GFW BLOG（功夫网与翻墙）

有报道称伊朗博客作者死于狱中

2009-03-19T19:55:00.000-07:00

作者：Marshall Kirkpatrick 原文：ReadWriteWeb 翻译：Moon.Wong 来源：译言

有报道称伊朗博客作者死于狱中

奥米德·礼萨·米赛亚非（Omid Reza Misayafi）之前因“冒犯”政府和宗教权威而遭逮捕，于近日死在狱中。一个伊朗人权组织站点通过全球之声在线（Global Voices Online)做了报道，而我们是通过博客保护委员会（The Committee to Protect Bloggers）了解此事的。

死亡原因还不得而知，但是委员会称拷打博客的现象在伊朗很普遍，政府通常会以重罪将博客作者逮捕入狱。米赛亚非在去年12月份的时候被判30个月的监禁，罪名是“冒犯伊斯兰共和国领袖”。此人的博客是一个文化类的博客，并非政治博客，他只是写一点讽刺文章，没想到这给他带来这么大的麻烦。

今天晚上的更新指出，监狱糟糕的环境可能导致此人自杀了（link）。不管是直接的还是间接的，米赛亚非都是因自由言论，因使用网上社交媒体批评独裁政府而丢到性命的。全世界的社交媒体用户及其支持者都应关注这一事件。

我们已经报道过，在伊朗和埃及（link）有不少博客作者锒铛入狱，入狱的原因就是他们用博客记述政府的权力滥用，或者仅仅只是因为写了些批评政府的话，而导致这些容不得半点异见的政府痛下杀手。去年年中的时候，我们也报道过，伊朗议会曾讨论过对那些使用博客挑战政府权威的博客作者是否可以使用死刑，加以惩罚。（link ）

自由，艺术，自由表达与权威当局，自私利己以及权力滥用之间的战争永无停歇之日。网络的崛起开始让这一战争发生了变化。博客给之前的沉默者一个发声的渠道，而保护这些声音免于遭受逮捕，拷打和死亡恐惧的重要性绝没有夸大。

奥巴马在竞选的时候大量的使用了在线社交媒体，我们也很希望能看到奥巴马当局能公开，明确的谴责伊朗政府导致的这起死亡事件。如果这真的发生，我们还是会惊讶的。

强大的社交媒体正在改变这个世界。我们并不指望，他是最后一个因使用社交媒体而丧命的人。伊朗勇敢的博客，奥米德·礼萨·米赛亚非请安息吧。那些因博客入狱的博客，无论是在伊朗还是在世界其他地方，会得到自由的。

如果想继续关注这一事件，以及世界其他地方的类似事件，读者可以访问博客保护委员会的站点，以及链接到这个站点的其他相关组织的网站。

Internet Sites Protest Recent Internet Censorship

2008-08-19T21:16:00.000-07:00

来源：BIA

In the past year, Eksi Sözlük, Antoloji.com, Wordpress, Indymedia İstanbul, Youtube, the newspaper of Gündem, Google Groups, Geocities and many other internet sites have been banned by the courts.

Global video sharing site youtube.com has been closed for three months now. Video sharing sites dailymotion and kliptube.com have been barred very recently.

Those internet site and blog owners who are against this censorship have decided to ban their own sites voluntarily.

One of these sites, http://anafikir.com/sansur/ (the main theme.com/censorship/) appeared with a text on a black background with a statement saying “This is a preview of the future of the internet! Everyday another site is being banned. We are curious what kind of internet we will have, if the internet banning goes at this rate. This is the simulation of the future.”

This particular site is also giving technical assistance to those sites who want to be part of this movement that will last until August 20.

“The access to this site is denied by its own decision”

As a reaction to the statement “The access to this site is denied by a court order” that we have gotten used to seeing lately, the internet site elmaaltshift.com is responding with the statement “The access to this site is denied by its own decision” in this campaign. The site http://www.sinema.com/ has done the same.

http://www.zargan.com/, known by the internet users as the English-Turkish dictionary, is supporting the campaign, too.

Zargan has put the following message on its site: “We think the internet banning decisions by the Telecommunication Presidency and the Turkish courts in the recent days have been at least partially arbitrary and excessive. In order to call attention to the danger the freedom of communication is facing, we will prevent the access to Zargan voluntarily until the midnight of August 20.”

These sites will continue offering their usual services, while they give support to the campaign.

Commenting about the campaign, art director of Elmaaltshift.com, the site that started the campaign, Fırat Yıldız and his partner Deniz Tan told Ntvmsnbc.com that they stopped the access to their site as a reaction to the banning of the sites Youtube.com and dailymotion.com. (EÖ/EZÖ/TB)

Blogger wins right to free speech

2008-07-07T00:14:00.000-07:00

作者：Henry McDonald 来源：The Observer

A blogger who faced charges of intimidation in cyberspace has won a legal judgment that anti-censorship campaigners claimed this weekend will protect freedom of expression across the worldwide web.

Alan Murray's blog highlighting violence, vandalism and creeping sectarian division in a part of Belfast's university district landed him in court on Friday.

The 40-year-old was charged with three counts of intimidating a member of a local residents' committee, which included intimidation on the internet. The judge, however, found Murray not guilty on all counts at Belfast's Magistrates' Court. Index on Censorship - a global campaign group that defends free speech - welcomed the judge's ruling this weekend.

Murray's blog, www.holylandswarzone.blogspot.com, details allegations of violent drunkenness involving university students in what was once the most religiously integrated area of the city during the Troubles. The two-year-old blog also criticises university authorities, landlords and the local housing authority for allowing the Holy Land district, where all the streets have names from the Bible, to become a 'student ghetto' that has driven out residents who have lived there for decades. He also claims the area has become mono-religious, as most of the students come from Catholic areas of rural Northern Ireland.

Last year, however, a member of the local residents' association objected to Murray's blog and also made allegations against him, claiming he had given her a dirty look and made a verbal threat. Murray, a mature psychology student, has always denied any intimidation.

In an interview with The Observer this weekend, Murray said he felt 'totally vindicated' after Mr Justice McKillop threw out all three charges against him.

'During my testimony in court I said I was only trying to criticise those in power or those that would speak for us. That right has been upheld by the judge's decision. If the judge had ruled against me, then every blogger would have been vulnerable to charges of intimidation because those at the end of their criticism could claim they were being picked upon. A very bad precedent would have been set,' he said.

Murray said the ruling also established that bloggers had the same rights to freedom of expression as journalists. 'Bloggers don't have legal departments and large media organisations to back them up. They are vulnerable people and would have been even more open to censure if this case had gone the other way.'

He also revealed that he has reported the Police Service of Northern Ireland to the Police Ombudsman's office. Murray said he made a complaint to Northern Ireland's police watchdog over a number of officers' conduct in the case.

'I want the Ombudsman to find out why on earth police officers saw fit to prosecute me for expressing an opinion on the internet about where I lived. I also intend to sue the police over this entire waste of police time and resources, which took more than a year to reach this point,' Murray added.

Index on Censorship also criticised the PSNI's intervention in the debate between Murray and his opponents. Padraig Reidy, Index's news editor, described the PSNI's behaviour as 'patently absurd.'

Reidy compared the Belfast blogger's case to that of Channel 4's battle with the West Midlands Police over its Undercover Mosque programme. Channel 4 earlier this year won £100,000 from the police force and the Crown Prosecution Service for falsely accusing the production team of distorting television footage.

'The case of the Belfast blogger is as important as Undercover Mosque in terms of protecting the right to criticise and the freedom to inquire. The judgment in Belfast protects the blogosphere's freedom and it means the rich, powerful or any interest groups, whoever they are, can't bully bloggers using the law.

'As for the police in this case, they and the law should not be intervening in legitimate debate,' Reidy said.

Stop the Great Firewall of Australia

2008-07-07T00:12:00.000-07:00

来源：Stop the Great Firewall of Australia

By letting policymakers know just what we think of the "clean feed" Internet filter, we can bring about a policy change. You can help by contacting your representatives and spreading the word about this campaign. Here are some quick actions you can take to make a difference.

Write to Senator Conroy
Write to your local member
Call Conroy
Contact your ISP
Sign a petition
Join/Donate to EFA
Link to this page

Contact the Minister

Contacting the Minister will let him know that his constituents, the Australian public, are not on board with his impractical plan.

Call the Minister

There's nothing like a personal phone call to get the message across. Call the minister's office on (03) 9650 1188 and let them know your objections.

Write to the Minister

A personalised letter to the Minister sends a powerful message: We don't like the policy, and we care. Letters can be sent to the Ministerial office:

Senator Stephen Conroy
Minister for Communications, Broadband and the Digital Economy
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002

Here is a template you may wish to consider using.

Dear Minister,

As an Australian and an internet user, I have serious concerns about your new mandatory "clean feed" filter initiative.

Given the importance your Government has attached to modernising Australia's broadband network, pursuing a policy that can only slow down and increase the costs of home internet access seems misguided at best. Australian households are diverse, and most do not have young children, so mandating a one-size-fits-all approach will not serve the public well. I don't think it is the Government's role to decide what's appropriate for me or my children, and neither do most Australians.

Given the amount of Internet content available, the Government will never be able to classify it all and I feel that the time and money could be spent in better ways both to protect children and improve Australia's digital infrastructure. Australian parents need better education about the risks their children face online. Trying to rid the Internet of adult content is futile, and can only distract from that mission.

Sincerely,

Internet User
Dunt, SA

Email the Minister
	Although not as effective as a letter or call, every bit helps. Email Senator Conroy at: minister (at) dbcde.gov.au.

Contact your local representative

Your local MP is your representative and wants to hear about your concerns. Let your member know that you are unhappy with this policy.

Find your local member's contact information here.

Contact your ISP

Your ISP is probably just as worried about this policy as you are, but letting them know your concerns will help in their own efforts.

Sign a petition

Although a petition signature is no substitute for personal contact, every bit helps. Sign the petition here.

Join/Donate

Electronic Frontiers Australia needs your support to continue fighting for your online rights. Consider joining or donating. To learn more about EFA and our work on privacy, copyright, and censorship policy, visit our website.

Help get the word out!

Help spread the word about the campaign by blogging about the filter, linking to this site, or including one of the buttons below on your own site or blog. Together we can put the national spotlight on Conroy's Internet crusade.

	<a href="http://nocleanfeed.com"></a>
	<a href="http://nocleanfeed.com"></a>

China to the rescue (of Internet freedom in Yemen)

2008-07-03T20:25:00.000-07:00

作者：RASHAD AL-SHAR’ABI 来源：Menassat

A Chinese computer program is helping web surfers in Yemen break through government control of the Internet. It is part of a bigger trend by journalists and activists who are beginning to challenge Internet censorship in Yemen.

