In Vietnam: Being a Blogger Could Land You In Jail, Cost You Your Life 144
An anonymous reader writes "Bloggers in Vietnam are increasingly finding themselves thrown in jail. Despite freedom of speech being enshrined in the nation's Constitution, many who speak out against the government are thrown in jail — thanks to a new law that forbids such talk. In one desperate act, Dang Thi Kim Lieng lit herself on fire outside the Bac Lieu People's Committee building in southern Vietnam. She died of her injuries. She was protesting the detention of her daughter who was arrested for blogging against the government. Three other bloggers are scheduled be tried under section 88 of the criminal code, which relates to propaganda against the nation. A maximum sentence could carry with it 20 years in jail."
"Sounds like the United States" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Sounds like the United States" (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, in the United States, you don't even have to be a resident to break the laws.
Re: (Score:2)
How come no protest from USA ? (Score:2)
When China arrested its dissidents, USA protested
When Russia harassed its dissidents, USA protested
When Syria threatened its dissidents, USA protested
But when Vietnam did that, USA just keep quite, very very quite
Why??
Not just the USA, Holland too (Score:3, Interesting)
The Russian girl group Pussy Riot is in jail for daring to challenge Poetin during a protest.
The Dutch government is protesting. But a Dutch protester who threw a small candle (the kind that go under tea pots) against the golden carriage carrying the queen has been in jail for two years.
And no, minor acts of vandalism are NOT typically sentenced like this. Throw ice-balls causing damage to cars and you don't even get arrested. But dare to do it against the absolute ruler and BAM, in jail for two years.
Democ
Re: (Score:3)
But when Vietnam did that, USA just keep quite, very very quite
Quite what? Don't keep us in suspense, man!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem would have ended and would have been very unlikely to repeat.
I disagree on both counts. Given that Assange was in a country that was a firm U.S. ally then declaring war (missiles into a sovereign country) would create far more problems than it would solve. Admittedly it is debated, but U.S. interference encouraged terrorism, and in fact, the very leaks you are proposing even more heavy-handedness would stop.
Re: (Score:1)
I think our ideas on how to behave toward others, manage a society and diplomacy are too different to get far here, but a couple of points;
Assange is leaking military secrets intended to kill US servicemen in a war authorized by our Congress
That's not a fair analysis of Wikileak's intentions. If it were they would have redacted nothing. Their intention is to reveal 'unethical' behaviour and embarass the U.S. government into behaving better.
Don't we have any goddamned spies anymore? We should have stuck a shiv [..] quiet and off the public radar.
Why off the public radar, unless you think the government knows best and the opinion of the people should be disregarded? This is the sort of behaviour Wikileaks attem
Re: (Score:3)
They're still classified IN THE U.S. The rest of the world couldn't care less what the US thinks should be classified, even if they will toady to the US a bit because they want the US to buy their stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Congress and the American People serve as the check on our government.
Congress and the American People can only serve as a check if they have the information which will enable them to form a correct opinion. Wikileaks provides this information. The government classifies anything which might otherwise upset the people or cause bigwigs in fancy government offices to lose their jobs, creating the need for an entity like Wikileaks to exist in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why you claimed then, only to say it doesn't matter when you got refuted?
You wish dude, you wish.
Re: (Score:2)
And you're proposing fixing this sort of issue by throwing some missiles into a neutral country (that happens to be harbouring Assange, but that may be unaware of his actions and is in no way responsible for them) to destroy the DataCentre? Again, Really?
I do agree with you about the failure of intelligence however. I've a nasty feeling that Assange may have ended up dead in a 'road ac
Re: (Score:1)
> that's murder.
No, statecraft. He challenged the authority of the US government to hold secrets, something only a nation state actor is permitted to do by the Law of Nations, and that only by force of arms. So he should suffer the consequences of our counter assertion that he does NOT in fact have that power when the full might of our Rightous Anger falls smack on his sorry ass.
Remember that ALL State authority derives from it's claim on a monopoly on the use of force. Our laws on national secrets ar
Re: (Score:2)
The United State's government forfeits its rights to hold secrets when it acts against the Contitution and against the will of the People, do to evil acts of mass murder and plundering and power mongering. The elite with our government in its pockets needs to be opposed.
shill. liar. (Score:2)
The U.S. is not involved in any war; the Constitution lays out the procedure for Congress to declare war. We are attacking people who did not attack us, we are mass murdering and maiming for resources and political coin.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhh...the US government covered up for a PMC that was SELLING LITTLE KIDS to get better arms deals. Oh and that was the SECOND TIME they had been caught pulling that shit, the first was in Kosovo.
