On July 11 2024, Pham Van Cho was sentenced to seven years of prison time for posts he made on Facebook that the government claimed to be ‘anti-state’. Despite the severe charges, no examples of the posts he generated were mentioned at his trial in the Hung Yen People’s Court. In fact, the entire article he was charged under is vaguely written and often used by the Vietnamese government to silence any form of protest against the Communist Party of Vietnam.
Article 117 prohibits “making, storing, disseminating or propagandizing information, materials and products that aim to oppose the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.” It is one of many articles in Vietnam & Across the world that aim to prosecute journalists and activists who are spreading human rights awareness and factually backed information, under the guise of ‘protecting’ the integrity of the ruling party.
Van Cho is hardly the first convict under Article 117. Some notable examples include journalist Pham Doan Trang, land rights activists Trinh Ba Phuong, blogger Ngoc Nhu Quyn and independent political candidate Le Trong Hung.
“The Vietnamese government has repeatedly rolled out article 117 of the penal code to silence any citizen who dares to use the internet to criticize the government or voice support for human rights and democracy,” says Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. The internet, despite all its disadvantages, has become absolutely essential as a tool of political expression, especially in nations that restrict press freedom. However, when a government censors and limits information and free speech on the internet, we must begin to raise flags of caution. For, no innocent entity or organization would go out of its way to limit and surveil conversations and information on online platforms.
Nations across the world limit their citizens’ freedom of speech and expression through vaguely worded laws and unjustified prosecution. For example, ‘anti-terrorism’ laws in Saudi Arabia define terrorism in broad terms, including actions that “disturb public order” or criticize the King or Crown Prince. This allows the government to ‘legally’ prosecute protesters or activists regardless of the authenticity of their claims. Similarly, the Lèse-Majesté Law in Thailand sentences anyone who “defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent” to up to 15 years of prison-time.
The “Law Against Hatred, for Peaceful Coexistence and Tolerance” in Venezuela, despite its appealing name, has had chilling effects on press freedom and free speech. With broad definitions of ‘hatred’ and ‘intolerance’, it seems the penalties are for those who incite hatred against the government, rather than marginalized communities. This lack of clarity can lead to inconsistent and politically motivated prosecutions, more often than not criminalizing dissent. “It is serious that this law puts in the hands of a few officials the assessment of what is or is not a hate crime, because the legal instrument lacks a definition,” Alberto Arteaga, former dean of the Central University of Venezuela’s law school, told IPS.
Another example could be the NSA (National Security Act) of India that allows for the detention of individuals without trial if their actions can be considered a threat to national security. Here the detention orders are not made public, leading to possible misconduct by government entities. The Supreme Court of India has struck down several detention orders issued under the NSA. Another prominent example would be the Patriot Act (not to be confused with the popular talk show hosted by Hasan Minaj) of 2001 that allowed the American government to conduct more wiretaps, access business records and partake in asset forfeiture. Critics argue that the act limits judicial oversight and accountability, allowing law enforcement to conduct surveillance and obtain records under less scrutiny.
All in all, we’ve reached a point in history where most people are increasingly losing access to accurate media and information as governments continue to prosecute individuals under loosely worded laws. Citizens must speak up, initiate uncomfortable conversations and hold governing bodies accountable. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said:
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
Written by Ananya Nambiar
