Cybercrimes Act Is Necessary - ODPP

waves

not so new
Jun 23, 2011
2,351
756
Visit site
✟94,770.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
...Sympathisers argue that the offence - contained in Section 9 of the Cybercrimes Act 2015 - is part of an attempt by local authorities to bring back criminal defamation through the back door. In 2013, Jamaica amended the Defamation Act to abolish criminal libel.

However, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), in a legal opinion made public yesterday, suggested that the charge of using a computer for malicious communication was not a "veiled attempt" to criminalise defamation.

Instead, the ODPP suggested that the offence was included in the legislation to specifically address the transmission of data, via a computer, which is threatening, menacing, or obscene with the intention to harass, cause harm or the apprehension of harm, to any person or property.


Cybercrimes Act Is Necessary - ODPP


DPP this is not true. There have been attempts in the past to push malicious communications and I spoke against it because people were using these laws to prevent persons from speaking freely without fear in other countries, and I proved this through various articles.

Jamaica has a informer fi dead culture, this is where if you inform on what is really going on then you will be silenced. Read the following below


Online Offenders! Twitter, Facebook And Other Social Media Being Used To Defame Persons As Political Heat Rises


...
As the political campaign approaches fever pitch, a warning has been issued to persons who use social media to defame others.

State Minister in the Ministry of Science, Technology, Energy and Mining Julian Robinson has issued a caution to social-media users who have launched vitriolic and sometimes defamatory campaigns on Facebook, Twitter and other sites.

"The reality is that there are a lot of people who believe that once they are online, a different set of rules apply," Robinson told The Sunday Gleaner in the aftermath of the first forum of the 'social-media warriors' of the governing People's National Party (PNP) that outlined the course that must be charted as the campaign period intensifies.

Some of the major social-media platforms that focus on the political agenda in which members engage in robust debates include Speak Your Mind; Fair and Balanced; Jamaicans For Truth; and Politics Time.

Robinson, who is a deputy general secretary of the PNP, noted that defamatory commentaries appear to be on the rise in the online world. "A lot of things that I see online would fall into the category of libel and of defaming people's character."

He noted that every law that exists is applicable in the new Cybercrimes Act. "So, the laws of libel are equally applicable online as they are in the offline world," he stressed.

"The Cybercrimes Act speaks to malicious communication, which means if someone sends information or post something that is malicious or harmful in nature, then that's an offence," added Robinson.


Online Offenders! Twitter, Facebook And Other Social Media Being Used To Defame Persons As Political Heat Rises


Human Right Watch says the following about China


China’s Internet regulations may be among the most extensive and restrictive in the world. At least twelve different government bureaus have some authority over the Internet, including the powerful State Council Information Office, the Ministry of Public Security, and the Ministry of Information Industry, which is in charge of the licensing and registration of all Internet content providers.28 In 2001, Human Rights Watch estimated that the Chinese government had issued more than sixty sets of government Internet regulations;29 many new regulations have been issued since then, all of them increasing government control. The extensive national-level framework is only part of the picture: the national-level regulations coexist with an unknown number of provincial- and local-level implementing regulations, guidelines, policy documents, and other instruments that have legal impact. Regulations in recent years have focused on, among other things, expanding government censorship and control, both to new technology, such as cellphones,30 and to new mediums of expression, like blogs.31

Although not all regulations are enforced against every possible individual or entity arguably in violation of the rules––to do so would be almost impossible, given the breadth and vagueness of certain provisions––nonetheless the legal framework does have a significant and immediate impact on the amount of information available online, and the extent to which the Internet can be used as a vehicle for free expression by individual Chinese.

One of the most recent sets of regulations to be issued by the government is the Provisions on the Administration of Internet News Information Services (Provisions on News Information Services), issued jointly by the State Council Information Office (SCIO) and the Ministry of Information Industry in September 2005. The Provisions cover the creation and management of news websites, and are the first new regulations on news websites since the issuance of the Interim Provision on the Administration of Internet Web Sites Engaged in News Posting Operations in 2000.32 Because the Provisions make use of a variety of control methods, including registration requirements, external government supervision, broad-based content restrictions, and administrative penalties for violation of any part of the Provisions, they are fairly representative. The Provisions also make repeated reference to restrictions found in other relevant regulations, thus fully integrating China’s Internet law and assuring that virtually all restrictions apply to all situations.

In the first section, the Provisions on News Information Services make clear that the purpose of news websites is not to inform the public of the facts, but instead to “serve socialism” and to “safeguard the nation’s interests and the public interest.”33 News with content that does not “serve socialism” is banned.34 News websites are “encouraged” to disseminate news that is “healthy” and “civilized,” and that will “rais(e) the quality of the nation.”35

The key content restriction provision is Article 19, which forbids the following content:


  • (1) violating the basic principles as they are confirmed in the Constitution;

    (2) jeopardizing the security of the nation, divulging state secrets, subverting of the national regime or jeopardizing the integrity of the nation’s unity;

    (3) harming the honor or the interests of the nation;

    (4) inciting hatred against peoples, racism against peoples, or disrupting the solidarity of peoples;

    (5) disrupting national policies on religion, propagating evil cults and feudal superstitions;

    (6) spreading rumors, disturbing social order, or disrupting social stability;

    (7) spreading obscenity, inappropriate contentography, gambling, violence, terror, or abetting the commission of a crime;

    (8) insulting or defaming third parties, infringing on the legal rights and interests of third parties;

    (9) inciting illegal assemblies, associations, marches, demonstrations, or gatherings that disturb social order;

    (10) conducting activities in the name of an illegal civil organization; and

    (11) any other content prohibited by law or rules.


How Censorship Works in China: A Brief Overview



What is malicious communication?


Section 9 (1) of the Cybercrimes Act of 2015 states that a person who commits an offence by using a computer wilfully with intent to send to another person any data (whether in the form of a message or otherwise) that is obscene, constitutes a threat, or is menacing in nature; and intends to cause, or is reckless as to whether the sending of the data causes annoyance, inconvenience, distress, or anxiety to that person or any other person, can be fined not exceeding $4 million or imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years, or both, by a parish judge if the person is a first offender.


Woman arrested, charged under Cybercrimes Act
 
Last edited: