In the last week, Bahrain’s treatment of its citizens and their right to free expression has been repeatedly in the news. Sara Yasin reports on a spate of developments that raise questions about the Bahraini government’s commitment to free speech.
Blogger and activist Ali Abdulemam has been granted asylum in the United Kingdom. Abdulemam’s two years in hiding began shortly after the start of Bahrain’s political unrest in February 2011. He was sentenced in absentia to fifteen years in prison on charges of attempting to overthrow the monarchy.
Abdulemam is the prominent founder of Bahrain Online, a site that created an online space to criticise and discuss the country’s regime in 1998. Initially, he wrote anonymously, but he began to write in his own name in 2001. Public dissent in Bahrain comes at a price: the blogger was first arrested in 2005 and then once more in 2010.
News of Abdulemam’s heroic escape did not amuse Bahrain’s government:
Ali Abdulemam was not tried in court for exercising his right to express his opinions. Rather, he was tried for inciting and encouraging continuous violent attacks against police officers. Abdulemam is the founder of Bahrain Online, a website that has repeatedly been used to incite hatred, including through the spreading of false and inflammatory rumors.
The statement goes on to say that the country “respects the right of its citizens to express their opinion”, but makes a distinction between expressing an opinion and “engaging in and encouraging violence.”
Back in 2010, Abdulemam was jailed, tortured, and accused of being a part of a “terrorist network.” The real threat he posed to the state, as fellow activist Ala’a Shehabi put it last year, was that “his forum offered dissidents a voice.”
So what does “incitement” look like in Bahrain? For documenting a protest on Twitter last December, Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) member Said Yousif, was jailed and charged with “spreading false news.” According to the country’s laws, “the dissemination of the false news must amount to incitement to violence.” As Human Rights Watch’s Middle East director, Sarah Lea Witson put it:
If Bahraini officials believe that an activist is inciting violence by tweeting a picture of an injured demonstrator, then it’s clear that all the human rights sessions they’ve attended have been wasted.
The jailed head of the organisation, Nabeel Rajab, is currently serving a two year sentence for organising “illegal protests.” BCHR released a statement today expressing concerns that Rajab has been transferred to solitary confinement. He has been unreachable since relaying to his wife an account of young political prisoners being tortured earlier this week. Rajab was requesting a visit from the International Committee of the Red Cross, to document the case.
Still, Bahrain insists that freedom of expression is something that it upholds — in fact, it has gone so far as prosecuting individuals for supposedly abusing it. Just yesterday, year-long sentences were handed to six Twitter users for making posts insulting Bahrain’s King Hamad. For hanging a Bahraini flag from his truck during protests in 2011, a man was handed a three-month jail sentence today.
Looks like it might be time for Bahrain to reevaluate how it understands freedom of expression.
A lot has been said about the impact of social media on the dissemination of news and the future of journalism. Opinions seem to span from believing Twitter and Facebook hold the power to bring down dictatorships, to despairing at the space it gives to armchair analysis and knee jerk reactions. One thing can be agreed upon: readers, listeners and viewers now have access to a platform to express themselves and challenge the mainstream narrative of events, Milana Knezevic writes.
Take Newsweek’s #MuslimRage debacle from last September. The magazine’s main article about protests over the controversial film Innocence of Muslims, featured a front page with angry men in traditional clothing, under the headline “MUSLIM RAGE.” Newsweek posted a link on their official twitter feed, encouraging their followers to voice their opinions under the hashtag #MuslimRage. And voice them they did:
BURN ALL WESTERN LITERATURE….onto a zip drive so I can listen to it while driving. #MuslimRage
On the surface, this shows how a carefully planned “social media strategy” can go wrong in an instant. More importantly, it shows that traditional media outlets no longer have as much control over the conversations around their coverage.
Social media and other online platforms give readers the ability to speak out and take part in setting the agenda. The age of user generated content has also ushered in a kind of crowdsourced fact-checking on a massive scale. If a story is being misreported, readers, listeners and viewers can and will let the authors know. Other examples include the huge social media backlash CNN faced over their article on hormonal female voters ahead of the US elections. On a lighter note, viewers lambasted NBC’s shambolic Olympics coverage through hashtags like #NBCfail and #ShutUpMattLauer.
From the Magazine: Don’t feed the trolls
An anti-Muslim video demonstrated how the politics of fear dominate the online environment. It’s time we took action, argue Rebecca MacKinnon and Ethan Zuckerman.
