free speech
Latest
Democratic hopeful Tulsi Gabbard sues Google over alleged censorship
Tulsi Gabbard, one of the many Democratic presidential hopefuls, is suing Google for at least $50 million. Gabbard filed a federal lawsuit against the company today, claiming that it suspended her campaign's advertising account for six hours following the first Democratic debate. Doing so, the lawsuit reportedly states, infringed on Gabbard's free speech.
Federal appeals court rules Trump can't ban critics on Twitter
President Trump's desire to block critics on Twitter just hit another snag. A federal appeals court in New York has ruled that Trump is violating the First Amendment by blocking people he disagrees with on the social network. Public officials using social accounts for "all manner of official purposes" aren't allowed to silence people simply because they disagree on a given subject, the judges said.
Sri Lanka lifts social media ban nine days after terrorist bombings
Sri Lanka's president ordered an end to the country's temporary ban on social media. The ban was instituted after devastating suicide bombings on Easter Sunday left more than 250 people dead. According to the New York Times, the government issued a statement today calling on the public "to use social media responsibly even though the ban is lifted, due to the prevailing situation in the country."
Facebook, Google and Twitter will join a hearing on tech censorship next week
Facebook, Google and Twitter will reportedly participate in a congressional hearing on tech censorship next week. The "Stifling Free Speech: Technological Censorship and the Public Discourse" hearing is scheduled for April 10th, before the Senate Judiciary's subcommittee on the Constitution. According to CNET, Facebook, Google and Twitter will all attend.
Facebook places warnings, disables auto-play for violent videos
Facebook now restricts extreme and violent content in feeds by posting warnings and preventing minors from seeing certain videos. The social net has never permitted material that may "glorify violence," but generally allowed news and documentary images depicting executions and other brutality in the interests of free speech. However, following pressure from advisers, it elected to roll out warnings for such videos and disable the usual auto-play option. One of the first videos to get one was the violent execution of a policeman who responded to calls at the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo.
Court rules Google can arrange search results any way it wants
With the First Amendment behind it, Google is now free to put search results in whatever order it wants, according to a recent ruling by a US court in San Francisco. The company has been fighting to earn this right for years, but it wasn't until last week that a judge in the Bay Area decided to grant the search giant such a thing, citing freedom of speech as the main influencer in the decision. It all started back when a site known as CoastNews filed a lawsuit arguing that Google was knowingly lowering its rankings in search results; the tech giant supposedly viewed it like a competitor and, thus, didn't want it to succeed. Shortly thereafter, Google quickly answered with an anti-SLAPP motion, which is often used by defendants to guard against litigation that would deter free speech.
The Firing Line: On Firefall forum censorship
The Massively tip line is a curious creature. It's cantankerous, unpredictable, and just as likely to bite your leg as it is to rub itself against your shins and let loose with a rumble of contentment. Despite the low signal-to-noise ratio, we do get useful info from our tipsters, often in the form of breaking news, obscure and interesting tidbits, and ideas for further coverage. This week's Firing Line falls under that last category, as we received word from one tipster that something is rotten in the state of Firefall.
China wants microbloggers to register with the government, hand over real identity
Thought that Facebook's and Google+'s requirements that you use your real name were draconian? Just be thankful you're not a weibo addict in China. The government is planning to expand a program that demands users register their real names and disclose their identity. Wang Chen, China's top internet regulation official, said the eventual goal would be to get all 250 million microbloggers registered, starting first with any new users signing up. The obvious privacy and free speech issues that could arise from such a move shouldn't need to be explained -- especially considering the country's track record of censorship and politically motivated arrests. Sadly, unlike SOPA, putting an end to this troubling law isn't as simple as putting up a black banner or emailing your congressman.
The SOPAbox: Defeating online piracy by destroying the internet
Disclaimer: The Soapbox column is entirely the opinion of this week's writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of Massively as a whole. If you're afraid of opinions other than your own, you might want to skip this column. Unless you've been living under a rock, chances are you've heard of SOPA and PIPA. The Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act are two radical pieces of copyright legislation currently being pushed through the US government. Although the stated intent of the new legislation is to provide companies with additional tools with which to combat piracy, the bill's loose wording has raised some serious alarm bells. Opponents to the proposed law say it would give corporations the ability to shut down any almost any website under the guise of protecting copyright infringement. Gamers will be affected worst of all, as the loose wording of the law makes any website with user-submitted content potentially vulnerable to a shut down order. That could include YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, any blog with a comment section, or even any online game with a chat system. Perhaps the scariest part is that you'll be affected even if you're not in the US, as one of the new law's enforcement mechanisms is to remove a site from the DNS records, a move that assumes the US has jurisdiction over the global Domain Name System. AOL is among many huge companies strongly opposing SOPA, and so naturally Massively opposes it too. In this week's massive two-page Soapbox, I make the case for why you should be worried about SOPA, and I suggest what can be done to tackle piracy in the games industry. Comments can be left on page two.
Democratic Republic of Congo bans text messaging
After a controversial presidential election that saw Joseph Kabila retain the office amid fierce protests, the Democratic Republic of Congo has shut down the nation's text messaging services in order to restore public order. Civil liberties concerns aside, it's proving to be highly dangerous for the one point four million deaf residents who rely on text messaging. Normally they would receive safety signals when conflict broke out in their vicinity -- leading to people being caught unawares in crossfires who would otherwise have remained indoors. Human Rights organization ASADHO has said the crackdown could lead to further deaths, especially for people in remote areas and has joined numerous others in requesting the repeal of the ban.
UK Gov wants opt-in system for adult material, imagine a boot stamping on a trackpad, forever
Looks like Prime Minister David Cameron's not content with just shuttering the internet during social unrest (whilst condemning others who do the same). He's declared that four of the UK's biggest ISPs have entered into an opt-in system for adult material. The move is backed by the Mothers Union but has been flatly denied by the ISPs, who insist they're offering McAfee parental controls with new signups rather than Government-level web filtering. (Probably a massive let down to those eagerly waiting to delegate their parental responsibilities.) Of course, given the flaky nature of web filtering, any sanguine word that contained an expletive (the word "arsenal", for example) could be impossible to access until you had an awkward conversation with someone over the phone.
Telex anti-censorship system promises to leap over firewalls without getting burned
Human rights activists and free speech advocates have every reason to worry about the future of an open and uncensored internet, but researchers from the University of Michigan and the University of Waterloo have come up with a new tool that may help put their fears to rest. Their system, called Telex, proposes to circumvent government censors by using some clever cryptographic techniques. Unlike similar schemes, which typically require users to deploy secret IP addresses and encryption keys, Telex would only ask that they download a piece of software. With the program onboard, users in firewalled countries would then be able to visit blacklisted sites by establishing a decoy connection to any unblocked address. The software would automatically recognize this connection as a Telex request and tag it with a secret code visible only to participating ISPs, which could then divert these requests to banned sites. By essentially creating a proxy server without an IP address, the concept could make verboten connections more difficult to trace, but it would still rely upon the cooperation of many ISPs stationed outside the country in question -- which could pose a significant obstacle to its realization. At this point, Telex is still in a proof-of-concept phase, but you can find out more in the full press release, after the break.
UK teen arrested for illegal BBM, social media crackdown gains steam
Lending further gravity to the proposed crackdown being bandied about in British parliament, an Essex teen has been arrested for sending a BBM that ran afoul of the Serious Crime Act of 2007. The 18-year old, now free on bail, allegedly used the service to encourage copycat attacks of the violent rioting that's swept London, and is set to appear in court on September 1st. It's the second known case to put RIM's private messaging service -- "popular among urban teenagers" as a cheap texting alternative -- in the UK's legal hotseat. For its part, the Canadian electronics maker has since reached out to police, promising to aid the investigation "in any way [it] can." Although no decision has yet been made to extend law enforcement's powers over social media services, such as Twitter and Facebook, arrests like these seem to indicate a murky free speech future.
UK Prime Minister exploring social media crackdown in wake of London riots (video)
As Londoners continue to pick up the rubble and carnage from this week's riots, UK Prime Minister David Cameron is exploring new ways to maintain order -- including, apparently, a government crackdown on social media. In a speech to members of Parliament today, Cameron made clear his belief that law enforcement officials should be able to curb and monitor the use of social networking sites under certain circumstances, lending credence to the theory that mechanisms like Facebook, Twitter and BlackBerry played a critical role in inciting the recent violence: "Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality." There's a fine line separating issues of national security from the rights to free speech, but it's a line that Cameron seems willing to toe. And, though he and his Conservative government are only mulling the idea, it's difficult to ignore the irony in his statements. Keep in mind that this is the same man who roundly condemned Hosni Mubarak for shutting down Egypt's internet at the height of its revolution, calling for the now-ousted leader to fully respect the "freedom of expression and communication, including use of telephones and the internet." Cameron, of course, isn't calling for anything nearly as drastic as what Mubarak orchestrated, nor is he facing anywhere near the same level of domestic turmoil. But the fundamental narrative remains the same: in the face of social upheaval, a national leader instinctively reaches for a digital muzzle as a stop-gap measure, while (perhaps) ignoring the larger, longer-term ramifications of his actions. Fortunately for the UK, though, Cameron is already doing one thing that Mubarak apparently never did -- he's thinking about right and wrong. Head past the break to see Cameron's speech, in its entirety.
PROTECT IP Act called unconstitutional by bipartisan group of law professors
Turns out Eric Schmidt is not alone in his vehement opposition to the PROTECT IP Act, and the resistance is hardly partisan. A group of over 100 law professors signed a letter (jointly authored by Mark Lemley, David Levine, and David Post) arguing that the legislation working its way through congress is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that speech can't be suppressed without the speaker being given an opportunity to defend his or her actions. Yet, under the bill being advocated for by the RIAA the MPAA, a judge can issue a temporary restraining order that will essentially shutdown a site based only on evidence presented by the government. The letter warns that, not only could overseas domain owners be cheated of the right to due process but, plenty of protected speech could be censored based a single piece of infringing material. As we warned, this can only get nastier and this nascent battle is still only just getting started. Check out the full letter at the source.
The Lawbringer: Supreme Court decides Brown v. EMA
On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that video games fall under the same First Amendment speech protections as books, movies, music, and art. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, decrying California's attempts to restrict speech as, at the same time, too under-inclusive and too over-inclusive. What does that mean for the video game industry? What does this decision mean for video games in general? Self-regulation, it seems, is doing the job when it comes to keeping parents in charge and violent video games in the hands where they belong. If you have no idea what Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) (formerly Schwarzenegger v. EMA) is about, check out my first Lawbringer feature on the topic as well as Gamasutra's feature, as it is probably the best, concise understanding of the case as it was back in November of 2010. Now, however, we have a decision. After being argued on Nov. 2, 2010, the Supreme Court decided on June 27, 2011, by a vote of 7-2 that the California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors was unconstitutional.
US Supreme Court strikes down California law, says video games are protected as free speech
It's already been found unconstitutional by lower courts, and now the Supreme Court of the United States has finally weighed in on the infamous California state law that sought to ban the sale of violent video games to minors. In a seven-to-two ruling on the Brown v. The Entertainment Merchants Association case, the Supreme Court said that video games are indeed protected as free speech under the First Amendment, and noted that under the constitution, "esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature . . . are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority." Inevitable, perhaps, but still a fairly historic day or the video game industry -- and one that we're guessing will be a bit more positively received than a certain other milestone involving violent video games this year. You can find the complete ruling in PDF form at the source link below.
Tennessee law bans 'distressing images,' opens your Facebook inbox
Congratulations Tennessee! Governor Bill Haslam has put your state in the national spotlight and, for once, it has nothing to do with Bonnaroo or how bad the Titans are. The republican executive of the state signed a ban on "distressing images" into law last week that we're sure constitutional lawyers are going to have a field day with. Anyone who sends or posts an image online (and yes, that includes TwitPics) that they "reasonably should know" would "cause emotional distress" could face several months in jail and thousands of dollars in fines. The best part? Anyone who stumbles across the image is a viable "victim" under the law and the government doesn't even have to prove any harmful intent. So, Tennessee residents who aren't cautious enough using Google image search could get a few people in trouble. Another, and perhaps more perturbing, part of the same bill also seeks to circumvent restrictions on obtaining private messages and information from social networking sites without a search warrant. We give it about a month before this gets struck down on obvious grounds that it's unconstitutional.
Danish newspaper protests App Store censorship
According to The Mac Observer, Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet isn't too happy with Apple's App Store policies regarding nudity. In a series of recently published editorials, the newspaper takes issue with Apple banning the Ekstra Bladet iPhone and iPad app because of their Page 9 Girl, a nude photograph of a woman they have been publishing for 34 years. Accusing Apple of double standards and acting like "an American nanny," the paper's Heine Jørgensen writes that he can't understand why they would ban something seen by Danes as "an innocent Danish institution on par with The Little Mermaid." Whether seen as an innocent institution or not, it really shouldn't come as a surprise that Apple has rejected an app from the App Store for nudity. As mentioned here on TUAW before, Apple has not only been banning sexual content in the App Store for quite some time now, but they have also started banning anything seen as controversial, such as the Manhattan Declaration, which we wrote about just last week. While what offends me may not offend you, Apple has to draw the line somewhere -- and they have decided to start with the idea that even "innocent" nudity is sexual content. I can't blame the folks at Ekstra Bladet for being upset at the removal of their app, but them's the rules as they stand right now.
On the Manhattan Declaration and Apple's curation of the App Store
After receiving thousands of complaints, Apple removed the "Manhattan Declaration" app from the App Store this week. The app, which espoused anti-gay and anti-abortion views, was originally released by a religious group founded by Chuck Colson. The app's ejection from the store has raised the ire of some who now decry Apple for not supporting free speech and/or being anti-Christian. Let's see if we can separate the light from the heat on this issue. First of all, stories about App Store rejections have been a staple since the dawn of the App Store. Then came stories of apps that were accepted and subsequently removed. The most infamous instances of yo-yoing in and out of the store were the Google Voice apps, which have since been restored after over a year's absence, but that is a rare case. Most times, when an app is removed, it is gone forever. Some great apps have been yanked, including MiTube, Camera+, iDOS and many more. On the inappropriate content front, Apple also removed a "Baby Shaker" application and a huge number of apps that were deemed "too sexy" for the App Store. Of course, porn apps have been banned since the App Store was announced.
