Malaysian Government Claims Insulting The Queen With A Spotify Playlist Is A Threat To National Security

from the to-be-fair,-your-highness,-it-does-have-some-absolute-bangers dept

The government of Malaysia has never been shy about censoring uppity citizens for doing things like, say, exposing massive government corruption. But it also has some royalty to shield from the content created by disgruntled citizens. That's why it recently welcomed a "fake news" law into the fold, giving the government (and the royalty it ultimately serves) yet another censorial weapon to deploy.

A local artist is the latest under the jackboot, accused of making Queen Tunku Azizah Aminah Maimunah feel bad by compiling a [checks report] Spotify playlist.

Malaysian police arrested an artist on Friday for allegedly insulting the queen by posting a satirical playlist online.

The playlist riffed off a recent controversy over the royal family and coronavirus vaccines.

The artist was detained for uploading a playlist featuring a portrait of the queen and songs that included the word "jealously," senior police official Huzir Mohamed said in a statement.

Fahmi Reza actually had to take his seditious business to Apple after Spotify kept taking down his playlist. It's still up at Apple Music for the moment (archived here) and it contains plenty of songs containing variations of the word "jealous."

Yeah, it's kind of just one joke, really. But it's obviously an effective one. The playlist turns the Queen's dismissive response to concerned subjugates against her. According to local reports, the Queen secured COVID vaccines for herself and her family through some powerful United Arab Emirates connections. When residents complained, the Queen pithily asked them if they were "jealous."

So, obviously a deserving target of criticism. But when the most deserving target has all the power, things tend to turn out badly for those doing the criticizing. Somehow, this jealousy-focused playlist threatens the security of the Malaysian people.

Fahmi was being investigated for breaking Malaysia's sedition and communications laws. He faces up to three years if convicted under the act, Huzir said.

"Tough action will be taken without any compromise against anyone who intentionally threatens public security," the police official added.

Three years for a one-joke playlist. And it makes the point with all the subtlety a 101-song playlist composed with the assistance of a single search term can. But equally unsubtle is the government's response. Insulting the royal family may be bad form but it shouldn't be illegal. And this definitely doesn't threaten the security of the nation. It only highlights the insecurity of the family sitting at the top of the country's org chart.

Filed Under: fahma reza, free speech, insults, malaysia, playlist, queen, sedition, tunku azizah aminah maimunah
Companies: apple, spotify

Kentucky Senators Pass Bill That Would Make It A Crime To Say Mean Things To Cops

from the finally-getting-'contempt-of-cop'-added-to-the-law-books dept

A bill [PDF] that's likely headed to a dead end at the governor's desk or a state court targets protected speech that might make some cops angry. The bill may end up dead, but the Kentucky Senate still needs to explain how it let the bill pass, considering it contains this very, very stupid addition, presumably courtesy of the bill's sponsor, Sen. Danny Carroll -- a former police officer.

The bill converts free speech into a second degree misdemeanor. And it only targets speech that targets certain public employees.

Accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.

That's right. Seven of ten Senators want to make it illegal to say bad things to police officers. Anything that "provokes" a cop is off-limits. And it assumes cops are "reasonable and prudent people." Maybe they are. But "reasonable and prudent" public servants -- especially those frequently engaged in heated situations where they're supposed to be the keepers of peace -- should have a higher bar to reach before they react to these undefined fighting words.

We should expect more from our cops. These state Senators want us to expect less. This conduct was never illegal before, but following protests in the state over killings by cops, people like Danny Carroll want to codify "contempt of cop."

Carroll insinuates cops are weak individuals who aren't able to keep their cool when confronted by unhappy members of the public. Maybe this is what's actually true. And a law like this allows them to act on their worst impulses and -- never mind the First Amendment -- actually punish people for engaging in what should be protected speech.

Behold your jackbooted snowflakes, apparently in need of protection from… syllables.

"In these riots, you see people getting up in officers' faces, yelling in their ears, doing everything they can to provoke a violent response," Carroll said, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.

Yeah. That's kind of thing is going to happen during protests. And it's not a crime anywhere. According to Carroll's former cop mentality, it's the people who need to be punished for making cops angry, rather than cops for violating people's First Amendment rights.

The beatings will continue until police morale improves.

"I'm not saying the officers do that, but there has to be a provision within that statute to allow officers to react to that. Because that does nothing but incite those around that vicinity and it furthers and escalates the riotous behavior," he continued.

Carroll could not be more wrong. Cops should not be "allowed" to "react" to angry people saying angry things -- not by internal policy and very definitely not by state mandate. That's not how the law works and that sure as shit isn't how the Constitution works.

Everything Carroll offers in defense of his indefensible bill is… well, indefensible.

Carroll noted the bill wasn't about limiting lawful protest "in any way, shape, form or fashion."

"This country was built on lawful protest, and it's something that we must maintain — our citizens' right to do so. What this deals with are those who cross the line and commit criminal acts," he said.

Ah, but it does limit lawful protests. It makes it illegal to say mean things to cops, which is something that happens at lawful protests. And no one crosses the legal line by being mean to cops. The law makes the logic of his statement conveniently circular. Make something that wasn't previously illegal illegal and suddenly things that never "crossed the line" into criminality will now will cross the line into criminality.

Saying protesters shouldn't do things that are illegal is incredibly disingenuous when you're passing an anti-protest omnibus that makes angering a police officer using nothing more than words a criminal offense.

And that's not the only thing the bill does. It redefines "riot" to mean any group of more than five people that "substantially obstructs law enforcement or other government functions." It provides sentence enhancements for engaging in rioting even if the person did not directly engage in the riots but committed a crime anywhere else "with knowledge that a riot was occurring." It denies probation or early release for anyone convicted of this new crime. It turns resisting arrest and obstructing traffic from misdemeanors to felonies if it occurs while a riot is taking place.

And it fights defunding efforts by mandating steadily increasing funding for law enforcement agencies:

Governmental entities responsible for the funding of the various law enforcement agencies shall maintain and improve their respective financial support to the Commonwealth's law enforcement agencies…

It's a whole pile of retaliation with some stupid dumped on top of it. These legislators think cops shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of their actions -- consequences that sometimes include violent riots. But then they don't think cops should just have to stand there and take when angry people shout angry things at them. These legislators are wrong about almost all of this, but especially wrong about that. If the governor doesn't send this pile of idiocy packing, a court will soon enough.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, insults, kentucky, police, speech, taunting

Turkish President Sues Dutch Lawmaker Over A Bunch Of 'Insulting' Tweets

from the who-is-the-real-terrorist-here,-Recep dept

If anyone's to blame for this latest Erdogan related debacle, it's the thin-skinned "leader" of Turkey, R.T. "Gollum" Erdogan. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find anyone else to blame if the Dutch government hadn't been an enabler of this bad behavior.

Back in 2018, the Dutch government, inexplicably, decided to prosecute one of its own citizens for "insulting" a world leader located in an entirely different country. For whatever reason, the Dutch government has yet to wipe its "insulting a foreign leader" law from its books and that's the weapon Erdogan wielded to engage in extraterritorial protection of his easily bruised skin.

A law may be on the books, but there's nothing compelling a country to enforce it, especially when the request comes from the Turkish consulate on behalf of an insulted foreign leader who, as the word "foreign" specifies, resides in another country altogether.

Having set this stupid precedent, the Dutch government has to take some of the blame for recent developments, which involve President Erdogan targeting a member of the Dutch government over some online besmirchment.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is suing Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders after the anti-Islam politician posted a series of tweets against the Turkish leader, including one that described him as a “terrorist.”

The state-run Anadolu Agency said Erdogan’s lawyer on Tuesday filed a criminal complaint against Wilders at the Ankara Chief Prosecutor’s office for “insulting the president” — a crime in Turkey punishable by up to four years in prison.

Wilders posted a cartoon depicting Erdogan wearing a bomb-resembling hat on his head, with the comment: “terrorist.”

Fortunately, at least one person is handling this latest Turkish broadside against free speech with all the respect it deserves.

Wilders, who leads the largest opposition party in the Dutch Parliament, shrugged off the Turkish criminal complaint and described Erdogan as a “loser.”

This is not to say Wilders is an upstanding individual without troubling views on foreigners and religions other than his own. But the insulted leader of a foreign country shouldn't be able to do anything more than complain about it like normal people complain about things: to anyone willing to listen to someone complain about stuff. Involving courts and foreign governments shouldn't be part of the equation. There's no defamation here and nothing credibly, legally actionable. It's just Erdogan being insulted, which is something that happens regularly.

If the Dutch government doesn't meet this with a strong "why don't you just go fuck yourself" statement, it will only encourage Erdogan to engage in more extraterritorial litigation over speech he doesn't like. That's something no one needs, especially now that Turkey has passed China in the number of journalists jailed and has prosecuted more than 29,000 people in the last half-decade for "insulting" the eminently insultable president.

