The appeal court found that correct judicial procedure was violated. Erraji was arrested and charged on 4 September and his lawyer appeared before a court in his defence on 16 September, 12 days later. But article 72 of the press law requires a minimum of 15 days between the filing of charges and the first hearing in the trial.

The decision is heartening. The judges in the appeal court in Agadir showed matter-of-fact integrity, as they should have.

The court of appeals ruled on Thursday that the lower court had failed to respect certain legal procedures under the Press and Publication Law. The public prosecutor’s office did not object to Erajji’s release.

Read more on Menassat.

Mohamed Erraji, the Moroccan blogger who was arrested for criticizing the king, was immediately sentenced to two years in prison and fined 5,000 Moroccan dirhams.

The thought comes to mind that perhaps the debacle with the last arrest, that of Fouad Mortada, who was arrested for creating a satirical Facebook account for one of the king’s sons, chastened the kingdom and they wished to put this one out of sight and out of mind and avoid the embarrasment of worldwide condemnation.

Update: Erraji has been sentenced to two years in prison and fined 5,000 Moroccan dhs.

***

DigiActive wrote to tell us that Moroccan blogger Mohamed Erraji has been arrested “for article criticizing the king’s social policies.”

More on Mohamed Erraji’s arrest here (French). If anyone could send us a translation, we would appreciate it.

A Free Mojamed Erraji site has already been created.

More information at Mideast Youth.

***

Global Voices asserts that Fouad Mourtada has been released from prison with a “full royal pardon.” If this is true, it’s fantastic news for Fouad. Not great news for free speech or Morocco, though, that it took a royal pardon. Can anyone confirm this?

Mourtada was sentenced to three years in prison for creating a fake Facebook profile of his country’s crown prince. Facebook claimed not to have assisted in identifying Fouad.

 In her article in the Journal, Vara quotes a Facebook PR representative denying that the company had provided the Moroccan security forces with the identity of Mourtada, but asserted they might do such a thing in the future.

Brandee Barker, a Facebook spokewoman, said in a statement that the company’s privacy policy and terms of use allow it to share information with law enforcement and other government agencies “when it has a good faith belief it is legally obligated to do so.” But with regard to the fake profile of the prince, “Facebook has shared no such information with the Moroccan authorities,” she said.

Hopefully, this is true. The fact that it took repeated calls by a reporter for one of the world’s most important newspapers to elicit this sliver of a reaction beyond their constant boilerplate is unfortunate. Equally unfortunate is the fact that a company valued by most at just under $2 billion (and by a few as high as $15 billion), invented in the free speech environment of a U.S. university, is unwilling to stand up and unequivocally declare itself in favor of free speech and in opposition to disproportionate sentencing designed not to punish a law breaker but to cow an entire populace.

Given Facebook’s tendency toward closed-mouthedness and its unwillingness to declare for free speech, it will be impossible to take its denial at face value until and unless the means of discovering Mourtada’s identity becomes public.

Update: Facebook responds. Kind of.

***

Update: RSF is trying to find out how Moroccan prosecutors determined Mourtada’s indentity.

Reporters Without Borders wonders how the police identified Mourtada. “Did the police get his computer’s IP address? And if so, how? We have asked the ISP, Maroc Telecom, in which the French company Vivendi is a shareholder, to provide us with the relevant information.”

The CPB wonders as well. And, keeping Yahoo in mind, as well as Facebook’s response below, we wonder if the list of people to ask is one name shorter than it ought to be? Laila Lalami wonders the same thing, in The Nation.

How the Moroccan police found out Mourtada’s identity remains a bit of a mystery. They could have obtained his IP address from Facebook, or from his service provider, Maroc Telecom, or from an old-fashioned snitch. But the preliminary court hearing did not include details of the police investigation, so the possibility of corporate cooperation cannot be ruled out. After all, China cracked down on dissidents last year with the help of Yahoo.

***

We wondered how Facebook felt about the recent arrest and three year sentence of Moroccan Fouad Mourtada for his satirical Facebook page of his country’s crown prince. So we wrote them. What we got was, well, given the precendents set by Yahoo, Google and other American companies, it can hardly be called surprising. It was disheartening, though.