By RASHAD AL-SHAR’ABI

An Internet cafe in Sana'a: opposition to government control of the Internet in Yemen is growing. R.R.

SANA'A, July 2, 2008 (MENASSAT) – Imagine a journalist having to use a special program in order to access the website of the very newspaper he works for.

Sound daunting? Well, for Yemeni journalist Waddah al Maktari it is as normal as it is for a Western journalist to make a cup of coffee before sitting down to read his or her newspaper.

Waddah works for the independent news portal Yemenat, and lately he has been raving about a new Chinese program that can break through any official restrictions on website access.

In fact, if anyone within ear shot of Maktari says they are unable to read Yemenat's articles, he will immediately launch into a tutorial about the program.

But he won't give us the name of the new Chinese program.

He doesn't want the Yemeni government to catch on to a program which helps him circumvent the restrictions placed on his own and seven other similar sites.

For now, word of mouth will have to do.

A multi-front battle

According to Waddah, the new technology fits in neatly with what he calls a rising tide of popular discontent about the Yemeni government's attempts to control the Internet. He also points to demonstrations in South Yemen over the government's continued crackdown on the press.

Indeed, there is a battle occurring between Waddah's peers and the government monopoly over Yemen's two internet providers, Yementel and Teleyemen.

Through these two companies, the Yemeni government has put blocks on all websites publishing news about the war in the north between the army and Shia Muslim rebels. A recent escalation in the fighting in the north has put the government in a very defensive position, and any domestic news site depicting the situation in a way that differs even slightly from the government-run or pro-government news outlets is being banned.

Ironically, the regulations used by the Yemeni authorities to ban critical websites were originally meant to target pornography sites.

But that was before the 2006 presidential elections.

It was around that time that Yemen's Communication Ministry began to ban opposition or independent newspaper websites like al-Nas (The People), al-Majles al-Yamani (The Yemenite Council), Sawt al-Yaman (The Voice of Yemen), Hiwar (Dialogue), and Montada al-Moustaqila (The Independent Forum). Two more opposition news sites, affiliated with al-Shura and the Socialist Party, were also blocked.

It was a modern version of the same press restrictions that have prompted demonstrations by journalists and activists in Yemen for the last 20 years.

Local groups fight back

Sources put the number Yemeni websites inside Yemen that have been banned at 15 news websites and an unknown number of blogs and on-line forums.

Eight newspaper websites were recently banned: alshurra.net, al-mustakilla, al-umma, yemen net, shamsan news, al-taghyyyir, yamanat and al-hadath.

Over the last month, the Sana'a-based freedom of expression group, "The Change and the Defense of Rights and Freedoms Organization" said it intended to file a lawsuit against the Communication Ministry because of what it contends are baseless reasons for the banning of so many websites.

Parliamentary activist Ahmad Seif Hashed heads the organization. Hashed is also the publisher of Yemenat, the e-newspaper site Wahhad works for.

Hashed said his organization would not have considered a lawsuit had the popular support not been in place.

According to Hashed, the government's amendments to the 1990 Press and Publications Law have been primarily used to restrict e-media freedom. Critics like Hashed say these controls are meant to reign in the emerging new media, and bring them under the same kind of control the Yemeni government exercises over the traditional print media.

Waddah's crusade

But Waddah remains optimistic about the future.

"I am confident that we will continue to be successful at breaking the government's blocking attempts," he said.

Other aspects of the emerging new media in Yemen worry him though.

"That the two Internet providers in Yemen are both controlled by the government is worrying," he said. "And there is the fact that there are still very few people in Yemen who have access to the Internet at all. Many even lack the electricity to even run a computer."

Official statistics show that the number of internet users in Yemen at the end of 2006 was about 150,000 users in a country of more than 22 million. But statistics say that number is growing significantly given that there are more than 800 Internet cafes throughout Yemen.

Efforts to sue Yemeni government over website ban

2008-07-01T23:36:00.000-07:00

来源：Yemen Times

SANA’A, June 27 — (Yemen Portal)- Efforts to challenge the ban of Yemeni websites at court were welcomed yesterday by many online community members participating in the Global Voices Advocacy Workshop held in Budapest, Hungary, under the theme "Online Free Speech: toward a global anti-censorship movement." The one-day workshop was a prelude to the Global Voices Online Citizen Media Summit 2008, being held from 27 to 28 June and attended by more than 200 bloggers and online activists from around the world.

Walid Al-Saqaf, founder and administrator of YemenPortal.net, which is banned in Yemen, announced at the meeting that a number of blocked Yemeni websites have joined forces to lodge a lawsuit against the Ministry of Communication, in a bid to overturn the ban.

Al-Saqaf asked participants at the event for their support for the lawsuit, which is unprecedented in the region. Reacting to the participants' positive response, he said: "I am truly grateful for the overwhelming support for our cause in achieving justice for Yemeni websites in their struggle with the Yemeni authorities."

Dozens of news and opinion websites in Yemen have been banned without notice or warning by the country's state-owned and dominant Internet Service Provider Yemen Net. The move to take a government to court for banning websites had no precedence in the Arab world, but may not be without risks. "We risk intimidation, harassment, and in fact losing the case due to a biased judiciary. Yet, it is a challenge worth taking as it will reflect this issue more prominently in the mainstream media and highlight our struggle for justice," added Al-Saqaf.

During the same workshop and in order to present evidence about the banning of Yemeni websites, Nart Villeneuve, a researcher in Internet filtering working for the Citizen Lab of the University of Toronto in Canada, volunteered to develop a custom-made software to help detect censorship of YemenPortal.net in Yemen so as to support the lawsuit. Villeneuve expressed his willingness to back the cause of the blocked websites and take the government to court as it would resemble a pioneering effort in this field.

GV Advocacy encourages the diversification of censorship combating mechanisms ranging from technical, social, and legal, ensuring that no stone is left unturned in promoting freedom of expression online.

Al-Saqaf expressed his commitment to sending follow-ups and updates to GV Advocacy on how the legal proceedings in Yemen evolve and whether any of the websites blocked would be unblocked as a result of the legal proceedings.

Kentucky Settles Internet Censorship Suit, Agrees to Lift Ban on Blogs

2008-07-01T23:28:00.000-07:00

来源：Public Citizen

Kentucky Settles Internet Censorship Suit, Agrees to Lift Ban on Blogs

Public Citizen Client Was Blacklisted After Criticizing the Governor

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Commonwealth of Kentucky has settled a lawsuit with a political blogger whose critical comments of then-Gov. Ernie Fletcher resulted in the state “blacklisting” all blogs on state-owned computers.

Public Citizen’s client Mark Nickolas, author of the blog BluegrassReport.org, agreed Tuesday to dismiss the suit in the U.S. District Court in Frankfort, Ky. after Kentucky officials approved the settlement agreement. Louisville attorney Jennifer Moore also represented Nickolas.

Under the settlement, Kentucky officials agreed to no longer single out Web sites just because they are considered blogs. State officials reserve the right to block sites they consider inappropriate but agree to use a “viewpoint-neutral” standard that applies equally to all Web sites.

Public Citizen filed suit on behalf of Nickolas after the state started using a filtering program to censor all Web sites categorized as blogs. The state’s former top computer official stated in a court filing that the filtering policy was implemented because the governor’s office was unhappy with Nickolas’s blog, which was widely read by state employees and frequently criticized the governor.

Kentucky’s blog ban went into effect June 20, 2006, the same day Nickolas was quoted in The New York Times criticizing Fletcher, who was facing misdemeanor charges for claims that he had forced Democrats out of state civil service jobs in order to give them to political allies. Fletcher has since been defeated by current Gov. Steve Beshear.

“The state of Kentucky targeted Web sites it considered ‘unfriendly’ and, in doing so, violated the First Amendment rights of Mark Nickolas and other bloggers,” said Greg Beck, the Public Citizen attorney who handled the case. “We applaud the current administration for recognizing that the state cannot impose special restrictions on Web sites just because they are run by bloggers instead of big media companies.”

READ the case documents.

“The Hour of Silence” Internet Action

2008-06-28T19:57:00.000-07:00

来源：Belarusian Association of Journalists

Following the adoption of the disreputable law «On Mass Media» after the 2nd reading by the Chamber of Representatives at the National Assembly of Belarus that, among other, makes attempts to restrict the freedom of speech in the Belarusian Internet space, the Belarusian Association of Journalists appeals to all its members, journalists and bloggers, working in the «.by» Internet space to take part in «The Hour of Silence» protest action.

We propose to everyone, who cares about the freedom of access to information and distribution of information to place the black banners on their Internet pages to symbolize the freedom of speech, buried in the Belarusian Parliament on June 24, 2008. Also, we propose to abstain from updating Web-sites and making notes in blogs within one hour since 12.00 till 13.00 (10 am-11am — Greenwich hour angle) on June 25, 2008.

Thus, we will express our protest against the hasty adoption of Belarus’ Law «On Mass Media» without public hearings and international expert examinations.
Thus, we will respond to the Belarusian state officials’ opinion that the law is related to journalists only.

Thus, we will let the By-net users understand that the threat of closure of numerous informational resources and sources of independent information on the Web has become absolutely real.

Let’s stand up in solidarity for the right of Belarusian people to get and distribute information freely in the Internet!
Codes of banners (different sizes):
Banner 468×60

14:41, 25/06/08

BAJ Press Service

Central Asia: Websites Unite To Protest Internet Censorship In Uzbekistan

2008-06-28T19:10:00.000-07:00

来源：Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

(Courtesy Photo)

Several websites in Central Asia have launched what they call an "unlimited campaign" against Internet censorship to protest the increasingly restricted access in Uzbekistan to independent websites.

The independent websites fergana.ru and uznews.net and an online news bulletin, "Uzbekistan's Civil Society," have placed a special emblem on their homepages that carries the inscription "This Site Is Blocked in Uzbekistan."

The websites, which have been blocked in Uzbekistan for years, are calling on other websites filtered and otherwise banned by Uzbek authorities to join the anticensorship campaign "to demonstrate how many news websites are inaccessible in the country."

Fergana.ru reports that since the popular uprising in the eastern Uzbek city of Andijon in May 2005, "all sources of independent information on the Internet have been blocked" by Uzbek authorities.

"Websites for opposition parties and movements, as well as independent media distributing alternative information about events in Uzbekistan, have all been banned," fergana.ru noted.

Authorities in Uzbekistan have long been criticized by media-rights groups for restricting Uzbek Internet users' access to the web by blocking sites, controlling Internet service providers (ISPs), and even raiding Internet cafes.

Uzbekistan has been placed -- along with notoriously media-unfriendly countries such as Myanmar, North Korea, and Turkmenistan -- on the list of the world's greatest "Internet Enemies." The list is produced by the Paris-based media watchdog Reporters Without Borders.

Although the number of ISPs in Uzbekistan has increased in the past decade, media-rights activists say all the ISPs operate under the government's tight control.

Internet cafes, too, are subject to regular checkups by officials. Many Internet cafes in Uzbekistan have reportedly been required to put signs up warning Internet users that "access to pornographic and political websites is prohibited."

How to Access Banned WordPress.com Blogs

2008-06-27T06:00:00.001-07:00

来源：lorelle.wordpress.com

As discussed in WordPress.com Banned Again: Why Aren’t You Concerned?, WordPress.com continues to be a target for censorship and blocking from various countries and groups around the world attempting to penalize the whole for the “wrongs” of the few the courts or governments decide to penalize, those cutting off thousands of blogs from access.

I was also recently blocked from accessing Gmail and this WordPress.com blog from a free hotel WIFI in Chicago, which inspired me to write How Do You Know If Your Blog is Banned or Blocked? on the Blog Herald, as your blog can be blocked from anywhere at any time, not just by a country or legal decision. Bans and blocks can happen from companies, educational institutions, public WIFI access points, Internet Providers, and more.

I contacted WordPress.com support about the options and did some digging to find out how WordPress.com bloggers were getting around the blocks and what WordPress.com bloggers can do.

According to WordPress.com support, mapping your domain to a WordPress.com account will not avoid the blocks that ban by IP address. The request goes to the WordPress.com nameservers which trigger the blocks. So adding the Domain Mapping feature will not get around the bans.

However, working with client side proxy software or online web proxy servers, using web proxy browser extensions, and some other techniques allow web savvy users to bypass most of these blocks and filters not only to read the blocked blogs but access and blog on blocked blog services.

Here are some options to try to access a blocked WordPress.com blog as well as other blocked or banned sites.

Client Side Proxy Software

By installing client side proxy software, you can get get around strong firewalls like the ones in China, a technique used by many high tech companies inside and outside of China, often developed by technology experts in Chinese companies.

Client side proxy software allows a user to securely bypass content-filtering systems set up by governments and corporate networks. According to Wikipedia regarding Psiphon, a popular web proxy program, it is described as:

…a censorship circumvention solution that allows users to access blocked sites in countries where the Internet is censored, [which] turns a regular home computer into a personal, encrypted server capable of retrieving and displaying web pages anywhere.

By bypassing the blocks, the web is an open door. Some popular proxy software include:

Online Web Proxy Bypass Sites

There are a variety of online web proxy bypass sites which allow free access to blocked and banned sites. They have a variety of features and abilities, and may take several tries and testing of options to access some banned and blocked sites. By using online proxy sites, the site blocks your IP address and other information, allowing your visit to the site to go through without interference.

These sites may not always allow you access to blog on a blocked blog, but they do permit reading and often commenting on most banned blogs and sites. To access a banned or blocked blog as the blog owner and contributor, enter the WordPress.com login URL.

Visit the site and enter the blocked site’s URL into the form. You can use their default proxy services or select from various options to access the blocked site.

There are many online web proxy server sites, and a few popular ones include:

Using a Peer-to-Peer Content Distribution Network

You can also get around some blocks using a peer-to-peer content distribution network, such as Coral CDN. A content distribution network (CDN) is what popular file sharing networks are based upon, server-based networks with content-delivery, request-routing, file distribution, and accounting infrastructures. By maximizing bandwidth and time savings by content replication across the servers, access is faster and cheaper through the network than by relying upon one server located thousands of miles away. A web user can also navigate through the content distribution network to hide or confuse their IP address, thus allowing access to banned or blocked sites.

Corel offers easy bypassing of some firewall and site blocks by adding .nyud.net or .nyud.net:8090 to the URL of the site. For a WordPress.com site:

http://example.wordpress.com/

would be

http://example.wordpress.com.nyud.net:8090/

To use this with my article on Do-It-Yourself Search Engine Optimization Guide, the link would be:

http://lorelle.wordpress.com.nyud.net:8090/2006/01/15/dyi-search-engine-optimization/

You can do this manually, or use one of the Coral Clients for Firefox, Greasemonkey, Opera, and Internet Explorer or one of the Corel browser plugins. It will work with Windows, Max, Linus, BSD, and most other operating systems.

If you are offering content specifically for readers often found behind firewalls, why not help them by adding the Coral link code to your outgoing links so they can access blocked and banned content without stress nor struggle.

Browser Extensions

There are a few browser extensions and add-ons that will help you get through various firewalls. Choose one appropriate to your web browser.

Tactic: Iranian Blog Declaration Against Filtering

2008-06-27T05:45:00.000-07:00

作者：Hamid Tehrani 来源：DigiActive

Description: Iran has always been a land of filtering, but in recent months pressure on sites and blogs has increased. Recently, about 100 bloggers signed a declaration that condemns filtering and call for freedom of speech. They also asked the end of filtering. The declaration says that freedom of media has become more restricted than before. In recent weeks, several blogs and sites, especially the ones that write about political and social issues, have been filtered [blocked]. Several women’s blogs that are filtered too. At the same time, pro-government blogs and sites continue their activity and enjoy freedom. The declaration also notes that filtering and censorship are against the Declaration of Universal Human Rights.

Organizer: The blog Boyehkhak published[fa] the declaration and other bloggers supported it and signed it.

Purpose of Action: To try to convince the Iranian government not to filter blogs.

Organizing Tools: a declaration published on a blog

Outcome:It is very difficult to imagine that Iranian blogs’ protest against filtering can have any practical effect on the Iranian government. But when 100 blogs sign a declaration together, it shows that the cyber world is not a divided space.

Ease of Replication: It is easy to post a declaration on your blog. The hard part is getting other people to sign it. This is a classic organizing task. You need to contact people and organizations who you think also care about the issue - using e-mail, listservs, social networking groups and any other mass communication tools at hand - to convince people to sign your declaration.

a map of the Iranian blogosphere, created by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society

A few months ago Jomhour, a very active blogger from Iran said: “many Iranian websites in general, and political ones in particular, have been filtered. In the last two years filtering and censorship has become worse. Especially many blogs by women were filtered. It is not really important what you blog about.If you are a woman, there is a real risk that your blog will get filtered. Political sites and blogs written by reformists and nationalist-religious people are targeted too. But the blogs hit the worst by filtering, belong to civil society activists such as students, women, and worker activists.”

Proposals for Internet freedom in Singapore

2008-06-27T05:10:00.000-07:00

转自：citizen.journalism.sg

Proposals for Internet freedom in Singapore

21 April 2008

Dr Lee Boon Yang
Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts

Sir,

Proposals for Internet freedom in Singapore

The government has repeatedly acknowledged that Internet technology is constantly evolving and that regulation of the Internet must keep up with the times. Moreover, as a nation, there are vast benefits we can reap from our ability to use the technology effectively and creatively, and regulation should not be a dead hand foreclosing these opportunities. Heretofore, the government has promised and exercised a light touch, but it would be better if policy is based not merely on forbearance, but framed by more clearly articulated principles, in the interest of greater transparency and coherence.

As a group of active participants in Internet expression with a concern for media regulation, we submit for your kind consideration the enclosed proposals. They include both a general review of process rules, as well as content regulation, with special regard to (a) political expression, (b) hate speech and (c) sex and violence.

Each section bears its own list of signatories, and may list one or more among us who have dissented or abstained from the recommendation arrived at for that section.

We will be making this document public the day after we have submitted it to you, as we believe that the regulation of the Internet is a matter of public interest.

We are aware that these are issues of some legal complexity and do not pretend to have arrived at perfect solutions. However, we strongly believe that some of the key principles we’re advocating are important ones and hope that the government will take them on board in its ongoing review of regulations.

Yours sincerely,

Choo Zheng Xi (www.theonlinecitizen.com)
Alex Au Waipang (www.yawningbread.org)
Gerald Giam (singaporepatriot.blogspot.com)
Roderick Chia (rodsjournal.wordpress.com)
Bernard Leong (bleongcw.typepad.com)
Ng E-Jay (www.sgpolitics.net)
Mohan Gopalan (magnezium.blogspot.com)
Scott Teng Kie Zin (small-friend.blogspot.com)
Cherian George (journalism.sg)
See Tong Ming (singaporerebel.blogspot.com)
Benjamin Cheah (leounheort.blogspot.com)
Ho Choon Hiong (hochoonhiong.blogspot.com)
Justin Zhuang

Cc: Mr Cheong Yip Seng
Chairman Advisory Committee on the Impact of the Internet on Society (AIMS)

SECTION ONE

Introduction and Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction

In discussing media policy, some caricature the choices as a debate between those who understand the need for regulation and those who want a free-for-all. This is a false debate. The real issue is what kind of regulation can allow us, as individuals and as a society, to harness the benefits of free speech while minimising the harm that such speech can cause.

We believe that existing regulations are not designed to achieve this balance. Not just specific regulations, but also the government’s overall regulatory approach and processes, need urgent reform. Weaknesses and inconsistencies in regulation are already being exposed by fast-changing technology. This trend will only accelerate.

International law provides one important set of benchmarks for Singapore. Although the government has always insisted on Singapore’s right to chart its own course, we believe that Singapore would be the loser if we are seen to fall short of relevant international norms and best practices. None of the challenges Singapore faces is entirely unique. International law (specifically the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) provides useful guidance on how to balance freedom of expression with the need for certain restrictions that protect society.

In addition to referring to international norms, our review also takes into account Singapore’s trajectory towards becoming a more cosmopolitan and open society in which the Internet is a key enabler.

1.2 Social purposes of regulation

Any restriction to freedom of expression must be justified by a social purpose. International law (Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) provides a list of legitimate aims: respect for the rights and reputations of others, and protection of national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals. In line with international law, we do not believe that a desire to shield a government from criticism can be a legitimate function of media, particularly Internet, regulation.

Laws must also be narrowly tailored to that social purpose and be truly necessary for the stated aim, and must not be too broad, giving the authorities powers that go far beyond their original social justification, nor designed for the government’s convenience or political expediency. Any measures taken should restrict freedom of expression as little as possible, and not catch legitimate speech in the net. Since a democratic society depends on the free flow of information and ideas, it is only when it is imperative to limit that flow in the public interest that limitation justified: the benefits of any restriction must outweigh its costs.

