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...
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.'
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
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.
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.
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
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.