A Call to Action on Behalf of an Egyptian Blogger

Thank you guys for your comments.

briefly:

Putin in his press conference said, that these were people who were paid by Western intelligence to destabilize the social  situation the country

@Mashka, Yes, I agree with Anand that this is a standard accusation used by dictator regimes. It's still used against the revolutionaries today in Egypt. But the Internet does have a role to play, at least to expose the system before the international community and, maybe more importantly, before its own people, and then at a later stage, to organize the masses.

@Anand, the military system is Mubarak's regime :-) Unfortunately, that's what we're contending with now. We still demand that the whole regime be changed.

@Kurtkeys United States of America is the only place on earth where you're still free to express your opinion about the government, military, the political process, the justice system and all of the other things you find fault with.

I don't want to turn this into a debate of US politics, but there is a lot that you can't talk about in the US. Freedom of expression is guaranteed until it clashes with the interests of the powerful and the mighty. Think of the tenured university professor in Florida who was accused of aiding Hamas. Think of famous media personalities who lost their jobs over a comment that was deemed inappropriate or anti-Semitic, etc. Freedom of expression is relative of course, and it's better in some parts of the world than others. It not non-existent in Egypt, just today I spoke very strongly against SCAF on several international media outlets, including the BBC World Service, which are widely viewed in Egypt. And it's also not in its best forms in America, although it's definitely more tolerated.

Best regards.

Rasha

Kim,

on an english web site libelrefrom.org the following words summorize the statements I have been making reference to:

John Kampfner, the CEO of Index on Censorship:

If we don't act we're at risk of becoming a global pariah. There are US States who view English libel law as so damaging to free speech they have passed laws to effectively block the decisions of English judges. Our report is an important milestone in modernising our antiquated and chilling approach to free expression.

Tracey Brown, Managing Director of Sense About Science:

Libel laws are not just a Fleet Street issue. We have heard from scientists, campaigners, writers, academics and patients that their discussions and publications are being shut down by the threat of libel action. Critical and open debates are vital in medicine and the public are badly missing out without them.

~Kurt

There have been countless press exposes of government corruption in the UK.  The Darryn Walker case was abandoned (over-zealous policing, but no case to answer).

There probably hasn't been a prosecution for sedition in four hundred years, and the British press (Private Eye, for example) - let alone the aristocracy of comedians - criticize the courts and judges all the time.

This, for example, is a parody of a specific judge, and far from getting Peter Cook into trouble, added to his legend.

The Daily Show thing is an unfortunate hangover from a concession made when Parliament first allowed its proceedings to be televised.  There are no restrictions on criticizing or ridiculing Parliamentary proceedings, but you can't show actual footage in "comedy shows."  I am amazed that the rule exists, and I don't defend it, but it doesn't have the effect of censoring anyone.

On 27 February 2008 civil servant Darryn Walker was arrested by officers from Scotland Yard's Obscene Publications Unit for posting a work of fiction allegedly describing the kidnap, mutilation, rape and murder of the girl band 'Girls Aloud' on a fantasy pornography website. While the website was hosted outside the UK, Walker's prosecution was possible under UK law as he is a British citizen living in the UK.

Let's suppose that the watergate coverup had taken place in London and was done at the behest of the Queen. Would Woodward & Bernstein become cult heroes as they did in America by toppling the Nixon administration? Or would they have been locked away? This is a hypothetical. but points out the basic differences between the ways the laws of these two nations are written. And it has only been recently, 1998 England adopted the  European Convention and the fredom of speech rights under article 10. But they have included some restrictrions that aren't in the original version. Ie. sedition, obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency, defamation, prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors, and scandalizing the court by criticising judges. Under this last one people like Nancy Grace and Joy Behar and Stephen Colbert would be doing life sentences. And Conan Obrien and Jay Leno would be hanged from the rafters of the supreme court.

and yes you also gleaned over John Stewart's the Daily Show, on comedy central being forbidden to show their House of Commons in session.

I'm not sure I can deal with all of those examples, Kurt, but they tend to confirm me view that the US and the UK are not so different.

As for the examples of prosecutions of obscenity, the US has its own collection, including "Howl" and "Tropic of Cancer."  We could go back to the Comstock Laws, if you want to be historical.  you have a solid local history of banning music and performances. Likewise, there are procedures for court proceedings to be held "in camera" in the United States.

Defamation: I agree it's easier to bring a successful case for defamation in the States, but the burden of proof lies equally on the person accused of making defamatory statements.

Blasphemy prosecutions in the UK have been incredibly rare and usually unsuccessful.  I am not sure of the current state of the law, but I agree it's offensive - and in fact it long ago fell into disuse.

Official Secrets: well, Wikileaks.

The idea of revoicing statements by Irish paramilitary members was quite bizarre, I agree;  but their words were not censored.

