Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Egypt's New Law Targets Social Media, Journalists For 'Fake News' (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the intentionally-vague dept.

Egypt's parliament passed a law Monday giving the state powers to block social media users and penalize journalists for publishing fake news. "Under the law passed on Monday social media accounts and blogs with more than 5,000 followers on sites such as Twitter and Facebook will be treated as media outlets, which makes them subject to prosecution for publishing false news or incitement to break the law," reports Reuters. From the report: The Supreme Council for the Administration of the Media, headed by an official appointed by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, will supervise the law and take action against violations. The bill prohibits the establishment of websites without obtaining a license from the Supreme Council and allows it to suspend or block existing websites, or impose fines on editors. The law, which takes effect after it is ratified by Sisi, also states that journalists can only film in places that are not prohibited, but does not explain further. Supporters of Sisi say the law is intended to safeguard freedom of expression and it was approved after consultations with judicial experts and journalists. But critics say it will give legal basis to measures the government has been taking to crack down on dissent and extend its control over social media.

9 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. um, yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anybody else expecting this to be used to punish people who raise facts that the 'dear leader' (of whatever country) finds distasteful?

    First we get powerful people using fake news to bend the minds of voters into idiot sheep

    Next we get powerful people using the fear of fake news to charge and persecute people who disagree with them, even if they do so using facts

    Does anybody else feel that we are moving backwards in time and will soon be serfs to our lairds?

    1. Re:um, yeah... by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anybody else expecting this to be used to punish people who raise facts that the 'dear leader' (of whatever country) finds distasteful?

      Was there a single instance of such a law not meant exclusively for this exact purpose?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re: um, yeah... by unimacs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fairness doctrine required broadcasters to provide air time to the discussion of controversial issues of public importance and they had to provide contrasting views of those issues.

      A radio station or TV network could broadcast any point of view that they liked as long as they gave air time to somebody with an opposing view.

      So, nothing like the Egyptian law at all really.

      Many think that today's more polarized political environment is partly the result of the FCC dropping the fairness doctrine instead of expanding it to cover more types of media. Unfortunately, today it's all too easy to insulate oneself in their own little news bubble where opposing points of view are never heard and anything from outside that bubble is "fake".

      Imagine a world where giving time to opposing viewpoints was considered normal and proper. Imagine a world where conservative speakers would be welcomed at a liberal college...

    3. Re: um, yeah... by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What the BBC did for years was try to discredit conservatives as a whole by having the conservative viewpoint represented by the same fringe conservatives (i.e conservative crazies) over and over again in an attempt to give people the impression these people (crazies) represented conservatives as a whole. This giving the crazies some form of credibility is just pure irony considering their real goal.

      I'm by no means a fan of the tories, but once I realized that the BBC was doing was just straw manning the conservative viewpoint using crazies I concluded they simply can't be trusted for news analysis. Mind you I'm still looking for a reliable source for analysis as everybody has a pretty bad slant these days.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    4. Re: um, yeah... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which conservative crazies are you referring to?

      The Tories have a deliberate policy of not making key people available for interview, or only doing one easy interview that they know will let them get their prepared statements out.

      Then they let the crazies give a more extreme view to shift the political discourse to the right and make themselves look more moderate and reasonable. Trying to occupy that centre, moderate ground by shifting people's perception of where it is.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. All the big players by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anybody else expecting this to be used to punish people who raise facts that the 'dear leader' (of whatever country) finds distasteful?

    First we get powerful people using fake news to bend the minds of voters into idiot sheep

    Next we get powerful people using the fear of fake news to charge and persecute people who disagree with them, even if they do so using facts

    Does anybody else feel that we are moving backwards in time and will soon be serfs to our lairds?

    We do the same thing in the US, except it isn't the government doing it. Facebook, Google, Twitter - everyone wants to have their hand in what is right and proper for the general public to view, they all have political bias, and have wildly publicized failures.

    I should point out that the InfoWars article on spirit cooking turned out to be correct in all its particulars - that specific article is not in any way fake news.

    That's a pretty clear philosophical point to make: do you censor sites or individual articles? At what point does a site get censored as being predominately fake news?

    That specific article was politically inconvenient for the anointed hero of many people, so in that particular instance do you think any sort of "social consensus" could be reached as to whether or not it's fake?

    ABC news reported that Paul Manafort pleaded guilty to 5 charges of manslaughter, which is pretty specific, damaging, and completely fake. Is ABC news a "fake news" site?

    Youtube articles on the subject of guns have now been marginalized removed from ad income and blocked... on what appears to be a social whim: outrage whipped up by some teenagers in a highly-publicizes shooting. Those articles used to be, and still are, completely legal and not offensively violent or lewd. Is the "fake news" system being used to force a political agenda?

    Everyone seems to find it their duty to correct our invalid thinking and gently guide us to the correct groupthink.

    It's not just the middle east that's moving to restrict speech, it's all the big players.

    (For reference, dig into today's controversy about [Papa John's founder] John Schnatter using the "n-word" on a corporate phone call. It's readily apparent form the evidence what really happened - see if you think there's any real controversy there. Much of what's being reported is completely fake.)

    1. Re:All the big players by unimacs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it would be worth the effort to separate opinion and speech from news. The FCC should re-adopt the fairness doctrine and make it apply to a wider variety of media.

      If you want to be considered a "news" source, then you should be required to provide time and/or space to opposing points of view. Something that's presented as "news" should be prominently retracted or corrected when proven to false, - like what ABC news did when they mistakenly showed a banner that said Manafort had plead guilty to 5 counts of manslaughter. If a site/network/station is not willing to be held to that level of accountability then they should clearly identify themselves as a source of opinion and not news.

  3. The USA is looking great by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With its freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom after speech. The entire occupation gets fully protected from any gov.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. Re:Alternative press by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ink and paper are gone

    the underground is well lit within the digital world

    --
    "His name was James Damore."