Spain-Terrorism: Spain jails another rapper for praising terror groups

A court in Madrid has sentenced Spanish rapper Pablo Hasel to two years in prison for glorifying terrorism and insulting the Spanish royal family. The case has sparked a debate about free speech in Spain. 

The Spanish National Court handed rapper Pablo Hasel a two year jail sentence and fined him €24,300 ($30,000) on Friday for praising terror groups, inciting violence and insulting the Spanish Crown and state institutions.

The ruling said Hasel, whose real name is Pablo Rivadulla, made the offending statements on Twitter and in a song posted to YouTube.

It's the second time in as many weeks that a Spanish court has sent a rapper to prison.

Just a few days ago, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a rapper called Valtonyc, who was given a three-and-a-half year jail sentence for glorifying terrorism, insulting the Spanish royals and threatening politicians in his lyrics.

Note EU-Digest: the people who argue  that these sentences in Spain go against Free Speech should have their heads examined. Free Speech is not a free ticket to glorifying terror and murderers.

Read more: Spain jails another rapper for praising terror groups | News | DW | 02.03.2018

Free Speech: What Is the Future of Free Speech in China?

Forces like market capitalism and the Internet have, in some ways, impacted freedom of expression in China. Is free speech making progress in China? Are there alternatives to this ideal in China?

For the interview click here: What Is the Future of Free Speech in China? - The Atlantic

Free Speech: Democratic Asia shows troubling trend on free speech - Iain Marlow

Whatever one thinks about caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, the massacre at the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo certainly focused the world’s attention on freedom of speech. But while the world declared “Je suis Charlie,” there were several worrying developments in the ability of people to speak freely in Japan and South Korea, Asia’s most vibrant and developed democracies.

Read more: Democratic Asia shows troubling trend on free speech - The Globe and Mail

Free Speech: A Modern History of Free-Speech Martyrs - by Nina Strochlic

As the massacre at Charlie Hebdo reminds us, art and satire have long been targets of violent suppression. Here are nine famous books, films and plays that sparked a virulent backlash.

The Wednesday attack against cartoonists of the satirical French paper Charlie Hedbo is the latest bloody reminder of the consequences that can come from practicing our most sacred and powerful form of expression. Artistic types have been testing the lines of free expression since time immemorial, and this exercise has long tested nerves and inspired brutal backlashes or suppression.

Nazis banished all “degenerate” art, comic books sparked protests throughout the post-WWII years, and censorship of provocative films continues. Even now, we struggle with how conflicts involving religion and politics come to a head in art, and many societies dole out punishment to those who would dare test the boundaries. Sometimes, the repercussions reach beyond the creators and affect hundreds or thousands. Here are a few examples of the violence that controversial art has inspired.

No film trailer has had such catastrophic international repercussions as “The Innocence of Muslims,” an amateur and offensive depiction of the prophet Muhammed as a murderer. When a clip of it was aired on Egyptian television in 2012, protests erupted across the country.

The unrest soon made its fiery way across the world’s Muslim-majority nations, from Iran to Nigeria to Malaysia. Tens of thousands of protesters rushed to city squares and U.S. embassies, and hundreds were killed. In Yemen, 60 vehicles at the American compound were burned.

In Pakistan, the government announced a national holiday specifically to rail against the film. And in what at first appeared to be related incident, but would later prove to have been pre-planned, the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, was stormed and four Americans were killed, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh directed a short film called “Submission” that depicted an abused and almost naked women painted with Quranic verses. He intended it to be a call for women’s rights in Muslim communities. By the end of the year, Van Gogh, the great-great-nephew of the famous painter, had been shot and stabbed to death by a Dutch Moroccan assailant while on his way to his office in Amsterdam. After the attack, the film’s writer, a former Muslim, was forced into hiding. In response to the backlash, mosques in Holland were torched, and in return, so were churches. A year later, after the film was shunned by European television channels and theaters, the Italian state broadcasters made the bold decision to air it, despite threats.

Read more: A Modern History of Free-Speech Martyrs - The Daily Beast

Corporate Monopolies Strike Out Against Web Neutrality

It should come as no surprise, at a time when the free world wide web allows people and social movements to access information ignored by the corporate media and to organize mass movements such as the recent overthrow of the Egyptian leadership and the now international Occupy Wall Street, that the corporate media is striking back with a vengeance. The Senate Bill The Protect IP Act (PIPA, S. 968), and its sister House Bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA, H.R. 3261) are currently under discussion in both houses of Congress. These bills were introduced on May 11^th, 2011, with the stated goal of protecting copyrighted media. In the words of H.R. 3261, its intent is “to promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.” However, the wording of the bills has the potential to take away the right of free speech for individual American citizens or organizations that challenge the Corporate Media status quo.

