Across too many EU member states, press freedom is weak, faltering or in decline with little comment and less action from the EU’s leaders or the European Commission. And in neighbouring member states, including applicant countries like Turkey, the EU is failing to tackle substantive attacks on the media.

In Hungary, the independence from political interference of the country’s central bank, judicial system, media regulation and more has been called into question as its government drew up a new constitution and regulatory approaches. This is now so bad that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Europe’s human rights watchdog – quite separate from the EU) is proposing putting Hungary on its monitoring list. If it does, Hungary will joning Bulgaria as the two EU member states on this list of shame. Yet where are the EU’s leaders? More concerned on the whole with whether Hungary’s central bank is genuinely independent than whether a core element of political and economic accountability, a free media, is under attack.

A similar picture can be seen in Greece. As the ferocity of the economic crisis, and the measures imposed by the EU’s Troika, tear at the fabric of Greek society, media freedom is deteriorating – from a position that was already weak by EU standards. Journalist Kostas Vaxevanis, winner of this year’s Index Press Freedom Award, was prosecuted in 2012 for publishing the so-called Lagarde list of Greeks who have Swiss bank accounts, and may be evading tax as a result. Having won his case, Greek prosecutors rapidly announced a retrial, due this June – which if he loses will see Vaxevanis jailed. This case is ignored in Brussels. When Index and its international partners wrote to Commission president Barroso, he delegated the reply to a junior official who wrote in a letter to Index this January that the case had been positively resolved but the Commission would keep a careful watching brief. This dismissive ignorance would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

Meanwhile, across the EU’s border, Turkey’s government is attacking media freedom with ever more brazen impunity, something Index recognised by putting Turkey’s imprisoned journalists on its press freedom Award shortlist this year.Turkey now stands ahead of China and Iran in the number of journalists it has jailed, while other journalists week by week lose their columns, their jobs, are censored by editors or owners or have learnt to self-censor. The EU is in – slow and lengthy – membership negotiations with Turkey. Any such candidate state is meant to meet basic standards of democracy including a free and fair press before talks start. So where is the EU and why has it not suspended talks until Turkey stops attacking the cornerstone of its democracy – the media?

Going North to the UK, there is chaotic disarray as British politicians attempt to establish a new system of press regulation in response to the phone-hacking scandal. The cross-party consensus on the proposed new regulator oversteps a crucial press freedom red line, with MPs voting on detailed characteristics of a new regulatory system. The bulk of the press has rejected this new approach – one that would impose exemplary damages for those not joining its ‘voluntary’ regulator – something the European Court of Human Rights will doubtless be called to judge on if the new regulator goes ahead. The Telegraph, Daily Mail, News International and others have proposed a different form of ‘independent’ regulator – one that gives them a veto on core appointments, an industry own-goal where genuine backing for a truly independent regulator would have given them the moral highground. It’s a shambolic mess – parliament showing itself careless on press freedom, and the UK apparently incapable of designing a tough, new regulator that is genuinely independent both of politicians and the press.

Where is the EU in all this? Mostly still ever-focused on the euro crisis. Senior EU leaders are starting to worry about the vertiginous loss of political trust in the EU across most member states, but showing little concern for a key element of European political systems, a free press. European Commission Vice-President Nellie Kroes did establish a High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism. But while its report had some welcome recommendations, the Group, rather anachronistically failed to begin to address and embrace the freedoms of the digital age where we are potentially all reporters and publishers.

On this World Press Freedom Day, it is time that the EU remembers its roots in democracy and freedom of expression and starts to hold its members – and candidate countries – seriously to account wherever press freedom is under attack.

Tunisia: Press faces repressive laws, uncertain future
Egypt: Post-revolution media vibrant but partisan
Brazil: Press confronts old foes and new violence

Photos: Shutterstock

The post World Press Freedom Day: Is the European Union faltering on media freedom? appeared first on Index on Censorship.

