In Vietnam: Being a Blogger Could Land You In Jail, Cost You Your Life
An anonymous reader writes "Bloggers in Vietnam are increasingly finding themselves thrown in jail. Despite freedom of speech being enshrined in the nation's Constitution, many who speak out against the government are thrown in jail — thanks to a new law that forbids such talk. In one desperate act, Dang Thi Kim Lieng lit herself on fire outside the Bac Lieu People's Committee building in southern Vietnam. She died of her injuries. She was protesting the detention of her daughter who was arrested for blogging against the government. Three other bloggers are scheduled be tried under section 88 of the criminal code, which relates to propaganda against the nation. A maximum sentence could carry with it 20 years in jail."
Julian Assange was overheard to say.
Let's hope they learn how to use proxies and to remain anonymous.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You're free to talk about anything you want to. Unless we don't like what you say, in which case we will lock you up or kill you. Have a nice day.
Funny how governments (usually of the oppressive variety) are deathly scared of people voicing their opinions of them or outing them publicly.
Just how oppressive is Vientnam's government? That's not one I usually hear tossed around with Cuba, North Korea etc. IMHO any government that makes it a crime to speak negatively in public about the government, ruling party, president, or king, is oppressive just from that alone.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
We go to WAR!!! That will teach them.
Some folks who do good work in the less-famous parts of the Internet:
https://www.theengineroom.org/
http://opennet.net/
http://globalintegrity.org/
https://www.eff.org/
Disclosure: I've worked for two of these, though not recently.
The title of the post should be, "In Vietnam: being a blogger could land you in jail; setting yourself on fire could cost you your life".
Also if you blog about what you had for breakfast this morning?
If freedom of speech is enshrined in the Viet Constitution, why isn't the Supreme Court (or equivalent) releasing these people and protecting the constitutional law?
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Moral of the story?
Dont say bad things against the government in a blog.
Our blogging service will not be held responsible for blog-induced damage to life, limb and human rights if the name of the country in which the blogging took place includes any of the following words; 'people', 'republic' or 'democratic', unless multiple nongovernmental proxies and an up to date Liberte Linux live cd are used.
AccountKiller
The Vietnamese government has a fine line to tread. Due to the current territorial disputes with China, there is a resurgence of Sinophobia among the populace in Vietnam. The Vietnamese government doesn't want to antagonize the Chinese government and jeopardize a huge trading relationship, but it also doesn't want to appear to be caving to the Chinese. It had shown remarkable restraints in allowing anti-China protests to proceed, but recently it had been curbing them because the protestors attention is now focussing on the government itself.
The title of this article claims that being a blogger in Vietnam could cost you your life. But the only person to lose their life was a non-blogger who set herself on fire in protest at the new law. So a more accurate title would be, "In Vietnam: Being a Blogger Could Land You In Jail. Setting Yourself On Fire Could Cost You Your Life".
-deane
In traditional slashdot fashion, I'm posting this without actually reading the article rather than just the summary, but according to the summary, apparently what will cost you your life is if you decide to make a grand-but-probably-ultimately-pointless gesture and commit suicide to protest something, which is kind of tautologically true regardless of what you're protesting, or where.
Meanwhile, everyone also already knows that in Vietnam, you can get thrown in jail for doing just about anything, or nothing, so also in traditional slashdot fashion, I will say: "this is news?"
Not sure how I'd feel about my mom killing herself by setting herself on fire to protest my detention.
You really missed the whole point, didn't you? It wasn't our fight! Seriously, try and learn something from history.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Heh wake up.! It's still a communist country.. My heart aches for the 'people' of Vietnam. Still they suffer the worst.. After my tour there 67 and 68, I came to realize
how the little people suffered then, and still do today..
Are you off your meds again?
In the West jailing people for criticising the government would be unpopular, so they find more subtle but equally effective ways to do it. These silence not just bloggers, but journalists too: The easiest of these is libel laws. US Citizens are lucky that their Right to Free Speech is enshrined in the Constitution, but citizens in other supposedly liberal democracies have no such protection.
Libel Law: "In theory, the objective of defamation laws is to balance protection of individual reputation with freedom of expression. In practice, defamation laws are frequently used as a means of chilling speech. A threat of (costly) defamation proceedings and damages, whether or not a plaintiff's claim is likely to be upheld by a court, is often used to silence criticism not only by a particular person or group but also as a threat to others."
https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html
The UK defamation bill will do little to stop corporations suing individuals and should include a public interest defence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/27/libel-reform-get-right-defamation-bill
UK Libel reform campaigners demand better public interest defence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/27/libel-reform-campaigners-public-interest-defence
It doesn't affect only bloggers: Even journalists are restricted by what they can say:
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html
Explanation of UK Libel Law
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
The Australian Journalist's Defamation Checklist: Can you run this story?
http://www.hss.bond.edu.au/defamkit/
And if they report something embarassing to the Government, then it is jail time:
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_06.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act
http://www.caslon.com.au/secrecyguide4.htm
The government redacted 90% of the recent proposal to snoop on Internet Usage. You would think the public have a right to know, but it's National Security if they say it is:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html
misclick needs to be reversed
This goes out to all those hippies who flew Viet Cong flags and were oh so sure that if the Evil Wicked Americans would just lose the Vietnam War that the peaceful VC would make a wonderful People's Republic and everything would be rainbow shitting unicorns... OK ASSHOLES, you got your wish. It has been a generation now, where is the paradise? Or you you ready to admit you were just traitors yet and that it wasn't even in a good cause? Eh? I can't hear you.
I'm sure all those hippies are shaking their heads and saying, "oh, what fools we were."
Oh, sorry, they're all in nursing homes now, and none of them remember what VC stands for. Shouldn't you be telling us to get off of your lawn?
This goes out to all those hippies who flew Viet Cong flags and were oh so sure that if the Evil Wicked Americans would just lose the Vietnam War that the peaceful VC would make a wonderful People's Republic and everything would be rainbow shitting unicorns
Name a few?
Or you you ready to admit you were just traitors yet and that it wasn't even in a good cause?
Funny sentiment to express in a discussion about governments suppressing free speech.
Whose side are you on?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
hindsight is always 20/20
It didn't take much hindsight to realize that the USA took over a failed French colonial war. And tried to prop a brutal dictator.
It also doesn't take much wit to find a few basic facts with Teh Google, though you've apparently only got half enough.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
and anyone who trades with them from selling in the US. You expected their evil government to play nice? We should have raised the north with nukes.
Are you off your meds again?
Probably he's sitting in his rocker, listening to Barry Sadler and having traumatic flashbacks about some Damn Hippie that spit on him when he was home on leave in 1968.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
mod parent up!
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
If you read on South Vietnam before the war, you'd realize that it wasn't any better than VC - worse in many respects, in fact. There was a reason why VC had wide popular support even in the South (which made their guerrilla campaign there possible).
Doesn't mean that one should have supported VC back then. But then most protesters didn't. Your claims about "bulk anti-war left marching under the VC flag" is a flat out lie. You construct a strawman and then proceed to demolish it.
A repressive communist country?
How novel.
This goes out to all those hippies who flew Viet Cong flags and were oh so sure that if the Evil Wicked Americans would just lose the Vietnam War that the peaceful VC would make a wonderful People's Republic and everything would be rainbow shitting unicorns... OK ASSHOLES, you got your wish. It has been a generation now, where is the paradise? Or you you ready to admit you were just traitors yet and that it wasn't even in a good cause? Eh? I can't hear you.
More like LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU, isn't it?
What I remember is that if we let Vietnam go, there would be a Domino Effect that would turn all of Asia Communist, followed by invasion of the USA and we'd all end up listening to some fat clown on the radio telling us how to think so we could echo it back.
And, BTW, I hope you're not wearing Nikes. Vietnam won the war, but the capitalists have been doing a pretty tidy job of subverting their goals, I'd say.
> But then most protesters didn't. Your claims about "bulk anti-war left marching under the VC flag" is a flat out lie.
Rare was the big 'anti-war' protest without a few VC flags around. So riddle me this, why was that allowed? Now for a harder question, I know you won't answer honest but anyone else reading this will know it is the killing stroke against the argument you will make that "a couple of knuckleheads doesn't mean the movement was tainted."
Can you, with a straight face, tell me that the same 'a few knuckleheads' argument would have worked if the Tea Party protests of late had featured regular appearances by anything nearly so repellent; with NO denunciation from any of the leaders of the movement? Lets say a few rogue progressives like Nazis or the Klan or their more knuckledragging White Power associates. Oh wait, we KNOW how that worked out. It didn't happen as a general rule and the couple of times some idiot (usually tracable back to plants from lefty orgs) tried something like that the rest of the organization quickly dealt with the clowns. But the media and the progs (but I repeat myself) declared they were all racists anyway. So I'm pulling a page from Saul Alinsky and making you bastards live up to your own book of rules.
Oh, and Alinsky was a pro VC sort. Bill Ayers certainly was. And had he have been old enough it is a veritable certainty that Mr. "Gotta be sure to be seen with the campus Marxists lest I be thought a sellout" Obama would have been one.
Google gave me these in a matter of two tries, it ain't hard to find. It was the rare protest that didn't feature a VC flag. It was about as trendy as a Che t-shirt today, another celebration of a mass murdering communist thug. It never ends.
1. http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//BHC_ITN/1965/12/01/X01126501/#popUpCenter
2. http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/WL001929/antiwar-protester-raising-a-vietcong-flag
Democrat delenda est
A communist country limiting freedom of speech on the internet, while I never!
Forgive me for undercutting the basis for your idiotical ideological rant, but the VC don't run Viet Nam and never did. The government of the north disbanded them in 1975.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> there would be a Domino Effect that would turn all of Asia Communist
Usually stated as SOUTHEAST Asia would fall. As in Cambodia and Laos, etc. And guess what, they did. Burma is also a hell on earth. Your team gets Pol Pot's body count added to the list of your crimes against humanity as a bonus. Thailand and Malaysia survived. There was never real doubt about South Korea or Japan after all. All in all a debacle of biblical proportion resulting in millions and millions in mass graves and more dead fleeing in overloaded leaky boats. Call that a happy ending if you can sleep at night after doing do, I won't.
Democrat delenda est
A long long time ago when Senator John Kerry was running for president, I was at a small event in Los Angeles.
In front of some local media, I confronted him about his "hockey goal" ad in which he (dressed as a goal keeper) said he would protect against Japanese imports. I said his ad (and the tone of his campaign) was contributing to the recent spike in anti-Asian American violence around the country (I'm Asian American).
He said he, of course, didn't mean for it to be construed that way and didn't mean to stigmatize hard working Asian Americans blah, blah. After that I don't think the ad was pulled or altered. However, I DID notice he would, when speaking about Asian imports, would often make a distinction between Asian competitors overseas and Asian citizens at home. Yay!
Even so I wholeheartedly agree that many politicians are lying, scheming scumbags only out for themselves. However censorship in the U.S. compared to some other countries? Give me a break. You're probably one of those people who like arguing for the sake of arguing and make the Internet (and the world) a miserable place to be in. Go away or become a lawyer.
I have great respect for anyone risking or sacrificing their life fighting this. However, it might be wiser to build support in secret as much as possible (I assume meeting in private and secure web communication (at least steganographic tactics) are possible). With enough support, anonymous threats followed by attacks on government infrastructure or assassination attempts will be more effective and cost fewer lives. Open protest is only for nations which tolerate such and your situation sounds much more like that of the Chinese than that of the Americans.
The government here is afraid that its hold on power is weak and that it lacks/is losing legitimacy. After the Vietnam war of course, the government was all powerful and seen as the victorious savior of the country (against the world's greatest power no less!).
Now, more than a generation later, with a youthful population that was mostly born after the war those memories are fading.
So the government mainly tries to keep things stable while it quietly plunders (through corruption) the country. It tries to defuse tensions by being very tentative with its actions; when some farmers killed some police who were reappropriating their land, the central government first hauled the local police/officials into court to charge them with illegal trespass (or something like that). Then they got the farmers. Laws are usually first proposed (I think) and then, depending on the reaction, implemented (or not). It can make for a confusing regulatory situation.
This of course, is very unlike China which rules with an iron fist. They put down a huge number of violent "incidents" (protests involving more than 500 people) every year. This allows them to push through projects at a mindboggling speed (need a neighborhood cleared for a highway or polluting factory? No problem!) The stakes are very very high in China and they're playing for keeps.
Getting back to the Vietnamese government: censorship is done out of insecurity that it will allow enough people to mass together (I guess this is always the case). Their blocking of some social media though is surprisingly weak, many Vietnamese friends I know use Facebook and access YouTube constantly, so there doesn't seem to be a "Great Firewall of Vietnam". Then again due to rising prosperity tensions weren't too bad(?) so maybe they haven't needed to really enforce it (these sites have been blocked from time to time). So actually I don't think censorship is as bad, as say China. (See below the post about indirect criticism of the government on traditional media).
Unfortunately for the government, the economy is really tanking now and they don't seem to have an external enemy they can focus the public's attention on. Their one great international dispute is with China over the Spratly and Paracell Islands (and the rest of the "South China" sea). However, unlike their previous war with China in the 70s, they are going to their heads handed back to them on a platter if they escalate this militarily (the Chinese are now, by far, the dominant regional military power).
With a very large gap between rich and poor (I see Rolls Royces, Bentlys and Maybachs here which, after tax can cost up to a million US in a country with a per cap income of about 1K per year), and a depressed economy, the government may welll start to really censor social media.
