When In Doubt, Blame Terrorists: Patent Attorney Claims Terrorists Are Infringing And Killing Jobs

from the oh-really-now? dept

For many years now we've had fun pointing out the ridiculous claims of the legacy copyright industry execs insisting that copyright infringement funds terrorism. Of course, the evidence for this was seriously lacking. Back in 2011 there was an incredibly detailed, evidence-rich debunking of the claim by Joe Karaganis, showing basically no connection between terrorism and infringement.

But, alas, it's a topic that never seems to go away. And now it appears that a design patent lawyer has updated the talking points to now claim that terrorists are infringing on design patents to fund their terroristic activity. First, as a quick refresher: when we talk about patents, we're usually talking about utility patents, which are a monopoly for a new invention or process. Design patents, on the other hand, are really more akin to trademarks, in that they grant a monopoly on the look of something. The idea that ISIS is out there infringing on, say, the look of someone's fancy belt buckle or a new planter is just sort of ludicrous on its face. But it certainly didn't stop big shot patent lawyer Robert Katz from making the claim at a recent event held by the US Patent and Trademark Office (who, really, should know better).

The event was the USPTO's "Design Day" held a few weeks ago, in which there were a series of discussions on design patents and such. If you go to the Livestream of the event, about an hour in Katz starts out by playing up how crafty infringers are getting, saying that they're getting smarter about how they avoid getting caught:

This is followed up by the other favorite concept that the copyright folks loved to use for years: totally and completely bogus numbers about losses of money and jobs. Notice, first that the "losses" in money lumps in all kinds of infringement, and almost certainly counts every infringement as a lost sale, even though that's clearly not the case. And job loss reports like this have been debunked so many times that it's almost embarrassing that anyone still uses those claims.

Katz goes one better in talking about how "dangerous" products were introduced into the market, he gets to claim that knockoff makeup products were causing people to break out in rashes because they had "feces" in them. Indeed, there was just a seizure by the LAPD of some supposedly counterfeit makeup products, and the whole "feces" claim made a bunch of headlines (though, it's odd that half the stories call it "animal waste" and the other half call it "human feces.") There don't seem to be many details beyond a tweet from the LAPD -- an organization never known for exaggerating anything or making statements that are inaccurate.

He also claims that sex traffickers are using infringement to fund their efforts (I thought they were using the trafficking to fund it, but... who knows?) But that's just the lead in to the really nutty claim. It all comes back to... TERRORISM!

If you can't see that, the slide notes that infringers are "tied to terrorism" and he provides three "real life examples." From the slide:

• Charlie Hebdo shootings: There's a direct link between counterfeits and terrorism... "The sale of counterfeit goods went into buying these guns."
• 2004 Madrid train bombings: Terrorists sold counterfeit CDs to support their activities.
• 1993 World Trade Center bombing: Terrorists raising money by selling counterfeit goods.

Let's leave aside that if this is such a big deal, why do we need to go back a quarter of a century to find three examples (and almost 15 years just to find a second example). Even the supposedly recent claim of the Charlie Hebdo attacks being a "direct" result of counterfeit sales is pretty suspect. You can find lots of headlines claiming this, but when you dig deep into the examples, no one provides any evidence. It's often cited by a trade group advocating for cracking down on counterfeits. After reading through many, many reports, the earliest reporting I can find on the claims about the Charlie Hebdo attackers relying on counterfeits comes from the LA Times story about intelligence lapses that allowed the attackers to go unnoticed. It mentions, in passing, that after getting out of jail for an earlier run-in with the law over possible terrorism, one of the attackers "seemed to be moving into less sinister pursuits, reportedly including trafficking in counterfeit clothing and shoes."

That report also suggests that this counterfeiting activity had basically nothing to do with buying the weapons for the Charlie Hebdo attack. Instead, you get:

U.S. intelligence officials have confirmed that at least one of the brothers traveled to Yemen in summer 2011, received training from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and returned with about $20,000 in cash provided by the terrorist group. News reports have indicated that both brothers may have ventured to Yemen.

Right. So, which is it. One of the attackers selling some counterfeit shoes... or getting trained by Al Qaeda and being handed $20,000. I think the latter seems just a bit more likely.

But not to design patent lawyers like Katz. He concludes this slide by saying with a totally straight face:

"It's not like it's something where people just got a little too close. Most of the time, when people are using design patents, it's to stop activities like this."

