Publicado: Tue, 28 Jul, 2015

The native mother goes back in democracy

This entry is also avaliable in: Spanish

tomada de internet Havana. The contractual mechanisms of the Spanish democracy are sunk in an institutional deep crisis, after the representation legalized by the people for the administration and taking of decisions approved the most unpopular law in the modern history in the Iberian nation.

The setting in vigor of the Organic Law of Civic Security on July 1st illustrates the democratic deficiencies that suffer the States controlled by a single political force. 82 percent of the Spaniards opposes to the legislation, and they accuse the Popular Party (PP) of President’s Mariano Rajoy, of adapting the freedom of speech to aristocratic conveniences.

The sectors of jurists, professors, journalists, political opponents and of the own PP, platforms of cyber activism, all in a general way have qualified without exception the new regulations as the biggest attack to the freedom of speech in Spain during the last years.

Next to people with fewer resources, the immigrants, the social movements and activists of human rights, the media is the most harmed with the law, and it is that, the reformations presented in the Penal Code, in essence widely restrict what one can and one cannot make in Internet.

But is it really an attack to the freedom of speech? Certainly, and for a fundamental reason: at the present time Internet is the main vehicle of information and communication. The guidelines promulgated in the “Gag Law “, like it was baptized by the means and activists in the heat of the protests, they head to control and to clip the possibilities of using the Internet.

Some of the regulations prohibit the Spaniards to carry out different online actions. To violate them leads to receive tickets ranging from 100 to 600.000 euros, depending on the seriousness of the infraction, and even to jail if considered a penal crime.

Among the limitations you find to consult webs of criminal contents. In such a sense the law clarifies that to regularly access the Web sites that advocate or apology terrorism will suppose a crime according to the article 575.2 of the penal new code, after the reformation as regards crimes for terrorism.

It will be understood that a person will commit this crime if regularly access to one or several accessible communication services to the on-line public or accessible contents through Internet, or of a service of electronic communications whose contents are directed or be suitable to incite to the incorporation to a terrorist group or an organization, or to collaborate with anyone of them in their purposes.

Just visiting a Web site of this type on a regular basis could be punished with 1 and 5 years in jail. Nobody can consult these places, not even as a source, although the characterization among what is and what can end up crossing the line toward the terrorism, stays in a subjective plan.
Another form of ambiguous writing of the new Penal Code is in the computer crimes that now is also considered terrorism.

For example, when the computer crimes have as an objective to “subvert the constitutional order, or to suppress or to gravely destabilize the operation of the political institutions, to alter the public peace gravely, to destabilize the operation of an international organization gravely or to provoke a terror state in the population or in a part of her”, it is also considered as acts of terrorism.

To seriously “alter the public peace” through Internet is equally considered a computer crime.

However, what does the law consider that it is to seriously alter the public peace? Would it be, for example, to carry out a filtration of confidential information as Edward Snowden did? To visit a web site of this type regularly, could lead you be penalized with 1 to 5 years in jail.

To organize online protests and in social nets passes to be considered a crime. Articles 578 and 579 punish with hardships of terrorism the diffusion of messages for Internet that can be considered “a highlight or public justification” of the new crimes, or the diffusion of watchwords that can incite others to make them.

Article 30 of the Law makes clear that it will be considered organizers or promoters – of the protests – who for publications or declarations of convocation of the same ones, for the oral or written manifestations spread can be reasonably determined that they are managers of them.

The most elementary translation corroborates that this it is an instrument to control the social discordant movements to the state politicians.

But maybe the most attractive in the legislation could be the impossibility of publishing in Internet pictures of policemen because they can be considered a crime if they suppose a “danger for their personal or family” security.

The uncertainty appears in that supposed “danger for its personal or family security “. I do rebuke how the law will and the jurists exactly measure that “danger?” Cause: it is not defined the danger. Effect: the freedom of speech is hindered.

As a consequence the police will never be able to be photographed while they run over peaceful demonstrators, nor one will be able to denounce facts of this nature.

The situation sounds well-known, also viewed in some other places. At the end the knots are undeniable. Certainly in the crown it doesn’t constitute a penal crime to photograph the repressive bodies in full task, nevertheless, there are “not written rules” that restrict the freedoms of that type.

As the saying goes: “like father like son.” The one that comes out to his ancestors doesn’t degenerate.

Latest posts by Osniel Carmona Breijo (see all)

Escribir un comentario

XHTML: Ud.puede utilizar los siguientes tags html: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>