[Potentially] Causing Panic is a Crime?

Is the reporting of the owner of an Indonesian television station to the police for allowing a broadcast that suggested that Mount Merapi, an Indonesian volcano on the island of Java, was going to erupt with even more intensity an attack on free speech and the freedom of the press?

The Indonesian Broadcasting Commission has a brief to ensure that Indonesian broadcasters maintain some standards. However, it is questionable as to whether its brief includes reporting broadcasters to the police for the content of a show that suggests that an eruption of an active volcano is likely to be more intense than it has been previously. Using that logic any TV or radio broadcaster that reports a tsunami warning where the tsunami does not eventuate should also be reported to the police for causing unnecessary panic and telling lies, shouldn't they?

Harry Tanoesoedibjo is the owner of Media Nusantara Citra (MNC) which includes in its stable of interests RCTI, Tanoesoedibjo also owns Global TV and MNC TV along with a wide range of other print and broadcast media interests.

The KPI has determined that Tanoesoedibjo has breached a number of articles of the Broadcasting Law, including articles 36. Article 36 sees Tanoesoedibjo liable for a jail term up to five years and a IDR 10 billion fine for spreading misinformation (lies). In addition, the KPI is relying on Article 54 which in essence allows them to pursue the owner of a recalcitrant broadcaster.

The gist of the crime is that a program on RCTI, Silet, reported on 7 November 2010 that Mount Merapi was gearing up for an even larger eruption than those that it had recently experienced. The eruption according to the Silet report was not expected to happen until the following week. This would reasonably be of concern to people living in and around Mount Merapi as the Silet report also suggested that the magnitude of the eruption was likely to be the end of the closest major city to Merapi, Yogyakarta.

The Silet report drew the ire of the KPI and the KPI decided to ban RCTI from broadcasting the program until the Merapi status had been downgraded. However, RCTI decided that it would repackage and re-brand the show as "Intens" and front it with a new presenter. It goes without saying that this move annoyed the KPI and this is the reason that the KPI has acted as it has, like a petulant little child who got picked last for the playground soccer game at lunchtime.

What is silly about the reporting of Tanoesoedibjo to the police is that only Tanoesoedibjo has been reported. All TV and radio broadcasts at that time were presenting content of a very similar nature. Why has Tanoesoedibjo been singled out and targeted and the other have not? Is it personal or political or related to a business dispute?

Or is this a simple case of the KPI overreacting and over-reaching with respect to its brief?

This case seemingly is destined to set a poor precedent going forward for broadcast freedom and predicting the ferocity or lack thereof in relation to unfolding natural disasters.

Obama, Hitler, and Lenin...

There must be something in the water up there in Iowa that the North Iowa Tea Party people are drinking in great amounts. Either that or they were sitting around having a few wines and thought this looks like a good idea, let's do it!

Do it they did. The North Iowa Tea Party created a billboard. Not just any old billboard, but the one here on the left.

Yes, folks, that is Barack Obama in the company of none other than Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. If it were me, I might of gone with Josef Stalin, only because he was probably even scarier than Hitler and Lenin combined. Some historians suggest that Stalin was responsible for the purging of some 10 million of his fellow Russians, his nearest and dearest colleagues. Enough on the tangent and back to the rant.

When are these people going to get it?

I am all for political debate, I am all for vocal opposition, I am all for freedom of speech. Despite the irresponsibility of comparing the current US president to Hitler and Lenin, I want to focus on how the exaggeration undermines the message. The undermining of the message is obvious. Other Tea Party members have been quick to distance themselves from the North Iowa crowd.

Obama is so clearly neither Hitler or Lenin. The last time I thought it through, I really could not see Obama taking the US down the path where he was looking at a final solution of eliminating all the Christian Right or some kind of concerted policy program of racial purification. Maybe I am missing something, but I think not! The comparison is not only offensive, it is stupid. It is stupid because it undermines legitimate grievances some US citizens have with the job that the president is doing, particularly his lack of success. Well, maybe they should have voted for the woman after all!

