Gambia Passes Law That Gives Internet Activists 15 Year Jail Terms
from the a-bit-sensitive,-are-we? dept
Apparently, the government of Gambia is a bit sensitive to those darn people on the internet criticizing their actions. They've just ratified a new law that will give 15 year jail sentences to anyone who uses the internet to spread "false news," (there's also a fine that's about $100,000 USD) though as the title of the linked article notes, the real target is internet activists. "False news," apparently, is anything that the country's government officials don't like. The previous rule had been a possible 6 month jail term and ~$17 USD fine. Evidently that wasn't enough to shut up pesky government critics online. Of course, all a move like this really does is signal to the world that the Gambian government is really freaking scared of its own public.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, gambia, internet activism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
... Eagerly awaiting your presentation ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd even sacrifice myself in the net if it meant no one else had to read your bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Note that the idea that:
I, the tribe, the Faithful, or the party should be in power is itself a belief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headline by "The Onion"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you know who else "is a bit sensitive to those darn people on the internet criticizing their actions"??
Techdirt's own Mike Masnick.
No one is more sensitive to criticism and less willing to engage a critic than him.
That's why he is so desperately trying to censor me, despite knowing that it's totally futile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why is he so desperately acting in a way that faults others for? Why is he so desperately attempting to silence a critic?
I thought Mike believed in a free, open, and anonymous internet. Why is so desperately shutting down anonymous ways to voice an opinion on his own blog?
The fact is that I will have an open and discussion with him on the merits on any topic. He won't. It's that simple. And he's so sick and tired of me reminding everyone of his dishonesty that he's turned into a huge censor.
Keep supporting your censor overlord. I think it's hilarious that he'd rather try and block me than just have an honest discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry, Mike, but you know that you're trying to silence me because I'm critical of you. The only way to get rid of me is to be an honest person. It won't hurt. I promise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, you're the idiot because you're refuting something I never claimed. Of course this is Mike's website. I'm merely pointing out the irony (and dishonesty) that he pretends to be all about anonymous speech on the internet yet he goes out of his way to block certain anonymized services. He frequently faults others for doing pointless things like trying to block people on the internet, yet he's pointlessly trying to block me. Of course he has every right to do it. I'm pointing out that it makes him a two-faced douchebag to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's news to me. I'm behind a VPN and I have no trouble at all with commenting...except when I try one of the ch-icken words that you've tried spamming over and over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think he's stopped blocking those words, as well as the links I was posting. That's good. His censoring was getting to be totally ridiculous.
He's still blocking many TOR nodes and anonymous proxies. They are not all blocked, as you note, and as indicated by the fact that I'm posting this. But I know for a fact that many, many, many such proxies are blocked.
Why does Mike on the one hand say he supports anonymous posting on the internet yet on the other hand block so many anonymized services? Seems like he doesn't practice what he preaches.
And why is he blocking my IP address when he knows for a fact that doing so is pointless and futile?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've noticed way less of you around here lately, and also that whatever's going on seems to have thrown you into a tizzy and amplified your funny delusions of grandeur. So whatever it is, it's anything but pointless and futile -- it's effective and hilarious, plus it's apparently putting your therapist's kids through college.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not posting as much because I've been on vacation, and now I'm back home with much on my plate. It's got nothing to do with Mike's idiotic and two-faced censorship. Can you not admit that pointlessly blocking me is contra to the usual anti-blocking rhetoric he spouts?
The fact remains that I am here, and I will discuss anything on the merits. I won't run away and make excuses and offer weasel words. I'm the exact opposite of Mike. He's a complete fucking coward. He's certainly too scared to take me on.
Wanna prove me wrong, Mike? Simple. Debate me. I fucking dare you. You won't, because you're a complete fucking coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems to me that if you really wanted a debate, you'd be prepared to step forward as an individual in order to have it, be unable to escape it, and be held accountable for it. In fact, it seems like that's exactly what you're demanding from Mike, but are too cowardly to do yourself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He won't answer that because he is not an honest person. It's got nothing to do with me. I am not preventing him from giving an honest answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One person is being consistent and standing behind their answer. The other nebulous person or group of people (no way of knowing) is asking the same question over and over, rejecting the answer and subtly moving the goalposts, while spreading the debate out over months and multiple posts (again, with it never entirely clear which comments are from the same person/people).
You asked your question. You got your answer. You rejected that answer as dishonest. You were told that it is honest. You said you don't believe that. Fine. So... where is the conversation supposed to go from there? You want a more structured debate, but there isn't even a person to have that debate with, just a bunch of unaccountable noise...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He has never answered the question. His links point to nonanswers, where, for example, he claims his beliefs are irrelevant or that we all get to decide for ourselves what's immoral. Why can't he tell us what he honestly believes? Is it yes or no? He can qualify it all he wants, I don't care. But he has NOT answered the question. All he has are weasel words, not answers.
Nor will he discuss what he means by his notion that we all get to decide what's moral. Nor will he discuss why even if we all get to decide what's moral, that prevents him from telling us what he thinks. Nor will he discuss why he thinks his views are irrelevant. He just spouts out the weasel words, never answering the question, and never willing to discuss his weasel words.