I'm sorry but your right to get on a high horse dies when you cover up for child rapists, the end.
References?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Sounds like the United States" (Score:4, Interesting)
Assange is leaking military secrets intended to kill US servicemen in a war authorized by our Congress
You are an idiot if you think he is doing it to try to kill servicemen. And I hate the name servicemen, it sounds like plumbers and carpenters. Call them what they are: soldiers. Be honest and stop trying to give them a nice name. They kill for a living, and they accept the risk of death as part of their occupational hazards.
Nothing he has leaked has resulted in anybody dying. So your entire argument is invalid.
So what? (Score:2)
Let me guess, because there's no formal declaration of war, that means that it's just more of the US Government eroding the Constitution and making the founding fathers spin in their graves, right?
Well, I need to ask if you think that John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were also somehow going against what the founding fathers wanted? They WERE the founding fathers, and used this in each of their administrations.
Congress has authorized the use of military force in the following years, for the c
Re:"Sounds like the United States" (Score:4, Informative)
He isn't inside the US, and isn't a citizen of the US, therefore he can't be a traitor for releasing documents on the US, even if the US wanted them kept secret.
Yes, they probably should have asked the datacenter to disconnect him, however even if they had agreed, as the datacenter probably had a contract with Wikileaks, the local court could have ordered them to resume service. That's what happens when another country makes demands somewhere they don't have any sovereignty, people don't tend to listen. How would you feel if Spain suddenly decided that the website you are hosting says things that they would rather keep secret, so they threaten to send missiles in if you won't remove the site? You'd probably laugh them off. Well, Europe feels much the same about the US.
Following a refusal with missiles probably would have caused several embargos on the US from around the world. Certainly from Europe, South America, and Australia. I suspect a lot of countries would start refusing entry for US tourists, and the resultant backlash from the US population on whoever ordered the attacks would be enormous. Mostly, however, it would make Assange a martyr, which is the last thing the US wants. Right now he is a loner with sex scandal charges hanging over him. Take him out, and thousands will rise up in his place.
Re: (Score:2)
I might agree with you if the feds weren't a mercenary government that no longer follows the law.
Lame title (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Sounds like the United States" (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet you can blithely say that, posting logged in to your account, with full knowledge that your IP address and user agent string are being logged, and yet still have no fear that the US government will ever come hunting you down for your disparaging remarks.
Re:"Sounds like the United States" (Score:5, Insightful)
still have no fear that the US government will ever come hunting you down for your disparaging remarks.
Yet. If we engage in other constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to peaceably assemble, we can reasonably expect to be arrested for it. Thousands of people already have been.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Also I think your definition of reasonably might be a bit unreasonable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
still have no fear that the US government will ever come hunting you down for your disparaging remarks.
Yet. If we engage in other constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to peaceably assemble, we can reasonably expect to be arrested for it. Thousands of people already have been.
Arrested, and then free within a few hours. Vietnamese people are being thrown in prison for TWENTY YEARS, for writing on the internet. I think it is perhaps a bit egotistical to think you have problems worth mentioning in comparison. STFU?
Re: (Score:1)
Not everyone who blogs in Vietnam ends up in jail just as not everyone who posts a comment like the parent ends up in jail in the US. You have to have certain gravity around what you are posting or else just attempt to shut you down will create that gravity. "They" are not that dumb not do such cost benefit analysis, they only act like dump when they think it helps them.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yet" is such a lazy cop-out. You can use it to insinuate absolutely anything, and never be proven wrong.
Lunatic: "Americans eat a dozen new-born babies every Thursday morning!"
Sane Person: "What? No they don't! There's no evidence of that, and moreover, it's physically impossible given the length of human pregnancy."
Lunatic: "Not yet, but just you wait. I saw a person eat a Big Mac last week; they'll start eating babies any day now."
Re:"Sounds like the United States" (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet you can blithely say that, posting logged in to your account, with full knowledge that your IP address and user agent string are being logged, and yet still have no fear that the US government will ever come hunting you down for your disparaging remarks.