We believe Singapore’s media laws currently fail these tests and in this submission, we make the following proposals:

1.3 Executive Summary

All regulation of speech should be platform-neutral. Laws and regulations specific to the Internet, such as the Class Licence Scheme and the Internet Content Guidelines, should be abolished, as should the powers conferred on the Media Development Authority (MDA) to ban and penalise producers of content and owners of websites.
What regulation there needs to be should be based on clear, narrowly-tailored statutes and prosecution, not through administrative discretion.
However, only in extremis should there be prosecution, and only in instances where public safety is directly undermined. Otherwise, community moderation is the way forward, and to this end a consultative body (IC3) should be constituted.
Limitation and regulation of political content is unjustified in principle and unrealistic in practice. The attempt to do so impairs Singapore’s maturity as a nation. The freedom to use the Internet to discuss political issues and promote political views should be guaranteed.
Racially and religiously offensive speech should not be proscribed by law; only incitement to injury and violence. Offensive speech should be handled through the community moderation (e.g. the consultative body) marshalling public opinion towards sensitivity and rationality.
The depiction of sex and violence should not be proscribed by law except when minors are involved in sexual situations, or real injury to participants or coercion took place during the making of such depiction. Matters of taste and offence to moral sensibilities should be mediated through community moderation, such as the consultative body.

In assent:

Cherian George
Alex Au Waipang
Roderick Chia
Choo Zheng Xi
Mohan Gopalan
Scott Teng Kie Zin
See Tong Ming
Justin Zhuang
Benjamin Cheah
Ho Choon Hiong

In assent, with reservations:

Gerald Giam - but abstained from 1.3(e) and in dissent from 1.3(f)
Bernard Leong - but abstained from 1.3(e) & 1.3(f)
Ng E-Jay - but dissent to 1.3(e). Current law governing racial/religious content is acceptable to me.

In dissent:

Nil

SECTION TWO

Process Rules

We propose three principles to guide the review of regulations and the regulatory process.

2.1 Regulations should be platform-neutral

Digital convergence is making it less viable to have different rules for different platforms (such as print, broadcast, online and mobile telephony). For example, regulating the import of books and magazines or banning of films is fast becoming meaningless when the same can be downloaded online.

Media regulation should be harmonised to avoid a schizophrenic regulatory regime. In harmonising barriers to free speech, we should level down and not level up: the most liberal and transparent regulation procedures should be set as the minimum target standard.

In some respects, the existing Internet framework should be extended to other media (for example, the freedom to publish without a permit). In other respects, sound offline media practices can be adapted for online media (for example, industry and community consultation relating to films and the arts).

We call for an abolition of all laws and regulations that are platform-specific, to leave only such laws that apply to the injurious nature of the speech wherever it may occur. By this principle, content regulation specific to the Internet, such as the Internet Code of Practice and the website registration scheme, should be removed.

We recognise that in order to give form to this principle, a major review of many pieces of legislation and subsidiary legislation has to be undertaken and this may take some time. In the interim, we propose the prompt introduction of an Internet Freedom Act, the essence of which would be to provide a positive list of exemptions. This proposed Act should, first, make it clear that no legislation originally intended for other media platforms should be extended to the Internet (e.g. the Films Act, Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, Undesirable Publications Act). Second, it should dismantle the parts of the Parliamentary Elections Act that impact on Internet political speech by anyone other than political parties and candidates themselves. Third, it should make clear that the provisions of the Broadcasting Act do not apply to the Internet.

In keeping with the last, the various registration and class licence schemes, the Internet Code of Practice, and the powers of the Media Development Authority to ban and fine Internet service and content providers should be removed.

2.2 Use clear statutes and not administrative discretion

If restrictions are necessary, they should be codified in clear and transparent laws. They must be precise, such that citizens can foresee what is or is not prohibited. The principle of rule of law should strictly limit the role of arbitrary decision making, particularly at the administrative level.

In too many instances, Singapore authorities have instituted vague restrictions that leave citizens guessing, such as the use of the term “persistently political”. This puts too much power in the hands of officials, who can decide as they go along how to interpret the rules, with the detailed reasoning behind those decisions shrouded in secrecy. Such vagueness should also be opposed because of its chilling effect, discouraging citizens from uttering even legitimate speech for fear that it might be deemed illegal. This practice must stop.

By this principle, there should be no restrictions on speech except as provided by clear provisions in statutes (e.g. the way Penal Code Section 376D(1)(c) clearly defines as an offence publishing and distributing information promoting commercial sex with minors under the age of 18). There should be no devolution of power to ministers and civil servants to make additional restrictions through subsidiary legislation, nor should they be empowered to make any judgements about when an infraction has occurred. It should up to a court of law to make such findings.

The principle is: “Prosecute or nothing”. The benefit of this principle is the reliance on a time-tested, publicly legitimate process, whereby the government has to make its case in open court as to why certain speech has to be prohibited, the content provider has adequate avenues to make his defence, and the court’s decision is required to be set out publicly in writing and be subject to appeal.

2.3 Community moderation instead of formal regulation

We believe that almost all of society’s legitimate concerns about the abuse of free speech can be addressed outside the formal regulatory system. Online communities have already evolved sophisticated norms of informal selfregulation. Internet forums are almost always moderated; bloggers keep an eye over readers’ comments appended to their posts. Popular sites heavy with pictorial or video content, such as YouTube, have their own rules forbidding salacious material.

With the evolution of new technology and social practices of netizens, it is neither practical nor is there need for the state to play the role of a master moderator. Legislation and state intervention, except in extremis, do not provide the best solution in dealing with the emerging complexities of the Internet.

The Internet is a social space, and social norms of leeway and consideration are constantly shifting. Although we have faith that these norms will evolve in pro-social directions, we agree that this won’t happen without some concerted effort. What is needed is a process through which online communities are represented in Singapore’s search for the right balance between individual freedoms and social goals.

One possible approach is to organise an Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3) comprising one-third independent content providers, one-third persons familiar with rapidly evolving digital technologies, and one-third regular consumers of Internet content (i.e. regular surfers). The IC3 would issue recommendations whenever controversies arise regarding digital content, for example offering its view when conflicts arise between the state and content providers alleged to have behaved irresponsibly.

The IC3’s deliberations should be open to public view - and digital technology can be harnessed to this goal. The objective over time is to subject more and more so-called “sensitive” areas to public reason, replacing intervention by the state (whether heavy handed or light touch) with people’s own capacities for discernment and judgement. The only viable long term response to the impracticality of internet censorship is to help Singapore mature as a society, online as well as offline.

In assent:

Gerald Giam
Cherian George
Bernard Leong
Ng E-Jay
Choo Zheng Xi
Mohan Gopalan
Roderick Chia
Alex Au Waipang
Scott Teng Kie Zin
Cherian George
See Tong Ming
Justin Zhuang
Benjamin Cheah
Ho Choon Hiong

In dissent:

Nil

SECTION THREE

Regulation of Political Content on the Internet

3.1 Introduction and review of existing regulations

Legislation of political content on the Internet in its current form is flawed in principle and unrealistic in practice, and why we feel this is so is discussed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.

Currently, the following statutes, inter alia, regulate political content on the Internet:

Section 5b of the Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification, which regulates the discussion of local political issues on the Internet
Section 78A(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218), which regulates election advertising on the Internet; and
Section 33 of the Films Act (Cap 107) which prohibits the making, distribution and exhibition of party political films

3.2 Discussion: Objections on Principle

The effect of these pieces of legislation is to add ambiguity to the scope of the law. Uncertainty infringes on the right of freedom of expression, as the lack of clarity over what can be expressed over the internet will, on balance, lead to more citizens choosing to withhold their comments on issues deemed political. The above-mentioned pieces of legislation stifle and discourage free expression of ideas on the Internet, thereby limiting democratic space in Singapore and limiting citizens’ access to alternative sources of information. Regulation in its current form is thus synonymous with censorship and interference with the democratic process, and undermines an important principle of the rule of law: clarity.

The internet is the ultimate neutral platform for expression. It does not inherently favor either government or opposition. Rather, it favors political engagement by all sectors of society, which even the government has repeatedly recognized is essential for a sense of ownership and belonging to this country. It will harm society and all political actors to limit one of the easiest routes to political participation.

3.3 Discussion: Objections in Practice

It is impossible to enforce any regulation of political content on the Internet. Anybody with a computer and Internet access can start a blog or website of his or her own, needing no special skills or equipment, and little or no start-up capital. The Internet was designed to be inherently free and borderless, and every day, organisations and people are working on ways and means to secure that freedom by writing programs to encrypt communications and bypass firewalls. Locally, many bloggers and determined filmmakers are likely to take advantage of the borderlessness of the technology to ignore existing and future regulation of political content on the Internet, in the process bringing the law into disrepute.

The following detail specific problems with the law, highlighting the ambiguity of existing legislation, as well as its practical unenforceability.

a) Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification Section 5b

This section lays out such a broad scope that almost any Internet Content that touches on any matter of public interest can be construed to fall afoul of it, requiring as it does that any website that provides material “for the propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious issues relating to Singapore” register with the MDA. The mandatory registration process requires disclosure of an individuals name, employer, and salary. This is an unnecessary level of micromanagement with sinister undertones: employment details should be irrelevant to the running of a political website.

Yet, clearly, the MDA has not set about asking the hundreds of Singapore-based websites that discuss matters of political interest to register. Even so, Section 5b is not without its deleterious effects, for the arbitrariness of deciding which website will next be called upon to submit itself to registration inevitably promotes self-censorship and a wariness about discussing certain subjects. Such indirect censorship is even more damaging to Singapore’s political maturity than direct censorship, promoting as it does, a culture of silence.

In any case, registration of “political websites” cannot be effectively enforced. The webmaster of such a website may choose to shut his or her site down should the MDA decide to alert him or her to the need for registration. The following day, he or she can put its content back online, on a different URL. This could continue indefinitely, at little or no cost to the webmaster, but at great administrative cost to the MDA. Between this reality and the fact that the MDA has chosen not to pursue additional sites for registration under the Class Licence Scheme post-Sintercom, it is questionable what socially positive purpose Section 5b serves.

b) Parliamentary Elections Act Section 78A(1)(b)

Section 78 (1) (b) of the Parliamentary Elections Act allows the Minister to regulate election advertising over the internet during an election period. It applies to political parties, candidates, their agents, websites under a class license, and websites required to register with the MDA. It is the last category that we are most concerned about.

Dr Balaji Sadasivan said in Parliament in 2006 that websites that “persistently promote political views” will trigger a call for registration as a political site, followed by the application of the PEA prohibitions on elections advertising. These will prohibit the newly registered website from utilising internet tools that do not appear under a positive list.

This piece of legislation suffers from two major problems: Firstly, it is too broadly framed, with a potentially chilling effect on individual bloggers uncertain as to what constitutes “persistently political” speech. Secondly, it is ineffective in preventing the mischief it sets out to cure: political partisans can easily outflank the PEA by posting as individual, anonymous bloggers, as the law is so difficult to enforce, especially within a short election period.

Current regulations also put independent online news sites in a legal limbo. At present, licensed newspapers and their websites are exempted from the above regulations since they are rightly treated as purveyors of news, not advertising. However, no explicit exemption has been made for standalone citizen journalism websites that may be equally dedicated to informing and educating the public about the elections. Citizen journalists operating online should be able to report and comment on elections without fearing that they will be prosecuted for illegal campaigning.