And that's just one of many, many questions he will not answer. He won't talk about his views of the NSA. He won't talk about Swartz. The list goes on and on. He publishes some of the most opinionated crap in the world, yet he's too chicken shit to stand behind his own words.
I call him out for it, and he runs away like a child. Now he's so ashamed of me being critical of him that he's childishly trying to block me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He already answer you several times, stop lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't answer that because Mike hasn't answered that. He has been dodging that question for years, and I will NEVER stop asking it. The only way to get rid of me, Mike, is to stop running away from me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike said:
"It's not okay because I don't think it's okay. You're asking a moral question. There is no answer to a moral question other than "that's what I believe." I don't think it's right to ignore the wishes of a content creator.
But that, of course, is entirely separate from what that content creator can do to deal with the fact that many (perhaps most) others have a different moral view on the issue.
Arguing over morals is a waste of time, because it doesn't move the discussion forward.
That's why I don't focus on moral questions, but practical questions. You, apparently, prefer not to do that sort of thing. It makes for silly grandstanding, but nothing useful."
As you can see, Mike did already answer you, so please stop lying.
"The only way to get rid of me, Mike, is to stop running away from me."
Yeah because a one-digit IQ troll throwing temper tantrums like a 3 year old is something that cause Mike to "run away".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is not an answer to whether he personally thinks it's immoral. The implication is that he does not, but he's not honest enough to just say that.
The analogy would be to think of Crime X. Say that I write article after article about how X shouldn't be a crime. I don't think that anyone should have a right to not have X done to them. I publish thousands of articles about X, in NONE of which do I defend anyone who supports X. I'm very, very critical of everything that has to do with X. But when asked if I think it's wrong to do X, I say that it's wrong ONLY because the alleged victims of X don't like it. Mind you, I think they should like it. But they don't, and I'm willing to go on record as saying that, even though they should like it and it shouldn't be a crime, it's not OK because they don't like it.
In that scenario, do I sound like I think committing X is immoral? Of course not.
That's Mike. And Mike is too chicken shit to just admit plainly and openly that he thinks there's nothing immoral about piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Hey, do you have a car?"
"No, but I don't care, I take the bus."
"You're DODGING the question!"
Yes, keep it up milkboy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120810/02111919983/entrepreneurs-vcs-t ell-white-house-to-focus-innovation-rather-than-ip-enforcement.shtml#c1680
LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Besides, I love your attack here. I've been ready, willing, and able to take Mike on discussing the merits. I'm here right now ready to discuss things that matter with Mike. I've been trying for years. To turn this around and pretend like I'm the one running away is the funniest fucking thing ever.
Sheesh, just yesterday he was blocking the words "run away" from posts because he was so ashamed that I'm pointing out that he runs away.
I'll answer all of his questions directly and honestly. I can prove that right fucking now if he weren't too chicken shit to oblige me.
Sorry, friend, but your claim that I run away is completely baseless.
I'm not going anywhere, Mike, until you have an honest discussion about things that matter. I fucking dare you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Abuse your privileges and you get your binky taken away. Aw, too damn sad. I guess now you aren't mimicking a barnyard your wife won't put out anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not spam to criticism Mike. I know that's the excuse the sockpuppets are going to keep pulling out, but it's bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And now you're throwing a tantrum because your binky got taken away. Tough shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it also shows the lengths a government will go to to protect it's way of thinking, it's way of doing things, what it will and wont allow etc etc. in other words, the government is in charge, there is no freedom, no privacy and no free speech for anyone outside the government. Gambia has joined other nations in this 'we are in charge and dont you forget it!' attitude. dont accept it, go to jail. this shows how the 'dictatorship' is spreading globally. think to where all this crap started people and how almost impossible it's going to be to stop it! we are in far deeper shit than anyone will admit, and most people realise!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm glad you stopped censoring the word "bawk" and "run away" and "Mike's Greatest Hits."
That was serious China-level censorship there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do appreciate you letting me post my links as well. Here's the link that Mike was blocking but is now allowing: http://pastebin.com/5VUv7utm
I'll never understand why you block anonymizing services like Tor, VPN, proxies, etc. That seems to cut against your ethos. You were doing it before you started censoring me, and you've stepped it up a notch in trying to censor me.
I'd ask you "what gives?" on that, but I know you won't discuss it honestly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's nothing. In certain remote police states, whistleblowing is called "aiding the enemy" and is punishable by death or life in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry I asked Mike to block you because I am developing Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from having to click the report button.
I report if:
The post uses bad language that is inappropriate.
The post HAS NOTHING TO ADD TO THE CONVERSATION
The post is raving lunacy with no point or context.
So that pretty much covers everything you post
Again, Sorry...
Also to the Gambian government:
Your new law sucks! Everyone in Gambia meet downtown tomorrow night at 5 PM to protest!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fasle News?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop feeding the troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop feeding the troll
Successful troll was successful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop feeding the troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]