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.

More Coverage >>>

• British embassy in Bahrain gets World Press Freedom Day wrong
• In Depth: Bahrain

The post What free speech means to Bahrain appeared first on Index on Censorship.

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

— Qasim Rashid (@MuslimIQ) September 17, 2012

Lost your kid Jihad at the airport. Can’t yell for him. #MuslimRage

— Leila ليلى(@LSal92) September 17, 2012

Not knowing how many cheek kisses are due #muslimrage

— Abrar(@errnooo) September 17, 2012

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”:

Armed w/ MACHETE & spoons, Kenyan man destroys a plate of rice! Cc @stuartf24 #PicturesForStuart twitter.com/rimbui/status/…

— rimbui (@rimbui) March 4, 2013

Dramatic picture of clear streets in the Nairobi CBD on election day. flic.kr/p/dZuYK8 #PicturesForStuart #KenyaDecides – @stuartf24.

— ≡ (@wiselar) March 4, 2013

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.

This is what @cnni is calling an ‘Armed Kenyan’. Like reallyyyy??? #SomeoneTellCNN twitter.com/EricLatiff/sta…

— Eric Latiff (@EricLatiff) March 1, 2013

#SomeoneTellCNN that we had 2 presidential debates and countless peace rallies that they didn’t cover so they can take their crap elsewhere!

— tinakagia (@tinakaggia) March 1, 2013

There was also the more general #TweetLikeAForeignJournalist:

Kenyans go bananas awaiting election results, and dig in with Passion. Outcome fruitless. #TweetLikeAForeignJournalist twitter.com/MafiaCuckoo/st…

— Faiba Kartel (@MafiaCuckoo) March 5, 2013

#TweetLikeAForeignJournalist Fears as millions fall asleep before final results get released in Kenya. @stuartf24 #SomeOneTellCNN @nimacnn

— Wahura Kanyoro (@wahurakL) March 4, 2013

#TweetlikeAForeignJournalist International observers starry eyed at the goings on of the Kenyan election twitter.com/Frankiewgichur…

— Frankiewgichuru (@Frankiewgichuru) March 4, 2013

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.

The post Challenging mainstream narratives with social media appeared first on Index on Censorship.

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.

The post Digital freedom, internet governance on agenda at two key meetings appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Renesys confirms loss of Syrian Internet connectivity 18:43 UTC.BGP routes down, inbound traces failing.@geeknik

— Renesys Corporation (@renesys) May 7, 2013

Syrian residents have confirmed that the internet is down to the BBC, but both landlines and mobile phones are still working.

Internet and mobile connectivity was shut down in November 2012.

The post Internet outage in Syria 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.

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 post CISPA: Who benefits from ‘dangerously vague’ bill? appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Although some denied the reports, the merge was announced during the 2013 session of China’s parliament, with the motion passed in March.

Zhang Jin, deputy editor at  technology publisher Popular Science Press, told state news agency Xinhua:  

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 post China’s two main censorship bodies to merge 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.

The subject has been intermittently making headlines in India, with a number of politically motivated arrests made under the Information Technology Act’s controversial Section 66a. Causing more confusion, in 2011, the Minister for Communications & Information Technology, Kapil Sibal, made headlines by asking social media intermediaries to take down “objectionable” content.

At the time, the content in question seemed to be mainly objectionable to to the government itself. The content in question seemed to be mainly objectionable to the government alone.

This caused a huge public uproar, and since then Sibal has exercised more caution, though still maintaining that “the country must have an enabling framework — rules and regulations must not come in the way of the growth of the net.”

As well as Index on Censorship, the roundtable in Bangalore brought together a number of actors, including analysts from social media giants Facebook and Google, as well as Change.org, Wikimedia India Foundation, Medianama, Digital Empowerment Foundation, Open Governance India, Knowledge Commons, Alternative Law Forum, Center for Internet and Society, Tactical Tech, researchers from IIM Bangalore and Aziz Premji University. Journalists from The Hindu, Hindustan Times, DNA and smaller media organisations like Oorvani Media, Mahiti and The Alternative also took part in the debate.

The overall discussion centered around a few key issues, the first being whether the law “protects” free speech as it stands today. Many of those present felt that while Section 66a of The Information Technology Act 2000, which protects against “annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will…” has been misused in the past, it needs to be examined from different angles, such as protecting women from online abuse.