Evolving technology will also blur the line between news sharing and campaigning (”election advertising”) through the Internet. Consider social networking sites like Facebook; individuals, whether in Singapore or abroad, can create and join groups supporting different politicians or political parties, as is the case in the United States. Besides the difficulty of ascertaining if such groups constitute “election advertising”, it is equally difficult to prosecute offenders, since Facebook is not a Singaporean company. As mentioned above, when a statute or bylaw becomes unenforceable, it just brings law generally into disrepute.

c) Films Act, Sections 33 and 35

Banning films unnecessarily prevents a fuller understanding of Singapore’s political history, and inhibits the emergence of an open and inclusive society. While not specifically directed at the Internet, the definition of “distribution” of a banned film could encompass Internet users who might want to post films with political content.

Section 33 of the Films Act (”party political films”) was cited by the MDA in the ban of the film Singapore Rebel, which documents the history of civil disobedience by Dr Chee Soon Juan and covers some aspects of his life, thereby providing a little-known aspect of Singapore’s history and a glimpse into the mindset and motivations of a well known opposition figure. Section 35 (”contrary to the public interest”) was cited to justify the ban on another film, Zahari’s 17 years, which explores independent Singapore’s early history through the eyes of one political actor during those times. The suppression of such films effectively choke off critical perspectives of Singapore’s political system and history.

Competing historical perspectives are essential for developing a mature body politic. Citizens should be trusted to present and assess the merits or flaws of political figures and parties.

The effect of Section 33 of the Films Act extends beyond just history. It also restricts the avenues for political parties, both government and opposition, to communicate directly to Singaporeans through Internet videos. Political leaders in many developed countries, including Japan, South Korea, Britain and the US, have in recent years effectively used websites like YouTube to broadcast their speeches to citizens. Even the use of political videos during elections in other countries has not led to any obvious distortion of the political process. It is therefore unfortunate that in Singapore, one of the worlds most wired countries, such an effective channel for rational political discourse is closed as a result of this law.

It is equally impossible to enforce Sections 33 and 35 of the Films Act. Despite the ban, Singapore Rebel and Zahari’s 17 Years are now viewable on YouTube and Google Video. Neither of them have been taken down, nor can be. In similar fashion, future party political films could simply be aired on the Internet, without having to go through the MDA. Once more, the very nature of the Internet makes it virtually impossible for the MDA to regulate such films.

It is instructive to note that Mr George Yeo, who was Minister for Information and the Arts when Section 33 of the Films Acts was enacted, recently admitted on Channel NewsAsia on 9 January 2007 that the government at that time “did not reckon this new media which allows you to produce the programmes quite cheaply”, and felt that the government has “got to adjust that position”.

3.4 Recommendations

We believe that regulation must serve a social purpose and must be enforceable to remain credible. Regulation of political content on the Internet does not serve a social purpose; if anything, it undermines free expression and encourages sub-optimal political discourse. It is also unenforceable, as demonstrated above.

In summary we recommend the following:

Abolish all Internet-specific legislation and bylaws, including the Class Licence Scheme
Repeal Section 78A of the Parliamentary Elections Act and Sections 33 and 35 of the Films Act.
Enshrine in the proposed Internet Freedom Act the right to discuss any matter of public interest over the Internet, even during election periods, and specifically include a provision stating that no other laws shall limit this freedom to discuss political issues and promote political views over the Internet, where “discuss” and “promote” shall also include content that is primarily sound, image and video.

In assent:

Choo Zheng Xi
Bernard Leong
Gerald Giam
Benjamin Cheah
Ng E-Jay
Roderick Chia
Ho Choon Hiong
Justin Zhuang
Alex Au Waipang
Mohan Gopalan
Scott Teng Kie Zin
Cherian George
See Tong Ming

In dissent:

Nil

SECTION FOUR

Regulation of Hate Speech on the Internet

4.1 Introduction and review of existing regulations

While protecting the racial and religious harmony of Singapore is a legitimate social goal, it must be borne in mind that any laws that attempt to achieve this by curbing speech necessarily conflict with the right to freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of speech and expression being a fundamental right, it is only when the threat to the community is grave that the right can justifiably be curtailed. Excessive curtailment of this right would not only be wrong in principle, it would also run contrary to the objective of maintaining racial and religious harmony and mutual understanding, since open discussion of these issues is crucial to achieving that goal. Whether or not a particular law that purports to protect racial and religious harmony is justifiable will therefore depend on what kind of conduct the law proscribes.

Currently, Section 4(2)(g) of the Internet Code of Practice (”whether the material glorifies, incites or endorses ethnic, racial or religious hatred, strife or intolerance”) makes racial and religious hate speech a consideration in Internet regulation. In addition, other laws that are relevant are Sections 298, 298A and 505 of the Penal Code.

4.2 Discussion

Section 2.2 (“Use clear statutes and not administrative discretion”) of this submission has argued that formal regulation should only be through statutes and prosecution in the interest of platform neutrality. Section 2.1 of this submission has argued for the abolition of Internet-specific regulation. Hence, the Internet Code of Practice should be abolished.

The provisions of the Penal Code and their subparts can be divided into three categories:

Laws criminalising conduct that offends the racial and religious feelings of others;
Laws criminalising conduct that promotes hatred against a particular racial or religious group; and
Laws criminalising conduct that incites others to violence that is racially and religiously motivated.

Laws that fall under the third category, specifically Sections 298A(b) and 505(c) of the Penal Code, can be justified on the same basis that laws prohibiting incitement to offences generally are justified. Here, the risk to the community is at the greatest possible level, since the possibility of violence exists. Hence, purveyors of Internet content that seek to incite others to violence on racial and religious grounds should be prosecuted.

To give effect to the interest of the community in maintaining racial and religious harmony, enhanced penalties are also justifiable. Section 74 of the Penal Code currently provides for this. The signatories of this letter have no objection to this principle.

Where the threat is merely of promoting hatred between different racial or religious groups, the laws become less difficult to justify. This is even more so in the case of laws that criminalise offending the racial or religious feelings of others. In these situations the threat to the community is not immediate: there is usually time to manage any fallout. In such circumstances, to allow the social goal in maintaining harmony to trump over the right to freedom of speech and expression will make nonsense of that right.

Thus, rather than chill potentially-beneficial discussion of race and religion through overzealous legislation, it may be better not to resort to prosecution with regard to such speech. Instead, alternative forums - like the Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3) proposed above - could be more representative and conciliatory. It has the flexibility to provide a nuanced stand, speaking out against bigoted and insensitive content, without guillotining freedom of speech. Through its moral force, it can retard the propagation and exacerbation of hate-filled speech, while leaving the door open to further discussion of the issues raised by any incident. In the process, society is given an all-important chance to build up its “immune” responses against provocative words - learning in particular to challenge bad ideas with better ideas. In contrast, when government is overprotective, it forecloses society’s opportunity to learn and grow.

On the other hand, the law against incitement appears inadequate in certain other respects. In many other jurisdictions, for example in the United Kingdom, other dimensions of personal identity including national origin, gender and sexual orientation are treated in ways similar to race, ethnicity and religion, should hate speech be involved. Furthermore, in the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service has advised the absence of religion enjoys the same protection as having a religion.

4.3 Recommendations

Abolish all Internet-specific legislation and bylaws.
Repeal Sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code and replace them with new legislation that is more specific to the act of inciting others to cause injury to another class of people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion or the absence thereof, gender and sexual orientation.

In assent:

Mohan Gopalan
Roderick Chia
Alex Au Waipang
Choo Zheng Xi
Ho Choon Hiong
Scott Teng Kie Zin
Cherian George
See Tong Ming
Justin Zhuang
Benjamin Cheah

In dissent:

Ng E-Jay

Abstained:

Gerald Giam
Bernard Leong

SECTION FIVE

Regulation of Content Relating to Sex and Violence on the Internet

5.1 Introduction and review of existing regulations

Currently, much of Part 4 (”Prohibited material”) of the MDA’s Internet Code of Practice deals with various kinds of sex and violence. It does however say that the listed mentions are just “factors [that] should be taken into account”. Part 4(3) further suggests that they should be balanced against an assessment of “whether the material has intrinsic medical, scientific, artistic or educational value”.

Other legislation that are likely to be applicable include:

The Undesirable Publications Act wherein “publication” is defined, inter alia, as “any sound recording… any picture or drawing… any photograph… tape, disc…” This Act also defines “obscene” as something that “tend[s] to deprave and corrupt”, and makes the exhibition or distribution of obscene materials an offence. It defines as “objectionable”, something that “describes or depicts… matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, violence or the consumption of drugs or other intoxicating substances in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.”
Sections 292 and 293 of the Penal Code, as amended recently. Here, it is an offence if anyone “distributes, transmits by electronic means, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation” any “obscene… drawing, painting, representation or figure…”
Additionally, the Films Act can also be invoked. Section 21(1)(b) says that anyone who “exhibits or distributes” any film without a valid certificate from the Board of Film Censors shall be guilty of an offence.

5.2 Discussion

The regulatory framework seems rather confused and conflicting. For example, where the Internet Code of Conduct creates defences of intrinsic artistic and educational value, the other pieces of legislation do not. It is also impractical. If the argument is made that online content should be equally subject to laws as offline content, it would then mean that even a short video posted on the Internet would need a prior certificate from the Board of Film Censors as per the Films Act. This would be completely disproportionate to the scale of the activity.

Section 1 (“Introduction and Executive Summary”) of this submission argues that the convergence of platforms necessitates a convergence of regulatory standards, and the borderlessness of content necessitates that these standards must be consistent with international norms. It would be ridiculous to enforce any of the above legislation on only the fraction of Internet content that has a connection with Singapore.

No doubt the MDA recognises this, at least in part. Thus the “light touch” approach, in existence in 1996. However, this approach is unwise, based as it is on first having sweeping rules and powers and then not enforcing them except in the most egregious instances. What results is a sense of arbitrariness in decisions, especially when the reasoning and process is not visible to the public. The deliberate policy of applying these rules only occasionally eventually leads to the general public even forgetting that they exist or feeling free to ignore them. The only people deterred by the continued existence of these hazy rules are those who are considering making a substantial investment, either financially or creatively, and who therefore have more to lose if the regulator turns around and starts to actively enforce the rules. The result therefore is that the very creative industries that the MDA wishes to attract are deterred by the uncertainty and the sweeping scope of these rules while individual and noncommercial Internet users continue to treat the regulator and its rules as irrelevant.

Section 2.2 (“Use clear statutes and not administrative discretion”) has argued that formal regulation should only be through narrowly-tailored statutes and prosecution. We argue here that overlapping regulation such as the Internet Code of Conduct and the administrative powers given to the MDA to enforce it contradict this simpler, cleaner and more just principle. Hence, as argued in Section 2.1, the Internet Code of Conduct and similar rules specific to the Internet should be abolished.

