Papua New Guinea’s civic space has been rated as “obstructed” by the Civicus Monitor and the country has been criticised for pushing forward with a controversial media law in spite of strong opposition.

Among concerns previously documented by the civil rights watchdog are harassment and threats against human rights defenders, particularly those working on land and environmental rights, use of the cybercrime law to criminalise online expression, intimidation and restrictions against journalists, and excessive force during protests.

In recent months, the authorities have used the cybercrime law to target a human rights defender for raising questions online on forest enforcement, while a journalist and gender-based violence survivor is also facing charges under the law, said the Civicus Monitor in its latest report.

The court halted a logging company’s lawsuit against a civil society group while the government is pushing forward with the controversial National Media Development law.

Human rights defender charged under cybercrime law
On 9 December 2024, human rights defender and ACT NOW! campaign manager Eddie Tanago was arrested and charged by police under section 21(2) of the Cybercrime Act 2016 for allegedly publishing defamatory remarks on social media about the managing director of the PNG Forest Authority.

Tanago was taken to the Boroko Police Station Holding cell and released on bail the same afternoon. If convicted he could face a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment.

ACT NOW is a prominent human rights organisation seeking to halt illegal logging and related human rights violations in Papua New Guinea (PNG).

According to reports, ACT NOW had reshared a Facebook post from a radio station advertising an interview with PNG Forest Authority (PNGFA) staff members, which included a photo of the managing director.

The repost included a comment raising questions about PNGFA forest enforcement.

Following Tanago’s arrest, ACT NOW said: “it believes that the arrest and charging of Tanago is a massive overreach and is a blatant and unwarranted attempt to intimidate and silence public debate on a critical issue of national and international importance.”

It added that “there was nothing defamatory in the social media post it shared and there is nothing remotely criminal in republishing a poster which includes the image of a public figure which can be found all over the internet.”

On 24 January 2025, when Tanago appeared at the Waigani Committal Court, he was instead charged under section 15, subparagraph (b) of the Cybercrime Act for “identity theft”. The next hearing has been scheduled for February 25.

The 2016 Cybercrime Act has been used to silence criticism and creates a chilling effect, said Civicus Monitor.

The law has been criticised by the opposition, journalists and activists for its impact on freedom of expression and political discourse.

JOURNO ARRAIGNED ON CYBER HARASSMENT
Journalist Hennah Joku appeared before Magistrate Paul Nii at the Waigani Committal Court on charges of cyber defamation following a Facebook post made on 4th September 2024.
Read more:https://t.co/LEIDEcTZv6#EMTVNews #EMTVOnline pic.twitter.com/zHqm353Cst

— EMTV (@EMTVOnline) December 5, 2024

Journalist and gender activist charged with defamation
Journalist and gender activist Hennah Joku was detained and charged under the Cybercrime Act on 23 November 2024, following defamation complaints filed by her former partner Robert Agen.

Joku was charged with two counts of breaching the Cybercrimes Act 2016 and detained in Boroko Prison. She was freed on the same day after bail was posted.

Joku, a survivor of a 2018 assault by Agen, had documented and shared her six-year journey through the PNG justice system, which had resulted in his conviction and jailing in 2023.

On 2 September 2024, the PNG Supreme Court overturned two of three criminal convictions, and Agen was released from prison.

On 4 and 15 September 2024, Joku shared her reactions with more than 9000 followers on her Meta social media account. Those two posts, one of which featured the injuries suffered from her 2018 assault, now form the basis for the current defamation charges against her.

Section 21(2) of the Cybercrimes Act 2016, which has an electronic defamation clause, carries a maximum penalty of up to 25 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to one million kina (NZ$442,000).

The Pacific Freedom Forum (PFF) expressed “grave concerns” over the charges, saying: “We encourage the government and judiciary to review the use of defamation legislation to silence and gag the universal right to freedom of speech.

“Citizens must be informed. They must be protected.”

Court stays logging company lawsuit against civil society group
In January 2025, an injunction issued against community advocacy group ACT NOW! to prevent publication of reports on illegal logging has been stayed by the National Court.

In July 2024, two Malaysian owned logging companies obtained an order from the District Court in Vanimo preventing ACT NOW! from issuing publications about their activities and from contacting their clients and service providers.

That order has now been effectively lifted after the National Court agreed to stay the whole District court proceedings while it considers an application from ACT NOW! to have the case permanently stayed and transferred to the National Court.

ACT NOW! said the action by Global Elite Limited and Wewak Agriculture Development Limited, which are part of the Giant Kingdom group, is an example of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

“SLAPPs are illegitimate and abusive lawsuits designed to intimidate, harass and silence legitimate criticism and close down public scrutiny of the logging industry,” said Civicus Monitor.

SLAPP lawsuits have been outlawed in many countries and lawyers involved in supporting them can be sanctioned, but those protections do not yet exist in PNG.

The District Court action is not the first time the Malaysian-owned Giant Kingdom group has tried to use the legal system in an attempt to silence ACT NOW!

In March 2024, the court rejected a similar SLAPP style application by the Global Elite for an injunction against ACT NOW! As a result, the company discontinued its legal action and the court ordered it to pay ACT NOW!’s legal costs.

Government pushes forward with controversial media legislation
The government is reportedly ready to pass legislation to regulate its media, which journalism advocates have said could have serious implications for democracy and freedom of speech in the country.

National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) of PNG reported in January 2025 that the policy has received the “green light” from cabinet to be presented in Parliament.

The state broadcaster reported that Communications Minister Timothy Masiu said: “This policy will address the ongoing concerns about sensationalism, ethical standards, and the portrayal of violence in the media.”

In July 2024, it was reported that the proposed media policy was now in its fifth draft but it is unclear if this version has been updated.

As previously documented, journalists have raised concerns that the media development policy could lead to more government control over the country’s relatively free media.

The bill includes sections that give the government the “power to investigate complaints against media outlets, issue guidelines for ethical reporting, and enforce sanctions or penalties for violations of professional standards”.

There are also concerns that the law will punish journalists who create content that is against the country’s development objectives.