While some writers have outright rejected this argument, the Internet Democracy Project released a draft paper on the subject. In it, they revealed that women think of the internet — social media — as “the street” where they can be taunted and abused in a similar manner to real life. In fact, drawing on the experiences of writer Meena Kandasamy and singer Chinmayi Sripada, who have faced violent abuse on social networks, the panel discussed ways to fend off misogyny that did not involve the law. These included using humour, blocking people, ignoring the comments, and even asking or waiting for others to come to your defence.

Interestingly, many women who were questioned for the study revealed that they prefer not to go to their families to report the abuse, for fear that they would be told to stop spending so much time online. The women and their families also said they had little confidence in going to the police with the same complaints.

This led the panel to discuss beyond the validity of the law — and question the role and capacity of the police in enforcing controversial measures like Section 66a. Some felt that 95 per cent of police on the front lines were not even aware of free speech issues, or the law in question, while others believed that police reforms are the way forward.

Some were unsure if they wanted the police to be tech savvy in the future, suggesting that it could lead to more arrests than there are today. It was agreed that there needs to be more research on the law as it functions today, to understand the crucial role the police will play in upholding it, particularly regarding the role the judiciary currently plays.

The question of defamation was also raised, with some panelists believing that there needs to be a distinction between those who have a small number of followers versus those who have a large following. Can the punishment be the same, if the effect of their status update or tweet is not?

Other discussions assessed challenges to freedom of speech at state level rather than national level and whether or not the mainstream media is forcefully supportive of free speech on the internet. The panelists debated the issue of anonyminity, and whether it is the cause or the solution to some of the free speech issues we see today.

An issue was raised surrounding how internet users are not a core constituency for the government right now; a fact reflected in the budget of the Ministry of Information and Technology, which chooses to focus areas such as computer hardware.

Another question circulating the room was whether strict laws such as Section 66a were designed with the intention to shape the internet a certain way, so that future users simply fall into line. The government’s perspective on the internet’s purposes was also explored, examining whether the National Broadband Network, currently being laid out to connect rural India, was viewed simply as a delivery service platform or for two-way communication.

Two questions that prompted considerable debate were “what is the role — actual or desired — of non legal actors such as intermediaries, pressure groups; the public at large” and “what non-legal strategies can we develop to protect free speech and who should implement such strategies?”

Some suggestions were to try out a “naming and shaming” site or Tumblr account for hate speech, although there were doubts as to how effective it would be. Other panelists advised that intermediaries could reveal more data that could save the government from taking drastic measures — for example, if a certain video was not being heavily viewed from within India, then the government would not feel the need to censor/block a website as it does now.

It was clear that civil society members and even the intermediaries are grappling with the same questions as the government. While a section of Indian society is firmly opposed to laws like Section 66a, there are discussion platforms to help understand how to operate within the constraints of the law.

The post The big issues for Indian web users appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Many commentators believe that by then the bill will include amendments extending the list of conditions for blocking websites to include those containing information about homosexuality, which could be blocked without a court order. Current laws on protection of children could be similarly amended.

Duma deputy Elena Mizulina stated: “No adult has the right to impose their sexual preferences on a person under 18 years of age. Propaganda for homosexuality should be considered information inappropriate for children.” The League for Internet Safety, which is backed by the Kremlin and was behind the introduction of the register of banned websites in Russia, supports the initiative.

Schools, students, libraries and a post office

Tuva prosecutor demands school filters
On 22 February it was reported by the Ulug-Khem district prosecutor’s office of the Tuva republic that computers in a school that had been discovered in an inspection last October to allow unfettered access to extremist websites were still lacking filtering software. The computers, in a school in the town of Shagonar, allowed access to Islamist, anti-Semitic and fascist videos and books. The prosecutor demanded that the republic’s minister of education penalise the school’s principal and ensure that the school end the violations.

Stavropol attack on “harmful” advertising
On 26 February it was reported that a prosecutor’s audit of the Stavropol region in January had found that internet service providers were placing ads for pornographic materials and films featuring scenes of cruelty on school websites hosted on portals narod.ru and ukoz.ru. On 9 January, the prosecutor’s office told the head of the Stavropol city education office to cease violating legislation on the rights of minors. Ten school principals now face disciplinary action.

Restrictions on student access in Vologda
On 28 February it was reported that the Vologda city prosecutor had found websites containing extremist and pornographic materials and alcohol advertising to be accessible from computers in five schools. The prosecutor told the schools to block students’ access.

