International law and national law

(Baonghean) - On July 31, Decree No. 72/2013/ND-CP on Management, provision and use of Internet services and online information was officially announced. The Decree was signed by Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung on July 15 and took effect from September 1. There have been many opinions and conflicting public opinions at home and abroad surrounding some provisions of the Decree. Analyze the content of the controversial provisions; compare and refer to foreign laws to see whether there is a misunderstanding or an inaccurate interpretation - unintentionally or intentionally - leading to a distorted view of the policies and laws of the Vietnamese State?

Decree No. 72/2013/ND-CP on management, provision and use of Internet services and online information.

Decree 72: Concerns...

The opposing information flows mainly come from foreign press organizations, government or non-governmental organizations, revolving around the following 3 issues:

First, the BBC, AFP, Huffington Post (and several other sources) mentioned that individuals using the internet are not allowed to provide aggregated information. Specifically, Radio France Internationale (RFI) interpreted it “roughly” and “simply” as “prohibiting sharing on social networks and blogs information taken from news sites, online newspapers or news blogs” (article “In Vietnam, the government continues the fight against the internet and social networks” published on August 6 on RFI’s official website). This article also sarcastically commented that Decree 72 will limit personal pages to things like posting “photos of your cat” or “new music videos of a popular singer” – “in theory”.

Second, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said that “Decree 72 targets freedom online.” The organization questioned Decree 72’s requirement that internet service providers disclose the identities of those who violate speech laws.

Third, CPJ still holds the view that Decree 72 targets global Internet companies such as Google, Facebook, etc. by requiring these companies to limit content posted on websites and social networks related to Vietnam. Prohibited content - which according to CPJ is vaguely defined by Vietnamese law - includes "Opposing the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; harming national security, social order and safety; undermining national unity; propagating war and terrorism; causing hatred and conflicts between peoples, ethnicities and religions" and "Providing distorted, slanderous information, insulting the reputation of organizations, honor and dignity of individuals" (Article "CPJ: Decree 72 is a "new danger"" posted on July 23 on the BBC's official website). In the article "The United States is "concerned" about Decree 72" posted on the BBC's website on August 6, the Asia Internet Coalition (AIC) founded by eBay, Facebook, Google and Yahoo expressed disappointment: "We believe that the decree will negatively impact Vietnam's internet system (...) In the long term, the decree will stifle creativity and discourage business businesses operating in Vietnam".

Domestic public opinion mainly focuses on the first question. Some bloggers such as Huynh Ngoc Chinh - author of the article "Ba Tung and the Tung Tung Decree" - see Decree 72 as a gun aimed directly at bloggers and freedom of speech on the internet. Another group of netizens supports it, with the view that the regulations in Decree 72 aim at the issue of copyright respect.

Những ấn phẩm báo chí nước ngoài đưa thông tin lệch lạc, quy chụp và phiến diện về Nghị định 72.

...Xuất phát từ một sự hiểu nhầm?...

Cáo buộc Nghị định 72 xâm phạm đến tự do ngôn luận là không xác đáng, khi mà cách hiểu và diễn giải quy định liên quan đến việc đăng tải thông tin tổng hợp trên các trang cá nhân có nhiều bất đồng.

Ngay tiêu đề của điều luật cũng đã nói rõ ràng mục đích của nó: Phân loại. Có lẽ sẽ rất khó để diễn giải từ “phân loại” thành “cấm đoán” như một số luồng ý kiến phản đối! Cụ thể hơn, trong buổi họp báo ngày 31/7 do Bộ Thông tin và Truyền thông tổ chức, Thứ trưởng Lê Nam Thắng phát biểu: “Những thông tin tổng hợp, thông tin chính thức của các cơ quan báo chí còn liên quan đến vấn đề bản quyền, vấn đề của cơ quan báo chí, không thể lấy từ chỗ này đặt sang chỗ kia được, mà phải trích dẫn, xin phép, đồng ý. Hay, thông tin của các cơ quan Đảng, Nhà nước hoặc của các tổ chức, không thể lấy đưa lên rồi làm thành tin tức của mình được. Đấy là quy định chung về Luật Dân sự và quy định của pháp luật về Luật Sở hữu trí tuệ”.

