5 ms·

No Justification for Spanish Internet Censorship During Catalonian Referendum

87 points by panarky 9y ago

panarky 9y ago
Government censorship of the Internet is prohibited by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, both of which guarantee everyone's right to receive and impart information and ideas regardless of frontiers. The Spanish government's censorship of online speech during the Catalonian referendum period is so wildly disproportionate and overbroad, that its violation of these instruments seems almost beyond dispute.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  It'll be interesting to see if the EU enforces this, or if they look the other way.
  - gcristofol 9y ago
    They looked away when the Spanish police was using batons and tear gas on Catalan citizens, so I very much doubt they would move a finger for Internet censorship; Shame on them.
    - Pirolita 9y ago
      The Spanish police didn't use tear gas, stop spreading lies.
      - smhenderson 9y ago
        Not lies and trivial to find news stating the truth - http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/01/europe/catalonia-spain-independence-referendum-vote/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/01/europe/catalonia-spain-indepen...
        gcristofol 9y ago
        Any legit international source of news would give an idea of the magnitude of the issue. Sadly Spanish news outlets are in the hands or PP government big time.
  - gcristofol 9y ago
    Here the Spanish "news" vs international press http://www.publico.es/tremending/2017/10/02/la-prensa-seria-las-realidades-paralelas-del-1-o-la-prensa-internacional-vs-la-prensa-nacional/ http://www.publico.es/tremending/2017/10/02/la-prensa-seria-...
- KGIII 9y ago
  I believe the justification they used was that they have a clause for promotion of illegal acts and that their cosntitution expressly forbids seceeding. I am not suggesting that I support this, merely sharing information from a few links posted in a previous story on this subject,
- pvaldes 9y ago
  > Government censorship of the Internet is prohibited by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I seriously doubt that they had internet in 1948. In any case the beginning of the phrase was casually omitted. Should be: "With an exceptionally narrow range of exceptions [link], Government censorship of the Internet is prohibited by ..." That omision is relevant for the debate, because when you follow the link in the eff.org article it states that the need to protecting national security, public order, or rights and reputation of third people, are valid exceptions to this rule.
alexandercrohde 9y ago
Perhaps somebody can explain the situation to me a little better. As far as I understand the situation, in any democracy you have the right to assemble and to vote for anything you want (though of course if you actually ACT on something against the law, well that's the definition of illegal). I know this is a very prickly topic, but is there something I'm missing out on here? As I understand it there has been a Texas secession party in the US, and though it's not popular it's treated as protected political speech (of course when the South did try to secede they were stopped by force of arms).
- KGIII 9y ago
  It wouldn't fly in the US. The government can't censor lawful speech, at least not legally. As for the voting? That's a bit more tricky. They are voting to commit an illegal act. While not morally similar, this would be legally similar to voting to allow women to be murdered for not obeying their husband. Namely, they are voting to approve an act that is clearly illegal according to their constitution. I am not sure they'd be allowed to put that sort of thing on an officially sanctioned ballot, in the US. However, they could certainly hold a mock election, unaffiliated with the government, and it would only be of value for the optics. I'm just pretty sure it couldn't be officially sanctioned. This assumes the pundits are correct and that this is clearly illegal in their constitution. I haven't actually read their constitution and am trusting their information and interpretation. In the US it's a bit stickier. While we've disallowed secession before, I don't think the constitution expressly forbids it. So, I couldn't quite come up with a similar example to match the US. In fact, I think we may have even agreed that Texas can seceede but it needs to be voted on with the same numbers as they would need to amend the constitution. I think... Don't quote me on that.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - 6t6t6t6 9y ago
    > As for the voting? That's a bit more tricky. They are voting to commit an illegal act Referendums are, by definition, the tool to change the law. In this case, to make legal something what was previously illegal. Other than that, it makes sense that the Spanish law does not allow the Independency of a territory. I assume that the British law did not allow the Independence of the US neither.
pvaldes 9y ago
> Perhaps somebody can explain the situation to me a little better Sorry by the extension, but this can't be explained in just a few words. Ill try to break it in several parts. Is just a scam. The situation is that a theater, a farcical referendum without any single guarantee of fair play was created in the name of a peculiar kind of understanding democracy, and for some purposes that we'll see later. Lets talk about this "referendum". Resuming: Neither a minimum of participation percentage to validate the results ("if there was only a single vote and this vote were a Yes, I would declare the secession of the territory in the very next day"), nor neutral observers An independentist politician using their own home as electoral point of votation Judges explaining for months to > 800 mayors, government officials and politicians that this is illegal, why, and what will be the consequences if they cooperate in breaking the law. Some of this same people saying that they will not recognise this jury, because the order cames from an invasor country, fascist party, franco resurrected, whatever. Independentist people apparently being asked to put a few "NO to independence" votes in the urns, for faking a participation of constitutionalist people, and gain legitimity. Fake posters of constitutionalist parties appearing in the walls, "asking for vote", for the same reason. Dismissed as fake for the same organisations and politicians represented on it. Fake document from "the spanish army" saying "that tanks are coming to Catalonia" with the purpose to spread fear and hate and galvanize people feelings. Dismissed as fake by the army. People coming from home carrying urns opaque that stumble and fall in the street releasing lots of pre-loaded ballots People stuffing ballots in a box in the street People taking selfies and having fun whereas being allowed to vote four times in four different places Photographs of little girls voting (yes, the vote would probably be from one of their parents, but lets remember that is expressely forbiden by law than other than the voter or the president of the electoral table, be allowed to enter the vote) Printing like 14 millions of ballots for a population of around 5 millions of people able to vote (perhaps to substitute one set of votes by other when people go home?) Asking people to print more unoficial ballots at home in their personal printer Local policemen in rebelion against the mandate of a catalonian jury. Local and national policy accusing the other from obstructing deliberately their duty. People rioting and ocupying public buildings, after pressing for months to directors of schools and health care centers to give up the building keys and break the law. Many hundreds of both policemen an people hurt in 'pacific' events that include asaulting in mass and wallpapering police cars with pro-referendum posters (with policemen inside), throwing pacifically rocks and chairs to the police, and biting them. Asking parents to excuse their kids from being to the school because the minors have to manifestate for promoting the "referendum" Asking parents to take minors to last hour created "weekend activities and parties" in their schools (to have a legal excuse for the public school being opened the day of the scam) Of course the majority of the same politics that pressed hard the normal people to commit an illegal act, had deserted from being seen in any organizational task the day of the referendum, to avoid being sued themselves. ... A total nonsense. This was paid with public money with two clear objectives in mind and maybe other two hypothetical objectives that well discuse in a next post.

87 points by panarky 9y ago

Government censorship of the Internet is prohibited by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, both of which guarantee everyone's right to receive and impart information and ideas regardless of frontiers. The Spanish government's censorship of online speech during the Catalonian referendum period is so wildly disproportionate and overbroad, that its violation of these instruments seems almost beyond dispute.

craftyguy 9y ago
It'll be interesting to see if the EU enforces this, or if they look the other way.
- gcristofol 9y ago
  They looked away when the Spanish police was using batons and tear gas on Catalan citizens, so I very much doubt they would move a finger for Internet censorship; Shame on them.
  - Pirolita 9y ago
    The Spanish police didn't use tear gas, stop spreading lies.
    - smhenderson 9y ago
      Not lies and trivial to find news stating the truth - http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/01/europe/catalonia-spain-independence-referendum-vote/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/01/europe/catalonia-spain-indepen...
      - gcristofol 9y ago
        Any legit international source of news would give an idea of the magnitude of the issue. Sadly Spanish news outlets are in the hands or PP government big time.
- gcristofol 9y ago
  Here the Spanish "news" vs international press http://www.publico.es/tremending/2017/10/02/la-prensa-seria-las-realidades-paralelas-del-1-o-la-prensa-internacional-vs-la-prensa-nacional/ http://www.publico.es/tremending/2017/10/02/la-prensa-seria-...
KGIII 9y ago
I believe the justification they used was that they have a clause for promotion of illegal acts and that their cosntitution expressly forbids seceeding. I am not suggesting that I support this, merely sharing information from a few links posted in a previous story on this subject,
pvaldes 9y ago
> Government censorship of the Internet is prohibited by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I seriously doubt that they had internet in 1948. In any case the beginning of the phrase was casually omitted. Should be: "With an exceptionally narrow range of exceptions [link], Government censorship of the Internet is prohibited by ..." That omision is relevant for the debate, because when you follow the link in the eff.org article it states that the need to protecting national security, public order, or rights and reputation of third people, are valid exceptions to this rule.

alexandercrohde 9y ago

Perhaps somebody can explain the situation to me a little better. As far as I understand the situation, in any democracy you have the right to assemble and to vote for anything you want (though of course if you actually ACT on something against the law, well that's the definition of illegal). I know this is a very prickly topic, but is there something I'm missing out on here? As I understand it there has been a Texas secession party in the US, and though it's not popular it's treated as protected political speech (of course when the South did try to secede they were stopped by force of arms).