The point of the billboard is what? Socialism is bad? Well, if the message was that socialism is not in the best interests of all Americans then whacking Obama in the midst of these two is not going to make your point. The first reaction from most people is going to be offense at the exaggeration, and then the reaction is going to be that these Tea Party people must be a group of right-wing nutters who will next be arguing that the UN is running the show and there are black helicopters landing in the middle of the night on the White House lawn.

The message is lost in this billboard. The money would have been better spent on getting people out to vote in the November elections. Let people express their anger and disgust at the ballot box. Let them let Obama know what is important to them by voting out a whole swag of democrats at the next opportunity. The billboard is likely to create even greater apathy and inspire people to stay at home rather than head to the local polling booth.

As I said, I am all for freedom of speech. If these Tea Party people want to place a billboard like this, then so be it. I would probably argue that this is protected speech and they are free to make it. I would argue, and I am arguing, that the billboard is going to have the opposite effect to what was intended. So, in the public relations war, this was a big flop.

Once again, when are these people going to get it? Obama is not Hitler, he is not Lenin, he is not Stalin, he is not the Anti-Christ, he is just a man doing a job!

Prita Mulyasari -- Defamation -- To Be Retried...

This is unfortunately one of those cases where one just knows what is going to happen before it actually happens. It would also seem that the Banten High Court reads The RAB Experience, but this would not seem to be the case for Prita and her legal team.

The Banten High Court has ordered the Tangerang District Court to retry the defamation case against Prita Mulyasari. This may have come as a surprise to some, but the reality was that in a strict legal sense the decision could not have been any other way. Simply, the Tangerang District Court erred in the manner in which it dismissed the indictment against Mulyasari (news).

The Banten High Court held in its decision to send the case back to Tangerang for trial was that the decision of the Tangerang District Court was unlawful. In essence, this means that the legal reasoning provided to justify the dismissal of the case in the first instance was wrong. The Chief Judge of the Banten High Court, Sumarno, was unequivocal in stating that the Tangerang District Court erred in its judgment.

The debate on the legal reasoning can probably be found in lots of places. However, I wrote about it here and here. However, although the earlier comment about the judges of the Banten High Court reading The RAB Experience was somewhat tongue in cheek, the legal reasoning of the panel of Banten High Court judges explicitly stated that the error of the Tangerang District Court judges was the belief that the Information and Electronic Transactions Law does not come into force until 2010.

The lawyer for Prita Mulyasari, Slamet Yuwono, might be keen to test the defamation provisions himself, as he went on the record to say that, "... I just hope that the high court judges were not compelled by anything other than legal considerations." Ah, Slamet, compelled by what exactly? A small fee from the Office of the Public Prosecutors or the Omni International Hospital? Unfortunately, Slamet, refused to elaborate on what the suggestion was.

The Information and Electronic Transaction Law is contentious. It is contentious not because of the date the law comes into force. It is not contentious as to whether the definition of defamation is clear or not. It is not contentious because the Law provides a two-year window for subordinate or subsidiary legislation to be put into place to give effect to or clarify certain articles. However, it is contentious for the simple reason that Indonesians are currently engaged in a debate about the validity and usefulness of criminal defamation provisions in any law.

The contentious nature of the Law is whether criminal defamation is a means to an end. That is, is the Law a means of stifling legitimate free speech and expression? Further, and perhaps even more important to some, is whether this case highlights the way in which big business can bury consumer complaints about the services received by the consumers themselves?

A quick read of the Letters to the Editor pages of most Indonesian newspapers will see Indonesians writing letters of complaint about one thing or another. Usually about the notoriously bad service provided by banks and financial institutions, and quite often this is to do with credit cards. What the Mulyasari case has shown to date is that big business no longer need to respond to complaints but rather use their vast financial reserves to bankrupt their customers or at least use the threat of doing so.