A recently released report from a European Union group contains recommendations that would endanger media freedom, says Kirsty Hughes

This article was first published in European Voice

Is “everyone who can hold a pen or type on a keyboard” a journalist? In our age of citizen journalism, the answer is surely “yes, if they choose to be”. But the European Union’s High-Level Group on Media Pluralism and Freedom answered differently: “The word ‘journalism’ would lose all meaning”, its members declared in a report published on 22 January.

Quite how to define journalism eluded the group, it admitted — not surprisingly since journalism has never been a profession like medicine or law. But this did not deter the group from making recommendations that might undermine, rather than promote, media freedom — including a proposal for EU member states to have media councils or regulators that could remove “journalistic status”.

But how could — or should — any regulator determine who can write for a newspaper, post a blog or make a radio programme or podcast? And how to stop someone exercising their right to ask questions, analyse politics, or write opinions? To attempt to do so would be futile as well as foolhardy. Are journalists to have less right to free expression than ordinary citizens?

The High-Level Group struggles to keep up with the digital age. Anachronistically, they declare “the media quite literally form the major locus of interaction between citizens and the political and economic driving forces active in any society”. “Normal citizens” are “readers, listeners, watchers” — which rather spectacularly misses the point of the interactivity, creativity, self-publishing, citizens-direct-to-power-holders activism of our tweeting, blogging, digital times.

This old-fashioned approach is also reflected in the group’s exclusive concern with “high-quality”, socially responsible journalism. Freedom of expression for raucous, irreverent tabloid-style journalism does not make a showing in the report’s pages.

Nor does the concept of the public interest feature. This is of deep concern. The group, for instance, recognises the importance of protecting journalistic sources unless a court decrees otherwise — but it does not see fit to mention how important public-interest defences may be (whether as a legal argument for protecting sources, or for defending intrusions into privacy, or even in some cases for breaking the law).

Some of the Group’s recommendations are welcome — including its emphasis on net neutrality and transparency of ownership. But even these recommendations rapidly tip into more dubious proposals — the Group wants media organisations to “follow clearly identifiable” editorial lines and make them transparent. But surely this is what is in daily or weekly editorials. Or should each newspaper solemnly declare which political party it supports and never be allowed to change its mind, and never write a fuzzy editorial?

More disturbing still is the demand for all member states to have “independent media councils with a politically and culturally balanced and socially diverse membership… monitored by the Commission”. This recommendation ditches the idea of self-regulation at a stroke for any member state, let alone the idea that different set-ups might be appropriate in different countries. And “political balance” could imply representation across political parties when the fundamental principle here should instead be to keep media free from political interference.

This desertion of basic principles is capped by the idea that the Commission would then monitor the national regulators. Surely, a fundamental role of the media in a democracy is to hold power to account, challenge, report, criticise and analyse. Yet the Group does not explain how the Commission’s political power would be held to account when it is the super-regulator entrusted with overseeing our press freedom. The idea is bafflingly bad.

Neither journalists nor media organisations are above the law in a democracy. But our media freedom is part of our freedom of expression. And attempts to define, limit and take away “journalistic status” or let political bodies oversee the media will undermine both our media freedom and our democracies. The High-Level Group should go back to the drawing board.

Kirsty Hughes is Chief Executive of Index on Censorship

The post Not the route to free media appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Greek Journalist Kostas Vaxevani after his arrest for exposing alleged tax cheats – Athens – Stathis Kalligeris | Demotix

The European Union has a duty to speak out against increasing censorship, writes Rohan Jayasekera

It was disappointing to see the European Union reacting so slowly in the days following the arrest of Greek investigative journalist Kostas Vaxevanis. The EU and its executive Commission (EC) frequently steps up to defend free media in Europe and in the neigbourhood states — Middle East and East European nations with EU commitments, or membership aspirations.

So Index on Censorship and nine other freedom of expression rights defenders across Europe & the region, all members of the IFEX network, wrote on 5 November to remind the Union that under the Lisbon Treaty, compliance with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is legally binding on EU members. This includes the right “to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers,” and the obligation that that “the freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected”.

