The Mirror, Vol. 14, No. 691
After having highlighted, last Sunday, Aung San Suu Kyi’s statement, “The basis of democratic freedom is freedom of speech,” I participated in a public seminar in Bangkok, jointly sponsored by the Faculty of Political Sciences’ Media Policy Studies Center of the prestigious Chulalongkorn University, and by the Thai Netizen Network, a citizens’ group, actively following developments of the Internet in Thailand. Freedom of expression is, of course, also in Thailand an important basic principle. – This seminar was convened under the title “Internet Politics and Intermediary Liability,” in response to increasing concerns about the curtailing of this freedom on the Internet.
The background for this concern is that since 2007, when a Computer Crime Act came into force, the number of blocked web sites started to increase dramatically. The authorities do no longer publish figures of how many web sites are blocked – though formerly, the figure of around 80,000 had been mentioned. The vast majority of these interventions, and also of related court cases against persons accused, are cases of lèse-majesté – of violating the constitutional principle that the King is inviolable and the Monarchy is not to be criticized.
This is not the place to go very much into details, but some points are worth to be carefully considered, as there is also a future law related to Information and Communication Technology being discussed in Cambodia.
First – In spite of the fact that the draft law in Thailand had been almost 10 years under consideration, and various sectors of society outside the government were provided the opportunity to comment on the process of drafting this legislation, civil society did not use this opportunity much – but is now concerned.
This happened probably, because the text of the law does not give much reason for concern: criminal actions – like using the internet for fraudulent business practices and to illegally gain access to bank accounts, or to physically endanger or destroy computer equipment or the means to transmit data, and to violate copyrights, were easily accepted as obviously needing regulation. And that national security should not be jeopardized is also understandable as a principle – though the wording used is very general.
Second – In spite of the warning by some legal experts, that intermediary liability – to make anybody responsible for the content of information which originates from somebody else and is only passing through a system operated by such a person – should not be made part of the law, it was done.
Critics compare this to a situation, where the owner of a bookshop would be held responsible for any page in the many books in the shop, or the employee of the Post Office who delivers a letter would be held responsible for its contents.
The general consensus of the majority of participants was that the problem is not so much in the text of this law, but its implementation. The Thai Netizens Network reported:
A source within the ICT Ministry expressed concern that many people were already misinterpreting the new law. For instance, on the day the bill was passed, senior police officers said that the law would be used to prosecute anyone bypassing state controls to access banned Web sites. However, he pointed out that the clause the police was referring to was intended to allow police to prosecute hackers breaking into an organization’s network, rather than citizens breaking out of the state’s control.
Instead of protecting computer users against attacks by intruding criminals, the majority of cases where this law has been used so far are of a different nature.
The Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia, it its Article 41, also clearly protects the freedom of Cambodian citizens:
Khmer citizens shall have freedom of expression, press, publication and assembly. No one shall exercise this right to infringe upon the rights of others, to affect the good traditions of the society, to violate public law and order and national security.
The regime of the media shall be determined by law.
As part of this legal framework, a Freedom Park was inaugurated in Phom Penh on 4 November 2010 – with the participation of one thousand persons – though only two hundred would be allowed to gather there to exercise their rights of free expression. Based on the Law on Peaceful Demonstrations created in 2009, similar places are to be established also in all provinces.
During the week, there were already two reports that the Freedom Part was used:
Members of almost one hundred families from a village in the province of Kompong Som traveled to Phnom Penh to ask for help in a land dispute with a company. The tried to voice their concerns at the Freedom Park, but as nobody did listen to them, they later moved to the city residence of the Prime Minister, hoping to get attention. There was no report that they succeeded in their efforts.
Another meeting at the Freedom Park was terminated by the deployment of a police force. A labor union had requested to show the video “Who Killed Chea Vichea?” – a film maker from the USA had collected related materials about the former trade union leader who was gunned dow in 2004. The screening of the film was again prevented, with the argument that the film cannot be shown without “permission from the relevant ministries.”
Again – the law creating the Freedom Park states that such places are to safeguard the freedom of expression. These two experiences show that the implementation of the law raises a lot of questions.
One might also ask: Do all the porn videos, reportedly shown from time to time in restaurants, coffee shops, and Karaoke parlors, have the permission from the relevant ministries?
Have a look at the last editorial – you can access it directly from the main page of the Mirror.
And please recommend The Mirror also to your colleagues and friends.
One comment on “Freedom Park Inagurated, but Not Found Useful – Wednesday, 17.11.2010”