Communications Decency Act (CDA) and Reno v. ACLU

Communications Decency Act (CDA)- a US law designed and enacted to protect minors from indecent and obscene communications - was addressed in Reno v. ACLU 521 US 844 (1997) when the US Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion declared CDA's anti-obscenity and anti-indecency provisions to be unconstitutional, as these affected the rights of adults in addition to curbing obscenity and indecency.

YouTube Case Media Round up

The media reports on Lahore High Court's proceedings in the YouTube case:

International Case Law on Web/Internet Blocking

BEFORE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

WP: 958/2013

Bytes for All

v.

Federation of Pakistan etc

A Brief Overview of the Case Law Available On Blocking of Websites Internationally

Respectfully Sheweth:-

That Your Lordship had instructed me to collect existing case law internationally that pertains to our case. The following case law is instructive:-

1.      Yildrim v. Turkey (December 2012)

-        In this case European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decided that a Court order blocking access to “Google Sites” in Turkey was a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR Law).

-        In 2009 the Denizli Criminal Court ordered the blocking of an Internet site whose owner had been accused of insulting the memory of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of Modern Turkey. The order was issued as a preventive measure in the context of criminal proceedings against the site’s owner.

-        The blocking order was submitted for execution to the Telecommunications Directorate (“TİB”). Shortly afterwards, the TİB asked the court to extend the scope of the order by blocking access to Google Sites, which hosted not only the site in question but also the applicant’s site. The TİB stated that this was the only technical means of blocking the offending site, as its owner lived abroad.

Mr. Yasser Latif Hamdani at the Stockholm Internet Forum

PRESS RELEASE:

Mr. Yasser Latif Hamdani, Advocate High Court,  the lead counsel in the YouTube Case i.e. Bytes For All v. Federation of Pakistan WP 958/2013 in the Lahore High Court Lahore in Pakistan, is scheduled to attend the Stockholm Internet forum from 21 May 2013 to 24 May 2013, on the invitation of Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the nomination of Bytes For All Pakistan. He is one of the five Pakistani delegates at the forum and shall be raising awareness about the latest legal developments vis a vis issues of law, internet, privacy and control as faced by the citizens of Pakistan.

The picture above is of the historic Town Hall in Stockholm. This is where the delegates will be received by the representatives of the Kingdom of Sweden on the 21st of May.

YouTube Case : Bytes For All v. Federation of Pakistan. Lahore High Court Lahore. Update

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Update on Bytes For All v. Federation WP 958/2013 aka “Youtube Case” before Justice Mansoor Ali Shah of the Lahore High Court Lahore.  I shall refer to myself as “counsel” throughout.

26.4.2013 – today – was the 7^th date of hearing in the Youtube Case.  The counsel arrived at the Court at 0830. Justice Mr. Shah addressed the counsel and informed him that the hearing was fixed for 1230.  The counsel returned to the Court at 1230. At this time the following Amicus Curiae were also present:

Jinnah's Pakistan: Calling a spade a spade

This relates to Mr Yaqoob Bangash's historically inaccurate article in Express Tribune on the captioned matter.  

It is well known that Jinnah's Muslim League included Ismailis, Shias, Sunnis, Ahmadis etc and therefore the question of defining a Muslim did not arise. In fact Jinnah expressly ruled out the idea when he was pressurised on Ahmadi question. To Mr. Jinnah a Muslim was a person who professed to be a Muslim. Similarly Jinnah never declared Muslims outside the League to be Non-Muslim. His claim that Muslim League represented the Muslims was borne out of his desire to negotiate with the Congress at a level of parity. He never suggested people outside the League were non-Muslims. In fact it was Majlis-e-Ahrar and other Congress allies which declared Jinnah to be a Non-Muslim for being too secular, too westernised and soft on Ahmadis. A mere reading of the Munir Report will prove my point.  Similarly 11 August is not the only speech that Jinnah gave which gave an inclusive democratic vision. There were many others and these are easily searchable. This one speech mantra is historically inaccurate. Finally Jinnah's actions as Governor General were driven by the fact that on 22 August 1947, the Khan sb ministry enjoyed the support of only 16 members out of a house of 39. His action was completely constitutional. 

I do not know what Jinnah's Pakistan is but Jinnah the man was not born on 23 March 1940. He had spent 4 decades in politics most of which was dedicated to civil liberties, equality and religious freedom for all Indians. 

Mr. Bangash unfortunately has slandered the memory of the one man whose wise words we need to follow at this critical juncture in our history.  What private griefs they harbor, one cannot say, but distorting history is hardly the way to go about it.

Click here for my detailed rebuttal.

What is the 501(c)(3) status?

You may have heard the term 501(c)(3) being bandied about.

This refers to an organization that has applied for and obtained a tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. For this an organization is required to be any of the following:

1. Formed for a charitable purpose.

2. Formed for a religious purpose.

3. Formed for an educational purpose.

4. Formed for a scientific purpose.

5. Formed for a literary purpose.

6. Formed to foster national or international amateur sports competition

7. Formed to prevent cruelty to children or animal.

An organization with 501(c)(3) status does not pay taxes related to nonprofit purposes and can also receive tax deductible contributions from donors and is eligible for private foundation grants.