The Vietnamese Government’s recently issued decree on themanagement, supply and use of Internet services and online informationreflects its unceasing efforts to better its legal system, just as manyother governments in the world do during the country’s development.
With booming information in the Internet era, freedom of speech andthe press have become global issues, requiring the close watch of eachgovernment. It is the responsibility of every government to prevent thenegative problems arising from the Internet so that freedom of speechand the press serves the legitimate interests of people, ensuringnational stability and development.
Based on theirown conditions and situations, countries in the world have developedtheir individual policies to ensure freedom of speech. However, none ofthem consider freedom of speech as unlimited, but belongs within a legalframework. Free speech is protected only when it does not violate thelegal and legitimate interests of the nation and community as well asother basic rights.
As we can see in reality, manycountries’ laws recognise freedom of speech and a free press, but theydo not consider it as “absolute”. In the US, Article 2385, Chapter 115of the US Criminal Code stipulates punishment on anyone who “prints,publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes or publiclydisplays any written or printed matter advocating, advising or teachingthe duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing ordestroying any government in the United States”. The US Constitutionallows the Supreme Court to hand out legal punishment on discovering anyact by the press that damages, defames or slanders the State, societyor individuals. In fact, the US Supreme Court issues a large number ofdocuments every year to control and manage the press. The Constitutionsof all the states also permit prosecution for abusing freedom of speechand the press.
Taking a look at othercountries, the Media Development Agency (MDA) under the SingaporeanMinistry of Information and Communication recently issued a regulation,under which licensed news websites must remove content that damagesracial and religious harmonisation within 24 hours upon its request.Article 17 of the Kyrgyzstan Constitution clearly defines that:“Restrictions on the exercise of rights and freedom shall be allowed bythe Constitution and laws of the Kyrgyz Republic only for thepurposes of protecting rights and freedoms of other persons, publicsafety and order, territorial integrity, and constitutional order.” InAfrica , Chapter 8 in Senegal ’s Constitution acknowledges theguarantee of the rights of freedom of speech and the press. However, itmakes these rights subject to adjustment by legal regulations.
All the above-mentioned things are in accordance with the content ofthe UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as said in Article 29:“Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and fulldevelopment of his personality is possible…, shall be subject only tosuch limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose ofsecuring due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms ofothers and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public orderand the general welfare in the democratic society.”
It is obvious that the act of abusing the right of free speech or usingit to provoke or demean others will not be protected. Some years ago,several Danish and French newspapers published cartoons of the Islamicprophet Muhammad, thus causing a wave of anger among the Muslimcommunity worldwide. The phone hacking scandal and the infringement ofprofessional ethics by the UK’s number 1 tabloid, News of the World, ledto its closure. The scandal led to the UK Government issuing newregulations for stricter censorship. An organisation was set up underthe government with the right to ban the operations, terminate thepublication of a newspaper or fine and force it to issue an apology onthe front page if infringements are made.
A morerecent and bigger world-shaking event was the phone hacking scandalinvolving the US National Security Agency (NSA). According to the US andWestern media, the NSA recorded phone calls of tens of millions ofpeople as well as hacked the computers of many important organisationsand individuals inside and outside the country to collect informationand private data over a long period of time. The spying programme, namedPRISM, astonished the spy world and leaders of many countries and wasdescribed as an “attack on the US Constitution” by the US pressand not a few parliamentarians.
All the citedexamples affirm that no country considers the right of speech and pressfreedom as absolute. Social communication activities as well as websitesof individuals and organisations enjoy freedom of speech within theframework of the law. In the context of leaping developments of theinformation sector, especially the Internet, the move taken bycountries, including Vietnam, to consolidate laws relating toinformation is aimed at managing and building a stable society fordevelopment, with a view of both making full use of the positive impactsand minimise the negative effects the Internet has on society, culture,awareness and ideology, and particularly young people’s lifestyles.Electronic information, social networks, online games should bedeveloped in a healthy manner. The act of using the names oforganisations and individuals to scatter false information violates thelegitimate rights and interests of the organisations and individuals.Some such acts even disturb financial information, causing negativeimpacts on the monetary market and the economy. Even worse, theestablishment and use of websites under the name of another person todistort the facts may lead to internal division, destroy solidarity andcause social disorder.