Organisations such as Transparency International PNG, Media Council of PNG, Pacific Freedom Forum, and Pacific Media Watch/Asia Pacific Media Network among others, have asked for the policy to be dropped.

The press freedom ranking for PNG dropped from 59th place to 91st in the most recent index published by Reporters without Borders (RSF) in May 2024.

Civicus Monitor.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s Communications Minister Timothy Masiu has announced stringent measures to control social media in the country for the next 10 days of the State of Emergency.

The government’s threat drew a sharp rebuke from former prime minister Peter O’Neill who called the move a “sinister fear campaign against the people” and “a threat on the media freedom” of ordinary citizens.

Masiu, a former journalist before becoming a politician, warned that the government would not hesitate to shut down social media applications and sites if there was continuous abuse and misuse of social media in spreading fake news, misinformation and disinformation in the country.

He issued the warning citing significant evidence of serious abuse of social media spreading false information that led to destruction of properties in the capital Port Moresby and parts of the country in last week’s Black Wednesday resulting in deaths.

Masiu said people who engaged in such bogus activity would lose their social media accounts and they could be arrested and charged for fomenting acts of violence.

He said: “I have statutory power under the National Information and Communication Technology Act 2009 to restrict access to social media sites and applications if this continues.

“The Ministry of ICT has observed a sharp spike in the use of social media from Wednesday, January 10, 2024, and many are misinformation and disinformation and we now give 10 days effective from today for people to adhere or face a complete shutdown of social media sites and applications for the duration of the State of Emergency. ”

‘Monitoring of false information’
He said discussions on social media that incited violence, destruction, spreading of false information or confidential government information, opinions that were wrong, or sending false information would be monitored and legal action taken immediately.

Masiu said national security, public emergency and public safety was critical to a secure nation and a “happy and safe country”.

“I have instructed the agencies under my ministry to strengthen monitoring and report any abuses of social media to the police cybercrime unit to begin investigations, arrest and prosecute and also take down fake accounts and sites.”

Last Friday, when introducing the two-week State of Emergency following Black Wednesday, Prime Minister James Marape announced draconian emergency measures including searches of private homes, property, vehicle and phones by government agents.

Masiu said PNG was a civilised country and citizens must abide by rules and laws. Every citizen had a duty and obligation to ensure “we progress to be a better country”.

However, an irate O’Neill said: “It is not surprising that we see intimidating armoured personnel carriers on the streets today in Port Moresby and now threats that our freedom of speech will be removed with the potential cancellation of social media.

“The government is doing its very best to shut down our constitutional rights in a fear campaign.”

Government ‘fears people’s voices’
O’Neill continued to counter the government plan by suggesting the government now feared the people’s voices.

“It seems that the government is in fear of the voice of its own people when it should instead be listening to the struggle of the people who discuss online the bad governance practices of this government; high unemployment; budget in a mess and crippling cost of living,” he said.

“That is what people are talking about on the street, in their homes and on social media. Will they next enter our homes and monitor conversation’s between family members?

“Government should listen up and stop this nonsense of trying to control our vibrant democracy.

Get back to basics and build our country; live within our means and develop jobs and provide quality healthcare and education. Get back to old fashioned policing not intimidation.”

Opposition Leader Joseph Lelang and his deputy Douglas Tomuriesa did not respond to PNG Post-Courier questions last night.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The rise in social media platforms uploading naked pictures of women and girls has come to the attention of the Censorship Board in Papua New Guinea with Chief Censor Jim Abani warning about the dangers.

In what many have termed as cyber bullying, a picture of women or girls uploaded on social media is then downloaded by other people who use Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) in creating new content like images and videos of the women or girls involved in sexual activities, including being naked and also involved in pornography.

Chief Censor Abani said his office had received many complaints regarding GAI in creating new content like images and videos of recent reported cases, including uploading of nude images of females on social media.

He said it was disrespectful and a “disgrace to our mothers and sisters”.

More than 20 girls in Spain reported receiving AI-generated naked images of themselves in a controversy that has been widely reported globally.

Chief Censor Abani said the increase of using new and advanced technology features was alarming for a young and developing country such as PNG.

“We are talking about embracing communication and connective and empowering economy but also the high risks and dangers of wellbeing is my concern, Chief Censor Abani said.

“I call on those sick minded or evil minded people to stop and do something useful and contribute meaningful to nation building.

New Facebook trend
“This is a new trend with Facebook users in the country on social media platforms increasing with unimaginable ways of discriminating and harassment using fake names to post images — particularly of young females — that are not suitable for public consumption or viewing,” he said.

He said he was calling on all relevant agencies to come together, including the Censorship Office, to start implementing some policies and regulations to address these
issues.

Chief Censor Abani said people were unaware of dangers — “particularly our female users of social media platforms”.

These acts were without the individuals’ consent and knowledge using Generative AI applications.

“Technology is good but we must use wisely and being responsible in using such information that is provided,” he said.

He said the Censorship Office would work closely with Department ICT, DATACO and NICTA, police cybercrime unit to use the Cybercrime Code Act to punish perpetrators while waiting for the Censorship Act to finalise a review and amendments.

Marjorie Finkeo is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning analyse the advent of new technologies and the rise of hybrid warfare.

In this episode, Buchanan and Manning take you on a journey into a world that exists all around us, no matter where we live. But, it’s fair to say, it’s a world few realise exists and few realise how it is effecting them.

With the technologies that surround us, tech that we use every day, it has become easy to conduct indirect or non-attributable warfare using a variety of means.

There’s the grey area phenomena where opponent states undermine adversaries from within, sowing distrust, or fear, where there should not be. The purpose is to weaken public trust and a population’s resolve to support their government.

In an extreme situation, this form of hostilities can escalate into hybrid warfare using indirect and direct means, from cyber offensives to firepower.

To illustrate the issue, we will draw on the build-up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and also evaluate other locations around the world where there is evidence of hybrid warfare.

