[kictanet] to tweet or not to tweet- interesting article

Thu Feb 16 11:29:36 EAT 2012

To tweet or not to tweet: that is the question

by Luca Belli <http://www.medialaws.eu/author/luca-belli/> on February 13,
2012

If William Shakespeare were drafting Hamlet’s soliloquy nowadays, he would
probably rejuvenate it in this way. Indeed, the popular and omnipresent
social network has recently been the object of some heated discussion over
its notorious tweets.

The first debate directly concerned Twitter with regard to its new policy
changes, whereas the second involved the unattended juridical consequences
that may follow from a tweet.

*The Inquisition 2.0?*

On January 26th, Twitter
announced<http://blog.twitter.com/2012/01/tweets-still-must-flow.html>that
thanks to its latest technology improvements, it is now able to
“reactively withhold content from users in a specific country”. This is the
kind of announcement that immediately triggers apprehension and censorship
suspicion: indeed, why should a social network withhold content if not to
restrict one’s freedom of expression?

However, if one keeps on reading Twitter’s statement and further explores
the policy changes, one begins to understand that, in spite of unavoidable
first-impressions, these policy modifications are indeed a positive
improvement.

In fact, as one may read on Twitter’s blog, the removed content will be
kept available in the rest of the world whereas, previously, if a court
ordered to remove a tweet, this would have been removed globally. Though
the new policy is clearly motivated by Twitter’s yearning for market
expansion, it actually enhances freedom of speech instead of diminishing it.

Indeed, being blocked on a national level, one’s “illegal” expressions will
still reach the majority of tweeters (*i.e.* in any country where the same
content isn’t considered as illegal) that will keep on “enjoying” the
content. Moreover, the withholding procedure won’t be *a priori*: instead,
it will be put in place only in response to “a valid and applicable legal
request”.

*Those tweets shalt be cursed!*

As Cain was cursed and marked for murdering his brother Abel, a sign will
be appointed to the banned tweets, so that allowed users may identify the
censored content. Though this option may appear as a form of balkanization,
it will actually represent a great surplus value for human rights
advocates. Indeed, tweets are going to be withheld locally while visible
and marked globally. Therefore, it will be much easier to demonstrate which
contents are arbitrarily censored and do not fit the International
standards provisions such as article 19.3 (b) of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm>.

Twitter’s new technique will make it more difficult for authoritarian
regimes to justify that harmless tweets, such as
#democracy<https://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23democracy>or open
invitations to peacefully gather in order to demonstrate against
oppressive measures, might be removed by virtue of some *ordre
public*issue. Those who will order to remove innocuous content will
have to do it
openly vis-à-vis the internet and international community.

Furthermore, the censored tweets will be taken down or marked according to
the IP address of the users. This kind of measure will leave the
possibility to keep on access the obscured content by simply changing the
Country Setting<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169220-how-to-change-the-country-setting>,
therefore weakening the impact of censorship.

*Mind the tweet!*

Another interesting episode recently involved Twitter in an indirect way.
Indeed, a bizarre accident shed light on the nature of tweets and on the
limits to freedom of expression that one has to take into consideration.

The unfortunate event involved a couple of Irish tourists who were stopped
and handcuffed<http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4095372/Twitter-news-US-bars-friends-over-Twitter-joke.html>at
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) because of their “suspicious”
tweets.  Indeed, as many other social networks, Twitter is monitored by a
considerable number of U.S. special agents that were – probably
disproportionately – alerted when they figured out that Mr. Leigh Van
Bryan, an Irishman, was tweeting:

“*Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America*”

After questioning the couple for some hours, and despite the fact that the
two tourists stressed the euphemistic nature of the tweet, Homeland
Security officials sent them back to Ireland arguing that they were not
allowed into the country.

Though this episode may sound really “peculiar”, it is not a first. In
fact, in January 2010, another traveler had to face the unexpected
consequences of his incautious tweet. This time it was Mr. Paul Chambers, a
British citizen, who, according to the
Guardian<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/24/twitter-joke-trial-bomb-threat>,
“had his computers and phones seized and was subsequently charged and
convicted of causing a “menace” under the [U.K.] Communications Act
2003<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127>
”.

Mr. Chambers was indeed charged under “improper use of public electronic
communication network” because, while colorfully complaining about snow
problems at Robin Hood Airport, he expressed his disappointment asserting
that were he prevented from reaching his girlfriend in Dublin, he would
have “blow[n] the airport sky-high”.

*A chilling effect or an Orwellian one? *

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, enshrined in binding
and enforceable proscriptions on both sides of the Atlantic (*i.e.* First
Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text>and
both Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human
Rights<http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/ENG_CONV.pdf>and
Article 11 of the Charter
of Fundamental rights of the European
Union<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf>
).

The aforementioned episodes might seem to signal an
anti-freedom-of-expression trend. However, one has to consider that even if
Human Rights are both a justification and a limitation of power, any
sovereign State has the right to define restrictions on people’s freedom of
expression in order to protect national security or public order.

What is worth remarking is that tweets are *non*-private messages. Hence,
though one may argue that this kind of network policing and
freedom-of-expression limiting may trigger a chilling effect, one has to
recognize that the public nature of the tweet allows every individual to
“follow” it. And a “follower” may be a naïve acquaintance or a special –
and slightly Orwellian – agent.

-- 
Grace L.N. Mutung'u (Bomu)
Kenya
Skype: gracebomu
Twitter: GraceMutung'u (Bomu)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20120216/6169ac38/attachment.htm>