Filed Under: criminal complaint, geert wilders, insults, lawsuits, netherlands, recep tayyip erdogan, turkey

French Government To Make Insulting Mayors A Criminal Offense

from the we-love-free-speech-but-[unrolls-growing-list-of-exceptions] dept

French government entities continue to clamp down on speech. Following a terrorist attack on a French satirical newspaper, government leaders vowed to double down on protecting controversial speech. The govenment then fast-tracked several prosecutions under its anti-terrorism laws, which included arresting a comedian for posting some anti-semitic content. It further celebrated its embrace of free speech by arresting a man for mocking the death of three police officers.

A half-decade later, that same commitment to protecting speech no one might object to continues. The country's government passed a terrible hate speech law that would have allowed law enforcement to decide what content was acceptable (and what was arrestable.) Fortunately for its citizens, the country's Constitutional Court decided the law was unlawful and struck down most of it roughly a month later.

But that's not the end of bad speech laws in France. Government officials seem to have an unlimited amount of bad ideas. Some government officials are being hit with far more than objectionable words. Assaults of French mayors continue to occur at the rate of about once a day. Mayors assaulted and unassaulted have asked the French government to do more to protect them from these literal attacks.

The government has responded. And it's not going to make mayors any more popular or make them less likely to be physically attacked.

Any insult targeted at a French mayor will now be treated as contempt - an offence that carries a maximum penalty of community service or a €7,500 fine - France's justice minister has announced.

“Any attack perpetuated against a mayor is an attack perpetuated against the Republic”, warned French Minister of Justice Eric Dupond-Moretti on Wednesday after a ministerial meeting to which local mayor associations were invited, according to BFMTV.

Assault is already a crime, so the government has ways to deal with those who physically attack government officials. This new wrinkle makes being mean to them a crime. The Republic as a whole will feel every insult targeting a town mayor. So will the people uttering the insults. $7,500 fines and/or 280 hours of community service await those who like to fight with their words, rather than their fists.

This may trim down the number of public insults but it's hardly going to make the government any more popular with the governed. If French citizens are physically attacking mayors 300+ times a year, there's something more going on that just a little bit of assholishness that's gotten out of hand. Protecting people from violence is something any government should do. But protecting them from being insulted is something only authoritarians do.

Filed Under: france, free speech, insults, mayors, politics

Philippines Senator Targets Critics With 'Cyberlibel' Law, Gets Hailed As A Son Of A Bitch By Thousands Of Citizens

from the reap-sow-repeat dept

The most dangerous cybercriminals in the Philippines are the ones who swear. When not locking up critics and journalists under the country's "cyberlibel" law, government officials are sending the cops after people for not being sufficiently respectful.

The president of the country -- Rodrigo Duterte -- portrays himself as a fearless destroyer of criminals. He's openly encouraged the extrajudicial killing of drug dealers and drug users. But the tough guy image is just that. The man can't handle being criticized (see arrests of journalists above). When citizens start getting lippy, Duterte and his favored officials call in the cops to help them abuse a law whose sole reason for existence is to be abused by powerful people.

Just two months ago, a 41-year-old salesman was arrested for his Facebook post, in which he (accurately) described Duterte as "crazy" and an "asshole." Under most definitions of libel, opinions such as these aren't defamatory, especially when describing a public figure. Under the nation's law, anything Duterte doesn't like is considered to be libelous. The country's cybercrime law codifies the president's expansive and self-serving definition of this term.

Now, another public official -- and a good buddy of Rodrigo's -- is abusing the same law to send law enforcement after another foul-mouthed critic. Sammy Westfall has more details at Vice:

Christopher "Bong" Go, a Philippine senator and a close confidante of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, has requested authorities investigate several of his critics under the country’s controversial cyberlibel laws, leading to several being subpoenaed—and to a chorus of even stronger criticism online.

In his statement to the press, Senator Go claimed he had been the "victim" of "fake news" and had tasked the National Bureau of Investigation with looking into some recent online besmirchment. One of several hit with government subpoenas was a college student accused of sharing a post "containing fake news against the Senator."

The contents of the targeted posts were not revealed by Senator Go. The NBI says everyone's due process rights will be respected, though.

NBI Cybercrime Division Chief Vic Lorenzo said that the subpoenas allow for the verification of the complaint and are part of the due process that allows the defendant to be heard and validated as the person who posted the material in question.

Yes, the accused will be provided the opportunity to agree they engaged in cyberlibel. Hopefully, this process involves telling the accused what they're accused of, because it seems like that important detail has been overlooked by Go and the NBI.

In addition to the subpoenaed student, Rappler reported that another subpoena had been sent to another person by the same law firm. The person, who was not named, confirmed to Rappler that he also shared a post critical of Go.

Rappler noted that among three others who received similar subpoenas, none were told which post triggered the subpoena, nor were they told that Go was the complainant.