Spoken like someone who's never tried confronting an American politician or candidate [progressive.org] with an opinion [niemanwatchdog.org] they don't care for, [pjmedia.com] in person.
Re:"Sounds like the United States" (Score:4, Insightful)
Or this:
http://www.copblock.org/858/alaska-troopers-assault-man-with-anti-obama-sign/ [copblock.org]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6512746 [democratic...ground.com]
Free speech knows no party affiliation. Free speech suppression is universal by both Donkey and Elephant...
Re:"Sounds like the United States" (Score:4, Insightful)
A candidate for the U.S. Senate was in town for a discussion panel for which I was running sound (since I volunteer as an audio technician). After the panel, she came out on stage where I was coiling cables, and we had a lovely discussion on labor unions. We presented our positions, discussed the merits and shortcomings of union power, and eventually conceded that both employers and unions too often behave like infants. It was an insightful and interesting conversation.
This is one of several similar encounters I've had over the years, though the majority of discussions I've fallen into were with more local politicians. I doubt I could say I've "confronted" any of them, because I'm not going to go out of my way to be confrontational. Though it seems popular now to call any gaudy spectacle with a political motive a "protest", I prefer to submit my protests in a more effective and less offensive manner: calm and polite discourse.
Re:"Sounds like the United States" (Score:5, Insightful)
Spoken like someone who's never tried confronting an American politician or candidate [progressive.org] with an opinion [niemanwatchdog.org] they don't care for, [pjmedia.com] in person
Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you a specific audience or venue, nor does it offer protection when you force it.
Write an open letter to the politician with your grievances and publish it. When you get arrested for doing that, you'll have a legitimate gripe. If you just get ignored by everyone, that's probably a sign that your message wasn't particularly important and you were just being a jackass when you tried to force people to listen to you.
I'm willing to name names (Score:2)
A long long time ago when Senator John Kerry was running for president, I was at a small event in Los Angeles.
In front of some local media, I confronted him about his "hockey goal" ad in which he (dressed as a goal keeper) said he would protect against Japanese imports. I said his ad (and the tone of his campaign) was contributing to the recent spike in anti-Asian American violence around the country (I'm Asian American).
He said he, of course, didn't mean for it to be construed that way and didn't mean to
Re: (Score:2)
I have to admit I am a bit afraid every time I post a pro liberty message. I have to travel by plane in a few weeks and it will be my first trip since 9/11. I am a bit curious if I'm flagged by the TSA. I'll let you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I won't be detained. But I may get extra
scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you can blithely say that, posting logged in to your account, with full knowledge that your IP address and user agent string are being logged, and yet still have no fear that the US government will ever come hunting you down for your disparaging remarks.
Who needs to hunt? They can collect all they need to prosecute you courtesy of secret intercept rooms in the AT&T offices, etc. The only time they need to do any actual hunting is when someone decides you've said enough to be annnoying and wants to bring you in. By then it's a bit late.
Remember. Innocent people have nothing to hide, but they're not going to be asking YOU what determines who's "innocent".
Re: (Score:2)
Hello this is Sarten-X's newsletter subscription manager, pleased to meet you. Glad to hear of your interest in the newsletter! We will need only several small pieces of information and everything will be set:
First name:
Last name:
Email:
Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Social Security number:
Thanks again for your interest!
Re:"Sounds like the United States" (Score:4, Informative)
We're not just talking about Assange. We're talking about thousands of Americans who took to the streets last year to exercise their constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Over 7000 [moonfruit.com] people have been arrested as part of OWS, including Presidential candidate Jill Stein [huffingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Sounds like the United States" (Score:4, Insightful)
When the revolution is authoritarian, I'm proud to be reactionary. I want to take us back to a time when the Constitution was respected, and the law applied to rich and poor alike. When warrantless anything was unconscionable. When torture was punished no matter who the torturer was. When the rule of law still meant something.
Obama delivered big on the change, not so much on the hope.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When the revolution is authoritarian, I'm proud to be reactionary. I want to take us back to a time when the Constitution was respected, and the law applied to rich and poor alike. When warrantless anything was unconscionable. When torture was punished no matter who the torturer was. When the rule of law still meant something.
Did you read History from Little Golden Books? There was never a time when the country resembled your fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
When the revolution is authoritarian, I'm proud to be reactionary. I want to take us back to a time when the Constitution was respected, and the law applied to rich and poor alike. When warrantless anything was unconscionable. When torture was punished no matter who the torturer was. When the rule of law still meant something.
