Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘International Law’

“#FreePavel”: Telegram CEO Becomes Latest Target of European Censors


By: Jonathan Turley | August 26, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/08/26/freepavel-telegram-ceo-becomes-latest-target-of-european-censors/

Elon Musk put it simply: “#FreePavel.” For many, a hashtag of one billionaire calling for the release of another billionaire is hardly a compelling cause. Telegram CEO Pavel Durov, 39, is neither a familiar nor sympathetic figure for most Americans. However, for free speech advocates, Durov’s arrest is a chilling escalation of global censors in using European laws to control speech on the Internet.

The press and pundits heralded the arrest and played up the allegations that Durov is under investigation for fraud and child abuse. Some might think from the headlines that Durov is himself being investigated for committing such crimes. While we have not seen anything akin to a charging sheet, reports indicate that French authorities took the action because of his refusal to yield to their demands to censor content on his messaging app.

Others have been ecstatic that censors could soon come for Musk. Retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified in the Trump impeachment proceedings, declared “There’s a growing intolerance for platforming disinfo & malign influence & a growing appetite for accountability. Musk should be nervous.”

Social media is now the dominant form of communication between people. It surpasses telephones. There is, however, a major difference in how such communications are protected. There would be an outcry if AT&T broke into a telephone call to object to the views of the parties and cut off access to the telephone lines until they moderated their views.

The Europeans have been threatening to hold executives liable for how others use their sites. Imagine if a mobster used a telephone to do business and the FBI arrested the CEO of AT&T.

The implication of this case goes far beyond Durov. Social media sites allow large numbers of people to communicate and to associate. They share values or viewpoints, including some that most of us find offensive or repulsive. However, free speech should protect the right of people to associate so long as they do not commit crimes.

Under free speech principles, those crimes should not include viewpoints or ideology. If individuals are engaging in child pornography or human trafficking, they should be arrested. That is conduct, not just speech.

While the media emphasizes the allegations that there are people engaged in fraud or child porn, officials add that Durov has failed to remove viewpoints that they consider extreme or offensive. French officials have cited the failure to engage in greater “content moderation,” the euphemism of censorship.

We have been discussing how countries like France and the United Kingdom have been ramping up anti-free speech crackdowns. Recently, the European Union threatened Musk that he could be charged if he did not censor political speech in this election, including any information deemed by the EU to be false in his interview with Donald Trump.

European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton issued a threatening message to Musk, “We are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political — or societal — events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.”

The law behind these threats is the Digital Services Act. The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”

In addition to Musk, Robert Kennedy Jr. has denounced the arrest.

This action is not due to the encryption capacity or child porn rationales. European officials have been making the same threats against other sites over the failure to censor views that they deem unacceptable.

Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski wrote “France has threatened Rumble, and now they have crossed a red line by arresting Telegram’s CEO, Pavel Durov, reportedly for not censoring speech.”

Telegram has over 900 million users and allows large groups of people to communicate across different channels.  The New York Times reported that officials have targeted the company for its failure, among other things, in allowing “far-right extremist groups” to use the app.

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss the use of the DSA to regulate speech on a global scale. The effort has been encouraged by some Democratic leaders.

After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech. In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans.

The EU immediately responded by threatening Musk with confiscatory penalties against not just his company but himself. He would have to resume massive censorship or else face ruin.

Notably, Durov left Russia in 2014 after refusing to comply with Kremlin demands to shut down opposition groups on his VK social network. He later left VK and co-founded Telegram.

European regulators have objected to what they view as misinformation on Telegram about the Ukraine war. Yet, Telegram is also a popular source for Russians to get unfiltered information on the war. It allows them to evade Russian censors due to its encryption capacity.

Americans should not be deceived or distracted by the Durov case. The underlying claim of authority by these officials will impact all users of social media. They are making the long anticipated move to target CEOs to get them to yield as did the executives at sites like Facebook. The fear is that, once these executives are forced into cringing obedience, Europe can regulate speech on a global level.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

Finnish Grandmother Is Back In Court Facing ‘Hate Speech’ Charges For Tweeting Bible Verses


BY: ELYSSA KOREN | AUGUST 11, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/08/11/finnish-grandmother-is-back-in-court-facing-hate-speech-charges-for-tweeting-bible-verses/

man and woman walking in snow in Finland

ELYSSA KOREN MORE ARTICLES

In 2019, Päivi Räsänen did what any one of us might do — she tweeted at her church. Her tweet was simple and peaceful. She questioned the choice to sponsor a local pride parade. She questioned, was this befitting of their Christian faith? And she attached a scripture passage to the tweet.

Räsänen will be headed to court for the second time on criminal charges of “hate speech.” This longstanding member of the Finnish Parliament, medical doctor, and grandmother has faced onerous prosecution for four years at the hands of Finland’s government for a tweet.

Subjected to 13 hours of police interrogation, authorities dug into her past, charging her with three counts of “agitation against a minority group” for the tweet, in addition to a 2004 church pamphlet and 2019 radio appearance. Bishop Juhana Pohjola of Finland’s Evangelical Lutheran Church also was criminally charged for publishing the pamphlet, which discusses a Biblical-based understanding of marriage and human sexuality. Their charges carried with them tens of thousands of euros in fines and even the possibility of a two-year prison sentence.

In March of last year, the Helsinki District Court delivered a unanimous acquittal, stating clearly that, “it is not for the district court to interpret biblical concepts.” However, the law in Finland allows for legal double jeopardy — prosecutors can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court on the mere basis of dissatisfaction with the verdict. On Aug. 31, Räsänen and the bishop will be back in court once again. Their legal defense is supported by ADF International.

Without free speech, there can be no freedom, and the enormous implications of this case for fundamental freedoms have triggered international outrage. Finland, regularly ranked as the “happiest” country on Earth, is known as a stable bastion of European democracy. If this can happen there, then we must all beware.

On Aug. 8, 16 U.S. members of Congress, sent a letter to Rashad Hussain, U.S. ambassador–at–large for international religious freedom, and Douglas Hickey, U.S. ambassador to Finland, in response to Räsänen’s “egregious and harassing” prosecution. The letter highlights the severity of what’s at stake: “This prosecutor is dead set on weaponizing the power of Finland’s legal system to silence not just a member of parliament and Lutheran bishop but millions of Finnish Christians who dare to exercise their natural rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion in the public square.”

Free speech is a preeminent American value, but also one well-protected in international law. The U.S. should always stand against the criminalization of peaceful expression and especially should raise concerns when violations of free speech occur in countries we view as allies, especially on human rights. As the legislators’ letter states, “No American, no Fin, and no human should face legal harassment for simply living out their religious beliefs.”

Now is the time for the Biden administration to speak out loud and clear. While the administration has acknowledged that it has privately raised concerns over Räsänen’s case with the Finnish government, it is vitally important that the U.S. government take a public stance in defense of free speech so under threat in this case.

With regard to Räsänen’s case, the legislators’ letter makes clear, “The selective targeting of these high-profile individuals is designed to systematically chill others’ speech under the threat of legal harassment and social astigmatism.” Historically, the U.S. has been the strongest bulwark against international violations of freedom of speech. In standing up for Räsänen, the U.S. government would in turn send a signal that it is standing up for the right of every person who feels the rapidly encroaching winds of censorship.


Elyssa Koren is director of legal communications for ADF InternationalADF UK is supporting the legal defense of Isabel, Adam, and Father Sean. Follow her on Twitter: @Elyssa_Koren

As Christians Face Death Sentences, Nigerian Court Can and Should Overturn Its Dangerous Blasphemy Law


BY: PAUL COLEMAN | DECEMBER 23, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/12/23/as-christians-face-death-sentences-nigerian-court-can-and-should-overturn-its-dangerous-blasphemy-law/

black Nigerian woman crying into hand
Nigeria has before it a crucial opportunity to step out as an international leader by abolishing once and for all its Sharia blasphemy law.

Author Paul Coleman profile

PAUL COLEMAN

MORE ARTICLES

The United States Department of State has just issued its annual watchlist of the world’s worst religious freedom offenders, and strikingly, Nigeria did not make the cut. The country is among the most dangerous in the world to be a Christian, and daily we hear news of abuses imperiling the human rights of all Nigerians. In breaking news: Since at least 2013, the Nigerian military has conducted systematic, wide-scale forced abortions on at least 10,000 women and girls, many of which were kidnapped and raped by Islamist militants. 

Yet in spite of clear-cut evidence of mass human rights atrocities, the U.S. government remains silent, failing to designate Nigeria as a “country of particular concern.” Between January 2021 and March 2022, more than 6,000 Christians were targeted and killed in Nigeria. In May of this year, Christian student Deborah Yakubu was stoned to death and her body burned in Sokoto State, Nigeria, after classmates deemed her WhatsApp messages blasphemous. Following this tragedy, Rhoda Ya’u Jatau, a Christian woman from the northeast, is now on trial for blasphemy for sharing a WhatsApp message condemning Deborah’s brutal killing. And earlier this year, humanist Mubarak Bala was sentenced to 24 years in prison for social media posts critical of Islam.

What will it take to break the Biden administration’s silence? Now, Nigeria is garnering international attention as a result of an upcoming case at its Supreme Court challenging a law criminalizing so-called “blasphemous” expression. You can be put to death under Nigerian law for this “crime.” Musician Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, currently imprisoned and facing the death penalty for blasphemy charges, has petitioned the court to protect his fundamental human rights after being convicted under the Sharia Penal Code of Kano State.

In March 2020, Yahaya shared song lyrics via WhatsApp. This simple act would forever change his life. Accused of insulting the Prophet Muhammad for what he shared, his house was burned to the ground by a mob, and he was arrested and charged with blasphemy. Without the support of a lawyer, he was tried, convicted, and sentenced by a local Sharia judge to death by hanging.

Innocent of any crime, Yahaya filed his notice of appeal in November at the Supreme Court, and this potential landmark case could abolish once and for all Northern Nigeria’s Sharia blasphemy law.

Twenty years ago, the 12 states in Northern Nigeria introduced Sharia into their criminal law codes, despite the Nigerian Constitution’s protections for religious freedom. These laws are only supposed to apply to Muslims, but leave little room for theological diversity among Muslims, and could potentially be applied to converts to Christianity or those who have left Islam. It is imperative that the Supreme Court bring justice to Yahaya, saving his life and offering much-needed legal clarity to end the horror of blasphemy laws for all in Nigeria.

International law, including the international treaties to which Nigeria is bound as a party, is unambiguous — the right to religious freedom is for everyone, and nobody should be punished, much less killed, for what they believe. Moreover, Nigeria’s own constitution protects Yahaya’s rights to free expression and religious freedom. Any person of faith or no faith at all can be penalized, and even killed, as a result of a blasphemy accusation. In a country of more than 200 million, split nearly evenly between Christians and Muslims, it is clear that all Nigerians stand to lose under the blasphemy regime.

Blasphemy laws are not unique to Nigeria. Approximately 40 percent of countries in the world have blasphemy laws in some form, and there are currently at least seven countries where a conviction for blasphemy can result in the death penalty. Nigeria has before it a crucial opportunity to step out as an international leader, serving as a model for the abolishment of these dangerous laws.

The world awaits justice for Yahaya. Last week, the U.K. prime minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, Fiona Bruce, urged “the international human rights community to speak out on behalf of Sharif-Aminu and for Nigeria to repeal its blasphemy laws.” As he fights for his life, let us remember that this is a fight for the human rights of all Nigerians, and stand with him in advocating for the rights of all people to express themselves without fear.


Paul Coleman is the author of Censored and serves as executive director of ADF International overseeing the global, alliance-building legal organization. ADF International is supporting the case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu at the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Find him on Twitter @Paul_B_Coleman.

Holder: International Law Trumps The Constitution!


who want unarmed citizens Gun Control Supporters croppedPosted by Joe Otto, Conservative Daily

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservative-daily.com/2013/11/12/holder-international-law-trumps-the-constitution/

Dear Conservative,

Every now and then, news breaks in the Obama administration that is so stereotypical, it is actually depressing. You might want to sit down for this.

Attorney General Eric Holder, made infamous by Operation Fast and Furious, is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that United Nations treaties trump the United States Constitution. That’s right. The sitting Attorney General, charged with upholding and defending the Constitution, is arguing before the highest court that international law is in fact the law of the land.

The case in question, Bond v. United States, is actually pretty ridiculous. The defendant is charged with using a toxic substance to harass a friend who was having an affair with her husband. Under the law, this case would normally be handled at the State-level. But Federal prosecutors instead charged Bond with violating the Chemical Weapons Convention. This would be like taking a perpetrator of a domestic hate crime and instead charging him or her with genocide. This case is basically a complex liberal experiment to see how far they can push the boundaries regarding the enforcement of international law. An Obama administration victory in this case could have huge ramifications for other contentious issues like abortion, citizenship, and even the Second Amendment.

It’s no secret that the Obama administration is looking to enact gun control by any means necessary. That means exhausting all options. The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty would provide an excellent way to limit Americans’ access to firearms without dealing with Congress. The problem is, the treaty cannot become law without the Senate ratifying it (which won’t happen). If the Supreme Court rules in Obama’s favor, the U.N. Arms Treaty could become the law of the land anyway.who want unarmed citizens Gun Control Supporters cropped

The funny thing is that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty specifically prohibits the exportation of small arms to countries if there is a reasonable expectation that they would be used against civilians. If Holder wins this case and ushers in the implementation of the treaty, his involvement in Fast and Furious, leading to the death of countless Mexican civilians, would make him an international criminal. But since Holder would be in charge of investigating himself for international crimes, he’d likely be acquitted…

All jokes aside, Bond v. United States represents a grave risk to the sovereignty of this great country and the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. Everyone always posits that the liberals want to replace the Constitution with U.N. law, but no one actually expected them to try to. If the Courts rule that international law is law of the land, and if the Executive branch is more than willing to implement this ruling, then only the Congress can stand against this rising tyranny.

A lot of times, Congress’ power can be overstated. But the Constitution’s system of checks and balances exist for a reason. If one or two branches of government fall to tyranny, then a third branch would still remain to herald the cause of liberty. With the way the Supreme Court has been ruling lately, and Obama’s burning desire to shred the Constitution, the Congress is all that stands between state sovereignty and global governance. Unfortunately more often than not, Congressmen and Senators wouldn’t recognize creeping tyranny if it slapped them in the face.

That’s where we come in. Believe it or not, we have reached a point in our history where we actually have to plead with our representatives to defend the Constitution from its domestic and foreign enemies. If the Supreme Court rules in the administration’s favor, you can say hello to universal weapons registration. You want to buy a firearm? Good luck explaining why you really need one. And good luck getting your hands on one of those imported World War II rifles you’ve had your eye on.

Most of the time, slippery slope arguments are overblown. But there’s no exaggeration to this. Even when the Senate refused to ratify the U.N. Arms Treaty, Obama had Secretary of State John Kerry sign it anyway. Talk about defiance!

treaty

The only thing that stands between Kerry’s signature and Obama’s gun control agenda is that pesky piece of parchment called the Constitution. And if the Supreme Court rules in Obama’s favor, you can kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.

If you value your second amendment rights, or any of your rights for that matter, stand and fight. Urge Congress to honor its oath and reject Obama’s globalist ambitions.

Fax Congress to Stop Holder – the Constitution MUST be the Law of the Land, not International Treaties!

Sincerely,

Joe Otto
Conservative Daily

Picture6

Ted Cruz criticizes DOJ for arguing international treaty can trump the Constitution


The Obama Administration (Cartel) has looked for every loophole it can find to get around the United States Constitution. According to the following report, they have found the ultimate way. This is more than scary. We have to watch this closely, do the Spiritual Warfare necessary, and speak up to our representatives. We cannot let this become the norm.

Jerry Broussard

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Washington Examiner

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-criticizes-doj-for-arguing-international-treaty-can-trump-the-constitution/article/2538205


Ted Cruz criticizes DOJ for arguing international treaty can trump the Constitution

Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.

That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.

“The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers,” Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.

“The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.

In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing “an absurd proposition” that “could be used as a backdoor way to undermine” Second Amendment rights, among other things.

The underlying case, Bond v. United States, involves a woman charged with violating the international ban on chemical weapons because she used toxic chemicals to harass a former friend who had an affair with her husband.

Under the Constitution, such an offense would be handled at the state level. In Bond’s case, the federal government prosecuted her under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

That law implements the Chemical Weapons Convention, the international treaty Syrian dictator Bashar Assad is accused of violating in that country’s vicious civil war.

“The problem here is precisely that Congress, rather than implementing the treaty consistent with our constitutional system of federalism, enacted a statute that, if construed to apply to petitioner’s conduct, would violate basic structural guarantees and exceed Congress’s enumerated powers,” according to Bond’s lawyers.

The Judicial Crisis Network’s Carrie Severino said the Bond case could have ramifications for many other issues.

“If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states’ rights to regulate abortion,” she told the Washington Examiner.

The Judicial Crisis Network is a conservative legal activist group.

Tag Cloud