Going forward. The Tangerang District Court now has no choice but to revisit the Mulyasari case and hear the arguments from both sides. The only way that Mulyasari is victorious here is if her legal team can prove that what was written was not defamation in the manner in which defamation is defined in the Information and Electronic Transactions Law. If they can then the Court can once again dismiss the case and Mulyasari will be free to go on about her life.

Nevertheless, and at the risk of raining on the parade, this is a test case and no matter what the outcome of the retrial, it seems clear that both sides would be likely to appeal if they are on the wrong side of the verdict. This is a case that is going to be tied up in litigation for a good while longer yet.

That said, the only way this would end quickly is if Mulyasari gets the verdict and the Office of the Public Prosecutor in Tangerang declines to appeal the verdict. Judging the performance of prosecutors to date, it would seem that they are intent on seeing this one through to the bitter end. They want a conviction or they are going to die trying.

Facebook, Suppression Orders, and Arsonists

Facebook and other social networking sites are more prevalent than ever and in most instances groups that spring up on these networking sites are hard to regulate other than for the owners of the sites to delete the groups as they appear. There might be some free speech issues here that I am not going to go into in detail. There are also some big picture issues with regards to how we view matters such as a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, and the like.

This is the case after the recent spate of deadly bush fires in the southern Australian state of Victoria. Some of these fires are alleged to be deliberately lit with the aim of destroying property. The police made an arrest and there was an immediate suppression order slapped on the identity, address, and image of the alleged arsonist. A magistrate has since lifted the suppression order on the publication of the alleged arsonists name, Brendan Sokaluk, but the suppression order remained with respect to his address and image.

Nevertheless, the publication of his name meant that somewhere someone would know who he is. As soon as his name was published two Facebook groups were created publishing both his address and image. The man has been remanded in custody, and by all accounts is in protective custody in order to protect him from others that might be inclined to do him harm.

Interestingly, aside from the arson causing death and intentionally starting a bush fire charges, the man has been charged with a child pornography possession charge. It would seem that the police have found evidence to suggest that aside from a penchant for burning things, he is also into the collection of kiddie porn. Strange bedfellows, arson and child porn.

The problem with the Facebook groups is that they violate the suppression order. It is not a difficult argument to make that the Facebook groups would fall under the suppression order even if Facebook is not considered to be traditional media. If this was indeed to be made out then Facebook might find itself in contempt of court as the publisher, along with the author. And, the lawyers would undoubtedly be arguing that their client cannot get a fair trial because of the exposure.

I can understand that people need to vent their anger after such a tragic loss of life and property. However, in the aftermath I would also imagine that people would like to see justice done, and perhaps not vigilante justice, but that kind of justice that sees the perpetrator do the time for his crimes. If this is the case, then it is a risky proposition to breach the suppression order. Sometimes we just have to have faith in our judicial system that it will work and work well.

Anonymous Blogging, Wordpress, and the Prophet

This story is a couple of days old and I have been too lazy to write about it before. However, I figured I should as I have recently made a presentation relating to the recently enacted Information and Electronic Transactions Law (ITE Law).

The story is that there is an anonymous blogger in town and they are posting a comic strip of the Prophet Muhammad which has riled the sensibilities of many Muslims. What caught my attention was the headline in the Jakarta Post which reads "Govt to pressurize Wordpress into disclosing blogger's ID". I am not sure that pressurize is the right word for this sentence. I am guessing that it is like terrorizing using pressure to get a pressurize situation.

The language choices aside, there are just a couple of points that are worth making here.

If you think that you are anonymous then make sure that you are smart enough to know how to use the technology to make it so. The government is demanding that Wordpress reveal the identity of the blogger because the content of the offending blog is deemed to be a cyber crime. The threat is that if Wordpress does not disclose the blogger's identity then the National Police Force's Digital Forensic Lab is going to get involved and uncover the blogger's identity themselves.

It seems that there is still a fair amount of road to be travelled in terms of what constitutes free speech and freedom of expression, particularly in light of Article 27 of the new ITE Law.