Như vậy, bản thân các quy định của Nghị định 72 không sai nếu xét về quyền tự do ngôn luận, mà chỉ bất cập ở chỗ sử dụng ngôn từ chưa rõ ràng, khiến người đọc không chắc chắn hiểu như thế nào mới đúng. Quả thật, trong Chương 1, Điều 3: Giải thích từ ngữ, Khoản 19 viết “Thông tin tổng hợp là thông tin được tổng hợp từ nhiều nguồn thông tin, nhiều loại hình thông tin về một hoặc nhiều lĩnh vực chính trị, kinh tế, văn hoá, xã hội”. Cách hiểu đúng ở đây về thông tin tổng hợp phải là thông tin được trích dẫn nguyên văn từ các nguồn được cơ quan chức năng công nhận về quyền và chức năng tổng hợp, đưa tin tức. Như vậy, khi nói “trang thông tin điện tử cá nhân không cung cấp thông tin tổng hợp”, phải hiểu là trang thông tin điện tử cá nhân không được trích dẫn, bê nguyên thông tin, bài viết từ một nguồn khác để đăng tải trên trang cá nhân của mình. Quy định này nhằm kiểm soát 2 hiện tượng phổ biến trong cộng đồng mạng Việt Nam:

Chương 3, điều 20: Phân loại trang thông tin điện tử
(...) Khoản 4: Trang thông tin điện tử cá nhân là trang thông tin điện tử do cá nhân thiết lập hoặc thiết lập thông qua việc sử dụng dịch vụ mạng xã hội để cung cấp, trao đổi thông tin của chính cá nhân đó, không đại diện cho tổ chức hoặc cá nhân khác và không cung cấp thông tin tổng hợp.

Firstly, many personal pages use aggregated information without permission or clearly stating the source to attract followers ("view bait") and make a profit. This is a serious violation of the Law on Intellectual Property. A civilized and legal internet user must respect the copyright of "virtual assets" on the internet. If sharing information, they must cite the source link instead of quoting the information verbatim. The issue of information copyright in particular and intellectual property copyright in general is not new to the online community at home and abroad. Even countries around the world have much stricter controls than Vietnam. For example, in 2009, Ms. Jammie Thomas-Rasset (Minnesota, USA) was fined up to 1.9 million dollars just for illegally downloading 24 songs! (news from CNN).

Second, providing information is not the function and obligation of individuals using the internet but of media agencies, newspapers or agencies authorized by law. Every piece of information posted legally is the responsibility of the agency or organization posting it. This control is necessary to avoid the situation of fake information pages, distorting the truth for the purpose of "attracting views" or personal motives, political motives, etc.

For online newspapers that provide information and comments that are somewhat one-sided (even distorted) about Decree 72, is it too hasty to make generalizations instead of asking questions about things that one does not clearly understand? Obviously, an official press organization or agency will have to take responsibility for the information it provides and understands better than anyone: freedom of speech but must be objective and truthful!

...Hay sự luồn lách luật pháp qua “biên giới ảo”?

The regulations targeting foreign businesses and companies in Decree 72 are like “bad news” for these entities, as Vietnam’s management and control of foreign service providers has been lax up to now.

For example, Google, the most popular search engine in Vietnam, or Facebook, the most popular social networking site in the country (surpassing Zing - a social networking site developed in Vietnam). These companies earn huge profits from advertising in Vietnam but have never had to pay a single penny in taxes. This injustice clearly negatively affects domestic businesses and companies, which are already weaker in terms of global influence. If Vietnamese law previously did not mention the control of companies providing services abroad (or did but not thoroughly), it does not mean that these companies do not need to be controlled by Vietnamese law, or that Vietnam is "making things difficult" with new regulations. Before the internet era, Vietnamese law only controlled organizations operating on Vietnamese territory, but clearly, the concept of "territory under control" today has been expanded by the internet, more abstract and of course... more difficult to control.

Compliance with the law has become a controversial issue as services like Facebook are used around the world. As an American company, Facebook is subject to and must comply with American law, but does that mean it can bypass the legal barriers of the countries where Facebook operates?

