
The Crime of Speech: How Arab Governments Use Law to Silence Expression Online - CapitalistCartr
https://www.eff.org/wp/crime-speech-how-arab-governments-use-law-silence-expression-online
======
infodroid
What is not widely appreciated is that such laws are not necessary to silence
expression or round up dissidents, because due process is so weak in these
repressive regimes to begin with. Rather, these laws serve more to deflect
criticism from foreign governments and human rights groups.

Also, the law is often a tool of last resort. There are much more effective
ways to silence expression and enforce conformity in these societies, such as
fostering a culture of fear and of self-censorship. If you say or do the wrong
thing, you shouldn't be surprised when well-connected individuals threaten
your reputation and livelihood, or when they apply pressure on your friends
and relatives to correct your errant behavior.

~~~
justicezyx
I don't think you can claim that, just because the enforcement is weak, they
"are not necessary to silence expression or round up dissidents".

Look at China, there are similar laws. If you just random rubble online,
because the enforcement is weak, no one is hurt.

But once a while, someone goes to _jail_ because some inappropriate speech,
etc. That effectively serve the same purpose.

~~~
infodroid
By due process I am talking about the legal protections that individuals can
expect in the system, not whether the laws are selectively applied. Before
cyber-crime and counter-terrorism laws were passed in China, there were many
documented cases of dissidents being jailed under vague laws and unrelated
charges. Yet it was no secret their real crime was "inappropriate speech". So
even if the enforcement of laws is arbitrary or politically motivated, it does
not change the fact that such laws are not necessary to restrict speech.

~~~
justicezyx
> it does not change the fact that such laws are not necessary to restrict
> speech.

It does. That's my whole point. It's not rare to see HN comments about Chinese
citizens self-censor themselves. Those behaviors do have a causal relationship
with such laws.

------
nippples
Saudi Arabia specifically could experiment with not funding radical clerics.

~~~
vixen99
Presumably it knows what it's doing so why should it want to stop?

~~~
dogma1138
It does and doesn't there isn't a single Saudi government there is a family
and a few non blood related oil barons.

And family trumps ideology so you have a mixture of ideals which are supported
and are more often than not contradictory.

The ruling family also uses religion to control the people so if it stops all
support it will find it self under the bus rather quickly, so even the most
moderate have to extend some support to the fringe elements.

~~~
sinxoveretothex
If what you say is true (that at least some members of the royal family are
moderates who would change things for the better if they could), then it seems
to me we should be broadcasting harsh criticism of the current policies to
sway more voices rather than talk about how they're not all bad and what not.

~~~
dogma1138
"Moderates" as in not going to fund suicide bombings, it doesn't mean they are
someone who would you want to have afternoon tea.

What people seem not to understand that for the most part moderates in that
part of the world as still antithetical to western values; the ones who aren't
aren't moderates are extremists just ones who we share values with.

Also as mentioned "family" and keeping power is more important to the
moderates than pretty much anything else. The House of Saud is huge, where you
have 1000's people of the royal family all of which have immense power, wealth
and royal privilege you'll have a full spectrum of opinions from princes that
get drunk and snort cocaine off the backs of prostitutes in a Macao casino to
hard core celerics.

But what they all care about the most is to keep their name, title, wealth and
power.

