Slashdot Mirror
Egypt's New Law Targets Social Media, Journalists For 'Fake News' (reuters.com)
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.
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of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries.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.
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.)
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...