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat? Most of the time that people are using design patents, it's to stop terrorist attacks like this? What the hell is Katz saying?

No one is saying that counterfeiting of whatever things that are covered by design patents is okay -- though reports by both the GAO and the OECD have shown that claims of losses due to counterfeiting are highly exaggerated, and that in many cases there's little to no real harm, as buyers know they're buying counterfeit products, and it's an aspirational purchase (i.e., they can't afford the authentic version). Other reports have shown that those who buy counterfeits often by the real version when they can afford it.

But, nope. According to Katz, "most of the time" design patents need to be used to stop terrorists such as those involved in the Charlie Hebdo shootings (never mind the cash from Al Qaeda).

I don't know if people like Katz think the points he's spewing are accurate. He might. But if that's true, it just goes to show how silly confirmation bias can become. Design patents aren't protecting anyone against terrorism, let alone "most of the time." Saying things like that don't show how important design patents are. They show how silly people get when they get all wrapped up in artificial monopolies.

Filed Under: charlie hebdo, design day, design patents, infringement, patents, robert katz, terrorists, uspto

Charlie Hebdo Bows To Assassins' Veto, Hecklers' Veto; Will No Longer Mock Mohammed

from the everyone-else-loses dept

For years, Charlie Hebdo waged a brutal, often ugly war on good taste, restraint and self-righteousness. The satirical magazine took on every major religion, along with anything else it could satirize. It only had problems with one particular target: Islam. Rather, it only had problems with followers of Islam who believed brutal acts of violence were a perfectly acceptable way of resolving religious differences.

After years of publication that were marked with multiple attacks (some political, some physical), the worst case scenario finally happened. Two Islamist gunmen entered Charlie Hebdo's offices and killed twelve employees.

This was met with outrage by journalists, satirists and cartoonists around the world. For weeks, people who felt free speech -- no matter how offensive -- should never be punishable by death, expressed their solidarity using the phrase "Je Suis Charlie."

This attack was also met with outrage by government officials, who expressed their concern in the usual way: by calling for more surveillance and restrictive laws. To these figures, the attack had very little to do with free speech and everything to do with terrorism. It was just another nail and governments had plenty of unused legislative hammers just dying to be deployed. That their proposals were the antithesis of free and open societies -- the sort of thing espoused indirectly by Charlie Hebdo's satirical War on Everybody -- was completely lost on them. It was an opportunity to seize more control, provided by some very helpful terrorists.

The solidarity expressed in the immediate aftermath of the attacks soon fell apart, however. Charlie Hebdo, still mourning its dead, was attacked by its own colleagues -- journalists and artists from around the world. The PEN American Center chose to bestow its annual "Freedom of Expression Courage" award on Charlie Hebdo, a move that was met with protests from other PEN members including Teju Cole, Joyce Carol Oates and Eric Bogosian. To them, the award did nothing more than award "racists" for "punching down" and adding to anti-Islamic sentiment.

Not only was the protest completely tone-deaf in the wake of the massacre, it was a willful and very selective misreading of Charlie Hebdo's body of work. While Charlie Hebdo was famous for its caricatures of Muhammad, it also attacked other major religions. The only difference was that no other religion's acolytes did anything more than fire off angry letters. That these writers and artists would basically side with those who killed Charlie Hebdo's staffers -- even inadvertently -- is sickening.

Even if these artists felt Charlie Hebdo's work was reprehensible, there were -- and continue to be -- much greater issues at stake. Hundreds of journalists, satirists and artists around the world have been imprisoned by governments in order to silence them. By siding against Charlie Hebdo, these artists sided with not only extremists who feel killing is an appropriate reaction to being mocked indirectly, but these governments who feel creative efforts targeting certain individuals or ideas should be punishable by imprisonment or death. What happened to Charlie Hebdo could happen to anyone. All it takes is angering the wrong people. But the 145 artists and writers who signed the protest letter felt this abandonment of their colleagues was the high moral ground.

Fortunately, PEN didn't see it this way. It offered a succinctly brilliant response to the misguided protest:

PEN, in a statement posted on its website earlier this week, reiterated its position that the intent of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons “was not to ostracize or insult Muslims but rather to reject forcefully the efforts of a small minority of radical extremists to place broad categories of speech off limits.”

But now, a few months later, the terrorists have won. And they had help.