International in outlook, outspoken in comment, Index on Censorship‘s award-winning magazine is the only publication dedicated to free speech. The latest issue explores the impact the 2008 economic crisis has had on free expression. Subscribe.
Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of this development is the platform it has provided for people outside of the western world to speak back against the often simplistic and incorrect way in which their nations and cultures are reported on in international media.
For instance, some journalists are still likely to present African countries as one, exclusively impoverished and backward entity, which is constantly balancing on the brink of war. Alternatively, there is the increasingly popular, but almost equally tedious and one-dimensional “Africa rising” narrative.
In the past, people had few possibilities to respond to such coverage — if it even reached them. But this has changed with the dawn of the internet. As foreign reporters parachuted in to cover the Kenyan elections in March, an easy go-to story following the crisis of the 2007-2008 vote was that of ethnic tensions and the potential for violence. However, this narrative was undermined the fact that most Kenyans went to the polls peacefully. Foreign media promptly experienced the full wrath of a well-informed and snarky Kenyan social media population.
The below are only a few examples of the hashtag #PicturesForStuart, aimed at France 24 anchor Stuart Norval, who trailed their Kenya report with a tweet promising “dramatic pictures”:
Then there was #SomeoneTellCNN, aimed at a particularly sensationalist CNN report titled “Armed as Kenyan vote nears”, featuring an unknown militia, seemingly consisting of a group of men rolling around in the grass with homemade weapons. The piece was widely mocked.
The hashtags trended worldwide. This was picked up by Al Jazeera and the Washington Post among others, and prompted CNN to release a statement defending their coverage. Kenyans had successfully turned the lazy journalism into the dominant story. As Africa is the fastest growing smartphone market in the world, over the coming years millions more will get the opportunity to challenge one-dimensional international reporting.
It’s important not to overstate the power of social media. Traditional media still commands the biggest platforms and audiences, and many sensationalist, ignorant or incorrect reports do remain unchallenged. Twitter in itself is not a solution, it is simply a tool. Used correctly, it provides a legitimate possibility for people to collectively raise their voice and be heard. It provides the platform for those on the ground, those in the know and everyone in between to help bring balance and nuance to big news stories. And that is certainly a positive development for freedom of expression.
It’s a big week for digital freedom and internet governance, with two key summits taking place in Geneva ahead of World Telecommunication and Information Society Day on Friday, May 17, Brian Pellot reports.
The week-long World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum bills itself as the “largest annual gathering of the ‘information and communication technologies for development’ community”. This multi-stakeholder UN forum brings together government, business and civil society to discuss internet policy and governance issues.
The forum’s agenda this year will address infrastructure, education, gender, disability, literacy and development — all important digital access issues for freedom of expression. Most country-specific sessions are organised by their host states, which include Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. These countries’ troubling track records on digital freedom of expression call into question how useful these sessions will be in addressing the most sensitive local issues.
The first WSIS took place in 2005. Annual fora and the ongoing WSIS+10 review process will culminate in 2015 when the initial action plan’s success will be evaluated on a range of issues including connectivity and access.
Also in Geneva, the three-day World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF) on internet policy issues starts tomorrow. WTPF is less inclusive than WSIS, bringing together the International Telecommunication Union’s member states and sector members but leaving civil society on the sidelines. Unlike December’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai, decisions made at WTPF will not be binding but are expected to guide the future direction of internet governance discussions over the next two years.
The push for a top-down government-led approach, which Index on Censorship has opposed, may be a key issue at WPTF. Index set out its positions on digital freedom in this note. Similar points are made by the Center for Democracy and Technology and Access Now in a joint statement. The open and inclusive multistakeholder model of internet governance will be called into question again. Net neutrality, affordable access, development, privacy and other fundamental rights will also be up for discussion. To combat the lack transparency and civil society’s exclusion at WTPF, WCITLeaks.org is once again hosting leaked preparatory documents ahead of the summit.
Check back for more posts on WSIS and WTPF throughout the week.
Syria appears to be cut off from internet access, according to reports from web monitoring groups. Google’s transparency report shows that access to its services has been cut off in the country since 22:00 local time on Tuesday. Similarly, web security group Umbrella Security Labs said in a blog post that “it seems Syria has largely disappeared from the Internet.” Internet connection monitor Renesys also confirmed the outage last night:
Renesys confirms loss of Syrian Internet connectivity 18:43 UTC.BGP routes down, inbound traces failing.@geeknik
Yesterday [22 April], about 900 websites were shut down in protest against the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which was passed by the US House of Representatives last week. Hacking group Anonymous called for the “blackout” in order to stop the bill, which the group slammed as an attempt to “control and censor the internet.”
