Also available as สงสัยในสองมาตรฐานขององค์กรนิรโทษกรรมสากล

Yesterday PPT posted on the Asian Human Rights Commission statement on the use of the Computer Crimes Act as a substitute for the lese majeste law and Reporters Without Borders released a report the day before criticizing the use of this other laws that limit expression.

PPT assumes that because these “crimes” are political and related to the monarchy in Thailand, that Amnesty International will say nothing. That has been its “policy.”

But what are they doing elsewhere? On 16 November 2009, there was this:

Urgent Action 308/09 – Prisoners of conscience – Bloggers Jailed in Azerbaijan: URGENT ACTION APPEAL – From Amnesty International USA

Two “activists and bloggers” are said by AI to “have been sentenced to two and a half years and two years respectively in an unfair trial. Amnesty International believes the charges against them were fabricated and they have been imprisoned solely for exercising their right to freedom of expression.” One of the men posted “a satirical video … criticizing the Azerbaijani government … on the video-sharing website YouTube.”

Interestingly, in this case, the men are jailed on charges that don’t relate to their postings. However, AI considers them prisoners of conscience because the government has targeted them for their political views.

So can anyone at Amnesty International explain why Thailand is different for the organization? How is the jailing of people in Thailand different? PPT sees that the details are different. In fact, the use of the law is harsher in Thailand (jailing for 20 years, reduced to 10 – Suwicha Thakor) and being held for long periods without bail (Suwicha and Nat Sattayapornpisut), but political “crimes” are very similar. Indeed, in Thailand a special law has been created to facilitate intimidation and to allow for people to be “imprisoned solely for exercising their right to freedom of expression.” That law was put in place by an illegitimate, military-backed government. The trials of these Thais could never be considered fair.

We wonder how it is that Amnesty International feels comfortable operating with such double standards.

Readers may want to ask AI, but be aware that emailing AI produces, in PPT’s experience, no response at all: Amnesty International USA, 600 Pennsylvania Ave SE 5th fl, Washington DC 20003, Email: uan@aiusa.org, http://www.amnestyusa.org/, Phone: 202.544.0200, Fax: 202.675.8566

Also available as กรรมาธิการสิทธิเอเชีย และผู้สื่อข่าวไร้พรมแดน: ทำผิดทางคอมพิวเตอร์ คือทำผิดฐานหมิ่นฯ

On 20 November 2009, the Asian Human Rights Commission released a timely statement on the use of the Computer Crimes Act as a substitute for the lese majeste law and Reporters Without Borders released a report the day before criticizing the use of this and other laws that are meant to control and limit expression: “Harassment and intimidation are constantly employed to dissuade Internet users from freely expressing their views.”

Read the report on RWB at Prachatai, where some extra and useful links are included.

As PPT readers may have noticed, at our pages on Pending Cases and About Us, we also recognized this substitution. Some months ago we began including those charged with “national security” offenses under the Computer Crimes Act along with lese majeste cases.

AHRC mention five cases: the royals health rumors scapegoats Thatsaporn Rattanawongsa (arrested just a couple of days ago), Thiranan Vipuchanun, Khatha Pachachirayapong and Somjet Itthiworakul (arrested earlier in November), Prachatai’s webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn, charged back in March, and Suwicha Thakor, arrested in January, convicted in April and sentenced to 20 years jail, reduced to 10 after he finally agreed to plead guilty. RWB list others, including Nat Sattayapornpisut, arrested in October.

AHRC makes some excellent points, noting that negative publicity “over the cases against persons critical of its royal family, or persons claiming to act on the royals’ behalf” has caused the Democrat Party-led government to change tack and downplay lese majeste while using other means to repress and censor. It is added that the Justice Minister Pirapan Salirathavibhaga remarkably claimed that “Offences against the King, the Queen, the Heir-Apparent or the Regent are considered offences relating to the security of the Kingdom, not ‘lese-majesty’… I am certain that each state as well as Thailand has its own way of interpreting what constitutes offences relating to national security. Therefore, whoever violates the law of the Kingdom will be fairly charged and prosecuted according to the law of the Kingdom.”

As AHRC points out, the Computer Crimes Act “is an excellent substitute” for a repressive government that wants to appear to international community as one that favors the “rule of law.” As is clear, they use this law to harass, intimidate and to lock up those who oppose the national ideology.

AHRC notes that the Computer Crimes Act “was passed in the final hours of the military-appointed proxy legislature following the 2006 coup, and … was designed as a tool to suppress dissent, not responsibly deal with Internet crime in Thailand. Its ambiguous provisions, notably the section under which all these persons have been charged, allow for the prosecution of any type of thought crime on the disingenuous pretext that the crime is one of technology rather than one of expression or of ideas. Therefore, the state can claim that it is bringing people to court for one type of crime, while sending a clear message to a society that the real offence is altogether different.”

PPT readers will be interested in Reporters Without Borders on the health rumors case. RWB makes this call: “”We call for the charges against these three Internet users to be dismissed…. Such accusations are baseless and violate the right to report an economic event after it has taken place. Explaining that the stock exchange fall was linked to the king’s health harms neither the king nor national security.”

RWB states “Although it does not mention lèse-majesté (attacks on the monarchy), the Computers Crime Act 2007 punishes crimes that threaten national security and, under Thai law, lèse-majesté is a crime that threatens national security. To avoid being closed down, many Internet sector companies cooperate with the authorities and comply with all requests for information about individual Internet users. The supreme court has never issued a ruling on the Computers Crime Act.”

They add that “Around 55,000 websites are currently blocked in Thailand on suspicion of violating the lèse-majesté laws, while 34 people are currently being prosecuted on lèse-majesté charges.”

PPT has to give plaudits to Bangkok Pundit today. As many readers will have noticed, BP has moved to Asian Correspondent, and for a while that created some confusion and missing links. PPT is pleased to say that these teething problems seem to have been sorted out.

Among BP’s latest posts are two that are of special interest for PPT.

The first post is one PPT was about to write. Like us, BP is flabbergasted that The Nation has come up with an editorial that is measured, serious and important. Given its recent track record of xenophobia, an ability to simply make things up and a tendency to be the English-language mouthpiece for the craziest of speculative stories at ASTV/Manager, The Nation deserves credit for its editorial “Media under siege in Southeast Asia” (30 October 2009).

PPT had a post that related to this coverage of the Press Freedom Index a week ago, but we have to say that The Nation does a good job. Some examples of sharp observations in the editorial: “The annual Press Freedom Index for 2009, released earlier this month by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), makes for disturbing reading for the Asean region. People in Southeast Asia must ask if we’re sacrificing long-term democracy and freedom for short-term security and stability.” On Thailand, this, which we reproduce at length:

“Thailand, at number 130, has regretfully joined the ranks of Singapore (133) and Malaysia (131), which are traditionally known for their control of the press.

The Kingdom was ranked at number 66 only seven years ago. It has fallen so spectacularly because of the curbing of press freedom by ousted former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his supporters, then by the military junta which ousted Thaksin, and now by the Democrat-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva, which cracked down mightily on the so-called “red” media in the aftermath of the April riots this year.

Then there is the lese majeste law, used with increased frequency as His Majesty advances in age. As RSF notes: ‘The Thai media has been buffeted by repeated political crises. Several journalists have been assaulted by demonstrators, and scores of media have been censored for openly supporting the red shirts.’

But it has been the crackdown on Internet users and intellectuals – for alleged crimes of lese-majeste – that poses the greatest threat to free expression in the country: ‘Most Thai journalists voice the same reverence for King Bhumibol as the vast majority of the population. The others are forced into self-censorship.’

Indeed, the Index might do well to rethink the direction Thailand and most of Asean is heading, especially when we can’t fall much lower than this.”

Well said. Let’s hope this is a sign of a more tolerant and principled stand at The Nation.

The second post is on succession. PPT has several posts on this topic, so we won’t go over them again, but BP draws our attention to a letter that we missed, sent to the Asia Times Online about a week ago. In it, Vimon Kidchob, the Director-General of the Department of Information at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who PPT also cited yesterday on a different story, has a letter dated 23 October 2009. Here is what he says, responding to an article on succession by Shawn Crispin:

Shawn W Crispin’s article (Thailand mulls royal succession, October 19) raises a few issues that need to be clarified. First, it tries to make the issue of royal succession in Thailand a mysterious one, full of questions and uncertainty. There is, in fact, nothing to speculate about. Those knowledgeable about Thailand would know that there are clearly stipulated rules, both in the Palace Law on Succession and the Thai constitution regarding the issue. Indeed, the relevant provisions in the current constitution – similar to previous ones, including the 1997 constitution – lay out the specific roles of the Privy Council, National Assembly and cabinet.

