Slashdot Mirror
Where Are You Publishing?
AndrewRUK writes "A reporter for The Guardian is being prosecuted in Zimbabwe for a report that appeared on the newspaper's website, the newspaper writes in this report. If the case is successful, it would allow Zimbabwe's courts to apply the country's draconian media laws to any online publisher, putting reporters and editors at risk of arrest if they go to Zimbabwe, or any country with extradition treaties with Zimbabwe.
Once again, we see a case which raises the question of which courts have jurisdiction over online publishing. Is a UK newspaper, with webservers in the UK, and a site accessable to anyone on the net, publishing only in the UK, or is it publishing everywhere where there's net access?" An issue that just doesn't seem to go away ...
putting reporters and editors at risk of arrest if they go to Zimbabwe
Sounds almost like the Dmitry Sklyarov case...
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
I don't see any reason why one country's citizens should be responsible for following the laws of another country if they're in their home country.
He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
to travel to a country where they enforce their unjust laws against people who 'broke' them in a country where their actions weren't illegal . . . uh, never mind.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
This brings up an interesting point I have thought of. If I create a virus that takes advantage of some new exploit in IE/Outlook Express that spreads internationally, should be held accountable for my actions in all countries or just the one I originate in. It would seriously suck to be effectivley banned from visiting 50+ countries for fear of having my ass hauled into court the moment I step off the plane.
Have you been stalked by Seth today?
Zimbabwe prosecutes people outside of it's borders for breaking internal laws.
Sounds a lot like the US and the Skylarov case huh?
Or DeCSS? Or any of the forthcoming lawsuits?
We are no better. I hate to say it, but it's true.
-------------------------------------------------
simple:
the material is available in print in England and on English computers; it is therefore the fault of Zimbabwe's ISPs for connecting to the offending servers.
if nations want to censor the internet, they should do it themselves. it would be funny to watch them realize the futility of attempting to stop information.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
How many countries do you suppose have or will honor an extradition treaty with a country whose strongman president Robert Mugabe (and all of his staff) is currently banned from traveling in the United States (and also the European Union if I remember correctly)? Especially in a ridiculous case like this... The EU and the US have also invoked trade sanctions against this country. Clearly, everyone has great respect for it and its 'laws.'
Eventually I think it is going to have a lot to with the intended audience of the information. For example, I know that a company is allowed to have a Swedish website, that they derive income from, without incurring a tax liability in that country if they do not actively market in the Swedish marketplace. How exactly do you define that ? It's a fine line to draw.
Other similar cases include the sale of hate material on popular online auction sites. Both Yahoo (although their European operations are now largely in the process of being shut down) and eBay heavily restrict their members from buying and selling Nazi memorabilia. On eBay even though US based sellers are allowed to list Nazi memorabilia (as long as it is not inciting hate) in US Dollars, any member with a country identification of Germany is not allowed to bid on such items.
Moving the discussion in to the realm of access to all published information is going to prove very interesting. Eventually I think it will be up to the country, Zimbabwe in this case, to regulate the content users based their see. An almost impossible task but this is essentially what China is attempting to do.
Whether this is right or wrong is another question entirely.
Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
Specifically, Zimbabwe's President Mugabe is virulantly anti-British. Following the recent 'elections', fixed according to all international observers, Mugabe has expelled any BBC reporters and most other British journalists.
This is because of the UK press' reporting of the 'War Veterans' issue, where Mugabe encourages members of his old revolutionary guard to simply take white farmers' land, usually by violence, quite often by killing the farmer in question.
Mugabe claims that this policy is Britain's fault, and that the farmers should look to Britain for compensation - indeed that they should leave Zimbabwe and go to Britain.
Now, the political rights and wrongs of these are outside the scope of this discussion. However, I think it important that people see this move for what it is - another anti-British move by the Mugabe regime, rather than a carefully thought out and well-constructed legal case.
Cheers,
Ian
filthy liberal scum.
Considering that Robert Mugabe is -- despite the stiff competition continent-wide -- the leading klepto-autocrat in Africa, is it any surprise? He's willing to steal elections and kill the only productive segment of his economy in the blantantly dishonest name of "land reform."
Why should it be at all surprising that he's willing to go after journalists who expose his regime? I suppose it is surprising to starry-eyed marxists who still buy into the collective bullshit of African anti-colonial revolution.
All the more shameful is Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and the rest of the putatively democratic ANC's refusal to speak out against Mugabe and his thugs.
Maybe now that western journalists are actually starting to get a firsthand taste of Mugabe-style government they'll wipe the haze from their eyes and start doing the kind of reporting that might help bring an end to the politically correct refusal to believe that an African govenrment can do no wrong, especially if it involves whitey getting his.
If I write and publish a book in the U.S., should I be held accountable for the laws on book publishing in Zimbabwe?