If they're feeling particularly evil, they'll make the daughter pay for the cost of extinguishment through extra labor in prison.
so that when these schmucks shows up the door we can give them at least some fight before we die.
Whoever managed to streamline delivery of automatic weapons into China, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran etc. and arm their rebels will be the richest man on earth.
New Economic Perspectives
Source?
The U.S. is not involved in any war; the Constitution lays out the procedure for Congress to declare war. We are attacking people who did not attack us, we are mass murdering and maiming for resources and political coin.
In the last link, the guy was arrested for a short while, and he will likely sue the police station for damages. In the second link, we read
I know this kind of people - I would not be surprised if "nonviolent civil disobedience" means invading public buildings, stopping traffic in a key avenue without authorization, and other "please arrest me so I can claim to be a victim" tactics.
In the first link, the victims were arrested for a short while and were awarded $80,000 !
In short: the situation in America is not remotely comparable to the situation in Vietnam. Duh.
The number of heartless assholes on Slashdot really boggle my mind.
You're posting to correct the headline, because it was the blogger's mother who died of burns, not the blogger? Really? THAT is what you want to talk about?
It used to be that self-immolation actually caused people to wake up and do something about a massive injustice, with the support of all onlookers. Now you want to sit and quibble about the fucking headline. Somebody burned herself to death in protest of the unjust imprisonment of her daughter and you assholes are arguing over whether or not Viet Nam War protestors in the US are traitors.
I hate you all.
I'm sure it will work and they'll grant freedom of speech and preserve human rights and that the Vietnamese will welcome them with open arms.....
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
When China arrested its dissidents, USA protested
When Russia harassed its dissidents, USA protested
When Syria threatened its dissidents, USA protested
But when Vietnam did that, USA just keep quite, very very quite
Why??
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
They are turning into draconian commies. Let's start a war against Vietnam immediately!......oh, wait
Table-ized A.I.
The Russian girl group Pussy Riot is in jail for daring to challenge Poetin during a protest.
The Dutch government is protesting. But a Dutch protester who threw a small candle (the kind that go under tea pots) against the golden carriage carrying the queen has been in jail for two years.
And no, minor acts of vandalism are NOT typically sentenced like this. Throw ice-balls causing damage to cars and you don't even get arrested. But dare to do it against the absolute ruler and BAM, in jail for two years.
Democracy, you say you have it, so you don't have to do it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I I I In vietnam, being a blogger could land you in jail
Let me guess, because there's no formal declaration of war, that means that it's just more of the US Government eroding the Constitution and making the founding fathers spin in their graves, right?
Well, I need to ask if you think that John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were also somehow going against what the founding fathers wanted? They WERE the founding fathers, and used this in each of their administrations.
Congress has authorized the use of military force in the following years, for the countries and reasons listed, without a formal declaration of war:
France (protect shipping in the war we weren't part of) 1798
Tripoli (protect shipping from piracy based in what we call Libya today) 1802
Algeria (beat the crap out of their navy for seizing US shipping vessels during the war of 1812) 1815
Suppression of Piracy (more protection of shipping, but this time in the Caribbean) 1819-1823
Formosa (Eisenhower wanted to make sure the new Communist government in China didn't get too frisky with Taiwan) 1955
MiddleEast (Congressional authorization of US forces to assist countries against communist takeover) 1957
Southeast Asia (Gulf of Tonkin resolution - Vietnam War) 1964
Lebanon (Marine deployment as a part of a multinational force) 1983
Iraq (Desert Shield / Desert Storm) 1991
Terrorist Attacks against the United States (Afghanistan) 2001
Authorization for Use of Force Against Iraq (Second Iraq War) 2002
The statutory authorization of use of force is hardly new - it goes back to when the country was founded. It's a tool that Congress can use to limit the scope of engagement without activating many executive powers that come with a formal declaration of war. Here's a nice big fat PDF from the US Department of State covering all of this.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Julian Assange is being prosecuted for rape in a well-recognized first-world democracy.
I assure you: if this guy was a Tea Party leader, and was accused of rape in Sweden, everyone here would say "rot in jail you rapist!". But because he shares the bias of Slashdot, then he is portrayed as an innocent hero.
Following Big brother (China) policy - that's all . Just doing their job. VN is practically a China puppet and returning to its original vassal state after all these wars with the French and the US to "gain" its independence. Millions of lives were lost for nothing. The border (with China) is quietly being redrawn; the coastline owned by the Chinese Navy - who sets up oil rigs wherever they please. All this, and if you live inside the country and lift a finger, you will be persecuted. Now we clearly see what legacy this Ho Chi Minh guy is leaving behind-a country, yet again, betrayed. What do you think now - Hanoi Jane?