Last week, in an interview with German newsweekly Stern, Charlie Hebdo editor-in-chief Laurent “Riss” Sourisseau waved a white flag, stained with the blood of 12 murdered colleagues and comrades, when announcing that he would no longer draw cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. It was clear that Charlie Hebdo — of which Riss owns 40 percent — was also done with Muhammad mockery. This comes just a few months after cartoonist Renald “Luz” Luzier said that drawing Muhammad “no longer interested” him. He quit Charlie Hebdo not long after. The editor of Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten was more forthcoming about why he too was done with the prophet. As the newspaper that kicked off the “Muhammad cartoon crisis” in 2005, Jyllands-Posten would not be republishing anything from Charlie Hebdo, he stated bluntly, because the staff feared a repeat of the the massacre in Paris.

This is why terrorists do what they do. These are the results they want. And as much as it is disheartening to see this decision being made, it's also a completely understandable reaction. Dying for your art may be a romantic ideal, but it's hardly the sort of thing any person should honestly expect themselves or others to do. We may be disappointed that Charlie Hebdo no longer has the strength of its convictions that saw it weather previous attacks, but when 12 people are gunned down for making fun of one religious figure, those who wish to avoid the same fate know exactly what to remove from the equation.

But it's not just the threat of attacks. The lack of support from its peers and their accusations of racism have also contributed to this decision. Not only is it literally dangerous to "attack" one particular religious figure, it's also unpopular.

The relentless campaign against Charlie Hebdo by those accusing it of “racism” or “punching down” has had an effect. Because once deployed, as the surviving staff of Charlie Hebdo discovered, the racism charge sticks to the accused’s skin like napalm. And no one is immune — even murdered cartoonists — because there are no penalties for filing a false report. So if they expected unmitigated solidarité after their staff was machine gunned (while planning their participation, it should be noted, in an anti-racism event), they were surely disappointed when non-Francophone writers who hadn’t previously heard of Charlie exploded with denunciations of its racist intent.

It's one thing to work while keeping an eye out for gunmen in the hall. It's even harder to do when other beneficiaries of free speech protections decide your speech isn't worthy of similar respect. Charlie Hebdo didn't lose its courage. It lost its comrades.

So one can't begrudge Riss and Luz and all the other survivors at Charlie Hebdo the decision to go soft on those who most demand mockery and derision. But we should begrudge those in media who shrugged at the assassin’s veto, claiming they couldn’t publish satirical cartoons out of respect for religion, for whom Je Suis Charlie was merely social media signaling.

Those who went soft were those whose convictions couldn't even hold up to an attack that happened to someone else. Then there were plenty who never held these convictions at all, but Je Suis Charlie'd right up to the PEN Award nominations before deciding the few people shouting "racist!" were the voice of reason. And they sold out Charlie Hebdo -- along with every persecuted artist and journalist in the world -- by decrying its offerings as being unworthy of their consideration, respect and support.

I'm sure the terrorists feel they have won. We should ask Teju Cole, Joyce Carol Oates and the other 200+ signers of the anti-Charlie Hebdo petition if they feel they've achieved a victory as well.

Filed Under: attacks, charlie hebdo, free speech, heckler's veto, satire, terrorism
Companies: charlie hebdo

Terrorized Into Irrationality: UK Police Demand Names of Charlie Hebdo *Supporters*

from the confused?-you-will-be dept

It's been sad to watch the Charlie Hebdo story turn from a massive outpouring of solidarity with the victims to an opportunistic exploitation of the strong feelings it produced to attack the very freedoms that solidarity was celebrating. Just how bad things have become can be gauged from this story in the Guardian:

A British police force has apologised after an officer told a newsagent to hand over details of customers who purchased copies of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in the wake of the Paris terror attacks.

Wiltshire police confirmed that one of their officers visited a newsagent in Corsham, Wiltshire, to ask for the names of four customers who ordered the commemorative "survivors' issue" of the magazine.

Demanding the names of people who bought that commemorative issue clearly makes no sense: they were trying to support Charlie Hebdo, not attack it in any way. And yet the continued terrorization of the public -- by the authorities, that is, not by the so-called "terrorists" -- has induced a kind of irrationality that has apparently now spread to the police. Here's the official "explanation" of what happened:

A police officer visited a local shop and post office in Corsham to make an assessment of community tensions and, if appropriate, encourage the newsagent's owner to be vigilant. During this conversation the officer requested information about subscribers to the Charlie Hebdo magazine.

