Tongue in cheek Póvoa Online, which had been available since 2005, was very popular among locals because of its sharp sense of humour and funny caricatures of local politicians, some of which illustrate this piece. Last week, the administrators received the following message from Google explaining the reasons for the closure of the blog hosted with Blogspot:

“Hello,

We’d like to inform you that we’ve received a court order regarding your blog http://povoaonline.blogspot.com. In accordance with the terms of the court order, we’ve been forced to remove your blog. A copy of the court order we received is attached. Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,The Blogger Team

No sooner was Povoa Online deleted than a new blog was created by the same group of irreverent bloggers who sign under the pseudonym Tony Vieira. Povoa Offline made its first appearance publishing the full court decision and amassing nearly 150 comments so far. However, they are still not sure why, as citizens, they were forbidden from expressing themselves in a blog, as Tony explains [pt]: “To my knowledge, nobody has been able so far to explain the legal aspects of the court decision to thousands of “bloggers” who are out there in Portugal, only to mention the Portuguese Lusosphere.”

Ludwig Krippahl [pt] believes that the Portuguese judges don’t understand the basic principle that blogs, as opposed to the established media and journalists, are open spaces that represent people’s opinions and this should be therefore defended under the right of expression. He also points out that since 2000 the Portuguese courts have been given five convictions by the European Court of Human Rights for violations of this fundamental right:

Este caso caricato mostra que os autarcas não percebem bem como estas coisas funcionam. Além de chamar mais atenção para estas alegações, agora qualquer um pode ler na notificação do tribunal precisamente aquilo que eles queriam retirar do acesso público. Além disso, apesar de não se saber se as alegações são verdadeiras, a decisão do tribunal só mencione o ataque à reputação, honra e bom nome dos queixosos e não a sua inocência.

Blogger JMSP [pt] has decided to resort to auto-censorship, and thought it was better not to comment further about the reasons behind the decision:

Nem queria acreditar: o blogue mais lido da Póvoa e um dos mais lidos em Portugal, o povoaonline foi eliminado! Resta a cache, aqui e aqui e suas sequelas que perdurarão no etérea www. Nem me atrevo a pronunciar-me sobre o caso, não me bloqueiem também a mim ou, pior, não me mandem para o Tarrafal. Mas, obviamente, disponibilizo-me para testemunha abonatória do velho Tony.

[*Translation note: Tarrafal, also known as "Camp of the Slow Death", was a concentration camp in the former Portuguese colony, Cape Verde]

JCD [pt] says that the blogger could not really be considered a loose cannon, but agrees that it is only fair that the courts deal with the type of accusations they used to make in cases where people felt victims of libelous accusations. However something does not feel quite right:

Mas… não é incomodativo este tipo de actuação judicial, semelhante à queima dos livros, esta opção pelo apagar da história das ofensas passadas? “Crime”, disse o juiz. “Que as palavras heréticas jamais sejam lidas…”

The proposal will now pass to the European Council. If adopted as a European Union (EU) law, the proposal could have an impact on future trade negotiations between the EU and governments engaged in Internet censorship. “As the adopted amendment on treating internet censorship as a trade barrier is currently only the wish of the Parliament it is not yet part of EU legislation. We will nonetheless keep on pressuring the European Commission and the Council to formally adopt such a proposal in EU legislation,” Jethro van Hardeveld, the political assistant to Jules Maaten, said in an email.

On November 7th, 2007, a public hearing on “Censorship & cyber-dissidents. Freedom on the internet in authoritarian states” was organized by Jules Maaten and two other MEPs from the Alliance for Liberals And Democrats for Europe (ALDE Group) in Brussels. The hearing included voices from cyber-dissidents from Tunisia and China, Reporters sans frontières (RSF), and the Dutch ISP XS4all, on “the increasing grip of governments in repressive states on the content of the Internet.”

The hearing also called for a European version of the Global Online Freedom Act (PDF) in the United States: “The EU will now have to make supporting journalists and cyber dissidents a priority. Free speech must remain the basis of the Internet. Europe should follow the American example where legislators are working on a Global Online Freedom Act. We urge the European Commission to follow this example and come up with a European version of this Act,” Jules Maaten declared.

In a recent parliamentary question on February 21, 2008, Jules Maaten asked whether the Commission is, “willing to invest 20 million euros in technologies able to develop and distribute anti-censorship tools and services which could help Internet users breach electronic firewalls set up by China, Iran and other closed societies?”

I sent some questions for an interview to MEP Jules Maaten which were answered by his political assistant Jethro van Hardeveld:

Sami: Can you give us a brief background about this Internet anti-censorship proposal?

Jethro van Hardeveld: Since 2006 our office has been active on the issue of internet censorship. We started working on internet censorship with the resolution and debate in the European Parliament in Strasbourg in 2006 on ‘freedom of expression on the internet’. The motivation for working on the issue of online censorship is that free speech must remain the basis of the Internet and that human rights should also be protected online.

Sami: Why this focus on the “great firewall” of China? Does China represent the primary target of this initiative or does it also include all other countries engaged in online censorship - even those commonly described by the EU as “moderate Arab regimes” such as Morocco, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, etc.?

Jethro van Hardeveld: The proposal is not focussed at any specific country. It calls on the European Commission to deal with censorship in third countries through it´s external trade policy. It is in no way solemnly directed at China. In a press statement (also attached) from Jules Maaten however we did mention the ‘Great Firewall of China’ as it it is a concrete example and one of the most well known cases of censorship.

Sami: The European Union’s association agreement with countries like Tunisia explicitly requires them to observe human rights and political freedom, however, the EU did not establish a well-functioning mechanism to address continuing human rights abuses by those governments, so how you will deal with the online censorship? Are we going to see the EU boycotting products or imposing sanctions?

Jethro van Hardeveld: We are calling for the EU to adopt a European version of the American Global Online freedom Act. This EU legislation should cover and deal with online censorship by European internet companies in third countries. This legislation should also contain provisions obliging European internet companies to place their servers in non authoritarian/western states, in order to guarantee that will we not get another ‘Shi Tao’ case (the arrests of cyber dissidents ). Furthermore, the European Commission more or the less admitted in an answer to written questions by Jules Maaten that the self regulation in the European internet industry has failed. The European Commission answer: …”the Commission welcomes this clear and unequivocal statement and calls for the industry to work in close cooperation with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on a code of conduct to prevent and counteract cyber repression. The Commission regrets that, so far, no progress has been made on this issue.”…