Alan Jones, Lebanese Muslims, Vilification

Alan Jones is no stranger to controversy so it is not surprising to see him embroiled in more controversy even though this is something that has been on the horizon since 2005 and never fully resolved. Alan Jones broadcasts on 2GB radio. This is an interesting case and will test the vilification laws and the lengths that elements of the community can go to in order to suppress criticism. It also has the potential to test the bounds of free speech in cases where discrimination has not been made out.

The crux of the matter will turn on whether you can vilify a religion or an idea. Simply, can an idea or a religion have rights? I can see and understand the arguments for vilifying a person and can comprehend the idea that a person has rights. However, I am less convinced that an idea, and religions are ideas, have rights which can be protected by a vilification or hate speech law.

The issue stems from two incidents. The first is where Sheik Faiz Mohamad told a gathering at an Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool that women who dressed in skimpy clothing only had themselves to blame if they were raped. Essentially, the Sheik said that a woman is to blame where a man cannot control his sexual urges.

This brought on an outburst from Jones that saw him saying that all Lebanese Muslims were "vermin" and "a national security problem". It did not stop there for Jones, as over the next several days in April 2005 he referred to the "much discredited Lakemba Mosque" and added it was time to "take the gloves off and teach these bastards" (presumably a lesson in the Australian way).

But the words keep coming with, "we are far too tolerant of these people, we have to take out the root cause". On another occasion Jones said, "They have no connection to us. They simply rape, pillage and plunder a nation that's taken them in. I can't believe what I'm seeing. What did we do as a nation to have this vermin infest our shores? Tell me we don't have a national security problem in the making."

This prompted Keysar Trad of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia to lodge a complaint at the Anti-Discrimination Board. After two years the Board failed to reach a decision but instead referred the matter to Administrative Decisions Tribunal Equal Opportunity Division.

The gist of Trad's complaint is that Jones had "expressed hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or a group of persons on the grounds of [their] race". Furthermore, Trad alleges that the Jones tirade suggested that Muslims and particularly Lebanese Muslims are "despicable people", "unsuitable immigrants" who "do not and cannot assimilate". The Trad complaint also alleges that Jones suggested that members of Muslim communities were "prone to commit sexual assaults", were "parasites", and "an internal danger to the security of the country".

It is unclear whether Trad is going to have any more luck at the Equal Opportunity Division but the EOD has asked Trad to elaborate his complaint. This would suggest that the complaint is not going to be dismissed out of hand.

I will try and follow this case and post on it if and when juicy stuff becomes available (photo is from the SMH).

Turkey, Transsexuals, Free Speech

This is something that I have written on previously here. I did not promise to update that post but whilst surfing the Internet as I am prone to do I came across a recent news piece on this and figured I would refresh the earlier piece by writing this update.

Bulent Ersoy (photo from AP) is famous in Turkey as a singer and actor. She was born a man and underwent gender reassignment surgery (that is the politically correct term, right?) and became a woman in 1981. However, this is not her current claim to fame.

Ersoy seemingly criticized Turkish policy with regards to the Kurds and the protracted war that Turkey has engaged in with the separatist Kurds. She had been subpoenaed to appear at an earlier hearing but had failed to appear. This time she did appear as the court made it clear that if she failed to appear in court this time then the court would be forced to ensure that she made an appearance.

The charge is "turning the public against military service". This carries a maximum term of imprisonment of three years if guilty as charged. Ersoy appeared in court in Istanbul on Wednesday and plead her innocence and reaffirmed that she stood by her previous statements. This reaffirmation was that there must be a better way of resolving the Kurdish issue without killing each other. Quite simply, 24 years of separatist fighting has claimed upwards of 40,000 lives and a resolution is still nowhere in sight.

The exact statement was, "I spoke in the name of humanity and even if I am condemned to death, I will repeat the same: we have to find a solution instead of killing each other".

The interest in this case is several fold. However, there are definitely issues of free speech involved.

Turkey is also looking to join the European Union and it will be interesting to see whether there is any talk of free speech and other human rights related issues, particularly in light of the fact that Turkey is seeking to join the EU.

