[JURIST] Recent revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa have demonstrated the unique opportunities that social media has created for human rights activists, according to an Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] report [text] released on Friday. However, repressive governments are now striking back by seeking to gain control of mobile telephone networks and the Internet. "The rise of social media offer an unprecedented opportunity for human rights change—but this change stands on a knife-edge," AI said in its report. In particular, during the recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt [JURIST reports], the governments there restricted Internet access and shut down mobile telephone networks. At the same time, AI noted other governments, including the regimes in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen and Libya have embraced more ruthless tactics to counter activism, including murder. According to AI Secretary General Salil Shetty [official profile]:

People are rejecting fear. Courageous people, led largely by youth, are standing up and speaking out in the face of bullets, beatings, tear gas and tanks. This bravery—combined with new technology that is helping activists to outflank and expose government suppression of free speech and peaceful protest—is sending a signal to repressive governments that their days are numbered. But there is a serious fight-back from the forces of repression. The international community must seize the opportunity for change and ensure that 2011 is not a false dawn for human rights.

In late February, Human Rights Watch reported that more than 230 protesters had been killed within a six-day period in Libya, with the military and government supporters using live ammunition and machine guns on protesters, a shutdown of the Internet [JURIST report] and the arrest of those who spoke to foreign press. Syrian Internet users reported in early February that social media sites Facebook and YouTube are accessible [JURIST report] without proxy servers or VPNs. Syria appeared to be lifting the ban imposed in 2007 as a concession to avoid popular upheaval [DP report] in Syria. In late January, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay acknowledged reports of tactics including rubber-coated bullets, tear gas, water cannons and batons [JURIST report] in Egypt, and called on the government to investigate the reports of excessive force including civilian deaths. Pillay also pressed the government to lift the emergency law that had been in force for nearly 30 years and restore the use of mobile phones and social networks.

The significant settlement underscores the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in the Grokster case—designing and operating services to profit from the theft of the world’s greatest music comes with a stiff price. The resolution of this case is another milestone in the continuing evolution of online music to a legitimate marketplace that appropriately rewards creators. This hard fought victory is reason for celebration by the entire music community, its fans and the legal services that play by the rules.

The US music industry has been actively litigating alleged copyright infringement in person-to-person online file sharing. In January 2010, a federal judge reduced [JURIST report] a $1.92 million jury verdict against a Minnesota woman who was found to have violated music copyrights to about $54,000. Chief Judge Michael Davis of the US District Court for the District Court of Minnesota [official website] called the damages amount "monstrous and shocking" and said the facts of the case could not justify the jury verdict. Davis emphasized that the defendant was an individual consumer who downloaded music for her own use and not for profit and also said that the damages to the plaintiffs, members of the RIAA, did not support the verdict. The judge ultimately decided the award should be triple the statutory minimum of $750 per song, because the defendant willfully shared 24 songs on the file-sharing program KaZaA [website] and because of the need for deterrence. In 2008, the RIAA said that it would discontinue its controversial policy [JURIST report] of suing suspected file-sharers and instead will seek cooperation with major Internet service providers to cut off access to repeat offenders.

Missouri is just the latest of several states to impose restrictions abortions after the 20-week mark, when some studies suggest a fetus can begin feeling pain. Indiana, Alabama, Ohio and Oklahoma [JURIST reports] have each passed legislation this year which restricts the abortion procedure after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Iowa, Kansas and Idaho [JURIST reports] have also recently passed legislation restricting late-term abortions.

Other countries have also been reported for failing to arrest al-Bashir while he has been present inside their borders. In October, the ICC requested that Kenya arrest al-Bashir [JURIST report] while he visited that year for a second time. Previously, a-Bashir had visited Kenya for the signing of the country's new constitution [JURIST report]. Following his visit, the ICC reported Kenya [decision, PDF; JURIST report] to the UN Security Council and the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute for the violation in not arresting al-Bashir. Also following his August visit, former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan urged Kenya to reaffirm its cooperation with the ICC by arresting al-Bashir [JURIST report]. In July, the ICC called for al-Bashir's arrest [JURIST report] during his visit to Chad, marking the first visit to an ICC member state since the warrants were issued. The ICC also reported Chad [decision, PDF] to the Security Council and Assembly of States Parties.

In an op-ed published Thursday in the Washington Post, McCain argued that certain enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, constitute torture and that he opposes such techniques, saying, "abuse of prisoners sometimes produces good intelligence but often produces bad intelligence."

Bin Laden was killed [JURIST report] earlier this month in Pakistan by a small team of US military personnel. His death has ignited debate over whether it complied with international law. UN human rights officials have called on the US to disclose all details [JURIST report] related to Bin Laden's death. US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] has defended the killing as lawful and justified [JURIST report].

Bangladesh, whose population is over 90 percent Muslim, has nonetheless maintained a secular legal system. In August, the Supreme Court ruled that workplaces and schools cannot force individuals to wear religious clothing [JURIST report] such as veils and skull caps. The court found that wearing religious clothing is an individual choice and cannot be made mandatory, and requiring individuals to wear religious clothing is a human rights violation in contravention of the Bangladeshi Constitution [text]. In July, the Supreme Court overturned a constitutional amendment that had allowed religious parties to participate in politics [JURIST report]. The court, upholding a lower court decision, held that the Fifth Amendment to the Bangladeshi Constitution, which allowed the participation of religious political parties and legitimized military rule, violated the principle of secularism and representative democracy found in the constitution's preamble.

Since becoming president in 2008, Zardari has faced several challenges. Last year, Zardari signed into law [JURIST report] the 18th Amendment bill [text, PDF], limiting presidential powers expanded under Pervez Musharraf. Under the amendment, which effectively reduces the role of the president to a figurehead, the vast majority of the president's powers will be transferred to the office of the prime minister. The introduction of the bill came amid controversy over reopening corruption investigations against Zardari. Weeks earlier, Pakistan's attorney general Anwar Mansoor announced his resignation over controversy surrounding a Supreme Court order to investigate corruption allegations [JURIST reports]. Swiss authorities denied a request [JURIST report] from Pakistan's National Accountability Bureau [official website], refusing to reopen a corruption investigation against Zardari. Aides to Zardari believed that presidential immunity protects him from prosecution, even after the Supreme Court overturned an amnesty law [JURIST report] implemented by Musharraf.