Edward Wyatt’s “Lines Drawn On Antipiracy Bill” from December 14^th, 2011, spends its first three paragraphs problematizing illegal downloading. The fourth paragraph describes the bill as “broadly supported on both sides of the political aisle.” In Wyatt’s fifth paragraph, he writes that “the howls of protest have been loud and lavishly financed, not only from Silicon Valley companies but also from public-interest groups, free-speech advocates and even venture capital investors.” The article quotes Tom Rothman, the co-chief executive of Fox Filmed Entertainment, and Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who is the primary sponsor of the bill. The article does quote one voice in opposition to the legislation: Markham Erickson, the executive director of NetCoalition, a coalition of global internet companies including Google, Yahoo!, Amazon.com, eBay, IAC, Bloomberg LP, Expedia and Wikipedia. In other words, the only oppostional voice referenced in the article,supports Wyatt’s implicit claim that there exists no popular opposition to unchecked corporate domination of the world wide web.

This story, which potentially affects all users of the internet, is hardly mentioned at all in the corporate media, and when it is, the coverage is highly slanted.

For more: Corporate Monopolies Strike Out Against Web Neutrality | The Media Freedom Foundation

Free Speech: Iran says it can block ‘Internet in a suitcase’ program aimed at dissidents

Iran’s intelligence minister (showing the true colors of his countries regime of repression of free speech and human rights) said Friday that his country has found a way to block the so-called “Internet in a suitcase,” a program reportedly developed by the U.S. to bring online access to dissidents around the world.

The minister, Heidar Moslehi, told Muslim worshippers that Iran was aware of the program from the start. “We prepared a solution for it,” he said in a speech broadcast live on state radio. He did not elaborate.

For more: Iran says it can block ‘Internet in a suitcase’ program aimed at dissidents - The Washington Post

English rules on free speech

Britain doesn't have a 1st Amendment, which explains today's news that a court has struck down the membership rules of the British National Party.

The BNP is a far-right party that opposes immigration -- particularly "coloured" immigration -- and used to require that members be white. That provision was removed after a challenge from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, a government watchdog. But the BNP is still in trouble because of what American lawyers would call a race-blind provision: Although the whites-only clause was removed, a judge found that the party still discriminated because part of its credo is a belief in the "continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence" of an indigenous British race.

The judge's decision on one level is common sense: An organization devoted to a white Britain, even if it's technically open to nonwhites, isn't likely to attract many. But in the U.S. it would violate the constitutional right of free association to order an organization to revise its basic beliefs, repugnant as they may be to many. I think we in the U.S. have the right take on this, but as in other areas -- news coverage of crime and national security, for example -- Britain is proof that culture as well as constitutional principles shape a country's attitude to free speech.

For more: English rules on free speech | Opinion L.A. | Los Angeles Times

Geert Wilders and Nigel Farage abusing the liberties of free speech

Nigel Farage has been fined 10 days' MEP allowances – about £2,700 – following his attack on the credentials of the European council president, Herman van Rompuy, last week.

The Ukip MEP was today summoned to see the European parliament's president, Jerzy Buzek, who demanded that he apologise to Belgium, its people and its former prime minister for his remarks.

When Farage refused, Buzek said he was considering sanctions, including possible suspension from the chamber, against him.

Note EU-Digest: Geert Wilders and Nigel Farage are abusing the liberties free speech provides to them and as such show their contempt for the democratic system they claim to protect. They consider the ability to make personal and public insults about peoples appearances, customs and religion a part of free speech. In that respect it is not much different from the days of Adolf Hitler and his followers, who continuously ridiculed and warned against the Jewish race in the Reichstag (German Parliament), public gatherings and in the press. We all know how that ended...

For the complete report from the Guardian click on this link

IHT: Iraq Censorship Laws Move Ahead - by Timothy Williams

NYTimes.com/IHT

Freedom of Speech - Iraq Censorship Laws Move Ahead - by Timothy Williams

The doors of the communications revolution were thrown open in Iraq after the American-led invasion in 2003: In rushed a wave of music videos featuring scantily clad Turkish singers, Web sites recruiting suicide bombers, racy Egyptian soap operas, pornography, romance novels, and American and Israeli news and entertainment sites that had long been blocked under Saddam Hussein’s rule. Now those doors may be shut again, at least partially, as the Iraqi government moves to ban sites deemed harmful to the public, to require Internet cafes to register with the authorities and to press publishers to censor books. opponents of the proposals question why Iraq would seek to impose the same sorts of censorship that had been among the most loathed aspects of daily life under Saddam Hussein and suggest that they are another example of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s working to consolidate his power. The new policies will put Iraq more in line with neighboring Islamic states. The new rules constitute a “return of dictatorship,” said Ziad al-Ajeeli, who directs the Society to Defend the Freedom of the Press, a nonprofit Iraqi group.

Iraq’s Constitution which was written with the help of US lawyers is not clear on the matter. It guarantees freedom of expression, but only if it “does not violate public order and morality.”

