Wilders as "threatening him."  Yet - is it good that child actors had to be out through this?

[youtube id="jht-LQCozB4" w="300" h="300"]

Friday, September 14, 2012

Fight for free speech - not the curbing of it!

Yes - it's a bit problematic when we have the government making a determination as to whose speech and expression should be criminalized - and we do have examples - but NONE with regard to government action being taken against the radical and extremist right, especially Islamophobic speech, including speech that advocates and celebrates violence and terrorism. 

The one I often mention is the one where legally protected speech and religious behaviour of Muslims is profiled as "radicalization." Being labeled as "a radicalized Muslim" can have serious ramifications - but there should be no such thing based only on legally protected behaviour!

We also have the "material support for terrorism" speech crime - where even speech advising a group like HAMAS can get you time in a federal prison --- but those who celebrate and even write letters of support to Anders Breivik don't even seem to get a knock on their doors.

In the Netherlands there is lots of curbing of free speech - especially that critical of Geert Wilders his the PVV "political party." There have been prosecutions for bedreigen Wilders, or threatening Wilders, that appears like a speech crime. For producing videos, texts and pictures -- people have been prosecuted and convicted of "bedreigen Wilders." Recently a court dropped charges against the creator of a anti-Wilders Hyves group for "bedreigen Wilders."  This prosecution should not have ever happened in the first place!

Yes, the government determining what is "bad speech" is problematic. But - this scum should have known (he probably did know) that problems this video would cause. What we don't want up on YouTube (which is becoming a sewer hole of the Internet) are videos depicting criminal acts, like animal abuse and violent assaults against other people. 

It is actually a better fight to fight for speech and religious rights that are equal for everyone -- when one can be a devout Muslim and be politically active, where one can produce a video against Geert Wilders, where one can be critical of the "war on terrorism" 
-- and not be put on a watchlist, arrested and prosecuted, have their lives disrupted - while those in the Islamophobic looniverse can engaged in similar expressions and speech -- and NOTHING happens to them!

Free speech needs to be for everyone - without exceptions for religion, ethnicity, or political orientations..

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Dutch, French and European Internet freedom hypocrisy

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="200" caption="Liu Xiaobo: The politically correct human rights hero."][/caption]

We have in the Western world human rights hypocrisy and politically correct human rights heroes. First of all, various human rights defenders, especially in Burma and China, are celebrated and receive advocacy, while those fighting for human rights and Internet freedom in the United States and the Netherlands are even demonized, criminalized and removed from the Internet.The human rights hypocrisy with regard to Internet freedom comes with the phony and politically correct advocacy for only those "human rights heroes" that oppose America's enemies. This is the case with France and the Netherlands, and this is very obvious in the Wikileaks war, where 2 teens have been arrested for harmlessly protesting the removal of Wikileaks ability to get donations!  The reality is that both Julian Assange and Liu Xiaobo are being persecuted by big global powers for their Internet activism. Assange is a politically incorrect Net user and made the US angry, while Xiaobo is for than advancement of the Western phony "Internet freedom" agenda for political purposes.  

But - both the Dutch and French advocate "Internet code of conduct" for governments?!" Over the past year, both France and the Netherlands have been advocating for Internet freedom and free expression over the Internet. On May 26, 2010, the Dutch government put out a statement that their government and the French government wanted a "code of conduct" that would be aimed at governments and be in the positive for Internet users' freedom of expression. This international code of conduct was also in regard to the flow of Internet traffic. This code has to do with software used to filter Internet access (also see Dutch Mission to the UN ). The then Dutch Foreign minster, Maxime Verhagen, said in the statement:
Freedom of expression applies everywhere, including the internet. But in many countries people are persecuted for expressing their opinion online. We want concrete measures against internet censorship. 

Well, the Dutch "Internet freedom" hypocrisy reared its head in September, when Dutch bloggers, academic and journalists were alarmed by proposed legislation that would have allowed judges and prosecutors to have websites removed, without regard for the seriousness of such an action (or what a bunch of hypocritical fools the Dutch government looked like).Yes - so-called "advocacy of Internet freedom" by the Dutch government is only a rock to throw at American enemies.

