Are you passionate about freedom of expression? Do you want to write for an award-winning, internationally renowned magazine and website, which has published the works of Aung San Suu Kyi, Salman Rushdie and Arthur Miller? Then enter Index on Censorship’s student blogging competition!

The winning entry will be published in Index on Censorship magazine, a celebrated, agenda-setting international affairs publication. It will be posted on our popular and influential website, which attracts contributors and readers from around the world. Index is one of the leading international go-to sources for hard-hitting coverage of the biggest threats and challenges to freedom of expression today. This competition is a fantastic opportunity for any aspiring writer to reach a global, diverse and informed audience.

The winner will also be awarded £100, be invited to attend the launch party of our latest magazine in London, get to network with leading figures from international media and human rights organisations, and will receive a one-year subscription to Index on Censorship magazine.

To be in with a chance of winning, send your thoughts on the vital human right that guides our work across the world, from the UK to Brazil to Azerbaijan. Write a 500-word blog post on the following topic:

“What is the biggest challenge facing freedom of expression in the world today?

This can cover old-fashioned repression, threats to digital freedom, religious clampdown or barriers to access to freedom of expression, focusing on any region or country around the world.”

The competition is open to all first year undergraduate students in the UK, and the winning entry will be determined by a panel of distinguished judges including Index Chair Jonathan Dimbleby. To enter, submit your blog post to competiton@indexoncensorship.org by 31 May 2013.

The post Index on Censorship Student Blogging Competition appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Paul Andrew Greaves, 54 has been charged with stealing £113,000 from a police evidence locker. Warwickshire police had initially refused to name him.

According to the Daily Telegraph, a Warwickshire police spokesman said:  

“As a result of concerns raised following the publication of a press release regarding a man charged with theft, we accept that our decision not to name him was wrong and inconsistent with the current national guidance.”

“We will now be adopting the national Association of Chief Police Officers guidance in respect to naming individuals on charge.

“We apologise that our previous approach has not been consistent with this.”

In an announcement released on Wednesday the Warwickshire Police said that “a 54 year old man from the Stratford area has been charged with the theft of £113,000 from the former Warwickshire Police headquarters at Leek Wootton. The man, a retired police officer, will appear before magistrates in Leamington on May 22.”

But the announcement also said included this note to editors: “Due to a change in policy we no longer release the name of an individual on charge.”

A senior officer apparently blamed this move on a recommendation made in the Leveson report into press standards.

Neil Brunton, Deputy Chief Constable (temporary) with Warwickshire Police, later tweeted, “The policy was recently changed to align with national policy post Leverson [sic] and not because of today’s outcome.”

Lord Justice Leveson did recommend anonymity for arrested people, but stopped short of suggesting that people charged with a crime should not be identified.

The Association of Chief Police Officers is set to recommend that officers “neither confirm nor deny” the identity of people who have been arrested. But ACPO told Index that the new guidelines have not yet been signed off.

Index on Censorship CEO Kirsty Hughes commented:

“Keeping secret the names of people who have been charged with crimes goes against the principle of open justice that we have in this country. Although there may be instances when it is appropriate not to release a name, this should not be a general policy. That the police have decided not to name a former police officer is extremely worrying.”

The post Police apologise for withholding name of charged officer appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The creation of this new law has not been an easy process. The Libel Reform Campaign launched on 9 December 2009, bringing together Index on Censorship, English PEN and Sense About Science. We had all identified a simple problem: English libel laws were silencing legitimate criticism and debate — not just in the UK but internationally. London’s High Court was seen as the place to come to silence opponents and critics, whether you were a South African snake-oil salesman or a Saudi sheikh.

Each organisation had already been alarmed by the use of libel laws in England and Wales to silence free speech.

The movement galvanised around the case of Simon Singh vs the British Chiropractic Association. This case, involving the popular science writer’s critique of what he now famously described as the “bogus” claims of alternative medicine, brought the UK’s energetic sceptic community into the fold. Over 100 civil society groups signed up. Novelists, journalists, lawyers and comics — especially comics — also joined. At the same time, English PEN and Index on Censorship had been working on a year-long study on the effects of English libel law on chilling free speech at home and across the globe. The Free Speech For Sale report kicked off a national debate on the impact of these archaic laws.

