Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Online Law Banning Discussion of Current Affairs Comes Into Force In Vietnam

Posted by samzenpus on from the watch-what-you-say dept.

another random user writes in with news about new internet restrictions come into effect in Vietnam. "A controversial law banning Vietnamese online users from discussing current affairs has come into effect. The decree, known as Decree 72, says blogs and social websites should not be used to share news articles, but only personal information. The law also requires foreign internet companies to keep their local servers inside Vietnam. The new law specifies that social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook should only be used 'to provide and exchange personal information.' It also prohibits the online publication of material that "opposes" the Vietnamese government or 'harms national security.' Last month the US embassy in Hanoi said it was 'deeply concerned by the decree's provisions,' arguing that 'fundamental freedoms apply online just as they do offline.'"

3 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Pot calling kettle black by ckhorne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And the US is in a position to be talking about "fundamental freedoms"?

    1. Re:Pot calling kettle black by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US government is all for fundamental freedoms, providing your use of them can be logged, queried at will and used against you later.

      No, I'm afraid not. Let's go down the amendments one by one and see where we come out:

      First amendment: Freedom of speech and the press.
      The United States has no Journalistic shield law. Basically, if a whistleblower drops of some incriminating government documents, publication can land you in jail. Failing to reveal your source? That's a one-way trip to Guantanamo. Then there's the designated Free Speech Cages, surrounded by police, cameras, and barbed wire, and usually located far away from a place where your protect might be visible. Failure to protest within the cage will and you in a different cage. Don't worry -- they pre-construct them for all major events at nearby warehouses.

      The right to bear arms
      In New York and elsewhere... yeah, no. There are so many examples of the constant attempts to remove this or at least regulate it to the point it is effectively removed, I won't provide more examples. Go look them up yourself.

      Not having soldiers quartered in your home
      Yeah... a guy was recently arrested, beaten, and dragged out of his house for refusing to allow the police entry, so they could pitch a tent and enact surveillance of one of his neighbors. The story has since vanished off the internet, and very few sites still have any information on it.

      Unlawful search and seizure
      The Department of Homeland Security has granted itself the ability to declare arbitrary constitution-free zones, which cover approximately 80% of the US population -- as most of the population lives within 50 miles of one of the country's borders, and that's one of the areas covered.

      Right not to self-incriminate
      unless of course, the FBI thinks you might have child porn. ...

      I could go on, but I think you get the point: They're not for all fundamental freedoms... they just want them on paper, but not in reality. Subtle difference.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Pot calling kettle black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, you are not allowed to report about the government committing crimes against wiretapping laws, you are not allowed to report about getting "National Security Letters" demanding to wiretap and keylog your entire infrastructure, you are not allowed to publish videos of soldiers having video-game style fun killing unarmed civilians.

      On the plus side, you can lie under oath with impunity to congress without fearing repercussions as long as you are not lying about sex affairs or sports but areas of actual national importance.