Did you read History from Little Golden Books? There was never a time when the country resembled your fantasy.
True, but we used to at least try to pretend it was that way. Now we don't even bother.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who values liberty I find posts like yours a bit disturbing. There really was never a time in the past where everyone had liberty. There have been times where certain people had more than today. There were even times when the total liberty was greater. But unfortunately those times were also repressive for many. Talking about going back to a certain time is going to alienate a lot of people.
I suggest talking about liberty as an unknown ideal that we should progress towards. Talk about a governmen
Re: (Score:2)
We're not just talking about Assange. We're talking about thousands of Americans who took to the streets last year to exercise their constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Over 7000 [moonfruit.com] people have been arrested as part of OWS, including Presidential candidate Jill Stein [huffingtonpost.com].
To quote from the article you linked: "Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein and her running mate have been arrested at a sit-in at a Philadelphia bank over housing foreclosures." She was arrested for trespassing, not for anything she was saying. Given the refusal of most leftists to make distinctions like that -- the conflation of "expression" or "protest" with "speech", and the attitude that their cause is so righteous that it absolves them of any need to respect the rights of others -- I would expe
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
... except that Jill Stein was not trespassing at the bank because she lacked someplace to hold an assembly. She could have voiced her opinion elsewhere just fine. She was trespassing because she wanted to embarrass the bank and draw attention to herself. Her desire to accomplish those goals did not entitle her to violate the rights of others. She had no more right to hold a protest inside the bank than the bank would have to conduct business in her living room.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not just talking about Assange. We're talking about thousands of Americans who took to the streets last year to exercise their constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Over 7000 [moonfruit.com] people have been arrested as part of OWS, including Presidential candidate Jill Stein [huffingtonpost.com].
I've only followed it casually, but ISTM that the problems were almost entirely limited to a few cities (NYC, Okland) where the authorities decided they needed to take a proactively militant/confrontational approach to the protests. In my town the City Council basically said "more power to you".
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Springfield, IL they arrested a coupe of people for criticizing a state congressman by writing their message in chalk on the public sidewalk, just as children do every day. They were charged with vandalism, even though the chalk is gone after the first rain, and no children have ever been arrested or even warned about writing in chalk on public sidewalks.
But at least these protesters weren't beaten, so yeah, it matters where.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm moderately pro-OWS in their general goals (as hard to figure out as they are) but "peaceably assemble" != "camp out on public or private property for weeks at a time". If you think the founding fathers intended squatting or trespassing to be part of the First Amendment you are deluding yourself.
I'm sure there were plenty of cases of people being unjustly arrested (the occasional journalist was even detained for being at the wrong place at the wrong time) but Jill Stein in particular was NOT one of thos
Re: (Score:2)
Why on earth do Americans still lionize a collection of individuals who had hundreds of slaves each? Why are these considered exemplary human beings? And it tends to be those most vocal about liberty who lionize them the most, which is quite hilarious when you consider said slave ownership.
First, your comment is an ad-hominem and is irrelevant to the discussion (and also an incorrect generalization - many of those at the Constitutional Convention had no slaves, and some were abolitionists).
And second, it was generally the opposite of my point, really. The real question is why do people try to interpret (or in your words, "lionize") a 230 year old document written by these individuals they seem to despise so *literally* without regard to societal and technological changes over time? You are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And every one of those 7000+ would be released within 24 hours if there wasn't a charge to back it up - a legal charge under a statute already on the books, tested and proven to be Constitutional.
Never mind that these protesters were being arrested for possession of controlled substances, vandalism, trespassing, assault, criminal mischief, etc. No, they were being locked up because they were "peaceably assembling."
Re: (Score:2)
Being held for 24 hours is the same as being convicted of something and oredered to serve 24 hours in jail. When you're detained, they don't put you in a comfy chair in a comfortable room, they put you in an orange jumpsuit, barely feed you, give you a thin plastic matress about an inch thick on a concrete slab, locked up, often with violent prisoners who have been convicted of crimes.
Being held for 24 hours IS punishment in and of itself. Punishment without trial, I might add.
Re: (Score:3)
Back in Soviet days, an American tourist in Moscow decided to find out whether everything that was being said about USSR in American newspapers is true. So he stopped a passer-by and asked him if he has freedom of speech.