Second, the Thai lese-majeste law is not accurately understood. As part of the country’s criminal code, the law is there to protect the monarchy which is one of the Thailand’s principal institutions and integral to the country’s national security. It is necessary also because Thai law and convention do not provide for the monarchy to take legal action against the people nor allow them to act in their own defense. While the Criminal Procedure Code allows anyone who finds a suspected lese-majeste act to lodge a complaint, such a complaint must be handled in accordance with due legal process. To ensure its proper enforcement, the government is also in the process of providing clearer guidelines on its application. As it is though, the law is not aimed at curbing freedom of speech and expression nor the legitimate exercise of academic freedom including the debates about the monarchy as an institution. Amidst the on-going intense political differences, apparent attempts to politicize the monarchy for political ends seem to have unduly gained momentum. Those who follow developments in the country are therefore asked to be more careful in differentiating facts from rumors.

The comments on succession are worth reading. Those on lese majeste are another example of Vikom’s fairy tales (presumably demanded of him by the Abhisit government), reproducing statements that have long been shown to be false. Especially significant is the lie that “the law is not aimed at curbing freedom of speech and expression nor the legitimate exercise of academic freedom including the debates about the monarchy as an institution.” There are several pending and convicted cases that PPT tries to track that unambiguously demonstrate that the lese majeste law and the computer crimes act are specifically used to limit freedom of speech and expression. Every Thai knows this and any foreigner who maintains more than a passing interest in Thailand knows it too.

Elle avait ce courage, qui nous manque si souvent, et que jamais elle ne croyait remettre en question. Aujourd’hui, cela l’indiffère.

Elle avait cette force intrinsèque que réclame tout changement. Y compris celle qui change le monde.
Aujourd’hui ce qu’il en pense, le monde…
Cela l’indiffère.

Elle avait une détermination que notre maire Tremblay lui envierait, lui, qui n’a pas le millième de centième de sa morale.
Vraiment, Tremblay l’indiffère.

Elle avait cette volonté de croire que chaque être humain a droit à la protection des Nations-Unies ( voyez la déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme) ou celle de son pays démocratique (paraît-il), car il y a cet Article 19.
Aujourd’hui, articles et autres alinéas…
Cela l’indiffère.

Pourtant quand on lui rappelle ce qu’il dit :
“Tout individu a droit à la liberté d’opinion et d’expression, ce qui implique le droit de ne pas être inquiété pour ses opinions et celui de chercher, de recevoir et de répandre, sans considérations de frontières, les informations et les idées par quelque moyen d’expression que ce soit.“
Cela l’indiffère.

Pourtant, elles partageait ses idéaux avec ses collègues et se battait pour ses idées, le poing levé sans concession aucune. Ponctuant de “Da! ” c’est sûr, et d’un “na zdorovje“ sans doute, le plus petit pas et le moindre soupçon de progrès. Aujourd’hui, même ces verres de vodka, soulevés par la joie…
Cela l’indiffère.

Même ce mardi, quand la vodka a probablement coulé à flots,  lorsque ce prix a été annoncé à Lyudmila Alexeyeva, Oleg Orlov et Sergeï Kovalev et à ses amis…
Pour la liberté de pensée, le prix Shakarov 2009 a été attribué à la défense des droits de l’homme au nom de l’organisation Memorial. Ainsi qu’à tous les autres défenseurs en Russie .
Aujourd’hui, même cela…
L’indiffère.

Comme “Une journée d’Ivan Dessinovitch”…
Si, même Soljenitsyne l’indiffère…

Tout la laisse froid.

Natalia Estemirova fut retrouvée morte, deux balles dans la tête, le 15 juillet dernier, elle a été enlevée à Grozny. Elle enquêtait sur des cas d’exécutions sommaires en Tchétchénie. Elle était une collaboratrice de cette ONG russe. Memorial.
Le même sort que cette journaliste russe, Anna Politkovskaïa, tuée en plein centre de Moscou…

La liberté de penser ou d’écrire, cela vous indiffère ?