What did I miss?

well a quick start primer would be CENSORSHIP IN THE UK. WHERE IT BEGINS CHRONICLING SINCE 1727 and working up through 1960 when Lady Chatterly's lover was banned and to 1970 when american author Hubert Selby Jr was subject to private prosecurion for his book, Last Exit to Brooklyn.

The libel laws in England and Wales are such the the defendant must prove he/she did not committ libel and the awards are limitless. AND until as recently as 2008 England had an anti-blastphamy law in place that forbade speaking out against Christianity.

In 2004, a memo containing details of a possible US bombing of broadcaster Al Jazeera was leaked to the press. Attorney General Peter Goldsmith has warned newspapers that they could be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act if they publish the contents of the memo, saying "You are reminded that to publish the contents of a document which is known to have been unlawfully disclosed by a crown servant is in itself a breach of section 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1989"...

From November 1988 to September 1994, the voices of Irish republicans and Loyalist paramilitaries were barred by the British government from British television and radio. This necessitated the use by broadcasters of an actor 'revoicing' the words which had been spoken by interviewees or at public meetings by the affected groups. The case of the unmade After Dark in 1988 with Gerry Adams is also relevant: see After Dark (TV series)#Gerry Adams. The ban was lifted a fortnight after the first Provisional Irish Republican Army ceasefire, on 16 September 1994...

a list of music banned from radio broadcast by the BBC includes the song Give Ireland back to the Irish, by Sir Paul McCartney. A complete list HERE

In 1922, the novel Ulysses by James Joyce was banned in the United Kingdom when it was declared obscene.
In 1985, the British government attempted to ban the book Spycatcher by MI5 officer Peter Wright because of the sensitive material it contained. Several British newspapers attempted to report on its principal allegations but were served with gag orders. They persisted and were tried for contempt of court, charges that were later dropped.
In 2007/2008 It was announced that the trial of Wang Yam, accused of murdering Allan Chappelow would be held 'in camera'. This will be the first http://www.internetevolution.com/message.asp?piddl_fieldsmode=new&piddl_replymsgid=525177&piddl_msgtopicid=45&piddl_msgthreadid=244164murder trial behind closed doors. The UK press were prohibited from speculating as to the reasons for this order.

In 2008/2009 the press were barred from printing the names of concerned parties in the murder of Baby Peter, a 17 month old boy. Websites which published the names of the defendants and the boy came under police investigation for conducting an "internet hate campaign." On 10 August 2009 the ban was lifted.
In 2011 the press was barred from publishing details of Ryan Giggs's affair with Imogen Thomas, after Giggs successfully applied for a superinjunction.

The Daily Show was prevented from showing footage of the House of Commons as it would offend "the dignity of Parliament", earlier the Daily Show was prevented from showing footage of the royal wedding.

IS THIS ENOUGH? OR ARE YOU THIRSTY FOR MORE?

Kurt

The United Kingdom is notorious for quashing the freedoms of speech voiced by dissidents.

I'd be interested in seeing one or two clear examples of that.  If it's "notorious" there should be plenty.

The limits on freedom of speech in the UK seem to me to be similar to those in the United States.

@hounhosp,

I don't believe this is the place to drag out a discussion on where our rights are derived from, but since you went there I will give you a brief lesson. The liberties and freedoms we have in the United States are not granted by the Constitution. The Constitution, when read literally, places limits on the government over how it can not be controlling the liberties and freedoms of the Americans. It is a common mistake made by most Americans when they say "the rights granted under the Constitution." The Constitution grants no rights, it merely prevents the government from infringing on the rights of the people! The Declaration of Independence states, our rights are granted by our Maker. not given by a king, throne, congress or any humans.

And while you don't think that you are in a bright shiny country, you feel quite free to put that in writing and post it on the publicInternet as a comment to an article that describes a man imprisoned for doing the same thing you just did! With seemingly no fear of reprisal... Do you see the irony?

Bradley Manning, was a member the United States military and as such, he was under a whole different set of laws, Called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ has specific punishments and an entirely different court system set up to adjudicate violations of those laws. What he did was as close classified military information to people who were not authorized to read it. And under the UCMJ, this is known as espionage and treason. Both punishable by death during time of war or any other lesser punishment up to and including life imprisonment at hard labor without parole as sentenced by a general court-martial. Bradley knew the job was dangerous when he took it. Like the old saying goes "if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime!"

Kurt

Mary,

You agree with everything he said? That bright picture he depicted is far to be perfect. 

@kurtkeys:

"You're blessed with the freedoms and liberty stated under our Declaration of Independence in addition realizing you live in the single greatest nation on this planet bar none."

What a stand! Is  USA the only country where freedom and liberty are truly respected? I do like most of the principles that the founding fathers have included in the constitution (learning from other people's mistakes), but I won't say that everything is so bright in Uncle Sam's country? 
BTW: What do you think about Bradley Manning?