"What's freedom of speech?", the Russian asked.
"Well, for example, I can go straight to White House in Washington, and shout 'Reagan is an asshole', and nothing whatsoever will happen to me - that's freedom of speech."
"Oh, in that case, we have freedom of speech, too. I can go straight to t
Re: (Score:2)
"It's a joke, son." -Foghorn Leghorn
Julian Assange is being prosecuted for rape (Score:2)
Julian Assange is being prosecuted for rape in a well-recognized first-world democracy.
I assure you: if this guy was a Tea Party leader, and was accused of rape in Sweden, everyone here would say "rot in jail you rapist!". But because he shares the bias of Slashdot, then he is portrayed as an innocent hero.
No, I am not a blogger (Score:1)
Let's hope they learn how to use proxies and to remain anonymous.
freedom of speech: Vietnam Edition (Score:5, Insightful)
You're free to talk about anything you want to. Unless we don't like what you say, in which case we will lock you up or kill you. Have a nice day.
Funny how governments (usually of the oppressive variety) are deathly scared of people voicing their opinions of them or outing them publicly.
Just how oppressive is Vientnam's government? That's not one I usually hear tossed around with Cuba, North Korea etc. IMHO any government that makes it a crime to speak negatively in public about the government, ruling party, president, or king, is oppressive just from that alone.
Re:freedom of speech: Vietnam Edition (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to be somewhat subtle about political commentary. You can't just print it on the front page of the newspaper. However, there are certain soap operas on TV that are obviously thinly veiled criticism of government figures and policies. Corruption is rife, there's a bit gap between the richest and the poorest, health care is expensive but it doesn't bankrupt anyone, they're even stricter on drug crimes than US (death penalty for possession of over 500g). It's not a bad place to live if it's where you want to live, just different trade-offs.
Re: (Score:2)
Insecure government = censorship (Score:2)
The government here is afraid that its hold on power is weak and that it lacks/is losing legitimacy. After the Vietnam war of course, the government was all powerful and seen as the victorious savior of the country (against the world's greatest power no less!).
Now, more than a generation later, with a youthful population that was mostly born after the war those memories are fading.
So the government mainly tries to keep things stable while it quietly plunders (through corruption) the country. It tries to d
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO any government that makes it a crime to speak negatively in public about the government, ruling party, president, or king, is oppressive just from that alone.
Suppression of dissent implies that a regime has few arguments on its side beyond "might makes right". Its politicians and ruling class have essentially conceded the truth of the criticism levelled against them. What is even worse, however, is that, removed from the glare of public opinion, corruption will flourish, dragging the country down even more.
Meet your developing world net freedom activists (Score:2)
Some folks who do good work in the less-famous parts of the Internet:
https://www.theengineroom.org/ [theengineroom.org]
http://opennet.net/ [opennet.net]
http://globalintegrity.org/ [globalintegrity.org]
https://www.eff.org/ [eff.org]
Disclosure: I've worked for two of these, though not recently.
Where is the Supreme Court? (Score:2)
If freedom of speech is enshrined in the Viet Constitution, why isn't the Supreme Court (or equivalent) releasing these people and protecting the constitutional law?
Re: (Score:3)
"Dammit! I KNEW we forgot something...."
- Vietnamese Constitution authors
Re: (Score:1)
Same reason it's happening in America. Gov't likes the power. The only difference is that the US gov't hides it better. For example, there are actually lists of topics that churches are not allowed to preach about. One of them is politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason it's happening in America. Gov't likes the power. The only difference is that the US gov't hides it better. For example, there are actually lists of topics that churches are not allowed to preach about. One of them is politics.
AIUI, that's just for maintaining their tax exempt status.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech was also enshrined in the constitution of the USSR (even the one that was enacted under Stalin in 1933), and is enshrined today in the constitution of China.
Any constitution is just a piece of paper, unless enough people believe otherwise, and unless those people are willing to act on their beliefs.
Re: (Score:3)
Ever read the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)? It was quite high-minded.
Sometimes a constitution is just a piece of paper.
Re: (Score:2)
If freedom of speech is enshrined in the Viet Constitution, why isn't the Supreme Court (or equivalent) releasing these people and protecting the constitutional law?