Rural school told: block “damaging” information
On 18 February it was reported that the Kalininskii district prosecutor in the Saratov region had found that computers in the Simonovka village secondary school provided access to websites “that could damage the health and moral and spiritual development of children”. The prosecutor told the school administration to cease the violations.

Library must restrict access to explosives sites
On 18 February it was reported that the Khanty-Mansiysk autonomous district prosecutor had found that Beloyarsk library computers provided access to websites with information on manufacturing explosives. The library was told to cease the violations and to bring charges against those responsible.

Surgut prosecutor hits at school porn
On 22 February it was reported that the Surgut district prosecutor had found that computers in the Lyaminsk high school allowed access to pornographic material. The prosecutor demanded that the school install content-filtering software to restrict students’ access to harmful websites.

Amur school instructed to block violence
On 11 February it was reported that the Bureya district prosecutor of the Amur region had found that computers in Rodionovo secondary school allowed access to sites promoting violence and brutality, drugs, pornography and anti-social behaviour. The school principal was ordered to cease the violations and bring disciplinary action against those responsible.

Kostroma post office fined
On 13 February the Kostroma region prosecutor reported that an inspection by the Mezhevsky district prosecutor had revealed that a computer in the Georgievskoe village post office allowed access to extremist materials and information on the manufacturing and use of tobacco and illegal drugs. After a court case, the post office was fined 20,000 rubles (£425).

Bashkortostan court orders school filters
On 13 February it was announced that Dyurtyuli interdistrict prosecutor in Bashkortostan had found that computers in schools provided access to websites with information on narcotics. The prosecutor demanded that the schools install filtering software and limit access to these sites, demands that were backed by a court.

School head sued on access to extremism
On 6 February it was reported that the Umetskii district prosecutor in the Tambov region had found a computer in a local high school that allowed access to extremist materials. The principal of the school was ordered to cease allowing access, and the prosecutor recommended disciplinary charges against the responsible parties.

“Students need protection” in Kineshima
On 6 February the Ivanovo regional prosecutor reported that the Kineshma prosecutor had found that computers in the city’s schools provided access to extremist materials. The schools were ordered to cease violations of anti-extremism legislation.

Salekhard school must install internet filters
On 6 February it was reported that the Salekhard city prosecutor had found that students of a secondary school were inadequately protected from harmful information: computers at the school could be used to access pornographic material, information about manufacturing explosives, and texts with foul language. The principal was ordered to install working internet filters.

Prosecutor demands protection from poetry
On 8 February it was reported that Omsukchan district prosecutor in Magadan had established that filtering software in the Omsukchan village high school was failing to prevent access to extremist materials, including Vladimir Shcherbina’s poem “Progonite zhida” (Chase Away the Jew). The school was ordered to restrict access to the extremist websites.

Extremism

Altai court orders block on 29 websites
On 25 February the Gorno-Altaisk city court upheld the demand of the Altai Republic prosecutor that the regional branch of the ISP Mobil’nye TeleSystemy limit access to 29 websites. The materials include songs on the Federal List of Extremist Materials published on 12 websites, and a book also on the list published on 17 sites. The court ordered the ISP to limit access to these materials. The decision has not yet entered into force.

Saratov prosecutor demands restrictions
On 26 February it was reported that the Leninskii district prosecutor in Saratov had identified several sites “containing public calls for extremist activities, terrorism, incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity”. The prosecutor has ordered the regional branch of the ISP MTS to restrict access to these sites by installing IP-address filtering on its routers.

Extremist sites blocked in Smolensk
On 27 February it was reported that two websites containing extremist material had been blocked in response to a demand from the Roslavl prosecutor in the Smolensk region.

Yekaterinburg authorities block sites
On 27 February the Sverdlovsk regional appeal court considered the regional prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of the Upper Iset Yekaterinburg district court to dismiss the request of Zheleznodorozhnyi district prosecutor in Ekaterinburg to block access to four extremist websites. The appeal court overturned the original decision and ordered the ISP Telnet Service to restrict access to websites on the Federal List of Extremist Materials.

Omsk oppositionist added to register
On 27 February it was reported the administration of LiveJournal.com had blocked the account of Mikhail Yakovlev, the Omsk opposition leader. The author was notified that his page had been added to the Register of Banned Sites. According to Yakovlev, the ban could be related either to his criticism of the Sverdlovsk governor Yevgeniy Kuyvashev or to his liberal position on soft drugs.