It may surprise you to realise how close to home are real world examples of hybrid warfare.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Aotearoa New Zealand makes up a small portion of the world’s population, yet the country is being hit by a relatively bigger share of cyber attacks.

Chances are, you’re familiar with the term ‘distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack’. Not because your organisation has been subjected to one, but instead, the recent numerous, high profile attacks on local and global businesses have captured your attention.

With cyber attacks ramping up across the globe and Aotearoa New Zealand an attractive target, every business—no matter the size—must put protections in place.

What’s a DDoS attack?

Designed to disrupt the normal function of a server, DDoS attacks harness compromised computers and hardware like Internet of Things (IoT) devices to flood the target or its surrounding infrastructure with traffic. This influx can slow down or overwhelm a website or service, denying access to genuine traffic.

DDoS attacks are on the rise across the world, with attackers using different styles of malicious activity to take down websites and even using them as an attempt to extort money. Businesses from all industries were victims of ransom DDoS (RDDoS) attacks in 2021, and Q4 saw a 29% YoY and 177% QoQ increase.

New Zealand is a prime target

Only three active undersea submarine cables connect Aotearoa New Zealand to the outside world. In comparison to the rest of the world, this relatively small number makes it easier for the country’s networks to be overwhelmed.

In fact, the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) reported an increase in criminal or financially motivated actors with a significant national impact or potential to cause serious harm in its 2020-21 threat report (27% compared to 14% the year prior).

A spate of high profile, local businesses experienced repeated DDoS attacks over the last 18 months—from Vocus to one coordinated attack on NZ Post, MetService, Kiwibank, ANZ and Inland Revenue.

However, it is critical to note that organisations of any size can fall victim to a DDoS or RDDoS attack. No business is immune, and the impacts can be significant.

How can businesses prevent these types of attacks?

Most organisations in Aotearoa New Zealand are still trying to protect themselves using traditional security measures that are no match for a burgeoning tide of bots, ready to be mobilised against them in a few strokes of a keyboard.

While this might sound daunting, implementing good cyber security protections against DDoS attacks does not need to be.

1. Speak with your network provider to understand what DDoS mitigation services they offer and how much traffic they can mitigate before your organisation is affected. This is an added service for some providers, while others might charge surge pricing in the unlucky instance that your website is bombarded with traffic during a DDoS attack.
2. Ramp up your front-line protection. Engage a provider with specially designed network equipment or a cloud-based protection service to mitigate your business from incoming threats. Here, it’s essential to consider the potential risk to your company and consider the scalability, flexibility, reliability and network size of potential providers. For example, large-scale attacks have the potential to take out on-site network infrastructure, while cloud-based solutions can scale when mitigating attacks.

3. Create a DDoS attack incident response plan. The overwhelming nature of a DDoS attack can take out multiple systems and services, not just your website. And in the moment, it’s easy for panic to set in. Be proactive, create a dedicated DDoS incident response plan, and conduct exercises to ensure its effectiveness.

4. Regularly patch your systems, software and hardware. Developers regularly release updates to decrease or eliminate vulnerabilities in software. Applying these patches to operating systems, applications, and all network-connected devices in real-time is the simplest way to mitigate a cyber security attack. There’s a reason why patching is CERT NZ’s top critical control to protect organisations from being breached—don’t leave your business wide open.

Censoring of Facebook in Papua New Guinea can be addressed by three mandated government agencies, says Chief Censor Jim Abani.

He was responding to the Post-Courier on how his office was dealing with indecent content posted on Facebook in view of a controversy over a video of an alleged child molester.

“FB censoring is to be addressed by three agencies with relevant responsibilities that are mandated to carry out policies and regulations,” Abani said.

He added: “In the event that pictures and sexual references and connotations are published then the censor will say its objectionable publication.”

Abani said the Cyber Crime Code Act defined penalties for cyber harassment and cyber bullying.

“NICTA (National Information and Communications Technology Authority) may look into electronic devices used to commit crime or offence while Censorship Office will vet or screen the content of materials and determine whether it’s explicit, or not explicit and allowed for public consumption.”

He said police under the Summary Offences Act are equally responsible to censor illicit material posted online.

“Indecent publication published is in the amended Summary Offences Act.”

No comment on specific case
Abani could not comment on the specific video of the alleged 16-year-old child molester, saying that his officers were still working on gathering information.

However, he added that the approved 2021-2025 National Censorship Policy called for partnership and a collaborative approach from each responsible agency.

Abani said a new trend in the digital space had meant the Censorship Office to build its capacity to monitor and control apart from developing the recently launched policy it had been currently doing by reviewing the Censorship Act 1989.

The office was also working on signing an agreement with an internet gateway service provider.

Phoebe Gwangilo is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will consider and analyse the most significant global issues that define 2021. The topics will include:

– Leadership: Trump, Putin, Xi, Biden,

– Pandemic: Impact of Covid-19 & variants on global security

– Security: Afghanistan, AUKUS, Autonomous Weapons, Cyber-Hackers/Attackers.

Join Paul and Selwyn for this LIVE recording of this podcast while they consider these big issues, and remember any comments you make while live can be included in this programme.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A View from Afar: Selwyn Manning and Paul Buchanan will present this week’s podcast, A View from Afar, LIVE at midday Thursday and will do a deep-dive into cyber-attacks and hybrid warfare – Especially how 2021 has witnessed a Cold War II styled stand-off between global powers.

To re-cap, there has been:

• Allegations of a global-scale hack by the People’s Republic of China.
• There’s the Pegasus spyware scandal, where Israel has exported deep-tracking and targeting spyware to despots and authoritarian governments.
• Then there’s been the relatively silent mission-creep of Palantir as a Western-oriented Public Private Partnership-styled signals “facilitator”.

Paul and Selwyn will discuss how all of this sets 2021 apart and adds up to an evolution of hybrid warfare capabilities.

WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE WHILE WE ARE LIVE WITH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS IN THE RECORDING OF THIS PODCAST:

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

New Zealand’s cyber security agency believes China has been behind numerous hack attacks spanning years.

The government joined Western allies and Japan in calling out Beijing for so-called state-sponsored hacks, including a major incursion in February when Microsoft email servers were targeted.

The US has charged four Chinese nationals — three security officials and one contract hacker — with targeting dozens of companies and government agencies in the United States and overseas under the cover of a tech company.

“What we do is when we see malicious cyber activity on New Zealand networks, that may be through our own capabilities that we have to help protect New Zealand networks or it may be something that’s reported to us, we look at the malware that’s used,” Government Communications Security Bureau Director-General Andrew Hampton told RNZ Checkpoint.

“We look at how the actor behaves. We look at who they might be targeting and what they do if they get onto a network.

“That allows us to build a bit of a picture of who the actor is. We then compare that with information that we receive, often from our intelligence partners who are also observing such activity.

“That allows us to make an assessment, and it’s always a probability assessment about who the actor is.

The APT 40 group
“In this case, because of the amount of information we’ve been able to access both from our own capabilities and from our partners, we’ve got a reasonably high level of confidence that the actor who we’ve seen undertaking this campaign over a number of years, and in particular, who was responsible for the Microsoft Exchange compromise, was the APT 40 group — Advanced Persistent Threat Group 40 — which has been identified as associated with the Chinese Ministry of State Security.

The RNZ National live stream.  Video: Checkpoint

“The actors here are state sponsored actors rather than what we would normally define as a criminal group. What we’re seeing here is a state sponsored actor likely to be motivated by a desire to steal information.”

Hampton said there was a blurring of lines between what a state agency does, and what a criminal group does.

“Some of the technical capabilities that previously only state organisations had, have now got into the hands of criminal groups.

“Also what we’ve seen in a range of countries is individuals who may work part-time in a government intelligence agency, and then may work part-time in a criminal enterprise. Or they may have previously worked in a state intelligence agency and are now out by themselves but still have links links back to the state.

“We don’t know the full detail of the nature of the relationship, but what we do know is the Ministry of State Security in China, for example, is a very large organisation with many thousands of of employees.

“So they are big organisations with people on their payroll but they also would have connections with other individuals and organisations.

Information shared with criminals
“Something else worth noting with regard to this most recent compromise involving the Microsoft Exchange, what we saw there is once the Ministry of State Security actors had identified the vulnerability and exploited it, they then shared that information with a range of other actors, including criminal groups, so they too could exploit it.

“This is obviously a real concern to see this type of behaviour occurring,” Hampton said.

All evidence showed the cyber attacks were all originating from mainland China, Hampton told Checkpoint.

He said such attacks would be aimed at stealing data or possibly positioning themselves on a system to be able to access information in the future.

“A common tactic we see, unfortunately, is there may be a vulnerability in a system,” Hampton said.

“It could be a generic vulnerability across all users of that particular system, and a malicious actor may become aware of that vulnerability, so they would use that to get onto the network.

“That doesn’t mean they will then start exfiltrating data from day one or something like that. They may just want to to sit there in the event that at some point in the future they may want to start doing that.

Malicious actors
“This exploitation of known vulnerabilities is a real concern. This is why all organisations need to keep their security patches up to date, because what can happen is you can have malicious actors use technology to scan whole countries to see who hasn’t updated their patches.

“They then use that vulnerability to get on the network and they may not do anything with it for some time. Or they might produce a list of all the organisations, say, in New Zealand who haven’t updated their patches.

“Then they make a decision – okay these are the four to five we want to further exploit.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Click here to view onsite, or Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning  or Facebook.com/selwyn.manning

—

Tonight, on Tech Now technology commentator Sarah Putt joins Selwyn Manning to check out what’s been happening in the tech world this week.

The show’s main points include:

What’s Happening in the Tech World?

• How and why international cyber attackers have New Zealand organisations in their sights?

• There are BIG Changes looming to how our Emergency services communicate. Why is this change coming? What’s the cost? And, what will it mean for you, and for first responders?

• Media Tech: Is print really dead? And, why is the New York Times a digital success story?

INTERACTION: Remember, if you are joining us LIVE via social media (SEE LINKS BELOW), you can make comments and even put Sarah on the spot with a few questions. We will be able to see your interaction, and include this in the LIVE show.

You can interact with the LIVE programme by joining these social media channels. Here are the links:

• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube

And, you can see video-on-demand of this show, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz

The programme is the latest effort by EveningReport as it rolls out its public service webcasting programmes, produced by ER’s parent company Multimedia Investments Ltd.

ER’s Tech Now programme explores the latest tech trends both here in New Zealand and globally.

The programme’s format examines the tech world in the present and post-Covid-19 world. It looks at new innovations, what they mean to us as we grapple with the ‘new normal’. Tech Now also looks at the policy settings to see if they are a hindrance to progress or part of the solutions.

Evening Report’s Tech Now also includes audience participation, where the programme’s social media audiences can make comment and issue questions. The best of these can be selected and webcast in the programme LIVE.

Once the programme has concluded, it will automatically switch to video on demand so that those who have missed the programme, can watch it at a time of their convenience.

So join us on Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube as we will promote Tech Now via our social media channels and via web partners. It will also webcast live and on demand on EveningReport.nz, and other selected outlets.

Do bookmark EveningReport.nz and we look forward to you taking part in some robust live debate.

About Us: EveningReport.nz is based in Auckland city, New Zealand, is an associate member of the New Zealand Media Council, and is part of the MIL-OSI network, owned by its parent company Multimedia Investments Ltd (MIL) (MILNZ.co.nz).

EveningReport specialises in publishing independent analysis and features from a New Zealand juxtaposition, including global issues and geopolitics as it impacts on the countries and economies of Australasia and the Asia Pacific region.

Manila Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa has denied the motion for partial reconsideration filed by Rappler journalists, and upheld the cyber libel conviction of Rappler CEO and executive editor Maria Ressa and former researcher-writer Reynaldo Santos Jr.

“In view of the foregoing, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by Accused Reynaldo Santos Jr and Maria Angelita Ressa is denied for lack of merit,” Montesa said in an order signed on Friday.

The next option for Ressa and Santos would be to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals.