In March 2010, some of the biggest names in comedy, including Shappi Khorsandi, Tim Minchin and Dara Ó Briain gave their time to perform at the Big Libel Gig fundraiser in London.

An awful lot has happened since that benefit gig. Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz, a serial libel tourist, has died. Mr Justice Eady, the High Court judge at the centre of some of the most contentious libel cases of recent times, has retired. Barack Obama signed the SPEECH Act, a US law specifically designed to protect Americans from London libel rulings. And the Chiropractics lost their case against Singh.

But what did not change was the remarkable loyal support of the thousands of libel reform supporters at home and abroad.

In advance of the 2010 UK election, tens of thousands of people wrote to their MPs telling them to support reform of the libel laws. As a result, all three main parties in the UK pledged to change the law.

When the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government was formed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg after that election, a new defamation bill was one of the few issues both parties agreed on.

It would have been easy then for the 60,000 libel reform supporters to feel that their job had been done, and that now it could be left to the politicians.

But this never happened. Every time there was even a slightest threat to the process of reform, supporters mobilised, often without prompting.

The Libel Reform campaign can be seen, perhaps, as the first successful political campaign of the social media age. Bloggers and tweeters got involved and stayed involved. The #LibelReform hashtag was never dormant.

It was also a good example of parliamentary policy making. Though at times progress seemed slow, the bill went through rounds of scrutiny in an open and transparent manner, with politicians (for the most part!) working together for the common good.

The new law protects free speech. There is a hurdle to stop vexatious cases. We now have a bar on libel tourism so non-EU claimants will now need to prove that harm has been done here. For the first time there will be a statutory public interest defence that will ask defendants to prove they have acted “reasonably” (a better test than the more burdensome Reynold’s test of responsible publication). There is also a hurdle to stop corporations from suing unless they can prove financial harm.

The fight for free speech continues, but today Index would like to thank our partners and supporters for what has been an incredible three-and-a-half-year adventure.

Padraig Reidy is Senior Writer at Index on Censorship. @mePadraigReidy

The post Victory for free speech as libel bill passes appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Justine Roberts, co-founder and CEO of Mumsnet

When asked about Mumsnet’s mission statement I invariably respond, without missing a beat, that Mumsnet exists “to make parents’ lives easier”.

This is both true and necessarily broad; some parents’ lives are eased by practical advice about ways to wean a baby, while others find solace in vigorous debate about welfare policy or jokes about pelvic floors. But since the site’s inception over 13 years ago, I’ve strongly believed that the “mission” is most likely to be achieved if users are able to express themselves as freely as possible.

This commitment to free speech has produced some fascinating outcomes; to a large extent the site has been and continues to be shaped by its users, and re-tooled by them to serve purposes that were certainly not what I envisaged when I conceived a website to tap into other parents’ wisdom on anything from childbirth to sleep to mother-in-laws.

Most obviously, Mumsnet is a noisy mass of user-generated comment (UGC). Our forums receive around 35,000 posts every day, and our Bloggers Network comprises around 3000 bloggers writing about the issues of the day. New visitors to Mumsnet’s forums frequently express surprise at sheer scale of the place, as well as a certain relief at the unusual latitude afforded to posters.

The posting guidelines are as hands-off as possible, aiming to keep intervention to the minimum required to facilitate constructive conversation. The talkboard is post-moderated (our users often refer to it as ‘self-moderated’), meaning that mods only intervene if a post is reported. In other words, the community decides what behaviours it will tolerate.

Unlike some UGC behemoths, though, we do not believe that a total absence of rules necessarily produces an optimum level of freedom for all posters. Over the years multiple groups have collected on Mumsnet, often made up of those who find themselves marginalised and condescended to in “real life”; our incredibly busy and informative Special Needs forum is one example.

It’s unlikely these posters would feel as safe as they do on Mumsnet if we didn’t respond to their expressed desire for a relatively safe online space. Put simply, Mumsnetters are free to swear, but not to express disablist sentiments. Our few rules can roughly be distilled down to “no personal attacks and no hate speech”.