KGIII 9y ago
It wouldn't fly in the US. The government can't censor lawful speech, at least not legally. As for the voting? That's a bit more tricky. They are voting to commit an illegal act. While not morally similar, this would be legally similar to voting to allow women to be murdered for not obeying their husband. Namely, they are voting to approve an act that is clearly illegal according to their constitution. I am not sure they'd be allowed to put that sort of thing on an officially sanctioned ballot, in the US. However, they could certainly hold a mock election, unaffiliated with the government, and it would only be of value for the optics. I'm just pretty sure it couldn't be officially sanctioned. This assumes the pundits are correct and that this is clearly illegal in their constitution. I haven't actually read their constitution and am trusting their information and interpretation. In the US it's a bit stickier. While we've disallowed secession before, I don't think the constitution expressly forbids it. So, I couldn't quite come up with a similar example to match the US. In fact, I think we may have even agreed that Texas can seceede but it needs to be voted on with the same numbers as they would need to amend the constitution. I think... Don't quote me on that.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- 6t6t6t6 9y ago
  > As for the voting? That's a bit more tricky. They are voting to commit an illegal act Referendums are, by definition, the tool to change the law. In this case, to make legal something what was previously illegal. Other than that, it makes sense that the Spanish law does not allow the Independency of a territory. I assume that the British law did not allow the Independence of the US neither.

pvaldes 9y ago

> Perhaps somebody can explain the situation to me a little better Sorry by the extension, but this can't be explained in just a few words. Ill try to break it in several parts. Is just a scam. The situation is that a theater, a farcical referendum without any single guarantee of fair play was created in the name of a peculiar kind of understanding democracy, and for some purposes that we'll see later. Lets talk about this "referendum". Resuming: Neither a minimum of participation percentage to validate the results ("if there was only a single vote and this vote were a Yes, I would declare the secession of the territory in the very next day"), nor neutral observers An independentist politician using their own home as electoral point of votation Judges explaining for months to > 800 mayors, government officials and politicians that this is illegal, why, and what will be the consequences if they cooperate in breaking the law. Some of this same people saying that they will not recognise this jury, because the order cames from an invasor country, fascist party, franco resurrected, whatever. Independentist people apparently being asked to put a few "NO to independence" votes in the urns, for faking a participation of constitutionalist people, and gain legitimity. Fake posters of constitutionalist parties appearing in the walls, "asking for vote", for the same reason. Dismissed as fake for the same organisations and politicians represented on it. Fake document from "the spanish army" saying "that tanks are coming to Catalonia" with the purpose to spread fear and hate and galvanize people feelings. Dismissed as fake by the army. People coming from home carrying urns opaque that stumble and fall in the street releasing lots of pre-loaded ballots People stuffing ballots in a box in the street People taking selfies and having fun whereas being allowed to vote four times in four different places Photographs of little girls voting (yes, the vote would probably be from one of their parents, but lets remember that is expressely forbiden by law than other than the voter or the president of the electoral table, be allowed to enter the vote) Printing like 14 millions of ballots for a population of around 5 millions of people able to vote (perhaps to substitute one set of votes by other when people go home?) Asking people to print more unoficial ballots at home in their personal printer Local policemen in rebelion against the mandate of a catalonian jury. Local and national policy accusing the other from obstructing deliberately their duty. People rioting and ocupying public buildings, after pressing for months to directors of schools and health care centers to give up the building keys and break the law. Many hundreds of both policemen an people hurt in 'pacific' events that include asaulting in mass and wallpapering police cars with pro-referendum posters (with policemen inside), throwing pacifically rocks and chairs to the police, and biting them. Asking parents to excuse their kids from being to the school because the minors have to manifestate for promoting the "referendum" Asking parents to take minors to last hour created "weekend activities and parties" in their schools (to have a legal excuse for the public school being opened the day of the scam) Of course the majority of the same politics that pressed hard the normal people to commit an illegal act, had deserted from being seen in any organizational task the day of the referendum, to avoid being sued themselves. ... A total nonsense. This was paid with public money with two clear objectives in mind and maybe other two hypothetical objectives that well discuse in a next post.