THREATS AGAINST FREEDOM OF OPINIONS Case #1: In Nepal, the King has dissolved the government and taken full control. It is in a state of e...
https://iskablogs.blogspot.com/2005/02/threats-against-freedom-of-opinions.html
THREATS AGAINST FREEDOM OF OPINIONS
Case #1: In Nepal, the King has dissolved the government and taken full control. It is in a state of emergency where a censorship on internet, print and broadcasting media is in force. In a group blog of Nepali journalists "United we blog", blogger Dinesh writes:
"Because of my basic human rights, like right to express, speak and writing, are suspended and I am in no position to express my feeling or opinion regarding the royal takeover. ... For the first time in my life, I knew the importance of this site, a place to express myself, ourselves... A great forum to share ideas."
Another blogger writes:
"Dear friends world over, Nepal is closed for the time being. So we won’t be able to put our views here. But you are free to put your views. Please continue to use this blogging site."
Case #2: Dristipat(Voice for human rights in Bangladesh) is a non-profit, non-political website maintained by some expatriate Bangladeshis in the US. Its one petition for protesting the killing of the ex-finance minister S.A.M.S. Kibria was surprisingly interpreted by the law minister as a malicious propaganda against the state and he has threatened to take action against them enacting a cyber-law. Drishtipat protested rightly:
"These allegations against Drishtipat are inappropriate and an unfortunate diversion from the task at hand."
A post in Drishtipat asks the law minister:
Like you we agree that we should not resort to hartal or violent means to protest but if we cannot even write a letter to our own mission as well, then how are we going to protest?
I think what the law minister wants that we should see no evil, hear no evil and write no evil which might expose the failure of his party. That is autocracy.
Long live the internet. Because of it any injustice, breach of human right can be protested from anywhere in the world. In addition, one government can restrict viewing or publishing opinion in its geological boundary by enacting law, but it cannot hide the truth as internet reigns beyond borders and no law is ever going to stop it.
Case #1: In Nepal, the King has dissolved the government and taken full control. It is in a state of emergency where a censorship on internet, print and broadcasting media is in force. In a group blog of Nepali journalists "United we blog", blogger Dinesh writes:
"Because of my basic human rights, like right to express, speak and writing, are suspended and I am in no position to express my feeling or opinion regarding the royal takeover. ... For the first time in my life, I knew the importance of this site, a place to express myself, ourselves... A great forum to share ideas."
Another blogger writes:
"Dear friends world over, Nepal is closed for the time being. So we won’t be able to put our views here. But you are free to put your views. Please continue to use this blogging site."
Case #2: Dristipat(Voice for human rights in Bangladesh) is a non-profit, non-political website maintained by some expatriate Bangladeshis in the US. Its one petition for protesting the killing of the ex-finance minister S.A.M.S. Kibria was surprisingly interpreted by the law minister as a malicious propaganda against the state and he has threatened to take action against them enacting a cyber-law. Drishtipat protested rightly:
"These allegations against Drishtipat are inappropriate and an unfortunate diversion from the task at hand."
A post in Drishtipat asks the law minister:
Like you we agree that we should not resort to hartal or violent means to protest but if we cannot even write a letter to our own mission as well, then how are we going to protest?
I think what the law minister wants that we should see no evil, hear no evil and write no evil which might expose the failure of his party. That is autocracy.
Long live the internet. Because of it any injustice, breach of human right can be protested from anywhere in the world. In addition, one government can restrict viewing or publishing opinion in its geological boundary by enacting law, but it cannot hide the truth as internet reigns beyond borders and no law is ever going to stop it.
