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.

34 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 datavirtue · · Score: 2

      Yeah....it was called the fairness doctrine.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    3. Re:um, yeah... by youngone · · Score: 5, Interesting
      That's not actually true, although it is widely believed apparently:

      Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot"

      That is from the Wikipedia article.
      Your point is not without merit however. Al Sisi rules largely due to the military support of the US, as he is seen as an enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood.
      I understood the US has a law that forbids the supply of military aid to any government that takes power in a coup, so the US just declared that there was no coup.
      Problem solved.

    4. Re:um, yeah... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      That's not actually true, although it is widely believed apparently:

      Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot"

      That is from the Wikipedia article. Your point is not without merit however. Al Sisi rules largely due to the military support of the US, as he is seen as an enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood. I understood the US has a law that forbids the supply of military aid to any government that takes power in a coup, so the US just declared that there was no coup. Problem solved.

      So true. So minitrue...

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    5. 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...

    6. Re: um, yeah... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The BBC tired really hard to do what you suggest for a while. The problem is that it ended up giving credibility to people who had none, elevating fringe views and conspiracy theories to the same level as mainstream science, for example.

      Left/right politics is one thing, but journalists need to decide if they want to balance every story about vaccines with some anti-vaxxers. That of course means they will always be criticised, accused of bias and called fake news by someone.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. 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."
    8. Re: um, yeah... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      So we'll check you off in the 'no opposing viewpoints' column, then.

      There's a plummy job waiting for you in Brussels!

    9. Re:um, yeah... by Layzej · · Score: 2

      The point is that descriptive writing is very rarely entirely accurate and during the reign of Olaf Quimby II as Patrician of Ankh some legislation was passed in a determined attempt to put a stop to this sort of thing and introduce some honesty into reporting. Thus, if a legend said of a notable hero that “all men spoke of his prowess” any bard who valued his life would add hastily “except for a couple of people in his home village who thought he was a liar, and quite a lot of other people who had never really heard of him.” Poetic simile was strictly limited to statements like “his mighty steed was as fleet as the wind on a fairly calm day, say about Force Three,” and any loose talk about a beloved having a face that launched a thousand ships would have to be backed by evidence that the object of desire did indeed look like a bottle of champagne.

      Quimby was eventually killed by a disgruntled poet during an experiment conducted in the palace grounds to prove the disputed accuracy of the proverb “The pen is mightier than the sword,” and in his memory it was amended to include the phrase “only if the sword is very small and the pen is very sharp.” - the Colour of Magic

    10. 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
    11. Re: um, yeah... by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      The idea that the tories would intentionally parade the crazies the BBC uses to (mis)represent their own viewpoint is simply laughable. While they may not be the cleverest bunch of people, as shown by how they've messed up literally everything related to brexit, they're not stupid enough to intentionally use crazies as ambassadors for the party like that.

      As for supposedly not making key people available for interview, you do realize that ministers and other key people in government and party leadership do have quite a lot of things they need to take care of do besides talking to the media? As highly as the media thinks of itself, people with proper jobs and responsibilities just aren't going to be at their beck and call 24/7.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    12. Re: um, yeah... by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      In terms of bias the BBC is like cutting up the underside of your forearms (straight cut from the wrist to the elbow, i.e the wrist cut that will actually kill you if you do it right) while Fox News is like jumping in front of a speeding train (i.e a certain and very messy death). One is obviously much worse, but being less bad than Fox News, which people called "Faux News" about a decade before "Fake News" became a thing, isn't exactly much to aspire to.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    13. Re: um, yeah... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Okay, which crazies are you talking about here? It's hard to discuss without knowing specifically who you object to.

      Are we talking Farage? Redwood? Boris?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re: um, yeah... by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      It's funny how the examples you bring up are mostly just plain eurosceptics and idiots... The fact that you can limit your scope like that and previously made the claim that the tories are intentionally putting on crazies to move the overton window to make themselves look more reasonable it's pretty clear you know exactly who I'm talking about.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    15. Re: um, yeah... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Come on, give us a name.

      --
      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.

    2. Re:All the big players by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      We don't need censorship, we need trust. The foundation of post-truth politics is that no news is trustworthy, therefore Infowars and random blogs are as reliable as organisations with a long history of truthful reporting.

      The other day someone told me they wouldn't believe it until they had seen a Pastebin. That's where they are at now, trusting an anonymous Pastebin post above all else.