READ MORE: Cases vs Maria Ressa, Rappler directors, staff since 2018

In denying the motion of Ressa and Santos, Montesa for the first time cited a Supreme Court First Division ruling from 2018, which says that cyber libel prescribes not 12 years, but 15 years – an even longer period.

The prescription period is one of the most legally contested issues in the Ressa cyber libel case. Former Supreme Court senior associate justice Antonio Carpio maintains that the prescription period is one year.

The disputed Rappler article was published May 2012, which means complainant Wilfredo Keng had the right to sue only until May 2013 if the one year prescription was followed. Keng filed the complaint only in October 2017.

Montesa found an “unpublished resolution of Tolentino v People,” which is a First Division ruling from the Supreme Court dated August 6, 2018.

Judge’s justification
Montesa quoted the resolution to justify her ruling that cyber libel does not prescribe in one year.

Although Montesa previously upheld the Department of Justice (DOJ) theory that cyber libel prescribes in 12 years, she is now citing the Tolentino resolution which says: “Following Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of libel in relation to RA 10175 now prescribes in 15 years.”

“Thus, the Court cannot apply the 1-year prescriptive period provided for under the Revised Penal Code as claimed by the defense,” Montesa said.

Montesa’s earlier ruling on prescription period, and Tolentino vs People, have A different legal basis.

Under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), libel prescribes one year. The Cybercrime Law did not explicitly provide a prescription period for cyber libel.

This lack of a textual basis gave DOJ, and later on Montesa, an opening to cite the pre-war Act 3326 which lays down prescriptive periods for special laws.

The Cybercrime Law imposed penalties one degree higher for offenses under it. So from an original penalty of up to 6 years, cyber libel was now imposed a penalty of up to 12 years. Under the archaic Act 3326, that kind of crime prescribes in 12 years, in the DOJ’s and Montesa’s view.

Prescription of crimes
The Tolentino ruling, however, was based on Article 90 of the RPC which lays out prescription of crimes.

The First Division ruling said: “The new penalty (of cyber libel), therefore, becomes afflictive, following Section 25 6of the RPC… following Article 90 7of the RPC, the crime of libel in relation to RA 10175 now prescribes in fifteen (15) years.”

The 2nd paragraph of Article 90 says: “Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.”
Article 90

In his earlier column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, retired justice Carpio pointed out that Article 90 “is classified into two,” and that the 2nd classification still makes cyber libel’s prescription one year.

“Those based on the length or nature of the penalty, and those based on the crime itself regardless of the length or nature of the penalty. Under the first classification are, among others, crimes punishable by correctional penalty which prescribe in 10 years. Under the second classification are, among others, ‘libel and similar offenses’ which prescribe in one year,” Carpio wrote.

Indeed, the 4th and 5th paragraphs of Article 90 said: “The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year. The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.”

Cyber libel ‘not new crime’
In declaring the Cybercrime Law constitutional in 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Disini vs Secretary of Justice that “cyber libel is actually not a new crime” from the RPC libel.

Thus, Carpio noted, “In such a case, the prescriptive period for cyber libel is governed by the RPC which prescribes its own prescriptive periods. Under Article 90 of the RPC, the crime of libel and other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.”

“The Tolentino citation was unnecessary because, under Disini, there is a specific prescriptive period and that is Art. 90. We will address that on appeal,” said Ressa and Santos’ lawyer, former Supreme Court spokesperson Ted Te.

Ressa faces 5 other criminal cases related to tax, and 3 criminal complaints, including another cyber libel complaint filed by Keng.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the up to six years in jail sentence that Philippine journalist Maria Ressa faces on a criminal libel charge in a “shocking judicial masquerade” in Manila yesterday.

It called on the country’s justice system to recover a “semblance of credibility” by overturning her conviction on appeal, RSF said in a statement as global media freedom and human rights watchdogs protested over the verdict.

A Manila regional court convicted Maria Ressa, co-founder and director of the independent news website Rappler, over an article published in 2012 that was the subject of a complaint by a businessman.

READ MORE: Maria Ressa found guilty in blow to Philippines’ press freedom

But the case was brought under a cyber crime law that took effect after the article’s publication. Rappler‘s former researcher-writer Reynaldo Santos Jr received the same sentence.

Both were allowed to post bail, pending an appeal.

As no criminal legislation can be retroactive, the National Bureau of Investigation dismissed the case in February 2018. But President Rodrigo Duterte’s Department of Justice decided otherwise.

‘Continuous publication’
It revived the case in February 2019 on the grounds that a supposed principle of “continuous publication” could be applied to websites.

“By passing this extremely harsh sentence at the end of utterly Kafkaesque proceedings, the Philippine justice system has demonstrated a complete lack of independence from the executive,” said Daniel Bastard, the head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

“This sentence bears the malevolent mark of President Duterte and his desire, by targeting Rappler and the figure of Maria Ressa, to eliminate all criticism whatever the cost.

“We urge Manila’s judges to restore a semblance of credibility to the Philippine judicial system by overturning this conviction on appeal.”

?? @rapplerdotcom‘s @mariaressa could get six years in jail! By passing this harsh sentence after utterly Kafkaesque proceedings, the #Philippines‘ justice system has demonstrated a complete lack of independence from from pdt #Duterte‘s administration. https://t.co/RSK6RARyfM

— RSF (@RSF_inter) June 15, 2020

Systematic harassment
This conviction of Ressa and Rappler is the latest chapter in the systematic judicial harassment to which they have been subjected by various government agencies for more than two years.

Either directly or through Ressa, the website is facing 10 other similar complaints, each as baseless as the other, with the aim of intimidating its journalists.

“What with denying its reporters access to the presidential palace, threatening to withdraw its licence and accusing it of tax evasion, the authorities have stopped at nothing to harass Rappler, even arbitrarily detaining Ressa overnight in February 2019,” said Bastard.

ABS-CBN, the biggest Philippine broadcast network and one of the few other media outlets to dare criticise the government, had its franchise withdrawn last month.

