CyberLaw Blog

Archive for November 3rd, 2009

Response to The Register story entitled “Turkey censors Reg commentards” published on 28 October, 2009.

Dear Sirs,

I am the director of Cyber-Rights.Org based in the UK and its sister organisation Cyber-Rights.Org.TR based in Turkey. I am afraid the above mentioned story published on your website is completely inaccurate.

Currently access to at least 6000 websites are blocked from Turkey (see my report at http://privacy.cyber-rights.org.tr/?p=476) but I am afraid yours is NOT one of them. For whatever it is the Turkish government access blocking mechanism is transparent and the screen-shot provided by the reporter of this story is NOT an official website blocking notice. What your reporter came across is simply a filtering software used by whichever Internet Service he/she used. It is possible that the reporter accessed your website from an airport or from a commercial Internet provider or at a company office or most likely at an Internet case where a commercial filtering software was installed.

Therefore, your story inaccurately confuses the readers and gives the impression that my favourite news source The Register and its related news comments are censored from Turkey. This is simply not true and I hope you correct this story. Turkey gets enough bad press for its approach to Internet censorship but as mentioned above you are yet to be censored by the Turkish government!

All the best,

Dr. Yaman Akdeniz
Associate Professor in Law, Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University

The Register subsequent to my letter corrected its story on 04 November, 2009 with an update note:

Updated Note: The following story was based upon a mistaken assumption that the censorship as described was due to a Turkish governmental directive. That assumption was incorrect. The blockage of the pages discussed was instead merely instituted at a local level, and the pages were generally accessible throughout Turkey. The Reg regrets the error.

China Bans ‘Pornographic’ Online Literature: “Chinese authorities have banned 1,414 works of online literature, saying all of it was deemed obscene.”

By Rhett Pardon, Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009

BEIJING — Chinese authorities have banned 1,414 works of online literature, saying all of it was deemed obscene.

Official news agency Xinhua said that the banned works either “included pornographic content,” “used provocative or privacy-violating titles to draw attention” or “blatantly talked about one-night stands, wife swapping, sex abuses and violence that disregarded common decency.”

The ban, authorized by the General Administration of Press and Publication and decided by 50 “experts,” affects about 30,000 links, Xinhua said.

That agency, according to Xinhua, also plans to establish laws and regulations on the publishing of literature online.

(Via XBIZ.com | News & Articles.)

Ruling Likely to Upset Obscenity Prosecutions: “Prosecutors will have to work much harder reaching a Internet obscenity convictions after Wednesday’s ruling by the 9th Circuit.”

By Rhett Pardon, Thursday, Oct 29, 2009

See further 9th Circuit: Obscenity Should Be Defined by U.S. Community Standards, Wednesday, Oct 28, 2009.

SAN FRANCISCO — Wednesday’s ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided that a national community standard to define Internet obscenity is more appropriate than a local one, is likely to upset government prosecutions.

Gary Jay Kaufman of The Kaufman Law Group, who argued the 9th Circuit case along with Greg Piccionelli of Piccionelli & Sarno, told XBIZ that the opinion makes the Miller test obsolete as to Internet and email obscenity prosecutions in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, which is the second-highest court in the nation covering the Western states.

The Miller test, developed in the 1973 case Miller vs. California, looks at three points for obscenity prosecutions.

The test asks whether the work as a whole appeals to the prurient interest, whether the work is patently offensive and whether the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Kaufman said that with the ruling prosecutors will have to work much harder reaching a conviction.

“Now the most conservative jurisdictions will no longer be able to dictate what is acceptable for the rest of the country,” he said.

Kaufman said that the government now can’t cherry pick jurisdictions in which they think they can obtain a conviction based upon the standards of that local community.

“Now, even if a case is brought in a very conservative jurisdiction, the jury will be instructed that they must apply standards for obscenity, outside of their community – i.e. what is accepted generally on the Internet nationwide,” he said.

But the Los Angeles-based industry attorney said that with a national standard it still is feasible for a jury hearing an Internet obscenity case.

“I also believe that it would be next to impossible for a court to articulate exactly what that standard is,” he said. “Each jury will have to decide a case based on testimony and evidence as to what are the standards nationwide and on the Internet.

“This can be done by expert witnesses as well as simple demonstrations by counsel to the jury.”

On Thursday, it wasn’t clear whether the U.S. Attorney’s Office would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. XBIZ calls to the agency weren’t returned by post time.

The case is U.S. vs. Jeffrey Kilbride and U.S. vs. James Schaffer, 07-10528.

(Via XBIZ.com | News & Articles.)

Illegal file-sharing sites up 300 per cent: Attempts to close down illegal file-sharing sites may simply spread the problem more widely, according to a new report.

(Via Tech and Web from Times Online.)

Facebook publishes natural language privacy policy for user-consultation: “Facebook has published a privacy policy which it has written in natural language rather than legal jargon and which it hopes will be the basis of user discussion and voting. The company said that its move was aimed at making the service more transparent.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Good online music services would beat punishment, say file-sharers: “The provision of appealing, legal online music services would be a more powerful incentive to stop illegal file-sharing than the proposed cutting off of internet access, copyright-infringing downloaders have told a think tank.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

TalkTalk steps up attack on government: “

Dunstone claims broadband tax will disconnect 100,000

Charles Dunstone, the boss of TalkTalk and a Conservative Party donor, has launched an attack on the government’s plan for a 50 pence per month tax on every landline to fund rural fibre rollout.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)