Over the years we have frequently found ourselves having to bat away attacks on our users’ freedom of expression from those keen to use England’s outdated defamation laws to suppress criticism; this has come worryingly close to home at times, threatening the existence of the website itself in the early days, and Mumsnet has been an active supporter of the Libel Reform Campaign for some years.

We also believe strongly that anonymous online posting offers enormous benefits, particularly to vulnerable people, and we try to make this point as loudly as we can whenever confronted by politicians who believe that anonymity is of use only to trolls.

The post ‘Giving women a voice may be our most significant achievement’ appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted in 2006, and has now been signed by 82 countries. The convention amongst the document’s 50 articles, there is one that specifically guarantees disabled persons the right to freedom of expression:

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise the right to freedom of expression and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others and through all forms of communication of their choice, as defined in article 2 of the present Convention, including by:

a) Providing information intended for the general public to persons with disabilities in accessible formats and technologies appropriate to different kinds of disabilities in a timely manner and without additional cost;

b) Accepting and facilitating the use of sign languages, Braille, augmentative and alternative communication, and all other accessible means, modes and formats of communication of their choice by persons with disabilities in official interactions;

c) Urging private entities that provide services to the general public, including through the Internet, to provide information and services in accessible and usable formats for persons with disabilities;

d) Encouraging the mass media, including providers of information through the Internet, to make their services accessible to persons with disabilities;

e) Recognizing and promoting the use of sign languages.

The United Kingdom is one of the countries that has ratified the convention, and statistics on media literacy for disabled persons in the UK shows just how important it is to increase access to information across different channels. According to the UK regulator Ofcom, 64 per cent of disabled persons use television as a source of news, and are more likely than their able-bodied counterparts to rely on one source for news.

According to Jo Roach, who has worked with people with learning disabilities for over 30 years, freedom of expression hinges on having equipment and support workers who can “understand the person’s needs”. Roach says that the support worker is key to learning how to use things like the internet.

“If support workers aren’t well-informed, you aren’t well-informed,” says Roach.

This is particularly important when thinking of ever-advancing mobile phone access and capabilities: while internet usage for disabled persons currently sits at 62 per cent, mobile phone access is 82 per cent. Most disabled people under 65 use mobile phones for calls and text messages. With smartphone penetration on the rise in the UK, there are possibilities for increasing accessibility for disabled persons — but this relies entirely on access to not only the equipment, but tailored training on how to use it.

Smartphones open up the doors to apps catering to disabled persons, and this is already being explored. For example, the voice-operated “Georgie” app, which helps blind users find buses or navigate. The UK’s Department for Work and Pensions recently announced a plan to train 200 people to use the application. Apple’s iPhone has been celebrated for the usability of its “assistive” features, and this also increases options for developers of apps.

But there is still a long way to go: the head of London-based accessibility consultancy Hassell Inclusion, Jonathan Hassell, told the Guardian that a narrow definition of accessibility could also be a barrier:

“In audience terms, the needs of the small audience of totally blind people are being catered for well, whereas the needs of the much larger audience of people with more moderate vision difficulties, probably because of ageing, seems to be being ignored.”

While this is a slow process, it will surely improve in the coming years.

The post Freedom of expression and disabilities appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The £1.8 million plan — known as “the Snooper’s Charter” by opponents — would require that all telecommunications companies monitor the phone, e-mail, and web usage of citizens. Index has previously called the draft bill “unacceptable”, and said last year that “the decisions the UK Parliament takes on this bill will impact on human rights both in the UK and beyond, not least in authoritarian states.”

Write to your MP to and let them know that the bill should be dropped.

Plus read Index on Censorship on the Communications Data Bill

The post UK “Snooper’s Charter” should be dropped appeared first on Index on Censorship.

At the same time as the Lords voted through the Puttnam amendment, they also backed a sensible amendment that corporations need to show direct financial harm before they can bring a libel action. The Libel Reform Campaign argued for this amendment which was tabled by the Labour party. As Index has argued before our libel laws have historically been about protecting reputation due to its part in preserving psychological integrity. Corporations don’t have feelings, so why should they be able to sue for libel?