As for the statutes themselves, viz. Sections 292 and 293 of the Penal Code, which make the depiction and distribution of obscene content criminal, we argue that they are far too strict compared to international norms, and in practice unenforceable, especially given the fact that vast amounts of pornography can be downloaded today. Keeping an unrealistic law on the books will tend to bring the law into disrepute and encourage a culture of disregard for the law. It is therefore further recommended here that the law be revised to merely criminalise the depiction of sex involving minors and the use of the Internet in furtherance of sexual grooming of young persons - something that is consistent with international practice.

More problematic may be adult pornography depicting coercive sexual acts. While some might want this proscribed by law, it is still worthwhile asking if a rape scene in the cinema today might be passed under the R21 rating. And the answer is yes. The only difference between pornography and general-release films is that the latter tend to be less explicit and gratuitous in its depiction than the former. However, this ultimately is a matter of degree and it will always be a subjective call as to where the line is. Moreover, the line shifts over time. It is hence better not to write this into legislation, but to leave this question of the depiction of coercive sexual acts to community moderation.

If in the making of the video, an actual coercive act took place rather than being simulated, then the law should go after the perpetrators of that act itself. The making of the video can be considered by the court to be an aggravating factor. The further distribution of the video may justifiably be proscribed as an invasion of privacy.

Likewise on the question of Internet content that depicts violence: The depiction itself should not be criminal, anymore than the depiction of it in cinema today is. Even murder and genocide (for example, in the film Hotel Rwanda) are allowed to be depicted. However, if in the making of such content, coercion took place or actual injury was caused, then naturally the law should intervene in the realworld event.

Section 2.3 has discussed the useful role of an Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3) as an example of the form community moderation can take. It proposed that IC3 should not have any mandatory powers, but by being broadly representative and expert, it would over time acquire moral force. This is the appropriate forum for discussion about digital content involving sex and violence, and its consensus pronouncements are likely, in due course, to play the role of “signpostng”. It can also encourage appropriate labelling and fencing by site owners. Unlike laws or written regulations applied by bureaucrats whose deliberations are veiled by the Official Secrets Act, community moderation is an approach that is flexible, scalable and sensitive to changing public opinion.

5.3 Recommendations

Abolish all Internet-specific legislation and bylaws
Repeal Sections 292 and 293 of the Penal Code
Write into the proposed Internet Freedom Act the exemption of digital content from any existing laws pertaining to obscenity and violence except that involving persons under 16 years of age.
Let the IC3 evolve ways to deal with explicit depictions of sex and violence through community moderation.

In assent:

Alex Au Waipang
Ng E-Jay
Choo Zheng Xi
Mohan Gopalan
Scott Teng Kie Zin
See Tong Ming
Benjamin Cheah
Ho Choon Hiong
Roderick Chia

In dissent:

Gerald Giam

Abstained:

Bernard Leong
Cherian George
Justin Zhuang

Campaign: Brazilian bloggers vs. a WordPress ban

2008-05-07T05:10:00.000-07:00

作者：Mary Joyce 来源：DigiActive

Description: After an unauthorized sex tape was posted on a Brazilian WordPress blog, a judicial order to shut down the blog was issued. This would mean a block on all WordPress blogs in Brazil, as they all share the same IP address. Blocking that one IP would mean that no blogs on the WordPress platform would be accessible from within Brazil. Similar blocks have been imposed before in Brazil, and bloggers want to make sure it won’t happen again.

Digital Activism tools: blog, Orkut group, blog badge

How These Tools Are Being Used: The social networking site Orkut is extremely popular in Brazil, so an Orkut group has been formed (you need a Gmail account to access the page). There is also an anti-ban blog, which explains the issue. Finally, as it is an issue that affects bloggers, a blog badge has been created to oppose the potential ban.

Outcome: WordPress has not yet been blocked in Brazil, but it is too early to judge the success of the campaign.

韩国全面推行网络实名制

2008-05-04T20:42:00.000-07:00

来源：人民网-人民日报转自：新浪网

韩国是世界上互联网最普及的国家之一。根据韩国信息通信部2月公布的数据，韩国6岁以上的上网人口达3482万，约占总人口的73%。网络在给韩国人提供全新的资讯、金融、娱乐和沟通手段的同时，也改变了韩国人的生活方式，给韩国社会带来了日益深刻的影响。

　　为了维护网络的健康和安全，保护公民的隐私权、名誉权和经济权益，韩国政府从2002年起推动实施网络实名制。迄今，韩国已通过立法、监督、管理和教育等措施，对网络邮箱、网络论坛、博客乃至网络视频实行实名制，成为全球贯彻实名制最彻底的国家之一，这也使得韩国成为网络安全程度最高的国家之一。

　　2005年10月，韩国政府发布和修改了《促进信息化基本法》、《信息通信基本保护法》等法规，为网络实名制提供法律依据，在网络导入监督、约束和处罚机制。

　　此后，韩国政府不断修改和制订各种有关网络安全的法律。2007年7月起，《促进使用信息通信网络及信息保护关联法》规定韩国各主要网站在网民留言之前，必须对留言者的身份证号码等信息进行记录和验证，否则对网站处以最高金额达3万美元的罚款。为了保护留言者的隐私，韩国政府允许网民在通过身份认证后，用代码替代真实姓名留言。按照法律，如果由于网站未能有效进行实名制登录而造成法律纠纷，网站将代替无法被追查到的被告接受惩处。

　　韩国政府采取的一系列措施，使得韩国网民在网络留言时不得不考虑自身的责任，而网站也不能对实名制的实施敷衍了事。韩国信息通信部在推行网络留言实名制后的调查中发现，一些主要网站论坛上谩骂和人身攻击等不文明内容减少了一半以上，收效显著。

　　如今，韩国人写博客的越来越多。为了使博客能规范有序地发展，韩国政府采用网络实名制进行管理。根据规定，网民在网络留言、建立和访问博客时，必须先登记真实姓名和身份证号，通过认证方可继续操作。如此一来，无论是博客主人还是访问者，都会在使用博客的过程中留下记录，这对规范网民行为和预防网上犯罪起到了很好的作用。

　　2007年3月18日，“雅虎韩国”网站上出现了一段淫秽视频，该网站的管理人员在事发6小时后才获知消息并将这段视频删除。这件事引发了韩国社会对加强网络视频管理的关注。韩国信息通信部、警察厅等有关政府部门以及韩国主要门户网站运营商等单位联合制订了拦截网络淫秽视频的有关对策。

　　根据这些对策，韩国信息通信部在该部的情报通信伦理委员会内设立了一个24小时运行的“非法有害信息举报中心”，由各大门户网站向举报中心派出工作人员从事专门的监控工作。此外，韩国信息通信部还用技术手段阻止网民从国外网站下载并转载淫秽视频，并对上传淫秽视频的个人和存在管理漏洞的网站运营商进行法律制裁。韩国警察厅则在网上开设的“网络警察厅”接受网络违法事件的举报。

　　网络实名制的实施，在韩国社会树立了网络世界也存在伦理法制的社会意识，为保护网民权益，规范网民行为，预防和查处网上犯罪奠定了基础。网络实名制还促进了韩国网上银行、网络消费等的快速发展，吸引了大批资金进入网络产业，带动韩国网络产业不断升级，提升了网络服务的质量。与此同时，由于韩国政府要求服务商对个人信息提供严格保护，因此实名制得到了韩国公众的认可。

　　(新华社首尔4月24日电)

Action Alert: Free Esraa and her Companions

2008-04-15T20:16:00.000-07:00

作者：Amine 来源：DigiActive

What? Join one of the Facebook groups pushing for the freedom of the 3 digital activists jailed in Egypt: Esraa Abdel-Fattah Ahmed, Mahamed El Sharkawi,and Kareem El Beheiri

When? Now!

Where? The Facebook groups to join are divided linguistically. Join the one in the language you are most comfortable with, as you will likely be receiving messages in that language from the group.

Arabic: Free Esraa افرجوا عن إسراء ورفاقها

English: Free Esraa and her Companions! أفرجوا عن إسراء ورفاقها

French: Libérez Esraa et ses Camarades. Free Esraa.

Norsk: Free Esraa and her Companions!

How? Click one of the links above to visit the group you would and then click the “Join” button on that page.

Why? On April 6th we covered the story of Egyptian activists using a Facebook group, 6 April - اضراب عام لشعب مصر (April 6 - General Strike for the People of Egypt), to drum up participation in a general strike on Sunday, April 6. The group’s founder Esraa Abdel-Fattah Ahmed, and bloggers Mahamed El Sharkawi and Kareem El Beheiri were arrested by Egyptian police in connection with the Facebook group and the call of the strike.

Who is organizing the action? There are slightly different officers and admins for the 4 groups, but Egyptians Hany Elkhayat, Samy Harak, Wael Nawara, Manal Fahmy, and Mohamed Zaki Elsheemi seem to be involved with most of them. Dina Ibrahim is the sole admin of the French group.

Campaign: Free YemenPortal.net

2008-04-09T21:38:00.001-07:00

作者：Mary Joyce 来源：DigiActive

Description of Campaign: In January of 2008, the Yemeni Ministry of Communications blocked the news aggregation site YemenPortal.net. Today, the creator of the site, Walid Al-Saqaf, along with the progressive organization Mideast Youth, launched FreeYemenPortal.org, the official site of the campaign the end the campaign on YemenPortal.net.

Digital Activism Tools: blog banners, petition

How These Tools Are Being Used: The site is asking bloggers to post Free YemenPortal.net banners on their sites. In addition, Mideast youth has posted a Free YemenPortal.net petition on their site.

Update after the jump…

Update (April 4): This week, the government�s Minister of Information threatened to file lawsuits against news websites on the justification of �inciting hatred� or �harming national interests� and the other usual excused they often use to prosecute journalists. The threat is even more severe for websites because the government would use the penal code instead of the press law. This means that website owners could get up to death penalties.

Campaign launched to protest the blocking of YemenPortal.net

2008-04-09T07:34:00.000-07:00

来源: Mideast Youth, YemenPortal.net

Initiated by Mideast Youth and YemenPortal.net
Press Release by YemenPortal

The anti-website censorship website freeyemenportal.org was officially launched today by Mideast Youth and YemenPortal.net as part of an ongoing campaign to free yemenportal.net from a two-month long ban imposed by the Yemeni government. Furthermore, yemenportal.info was also activated as a mirror site to circumvent the blockage of the earlier blocked domains.

The launch of the website coincides with an unprecedented wave of bans by the Yemeni regime targeting news and opinion websites including blogs and discussion forums. The blocking of Yemenportal.net and its alternative domain was protested by many local and international advocacy organizations including Reporters sans Frontiers, Committee to Protect Journalists, Article 19, the World Association of Newspapers plus many others.