Its radio stations and TV channels all stopped broadcasting on May 5 at the behest of the Justice Department and National Telecommunications Commission.

The country’s authoritarian president had warned the network’s executives last December: “If you expect that [the franchise] will be renewed, I’m sorry. I will see to it that you’re out.”

After falling seven places since 2017, the Philippines is ranked 136th out of 180 countries and territories in RSF’s 2020 World Press Freedom Index.

‘Damaging precedent’
In Brisbane, Professor Peter Greste, director and spokesperson of the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom and UNESCO chair of journalism and communication at the University of Queensland, said the verdict set “an extraordinarily damaging precedent” for Asia-Pacific and global press freedom.

“To suggest there was no political pressure in this case would be incredibly naïve. The Philippine government has made it abundantly clear that they don’t think Maria should be free. The judge will have been acutely aware of this pressure.

“As a former political prisoner myself, I am deeply concerned about Maria and her former colleague, researcher-writer Reynaldo Santos Jr. who was also convicted in this case. More broadly though, I am concerned about what this means for the people of the Philippines.

“They might not all read Maria’s website, Rappler.com, but they all benefit from a free press that is able to question and challenge those in power. This judgment strikes a blow for every independent journalist in the country, chilling the kind of enquiry that makes democracy work.

“But this is not just about the Philippines. The human rights group, Freedom House, has charted a decline in democracy across the Asian region, and this conviction accelerates that trend.

“The AJF urges democratic governments – including Australia’s – to respond swiftly and decisively. This is a test case for the world’s resolve in standing up to authoritarianism by supporting press freedom.”

Maria Ressa found guilty in blow to Philippines’ press freedom #cyberlibel #mediafreedom @pacmedcentre @cnnphilippines @rapplerdotcom @mongster @dannyarao https://t.co/P6h8lNvEYr pic.twitter.com/FL75VyrdOy

— David Robie (@DavidRobie) June 15, 2020

‘Another nail in coffin’
In Auckland, Professor David Robie, director of the Pacific Media Centre, said the conviction of Rappler’s Maria Ressa and Raynaldo Santos Jr “drives another nail into the coffin of a free press and democracy” in the Philippines.

“It is also a chilling cautionary tale for the Asia-Pacific region and especially for those Pacific countries, such as Papua New Guinea and Fiji, that have imposed draconian cyber crime and social media laws that are really designed to stifle free expression and a free media.

“Fiji is currently deploying its social media law in a blatant attempt to muzzle its democratic opposition and intimidate the media. The behaviour of the state and security forces frequently display the typical characteristics of a virtual dictatorship.”

The Pacific Media Centre’s Pacific Media Watch freedom project collaborates with the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Dr Mohamed El-Guindy … time for universities to step up or face an Orwellian future. Image: David Robie/PMC

 By DAVID ROBIE in Bangkok

A LEADING cyber security expert has called on universities to play a more active role in implementing ethics and legal frameworks for communications smart technology to save society from an Orwellian future.

Dr Mohamed El-Guindy, an Egyptian consultant to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC-ROMENA), says communication research programmes should promote “ethically aligned” design.

In an era of “accelerated addictiveness” to smartphone and other digital technologies, he told media researchers, policy advisers and journalists at the recent 27th Asian Media Information and Communication (AMIC) conference in Bangkok, Thailand, that it was vital for democracy that universities stepped up.

He also said families and parents needed to be more critically active by balancing screen time and promoting “real social interaction”.

Addressing the “persuasive technologies” industry, Dr El-Guindy spoke about being “hooked”, the “scrolling dopamine loop” and the “digital skinner box” models and how they had made smartphones fill psychological needs.

“Our social fabric is being torn apart,” he said. “As we expect more from technology, we expect less from each other as people.

Climate change guide
Among four new international books about communication research and technology, prolific Filipino author and communications expert Dr Maslog launched his 36th title, Science Writing and Climate Change.

Developed as a guide for journalists in the Asia-Pacific region, it has been co-authored with New Zealand’s Pacific Media Centre director Professor David Robie and regional editor Joel Adriano of SciDev.Net, a leading online publication with a focus of science and development.

Among several UNESCO delegates and speakers at the conference, Dorothy Gordon, of the governing board of the UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education, called on participants to lobby through their national commissions and global agencies if they wanted action.

“Asia has the potential to be in control, it can make changes for tech for peace,” she said. “UNESCO is made up of member states. If you want something to happen, you need to lobby your own country first to take up the issue.”

Malaysia’s Dr Azman Azwan Azmawati, an associate professor at the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) in Penang and president of the Asian Congress for Media and Communication (ACMC), called for more critical research on patriarchal systems.

“It is crucial for more study of patriarchal systems because of their negative impact on women and stereotyping of women,” she said. “The patriarchal system hinders women from reaching their potential.”

Power imbalance
Much more research was needed to focus on the imbalance of power – ‘deconstructing the power of the powerful over the powerless.

“Cultural norms and mindsets must be re-examined, critiqued, reevaluated and rethought.”

Professor Mark Pearson of Australia’s Griffith University spoke of human rights advocacy journalism in a global justice context.

“Global justice can be a legitimate ethical objective of advocacy journalism, requiring factuality as a platform,” he said.

“It is achievable in some cases through a wise and intentional position of ‘advocacy journalism’ which sits comfortably with the professional values of the livelihood of journalists.”

He cited several examples of advocacy journalism in Australia and New Zealand, including Greenpeace investigative journalist Phil Vine.

Dr Pearson, author of The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law, also spoke about “mindful journalism”, a form of journalism with “wisdom and compassion” drawing from elements of secular Buddhist approaches to meditation and ethics.

He dedicated a separate paper on the topic to the memory of Dr Shelton Gunaratne, who died in March this year after being awarded the 2016 AMIC Asia Communication Award for his “ground-breaking scholarship and intellectual contribution to Asian media and communication research”.

High tech ‘slavery’
Professor Jack Linchuan Qiu, author of Goodbye iSlave and director of the Chinese University of Hong Kong’s C-Centre for Chinese Media and Comparative Communication Research, gave an inspired address on the impact of modern day “slavery” in the high tech industries.

Taiwan’s Professor Georgette Wang of the National Chengchi University engaged with the debate about Asian research methodologies, saying that perhaps the right questions were not being asked.

She said there was an absence of “East-West dialogue” over research methodologies and there needed to be more engagement. Blaming globalisation, she said that while the “periphery” had gained greater presence in the international arena, it had also “brought the profile of theories and questions originating in the West to greater prominence”.

Instead of rejecting Western research models in an Asian context, more effort was needed to “develop a new paradigm” drawing on both East-West traditions.

• Full story and images on Asia Pacific Report

David Robie’s Radio 95bFM Southern Cross commentary about the conference.

This article was first published on Café Pacific.

]]> https://eveningreport.nz/2019/05/16/bryce-edwards-political-roundup-christchurch-calling-the-clampdown-on-social-media/ Thu, 16 May 2019 05:05:11 +0000 https://eveningreport.nz/?p=23898

The world is changing fast, with digital technological innovation that is both liberating and disturbing. The threats and opportunities this presents requires a massive debate, and intervention, to ensure such changes are as healthy as possible for humanity. The online dimension of the Christchurch terrorist attacks is now provoking a sea change in attitudes towards social media.

Around the world we are now seeing attempts to rein in the tech giants with government regulations. There are blunt questions being asked about whether the likes of Facebook are “monetising hate”, and whether the dream of social media enhancing democracy and social connectedness is over.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s Christchurch Call to Action campaign is currently at the most visible end of this new momentum, and commentators have declared her trip to Paris a success. For example, this afternoon Henry Cooke has concluded: Jacinda Ardern’s big day in Paris ends with her getting what she wanted.

Likewise, Gordon Campbell is impressed with how the final Paris manifesto has come together, apparently managing to satisfy all sides, including Facebook – see: On the Christchurch Call.

But the campaign isn’t over yet. According to Kelsey Munro, a research fellow at Australia’s Lowy Institute, Ardern’s bid is still a difficult one – see: Christchurch Call: Jacinda Ardern’s Paris pitch a sign of tech giants’ power.

Munro points out that attempts to regulate social media so far, have been fraught and dangerous: “Many nations around the world have concluded that the public sphere must reassert a regulatory role; the problem is how to do it within reasonable limits. No one wants anything resembling the Chinese model. Australia’s ‘knee-jerk’ reaction has been widely criticised by the tech industry and lawyers as rushed and ill-defined.”

Clearly Ardern has been keen to keep away from some of the issues around free speech that are brought up by government regulation, as I explained in my previous column – see: Ardern’s “Christchurch Call” might not be so simple.

So is her campaign going to work? There are all sorts of risks with this sort of attempt at regulation. And this is best dealt with in Henry Cooke’s article, The risks Jacinda Ardern faces with her ‘Christchurch Call’ in Paris. He outlines three broad threats: 1) Over-reach, 2) Under-reach, 3) Being used by Macron to launder his image.

In terms of those first two dangers, the Christchurch Call might end up being too strong or too weak. The third point is the idea that in collaborating so closely with the French President and other world leaders, Ardern is naively being exploited for their own electoral opportunism. Cooke suggests that Ardern might need to “make her disagreement with these other leaders clear”.

This is also the view of Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper: “What is French President Emmanuel Macron playing at? The answer’s pretty obvious, he’s trying to boost his flagging popularity at home while at the same time trying to establish himself as a world leader on cleaning up the internet” – see: Jacinda Ardern being used by Emmanuel Macron to boost his image.

Soper suggests that Macron has been rather disingenuous in his role: “If you needed any convincing that she’s being used, get a load of what happened as she was packing her designer bags for the French capital. Macron releases a 33-page report he’d commissioned… Why he couldn’t delay the release until this week’s summit is an insult to those attending. And what’s more, the investigation was only halfway through but Macron decided to make a song and dance about how well France is doing.”

The bigger problem is that Macron has a terrible record in terms of civil liberties, and is clearly no friend of free speech, which could taint the ongoing campaign to regulate social media. This is all very well explained by leftwing journalist Branko Marcetic who puts forward “a brief review of what Macron’s done while in power” – see: Jacinda Ardern must not let Emmanuel Macron co-opt the Christchurch Call.

Marcetic then asks whether New Zealanders should be comfortable with such an alliance: “This is the man Ardern is teaming up with to figure out a way to regulate online spaces. Concerns over this shouldn’t be limited to the New Zealand right – with Macron at the helm, there are legitimate worries the outcome could threaten free speech, including for that of the liberals and left that are backing such measures right now.”

He concludes: “Ardern should be careful that Macron and any other embattled leaders in the G7 don’t use this meeting as an opportunity to push measures that harm not just journalism, but all of our civil liberties. But more importantly, the New Zealand public needs to hold her to account and make sure she doesn’t.”

And some are worried that the clampdown will inevitably intrude on the traditional media. Barry Soper criticises Ardern for “trying to reign in the mainstream media’s coverage of events to ensure it’s not gratuitous, and that for all of us should be worry. It’s not for the politicians to dictate how events should be covered” – see: The media here is generally self regulatory.

It’s clear that the task of social media regulation isn’t a simple one. And one of the best outlines of the pitfalls and best practices that Ardern and co should keep in mind can found in Dan Jerker B. Svantesson’s article, It’s vital we clamp down on online terrorism. But is Ardern’s ‘Christchurch Call’ the answer?

He cautions against the “risk of hasty, excessive and uncoordinated responses” to social media problems and suggests that we are currently seeing a rush of politicians who all want to gain political capital from coming up with fast answers. He says “as part of this we must avoid hasty ‘solutions’ that will only mask the issues in the long term, and potentially cause other problems such as excessive blocking of internet content.”

Svantesson’s own list of requirements for new regulations are the following: “Effective legal regulation of the internet must be clear, proportional (balanced for all involved), accountable (able to be monitored and checked) and offer procedural guarantees (open to appeals).”