CISPA would allow tech companies and governments to exchange information related to possible cyber attacks — without legal hurdles. The bill’s sponsor, Michigan Republican Mike Rogers, dismissed the bill’s critics as “14-year-olds in their basements”, but there are some very valid concerns over CISPA’s potential to threaten digital freedom.
Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) Rainey Reitman criticised the ”dangerously vague” bill, which she says allows companies to “spy on the electronic communications of millions of Internet users and pass sensitive information to the government with no form of judicial oversight.”
The bill was passed by a two-thirds majority. An amendment preventing employers from acquiring the passwords to social media accounts of employees was blocked by the House. The US Senate stopped the bill from passing last year, but the House has reintroduced it this year. The White House has also previously threatened to veto the bill.
Despite its failure last year, the bill’s discussion this time around did not focus on the privacy issues pointed out by groups like EFF or the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Instead, supporters of CISPA used last week’s Boston marathon bombings to illustrate its necessity. Texas Republican Mike McCaul said that the United States needs to arm itself against “digital bombs.”
So who will benefit from CISPA’s passing? According to TechDirt, the bill will benefit big defence contractors — including Rogers’ wife, defence expert Kristi Rogers, who has been publicly writing about and supporting her husband’s efforts to strengthen cybersecurity. She currently works for lobbying group Manatt, working on “executive-level problem solving in the defence and homeland security sectors”, and previously lead Aegis LLC: a security company that has a $10 billion contract with the US State Department.
CISPA’s opponents have also been drowned by its supporters’ aggressive lobbying. Transparency watchdog Sunlight Foundation has reported that the pro-CISPA lobby has spent a whopping $605 million since 2011 to pass the bill. In fact, companies like AT&T and Verizon have already spent millions on ensuring CISPA’s passing (interestingly, neither of these companies are participating in the Global Network Initiative’s efforts to help telecommunications companies protect freedom of expression and privacy rights).
Even though the bill has now been passed by the House, it has yet to be considered by the Senate. The White House has also warned that the bill would be vetoed as it is, citing concerns over accountability for companies that fail “to safeguard personal information adequately.”
To find out more about the concerns around CISPA, and to voice your concerns, visit the campaign’s site.
The Chinese government’s two main bodies of censorship, SARFT (State Administration for Radio, Film, and Television) and GAPP (General Administration for Press and Publications), are to merge and become one super administration.
Although some denied the reports, the merge was announced during the 2013 session of China’s parliament, with the motion passed in March.
Over the last 30 years of the opening up and reform period, both GAPP and SARFT have developed tremendously, but with this development of industry and flourishing of culture, many new problems have risen, for example the lockdown of departments, and individual management by each media type of themselves, and approval [for content] department by department.
GAPP and SARFT didn’t want, under any under circumstances, to deal with each other. GAPP only paid attention to newspapers and print media and not broadcast media, and SARFT doesn’t get the support of the print media, making the merging of industries difficult.
The new body replacing SARFT and GAPP — unofficially translated as the General Administration of Press and Publication, Radio, Film and Television — will be responsible for regulating and overseeing print media, radio, film, television, as well as the internet. It will also handle rights and contents.
SARFT is the body that censors films — recently facing controversy for cutting science fiction film Cloud Atlas by 40 minutes. GAPP also came under fire earlier this year for overseeing the censoring of newspaper Southern Weekly New Year’s editorial. The Guangdong provincial propaganda chief rewrote the paper’s heading and editorial without consulting editorial staff, forcing the reform-orientated paper to run a piece toeing the official Party line.
While both SARFT and GAPP monitored the internet, the specifics of their responsibilities were never clear — but now new and uniform regulations have been revealed.
The China Press and Publishing Journal reported that there will be three new rules for internet use under the new body: use of news reports from abroad on websites will be forbidden without permission; editorial staff must not use the Internet for illegal content; and the microblog accounts of news media must be supervised, and an account holder appointed.
Whether the merge will create or lessen the chaos surrounding content control still remains to be seen.
The Queen’s Speech is set to take place on 8 May this year, and according to UK-based campaigning group 38 Degrees, Home Secretary Theresa May is still pushing for the controversial Communications Data Bill to go through.
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.