The Director of MidEast Youth, Esra’a Al-Shafei said she committed to assisting the website’s founder and administrator Walid Al-Saqaf in bringing more pressure on the authorities to unblock the website. “It is imperative that we defend free speech and free access to information. The Yemeni authorities have failed to provide adequate grounds upon which the website has been banned within the country,” said Al-Shafei.

Al-Saqaf said he is campaigning on many levels to unblock the website, which is a search engine fetching and indexing news and opinion content on Yemen from about 1,500 sources. He hoped the new website launched today will include news updates, information about alternative domains, circumventing techniques, information on how to help the campaign, media coverage about the ban plus other relevant information.

How it started:

YemenPortal.net started as part of Al-Saqaf’s master program in Sweden to analyze the Yemeni cyber sphere and examine the impact of news websites on democracy. But with more than 300,000 items today, the website became one of the most content-rich Yemeni online resources.

Between the day it was established in the end of May 2007 and until the day it was banned, YemenPortal.net maintained an impressive rate of growth to become one of the most prominent Yemeni websites and simultaneously, became one of the unique academic-driven projects that brought pride to the Örebro University’s Global Journalism Department. However, the website’s growth in terms of visitors and accessibility in Yemen was halted by governmental intervention when the ministry of communication in Yemen blocked it from being accessed inside Yemen on January 19, 2008.

Given his mission to study Yemen’s online media, YemenPortal.net’s founder hoped the authorities would encourage the project and facilitate his research. “But what happened shocked me and disappointed my website’s regular visitors. What is even more ironic is that for some time, the authorities kept on denying that they blocked the website despite clear evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating to see your own government fighting a project that could have enabled millions of Yemenis the chance to be well-informed.” Al-Saqaf said.

Al-Shafei of Mideast Youth supported this view by saying that the website should have been appreciated instead of being targeted because it presented a wide spectrum of news and opinions from diverse sources. “Yemen Portal is a vital source of information and should be rewarded for its exceptional contribution. Instead, the Yemeni authorities have made it inaccessible. We are here to change that.” She added that unblocking the website is necessary to prevent the government from manipulating public opinion by restricting specific views or news on the Internet from reaching the people.

The fight goes on:

The ban of Al-Saqaf’s website triggered a resistance movement led by YemenPortal.net against the ban of all Yemeni websites. With the integrated technology of the search engine, Al-Saqaf established a special proxy to allow Internet users in Yemen to access the banned websites and also to read contents from more than a dozen banned sources on one page.

The resistance movement consequences as the authorities went ahead in banning its website as well. However, a new alternative website was activated in a record time and its web address was sent out to thousands of subscribers and readers. About a day after the alternative website was announced, the personal car of Al-Saqaf in Sana’a was vandalized by unknown men, prompting Al-Saqaf to close down the Sana’a office out of fear of other physical attacks that may materialize.

“If the attack was meant to be a warning message, then it only emboldened our determination to strengthen our resistance of website censorship.” Al-Saqaf said. “It also proves that the resistance efforts are actually working and causing some to take such desperate measures.”

Al-Saqaf vowed to continue the campaign despite hate emails and online messages targeting his person and calling for his prosecution allegedly for republishing material and giving a platform for banned websites that harm ‘national security and unity’. “I will not allow my website to become a tool in the hands of the government.” Al-Saqaf said. “This is why it is important to fight against this unjust ban, particularly as it contradicts with the freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by the Yemeni constitution.”

About our resistance to the government’s ban

来源: freeyemenportal.org

As many of you may know, after the ban of yemenportal.net, the website initiated a nation-wide resistance movement online. It is an effort to neutralize the advantage of the Yemeni government in restricting access to specific websites due to news or opinion content that it may dislike.

This resistance is starting to yield results with more people becoming familiar with it.

The idea was to basically set up a robot on the website blocked.arabiaportal.net to retrieve the content of all blocked websites and list them according to their sources and category. There are articles belonging to forums, news websites, and opinion websites. All of those stories can be viewed in full at: http://blocked.arabiaportal.net/yemen/

However, this resistance movement must have offended the regime so the website (blocked.arabiaportal.net/yemen) itself was banned. Hence, we established yet another domain yemenportal.org and put the blocked content of all those websites at yemenportal.org/blocked.

This is what the resistance is all about: never give up. It will be like this, i.e., they ban a website and we establish another, until they give up on this chase and let the people in Yemen browse banned websites freely.

Thus far, we have been able to get close to a thousand emails of people who subscribed to our service at http://yemenportal.org/?signup=1 and other websites that have already been in touch with us before.

Every time the government blocks our alternative website, we will open another. The attack on the car of yemenportal.net, which took place after we set up the second alternative domain, had only proven to us that there are elements unhappy with our acts and are willing to go to extreme lengths to deter us. However, this has not achieved their objective and we decided to close down the office and have no representative in Yemen to avoid any clashes by those people.

In brief, our resistance now is fully 100% online. But this resistance cannot grow and be more effective unless you help out and participate.

Therefore, the best you could do to help this resistance grow is to put up the below graph in a convenient location on your blog or website and have it point to the following link: http://yemenportal.org/blocked.

You can also add one of the below campaign’s logo pointing to this website: http://freeyemenportal.org:

You can make a difference. Please help our movement grow and free yemenportal.net and all other Yemeni websites.

Walid Al-Saqaf
Admin, founder
YemenPortal.net

“Access Yemen Portal” circumventing software launched!

2008-04-09T07:18:00.000-07:00

来源: freeyemenportal.org

Finally, the blockage of YemenPortal.net in Yemen will come to an end for thousands who have been struggling to keep up with the most recent alternative domain.

Inspired by Hamed Saber’s “Access Flickr!”, Walid Al-Saqaf devised a similar program that will only be used to access yemenportal.net from within Yemen. A successful experiment had demonstrated its functionality and its web-based proxy allows it to become a channel to access many more blocked websites.

I am finally breathing a sigh of relief after tense days and weeks following the ban of yemenportal.net… But now with this software, it is possible to bypass the government’s filtering and allow users open access to information, which is one of their fundamental human rights.

Let’s hope that as many people get to know about this new program. It’s currently being checked by Firefox people and experts to allow it to go into the public area of the Add-ons. In the meantime, you can download and use it and send it to your friends and colleagues in Yemen and they are the ones who really need it.

The working links are:
http://mideastyouth.com/accessyp.xpi &
https://yemenportal.net/accessyp.xpi

—

Walid Al-Saqaf
Admin
YemenPortal.net

来源: Firefox Add-ons

Access YemenPortal.net! 0.1

by wsaqaf

Circumvents government website censorship of yemenportal.net allowing users in Yemen to access the search engine seamlessly

Add to Firefox

Long Description

Allows users to bypass government filtering of yemenportal.net. The website also has a built-in web-based proxy, and hence accessing the website allows access to tens of other banned websites.

Mapping Iran’s Online Public: Politics and Culture in the Persian Blogosphere

2008-04-07T01:29:00.000-07:00

作者：John Kelly, Bruce Etling

全文：http://tinyurl.com/4ht9y4

摘要：We used computational social network mapping in combination with human and automated content analysis to analyze the Iranian blogosphere. In contrast to the conventional wisdom that Iranian bloggers are mainly young democrats critical of the regime, we found a wide range of opinions representing religious conservative points of view as well as secular and reform-minded ones, and topics ranging from politics and human rights to poetry, religion, and pop culture. Our research indicates that the Persian blogosphere is indeed a large discussion space of approximately 60,000 routinely updated blogs featuring a rich and varied mix of bloggers. Social network analysis reveals the Iranian blogosphere to be dominated by four major network formations, or poles, with identifiable sub-clusters of bloggers within those poles. We label the poles as 1) Secular/Reformist, 2) Conservative/Religious, 3) Persian Poetry and Literature, and 4) Mixed Networks. (Click here for the map image.) The secular/reformist pole contains both expatriates and Iranians involved in a dialog about Iranian politics, among many other issues. The conservative/religious pole contains three distinct sub-clusters, two focused principally on religious issues and one on politics and current affairs. Given the repressive political and media environment, and high profile arrests and harassment of bloggers, one might not expect to find much political contestation in the blogosphere. However, we identified a subset of the secular/reformist pole focused intently on politics and current affairs and comprised mainly of bloggers living inside Iran, which is linked in contentious dialog with the conservative political sub-cluster. Surprisingly, a minority of bloggers in the secular/reformist pole appear to blog anonymously, even in the more politically-oriented part of it; instead, it is more common for bloggers in the religious/conservative pole to blog anonymously. Blocking of blogs by the government is less pervasive than we had assumed. Most of the blogosphere network is visible inside Iran, although the most frequently blocked blogs are clearly those in the secular/reformist pole. Given the repressive media environment in Iran today, blogs may represent the most open public communications platform for political discourse. The peer-to-peer architecture of the blogosphere is more resistant to capture or control by the state than the older, hub and spoke architecture of the mass media model.

Anti-censorship protest in Finland (English subtitles)

2008-04-01T19:56:00.001-07:00

俄通过网络过滤限制中小学生接触有害网站

2008-04-01T19:52:00.000-07:00

来源：新华网

新华网北京３月２９日电俄罗斯联邦教育计划局副局长安德烈·列梅津科日前表示，４月１日前将在俄罗斯所有中小学电脑中加装网络过滤系统，禁止学生登录色情、暴力、媚俗和其他与教育目标不符的网站。

据俄罗斯《生意人报》２８日报道，目前８４％中小学已获得相应程序软件，个别学校未领到是因为所在地区处于春汛期，交通不便，但３月底前所有学校都能领到。网络过滤系统是中小学必备软件的一部分，为确保在全国中小学校中使用这一软件系统，国家预算专门拨款２７亿卢布（约合１．１５亿美元）。

据列梅津科介绍，这种网络过滤系统具有非常强大的两级分析控制功能。第一级是中央数据库控制。库内存储着大量禁用网站网址，并不断补充、更新资料。学生如果输入库中黑名单上的网址，根本无法成功链接。

第二级是学校管理者借助必备软件系统加以控制。老师可在服务器中界定禁用网站的类别，而学生所浏览网站的内容摘要将被自动发送到服务器，服务器将在两三个小时内进行审核。如内容涉及色情、暴力等，该网址也将被收入中央数据库。也就是说，如学生试图登录中央数据库以外的禁用网站，第一次能侥幸过关，第二次就会被逮个正着。

开发该系统的网络资源分析中心表示，该系统在２００７年分析了约６０亿次联网指令，其中约２亿次被断开。负责研发该系统的阿布拉莫夫说：“该系统的应用取得了成果，中小学生尝试登录禁用网站的次数已减少。”

netalarmed.com

2008-04-01T02:15:00.000-07:00

来源: netalarmed.com

Government protection 24/7

The Internet is 92% sex, hate and violence. With NetAlarmed, you and your family are protected 100% from these dangers, even when not using the Internet*.