Even the EU itself says it must be “exemplary” in enabling its citizens “to enjoy the rights enshrined in the Charter” and build mutual trust, public confidence and “improve credibility of EU external action on human rights.” In fact the EC had been relatively forthright when member state Hungary introduced new and restrictive media legislation last year. The EC’s reluctance in this case — when the Union has more at stake — will surprise few and disappoint many.

Vaxevanis walked free from an Athens court last week after naming alleged account holders in an offshore bank that had been protected from tax investigation for two years. He walked free from an Athens court last week after but another journalist, Spiros Karatzaferis, still faces trial on an old, unrelated criminal libel charge after claiming he would publish classified files on Greece’s financial bailout.

Appeal to EU Institutions to Defend Free Expression in Greece

The post Greece: Europe must defend free speech appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Top pianist tried in Turkey for “offensive” tweets appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The European Union makes great play of its commitment to free expression. All EU countries are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10 of which states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

Clause two of the article stipulates several exceptions to this, but citizens of the EU are, broadly speaking, free to criticise their governments and heads of state, to question officials and hold power to account. But this doesn’t mean that there are not real challenges to free speech.

As more and more communication strays into the realm of publication via social media, people in democratic countries find themselves increasingly subjected to restrictions on free speech. In the UK, laws meant to govern different types of communication are now used to bring prosecutions for speech on social media.

Cases such as those of Liam Stacey, Azhar Ahmed and Paul Chambers in the UK have seen prosecution for the posting of “offensive” or “menacing” content on social networks, under laws designed either to prevent the outbreak of violence, or harassment via emails and phonecalls. The question for the democratic world raised by social technology is complex: do we continue with old laws, create new ones governing social media interaction, or accept the idea that the speed with which technology advances will make governing of online communication impractical if not impossible?

Azhar Ahmed was convicted for posting “grossly offensive” material (above) on Facebook

The issue of “extremism” often collides with free speech. In the UK, members of (now-banned) group Al Muhajiroun have faced prosecution for, among other crimes, calling for the death of British soldiers in Afghanistan, and burning poppies on Rememberance Day. Judgments in these cases have essentially found the perpetrators guilty of “offensive” statements and actions which run counter to the general societal consensus, disregarding any notion of protected political speech.Throughout Europe, many countries which experienced the full horrors of Nazism have laws against the denial or belittling of the Holocaust. While the impulse to prevent a repeat of the rise of Nazism, as well as to honour the memories of those who were murdered, is understandable, such laws can only be seen as a direct contravention of the right to free expression, placing a certain topic, however sensitive, beyond the limits of discussion. Far-right figures such as David Irving, Horst Mahler and Jean Marie Le Pen have all been convicted for Holocaust denial.French President Francois Hollande has signalled his intentionto bring in similar laws to criminalise denial of the Armenian massacres of 1915, in a mirror of Turkey’s penal code, which prevents discussion of the same subject.

Privacy and reputation

Privacy and reputation have also proved controversial. English libel laws have been particularly contentious over the last three years, with Index and its partners in the Libel Reform Campaign arguing that they have a chilling effect on free speech in the UK and beyond. Cases such as those brought against science writer Simon Singh and cardiologist Dr Peter Wilmshurst, as well as several infamous “libel tourism” cases, where claimants with little or no reputation in British society used London’s court to silence criticism abroad, demonstrated the need for reform.The campaign has focused on providing a strong public interest defence, allowing journalists, academics and bloggers to write freely and honestly on controversial issues and public figures without fear of long and potentially ruinous defamation cases brought by the rich and powerful. However, a balance must be struck between the right to free expression and the right of redress for people who have been genuinely wronged.