Thierry De Greef

______________________________________

http://www.un.org/fr/documents/udhr

http://www.rsf.org

http://www.fidh.org

This week there have been two releases of indices that tend to be followed in the international media, markets and other interested observers. Earlier this week, Reporters Without Borders released their 2009 Press Freedom Index. Transparency International has released its Global Corruption Report for 2008. It seems that Thailand is struggling on both counts.

Press Freedom Index: For Asia, RWB’s headline stories were about Fiji and Thailand. Here’s what was said about Thailand: “Political power grabs dealt press freedom a great disservice again this year. … In Thailand, the endless clashes between ‘yellow shirts’ and ‘red shirts’ had a very negative impact on the press’s ability to work. As a result, the kingdom is now 130th.”

That’s 130th in an index of 175 countries, declining from 124th the previous year and with its Index ballooning from 34.5 in 2008 to 44.0 in 2009 (lower numbers indicate greater press freedom).

In 2002, Thailand was 65th and in 2005 was 107th. Part of this decline reflects increasing numbers of countries brought into the Index, although the country rating went from 22.75 in 2002 to 28.0 in 2005 . As might be imagined, following the 2006 coup, Thailand’s ranking and index declined again, to 122 and 33.5 respectively. There was a precipitous decline in the 2007 index to 53.5.

So Thailand is doing better 2009 than it was in 2007, but things have deteriorated since 2002.

Some of the blogs have questioned this decline – there has been little mention of the RWB in the press in Thailand (is the latter indicative of what’s going on?). These blogs point to the fear that existed in the media under Thaksin. That is certainly true, but at the same time, that fear soon morphed into outright anger and attacks from the media that raised issues of fairness in the media itself. At the same time, there have been remarkable efforts to close, censor and control the “non-traditional” media such as the internet and community radio. It will be interesting to see how the clear anti-red shirt biases in the media will play out in the 2009 index.

Corruption Perception Index: TI’s index is often criticized because it is about perceptions rather than actual corruption. In addition, because it “ranks countries in terms of the degree to which businesspeople and country analysts perceive corruption to exist among public officials and politicians”, it leaves out all ideas regarding perception in business itself. It also has some strengths. As TI states: “The strength of the CPI lies in its combination of multiple data sources in a single index, so that erratic findings from one source can be balanced by at least two other sources. This reduces the probability of misrepresenting a country’s perceived level of corruption. Involving local businesspeople and country analysts alongside non-resident experts is also an advantage. It makes it possible to recognise the specificities of local customs through the views of local experts, while at the same time enhancing the consistency of judgment across countries by involving non-residents.”

How is Thailand doing? In 2008, Thailand ranked 84 (of 180), just above Albania and just below Saudi Arabia. Its Index was 3.5 (where 10 equals no perceived corruption). The previous year, Thailand was 93rd with an Index of 3.3. This means that Thailand’s ranking has gone up in 2008, but so has the Index. In other words, perception of corruption has increased. Back in 2000, Thailand had an Index of 3.2 and ranked 62nd (of 91 countries). In 2005, Thailand’s Index was down to 3.8 with a ranking of 60th of 159 countries.

The bottom line is that Thailand seems to have improved since its low in 2005, but is still down on 2000.

foto "Edicolante" by carlotardani - flickr

Nei giorni scorsi è uscita l’edizione 2009 della Classifica sulla libertà di Stampa redatta, analizzando la situazione di ben 175 paesi, da Reporters sans Frontieres (potete leggerla integralmente cliccando su questo link). Vediamo un po’ di numeri, tanto per capire come siamo messi nel nostro paese:

I primi

I primi paesi per libertà di stampa sono: Danimarca, Finlandia, Irlanda, Norvegia, Svezia.

L’Italia

L’Italia retrocede ancora e si colloca al 49° posto con un calo di ben 14 posizioni in due anni (nel 2007 eravamo al 35° posto e nel 2008 al 44°). Nella classifica ci precedono (e quindi hanno una maggiore libertà di stampa) paesi come la Jamaica (23°), il Ghana (27°),  Trinidad e Tobago (28°), il Mali e  il Costa Rica (entrambi al 30°), la Namibia (35°) e  il Suriname (42°).