Now - we have Wikileaks and both the French and Dutch governments have REALLY shown their hypocrisy. The actions of especially the French and US governments should make us quite concerned for Internet freedom in the Western world. The French government minster, Éric Besson, had "declared war" on Wikileaks and used his governmental position to try and get Wikileaks off of French servers. Besson stated that the servers' hosting of Wikileaks was "not acceptable" tried to get a court to go along with a ban of French servers. The court refused to force the service provider to remove Wikileaks. OVH, the service provider, stated that it was not for or against the Wikileaks site, but that it wanted to "fulfill its contract as that is their job." Good for the great customer service of OVH - and not bending to government pressure.The Wikileaks site was chased onto the French servers after being closed from Amazon. While Amazon denies governmental pressure (yea - right - you gave into government pressure Amazon!) it is known that the US government placed pressure on PayPal and Twitter to close Wikileaks sites. There have been reports that filters were used to filter "Wikileaks" on Twitter.

I'd like to donate to Wikileaks !!! PayPal, Visa, Mastercard - still allow donations for the KKK and other violent racist groups - contrary to "terms of service." Also - it is known that Geert Wilders' so-called "legal defense" uses PayPal - even as Wilders is a known Islamiphobic hate monger that uses the disprovable "Islamisation" myth and is a crackpot fraud who'd like to bring an anti-Muslim dictatorship to the Netherlands. But- Assange and his followers are "dangerous and threatening?!"[youtube id="h7GuTPI8mfM" w="250" h="250"]We should all be concerned, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation, about creeping censorship, and be ready to stand up to it. The Internet services were pulled after the phone calls from Congressmen, especially Joe Lieberman.
According to Amazon, WikiLeaks violated the site's terms of service, resulting in Amazon pulling the plug on hosting services. However, news sources have also reported that Amazon cut off WikiLeaks after being questioned by members of the staff of Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman. While it's impossible to know whether or not Amazon's decision was directly caused by the call from the senator's office, we do know that Lieberman has proposed "anti-WikiLeaks legislation" and that he has a history of pushing for online censorship in the name of "security." 

When the US web services are pulled because of a phone call from a Congressman, or other US governmental official, we have have a whole new ballgame. It is different for a web service provider like Twitter to yank services and delete accounts under specific guidelines (and give an explanation), but when this is done in response to government commands. Yet - service providers can claim "violations of terms of service" any time they want, actually.  The removal of services by big name companies in the fashion seen by this observer is consistent with the hidden hand of the US government at work.

QUESTION: Why is Internet censorship by the US government treated differently from Internet censorship by the Chinese and Iranian governments?

Éric Besson's "defending an ally" against citizens' actions is supposedly "free and democratic Western nations?" The Ayatollahs of Iran need to just use the telephone the next time they which to remove a renegade blogger. The same tactic used by Senator Lieberman should be true for the authorities in China:  Why waste your time - just call and put pressure of the ISP providing the service.  A few threats from the hidden hand, as with the US government, should also go a long way.This hypocrisy will should your blood boil - as Internet freedom for American and Western critics like ME is now under threat. Do I now have to fear that a Congressman or some US government official can call Yahoo or Wordpress and have my blogs and websites deleted?Éric Besson refereed to his hypocritical attempts to have Wikileaks censored from French servers as "defending an ally."  This statement is an absolute demonstration that niceties like a "promote Internet freedom" are at the whims of selfish and obsessive American interests in the phony "war on terror," much like "Sweden as a bastion of press freedom."  If this is "defending an ally" against fellow citizens of democratic states, what then is the same governmental behavior against citizens called in China? Iran?

Now - was not the Warsaw Pact's invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 also "defending and ally?" Let's find out who these teens arrested in the Netherlands are - as we should regard them as heroes for fighting for our Internet freedom. Give them the Defenders' Tulip! The Sakharov Prize! They are now being persecuted by the Dutch governemnt for defending Internet freedom!  These teens arrested by Dutch "compucops" are actually the real heroes - like those in China and Iran fighting for Internet freedom. Likewise, Assange, the subject of US persecution, could be criminalized yet - and European governments like the Dutch and French would willingly participate. This is not the case with Chinese blogger Liu Xiaobo, who is the Western world's human rights hero du jour, a real politically correct human rights hero.The Dutch need to do the correct and honorable thing - and drop all charges against the teens ... as the next peep out of the Dutch government on some nice "code of conduct for Internet freedom" will look a bit -- well hypocritical.Now - let's remember this - Wikileaks and Western hypocrisy on Internet freedom - all of us - the next time the Dutch and French governments propose "a code of conduct for combating Internet censorship."