This is clearly creating a problem where none exists, purely because fear has become the default condition for society, resulting in heavy-handed and unnecessary interventions of the kind described above. At least the police force concerned seems to recognize this here:

Wiltshire police would like to apologise to the members of public who may be affected by this. Information relating to this specific incident has been permanently and securely disposed of.

That's welcome, but it's worrying and symptomatic of the situation today that a police officer could demand these names without being aware of the absurdity of doing so.

Update: It seems that this was not an isolated event.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: charlie hebdo, free speech, police, terrorism, uk

The Cost Of Mark Zuckerberg's Broken Censorship Promise Is Everyone Thinks They're Winning When Nobody Is

from the empty-promises dept

As you probably have heard by now, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, Mark Zuckerberg came out with a seemingly wonderful statement on the value of free and open speech, clearly in the context of his social media empire. The language was wonderfully clear on the matter, in fact.

Yet as I reflect on yesterday's attack and my own experience with extremism, this is what we all need to reject -- a group of extremists trying to silence the voices and opinions of everyone else around the world. I won't let that happen on Facebook. I'm committed to building a service where you can speak freely without fear of violence.

Almost before the boss of Facebook's fingers had lifted away from the keyboard, the social media giant spun around on its digital heel and mooned all those that had been cheering on Zuckerberg's words.

Only two weeks after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg released a strongly worded #JeSuisCharlie statement on the importance of free speech, Facebook has agreed to censor images of the prophet Muhammad in Turkey — including the very type of image that precipitated the Charlie Hebdo attack. It’s an illustration, perhaps, of how extremely complicated and nuanced issues of online speech really are. It’s also conclusive proof of what many tech critics said of Zuckerberg’s free-speech declaration at the time: Sweeping promises are all well and good, but Facebook’s record doesn’t entirely back it up.

But the real issue isn't really that an international company that happens to be led by an American has divorced itself from a moral stand. That kind of thing happens all the time and can be chalked up to the simple fact that, in capitalism, money is king and values are the jester entertaining the masses. And, just to be clear, I'm not arguing that there is even anything wrong with the above. The problem is the promise and what it is designed to do.

That promise was meant to accomplish two things. The first is the obvious public relations benefit Facebook received from going all Western values in public. The audience that would read Zuckerberg's proclamation was always going to be largely in favor of the values expressed. That same audience likely largely won't ever make themselves aware of Facebook's kneeling before the censorious Turkish government. And that's not a bug, it's a feature.

What the divisions in values allow statements like Zuckerberg's and the subsequent actions Facebook took in Turkey to do is make everyone feel like they've won something, while the status quo is maintained. Westerners cheer on as the gauntlet is thrown down for free speech in the arenas which will appreciate such a stand, while a Turkish government and the religious zealots that appear to live solely to show their subjects that Western values are as fleeting as a wisp of smoke claim victory as well. Everyone is in exactly the same place as they were before, except perhaps slightly more emboldened, but feels like they're progressing their agenda.

And that's about as dangerous as it gets in the arena of an exchange of ideas and ideals. The cure for the plague of censorious government and/or organizations, be they religious or otherwise, is for the clash of culture to happen. That will never happen so long as companies like Facebook bend to the will of the enemies of speech while also successfully placating the pro-speech populous with PR statements. That promise is what lets us pat ourselves on the back, thinking we have an ally, when that ally is really a con-man playing both sides against the middle for the most cynical of reasons: money. Please don't let them get away with it, even if only in your own mind.

Filed Under: censorship, charlie hebdo, free speech, mark zuckerberg, turkey

France Announces Plans To Hold The Internet Responsible For Terrorism

from the misfire dept

And on it goes. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, much of the world rallied around a French magazine's free speech right to publish controversial text and images concerning Islam, a major world religion. Since that solidarity was expressed, France has strategically sought to undermine its own support of free expression through some of the most arcane law enforcement actions concerning speech to date. From arresting comedians, to threats against news organizations, all the way to stepping into the muck with a bunch of racist idiots, France has shown that it's not a country that defends free and open speech -- but rather one that only defends the speech with which it agrees. But if any of that troubled you, you may be disappointed to learn that it was only the precursor to a full on attack on free speech on the internet.

President Francois Hollande said Tuesday in Paris the government will present a draft law next month that makes Internet operators “accomplices” of hate-speech offenses if they host extremist messages. Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said he will travel to the U.S. to seek help from the heads of Twitter Inc. (TWTR) and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) as well as Google and Facebook. Spokesmen for the companies did not immediately return requests for comment.