      We can fix this by first making the phrase "fake news" synonymous with gullibility and trying to hide something. We are half way there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:All the big players by Whibla · · Score: 1

      I think it would be worth the effort to separate opinion and speech from news.

      While I tend to agree with you on this, it's unfortunately not nearly as simple to implement such a policy as many people seem to believe it would be, and that's completely ignoring any bias introduced by deciding what not to report on. Moreover, opinion and bias can be inferred by the viewer, rather than explicit, so we consequently end up with a situation where we (the hypothetical judges, deciding how to separate facts from opinion) can't agree on what constitutes what.

      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.

      Again, while I tend to agree with you (not that the FCC's rules are any of my 'business', not being an American, and with the BBC already supposedly subscribing to such a doctrine), there has always been a huge flaw in virtually every implementation of the fairness doctrine, probably due to 'erring on the side of caution' by broadcasters not wanting to violate the rules(1): "Crackpots" get far more legitimacy and airtime than 'common sense' would suggest they should. One obvious (albeit contentious) example of this would be evolution(2). e.g. A news report detailing new hominid finds in Asia, along with the results of DNA testing, which shed further light on our 'deep-time' family tree as well as our historical movements would give equal time to a religious fundamentalist whose 'facts' to counter the narrative would come almost exclusively from their religious text(s) or their personal revelations. All of a sudden the fair and balanced reporting becomes ludicrously supportive of a fanciful minority viewpoint.

      Of course something be difficult to implement is no good reason not to try, but I'd be very wary of simple solutions to complex (read emotive) problems...

      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.

      With this I can completely agree. And when you say 'prominently', may I add: with equal or greater prominence than the original misinformation. A 'lie' on the front page of a daily newspaper should not be corrected by anything less than the front page.

      There's a reason for the saying "A lie has reached the far side of the globe before the truth has even got its boots on"...

      (1) Well, more likely not wanting to be fined or otherwise punished for being found liable for violating the rules, but the end result is essentially the same.

      (2) I'm sure you can think of your own, better, examples. I was originally going to use one (*cough* climate change) but ... <Flamebait>

    4. Re:All the big players by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We do the same thing in the US, except it isn't the government doing it.

      If it isn't the government doing it, even by proxy, then it isn't the same thing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:All the big players by Agripa · · Score: 1

      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?

      I have always thought so along with their contemporaries.

    6. Re:All the big players by Bongo · · Score: 1

      Ok so my comment was too terse. But we've known, as a culture, for hundreds of years, that reality isn't just given, it is semi-constructed by a perceiving mind, and whatever is really out there, we only see what our mind allows us to see. Even if you choose to report an event with 100% fidelity, you still have to choose which details constitute the "event" and which are irrelevant. Like the insurance claim for the Twin Towers collapse, the best legal minds had to decide whether it counted as one event or two, as that affected the insurance payout. This is basic, practical, "how do we know what we know" stuff.

      Or you might prefer what John Wayne said: "people say things are not black and white, and I say, well why the hell not?"

  3. Re:Fake News? No by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > Unfortunately "Fake News" has morphed into "News the Government Doesn't Want To Hear". This is oppression of the Press.

    If you think stuff like this in regards to Egypt is "news", then you simply haven't been paying attention.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  4. Alternative press by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this kind of attack on the media will foster the growth of underground press... and by that I mean a press, with ink and paper, in a basement.

    After all, if you censor the modern mainstream way of publishing, an alternative is bound to spring up.

    Hey, was not our own revolution partly fueled by basement presses?

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    1. 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."
    2. Re:Alternative press by wtrmute · · Score: 1

      Ink and paper? That's a great way to make sure you will need to either go corporate or be very, very limited in scope. You might as well hire a monk to copy your pamphlets...

  5. 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"
  6. Egypt is now a military dictatorship ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Posting this anonymously, because I am Egyptian, and the regime there is brutal, and I don't want to endanger myself or my family.

    The parliament that passed this law is a joke. It was hand picked from a fake party that was created by intelligence officers, to guarantee that no real opposition faces Sisi, the military officer who took control of Egypt and became president.

    Here is an thorough article by an investigative journalist: Anatomy of an Election.

    The journalist, Hossam Bahgat, who uncovered all this is now harassed continuously. That includes forced disappearance and illegitimate detention and questions by the military (not even a civilian court).