Altai demands restrictions
On 18 February the Altai regional prosecutor announced that the Zarinsk prosecutor had identified several websites containing extremist materials and demanded that two ISPs use IP-address filtering to block them.

Kirov action against ISPs
On 18 February the Kirov district prosecutor in Samara filed 10 legal suits against ISPs demanding blocks on websites that contain extremist materials. The suits are currently being considered.

Extremist website accessed from college
On 20 February it was reported that the counterpropaganda officers of the Centre for Extremism Prevention of the Karachay-Cherkessia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs had discovered that computers at the Karachay-Cherkessia College of International Tourism and Hospitality Management in the village of Uchkeken, provided unfettered access to a website included on the Federal List of Extremist Materials. The audit results have been forwarded to the prosecutor’s office.

ISP blocks sites in Smolensk
On 11 February it was reported that in the city of Gagarin in the Smolensk region the ISP Orbit Plus partially blocked access to several sites that published Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and other pro-Nazi texts. Last November the regional prosecutor demanded that the ISP cease violating the Law on Combating Extremist Activity.

Videos barred in Altai
On 13 February the Gorno-Altaisk city court considered a suit filed in January by the Altai republic’s prosecutor against the ISP Rostelecom demanding restrictions on access to extremist videos published via the online social network VKontakte. In the course of the trial it was established that access to the videos had been restricted prior to the start of the trial. The case was subsequently dismissed.

Islamist videos banned in Kursk
On 13 February it was reported that the Zheleznodorozhnyi district prosecutor in Kursk had found extremist materials accessible online including anti-Russian Islamist video clips and other materials aimed at undermining the constitution and justifying murders of law enforcement officers. The ISPs Aksinet and Comstar-Regiony were told to restrict access to the relevant sites and complied with the demand.

Audit of websites in Karachay-Cherkessia
On 5 February the Centre for Extremism Prevention and the FSB of the Karachay-Cherkessia republic identified a publicly accessible website containing extremist material. The audit results have been forwarded to the republic’s prosecutor.

ISP warned in Krasnodar
On 7 February the Krasnodar regional prosecutor reported that the Temryukskii district prosecutor had identified a publicly accessible website, Vilayat Dagestan – maintained by Imarat Kavkaz (“Caucasus Emirate”) organisation – publishing extremist materials. The director of the regional branch of the ISP MTS was warned about about the impermissibility of extremist activity.

Gambling and online casinos

Khanty-Mansiysk court blocks gambling
On 25 February it was reported that the Urai prosecutor in Khanty-Mansiysk autonomous district had been granted court backing to ensure that the ISP Rostelecom block access to gambling websites.

Tula prosecutor goes for pyramid scheme

On 26 February the Sovetskii district prosecutor in Tula sued the ISPs Altair Tula, MTS, RadioPeydzh-T, Tulskii Gosudarstvennyi Universitet and ER-Telecom Holding, demanding that they restrict access to sites of the MMM pyramid scheme.

Ufa prosecutor demands restrictions
On 25 February it was announced that the Sovetskii district prosecutor in Ufa had sued the ISP Ufanet demanding that it block access to 26 gambling websites.

Gambling targeted in Surgut
On 27 February the Khanty-Mansiysk autonomous district prosecutor reported that the Surgut city prosecutor had identified several illegal gambling websites. The prosecutor demanded that six ISPs restrict access.

Tula casino access barred
On 27 February it was reported that the Tsentralnyi district prosecutor in Tula had filed 33 writs against ISPs demanding restrictions on access to online casinos. The Tsentralnyi district court ordered the ISPs to comply.

Pyramid-scheme sites banned in Yamal-Nenets
On 1 March the Yamal-Nenets autonomous district prosecutor reported that the Gubkinskiy city prosecutor had identified pyramid-scheme advertising on 18 websites and that Gubkinskiy city court had accepted the prosecutor’s demand that the ISP Pursatkom restrict access to the sites.

Chita court order ISP to block pyramid schemes
On 19 February it was reported that the central district court of Chita had granted a prosecutor’s request to order the local branch of the ISP Rostelecom to restrict access to the sites of Sergei Mavrodi, the creator of pyramid schemes. The decision has not yet entered into force.