It's exactly the wrong move on France's part. What was once a rallying moment for Western values and open speech has now devolved into a full-on attempt to censor speech online. If this law passes, internet services will have no choice but to seek to proactively censor all sorts of speech just to avoid liability. It's the exact opposite of the systems and policies that made the internet such a welcome home to free expression.

It would be one thing if any part of this plan made even the least bit of sense, which it doesn't, but where this gets really stupid is in the strategic impact this would have were it to be put in place. Extremists that have since gathered online will now be pushed back into places where they cannot be so easily monitored. What was essentially a honeypot of sorts will be neutered. How does that make even the smallest amount of sense, even throwing aside the horrific implications this has on France's willingness to censor speech it does not care for?

Add to that the purely hamfisted attempt to label innocent service providers as "accomplices" under the shade of a recent terror attack, and you might think this couldn't get any more cynical. You'd be wrong.

Hollande, speaking at a Paris memorial for Jews deported during World War II, said he would discuss a crackdown on racist and extremist Internet posts with global leaders at a ceremony at Auschwitz, Poland, on Tuesday as they meet to commemorate the death camp’s liberation 70 years ago. At last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Hollande called on Internet companies to help identify and shut down illegal content. France has laws against making racist statements or denying the Holocaust.

Just so everyone is clear, the victims of a Nazi book-burning and speech-restricting regime are being propped up as a rallying point for the further restriction of speech and writing. That goes beyond hubris and enters the realm of the bizarrely cruel. France has a problem on its hands: speech is under attack by Islamic extremists. The answer to that cannot be the attack of other forms of speech. All that does is lend credibility to the enemy's wishes. Why would France want to do that?

Filed Under: censorship, charlie hebdo, france, francoise hollande, free speech, hate speech, internet liability, secondary liability
Companies: facebook, google, microsoft, twitter

Je Suis Disappoint: French Court Convicts Idiots For Homophobic Stupidity

from the all-mixed-up dept

We're going to have to repeat this until the point sinks in: advocates of free speech don't get to pick and choose what speech is free based on whether that speech is likable or not. It might seem cruel to continue hammering France in particular on this point, given their most recent experience with Islamic extremists using terror tactics to try to silence protected parody, but the point will be made, cruel or not. The wake of the attacks on a satirical magazine saw many in the world come to France's aid in solidarity behind the ability to speak freely and offensively, even as France also arrested a controversial comedian for his speech and Paris announced it would file suit against Fox News for their very-Fox-News-y claims about so-called "no-go Muslim" areas in the city. Those types of actions don't necessarily negate the solidarity the world showed our European neighbors, but it sure doesn't help.

And it gets more problematic with each new example of France's hypocrisy when it comes to free and open speech. The most recent example is a French court convicting three assholes for spewing homophobic crap on Twitter.

A French court has handed out convictions for anti-gay hate crimes on Twitter for the first time, after three people used the hashtag “let’s burn the gays”. In what a major French LGBT rights group called a “significant victory”, three people were convicted in a Paris court this week after they accompanied tweets with hashtags including “let’s burn the gays on...“ or "#brûlonslesgayssurdu).” During the same period in August 2013, “#Lesgaysdoiventdisparaîtrecar”, or “gays must die because...”, was also trending.

Here's where proponents of free speech get put to the test and too often fail on the merits. It's quite easy to pat ourselves on the back in the West by saying that a political magazine should enjoy the freedom to mock a world religion, because that lines up nicely with secular values. Far more challenging is saying that homophobic idiots who aren't actually inciting real-life violence should be allowed to spew bigotry, because that doesn't line up with most of our values. It's more difficult. Too bad, do it anyway. Because if we're really going to claim that a stupid hashtag is grounds for conviction, someone had damned well better be scouring Twitter in the days following the terrorist attack and arresting anyone who called for violence against Muslims. Who wants to actually bet that such sentiments weren't expressed? Either speech is free, or it isn't. There's no middle ground.

And that's a lesson that my friends in French LGBT organizations probably want to learn pretty quickly, because while acceptance is more in vogue now than ever before, that can change over time.

Yohann Roszewitch, president of SOS Homophobie, an LGBT association which also reports on homophobic tweets, told the website: "We’re positive that this will send out the message that the internet is not a place with no rules where you can do whatever you want."

Yohann, the thought experiment you want to be doing right now is to ask yourself why those words can't be expressed against your group should those that don't like you find themselves in power in the future. "We've arrested several homosexuals for espousing their dangerous thoughts on Twitter in order to send a message to other homosexuals that they aren't allowed to speak freely." It's a statement that probably couldn't be made in France today, but progress isn't made with nary a step backwards. The best defense of a group's freedom to speak openly is the defense of everyone's freedom to do so. Please learn this lesson already, France.

Filed Under: charlie hebdo, france, free speech, hate speech, homophobia, lgbt, tweets

UK Legislators Hoping To Rush Through New 'Snooper's Charter' In The Wake Of The Charlie Hebdo Attacks

from the throwing-paper-on-empty-desks dept

The UK legislators, law enforcement agencies and intelligence services looking to expand the government's surveillance programs got a big boost from the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This violent attempt to place extremist religious ideology ahead of free speech was twisted by many into justification for expanded government powers. Prime Minister David Cameron even went so far as to suggest that no citizen's communications should be beyond the government's reach.

This unexpected boost has propelled a raft of new amendments to the UK's so-called "Snooper's Charter," a once-rejected bill (Communications Data Bill) that would hand over ISP subscriber data to the goverment without a warrant. The amendments try to paper over the obvious flaws in the proposed legislation, limiting the use of this data to law enforcement and intelligence services only. (The previous version allowed several other government agencies to dip their toes into the data stream.)

The privacy protections are still insufficient and the wording is still vague, but those supporting this bill are hoping the recent terrorist attack -- combined with a very short time frame -- will help them guide this past the opposition, as the EFF points out.

Directly after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, we cautioned the public and politicians to be "wary of any attempt to rush through new surveillance and law enforcement powers." With depressing predictability, we've already seen that happen across the continent. Nowhere, however, has the attempt to bypass democratic debate been more blatant than in the United Kingdom, where a handful of unelected peers has taken the language of an old and discredited Internet surveillance proposal, and attempted to slam it, at outrageously short notice, into the wording of a near-complete counter-terrorism bill.

The result is that, unless you take action to warn Britain's House of Lords in time for the debate on Monday, there is a good chance that Britain will pass the infamous Snooper's Charter into law with barely any oversight.

Over the weekend, EFF supporters have taken action, and as the amended snooping bill hits the floor today, hopefully it will be met with increased resistance. But its supporters have done everything they can to prevent any examination of the proposed amendments by dropping the new wording off on Thursday and pushing for a simple "up/down" vote on Monday. This rush job indicates the amended bill won't stand up to scrutiny -- something its supporters are hoping to avoid by giving those voting a brief chance to glance at the new wording before being asked to push the bill forward.

The EFF has provided contact information for UK legislators, noting that certain methods may be more effective given the shortened time frame.

If you're a British citizen, you need to tell the members of the House of Lords that their right to analyze and discuss this legislation is being bypassed. We've set up an action alert for UK Internet users, so that you can send messages to the Twitter accounts of UK peers (you would be surprised how many British Lords use Twitter). You can also write to members of the House of Lords through the free service WriteToThem.com, but given the time frame, tweeting or phone calls are much better.

Twisting an attack on free speech into a call for more surveillance is most governments' standard MO. The UK is no exception. But this is never the right response to terrorist activity, especially when the end result will be a chilling effect on free speech -- making this bill's outcome indistinguishable from the attackers' aims.

Filed Under: charlie hebdo, house of lords, snooper's charter, surveillance, uk

France Celebrates Its New Reverence For Free Speech By Arresting Comedian For His Speech

from the that's-one-way-to-do-it dept

Over the weekend in Paris there was a so-called "Unity March" in response to last week's Charlie Hebdo attack. The photographs from the march were striking -- even if the famed photo of many world leaders holding hands and marching together turned out to a photo op on a closed street, rather than with the rest of the marchers. And, of course, this was all a facade. Many of the leaders who were there oversee governments that don't believe in free speech or a free press at all. Here, for example, is Jillian York trying to figure out if any of the leaders truly support freedom of expression.

And, to just put a big underline on the whole thing, just days later, France has arrested a famous and controverisal French comedian, Dieudonné, who has quite a reputation for his outspoken anti-semitism. The arrest was over a Facebook post that Dieudonné put up that basically mocked the "Je Suis Charlie" campaign that had become the rallying cry following the Charlie Hebdo attack, and instead indicated that he identified more with Amédy Coulibaly, a gunman who killed four people at a Jewish supermarket on Friday.