Here’s my first email to the PR department.

To Whom It May Concern:

Could I get someone at Facebook to comment on the recent arrest in Morrocco of Fouad Mourtada? As you no doubt know, satirical Facebook pages are rampant.

I would also be interested in Facebook’s position on the arrest of Facebook commenters in Lebanon and its ban in Syria and Iran.

I am asking for two reasons. I am the director of the Committee to Protect Bloggers and I am also taking part in a weekly conversation with PRI’s The World. Here’s that public radio show’s last Tech Podcast, in which I took part. The next time Clark Boyd and I talk I would like to be able to mention Facebook’s position on these issues.

Regards,
Curt Hopkins
Director
Committee to Protect Bloggers

I received a response, if you can call it that, from a Facebook representative named Jaime Schopflin.

Hi Curt,

Here is our statement on this:

“We do not comment on these specific situations. Under our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, Facebook may share information with law enforcement and other government agencies when it has a good faith belief it is legally obligated to do so.”

Please attribute this to a Facebook spokesperson.

Let me know if you have any other questions,

-Jaime

Well, that’s boilerplate nonsense. And it stank of expectation. Here’s our non-answer and you’ll report it like a good little collaborator. I decided instead to talk Jaime’s offer seriously and send some questions. Here they are.

Jaime:

Really? That’s it? No condemnation of the imprisonment of one of your users for making a joke? No condemnation of authorities known to use torture (such as Syria) for arresting your customers (sic-Lebanon arrested; Syria banned)? No condemnation of censorship? No advocacy for the free speech that makes your service, site and business possible in the first place? In a morally unambiguous situation such as the suborning of communications for the preservation of personal power no comment except “no comment”? When students in Lebanon are arrested no expression of fellow-feeling or solidarity based on the fact that Facebook could not have been possible were it not for a) free speech and b) an engaged student population?

I’m very disappointed in this response, Jaime, and in Facebook. I hope someone higher up decides that it is incumbent on them to distinguish themselves from companies like Yahoo and Google. In the meantime, I’ll accept this as your answer. (And as to instructing me in how to attribute this “quote” of yours, don’t.)

Best wishes,
Curt Hopkins

I got the same response from a different PR person, Malorie Lucich, from an outside agency called Outcast.

Hi Curt,
Thanks for your email. Here is Facebook’s statement on the issue:

“We do not comment on these specific situations. Under our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, Facebook may share information with law enforcement and other government agencies when it has a good faith belief it is legally obligated to do so.”

Please attribute to Facebook or a Facebook spokesperson.

Best,
Malorie

This is ridiculous PR boobery, especially for a company that provides a product for radical communication and connection. Do you think they’ll find their voice, if not their souls, if a great many more people ask the same questions? It’s worth a try.

Here’s Facebook’s general PR email address: press@facebook.com. Here’s Jaime’s email address: jaimes@facebook.com And here’s Malorie’s: malorie@outcastpr.com.

Clark Boyd, technology reporter for Public Radio International’s radio program The World, interviewed us today for their Tech Podcast. We’ll be checking in regularly with Clark on the podcast to talk about threats to bloggers and threatened bloggers around the world.

This week was an introduction of the CPB to their listeners (well, actually a re-introduction, since The World was one of the first media outlets to cover our activities) and we also spoke about the plight of Fouad Mourtada, who was arrested in Morocco for his satirical Facebook page.

***

I’m overwrought today, but I need to make time for this. So, with apologies, I’m just going to rip off Carolyn O’Hara’s post from Passport.

Because you are liable to be arrested, blindfolded, harshly interrogated, spat upon, and beaten into unconsciousness, only to wake up and face 5 years in jail. That’s the fate of 26-year-old Moroccan computer engineer Fouad Mourtada, who in a statement said:

I actually created this account on January 15, 2008. It remained on line a few days before somebody closed it. There are so many profiles of celebrities on Facebook. I never thought that by creating a profile of his highness prince Moulay Rachid I am harming him in any way. I, as a matter of fact, did not send any message from that account to anyone. It was just a joke, a gag.

His trial starts next week.

It hardly pays to be named Fouad these days.