How will NetAlarmed work?

NetAlarmed provides the ultimate protection against dangerous and obscene Internet content. Every time you visit a website, the site is also checked at the NetAlarmed Data Centre in Canberra, ACT.

Depending on the sites content, it is then approved or blocked to those accessing the Internet from within Australia. If a site is blacklisted you will be safe in knowing the site was not suitable for viewing.

Here's an example:

Does that mean slower web surfing?

Is slower web surfing a problem when it means safer web surfing? Depending on the amount of websites on the 'block list,' load time for websites may take up to 3 minutes. When you consider Australia has the fastest broadband network in the world, this is still faster than other countries view websites.

What happens if I visit a blacklisted website?

The website will not load. Depending on the content of the website you tried to visit, your personal information and internet browsing history may be passed onto the NetAlarmed Internet Crimes Division for investigation.

I'm an adult. Can I opt-out?

Sure, but feedback to NetAlarmed suggests only a small amount of Australians will choose to opt-out (mainly felons). For those that do choose to opt-out, rest assured your personal details will be kept completely confidential on the NetAlarmed Watch List.

How will the Goverment protect me offline as well as online?

We are not entirely sure just yet, but don't worry. Just like we are not entirely sure how to even filter the Internet, lack of knowledge amidst professional advice has never stopped us from claiming we can do something.* Everything can be done at a cost.

This sounds great! Do I need to do anything?

Only have a night on the town, by yourself! With NetAlarmed there's no need to look after your own children. We're a tax paid babysitter for every night of the week. Enjoy a cocktail at the expense of freedom.

Everday Ozzies Show Support for NetAlarmed

"Ever since we were chosen by Mr Conroy to participate in the NetAlarmed trial, our home life has improved markedly. Previously, my husband would spend hours each night locked away in his darkened study doing his online banking. Since we got NetAlarmed, Phil now has to do his banking at the branch, which means more time for the two of us... Thank you Stephen!"

Belinda and Philip, Coffs Harbour NSW

*Actual ability for the Federal Government to protect offline may not be possible in some regional areas of Australia due to lack of services. 1. Statistic representative of scientific media hysterics.

This website is fictional. It is a work of satire in response to Australian Government's absurd Internet censorship policy and the former NetAlert policy. Despite national criticism from industry groups, professionals and citizens, Kevin Rudd and Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, plan to implement mandatory internet filtering in 2008.

The dangers of Internet censorship outlined here are real. Educate your children about the Internet just as you would warn them about the dangers of everyday life. Australia does not require a Government babysitter.

Contact NetAlarmed with feedback or visit my blog, Somebody Think Of The Children if you would like to find out more information about Internet Censorship in Australia or NetAlarmed.

Acting Against Internet Censorship in Turkey

2008-04-01T02:10:00.000-07:00

来源: grou.ps

We are fighting to stop internet censorship in Turkey; banned web sites include YouTube, NetLog, Wordpress, YouPorn. In other words, it’s very hard to make user-generated content business in Turkey. Looks like we need to teach our politicians a little bit about web 2.0 - well that’s not gonna be easy but our first step was discussed in this forum session on our BarCamp Istanbul web site. We even have a group for that; called Eylem 2.0, which means Action 2.0

If you are in Turkey, please register and join the Eylem 2.0 subgroup. We will keep you in loop from there. If we don’t say stop now, the censorship will arise, we should show our resistance, we’re already too late.

Unblock Youtube in Morocco

2008-04-01T02:09:00.000-07:00

来源：PetitionOnline

View Current Signatures - Sign the Petition

To: Maroc Telecom &Vivendi Universal Board of Management
English:

We, the undersigned, petition Maroc Telecom and Vivendi Universal to repeal the censorship of the Internet and selected internet sites immediately and thereby restore democratic expression and freedom of speech that is fundamental to any civilized nation.

We demand that Maroc Telecom and Vivendi Universal immediately stop the current online censorship on YouTube and all other services being censored, which is a violation of the right to have free access to information. We believe that Maroc Telecom and Vivendi Universal are promoting censorship within the Moroccan society. This is in direct contradiction to their stated goal of "Knowledge Sharing" as mentioned in their Sustainable Development program documentation.

The block on YouTube and other internet services serves no one and is a shameful act perpetrated by the management of Maroc Telecom and Vivendi Universal.

Internet-providers and media-companies should strive towards a society where all citizens have equal access to the web and web-related services.

We, the undersigned, respectfully ask you to revoke the latest ban on YouTube in order to create an environment where Moroccan citizens and Internet-users have free and equal access to the Internet.

We believe that this censorship must stop immediately.

French:

Appel à l’arrêt de la censure inappropriée imposée par Maroc Telecom et Vivendi Universal

Nous, soussignés, lançons cette pétition pour protester contre Maroc Telecom et Vivendi Universal, et leur demandons de lever immédiatement la censure de certains sites Internet, et ainsi de restaurer la démocratie et la liberté d’expression, valeurs fondamentales pour toute nation civilisée.

Nous demandons que Maroc Telecom et Vivendi Universal lèvent immédiatement la censure imposée sur le site de YouTube et différents autres services en ligne actuellement bloqués au Maroc, ce qui constitue une violation du droit au libre accès à l’information. Nous croyons que Maroc Telecom et Vivendi Universal sont ainsi en train de promouvoir la censure au sein de la société marocaine.

Ceci contredit leur propre objectif de « Partage des connaissances » mentionné dans leur programme de développement durable. Le blocage de YouTube et autres services Internet ne sert les intérêts de personne et constitue un acte honteux de la part de Maroc Telecom et Vivendi Universal.

Les fournisseurs d’accès Internet et les sociétés de média devraient œuvrer pour l’émergence d’une société où tous les citoyens ont le droit d’accès au Web et à tout service en ligne.

Nous, soussignés, vous demandons respectueusement de revenir sur la récente censure du site de YouTube afin de créer un environnement où les citoyens marocains et les internautes soient libres d’accéder à Internet.

Nous croyons que cette censure doit cesser immédiatement.

Sincerely,
The Undersigned

View Current Signatures

Demonstration against Internet censorship

2008-04-01T02:06:00.000-07:00

来源: sensuuri.info

Demonstration against Internet censorship

Thank you!

A big thank you to all those who participated. Without you the demonstration wouldn't have been as good as it was! A special thank you to all those who actively helped organising, no matter how big or small the contribution was. Also thank you to all our invited speakers and co-operation partners!

What's next?

We'll be back very soon. It's however clear that not all cards have been played yet.

Declaration

The National Bureau of Investigation, a Finnish law enforcement agency, is censoring the Internet from Finnish citizens, using the blocking of child pornography sites as an excuse. The NBI maintains a secret list of sites which Internet Service Providers are then encouraged to block voluntarily. It has been also suggested that should these voluntary countermeasures not be implemented widely, the censorship would be made mandatory by law.

This practice of preventive censorship violates section 12 of the Constitution of Finland. Furthermore, as there is no judicial oversight, law enforcement is given autonomy that violates the principles of constitutional democracy. The secrecy of the censorship process is also contrary to the ideal of government transparency.

The Police have already abused their covert authority by censoring sites that do not contain child pornography, including a Finnish site criticizing this specific implementation of censorship.

Blocking sites will not prevent the abuse of children or the distribution of child pornography. It merely puts the problem out of sight.

Our demands are as follows:

The blocking of Internet traffic must be ceased, as it does not serve its purpose, is unconstitutional and violates Freedom of Speech.
The Police are to take measures to properly shut down sites that distribute child pornography.

Press Contacts

Anton Tamminen (given-name.surname@sensuuri.info, phone: +358 40 823 6807, after 10 AM GMT)

Kaj Sotala (given-name.surname@sensuuri.info, phone: +358 40 824 9335)

GFW BLOG（功夫网与翻墙）

有报道称伊朗博客作者死于狱中

有报道称伊朗博客作者死于狱中

Internet Sites Protest Recent Internet Censorship

“The access to this site is denied by its own decision”

Blogger wins right to free speech

Stop the Great Firewall of Australia

China to the rescue (of Internet freedom in Yemen)

Efforts to sue Yemeni government over website ban

Kentucky Settles Internet Censorship Suit, Agrees to Lift Ban on Blogs

“The Hour of Silence” Internet Action

Central Asia: Websites Unite To Protest Internet Censorship In Uzbekistan

How to Access Banned WordPress.com Blogs

Client Side Proxy Software

Online Web Proxy Bypass Sites

Using a Peer-to-Peer Content Distribution Network

Browser Extensions

More Solutions to Bypass Firewalls and Bans

Tactic: Iranian Blog Declaration Against Filtering

Proposals for Internet freedom in Singapore

Introduction and Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Social purposes of regulation

1.3 Executive Summary

Process Rules

2.1 Regulations should be platform-neutral

2.2 Use clear statutes and not administrative discretion

2.3 Community moderation instead of formal regulation

Regulation of Political Content on the Internet

3.1 Introduction and review of existing regulations

3.2 Discussion: Objections on Principle

3.3 Discussion: Objections in Practice

a) Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification Section 5b

b) Parliamentary Elections Act Section 78A(1)(b)

c) Films Act, Sections 33 and 35

3.4 Recommendations

Regulation of Hate Speech on the Internet

4.1 Introduction and review of existing regulations

4.2 Discussion

4.3 Recommendations

Regulation of Content Relating to Sex and Violence on the Internet

5.1 Introduction and review of existing regulations

5.2 Discussion

5.3 Recommendations

Campaign: Brazilian bloggers vs. a WordPress ban

韩国全面推行网络实名制

Action Alert: Free Esraa and her Companions

Campaign: Free YemenPortal.net

Campaign launched to protest the blocking of YemenPortal.net

“Access Yemen Portal” circumventing software launched!

by wsaqaf

Long Description

Mapping Iran’s Online Public: Politics and Culture in the Persian Blogosphere

Anti-censorship protest in Finland (English subtitles)

俄通过网络过滤限制中小学生接触有害网站

netalarmed.com

Government protection 24/7

How will NetAlarmed work?

Does that mean slower web surfing?

What happens if I visit a blacklisted website?

I'm an adult. Can I opt-out?

How will the Goverment protect me offline as well as online?

This sounds great! Do I need to do anything?

Everday Ozzies Show Support for NetAlarmed

Acting Against Internet Censorship in Turkey

Unblock Youtube in Morocco

Demonstration against Internet censorship

Demonstration against Internet censorship

Thank you!

What's next?

Declaration

Our demands are as follows:

Press Contacts