As Westfall reports, this is cyberlibel standard operating procedure. Seventeen Philippines residents were hit with cyberlibel subpoenas earlier this year. None of the recipients were informed which of their social media posts were considered criminally defamatory.

But if it's libel Senator Go wants -- under his fuzzy and convenient definition -- citizens are more than willing to supply it.

By Friday morning, as news of the subpoenas spread, the hashtag #TanginaMoBongGo—which literally translates to “Son of a Bitch Bong Go”—was trending on Twitter, with netizens slamming the senator for what they characterized as his heavy-handed response to online criticism. By Friday evening, there were more than 65,000 posts with the tag.

That's how the game is played, Senator. Be a jerk, get treated like one. Of course, citizens can't haul Go up on charges, hide the details from him, and demand he make himself available to investigators. But they can make him increasingly miserable.

Filed Under: bong go, christopher bong go, cyberlibel, free speech, insults, philippines, rodrigo duterte

Philippines Government Uses Cybercrime Law To Arrest A Citizen For Calling The President An 'Asshole'

from the shame-truth-can't-be-used-as-a-defense dept

All things are cyber these days, including handy government tools meant to shield thin-skinned leaders from criticism. For a guy who goes around bragging about killing drug dealers, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte seems oddly unable to handle being called what he is.

Police arrested on Wednesday, May 13, a 41-year-old salesman in Butuan City for a Facebook post where he called President Rodrigo Duterte an "asshole" and "crazy."

Caraga police said in a Facebook post that they arrested Reynaldo Orcullo for allegedly committing cyberlibel, or violation of Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Law.

Police said Orcullo is now under the custody of the Police Regional Anti-Cybercrime Unit.

Good old libel, but with 100% more "cyber." Whatever due process might have been in place for regular libel is pretty much gone now that it's been stapled to an abusive "cybercrime" law that allows the government to punish critics with impunity. Truth is no defense when charged with "cyberlibel." Nor are opinions considered protected, even though the country's constitution says otherwise. Call the president an "asshole" and you get to go to jail, even it's an opinion that's arguably true.

This is more of the same for President Duterte, whose government has continually harassed (and arrested) journalists for simply reporting the news. This continues to happen in a country with a bill of rights that forbids the government from abridging citizens' free speech rights, including the freedom of the press.

But this is also a country that routinely engages in extrajudicial killings and state-ordained kidnappings. So, a post that criticized Duterte resulted in an arrest, which only served to highlight the president's hypocrisy. Other critics (who remain unarrested at the moment) pointed out cursing at Duterte shouldn't be considered offensive when the president himself hurls obscenities towards his political enemies in nationally televised speeches.

Then there's this response from the police department, which sets some pretty arbitrary standards for "free" speech.

"Again I remind our social media users to think thrice before posting on any social media platform. Be responsible netizens. We do enjoy the blessings of democracy but never go beyond from what you think is right without minding you violate the provisions of the law," [police chief Joselito] Esquivel said.

Enjoy your free speech, citizens. But self-censor when you do. Otherwise, expect to spend some time being subjected to a criminal justice system that has had every one of its excesses blessed by the man running the country.

Filed Under: cyberlibel, free speech, insults, philippines, reynaldo orcullo, rodrigo duterte

Don't Let The Bret Stephens Bite: NY Times' Hypocritical 'Free Speech' Columnist Flips Out After Being Called A Bedbug

from the a-streisanding-for-the-ages dept

I will admit being only marginally aware of Bret Stephens in the past -- as someone the NY Times seems to employ to write really dumb opinion pieces that get people angry with how dumb they are. This latest bit of Bret Stephensisms isn't going to improve that impression. One of Stephens' big things, apparently, is whining about "the left" not believing in free speech any more, and complaining about things like "safe spaces on campus." Here are two recent examples:

If you're unable to see those, they're two columns by Stephens, with the first one entitled "Free Speech and the Necessity of Discomfort," and the second one entitled, "Leave Your Safe Spaces: The 2017 Commencement Address at Hampden-Sydney College." No matter what your stance is on "the necessity of comfort" or "safe spaces," once should at least conclude that Bret Stephens has positioned himself as one who believes that free speech is important, and people should chill out before getting offended.

Oh, and he sometimes tweets about free speech too, and has some more tweets that he's likely to regret before all this is over:

In the first tweet, he's quoting David French, saying "Our nation cannot maintain its culture of free speech if we continue to reward those who seek to destroy careers, rather than rebut ideas." Remember that one. And the second is "The right to offend is the most precious right. Without it, free speech is meaningless. That's what Charlie Hebdo was about."