Edward Garnier QC MP, a practising libel lawyer, has tabled an amendment to remove House of Lords amendment 2 from the Defamation Bill. If passed, it will allow corporations to sue for libel regardless of whether or not they have suffered financial harm. It would be a retrograde step and damage the bill. Labour has said they will oppose Garnier’s motion, but with support from MPs from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties his motion is likely be carried.

Another important amendment has been tabled by Conservative MP Sir Peter Bottomley, backed by Labour MP Paul Farrelly (who is also Chair of the All-Party Group on Libel Reform) to strengthen the public interest defence. The new public interest defence the government tabled in the House of Lords will be a significant improvement on the current complex and unpredictable law. However, its test of ‘reasonable belief’ is likely to lead to prolonged and costly arguments over a defendant’s state of mind (their belief) and requests from claimants for disclosure so they can prove malice and therefore defeat the test. Sir Peter Bottomley’s amendment would change “the defendant reasonably believed” to “the defendant reasonably decided”, this would significantly clarify the defence.

Today will be an important day for the Defamation Bill. The House of Commons could strengthen the Bill to give us a genuinely reforming Bill, or water it down in a direct challenge the Lords.

You can sign the Libel Reform Campaign’s petition here: libelreform.org

The post Will the government allow corporations to sue individuals for libel? appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Are you passionate about freedom of expression? Do you want to write for an award-winning, internationally renowned magazine and website, which has published the works of Aung San Suu Kyi, Salman Rushdie and Arthur Miller? Then enter Index on Censorship’s student blogging competition!

The winning entry will be published in Index on Censorship magazine, a celebrated, agenda-setting international affairs publication. It will be posted on our popular and influential website, which attracts contributors and readers from around the world. Index is one of the leading international go-to sources for hard-hitting coverage of the biggest threats and challenges to freedom of expression today. This competition is a fantastic opportunity for any aspiring writer to reach a global, diverse and informed audience.

The winner will also be awarded £100, be invited to attend the launch party of our latest magazine in London, get to network with leading figures from international media and human rights organisations, and will receive a one-year subscription to Index on Censorship magazine.

To be in with a chance of winning, send your thoughts on the vital human right that guides our work across the world, from the UK to Brazil to Azerbaijan. Write a 500-word blog post on the following topic:

“What is the biggest challenge facing freedom of expression in the world today?

This can cover old-fashioned repression, threats to digital freedom, religious clampdown or barriers to access to freedom of expression, focusing on any region or country around the world.”

The competition is open to all first year undergraduate students in the UK, and the winning entry will be determined by a panel of distinguished judges including Index Chair Jonathan Dimbleby. To enter, submit your blog post to competiton@indexoncensorship.org by 31 May 2013.

The post Index on Censorship Student Blogging Competition appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Demotix

Index on Censorship views press freedom as one core part of the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

Index engaged constructively with the Leveson Inquiry, submitting written and oral evidence.

Index has called consistently for a tougher, new independent press regulator that can tackle standards as well as complaints. Such a regulator must be voluntary.

Political Involvement in Regulation Crosses a Red Line for Press Freedom
Following the publication of the Leveson Report, the Royal Charter, accompanied by various statutes, was agreed through a process of cross-party negotiation (often behind closed doors). Index is highly concerned at the politicisation of the process of establishing a new press regulator. Index is opposed to politicians determining the characteristics of a press regulator, and to any form of press statute, or statutory underpinning of a press regulator.

One of the vital roles of a free press in a democracy is to hold politicians, government and powerful individuals and organisations to account. As the Leveson Inquiry itself showed, politicians have a strong self-interest in securing favourable press coverage as one part of a route to securing public support and so political power. A free press must be just that — free from political interference, including from politicians voting on the establishment of, and characteristics of, a press regulator. The press is subject to the same laws as other individuals and organisations, and should not have to work under specific press laws in a democracy.

The Royal Charter, and its statutory underpinning, represents a dangerous moment for press freedom and freedom of expression in the UK. The damage will spread wider than just the UK – the example parliament is setting has already been noted by a range of regimes around the world, and many journalists have expressed concern at the impact it will have on the political controls they may come to face in their own countries.