The European Court of Human Rights has seen several controversial cases bringing the press into conflict with individuals’ right to privacy. Cases such as Von Hannover v Germany, MGN v United Kingdom, Mosley v United Kingdom have all been key in the definitions of public sphere, public interest and privacy, seen the pendulum swing back and forth in an area that, it seems, will forever be contentious. In Spain and Germany, reputation issues have led to moves to stop search engines from indexing sites detailing previous bankruptcies etc, as part of the controversial idea of a “right to be forgotten”.

Breaches of privacy via “phone hacking” brought about a crisis in the British media, leading to the establishment of the Leveson Inquiry, due to report in autumn 2012. The Inquiry is expected to make recommendations on the regulation of the press, an issue approached in many different ways throughout Europe. In Britain, “state regulation” is seen by many as having negative conotations for free expression, though many countries, including Ireland have established some kind of “statutory underpinning” of the press. In Hungary, draconian laws severely limiting media ownership and press freedom have been partially withdrawn after an international outcry.

The Leveson Inquiry has also thrown up questions of media ownership, with widespread concern at the dominance of the national newspaper market by Rupert Murdoch’s News International. The most troubling excess of this dominance was seen during Silvio Berlusconi’s rule as prime minister in Italy, when dissenting voices were marginalised bothy by state television and by Berlusconi’s TV stations, which held a huge portion of the market.

The shifting nature of public discourse in democratic societies means that the debate over free expression can take on many different forms. But the crucial point is that any restriction on free speech must be reasonable, proportionate, and limited. An assumption in favour of free expression should be the norm.

Padraig Reidy is News Editor at Index on Censorship. He tweets at @mepadraigreidy

The post Do western democracies protect free speech? appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Index has learnt that some MPs could be organising to vote against the motion which comes to Parliament tomorrow afternoon. If the vote is lost, it could prevent the creation of the special representative and hold back the adoption of the EU Action Plan. A “no” vote would derail a series of complex negotiations, which may not be repeated in the near future.

Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship commented:

“Creating a special representative on human rights is vital if the European Union is to project clear values and rights in its dealings with the rest of the world. With a global power shift underway, it’s clear that 27 countries speaking with one voice on human rights can have real impact. If Eurosceptics vote against this plan it will sell out people across the world who are under attack from authoritarian governments.”

The post Index urges British MPs to back creation of EU special representative on human rights appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post ACTA voted down by European Parliament appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post EU parliament votes to monitor internet censorship and create rights tzar appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The move comes after a letter to Britain’s foreign secretary Willam Hague, co-ordinated by Index on Censorship along with Sir Tom Stoppard, the Anglo-Belarusian Committee, the Association of Belarusians in Great Britain, the Belarus Free Theatre and Free Belarus Now, called for targeted sanctions against Lukashenko’s regime and its associates.

Mike Harris of Index on Censorship commented today: “We wrote to the Foreign Secretary asking him to commit the EU to targeted sanctions against the regime’s cronies, so we’re delighted by these steps.

“Lukashenko may try to fool the EU with empty promises of reform as his country’s economy worsens, but there must be no deal as long as his people’s rights are denied and his jails still hold prisoners of conscience.”

UPDATE: Jerome Taylor of the Independent has supplied a list of the companies and individuals targetted

Three Belarus companies: BelTechExport, Sport-Pari (runs a lucrative lottery) and Private Unitary Enterprise BT Telecommunications

New individuals also added to Belarus travel ban list include…

Andrey Kazheunikau — Public prosecutor of the case against ex-presidential candidate Vladimir Neklyaev
Liudmila Grachova — Judge who convicted ex-presidential candidates Nikolai Statkevich, Dmitri Uss
Kiril Chubkavets — Public prosecutor of the cases against ex-presidential candidates Nikolai Statkevich and Dmitri Uss
Vladimir Peftiev — “Luka’s banker”, chief economic advisor to Belarus president and key financial sponsor of the regime

Read Index’s letter below

Rt Hon William Hague Letter 02.06.11

The post Europe puts pressure on Belarus regime appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Uzbekistan: Libel trial raises questions over EU conduct appeared first on Index on Censorship.