Her statements about not wanting to send one's son off to a stupid war resonate with me. Perhaps even more so now that I will soon be a father and have a son of my own.

Human Rights, Freedom of Speech, and the Catholic Church

It would seem that not all Catholics are thrilled about the new annoyance laws put into place to "guarantee" that pilgrims are not annoyed or inconvenienced during the World Youth Day festivities.

Father Frank Brennan (pictured), who also happens to be a lawyer, feels that the new police powers are not only excessive but an interference of the civil liberties of people and in fact the new laws run contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Fr. Brennan cites the Pacem In Terris, the 1963 encyclical of Pope John, where it is clear that responsibility of all authorities was "to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person". Perhaps the NSW Government has interpreted this to mean the inviolable rights of the Catholic pilgrim.

However, the Catholic Church holds no such reservations. The Church has in fact indicated that it fully supports the laws and that it lobbied the government to ensure that the laws were enacted on the grounds that everyone wants WYD to be held in Sydney and that the people of Sydney, not only the pilgrims, were in favour of such measures because they want the event, which will be full of enthusiasm and joy, to run smoothly. I am not sure who the Catholic Church has been talking to on this.

Whether the laws are contrary to Catholic teachings is neither here nor there in that sense. I would have thought that pedophilia was contrary to Catholic teachings as well but it still happens. The laws are simply an affront to basic human rights that the majority of us take for granted but that the Catholic Church does not. In any event putting laws like this into place is like showing a red rag to a bull. Those groups that might not have been inclined to protest will now come out of the woodwork and protest on principle.

It is interesting that the organizers of the WYD and the Catholic Church want to have their cake and eat it too. An argument could be made that Jesus was the protester of his time. There were many in power who disagreed with his message and his teachings for which Jesus paid the ultimate price. The analogy drawn by Dr John Sweeney, the co-ordinator of research at the Edmund Rice Centre, says the following, "It would rather be like Jesus calling for a police escort on Palm Sunday. Obviously, he wouldn't and when Jesus went into Jerusalem people yelled out things the religious leaders in their time didn't like and they rebuked Jesus and he said he couldn't quieten his supporters."

This is a thought worth pondering. If Jesus really was about free speech and the right to preach his message then isn't it a little rich that the organizers want to curtail that very freedom for which Jesus died?

As you can see these increased police powers bother me.

World Youth Day -- The Annoyance Provisions

Here is a copy of the relevant articles from the amendment regulation that many have claimed are an affront to civil liberties and free speech.

The actual regulation in full can be found here.

7 Control of conduct within World Youth Day declared areas
(1) An authorised person may direct a person within a World Youth
Day declared area to cease engaging in conduct that:
(a) is a risk to the safety of the person or others, or
(b) causes annoyance or inconvenience to participants in a
World Youth Day event, or
(c) obstructs a World Youth Day event.
(2) A person must not, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply
with a direction given to the person under subclause (1).
Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) A person is not guilty of an offence under this clause unless it is
established that the authorised person warned the person that a
failure to comply with the direction is an offence.
(4) In this clause, authorised person means:
(a) a police officer, or
(b) a member of an SES unit (within the meaning of the State
Emergency Service Act 1989) or a member of the NSW
Rural Fire Service, but only if the member is authorised by
the Authority in writing for the purposes of this clause.

8 Request to undergo search as condition of entry to World Youth
Day declared areas
(1) For the purpose of promoting safety and security within a World
Youth Day declared area, a person’s entry to the World Youth
Day declared area (or any part of the area) is subject to the
condition that the person must comply with such of the following
requests as may be made of the person:
(a) a request by a search officer that the person undergo a
search conducted by electronic means (such as by passing
an electronic detection device over or in close proximity to
the person or by the person passing through a detection
device),
(b) a request by a search officer that the person allow a search
of articles in the person’s possession and identify articles
in the person’s possession,
(c) a request by a search officer that the person remove his or
her overcoat, coat or jacket or similar article of clothing
and any gloves, shoes and hat (or other headwear), and
allow an examination of those items,