Samara bars gambling ads
On 19 February it was reported that the Neftegorsk interdistrict prosecutor in the Samara region had identified 10 sites that provided information about a pyramid scheme. The Leninskii district court of Samara accepted the prosecutor’s demand that the ISP Rostelecom limit access to these sites. The court’s decisions have not yet entered into force.

Casino sites blocked in Kaliningrad
On 20 February it was announced that the Moscovskii district prosecutor in Kaliningrad had identified two gambling websites. The ISP TIS-Dialogue agreed voluntarily to its demand that it limit access to these sites.

Computer club told to clamp down
On 21 February it was reported that Kurganinskii district prosecutor in Krasnodar had found a pyramid-scheme website to be accessible via a computer club. The prosecutor’s demands that the owner of the club restrict access were accepted by the district court.

Surgut blocks pyramid sites
On 12 February it was reported that the Surgut city prosecutor had successfully moved to restrict access to pyramid-scheme websites.

Online casinos blocked in Samara
On 13 February the Leninskii district court in Samara accepted nine demands from the Chapaevsk prosecutor for restrictions on access to online casinos. The decisions of the court have not yet entered into force.

Tula orders online casino ban
On 15 February it was reported that the Sovetskii district court of Tula had accepted prosecutors’ demands that ISPs Altair Tula, MTS, and ER-Telecom Holding block access to gambling websites.

Casinos blocked in Komi Republic
On 14 February it was reported that the Ukhta city prosecutor had been given court approval for its demand that the ISP GSP restrict access to nine gambling websites.

Drugs

Samara court blocks drug promotion
On 20 February it was announced that the Oktiabrskii district prosecutor in Samara had filed 70 writs demanding restrictions on access to websites promoting illegal drugs. Of these, 43 have been accepted by the local court and the rest are pending. Previously, on 5 February, the Kirov district prosecutor on Samara had successfully demanded restrictions on access to seven sites promoting drugs.

Cannabis sites blocked in Voronezh

On 13 February the Voronezh ISP Votek Mobile was ordered by a district court to limit access to the online cannabis seed distributor Semyanych, kacheli.my1.ru and ganzhaman.tut.by. Votek Mobile closed access to these sites.

And the rest

Move on fake diplomas site
On 8 February the Zhigulevsk city court in Samara backed the city prosecutor’s demand for restrictions on access to a website offering fake diplomas from various educational institutions. The court’s decision has not yet come into force.

Chechnya ban on Islamist TV channel
On 12 February the Leninskii district court of Grozny declared the internet TV channel Imam TV extremist. The site carries Musa Yandyrhanov’s video Napominaniie (Reminder) and talks by other members of illegal armed groups. The court said these materials promoted terrorism, contained incitement to violence against government representatives and incited hatred on religious grounds.

Block on sites giving bribery tips
On 12 February the Bashkortostan republic prosecutor announced that Sharanskii district prosecutor had identified several websites containing tips on giving bribes. The ISP Bashinformsvyaz was made to restrict access to these sites.

User group banned in St Petersburg
On 15 February it was reported that the Centralnyi district prosecutor in St Petersburg had ordered the social network VKontakte to block the user group Childfree. The prosecutor found that the group’s posts contained material violating the rights of minors. The VKontakte administration blocked the user group and deleted all its posts and blocked one user’s account.

ISP sued for posting bribery tips
On 4 February the Nefteyugansk interdistrict prosecutor identified sites containing bribery tips and filed a writ against the ISP Elektrosviazi demanding that it restrict access to these sites.

Orel blocks bribery sites
On 7 February it was reported that the Orel city prosecutor had identified several websites with tips on bribery and had been granted its demand for restrictions on access to the sites.

Post by designer added to banned list
On 5 February the popular designer Artemy Lebedev reported that the ISP Roskomnadzor had added his blog post containing an animated movie, Dumb Ways to Die, to the Register of Banned Sites. Roskomnadzor interpreted the video — a public service announcement by Metro Trains Melbourne in Australia — as promoting suicide.

Andrei Soldatov is a Russian journalist, and together with Irina Borogan, co-founder of the Agentura.Ru website. Last year, Soldatov and Borogan co-authored The New Nobility: The Restoration of Russia’s Security State and the Enduring Legacy of the KGB (PublicAffairs)

The post What Russia censored in February appeared first on Index on Censorship.