Okay. That's a little background on Bret Stephens' professional opinion on free speech and people being offended when he's acting all intellectual-like. Now let's take a look at Bret Stephens' unprofessional opinion on free speech and people being offended, when someone calls him a bedbug.

On Monday morning, an assistant editor of the NY Times opinion section, Stuart Thompson, tweeted: "Breaking — There are bedbugs in the NYT newsroom." Lots of people made jokes about this. My favorite, from Lindsey Barrett, mocked the NY Times' unwillingness to call racism racism by rewriting it as: "I think you mean there's an insect-tinged problem in the NYT newsroom." She made some more jokes about bedbugs, including a fake headline by Bret Stephens: "'There Are No Bedbugs and If There Were, The Caustic Twitter Socialists Put Them There and Bed Bugs Are Good, Actually' --half a column by bret stephens, who was itching too vigorously to finish it" That one got lots of likes and retweets. But it's not the tweet that exposed Bret Stephens as the free speech hypocrite many people seemed to always assume he was.

Instead, it was a not even that funny tweet from Dave Karpf, an Associate Professor at George Washington University:

Then, last evening, Karpf noted that while that original tweet (cue ominous music: at the time...) had only 9 likes and 0 retweets, and did not in any way tag Stephens himself, Stephens took it upon himself to not just complain about the tweet to Karpf, but to cc his university provost:

We'll get to the contents of the letter in a moment. But, first, let's revisit those tweets from Stephens about free speech. He talked about how the right to offend was so important. And also was apparently against "those who seek to destroy careers rather than rebut ideas." Of course, there's no good reason for Stephens to cc the GWU provost except in a weak, thin-skinned, hypocritical attempt to destroy Karpf's career.

And let's not avoid the contents of Stephens' email. Because, it's weird.

Dear. Dr. Karpf,

Someone just pointed out a tweet you wrote about me, calling me a "bedbug." I'm often amazed about the things supposedly decent people are prepared to say about other people -- people they've never met -- on Twitter. I think you've set a new standard.

I would welcome the opportunity for you to come to my home, meet my wife and kids, talk to us for a few minutes, and then call me a "bedbug" to my face. That would take some genuine courage and intellectual integrity on your part. I promise to be courteous no matter what you have to say.

Maybe it will make you feel better about yourself.

Please consider this a standing invitation. You are more than welcome to bring your significant other.

Cordially,

Bret Stephens

It certainly sounds like Stephens "took offense" to Karpf's random joke. Perhaps he felt being a NY Times Opinion columnist gave him a "safe space" from criticism? It must be that, or otherwise, to think that calling him a "bedbug" is a "new standard" of Twitter-based discourse, suggests someone who is so shielded from the way Twitter arguments normally play out as to be a poor judge of what the "new standards" are of insults. And, yes, you could argue that Stephens' creepy invite to come over to his house (with Karpf's significant other) and insult him to his face, is a request for "more speech," in response to "speech." But, we should remind everyone that Stephens' cc'd the George Washington University provost.

Anyway, if you couldn't already guess what happened next, I should tell you that Merriam-Webster chose last evening to (not for the first time), tweet out their explanation of the Streisand Effect. Whenever the dictionary starts adding to my own mentions, you know something good is going down.

And, so, yes, within just a few hours, Karpf's tweet mocking Stephens, that had just 9 likes and 0 retweets, has many thousands of retweets and tens of thousands of likes. And, tons and tons of people are now associating Bret Stephens with bedbugs. Here's just a few fun tweets.

Like bedbugs, those tweets just keep on coming. On my Twitter account, at least, Bret Stephens, was the top "trending" topic for many hours last night. Note how many likes and retweets all of those tweets have. Bret Stephens has taken a throwaway line that most people ignored and ensured that, for years, people will associate him with bedbugs.

Incredibly, overnight, rather than realizing that he'd fucked up, Stephens apparently decided to dig deeper and make it worse. First, he shut down his Twitter account, laughably claiming that Twitter "is a sewer" that "brings out the worst in humanity." He then went on MSNBC and compared being called a "bedbug" to the worst "totalitarian regimes," while also (laughably, ridiculously) trying to argue that cc'ing the GWU provost wasn't about trying to get Karpf fired. He claims he just wanted the provost to know what his staff was doing. Which... come on. No one believes that.

Of course, like bedbugs, I'm guessing that the NY Times won't get rid of Bret Stephens either.

Filed Under: bedbugs, bret stephens, david karpf, getting people fired, hypocrite, insults, offensive speech, safe spaces
Companies: george washington university, ny times