反网络犯罪法被武器化以压制新闻业。
Anti-cybercrime laws are being weaponized to repress journalism

原始链接: https://www.cjr.org/analysis/nigeria-pakistan-jordan-cybercrime-laws-journalism.php

## 网络犯罪法对新闻业日益增长的威胁 在多个国家,最初旨在打击网络犯罪的法律正日益被用来压制新闻调查和批判性报道。在尼日利亚,2015年《网络犯罪法》——特别是第24条——已被武器化,用来对像丹尼尔·奥久克武这样的记者进行打击,他因揭露涉嫌总统腐败而被捕。尽管最近进行了修订,但该法律仍然模糊,将可能“破坏法律和秩序”的在线言论定为犯罪,从而扼杀调查新闻业。 尼日利亚并非个例。尼日尔最近恢复了对在线“诽谤”的监禁刑罚,而巴基斯坦、格鲁吉亚、土耳其和约旦也颁布了类似的措施,以打击虚假信息为幌子,限制新闻自由。国际特赦组织报告称,约旦因“传播虚假新闻”而提起诉讼。 多伦多大学的研究人员记录了这一趋势,它为政府提供了审查的理由,即使民主国家也在考虑类似的立法。在尼日利亚,超过二十名记者面临起诉,经常在没有确凿证据的情况下被捕和拘留。尽管面临骚扰,许多人,比如奥久克武,仍然致力于追究权力者的责任,认识到持续、无畏报道的紧迫性。

## 反网络犯罪法律的武器化:摘要 这次Hacker News讨论围绕一篇CJR文章展开,文章详细说明了反网络犯罪法律在全球范围内被滥用以压制新闻业和异议,尤其是在尼日利亚、巴基斯坦和土耳其等国家。核心问题在于,将在线行为定罪的法律措辞过于宽泛——通常与“冒犯性”或“令人讨厌”的内容相关——正在被利用来针对批判性报道并压制反对声音。 评论员指出,政府以打击新技术和犯罪为幌子,扩大法律权力的历史趋势。担忧集中在像美国CFAA这样的法律的模糊性上,仅仅访问公司*不希望*公开查看的数据就会被定罪,从而阻碍调查性新闻。 一个关键点是与“网络犯罪”相关的惩罚不成比例,通常超过离线犯下类似罪行的惩罚。一些人认为应该更清楚地区分事实报道和观点,并尽量减少容易被武器化以压制言论自由的法律工具。讨论还涉及即使是善意的法律也可能被滥用的可能性,以及在赋予当局权力时透明度和范围限制的重要性。
相关文章

原文

Sign up for the daily CJR newsletter.

In May 2024, Daniel Ojukwu, a twenty-six-year-old reporter for the Foundation for Investigative Journalism, a Nigerian nonprofit, was grabbed off the streets of Lagos by armed police and bundled into a vehicle. For the next several days, he was held in a cell incommunicado—first in Lagos, and later in the federal capital, Abuja—without being told exactly what he’d been arrested for. “It was more of an abduction,” Ojukwu recalled recently, via WhatsApp. Finally, on the fourth day, the authorities informed him that he was being accused of breaching a 2015 law known as the Cybercrime Act. His violation: an article he wrote about alleged corruption in the office of the president.

The Cybercrime Act was introduced to combat a growing trend of internet fraud and other criminal activity within Nigeria, but it has instead frequently been used to suppress journalism published online. One provision in particular—Section 24, which made it illegal to publish false information online that was deemed to be “grossly offensive,” “indecent,” or even merely an “annoyance”—has been especially ripe for abuse. In 2019, for instance, Agba Jalingo, a journalist and publisher of CrossRiverWatch, in Nigeria’s Cross River State, was arrested and charged under Section 24 after he published articles accusing the state’s governor of corruption. (He was later acquitted.) In February 2024, Nigerian lawmakers amended Section 24 to remove some of its most egregious elements, but the new language still makes it illegal, and punishable by up to three years in jail, to “knowingly or intentionally” communicate online anything that is “false, for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order [or] posing a threat to life.”

“This vague text is still used to unfairly prosecute journalists, particularly those who regularly publish investigative reports implicating political or institutional forces,” said Sadibou Marong, the sub-Saharan Africa bureau director of Reporters Without Borders. “Authorities are intent on gagging investigative journalism uncovering corruption and governance issues in the country. The continued implementation of this law constitutes a real threat.”

Nigeria is not the only country using laws designed to legitimately combat online misbehavior to instead repress journalism. In neighboring Niger, Abdourahamane Tchiani, who seized power in a coup in 2023, signed an order amending three articles of the country’s cybercrime law to reinstate prison sentences for “defamation,” “insults,” and the “dissemination of data likely to disturb public order or undermine human dignity” when these offenses are committed electronically. The law, originally enacted in 2019, had previously been softened to remove prison sentences for such offenses, in part owing to how the law had been abused to repress journalists. In Pakistan, Georgia, and Turkey, among others, recent laws meant to limit nefarious activity online, or the spread of misinformation, have been used to restrict acts of journalism. According to Amnesty International, at least fifteen people in Jordan have been prosecuted under a 2023 expansion of the country’s Cybercrimes Law, for offenses ranging from “spreading fake news” to “threatening society peace.”

“Unfortunately, most of the laws being passed will have little effect in actually curbing misinformation, but instead may give governments far more authority to control content they deem false or misleading,” said Gabrielle Lim, a doctoral fellow at the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto, who recently coauthored a paper tracking the misuse of “fake news” laws around the world. “For some governments, the threat of misinformation provides a convenient justification for censorship. This is compounded by the fact that liberal democracies are also considering or passing similar laws, which can give cover to authoritarian regimes who want to do the same.” 

In Nigeria, more than two dozen journalists have faced prosecution under the Cybercrime Act, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. In most cases, the journalists have been accused of cyberbullying, cyberstalking, or attempting to overthrow the government. On February 16, 2024—two weeks before the amended Cybercrime Act was signed into law—four journalists of The Informant247, an independent online newspaper based in Nigeria’s Kwara State, were arrested and briefly detained after they published a two-part investigative series that alleged a corrupt atmosphere at a state-run polytechnic institute. “The experience was profoundly disturbing,” said Salihu Ayatullahi, the publication’s editor in chief and one of the arrested journalists. “We were locked in a dark, cramped cell with hardened criminals. The psychological impact was heavier than the physical discomfort: I couldn’t sleep, not because of the poor conditions, but because I couldn’t stop thinking about how broken our system had become and how the corrupt could illegally summon the police to punish those who expose them.” The case was dismissed eleven months later without any evidence presented against the reporters.

Solomon Okedara, a Nigerian digital rights lawyer and researcher, notes that the use of the Cybercrime Act has created a chilling effect in the nation’s civic space. “It is even more worrisome that most of the time, the prosecution cannot establish ingredients of the offense to the point of conviction,” Okedara said. “Knowing a fellow journalist has faced arrest, harassment, and detention, or endless trials, can force others to drop an investigative story idea.”

Sign up for CJR’s daily email

Despite their ordeals, both Ojukwu and Ayatullahi say they are more determined than ever to use their craft to hold public officials accountable. “As a journalist, the whole experience has made me understand that there is more work to do,” Ojukwu said. “And since there is no limit to which the corrupt are willing to go, there is also none for me. The Cybercrime Act remains a thorn in the flesh of journalists in Nigeria.”

Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com