Sunday Mirror: Oscar winner Marion Cotillard accuses US of fabricating 9/11 terror attacks - by Peter Allen and Adrian Butler

For the complete report from the Sunday Mirror click on this link

Oscar winner Marion Cotillard accuses US of fabricating 9/11 terror attacks - by Peter Allen and Adrian Butler

Oscar winner Marion Cotillard has accused America of fabricating the 9/11 terror attacks. A clip of the surprise best actress winner ranting that New York's Twin Towers may not have been destroyed by terrorists was leaked on to the internet.Cotillard, who won the best actress Academy Award, Bafta and Golden Globe for her performance as singer Edith Piaf, was asked about 9/11 and said: "I think we're lied to about a number of things."

Note EU-Digest:Let us not forget there is something we call freedom of speech. In a democratic society freedom of speech is not qualified by how what one says is perceived, but by the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. Marion Cotillard from France is just as free to say there was a 9/11 conspiracy as that Geert Wilders in Holland can produce a movie which implies that the Quaran incites hatred.

RNW: Belgium/Netherlands: Right-wing groups launch anti-Islamisation campaign - by Vanessa Mock

For the complete report from Radio Netherlands click on this link

Belgium ?Netherlands: Right-wing groups launch anti-Islamisation campaign - by Vanessa Mock

Far-right groups are calling for a ban on the building of new mosques as part of a new campaign to stop the spread of radical Islam in Europe. Belgium's far-right Vlaams Belang party teamed up with radical groups from Austria and Germany on Thursday to launch a Charter to 'fight the Islamisation of West-European cities'."We are not opposed to freedom of religion but we don't want Muslims to impose their way of life and traditions over here because much of it is not compatible with our way of life," Vlaams Belang's Filip Dewinter told Radio Netherlands Worldwide. "We can't accept head scarves in our schools, forced marriages and the ritual slaughter of animals." Aside from Austria's Freedom Party (FPö), there was a notable absence of other political heavyweights during the press conference in the Flemish city of Antwerp. A spokesman for Italy's Allianza Nazionale said he was unaware of the Charter, though his party too was looking at the issue of the new mosques. Dutch right-wing maverick politician Geert Wilders, who is currently producing a film about the danger of the Koran, also stayed away. But Mr Dewinter seems unruffled by the paltry political support: "This movement may be small today but I am convinced it will grow into something major." News of the Charter was greeted with dismay in Antwerp's Borgerhout, a multi-cultural neighbourhood counting over 90 nationalities. "It's pure provocation," shrugged Said El Fetri, a Moroccan shopkeeper. "I have Belgians, East Europeans, Jews and Muslims coming in and out of my shop, there are no problems with integration here." Standing next to his counter of Halal meat, he added: "I am a Muslim but that doesn't mean that I don't live by the rules of this country." However, another local shopkeeper, Mohammed, was gloomier: "I've lived here for almost 40 years. Me and my children are perfectly integrated but these kinds of campaigns worry me. In ten years' time, it won't be possible for us to live side by side like this anymore."

Note EU-Digest: Even though these kinds of provocative expressions and declarations by populist right wing groups, represented by Wilders, Dewinter and other like minded politicians are deplorable, they are acceptable within Europe's laws related to the freedom of expression. A possible way to combat these right wing movements is initially to call for massive peaceful demonstrations, in every major city of Europe. to support integration and multiculturalism . This, in addition to starting a well coordinated long term campaign of dialog on these issues at schools, universities, religious centers, in the press, and on TV and Radio. Best of all, the voters should make sure that these right-wing politicians are kept from winning in elections, by voting against them. Europe, on the other hand, should not allow any Grand Mufti to threaten Europeans about the risks involved if they allow people like Wilders or DeWinter to use or abuse the European Citizen's right of free speech. In that case we must remind these Muftis that in Europe we have a democratic society, where free speech and womens rights are paramount parts of the system and cover every citizen, including European Muslims.

IHT: Free speech in danger? - Bloggers beware when you criticize the rich and powerful - by Doreen Carvajal

For the complete report from the International Herald Tribune click on this link

Bloggers beware when you criticize the rich and powerful - by Doreen Carvajal

The daily Web log, or blog, of the former U.K. ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, vanished after Murray's British Internet provider received a flurry of ominous legal letters demanding the removal of "potentially defamatory" information about Alisher Usmanov, a mining mogul with a rising stake in the English soccer club Arsenal. Two weeks later, Murray is not blogging, but his blistering opinions are about to surface again through a Dutch Internet provider that offers refuge to controversial bloggers in the United States and in England, where libel laws are more lax. And with that journey, Murray has stirred support and a common outrage among bloggers and Internet service providers who complain that chilling demands from companies are becoming more frequent in a number of countries.

"I'm personally predicting that the next growth area is not censorship of bomb-making Web sites," said Richard Clayton, a computer security researcher at Cambridge University and part of the OpenNet Initiative that tracks Internet filtering around the world, "but complaints about defamation and civil suits."

Companies in the United States, Canada and Australia have moved against bloggers to remove copyrighted material with takedown complaints or have demanded removal of critical comments posted by blog visitors. British bloggers are particularly vulnerable to defamation complaints because of a previous court ruling that found that Internet providers qualified as publishers of libelous material if they did not react when alerted about a problem.