... no I dont believe in government censorship but they would do it anyway) ... but its not my responsibility to make sure that my work is compliant with ALL LAWS EVERYWHERE.
No way. If they want to prevent certain internet sites (or books in this case) from propogating to their people, that's their own right as a government (hypothetically
Never argue with an idiot, he'll just lower you to his level and beat you with experience.
is the TPL an "open sores" approved license?
if only all those gov'ts were doin their jobs and helping the people and makin life better etc. then they'd have nothing to worry about....
:)
all those corrput people are very annoying...
yes i mean the us gov't too
Nice long reply, but what the fuck man.
What the hell does US law and US supreme court rulings have to do with an issue between Zimbabwe and the UK.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Robert Mugabe, dictator-in-chief of Zimbabwe, is a pusillanimous pipsqueak. His male member is dwarfed in comparison to his cockroach-sized brain. The stench of his breath makes granite crumble. His moral integrity is challenged only by that of a Microsoft lawyer. He rapes newborns with curling irons.
His government is composed entirely of weak-willed wusses, totally incapable of thinking for themselves. This, combined with Mr. Mugabe's stunning intellectual shortcomings, clearly explains the entire fiasco.
Need I continue?
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
It's all true!
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Despite what you may think, given the differences with regards to other aspects of law (i.e. free speech, due process protections granted in the U.S. constitution, etc) Libel law in the US and UK is actually quite similar. Perhaps my point wasn't illustrated clearly enough, but at any rate, I highly doubt this case will be granted any merit given the current state of libel law in a first world nation like the UK.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
These people would also have to be unaware of the larger issue of the current political situation there, where the country is run by a "President" who fixes elections and has total control of the country (sorta like slashdot, huh?).
Slashdot: Fighting for Your Rights Online in Zimbabwe.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
- Many countries have laws against libelling the government or the ruling party, which are infinitely abusable.
- Many British-derived legal systems don't do that, but do still make it easy for individuals to win libel cases.
US traditions are inherited from several cases in the British Colonies in North AmericaBill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I predict we are going to be seeing more and more of this. As the internet really becomes the primary means of communication for a significant percentage of the world's populace, there will be those (nations, corporations, and even individuals) who will strive to control what is said. I would certainly not be surprised to see wars (or at least 'police actions') fought over what started as basically an internet flame. (Perhaps this has already happened?)
...since you put it in those particular words, you'd have a chance of being prosecuted for public use of profanity in any number of countries if this were accepted practice worldwide.
The way this problem will ultimately be solved is by routing around it. Zimbabwe and other states of its ilk will find themselves cut off from the internet as customers demand that ISPs not route packets to jurisdictions that may prosecute based on their contents. We already do this for spam. It won't take many convictions before tyrant-blocking black hole lists start to appear and ISPs start marketing them as a feature.
Eventually (but don't hold your breath waiting) these repressive regimes will either bow to internal economic pressure or so impoverish themselves as to lose the means of maintaining their power.
-Tom Duff
http://www.radiofreenation.com/rfn_news_titlepage. html
Which, among other things, says :
3.17 You warrant that your access to this site is not a violation of local laws and regulations in force at the location where you are accessing these Web Sites, and You agree to hold harmless these Web Sites, CyberKnowledge, and CyberKnowledge Staff and/or Authorized Agents for any actions by you that may be a violation of such local laws and regulations.
3.18 You warrant that your access to these Web Sites is not a violation of local laws and regulations of the Country, province, state, county, city, town, or any other type of government jurisdiction of which you are a citizen and/or whose laws you are subject to; and You agree to hold harmless these Web Sites, CyberKnowledge, and CyberKnowledge Staff and/or Authorized Agents for any actions by you that may be a violation of such local laws and regulations.
[...]
4.15 You warrant that your contribution to these Web Sites is not a violation of local laws and regulations of the Country, province, state, county, city, town, or any other type of government jurisdiction of which you are a citizen and/or whose laws you are subject to; and You agree to hold harmless these Web Sites, CyberKnowledge, and CyberKnowledge Staff and/or Authorized Agents for any actions by you that may be a violation of such local laws and regulations, including obscenity laws as judged by local community standards, promotion of and/or access to child pornography, incitement to illegal acts and/or other crimes not specifically mentioned.
4.16 You warrant that your contribution to this site is not a violation of local laws and regulations in force at the location where you are accessing these Web Sites, and You agree to hold harmless these Web Sites, CyberKnowledge, and CyberKnowledge Staff and/or Authorized Agents for any actions by you that may be a violation of such local laws and regulations, including obscenity laws as judged by local community standards, promotion of and/or access to child pornography, incitement to illegal acts and/or any other crimes not specifically mentioned.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
...Robert Mugabe hangs out?
