關於 political expression examples ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

我今天早上在香港電台英文台的《給香港的信》，向香港人警告政府和保皇黨企圖以「假新聞」作藉口而引入對互聯網內容審查！

Beware: Hong Kong government and pro-establishment politicians are drumming up against "fake news" to justify introducing Internet censorship

-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\

You may have recently seen a series of so-called government announcements in the public interest, or API, on TV, cautioning the public to be careful about the information they receive on the internet. The API tells the public to verify and fact-check before believing these information, and not to spread misinformation, or the consequences can be devastating.

The advice is reasonable. But the intention may be dubious. Why? It is because the government and especially the police force but have been one of the biggest sources of misinformation in Hong Kong, during the last six months of pro-democracy protests which followed the government’s attempt to ram through the extradition bill. Needless to say, government claims about the extradition bill must have been some of the best examples of spreading misinformation, or simply lies. Likewise, many of the recent claims made by the police about their actions in their almost daily press conferences since this summer must be also justifiably classified as misinformation.

So, it is quite clear to many that what the government is trying to do is to monopolise what is true and what is not. In recent weeks, more and more government officials and senior police officers, running out of arguments to justify their own versions as their truths, simply resort to attacking the other sides’ views as “fake news.”

Some may remember about two month ago, a letter from the police to Facebook was leaked on social media. In the letter, the Police requested the global social media company to remove a number of posts made by different users, based on the allegation that these posts were critical of the police and would potentially harm their reputation. Fortunately, the social media company did not comply with these requests.

The issue at hand is not fake news. The issue at hand is freedom of expression, disguised by the authority in the name of countering misinformation.
This week in the Legislative Council, in a written question put up by the Honourable Ted Hui, the police admitted to 621 removal requests made this year up to the end of November to local and international Internet and social media platforms, a whopping 18 times more than in 2018. The government response puts the blame on “a vast amount of fake news and baseless accusations that targeted the Police.” It is simply ludicrous for a government with the lowest approval and credibility ratings in history to say that. To many, this government which refuses to even allow an independent commission to investigate the police is itself the biggest source of fake news, and not to be trusted.

The government seems to be saying that truth must be approved by authority, and its version of facts cannot be disputed by anyone, especially those who hold a different political view.
So really, where do fake news come from? In August, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube removed over 200,000 accounts which were tied to the China government or state media, that were used purposely to smear the Hong Kong anti-extradition protests, and to spread misinformation about the protests.

Yet, it is now the Hong Kong government and pro-establishment political figures that are making noises about fake news, saying that in order to counter these so-called misinformation, legislation should be passed to ban fake news. They would point to such legislation in other countries such as Germany and France, or Singapore.

When I was in Berlin, Germany, two weeks ago, for the Internet Governance Forum, in a summit with legislators around the world, we compared notes about censorship attempts by different governments in the name of protecting the people, but in fact at the expense of curtailing freedom of expression. A German member of parliament told me in no uncertain term that, quote, misinformation is legal is Germany, end of quote. She said that freedom of expression is enshrined in the German Basic Law and not to be compromised by any other legislation. The new law was just an attempt to regulate contents that are narrowly defined such as relating to criminal defamation, hate crimes, or Holocaust denial. But, criticising the government is certainly a right that is legally protected at the highest level of their constitution. Even so, the legislations of such laws in Germany or France were still very controversial.

When I told this German legislator that pro-government politicians in Hong Kong are justifying removal of content on social media by quoting the German example, her response was — this must be an example of using misinformation to justify laws against misinformation, that is, plain censorship. Her conclusion, laws in one land cannot be copied to another, or there will be abuse.

Hong Kong, by comparison with Germany or France, does not have the democracy and the power vested in the people to protect our people’s own rights. One can reference the recent case of Singapore, where it also passed an anti-fake news law, and in recent weeks have started to enforce it against people posting messages on Facebook. When a member of the opposition party posted an opinion opposing certain government investment decisions, the Singaporean government decided that was fake news.

So beware of the government’s evolving attempts to censor the Internet and social media, by drumming up the negative side. The Big Brother wants to stifle opinions against it, because that is the rule number one of hanging on to the authority they wish to continue to dominate. We must continue to guard against Internet censorship because no one else will save us. It is our — the people’s own — free opinion vs the government’s version of the only truth — that is what it is all about. And it’s worth the fight.

-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\

https://www.rthk.hk/…/progr…/lettertohongkong/episode/612602

#RTHK #LTHK #censorship #fakenews

我今天早上在香港電台英文台的《給香港的信》，向香港人警告政府和保皇黨企圖以「假新聞」作藉口而引入對互聯網內容審查！

Beware: Hong Kong government and pro-establishment politicians are drumming up against "fake news" to justify introducing Internet censorship

--------

You may have recently seen a series of so-called government announcements in the public interest, or API, on TV, cautioning the public to be careful about the information they receive on the internet. The API tells the public to verify and fact-check before believing these information, and not to spread misinformation, or the consequences can be devastating.

The advice is reasonable. But the intention may be dubious. Why? It is because the government and especially the police force but have been one of the biggest sources of misinformation in Hong Kong, during the last six months of pro-democracy protests which followed the government’s attempt to ram through the extradition bill. Needless to say, government claims about the extradition bill must have been some of the best examples of spreading misinformation, or simply lies. Likewise, many of the recent claims made by the police about their actions in their almost daily press conferences since this summer must be also justifiably classified as misinformation.

So, it is quite clear to many that what the government is trying to do is to monopolise what is true and what is not. In recent weeks, more and more government officials and senior police officers, running out of arguments to justify their own versions as their truths, simply resort to attacking the other sides’ views as “fake news.”

Some may remember about two month ago, a letter from the police to Facebook was leaked on social media. In the letter, the Police requested the global social media company to remove a number of posts made by different users, based on the allegation that these posts were critical of the police and would potentially harm their reputation. Fortunately, the social media company did not comply with these requests.

The issue at hand is not fake news. The issue at hand is freedom of expression, disguised by the authority in the name of countering misinformation.

This week in the Legislative Council, in a written question put up by the Honourable Ted Hui, the police admitted to 621 removal requests made this year up to the end of November to local and international Internet and social media platforms, a whopping 18 times more than in 2018. The government response puts the blame on “a vast amount of fake news and baseless accusations that targeted the Police.” It is simply ludicrous for a government with the lowest approval and credibility ratings in history to say that. To many, this government which refuses to even allow an independent commission to investigate the police is itself the biggest source of fake news, and not to be trusted.

The government seems to be saying that truth must be approved by authority, and its version of facts cannot be disputed by anyone, especially those who hold a different political view.

So really, where do fake news come from? In August, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube removed over 200,000 accounts which were tied to the China government or state media, that were used purposely to smear the Hong Kong anti-extradition protests, and to spread misinformation about the protests.

Yet, it is now the Hong Kong government and pro-establishment political figures that are making noises about fake news, saying that in order to counter these so-called misinformation, legislation should be passed to ban fake news. They would point to such legislation in other countries such as Germany and France, or Singapore.

When I was in Berlin, Germany, two weeks ago, for the Internet Governance Forum, in a summit with legislators around the world, we compared notes about censorship attempts by different governments in the name of protecting the people, but in fact at the expense of curtailing freedom of expression. A German member of parliament told me in no uncertain term that, quote, misinformation is legal is Germany, end of quote. She said that freedom of expression is enshrined in the German Basic Law and not to be compromised by any other legislation. The new law was just an attempt to regulate contents that are narrowly defined such as relating to criminal defamation, hate crimes, or Holocaust denial. But, criticising the government is certainly a right that is legally protected at the highest level of their constitution. Even so, the legislations of such laws in Germany or France were still very controversial.

When I told this German legislator that pro-government politicians in Hong Kong are justifying removal of content on social media by quoting the German example, her response was — this must be an example of using misinformation to justify laws against misinformation, that is, plain censorship. Her conclusion, laws in one land cannot be copied to another, or there will be abuse.

Hong Kong, by comparison with Germany or France, does not have the democracy and the power vested in the people to protect our people’s own rights. One can reference the recent case of Singapore, where it also passed an anti-fake news law, and in recent weeks have started to enforce it against people posting messages on Facebook. When a member of the opposition party posted an opinion opposing certain government investment decisions, the Singaporean government decided that was fake news.

So beware of the government’s evolving attempts to censor the Internet and social media, by drumming up the negative side. The Big Brother wants to stifle opinions against it, because that is the rule number one of hanging on to the authority they wish to continue to dominate. We must continue to guard against Internet censorship because no one else will save us. It is our — the people’s own — free opinion vs the government’s version of the only truth — that is what it is all about. And it’s worth the fight.

--------

https://www.rthk.hk/radio/radio3/programme/lettertohongkong/episode/612602

#RTHK #LTHK #censorship #fakenews

11:04 6 Aug: First Ever Press Conference Held by Protesters to Counterweight Gov't PC; Invites People to Join Future PC if Interested

After disappearing from public eye for 11 days, CE Carrie Lam, announced during yesterday's press conference that daily police and government interdepartmental PCs will be held starting from 5 Aug. In the hopes to balance the government's one-sided political discourse, a civil press conference was held today. In response to the statements made by FS Paul Chan yesterday, the speakers stressed that the economic changes in Hong Kong began long before the protests started and that they were mainly the results of external factors such as the stagnating global economy and the current Sino-US trade war.

The speakers strongly condemned the incompetence and negligence of the HKPF and cited incidents in Tseung Kwan O, Sai Wan, Tin Shui Wai, Kwun Tong as examples of excessive use of force. They urged the police to remember the vows and mottos of the HKPF and to exercise restraint in the face of protests. They reiterated the 5 core demands, and particularly emphasised the importance and urgency of dual-universal suffrage. They asked for the government to restore Hong Kong's self-autonomy and respect the people’s right to the freedom of assembly, expression and democracy.

In the Q&A section, when asked about the slogan “Reclaim Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times”, they explained that while activist Edward Leung coined the words in 2016, different individuals or parties (including the government) will have differed interpretations. They hope to involve others in future press conferences to explain their opinions on the slogan itself. The statement made today was constructed with information gathered from Telegram and other platforms over a short period of time. It included views from supplies teams, frontliners, local residents and other participants of the movement. The exact number of people contributed to the statement is unknown, but there were about 100 people who were involved with the PC's preparations today.

The speakers stated that the public should not simply be focused on protesters on the frontlines, rather to consider all who have actively spoken out against police brutality and injustice as "frontliners" as well. They urged Hongkongers to stand united and to pressure the government into respond to the core demands, with the hopes that the government would finally effectively resolve the ongoing protests and appease the people.

The speakers reiterated that they were simply providing a platform where people could make their voices heard. They are not affiliated with any political party, organization and do not represent LIHKG netizens either. For this reason, they are unable to comment on individual incidents (e.g. setting fires) or any future strategies used in protests. Furthermore, they explained that the movement is spontaneous and self-driven, it is impossible for an individual or group to have the power to command the crowd. They will not and cannot tell anyone to escalate the tactics used in the movement.

Regarding the 5 demands, they emphasized that timing and order were irrelevant since all 5 demands are equally important for the movement. The general will throughout the past protests and assemblies is for all 5 to be met and that would be the only way to appease the people. While some believed that establishing an independent commission of inquiry (ICOI) could be a good first step, there are also some who question such commission's political and judiciary independence and whether it would deliver substantive results.

The speakers expressed uncertainty regarding potential PLA intervention in the future, but were confident that in the case of intervention, Hong Kong and the global economy will be forced to respond accordingly. While they continued to urge Hongkongers to "be water" in the face of potential threat and adversity, they claimed that the only way to solve the current political crisis for the government to respond to the people's demands.

On the various protests on 5 August, the speakers apologised for the inconvenience caused by the non-cooperative movement and the 7 district public assemblies. However, they said that the government’s inability to listen to the peoples’ demands was the leading cause of recent escalation. Although the protests orginated from the anti-extradition movement, recent protests have revealed the depth of the people's discontent which extends to various other socio-political issues -- which the government has made no efforts to address or solve. After numerous peaceful methods of expressing our dissatisfaction were to no avail (e.g. protests, strikes, actions by frontliners), the civil press conference was the most recent attempt to provide a nuanced perspective of recent events.

In terms of future PCs, the speakers said it would depend on the manpower available and the reactions to today’s PC. They hoped for the PCs to focus on the HKPF's excessive use of force and negligence while they also wished to invite other citizens to join them in the future. However, no concrete plans have been made for similar events in the future.