    You can see a sample of his other works relating to the situation in Egypt here.

    This is just a small snapshot, and there are thousands of political and human rights activists are either harassed, jailed, or otherwise intimidated into silence.

    1. Re:Egypt is now a military dictatorship ... by Whibla · · Score: 1

      Thank you for those links. Extremely interesting and informative!

      Alas, having posted elsewhere, I cannot give you a mod point, hence the reply.

      Parliamentary lists are, in my opinion, the antithesis of democracy, especially these days when parliaments are dominated by large political parties. The first of your linked articles has added another data point to the mountain of evidence that supports this contention.

      Stay safe!

  7. Re:Fake News? No by gravewax · · Score: 1

    To be fair it didn't Morph into that, Trump always defined Fake News as news he didn't want to hear.

  8. What went wrong in Egypt? by jonwil · · Score: 1

    You had a bunch of protests by the population that lead to the ousting of a dictator (Hosni Mubarak) and democratic elections that resulted in Mohammad Morsi becoming president. But then things unraveled and the military kicked out the democratically elected president.

    What happened and what went wrong? Were the elections in 2011 and 2012 that brought Mohammad Morsi to power not free, fair and legitimate? Did Morsi break the law or otherwise do bad things? (i.e. was the actions to kick him out of office the Egyptian equivilant of impeachment?)

    Was Morsi kicked out because of pressure from the US and its allies? (I think I remember something about Morsi considering ending support for Israel and supporting Palestine instead, that would be a reason for the US and its friends to push for some sort of action)

    Is it like Thailand where action was taken because Morsi was doing things that went against the best interests of the country? Was there a concern that Morsi was planning to set up an Islamic dictatorship of some sort similar to countries like Iran?

    1. Re:What went wrong in Egypt? by Zumbs · · Score: 3, Informative

      A number of things went wrong.

      First and foremost, after ousting the dictator by popular mobilization, the rebel leaders allowed the army to take power in a year long interim period and send the masses home. This broke the power of the masses. Furthermore, it allowed the deep state to use its propaganda to demobilize the hearts and minds of the population. Contrast this to Tunisia where the elections were held shortly after the uprising.

      One of the arguments for the interim period was partly to set the stage with some rules to govern the elections, but also for opposition parties to get ready. Everybody knew that the Muslim Brotherhood would win if the elections were held immediately (and they were likely right). So, the army got the rest of the opposition leaders to agree to an interim period by pointing out that they would not win an immediate election.

      As you remember, Mohammad Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood won the election, fair and square. When he won, he started to gather power in his hands and in the hands of his supporters. Some say it was because he was an autocrat trying to become a dictator. And they may have been right. However, looking back at modern Egyptian history (the revolution of 1952), he is likely to have anticipated that the army was gearing up for a coup and he was simply trying to get ready. Note that the two opinions do not conflict: He could have been both trying to become a dictator and anticipated a coup at the same time.

      His power grab did serve to give the army both an excuse (that he was grabbing a lot of power) and got them the support of most of the opposition. Thus, the army could go in, take power and start a nasty campaign of repression against the Muslim Brotherhood with the support of the opposition. After having finished off the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Sisi could then turn on the remaining opposition as well as the ringleaders in the uprising against Mubarak, effectively finishing the counter revolution.

      What went wrong? Comparing Egypt with Tunisia should show it clearly: Whenever the masses has ousted a nasty dictator, the rulers are on the defensive. That is when you apply pressure to get changes. If you demobilize the masses, you demobilize the force that put the rulers on the defensive and the major source of revolutionary power. This gives the rulers the time to regroup and start all sorts of campaigns to make it hard to remobilize the masses, setting the stage for counter revolution. As we saw in Egypt.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    2. Re:What went wrong in Egypt? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Were the elections in 2011 and 2012 that brought Mohammad Morsi to power not free, fair and legitimate?

      They were legitimate but neither free nor fair:

      In the first round, with a voter turnout of 46%, the results were split between five major candidates: Mohamed Morsi (25%), Ahmed Shafik (24%), Hamdeen Sabahi (21%), Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh (17%), and Amr Moussa (11%), while the remaining 2% were split between several smaller candidates. The elections set the stage for the divisions that were to follow, along Islamist and secular lines, and those opposed to and those supporting the former political elite. Islamist candidates Morsi and Fotouh won roughly 42% of the vote, while the remaining secular candidates won 56% of the vote.