You know, murder, rape, and dispossess all the white farmers Robert Mugabe.
And people are surprised by this?!
668: Neighbour of the Beast
The parent post is from "Libel Law in the United States" by Steven Pressman. It is most of that article, hardly changed at all.
Is the poster Steven Pressman? Or is this plagiarism?
You didn;t have a point, you stole the article from here
The creator of the Smurfs was Belgian, btw, they weren't created by Hanna Barbera.
As shown in this: fan site and the official site, you can clearly see that they communal ideal shown in the Smurfs is not Soviet Communism at all, but rather European Socialism.
::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
From now on, perhaps I should put a disclaimer on all my stuff that says:
The following article contains U.S. bits. Be sure to check with your local government(s) before importing the remaining bits. By agreeing to do this, you are assuming liability for compliance with local laws. This agreement also applies to the bits in this agreement, so if you already read the agreement and it is not in compliance with local law, you are SOL not me.
In all seriousness, this could work because the Zimbabwe ISPs would have to check to make sure that the bits were legal for import before importing them, since I can always disclaim that the bits are not intended for export. Faced with such a daunting task, their ISPs would soon shut down.
This seems only fair, since nobody forced them to start an ISP in Zimbabwe anyway.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you are probably at risk if you go to Zimbabwe, no matter who or what you are.
It is plagerism. Look at his posting history
If I stand on the border of a country and say things that are against the law in that bordering country (assuming someone heard me) did I do anything wrong?
I belive the same idea should be used with respect to net law and speech.
Make me very proud to say that I am a Klansman. I suggest those of you who wish to preserve the white race to please join us and become a fellow Klansman. Thank you and God bless.
When someone makes information from a certain locale, the "publisher" is bound by the laws of that locale.
When someone accesses information they are bound by the laws set in the locale from which they are viewing the data.
This is no different than a US publication (local newspaper, for example) being sent to someone in China. The publisher of the US newspaper is bound by US (and State, County, City) law. The person who reads the newspaper in China is bound by Chinese laws.
The fact that the delivery medium is virtually instant shouldn't matter.
Of course all of this is worthless when you're dealing with an unrational, unlogical, totalitarian, arguably evil government.
This Public Announcement alerts American citizens to the situation in Zimbabwe following that country's March 2002 presidential election. This Public Announcement supersedes the one issued for Zimbabwe on April 2, 2002, and will expire on August 1, 2002.
U.S. citizens in Zimbabwe should be aware of continuing conditions that could adversely affect their personal security. The political, social, economic, and security situation in Zimbabwe remains fluid. There continue to be incidents of land seizures, police roadblocks, political violence and intimidation in urban, and especially rural areas. The possibility of mass demonstrations cannot be discounted. Growing food shortages and increasing numbers of internally displaced persons have added to social and economic tensions. The Government of Zimbabwe has enacted the Public Order and Security Act, which makes it an offense to "undermine the authority of the President" or "engender hostility" towards him. This includes speaking negatively of the President in public. The bill also bars individuals from speaking negatively of the police and carrying weapons of any kind. The Government has also enacted the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act which, among other things, deals with the abuse of journalistic privilege. Journalists, including Americans, have been detained on charges stemming from this Act.
American citizens should avoid public demonstrations or large gatherings and refrain from taking pictures or videos of political events of any kind. Americans should also monitor the local and international media for developments that may affect their safety. Additionally, American citizens should exercise caution when traveling anywhere in Zimbabwe, should travel with reputable tour operators and are urged to register with the U.S. Embassy, located at 172 Herbert Chitepo Ave., in the capital, Harare, telephone (263)4-250-593/4.
For additional information on travel to Zimbabwe, please consult the Department of State's latest Consular Information Sheet for Zimbabwe, as well as the World Wide Caution Public Announcement, available via the Internet at http://travel.state.gov.
----
Department of State travel information and publications are available at Internet address: http://travel.state.gov. U.S. travelers may hear recorded information by calling the Department of State in Washington, D.C. at 202-647-5225 from their touchtone telephone, or receive information by automated telefax by dialing 202-647-3000 from their fax machine.
-----
I tried to highlight the important parts. Point is, Zimbabwe isn't exactly a haven for personal freedoms.
Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski
IIRC, usually extradition only applies for crimes that are recognized as such by both countries. Clearly that would be rarely true in the case of these particular laws.
I'm a nature photographer.
Just one more example of why the U.S. should just nuke all the other countries and let God figure it out. Sure, we'll have a nuclear winter to deal with, but we Americans are a hearty bunch. And sure, it'll make most of the world unliveable, but hey, when the nuclear winter subsides in a few thousand years, there will still be the U.S.