Such requests from host countries to foreign services, companies, and businesses are not without precedent. In 2000, a French court ordered Yahoo! to ensure that French users could not access a link on its website that allowed them to purchase a book about Nazi memoirs. Meanwhile, Yahoo!’s German subsidiary was investigated by German police for selling Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” according to CNN.

Considering that, the Vietnamese State is completely reasonable in requiring foreign companies and enterprises providing services and information to users in Vietnam to comply with Vietnamese law, including enterprises distributing online games. Thus, the fact that some people think that Decree 72 targets social networks such as Facebook is just a misconception. Whether or not there are elements of stereotypes, exaggerations, and distortions is temporarily not considered. However, it cannot be denied that the content of the regulations on enterprises providing network services at home and abroad demonstrates a remarkable effort by the State to create a legal corridor in a public and transparent manner. Compared to Decree 97 - the old management decree on the provision of Internet services, Decree 72 shows the expansion of the scope of influence of the law to promptly adapt to changes in society. This is the key to implementing the integration process quickly, deeply, widely, but methodically and controlled, avoiding the violation of "virtual borders".

International law and national law: King's law, village custom

In the world, there are currently 192 countries belonging to the United Nations (not to mention unrecognized countries and territories). Unifying the laws of countries into a single set of laws, recognized as the absolute standard, is an impossible task. Moreover, who is responsible for carrying out this task? Of course, when the world is moving towards the trend of "symbiosis" - living together, developing together - reaching agreement and consensus on some issues is necessary. That is the reason for the birth of international law to harmonize relations and disputes of interests between people. For example, the issue in the East Sea is currently being negotiated by the parties concerned based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

However, the above global laws are only relative and cannot be replaced or imposed on each country. Laws are created by humans to regulate and control their behavior. Each country and each community has its own lifestyle and living habits. For example, the laws of a matriarchal society will certainly be different from the laws of a patriarchal society, or in Islamic countries, polygamy is recognized by law but is prohibited in Vietnam, etc.

So should we accuse a country of violating human rights and international law when the views imported from abroad are not necessarily popular, mixed with customs and accepted by the host country? Let's face it, same-sex marriage is a hot topic in Western countries, some say it's in the name of human rights, others say it's to protect traditional and religious values. Even in the US, a country famous for its freedom, 30 states still ban same-sex marriage.

Chapter 3, Article 22: Provision of public information across borders
Clause 1:Foreign organizations, businesses and individuals, when providing public information across borders to users in Vietnam or accessed from Vietnam, must comply with the provisions of law related to Vietnam.

Saying this is not to compare or compete with which country is better than which country, but to understand that the diversity and differences in the laws of countries are inevitable and are the truth that we must accept. Regarding the prohibitions of the Vietnamese government on the acts of "Opposing the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; harming national security, social order and safety; undermining national unity; propagating war and terrorism; causing hatred and conflicts between peoples, ethnicities and religions" and "Providing distorted, slanderous information, insulting the reputation of organizations, honor and dignity of individuals", in fact, similar regulations exist in other countries.

In 2000, the German Bundesgerichtshof convicted Gerhard Lauck for writing for the website of the German Socialist Workers' Party, a fascist organization operating in the United States. Although he did not violate US law, the fact that Germans received Nazi propaganda emails from the website led to Lauck being sentenced to prison by a German court. In response to the accusations of violating freedom of speech, the spokesman for the German Federal Criminal Investigation Office (Verfassungsschutz) Hans-Gertz Lange argued: "Their (the US and Canada) concept of freedom of speech is linked to their history; our laws against propaganda of ethnic hatred are linked to our history" (news from CNN). In a way, the difference between the concept of freedom of speech in particular and other concepts in general in different countries depends a lot on the cultural and historical background.

In conclusion, is it appropriate to view and evaluate Vietnamese law by foreign standards, when the historical context, political situation, economy, culture, and education of Vietnam are not completely similar? Not to mention, Vietnam has officially joined the United Nations since 1977, established partnerships with many countries in the world, most recently a comprehensive partnership with the United States. This proves that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is an internationally recognized state. If Vietnam really violates the signed Conventions and International Laws, the appraisal function belongs to competent international agencies and organizations. I think that organizations and media agencies should have minimum objectivity and respect, not provide ambiguous information, and will even be responsible for causing readers to misunderstand Vietnamese law.

Hai Trieu