Ad essere sinceri la libertà di stampa in Europa Occidentale è in costante declino se pensiamo che vicino all’Italia (49° posto) troviamo altri paesi che perdono diverse posizioni, come la Francia (43°), la Spagna e la Slovacchia (entrambe al 44° posto).

E per il futuro?

Per il futuro non c’è da stare allegri… Se pensiamo che due paesi frequentati molto spesso dal nostro premier sono la Russia di Putin (al 153° posto in classifica) e  la Libia di Gheddafi (al 156° posto) abbiamo ancora ampi margini di peggioramento!

Asean is among the world’s worst regions for press freedom. Six of the 10 member countries are ranked among the bottom one-third and three countries rank in the last 10 of the 175 countries on the World Press Freedom Index by watchdog body Reporters sans Frontières.

Malaysia’s continuing abysmal performance in press freedom, regarded as a crucial component of a fully-functioning democracy, makes the country’s proud boasts of becoming a “developed” country ring particularly hollow.

Indonesia (ranked 100) is alone among Asean countries in the top-two thirds. But an even better ranking in the top-half is achieved by Asean prospective member Timor-Leste (72), the island in the Coral Sea, wracked by political and ethnic tension and strife. Papua New Guinea enters the list at 56th and “obtained a very respectable ranking for a developing country”, said RSF.

In the bottom one-third are: Cambodia (117), Philippines (122), Thailand (130), Malaysia (131), Singapore (133) and Brunei (155).

And at the very bottom among the world’s worst 10 countries are Vietnam (166), Laos (169) and Burma (171), together with Yemen (167), Iran (172), China (168) and North Korea (second-last at 174).

Five of the world’s worst 10 countries are in Asia — three Asean members (Vietnam, Laos and Burma) and China and North Korea. Three in the Middle East and Central Asia (Yemen, Iran and Turkmenistan) and one in the Caribbean (Cuba). At the bottom of the list is Eritrea at the Horn of Africa.

Five are communist-ruled, one by a military government, and one (Eritrea) has almost no government as an authoritarian one-party state.

Malaysia on the watch list

Malaysia remains on RSF’s watch list of countries where the press is under threat, with Raja Petra Kamarudin of Malaysia Today and P. Uthayakumar of Hindraf featured in the report because of government action taken against them in 2007/2008.

RSF’s country report for Malaysia

Reporters Sans Frontières | Malaysia country report
http://www.rsf.org/en-ennemi26141-Malaysia.html

Authoritarianism prevents press freedom in Asia

Reporters Sans Frontières | Asia report
http://www.rsf.org/Authoritarianism-prevents-press.html

Anche quest’anno,l’organizzazione Reporters Sans Frontières ha pubblicato la classifica mondiale sulla libertà di stampa,frutto di un’indagine che tiene conto delle violazioni della libertà di stampa denunciate per il periodo tra il primo settembre 2008 e il 31 agosto 2009 e che si basa su un questionario a cui sono stati sottoposti giornalisti, ricercatori, giuristi e militanti dei diritti umani di circa 175 nazioni.

Il questionario non si propone come indicatore della qualità di stampa e di contenuti editoriali,ma basa i propri criteri di giudizio su diversi fattori,quali l’insieme degli attentati diretti contro i giornalisti (assassinati, prigionieri, aggrediti, minacciati, etc.), o contro i media (censure, sequestri, perquisizioni, pressioni, etc.); prende in considerazione il quadro giuridico che disciplina il settore dei media nei paesi esaminati (sanzioni per i reati a mezzo stampa, monopolio dello Stato in alcuni settori, presenza di un organo di regolamento, etc.), il comportamento dello Stato nei confronti dei media pubblici e della stampa internazionale; tiene in considerazione,inoltre, i principali attentati alla libertà di circolazione dell’informazione in Internet.

Fatta eccezione per il trionfo americano – che vanta l’ascesa dalla 40ma alla 20ma posizione- ,i risultati della ricerca si rivelano sconcertanti sotto molteplici aspetti: continua ,infatti, a rivelarsi preoccupante la situazione del Medioriente, che evidenzia l’esigenza crescente di un cambiamento drastico sul fronte delle libertà (Israele perde ben 47 posti,precipitando in 93ma posizione e contando 5 fermi e 3 arresti di giornalisti,vittima inoltre di censura militare applicata a tutti i media). Un forte campanello d’allarme si accende anche per l’Europa,dove democrazie quali Francia,Spagna e Slovacchia non riportano giudizi particolarmente rosei. Ma in quest’ultima nefasta categoria non poteva che piazzarsi anche l’Italia: il Belpaese si piazza al 49° posto,perdendo ben 14 posizioni in due anni e collocandosi tra paesi come Hong-Kong e la Romania.

Una situazione che ci lascia basiti. Ma forse neanche troppo.

La cronaca ci propina ogni giorno casi di servilismo mediatico e  distorsione delle informazioni; tentativi di uniformarci e di inculcarci gli stessi “ideali”,di insegnarci senza troppe argomentazioni chi è buono e chi è cattivo.

E’ quello che accade in un paese dove i giornali autofinanziati sono pochi e la maggioranza dei quotidiani sono sovvenzionati dai partiti; per non parlare delle reti televisive e dei telegiornali,rei di peccare di scarsa professionalità e talvolta promotori (gli ultimi fatti ce lo dimostrano) di servizi ai limiti del ridicolo.

«Per quel che riguarda la cronaca, il giornalista deve riportare semplicemente quello che vede mentre per le idee, i pensieri, devono essere suoi e basta»,sosteneva un Giornalista con la G maiuscola come Indro Montanelli.  Utopia in un panorama come quello attuale,dove il giornalista deve difendere il proprio padrone,aggirando l’informazione pura e aggrappandosi alle più misere banalità pur di contrastare l’opposizione.

Complice questo clima e tanti altri notevoli vantaggi,Internet prende sempre più piede come mezzo di comunicazione e d’ informazione: sopravvissuti alla legge “ammazza blog” –tentativo irrealistico di mettere un bavaglio a blogger e utenti web-,Internet si rivela non solo come un grande archivio che permette di ottenere molteplici visioni sui più svariati eventi,ma anche un luogo dove chiunque e con estrema facilità può confrontarsi,esprimere la propria opinione,arricchire gli altri condividendo le proprie scoperte,solitamente filmati e documenti di nicchia che i mezzi mediatici non si sogneranno mai di mostrarci.

In questo modo,anche un social network come Facebook può essere considerato come un mezzo di comunicazione alternativo: dopo aver apportato alcune modifiche nelle impostazioni,le “pagine fan” sono divenute delle vere e proprie bacheche comuni dove gli utenti possono legge,visualizzare e pubblicare news da tutto il mondo,assumendo la forma di vere e proprie “redazioni” virtuali. E’ il caso di pagine come “Informazione Libera”  (200.000 iscritti), “Informare per resistere”  (100.000), “Condividi la conoscenza” (30.000) e tante altre.

Esempi come questi sono la dimostrazione che c’è una fascia di italiani che non si accontenta di assorbire senza tanti perché ciò che gli viene propinato dalla televisione; un’informazione libera e imparziale è possibile,soprattutto grazie alla curiosità e alla volontà di non fermarsi all’apparenza,di interrogarsi sui fatti e gli antefatti,di guardarci dall’esterno.

]]> http://scottnolansmith.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/where-is-the-press-most-free/ Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:34:56 +0000 Scott Nolan Smith http://scottnolansmith.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/where-is-the-press-most-free/

Reporters Without Borders has released its 2009 Worldwide Press Freedom Index. Topping the list this year, in a five-way tie for first, are Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Norway, and Sweden. Ireland aside, it’s a Scandinavian sweep! Closing out the top ten are — Estonia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Iceland, and Lituania.

The US holds a three way tie with the UK and Luxembourg for 20th. However, that is actually positive news, as the US was placed 40th last year. While the report’s authors are happy to see US improvements, they do cite a few reasons to be concerned:

Despite a slight improvement, the attitude of the United States towards the media in Iraq and Afghanistan is worrying. Several journalists were injured or arrested by the US military. One, Ibrahim Jassam, is still being held in Iraq.

The report also highlights some rather dim global trends. Though the index’s leaders are all European states, the overall trend in Europe is a negative one.

France (43rd), Slovakia (44th) and Italy (49th) continue their descent, falling eight, 37 and five places respectively. In so doing, they have given way to young democracies in Africa (Mali, South Africa and Ghana) and the western hemisphere (Uruguay and Trinidad and Tobago).

Journalists are still physically threatened in Italy and Spain (44th), but also in the Balkans, especially Croatia (78th), where the owner and marketing director of the weekly Nacional were killed by a bomb on 23 October 2008.

But the main threat, a more serious one in the long term, comes from new legislation. Many laws adopted since September 2008 have compromised the work of journalists. One adopted by Slovakia (44th) has introduced the dangerous concept of an automatic right of response and has given the culture minister considerable influence over publications.

Additionally, Israel sank 47 spots and Iran is nearing the bottom of the list, practically sharing space with Turkmenistan and North Korea. Closing the list is the African state of Eritrea, “where the media are so suppressed they are non-existent”.

The government has finally gotten a whiff of what’s been cooking on the internet, and even though it’s trussed up in more important matters such as the GSP+, it’s managed to detangle a hand to wag a finger at bloggers.

Irresponsible websites which resort to distorting facts to create a rift between the government and ‘other’ parties would be black listed and publicized through the provisions available through the state media, the government information department said today quoting a Minister- dailymirror.lk reports.

The more stringent measures taken against Tissainayagam, than a mere blacklisting of his website, is evidence enough to show that the government has all the power to manipulate the law and slam you with 20 years of R.I for pointing out the faults of the ruling body.

New media has never been a threat to the government before what with development in Sri Lanka being at a fetal stage. You’d think websites and blogging shouldn’t really bother the government when considering anyone wanting to reach the masses would place the internet at the bottom of their list of ‘means of mass communication’.

So now that they’re keeping an eye on the internet, what should we expect next? Tapping of phone conversations? Perhaps the millions of people who will be unemployed once the EU withdraws the GSP+ can be recruited to monitor phone conversations.

If more websites or blogs are closed down we might just find ourselves relieving North Korea of being ranked the lowest on the ‘press freedom rank’ next year. Ranked by Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF), Sri Lanka has been place 162 out of 175 countries on the list, this year.

In 2005– before the current regime came into power, RSF had positioned Sri Lanka at 115 out of 167 countries. Now you don’t have to be a math whiz to notice that globally we’ve fallen in ranks over the past few years.

Not only have we dropped in ranks over the past few years but would you believe this year we’ve been sandwiched between Palestinian Regions and Saudi Arabia. Oh but that’s not the worst of it. No, the worst is that Pakistan is ahead of us placed in the 159 spot. That’s a bit of a damper considering I’d always thought of Pakistan as a country we could look at when things got bad down here and say “heck, at least we’re better off than them”!

Reporters sans frontières. Non commento.

UPDATE:

“Inquietante constatare come, anno dopo anno, importanti democrazie europee come queste tre citate perdano progressivamente posizioni. L’Europa dovrebbe essere d’esempio sul fronte delle libertà pubbliche. Come possiamo denunciare le varie violazioni nel mondo se non siamo irreprensibili noi stessi in prima persona?”

Fonte: Tgcom.

Sempre meno libertà di stampa in Italia. Lo denuncia l’annuale rapporto di Reporters sans frontières. Meno bavagli, invece, per i giornalisti statunitensi dopo l’insediamento di Obama.

Presentando il rapporto, il presidente di Rsf, Jean-François Julliard, non ha celato la sua preoccupazione per quanto riguarda la situazione europea, dove diversi paesi, come Francia (43esima), Italia (49esima), Slovacchia (46esima), mostrano un progressivo restringersi degli spazi per la libertà di stampa. «Inquietante constatare come, anno dopo anno, importanti democrazie europee come Francia, Italia, Slovacchia perdano progressivamente posizioni. L’Europa dovrebbe essere d’esempio sul fronte delle libertà pubbliche. Come possiamo denunciare le varie violazioni nel mondo se non siamo irreprensibili noi stessi in prima persona?»