Controlling public access to information is a much more resource-effective means of social control than direct military/police action, so it's especially serious for people like Mugabe, but it's a serious problem for governments everywhere. They have enough trouble dealing with effective postal systems and telegraphs, which can often communicate faster than censorship can react, but pre-Internet broadcast media such as traditional newspaper publishing and radio/tv cost enough that most broadcast news is local or at least controllable
- Newspapers cost enough and carry enough local news that most people read local papers, which can be censored or bullied, and occasional issues of wide-market papers like the NY or London Times or South China Morning Post can have their local distributions squelched for a day if needed
- Local radio and TV stations have been government-regulated in most jurisdictions, either as government-owned monopolies or at least licensed in ways that control content
- Short-wave broadcasting had largely been restricted by treaties, and mostly out-competed by television.
- The growth of satellite television in the last decade or so is a serious threat to government opinion control, but at least it's run by a few big corporations that tend to push hierarchical homogenized values and ignore local issues outside their owners' main markets, so it's a slower-moving threat that it could be - the real impact is often on cultural and economic values rather than directly rocking the boat.
But the Internet is just there - once you've got it, you've got access to everything and tools for finding the things you want, and language differences may fragment it somewhat, but not only does much of the world speak English, Chinese, Spanish, or French, but the expatriates that you most wish would stay away and leave you alone now have a much easier time reaching your subjects, speak your local languages, and care about your local issues.Even in more liberal countries that don't have vicious totalitarian-wannabee governments, the Internet is still disruptive to the cultural status-quo and sometimes to the government. Back during one of the Internet-rumormongering flaps (I forget if it was a Matt Drudge thing or a Who Shot Down TWA Flight 800 or some conspiracy thing), somebody asked Esther Dyson about the Internet encouraging this sort of thing, and she said that yes, it did, but that television was better for propaganda. We've seen a lot of resistance to Internet openness focused on cultural-value conflicts like pornography. In some places like the US, the issue might really *be* concern about pornography (e.g. Ashcroft covering up naked statues), but it's being used by other governments as an excuse to grab control of the Internet distribution before it totally gets out of hand - the Great Firewall of China and similar efforts are doomed in the long run, but it's about the only thing they can do if they want to keep any control over the information their people see.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I've been saying this for many years but nobody really seems to listen...
Governments of the world need to wake up and realize that cyberspace (I hate that word) is just as real as the USA, Britain, Australia or any other country on the face of the planet.
What's needed are some "cyberspace treaties" that would work in much the same way as the various treaties that cover issues such as copyright, trademarks, patents, etc.
These treaties need only lay down the basic framework of laws needed to restrict users actions and preserve their rights while in "cyberspace."
If a country's right to connect to the Net was conditional on signing to such an treaty then we'd have a method of producing and enforcing consistent laws related to the Net and its (ab)use.
Stomping on spam would be a great start -- imagine if there were a set of basic anti-spamming laws to which all Net-connected countries had to agree to be bound (under threat of excommunication). When you got a spam from Korea -- you report the offense and if the Korean authorities were found to not be enforcing the law, they'd be in jeopardy of having the entire country disconnected.
Other important issues such as kiddy porn, defamation, etc could also be covered by such a treaty -- making it far easier to track down and arrest or extradite offenders.
Hey... the RIAA and MPAA seem to have been able to unofficially create just such a global network of enforcement -- so why can't the world's authorities and legislators watch and learn.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very much opposed to the introduction of bureaucracy and regulation in respect to Internet use. However, I'm also a realist and I acknowledge that there are some areas (kiddy-porn, spamming, etc) where we simply have to do something because not to act is to endorse the action of those who choose to spoil the Net for everyone.
(On a side note, tells of another case where a porn distributor in Manhattan was charged with violating federal obscenity laws because they shipped a movie to Albany (also in New York). The "interstate commerce" clause was invoked on the grounds that the shipping company normally took the Holland Tunnel out of Manhattan, and thus were temporarily in New Jersey. Dershowitz defended the client by showing that the company sometimes used an alternate route if traffic was bad, a route confined to New York. The government couldn't prove the shipper had taken the normal route on the day in question.
It's weird - there are several major newspapers that are available worldwide, just as the internet is available worldwide. I don't see Zimbabwe suing, say, a major New York newspaper? What's the difference. Both reports were published in a different country in accordance to that nation's laws - just because the report is available for viewing in Zimbabwe - both the newspaper and the internet story, doesn't give Zimbabwe the right to sue them. It's outside their jurisdiction - and I think the national leaders should step in and put a stop to this joke...
This is unacceptable! There is no excuse for any government or entity in power in any country or state in the world for prosecuting anybody for publishing anything! There should be an international law that guarentees every person's rights throughout the world as stated in the original Constitution of the united States, taking into consideration the years of experiences gained by millions of Americans who have given equal rights to women, blacks, and anybody else for that matter. In other words, the ideas of our forefathers should be applied to everywhere in the world. I think all the people of the world should be horrified by this criminal act on the part of Zimbabwe's government, and we should all write a hundred letters a day in protest, and mail them all to Zimbabwe's offices. The next thing you know, Zimbabwe becomes the world's leading supplier of recycled paper, and they'll be so busy doing that, they won't have time to prosecute anybody anymore.
Oooooooooooooh well.
Possession is 9/10th's of the law anyway, so where the server resides governs.
hear hear!
Did it occur to you that the parent actually wrote the article?
And all those others?
Given what restrictions powerful nations like the US, the UK, and Germany are trying to impose on speech in other countries, they really don't have any reason to complain when other countries try to do this as well. What they can do and should do is criticize is Mugabe, his regime, and his policies, independent of how those policies spill over into the Interne.
If a country has a problem with certain substances, it can stop them (i.e filter) at the border with customs officials. If it has problems with data, it can filter that too (a firewall/proxy). Neither is fool-proof, especially with data.
:) As an extra feature, it also predicts the chances of your home country coming to the rescue and nuking everyone to save you (if home-country=USA then nuking-weight=x100) lol
If a country decides that someone has committed a crime, and if that person is in, or visits the country they can be arrested. If you are a reporter, programmer, or anyone else that does something to piss off another country that you don't agree with, don't go there. Its just common sense. If you do get arrested, just pray that your home country eg UK, America etc will bomb the shit out of the other country to get you back. This probably won't happen since it was your fault to begin with.
I can just see someone coming up with a (Visual Basic) program, you select the country that you've pissed off, and select the country that you want to visit, and it will tell you if your safe, or if you'll have an extradition treaty up your ass
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
If your personal storm-troopers don't have jurisdiction to persontally seize the equipment doing the production, you should not have the jurisdiction to bring charges.
So if you are a city attorney you can only prosecute someone under "community standards" if your city police can snatch the computer without "help" from a larger jurisdiction.
To that end, if Zimbabwe would need "help" or "permission" from {some other government here} to legally sieze the computer, then Zimbabwe just can't prosecute for community standards.
Beyond that, if you can't keep the signal out of your precious community, clearly you don't take your own standards seriously enough... (see The Great-Firewall of China)
ah, to be able to destroy idiots and "arbiters of moral rectitude" from space...
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Finally! some of the papers here come out with so much crap. They really should bring back the death penalty so we can join the 21st century with countries like Zimbabwe and the USA :)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
A gentle look back at the Skylarov case and those in the slashdot community who supported applying US law to an action outside it's borders.Sklyarov Arrest Follow-up
Ya Sure! You Betcha!, The_THOMAS
Libel law in the US and UK is actually quite similar. Perhaps my point wasn't illustrated clearly enough, but at any rate, I highly doubt this case will be granted any merit given the current state of libel law in a first world nation like the UK.
And the trial is in Harare...so what do UK laws have to do with it? The whole point is that he ISN'T being tried in the UK, he's being targetted and tried in Zimbabwe for something he did in the UK.
Your point is as relevant as saying "Dmitri Skylarov can't be convicted in the US, because Russia doesn't have laws against the code he wrote"*. We only wish it stays that easy (and reasonable, and logical).
* - I know, Skylarov's software was sold in the US putting him at the mercy of US courts, but that wasn't the point of my analogy.
Would this same problem happen if the Guardian printed a paper in the UK and someone in that ass-baskwards country had it delivered to them? Either way the whole thing is BS and it seems that Zimbabwe might have something to hide.
Well, here we have it folks. A prime example of what happens when someone takes the political agenda of the Slashdot editors and their ilk to heart.
Already I've read comparisons of Mugabe to Microsoft lawyers, but this is even worse.
We are no better. I hate to say it, but it's true."
Truly, one of the most lamest Slashdot posts I've read in a while..and that includes Micheals observations.
"A reporter for The Guardian is being prosecuted in Zimbabwe for a report that appeared on the newspaper's website"
Surely this is not the first time a tinhorn dictator has prosecuted someone for criticism of his government published outside his jurisdiction. How does the fact that it appeared on the Web make this case different?
"...or any country with extradition treaties with Zimbabwe."
Do you seriously believe that any halfway democratic government would honor such a request?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
what surprises (and saddens) me is that such a non-content hate-driven commentary is at score:4 (insightful)
can i ask where is the 'Insight'?
i have no love for Zimbabwe government, and really think their actions are a shame to all humanity, but this kind of comments only make things worse.
-Kz-
I hear he is migrating the country's 3 servers to Linux from Windows 3.1.
Interestingly enough, the story from the gaurdian turned out to be false. In some way I'm laughing because wouldn't it be nice if newspapers were held accountible for the truth. Anyway, I don't think speech should be a criminal case. Nobody should ever go to jail because they got the facts wrong. Liability via a lawsuit on the other hand ...
-Nuke the moon
Good troll, but I'm afraid it's not possible to steal one's own work.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
It's completely obvious to me that a web site is publishing world-wide. Imagine you print a zine, and when people call you up, you send them a copy. You are then publishing your zine in all those countries that you sent it to. This is exactly what a website does. If you still don't get it: imagine the zine writer sits in the Netherlands, where pictures of nude children sunbathing are legal. He sends his nudist zine to the US. Is he breaking US law or not?
...They don't read The Onion in Zimbabwe.
And the trial is in Harare...so what do UK laws have to do with it? The whole point is that he ISN'T being tried in the UK, he's being targetted and tried in Zimbabwe for something he did in the UK.
Your point is as relevant as saying "Dmitri Skylarov can't be convicted in the US, because Russia doesn't have laws against the code he wrote"*. We only wish it stays that easy (and reasonable, and logical).
You're missing the point. He's a US citizen abroad, in the UK. He's only in danger if the UK decides to extradite him (which requires, obviously, that both countries agree on the charges), or if he visits Zimbabwe itself.
As it stands, and given US and UK case law, that doesn't seem probable.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
He is in Zimbawe, being tried in Zimbabwe and, if found guilty, will be imprisoned in Zimbabwe. He worked there, he was the Grauniad's Zimbabwe correspondent.
I find it hard to believe that the majority of the white farmers are a bunch of martini-sipping aristocrats that sit around all day while black workers toil in the field. I bet you their quality of life is typically middle class at best.
Mugabwe is currently isolated internationally. He is within a whisker of being kicked out of the Comonwealth. He has been given a public dressing down by Tutu and Mandela. Everyone knows that the recent election was stolen by fraud. Meanwhile Mugabwe is bankrupting the country by financing military expeditions in the Congo whose principal objective is to allow the military to enrich themselves through plunder.
In these circumstances the risk of extradition to Zimbabwe to stand trial for what you write in Slashdot is none too great. What is really going on here is a trial of strength. The problem with sending people to jail for criticism is that it tends not to work in the long run, as the dictators of eastern europe found out. Mugabwe can send critics to jail but in doing so he loses the thin veneer of democratic legitimacy on which his power ultimately rests.
The Skylarof case was completely insignificant on the scale of global politics. The issue in Zimbabwe is democracy or dictatorship.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Of course I'll just post this /. article + discussion for those interested.
8 25 5&mode=nested&tid=95
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/04/125
"The Washington Post's Tech site is running an interesting piece on geolocation technology and its increased use on the net. The article explains the technology as being able to locate an Internet user in the world, at least to their mother country, and then grant access based on their location. They note how television broadcasters are interested in this kind of technology to prohibit the loss of distribution rights to things like the Olympics."
Seems to me that we will soon be seeing this used for ip address block 'blocking' in countries who want to enforce their virtual 'borders'.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
The Guardian didn't publish this information in Zimbabwe, the people who downloaded it did. By typing "http://www.guardian.co.uk..." into their browser, or clicking on a link that did it for them, those people imported the Evil Bytes into Zimbabwe's jurisdiction. Meldrum's attorney should question the police officers with respect to the chain of custody and determine definitively who actually sent the HTTP GET request to the web server, then turn to the judge and make a motion to dismiss, as by the Prosecution witnesses' own testimony someone other than his client is responsible for those bytes being in Zimbabwe.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
that any civilized country would use the outcome of a court case in ZIMBABWE as a precedent. At least, I really hope that they wouldn't. The Brits should go in, break the guy out of his cell, shoot anyone with a gun who gets in their way, and then go home and let that fucked up little country decay naturally. It's not our problem. If the people of Zimbabwe minded being ruled by psychos, the could have an uprising. Happens all the time over there. Guns are easy to come by. If they don't complain, and don't shoot the bastards torturing and killing them, why should we care? I don't, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over the suffering in *name a country in africa*. I just hope the EU has enough balls to get their guy back.
Shouldn't they (the government) be more concerned about gaining stability and being able to feed their own people?
Its sad... so very sad and frustrating..
Tournament Management Online &
Zimbabwe does not HAVE a fucking government. Not by my standards, and probably not by yours. This is really a non-issue. They have a fragile collection of tribal groups that band together to kill each other when the need arises, and almost half of them have aids anyway. No one is going to take a crew like that seriously. The brits and the ex pats should cut their losses, run like hell, and let the place rot like the rest of the continent.
This is the kind of horseshit that causes people and countries to refuse to comply with 'international courts and tribunals'.
Everyone thinks the whole world is as civilized as they are but they're not. So what we should do is if one of our citizens is extradited and imprisoned in Zimbabwe, we should arrest and imprison every Zimbabwean living here and cut off all diplomatic relations with the country that extradited that person, with and economic embargo to follow.
legislative bodies need to realize that the internet isn't a publishing media, it's a giant post-it note copier. Anyone can put anything on a net server if they have the proper access. However, it's a matter of choice to go there. If I go to a refrigerator in Russia and copy down something Boris X puts on a post-it note there onto my own post-it note, did Boris X put it on my refrigerator? no. I did. Hence, Boris X did not publish here in the United States. I did. By copying what he did publish on his server onto mine, I basically went to Russia, copied his paper, imported it to the US, and read it here. Therefore, publishing takes place serverside. Except pop-up ads and such, which are like those flyers forced upon people on the streets of Las Vegas whether they want it or not...those are just a violation of your hardware and bandwith.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Given than *everything* "The Onion" publishes is trumped up false, or just downright humerous, the fact that China (see previous article on slashdot) mistook a story from the Onion as real might mean that the staff of the The Onion could be looking at serious time if they every go to Zimbabwe. :)
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Aren't disclaimers illegal in Zimbabwe? And "hold Harmless" clauses?
I'm pretty sure being British or American is illegal there too...
It is possible to be guilty of stealing one's own work if one has transferred ownership of that work. One remains the creator of the work, therefore it is still one's work, but no longer one's property.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I agree wholeheartedly!
In fact, I declare myself the emperor of the sovereign nation of "Cyberspace".
As my first official act, I declare everyone with a connection to the Internet, transient or otherwise, citizens of Cyberspace.
As my second official act, I hereby declare publication of any kind of information legal.
As my third official act, I declare our official language is "C". I realize that there are a significant number of people whose native language is "perl", so we will be offerring bilingual education for the first decade.
As my fourth official act, I declare SPAM'ming as being punishable by permanent exile to a non-network connected IBM PC XT, but only if there are no non-network connected Apple IIe's available.
As my fifth official act, a declare a flat 10% income tax on all citizens of Cyberspace and all corporations incorporated therein; please send checks or money orders, made out payable to "Cash".
Your country thanks you for your prompt payment.
-- Terry
True; however in this case, licensing exclusivity has not been established, and as such, while the work may be in use, the ownership is retained.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
The Guardian simply made available an "instant publishing service" called their website. Whoever the user was in Zimbabwe who clicked on the link to see the story - that user is the publisher.
And since the Zimbabwe government is clearly in breach of their "duty of care" to their citizens by allowing them to put themselves in legal jeopardy by visiting web sites (to meet their duty of care responsibilities they would have to block those websites), then as the Guardian I would simply counter-sue Zimbabwe on behalf of its citizens under whatever trade practises legislation exists in Zimbabwe. Or alternatively under a "nuisance suit" law if they have one.
Oh, by the way, in case it's not completely obvious, IANAL. And the above is probably full of holes, but there it is.
"I don't see any reason why one state's residents should be responsible for following the laws of another state if they're in their home state." Well, yes, but if the Supreme Court thinks its OK for a Washington State resident to be sued in California for a piece of software harming California industries, even if it was "only" placed on the web.
IANAL, but a state court will claim personal jurisdiction if a tortious act was commited against a resident of that state, even if the tortfeasor never entered that state.
Of course, between countries its slightly different, since the US is unlikely to have an extradition treaty with a country with barbaric laws (e.g. Taliban controlled Afghanistan), but we can't (shouldn't) go knocking on their door when they have someone who violated a US law.
BTW this is a stale news story...
Given what restrictions powerful nations like the US, the UK, and Germany are trying to impose on speech in other countries, they really don't have any reason to complain when other countries try to do this as well. What they can do and should do is criticize is Mugabe, his regime, and his policies, independent of how those policies spill over into the Internet.
You all are underestimating the power of the media with your kneejerk comments about Mugabe. You actually believe that he is an evil dictator, even though there is compelling evidence that he was in fact elected, and that the opposition was less than honest in its claims that atrocities were being committed. Man, just this week I heard A. Meldron interviewed on Public Radio International's "The World." The topic was supposed to be the food crisis in Southern Africa, and the reluctance of Western nations to provide needed assistance, although for the life of me I can't understand what qualifies this man to speak objectively on the issue. He ranted against Mugabe and "cleptocracy" in Africa, all the while dodging issues such as how farm subsidies in the US and the EU harm African food markets, or how GM crops are being foisted upon nations that see little benefit and much risk in being dependant upon Monsanto's intellectual property to feed themselves. Not even mentioned was Malawi's claim that the IMF urged them to sell off strategic grain reserves, and the fact that they are being denied needed food aid because of "lack of fiscal discipline," which, for whatever it's worth, has nothing to do with dictatorship.
Given the way Africa gets covered by the Western media, I am entirely suspicious of the story of the decapitation and the motives behind publishing it. That does not mean I support Mugabe's politics or agree with the law or its application to an online publication. But I do understand the sources of Mugabe's hostility towards Western journalists, and to let them off the hook without a thought is plain stupid. Slashdotters are plenty cynical when it comes to Microsoft FUD and coverage of tech issues in the popular press. And yet all the slashbots seem to agree that Mugabe is a tyrant, and that this represents the latest act in the squelching of all dissent and free speech. But where did this idea come from? If Tom Brokaw accused Dubya-supporters of decapitating Gore voters in Palm Beach County, and it turned out that the Democratic Party made the whole thing up in collaboration with Brokaw's network, wouldn't you want to see some accountability? Does freedom of speech mean freedom to knowingly spread lies in order to influence an election outcome? And if that was indeed the intent behind the Guardian story --I'm not sure I'd believe that, but if it was the intent, then Zimbabwe arguably has a right to put them on trial in Zimbabwe, no matter where the story was "published."
Black Africans are unable to constitute good government.
This is the real story here.
There simply does not exist any tradition of large-scale benevolent leadership in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The current leadership in Ex-Rhodesia is incredibly corrupt. The people themselves are mostly illiterate and lacking in any civic virtue as we recognize it in modern Western democracies.
Are my comments flamebait? Definitely. Are they also entirely accurate? Sadly, yes.
evanchik.net
Just wanted to mention that you forgot to mention France for their Nazi memorabilia case.
All these are democracies paying lip service to freedom.
Some people mentioned it already, but here's information about a case in Germany that is similar, dealing with Nazi propaganda.
Don't drink and su! antidisestablishmentariazationally
30 of Rober Mugabes people have been killed. 120 opposition people. 10 white farmers.
But all we hear is about how white farmers are being killed. You know that deep in the west is still a very strong racist feeling.
As an aside, it would perhaps be more accurate to call the Guardian an English and Welsh (rather than a UK) publication. I mention this because there have been a few cases recently of English papers being gagged and prevented from disclosing details on certain released criminals. The idiocy of this is highlighted in the last line of this Guardian article; publishing in England would be illegal, but take one step over the open Scottish border, and it becomes legal.
In that respect, the English courts appear to have little idea how to deal with the complexities of international jurisdiction. It's going to be very interesting when a Scottish newpaper finally does nail its colours to the mast and defy one of these English bans.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The more we see of this the more likely the law is to favour free speech.
I have no idea if Zimabawe has an extradition treaty with the UK (It may have one dating back from before Mugabe went loopy). If it does can you imagine the reaction of a British court of Zimabwe does try to extradite this jounalist? Or the reaction of the British parliment?
It certainly makes a beter test case than the US tryig to pursue someone for a DCMA violation becuase the judges and the general public will understand it better, and the Zimbabwaen government has less credibility.
Anything that shows how absurd it is to think that someone who puts something on the internet has a responsibility to obey the laws of every country is good.
I hope Saudi Arabia now sues someone in the US for advocating Christianity on the internet.
We need a global government, with fair and equal representation for every country.
And a world-wide juridical system - that will stop all those ridiculous treaties between individual countries.
mainly in slashdot comments of course!
Female Prison Rape in NY
If you've kept track of the news for the last couple of years (the elections) or decades you know that Zimbabwe is really screwing itself.
Robert Mugabe is holding onto power using teen gangs to beat up opponents, blaming rural white farmers for his country's ills, bloating up the civil service with jobs for cronies, etc.
Believe me, freedom of the press is just one misery in big heap as far as Zimbabwe is concerned.
It was good and just that they threw off the shackles of colonial imperialism. But now they're finding out that home-grown rulers can be just as bad as their former governments, probably worse than Ian Smith ever was.
It's too bad that there hasn't been more of an international outcry at the abuses in Zimbabwe. I guess things will just have to degrade to the point where enough of the citizens start to get a clue that they have the power to change things, but only if they're willing to risk some more of their blood. Change will have to come from within and will cost dearly.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
The US should pass some kind of decree that its citizens cannot be imprisoned in another country under threat of war/trade embargos/etc. Makes sense to me, and would save the state department a lot of hassles.
A need has formed for per-document geofiltering. Posting something that might offend those whoring Zimbabwe businessmen ? Then show it to everyone EXCEPT Zimbabwe surfers (let them use a proxy). If we can't fix the problem at the root, then we'll have to start by shutting it out. Same thing applies to China, and to some extend even Australia. If the governments aren't willing to learn about the Internet and its unwritten rules, then they will be silently ignored until they wisen up.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
So, how is the Internet going to route around this one, huh? Any ideas?