Online activities aregrowing in popularity, playing an indispensable part in social life.Those who use social networks can see how dangerous their negativeimpacts are without effective management tools. Online activities by anycitizen of any country have to abide by the nation’s legal regulationsand laws. Vietnam’s issuance of Decree 72 is to better protect citizens’legitimate interests. The creation of a more transparent legal corridorto develop the Internet is a necessary and appropriate action as manyother countries in the world have, and are doing.-VNA
With booming information in the Internet era, freedom of speech andthe press have become global issues, requiring the close watch of eachgovernment. It is the responsibility of every government to prevent thenegative problems arising from the Internet so that freedom of speechand the press serves the legitimate interests of people, ensuringnational stability and development.
Based on theirown conditions and situations, countries in the world have developedtheir individual policies to ensure freedom of speech. However, none ofthem consider freedom of speech as unlimited, but belongs within a legalframework. Free speech is protected only when it does not violate thelegal and legitimate interests of the nation and community as well asother basic rights.
As we can see in reality, manycountries’ laws recognise freedom of speech and a free press, but theydo not consider it as “absolute”. In the US, Article 2385, Chapter 115of the US Criminal Code stipulates punishment on anyone who “prints,publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes or publiclydisplays any written or printed matter advocating, advising or teachingthe duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing ordestroying any government in the United States”. The US Constitutionallows the Supreme Court to hand out legal punishment on discovering anyact by the press that damages, defames or slanders the State, societyor individuals. In fact, the US Supreme Court issues a large number ofdocuments every year to control and manage the press. The Constitutionsof all the states also permit prosecution for abusing freedom of speechand the press.
Taking a look at othercountries, the Media Development Agency (MDA) under the SingaporeanMinistry of Information and Communication recently issued a regulation,under which licensed news websites must remove content that damagesracial and religious harmonisation within 24 hours upon its request.Article 17 of the Kyrgyzstan Constitution clearly defines that:“Restrictions on the exercise of rights and freedom shall be allowed bythe Constitution and laws of the Kyrgyz Republic only for thepurposes of protecting rights and freedoms of other persons, publicsafety and order, territorial integrity, and constitutional order.” InAfrica , Chapter 8 in Senegal ’s Constitution acknowledges theguarantee of the rights of freedom of speech and the press. However, itmakes these rights subject to adjustment by legal regulations.
All the above-mentioned things are in accordance with the content ofthe UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as said in Article 29:“Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and fulldevelopment of his personality is possible…, shall be subject only tosuch limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose ofsecuring due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms ofothers and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public orderand the general welfare in the democratic society.”
It is obvious that the act of abusing the right of free speech or usingit to provoke or demean others will not be protected. Some years ago,several Danish and French newspapers published cartoons of the Islamicprophet Muhammad, thus causing a wave of anger among the Muslimcommunity worldwide. The phone hacking scandal and the infringement ofprofessional ethics by the UK’s number 1 tabloid, News of the World, ledto its closure. The scandal led to the UK Government issuing newregulations for stricter censorship. An organisation was set up underthe government with the right to ban the operations, terminate thepublication of a newspaper or fine and force it to issue an apology onthe front page if infringements are made.
A morerecent and bigger world-shaking event was the phone hacking scandalinvolving the US National Security Agency (NSA). According to the US andWestern media, the NSA recorded phone calls of tens of millions ofpeople as well as hacked the computers of many important organisationsand individuals inside and outside the country to collect informationand private data over a long period of time. The spying programme, namedPRISM, astonished the spy world and leaders of many countries and wasdescribed as an “attack on the US Constitution” by the US pressand not a few parliamentarians.
All the citedexamples affirm that no country considers the right of speech and pressfreedom as absolute. Social communication activities as well as websitesof individuals and organisations enjoy freedom of speech within theframework of the law. In the context of leaping developments of theinformation sector, especially the Internet, the move taken bycountries, including Vietnam, to consolidate laws relating toinformation is aimed at managing and building a stable society fordevelopment, with a view of both making full use of the positive impactsand minimise the negative effects the Internet has on society, culture,awareness and ideology, and particularly young people’s lifestyles.Electronic information, social networks, online games should bedeveloped in a healthy manner. The act of using the names oforganisations and individuals to scatter false information violates thelegitimate rights and interests of the organisations and individuals.Some such acts even disturb financial information, causing negativeimpacts on the monetary market and the economy. Even worse, theestablishment and use of websites under the name of another person todistort the facts may lead to internal division, destroy solidarity andcause social disorder.
Online activities aregrowing in popularity, playing an indispensable part in social life.Those who use social networks can see how dangerous their negativeimpacts are without effective management tools. Online activities by anycitizen of any country have to abide by the nation’s legal regulationsand laws. Vietnam’s issuance of Decree 72 is to better protect citizens’legitimate interests. The creation of a more transparent legal corridorto develop the Internet is a necessary and appropriate action as manyother countries in the world have, and are doing.-VNA