The Royal Charter itself is not a statute but it is drafted and approved by the Privy Council, which includes ministers and politicians. This in itself represents an unacceptable political involvement in the establishment of a supposedly independent press regulator.

Statutory Underpinning
The provisions of the Royal Charter are underpinned by new clauses introduced into various Bills going through parliament. This statutory underpinning means that MPs — and Lords — are in control of the establishment and characteristics of a press regulator, including the incentives and disincentives for joining the regulator. Politicians in a democracy should not vote on and make specific laws for the press – it undermines the principle of press freedom and threatens the role of the press in holding those politicians to account.

Changing the Royal Charter
One of the new statutes, an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, determines that in future any Royal Charter can only be changed with a two-thirds vote in both houses of parliament. Through this statute, politicians may vote now and in future on the characteristics of press regulation. As the cross-party consensus on the Royal Charter shows getting to such a two-thirds majority may not be difficult. And a simple majority vote could, anyway, cancel this statute.

Exemplary damages
A further statutory clause, in the Crime and Courts Bill sets out that an organisation which does not join the regulator but falls under its remit will potentially become subject to exemplary damages should they end up in court. In addition, even if they win, they could also be forced to pay the costs of their opponents.

Index is opposed to the imposition of exemplary damages which is likely to have a strongly chilling effect on freedom of expression. It is also quite possible that this measure would be rejected in the European Court of Human Rights.

Supporters of the royal charter say that exemplary damages would only apply to “reckless” action by journalists, but it is likely that a court would find that a breach of Article 8 rights to privacy and reputation is by definition “reckless”.

Arbitration
Index on Censorship supports a voluntary mediation system that would allow swift and inexpensive resolution of disputes based on mutual consent between complainant and defendant. The arbitration arm of the regulator established in the Royal Charter does not fulfil this role. It is not universally accessible and parties may be punished through costs and damages if they refuse to take part. This could contravene the right to legal access under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Directing corrections
A tougher new independent regulator could reasonably require corrections to be made. The Royal Charter goes beyond this and proposes the regulator will be able to “direct” the wording and placement of apologies and corrections. Index opposes this effective transfer of editorial control. It represents a level of external interference with editorial procedures that would undermine editorial independence and undermine press freedom.

Scope
The Royal Charter is designed, in its own words, to regulate “relevant” publishers of “news-related material”. It sets out a very broad definition of news publishers and of what news is (including in the definition celebrity gossip). Many organisations who publish “news” specific to their fields may be caught in the regulator’s wide net.

Despite some subsequent attempts by politicians to establish some exclusions, such as for trade publications and charities for instance, the attempt to distinguish press from other organisations remains deeply problematic.

The Royal Charter aims to apply to news on the internet in a sweeping manner (something Leveson paid little attention to and that received very little comment in his report). As concern has spread over the potential inclusion of even small scale blogs, the government has started to look at ways to widen exempted categories.

Index is highly concerned at the rapid, sweeping and ill-considered move to regulate a major part of the internet — including in that news outlets located in other countries but focused onto the UK market (however defined).

As concern has spread over the potential inclusion of even “small scale” blogs, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport has started to look at ways to widen exempted categories.

Even defining “small-scale” is problematic in an age when individual blog posts can go “viral” and gain thousands of readers in a short period. Meanwhile, the role and practices of traditional publishers and blogs are converging rapidly, making it entirely likely that the proposed system will be mired in confusion from the very beginning.

Attempting to limit the impact of an ill-thought out, misconceived Charter and statutes on many internet users risks creating confusion and a chilling effect on freedom of expression, and could still affect many unintended targets — as well as setting a very bad example internationally at a time when the UK government repeatedly states it is promoting digital freedom internationally.

The post Index on Censorship: Leveson, the Royal Charter and press regulation appeared first on Index on Censorship.

David Fowler / Shutterstock.com

Paradoxes of secrecy – free speech in the Thatcher years

The post Thatcher: Paradoxes of secrecy appeared first on Index on Censorship.