Much like here in China (I split time between the US and China), freedom of speech is enshrined in the Vietnamese constitution. However, just like the US, it does not protect you from negative results from your speech - like shouting "FIRE!" in a movie theater in the US will get you arrested. In these fascist oligarchical countries (China and Vietnam) they stretch the negative results to include "political instability" and "lack of faith in the central Government". So you can speak all you want, but if i
Moral of the Sroty... (Score:1)
Moral of the story?
Dont say bad things against the government in a blog.
DISCLAIMER (Score:1)
Our blogging service will not be held responsible for blog-induced damage to life, limb and human rights if the name of the country in which the blogging took place includes any of the following words; 'people', 'republic' or 'democratic', unless multiple nongovernmental proxies and an up to date Liberte Linux live cd are used.
Curbing Nationalism (Score:2)
Misleading Title (Score:5, Informative)
The title of this article claims that being a blogger in Vietnam could cost you your life. But the only person to lose their life was a non-blogger who set herself on fire in protest at the new law. So a more accurate title would be, "In Vietnam: Being a Blogger Could Land You In Jail. Setting Yourself On Fire Could Cost You Your Life".
Re: (Score:2)
The title of this article claims that being a blogger in Vietnam could cost you your life. But the only person to lose their life was a non-blogger who set herself on fire in protest at the new law. So a more accurate title would be, "In Vietnam: Being a Blogger Could Land You In Jail. Setting Yourself On Fire Could Cost You Your Life".
Or: "Being a Blogger Could Cost Someone Else Their Life by a Rather Indirect Mechanism".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, quite a few of bloggers have disappeared over the years with flimsy 'evidences' for their 'crimes' or even without trial at all. A famous blogger was arrested first by the law against adultery, the 'evidence' was 2 used condoms. And after he was arrested, the police raided his house and 'found' some evidence on his computer that he violated the 88 article (propaganda against the government), and now he is sentenced for ~6 years in jail. Many other bloggers have been jailed in the similar way, and the
"Cost you your life"? (Score:2)
In traditional slashdot fashion, I'm posting this without actually reading the article rather than just the summary, but according to the summary, apparently what will cost you your life is if you decide to make a grand-but-probably-ultimately-pointless gesture and commit suicide to protest something, which is kind of tautologically true regardless of what you're protesting, or where.
Meanwhile, everyone also already knows that in Vietnam, you can get thrown in jail for doing just about anything, or nothing,
Western Governments do this too (Score:4, Interesting)
Libel Law: "In theory, the objective of defamation laws is to balance protection of individual reputation with freedom of expression. In practice, defamation laws are frequently used as a means of chilling speech. A threat of (costly) defamation proceedings and damages, whether or not a plaintiff's claim is likely to be upheld by a court, is often used to silence criticism not only by a particular person or group but also as a threat to others."
https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html [efa.org.au]
The UK defamation bill will do little to stop corporations suing individuals and should include a public interest defence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/27/libel-reform-get-right-defamation-bill [guardian.co.uk]
UK Libel reform campaigners demand better public interest defence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/27/libel-reform-campaigners-public-interest-defence [guardian.co.uk]
It doesn't affect only bloggers: Even journalists are restricted by what they can say:
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html [thenewsmanual.net]
Explanation of UK Libel Law
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html [urban75.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law [wikipedia.org]
The Australian Journalist's Defamation Checklist: Can you run this story?
http://www.hss.bond.edu.au/defamkit/ [bond.edu.au]
And if they report something embarassing to the Government, then it is jail time:
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_06.html [thenewsmanual.net]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act [wikipedia.org]
http://www.caslon.com.au/secrecyguide4.htm [caslon.com.au]
The government redacted 90% of the recent proposal to snoop on Internet Usage. You would think the public have a right to know, but it's National Security if they say it is:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html [smh.com.au]
Re: (Score:1)
US has libel laws too. More importantly, the most crazy variety are so called "Food libel laws" can get you in jail for a very long time, simply for filming stuff you are not suppose to film, or speaking against a food.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws [wikipedia.org]
http://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/oped/food_sedition.html [cspinet.org]
These are not just civil law, these are criminal laws where you can be sent to jail.
There is an old saying. Find me a man, and I'll find a paragraph (law) against him. This was used in context
unmod post (Score:2)
Tyrants tyrannize, what else is new? (Score:2)
If they're feeling particularly evil, they'll make the daughter pay for the cost of extinguishment through extra labor in prison.
Another reason we need to have guns (Score:2)
so that when these schmucks shows up the door we can give them at least some fight before we die.
Whoever managed to streamline delivery of automatic weapons into China, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran etc. and arm their rebels will be the richest man on earth.
The number of heartless assholes on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
The number of heartless assholes on Slashdot really boggle my mind.
You're posting to correct the headline, because it was the blogger's mother who died of burns, not the blogger? Really? THAT is what you want to talk about?
It used to be that self-immolation actually caused people to wake up and do something about a massive injustice, with the support of all onlookers. Now you want to sit and quibble about the fucking headline. Somebody burned herself to death in protest of the unjust imprisonment of her daughter and you assholes are arguing over whether or not Viet Nam War protestors in the US are traitors.
I hate you all.
Do something! (Score:2)
They are turning into draconian commies. Let's start a war against Vietnam immediately!......oh, wait
Re: (Score:2)
We could bring Freedom
And Democracy to them
If they had some oil
Re: (Score:2)
We go to WAR!!! That will teach them.
We're talking about blogs, not oil reserves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
hindsight is always 20/20
It didn't take much hindsight to realize that the USA took over a failed French colonial war. And tried to prop a brutal dictator.
It also doesn't take much wit to find a few basic facts with Teh Google, though you've apparently only got half enough.
Re: (Score:1)
If you read on South Vietnam before the war, you'd realize that it wasn't any better than VC - worse in many respects, in fact. There was a reason why VC had wide popular support even in the South (which made their guerrilla campaign there possible).
Doesn't mean that one should have supported VC back then. But then most protesters didn't. Your claims about "bulk anti-war left marching under the VC flag" is a flat out lie. You construct a strawman and then proceed to demolish it.
Re: (Score:1)
> But then most protesters didn't. Your claims about "bulk anti-war left marching under the VC flag" is a flat out lie.
Rare was the big 'anti-war' protest without a few VC flags around. So riddle me this, why was that allowed? Now for a harder question, I know you won't answer honest but anyone else reading this will know it is the killing stroke against the argument you will make that "a couple of knuckleheads doesn't mean the movement was tainted."
Can you, with a straight face, tell me that the same
Re: (Score:2)
This goes out to all those hippies who flew Viet Cong flags and were oh so sure that if the Evil Wicked Americans would just lose the Vietnam War that the peaceful VC would make a wonderful People's Republic and everything would be rainbow shitting unicorns
Name a few?
Or you you ready to admit you were just traitors yet and that it wasn't even in a good cause?
Funny sentiment to express in a discussion about governments suppressing free speech.
Whose side are you on?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This goes out to all those hippies who flew Viet Cong flags and were oh so sure that if the Evil Wicked Americans would just lose the Vietnam War that the peaceful VC would make a wonderful People's Republic and everything would be rainbow shitting unicorns... OK ASSHOLES, you got your wish. It has been a generation now, where is the paradise? Or you you ready to admit you were just traitors yet and that it wasn't even in a good cause? Eh? I can't hear you.
More like LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU, isn't it?
What I remember is that if we let Vietnam go, there would be a Domino Effect that would turn all of Asia Communist, followed by invasion of the USA and we'd all end up listening to some fat clown on the radio telling us how to think so we could echo it back.
And, BTW, I hope you're not wearing Nikes. Vietnam won the war, but the capitalists have been doing a pretty tidy job of subverting their goals, I'd say.
Re: (Score:1)
> there would be a Domino Effect that would turn all of Asia Communist
Usually stated as SOUTHEAST Asia would fall. As in Cambodia and Laos, etc. And guess what, they did. Burma is also a hell on earth. Your team gets Pol Pot's body count added to the list of your crimes against humanity as a bonus. Thailand and Malaysia survived. There was never real doubt about South Korea or Japan after all. All in all a debacle of biblical proportion resulting in millions and millions in mass graves and more de
Re: (Score:2)
Forgive me for undercutting the basis for your idiotical ideological rant, but the VC don't run Viet Nam and never did. The government of the north disbanded them in 1975.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you off your meds again?
Probably he's sitting in his rocker, listening to Barry Sadler and having traumatic flashbacks about some Damn Hippie that spit on him when he was home on leave in 1968.