Dieudonné's views may be offensive, ridiculous or despicable, but it's much more offensive, ridiculous and despicable to have him arrested for a comment on Facebook. And, it's even more ridiculous to do it when his comment concerns the way people were expressing support for freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

To then immediately arrest someone for using that freedom to give a counter-view, just seems ridiculous.

And while it's the most high profile, Dieudonné is hardly the only target, apparently. According to the BBC, France has really ramped up attacks on free speech in response to all this damn support of free speech:

The justice ministry said earlier that 54 cases had been opened since the murders of 17 people in Paris last week. Of those, 37 cases involved condoning terrorism and 12 were for threatening to carry out terrorist acts.

Some fast-track custodial sentences have already been handed down under anti-terror legislation passed last November

• A man of 22 was jailed on Tuesday for a year for posting a video mocking one of the three murdered policemen
• A drunk driver was given four years in prison after making threats against the police who arrested him
• Three men in their twenties were jailed in Toulouse for condoning terrorism
• A man of 20 was jailed in Orleans for shouting "long live the Kalash[(nikov]" at police in a shopping center

Hey, France, I don't quite think you're getting the message. "I support free speech... so long as it is free speech that I sort of agree with" kind of misses the point. The views of some of these people expressing support for killers or terrorists or hatred towards certain types of people is speech that I find, personally, to be despicable. But those expressing it should be allowed to express it -- broadcasting their own confusion and ignorance to the world, and allowing others to counter that speech. Arresting people based on their speech only reinforces the ridiculous idea that they've come upon some truth or that they're speaking "truth to power." They're not. They're speaking nonsense, but in a free society we allow nonsense to be spoken.

Filed Under: arrest, arrested, charlie hebdo, dieudonne, france, free speech, je suis charlie

Sickening: Police & Surveillance State Apologists Leap At Charlie Hebdo Opportunity To Advocate For More Spying, Less Freedom

from the surveillance-state-opportunists dept

In the wake of the attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris yesterday, many people have been talking about various issues related to free speech and satire. We didn't have much to add to that discussion so we stayed out of it, but it's concerning to see that those who wish to suppress other civil liberties are jumping at the chance to use the attack yesterday as a jumping off point. Here are just a few examples. The NY Post ran an article saying that this proves the NYPD shouldn't have stopped its "Muslim Mapping" program:

...we believe the city should revisit its decision to dismantle the NYPD’s “Muslim Mapping” intelligence program.

The program was designed to provide exactly the kind of intelligence that would have been useful to police in Paris once they identified their three suspects in Wednesday’s terror attack. Namely, where they might go to find shelter or assistance.

If you don't recall, this effort was recently disbanded after multiple reports noted that it was completely useless, with not a single useful piece of evidence coming out of the entire program. As Julian Sanchez points out, there's something terrifying to the logic of "all evidence shows this project was totally useless, but we have to keep it going because of all these threats!"

And yet... the same thing is happening in other arenas as well. A year ago, both a court and the specially appointed task force set up to review the intelligence community's use of bulk metadata collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act noted that there was absolutely no evidence at all that the bulk metadata collection was ever used to stop terrorist attacks.

And yet... former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden went on cable news on Thursday morning to use the Charlie Hebdo attack as an excuse for why the program was so useful. After spending about four minutes talking about how these kinds of random small attacks are likely to be the new way terrorists attack, he then defends metadata collection:

Let me add another thought here too: You know, I was talking to you guys about 12 months ago, about these massive amounts of metadata that NSA held in storage. That metadata doesn't look all that scary this morning and I wouldn't be surprised if the French services pick up cell phones associated with the attack and ask the Americans, 'where have you seen these phones active globally?'.

Actually, no, that metadata does still seem pretty scary, because it also includes a hell of a lot more than just those responsible for the attack. And, it's not like law enforcement and the intelligence community can't go back to the operators currently responsible and ask them for that data. There's still no reason to believe that the NSA needs to just be sitting on this data all the time. And, of course, it doesn't seem like all that metadata helped prevent any attack, now did it?

Either way, it's kind of sickening to see this kind of opportunist crap, seeking to strip civil liberties and privacy rights from people, at the same time so many people are focusing on the other side of the story, about protecting free speech.

Filed Under: attack, charlie hebdo, charlie hebdo attack, free speech, metadata, michael hayden, muslim mapping, muslims, ny post, nypd, paris, surveillance