(d) if the person enters in a vehicle or vessel—a request by a
search officer that the person open the vehicle or vessel, or
part of it, for inspection and allow the vehicle, vessel or
part to be searched.
(2) A search officer may exclude a person who refuses such a request
from entry to the World Youth Day declared area or part of the
area concerned. Reasonable force may be used to effect the
person’s exclusion.
(3) In this clause, search officer means:
(a) a police officer, or
(b) a member of an SES unit (within the meaning of the State
Emergency Service Act 1989) or a member of the NSW
Rural Fire Service, but only where the member is assisting
one or more police officers at a point of entry to a World
Youth Day declared area or part of such an area.

Happy Reading! By the way the cartoon can be found here.

Denmark -- Immigration Challenges -- Muslims

This is not my normal or usual style to cut and paste a whole article by someone else.

However, I found this article to be interesting and a good read! Therefore, I just cut and pasted the whole thing and then formatted it for this entry (substance wise it remains as written by Leslie Sacks). The article is about Denmark and the immigration challenges that they have encountered with respect to immigration by Muslims.

The article deals with the challenges of tolerance, integration, assimilation, and multiculturalism! If you have found me and read this far I would encourage you to read the article. It will not take you long...

Leslie Sacks

Denmark, long the liberal, open society that welcomed immigrants, has done an about face. After being the symbolic envy of Universalists, of Socialists, of cultural liberalism, Denmark today has the strictest immigration policy in Europe.

The Muslim population in Denmark, constituting a mere 4% of the total, refuses to integrate, consumes 40% of the welfare, and constitutes a majority of the country’s convicted rapists. The Danes now acknowledge that their core values of personal liberty, free speech, equality for women and tolerance of other ethnic groups are incompatible with Islam as they know it.

Muslim leaders openly advocate introducing Islamic law in Denmark. Danes at the forefront of advocating free speech and Western values are subject to fatwas and increasingly violent attacks from the Muslim population.

This haven of tolerance and openness has opted for survival and rationality. For citizenship, the country now requires of new immigrants:

- 3 years of language classes

- tests on Denmark’s history, culture and language

- 7 years of residency prior to application

- proven job opportunities and commitment to work

New mosques will not be allowed to be built in Copenhagen. Assimilation will be actively promoted. The country that once courageously and righteously saved their 7,000 Jews from the Nazi death camps now is accused of racism.

America is no stranger to accusations of profiling, political incorrectness and racism. Yet Muslims worldwide still beat down our doors to gain immigration status to the U.S. - they tellingly do not do likewise to the majority of UN nations habitually accusing the U.S. of racism. When did Cuba or Russia, Syria or even Saudi Arabia, those bastions of tolerance and freedom, last receive a deluge of immigrant applications?

So we in the U.S. spend our time being sued by aggressive Imams testing nervous airlines. Open season has been declared on the West by demanding Islamist organizations hoping to force the government and our municipalities to kowtow into passive submission. We now clearly need footbaths in every university restroom. We also need two taxi lines at every airport - one for those with short skirts, dogs or alcoholic beverages and one for Shari’a-compliant Americans.

Yet little spunky Denmark is showing us and everyone the way. They opened their borders and their coffers to welcome Muslims, in a show of remarkable generosity and goodwill. Now, bruised and battered by an unappreciative, increasingly fundamentalist, and sadly uncompromising Muslim community, they are closing their doors and battening down the hatches.

It is only a matter of time before America’s similar generosities and freedoms are likewise pressured. It will not be too long before our remarkable naiveté, our exquisitely refined political correctness, are replaced by realistic pragmatism and a strong commitment to our own cultural survival, to uncompromising freedoms and our non-negotiable security and liberty.

A new found taste for Danish pastries perhaps?

# #

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Leslie Sacks is an art dealer and gallerist in Los Angeles. Before that, he founded and operated Les Art International in Johannesburg, South Africa, where he was active in opposing apartheid and in supporting the Johannesburg Jewish community.