Similarly, Jordan Carter and Konstantinos Komaitis, of Internet NZ and the Internet Society, have put forward their own suggestions of what needs to underpin any new rules and laws – see: How to regulate the internet without shackling its creativity.

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark has also jumped into the debate this week with the launch of her own Foundation think tank report, titled “Anti-social Media”. This calls for a new body to be set up to regulate social media in this country in the same way that the New Zealand Media Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority does with traditional media. For an in-depth discussion of the report, see Thomas Coughlan’s How to regulate social media.

Clark has explained the thinking behind this, and how it’s partly based on her own personal experience: “What I’m concerned about is that the rising level of rhetoric on social media from people who think they can get away with just about anything… And let’s face it, they can. I have regularly reported very hateful content, and very often you just get these reports dismissed. So that’s why you now need what this report recommends, which is the statutory duty to self-regulate, and then you need the regulator overseeing that” – see 1News’ Changing hate speech laws would ‘not necessarily’ have prevented Christchurch attacks – Helen Clark.

For more on this, as well as other debates about regulation of social media in New Zealand, and what sort of agreement was expected from the Paris meetings, see Derek Cheng’s Christchurch Call summit: New rules must leave nowhere to hide. In terms of the Paris agreement, he notes that “whether it will have any teeth will be a key issue, given it will be a voluntary framework.”

A new survey out shows that there’s a strong demand amongst New Zealanders for this problem to be sorted out: “More than half of New Zealanders want livestreaming stopped until platforms work out a way to immediately remove violent or other harmful content, a survey indicates. The online survey of 1134 adults carried out in the second half of April, found 54 per cent of those questioned wanted a halt to livestreaming in the meantime. In contrast, 29 per cent thought platforms should be given time to sort out a solution” – see: Most Kiwis want livestreaming halted until violent content can be curbed: survey.

Much of the debate about the problems of online extremism and regulation comes back to The Matrix movie’s concept of being “red-pilled”, which is explained in today’s Christchurch Press editorial: “To be red-pilled is to have the shackles of delusion removed and to see things as they really are” – see: Cleaning up the dark corners of the internet. But if this sounds like a positive development, then for a bigger explanation of the problem, see Henry Cooke’s Christchurch Call could lead to work on ‘red-pilling’ of online radicalisation.

Despite the difficulties involved, there’s no doubt that the tide has turned, and there is now a significant public appetite for some sort of action to be taken that might deal with the tech giants. After all, their reach affects everything in society – including democracy and politics.

This is a point well made in a report released this week, “Digital Threats to Democracy”, which suggests that the way New Zealanders are interacting with information online “can lead to the rapid spread of incorrect information and hinder the discussion and debate of issues of public policy” – see Brittany Keogh’s Social media influences New Zealanders’ opinions on politics and hurts democracy, study says.

Finally, there’s plenty of other disturbing evidence of the brave new world we are moving into. For one of the best recent accounts of this, see Danyl Mclauchlan’s book review, Big Google is watching you. Looking at an important new book by Shoshana Zuboff, a professor of social psychology at Harvard Business School, called “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for the Future at the New Frontier of Power”, Mclauchlan explains why he feels so uncomfortable at the supermarket.

]]> https://eveningreport.nz/2019/03/08/activists-arrest-shows-widodo-no-different-from-suharto-says-aji/ Fri, 08 Mar 2019 08:01:25 +0000 https://eveningreport.nz/2019/03/08/activists-arrest-shows-widodo-no-different-from-suharto-says-aji/ AJI chairperson Abdul Manan speaking at a Jakarta rally … “freedom of expression … is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Image: Sakina Rakhma/Kompas

By Fitria Chusna Farisa in Jakarta

The Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) has called on the Indonesian police to release Jakarta State University lecturer Robertus Robet who has been indicted on charges of insulting the authorities or a public agency.

AJI says that a speech given by Robert during a Kamisan (Thursday) action in front of the State Palace on February 28 which touched on the dual socio-political role (dwi-fungsi) of ABRI — an abbreviation for the Indonesian Armed Forces, now called TNI — was an act of free expression by a citizen which is guaranteed under Article 28E Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution (UUD 1945).

“Expressing a view is part of human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” said AJI chairperson Abdul Manan in a written press release yesterday.

According to AJI, Robet’s arrest shows that there was no difference between the current regime of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo and the New Order regime of former president Suharto which curbed freedom of expression and opinion.

AJI condemned Robet’s arrest because it was done without any clear legal basis.

“Robertus Robet’s criticism of the government’s plan to again place active TNI [officers] in civil posts is protected by legislation,” said Manan.

-Partners-

AJI is also urging the police to immediately release Robet and respect human rights which guarantee citizens the right freedom of opinion and expression as regulated under the UUD 1945.

‘Rubber articles’
Finally, AJI is calling for the “rubber articles” (catchall articles) in the Electronic Transaction and Information law (UU ITE) and the Criminal Code (KUHP) to be annulled.

“We call for the annulment of the rubber articles in the UU ITE and the KUHP which are frequently used to criminalise human rights defenders, including journalists,” he said.

Police have declared Robet a suspect in a case of alleged criminal defamation against the authorities or a public agency in Indonesia.

Based on the charge document from the National Police, Robert has been indicted under Article 45 A Paragraph (2) in connection with Article 28 Paragraph (2) of the ITE law and/or Article 14 Paragraph (2) in conjunction with Article 15 of Law Number 1/1946 on the Criminal Code and/or Article 207 of the Criminal Code (KUHP).

Robet is alleged to have disseminated information aimed at creating hatred and animosity against individuals and or social groups based on SARA (ethnic, religion, race and inter-group issues), fake news or defamation against the authorities or a public agency.

Robet is alleged to have committed this crime when he was giving a speech at the Kamisan action on February 28 about ABRI’s dwi-fungsi.

In the speech, Robert sang a song which was popular among the 1998 students movement to satirise the ABRI.

Translated by James Balowski of Indo-Left News. The original title of the article in Kompas was “AJI Nilai Orasi Robertus Robet adalah Kebebasan Berekspresi Warga Negara”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz