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 ...

Comments

Sklyarov

[AntiNorm]

putting reporters and editors at risk of arrest if they go to Zimbabwe

Sounds almost like the Dmitry Sklyarov case...

Re:Sklyarov

[nuggz]

Except the product Sklyarov wrote was sold in the US. If the article was in a newspaper or magazine sold in Zimbabwe then it would be more similar.

They are different in specifics, however they are similiar that people are doing things completely legal and appropriate, being subject to stupid laws of faraway countries.

Best advice is to not go where they have sufficiently stupid laws.

Re:Sklyarov

[DarkZero]

Best advice is to not go where they have sufficiently stupid laws.

Would you mind giving us an example of this place where they do not have sufficiently stupid laws? Does it happen to have a breathable atmosphere? I'd like to visit there some time.

If someone's stupid enough

[vegetablespork]

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.

Interesting connection.

[Mike the Mac Geek]

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.

fault of Zimbabwe ISPs

[colmore]

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.

Extradition treaty with Zimbabwe?

[Knife_Edge]

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.'

Re:Extradition treaty with Zimbabwe?

[ceejayoz]

If it's such a "simple minded view", then why did the US Congress write a bill legalizing an invasion of the Netherlands in case the proposed International Court tries to hold American citizens for war crimes?

Sounds like you haven't been keeping up with current events...

Re:Extradition treaty with Zimbabwe?

[John Hasler]

"...he liberated Zimbabwe from colonial rule (It used to be British Rhodesia). We in the US never learn about the African Revolutions of the 1960's and 70's."

Speak for yourself. Those of us who actually do know some history know that the government that Mugabe & Co. overthrew was established in rebellion against the British, who were about to grant Rhodesia its independence under black majority rule.

"Again, we in the US rarely hear about any of this."

I heard a great deal about it at the time: enough to have a pretty good idea what actually happened.

"The US backed the Angolan tribal warlord Jonas Savimbi and his UNITA faction for years, until he was finally killed in battle with the Angolan military."

The US Government dropped Savimbi the instant the Cold War ended. Their only interest in him was in denying Angola to the USSR.

"I personally don't know that much about Mugabe..."

Then find out.

Background: Zimbabwe vs UK

[mccalli]

For those who might not realise it, I should point out that there is an overtly political agenda to this, rather than a straightforward judicial one.

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

Re:Background: Zimbabwe vs UK

[gehrehmee]

Isn't that exactly the point? International application of local laws brings anyone face to face with even the extremest political agendas of all countries involved.

Consider the government...

[swb]

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.

Re:Consider the government...

[Goonie]

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.

Yeah, it's pretty disappointing, but to be fair it's a lot easier to say those kinds of things when you don't have to live next door to them. The Australian government is, for instance, mealy-mouthed about Indonesia's corruption and thuggery, mainly because there are certain things we need from Indonesia (like not letting drug and people smugglers through, and shutting down Al-Queda cells there) and if we don't kiss their arse occasionally they are petulant enough to stop doing those things to spite us. Similar things probably apply WRT Zimbabwe and SA. They did have the courtesy to go along (once beaten round the head by the UK, NZ, and to a lesser extent Australia) with the suspension of Zimbabwe from the British Commonwealth (which says to the world that they now regard Zimbabwe as undemocratic).

Of course there's the issue that some in the ANC, whatever the leadership knows, probably have a sneaking sympathy for people sticking it to rich white landowners.

Re:Consider the government...

[ArsSineArtificio]

Although they don't want violence or anything harsh they still believe that Africa is a continent for Africans - not Englishmen or Frenchmen. And it shouldn't be - the only thing whites have brought to Africa is racism and their own forms of control over the lands true owners.

Oh, please.

If somebody had written "Europe is a continent for Europeans - not Africans or South Asians... And it shouldn't be - the only thing coloreds have brought to Europe is crime and welfare dependency" you'd go from 0 to self-righteous in half a second.

Peddle your hypocritical racist twaddle somewhere else.

Re:Consider the government...

[raistlinne]

the only thing whites have brought to Africa is racism and their own forms of control over the lands true owners.

So you don't believe that cars, telephones, mass-produced books, vaccines, television, movies, cheap clothing (i.e. mass-produced clothing such as denim jeans), or computers are things? Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of one group attacking another and subjugating it, but you're going a bit overboard in the other direction, don't you think?

Hard to prove in the US; easy in many other places

[billstewart]

Libel is hard to prove in the US, because we have both old and new legal traditions making it difficult. That's not the case in many other countries

• 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 America

• Truth as a defense - John Peter Zenger was a newspaper publisher in New York who wrote things about the British governor that the Gov didn't like, and got sued for libel. Zenger argued successfully to the jury that while the Gov may not like what he said, what he said was true, and saying so shouldn't be punishable.
• Jury limitations on convictions - William Penn was accused of illegally preaching Quakerism, and the jury acquitted, because they believed the law to be unjust, following the traditions that had been gradually evolving under English Common Law. The judge threw them in jail to get them to change their minds, they appealed to a higher judge and got released, which substantially strengthened precedents about juries' ability to judge the law as well as the facts, and in the case of libel laws, this particularly affects a juries likelihood not to convict someone for libel even if the plaintiff really really doesn't like what was said about him.

Website Licenses

[Alien54]

It is this sort of thing that leads to the sort of Web site licenses seen here:

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.

Imported Bits

[istartedi]

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.

Ummmmm...

[Anonymous Admin]

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.

Re:Okay, then

[Servo5678]

Dear TrumpetPower!,

You are cordially invited to visit the nation of Zimbabwe on behalf of our glorious government for an all expenses paid vacation. Please contact us immediately to arrange your travel (Oh, and come alone. It's less complicated that way).

Sincerely,
Zimbabwe Secret Police

Well, the US government can say, "Told ya so"

[Verizon Guy]

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.

Extradition

[Joe Decker]

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.

Endemic + accelerating problem of communications

[billstewart]

This case is yet another symptom of an endemic and accelerating problem of governments' inability to deal with rapid, widespread open communications. Governments' authority and jurisdiction has traditionally been related to geography, and social values, which depend on communications patterns, have also generally cohered around geography - most people only communicate with people "near" them, and they mostly stay put most of the time, though there are major exceptions (emigration, large-scale wars, Vikings, colonizers, and more peaceful traders, Gypsies), but usually there's a strong correlation between governments, societies, and markets, and the kinds of laws governments can enforce are limited by the values of those societies. As communications get out of control, questions of jurisdiction get muddled and the traditional legal structures fail. The internet appears to be at least as disruptive as the cloth and shipping trade in medieval Europe - will it become a purely independent jurisdiction (ala John Perry Barlow's Declaration, or the evolution of commerce law), or some hybrid strongly or loosely subject to local control, and how will we resolve the demands of some people to make the laws equal to the most restrictive laws anywhere and of other people to make them equal to the least restrictive?

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.

We need a cyber-jurisdiction

[NewtonsLaw]

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.

everybody does it

[g4dget]

The US tries hard to impose its draconian laws in areas like computer security, child pornography, and copyrights on other countries. The US assists police in foreign countries with raids on their citizens, detains visitors to the US (viz the Adobe case), and seizes assets. And the UK (libel) and Germany (Nazi hate speech) are trying to do the same thing.

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.

Re:In the real world ...

[Aceticon]

No, but if the guy on the other side of the border shoots you in the head with an AK-47, what're you gonna do about it?

Well, it depends - unless one has a very thick skull or the other guy has a really bad aim i suspect the what one does in such a situation is die.

Then again IANAPTGSITHWAAK47 ( I Am Not A Person That Got Shot In The Head With An AK-47 )

Exercises in missing the point

[Zeinfeld]

The issue that everyone manages to miss here is that the Guardian and the journalist in question do not have staying out of jail as their primary concern. The real issue is getting rid of Mugabwe and it is worth risking two years in jail to do that.

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.

Where are you?

[The Monster]

if they're in their home country.

Well, if it weren't for precedents like Manuel Noriega and Salman Rushdie, that would be all there is to it. The question of "where you are" when you're online has troubled me since I ran a BBS back in prehistoric days, (when a sysop in California could be charged with violating laws in Tennessee without ever having done a thing there.) and the best answer I've ever been able to come up with is this:

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.

Re:what a healthy comentary!

[ColaMan]

What with slashdot spelling and all, maybe they were aiming for inciteful.

Re:Rich compared to what?

[HiThere]

Because they were born there, and don't have anywhere else to live. Because they "own" the land that they work, and can't take it with them if they move, and can't sell it even if they want to. And because they don't know what it's like anywhere else, so they're scared.

This is why any group that a government doesn't like stays around to be killed instead of fleeing immediately. And governments know this, and take all possible advantage of it.