Over the past eight years, writers and publishers have been caught in a web of forbidden topics, names, phrases and words. No one in the industry can anticipate what will and will not be allowed by Iran’s Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. Completed projects wait for months to be reviewed by state censors and most are returned with a long list of “required modifications.”

Even books that were approved for publication in the past are now banned for “promoting Western thought” or “being immoral”. Some titles were removed from display at the fair despite being offered for sale at bookstores elsewhere.

Moreover, the government moved to shut down independent publishing firms that produce books on sociology, literature, politics and history. Under an official order, publishers must be approved by the ministry to continue their activities. Through the accreditation process, the government succeeded in banning some long-term publishers.

While Iran’s internal threats to free expression have had their impact, international sanctions have also put the publishing industry under intense pressure. The economic sanctions aimed at curtailing the country’s nuclear program have caused a dramatic rise in the cost of imported paper. As a result, publishers have been forced to limit volumes or suspend publication altogether. Prices for books have risen as a result.

Like all Iranians, the publishing industry is sizing up candidates ahead of the 14 June presidential elections. It is hoped a moderate, ‘reformist’ government will be a change agent in the international arena to end the economic embargo. They are also hoping that the ministry’s heavy-handed censorship will be lightened to fire up the printing presses.

Raha Zahedpour is a journalist and researcher living in London. She writes under a pseudonym.

The post An election that might save books in Iran appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Intensive interference of our signals started in 2009 at the time of Iran’s presidential election. On Election Day, Iranian authorities started to jam signals of BBC Persian Television, launched only a few months before. Intensive jamming continued in the aftermath of the election during the street protests and violence. For many Iranians, whose access to free media was limited, Persian TV was the main source of news and information.

Since then, the jamming of BBC Persian has continued intermittently. Some incidents have been directly related to specific types of programmes such as audience participation, documentaries or coverage of news events. The latest example of jamming is as recent as 9 February this year when the Iranian government was marking the Islamic Revolution’s anniversary and PTV was taken off-air alongside 13 other broadcasters.

In response, we have increased the number of satellites carrying the channel and technical changes were made to help reduce jamming on the original signal. However, more work needs to be done.

To make any meaningful impact, there is a compelling need for all stakeholders to work closely together in different fields, from technical to regulatory and political, to address the issue of satellite jamming.

That’s why in November 2012 the BBC brought together over 100 delegates from broadcasters, regulators, satellite operators, international organisations and politicians to consider what political and technical steps can be taken to address the growing threat of the blocking of international broadcasts.

This was followed by a very useful event, organised by satellite operator Eutelsat in January 2013, to demonstrate how they geo-locate interference to satellites to provide evidence to the UN recognised agency, International Telecommunication Union. They also unveiled new developments in satellite design which offer more protection on the next generation of satellites. We are pleased to see that our efforts of working closely with the satellite industry have contributed to Eutelsat’s decision to invest in technologies that identify sources of deliberate interference and make jamming more difficult.

We have also been working with other international broadcasters to highlight the impact of jamming on our ability to reach our audiences. We have called on governments and regulatory bodies to put maximum pressure on Iran to stop blocking of international broadcasts. The EU Foreign Affairs Council included jamming of satellite signals in its resolution against human rights violations in Iran in October 2011, and the UN General Assembly took a similar action in December 2011. On 6 February 2013 the United States blacklisted Iran’s state broadcasting authority and a major Iranian electronics producer partly because of their role in jamming international broadcasts to Iran.

It is of utmost importance that the satellite industry takes a united stance on highlighting the issue of jamming. There are still different views on whether publicising incidents of jamming help to find a solution or deteriorates the situation.

Jamming has not been the only tactic used by the Iranian government to restrict free flow of information. BBC Persian staff and their families have been subject to increasing harassment and intimidation by the Iranian authorities over the past few years. Their activities against BBC staff have intensified in recent months. An increasing number of BBC Persian staff family members have been questioned and threatened in an attempt to make our colleagues stop working for the BBC.

Harassment and intimidation of families has been accompanied by a widespread anti-BBC campaign in Iran. Cyber-activists believed to have close links to the Iranian authorities have set up fake Facebook pages and fake blogs attributed to BBC Persian journalists. They are using these fake accounts to discredit the BBC Persian staff by accusing them of sexual promiscuity and spying for MI6. These lies then are reported on a nationwide scale by local media including the state TV.

We remain extremely concerned about these activities. I wrote to the Iranian Head of Judiciary in March 2012 asking him to stop such illegal acts, but there was no reply. We have raised our concerns with the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran, Ahmad Shahid, and called on governments to take action to cease such acts.

Peter Horrocks is Director of the BBC World Service

The post Iran’s attacks on the BBC appeared first on Index on Censorship.

 Iranian opposition candidate Mirhossein Mousavi has been under house arrest for two years

Two daughters of a former presidential candidate held under house arrest for nearly two years have been arrested in Iran. Zahra and Narges Mousavi, daughters of Mirhossein Mousavi, Iranian prime minister in the 1980s, were arrested by security forces on February 11. Along with Mousavi’s third daughter, they had written in a statement that authorities had denied Mousavi and his wife Zahra Rahnavard access to their children for weeks. Mousavi and Rahnavard were placed under house arrest along with opposition figure Mehdi Karroubi and his wife Fatemeh, after they called for demonstrations to support the Arab uprisings across the region in February 2011. The Islamic Republic is facing a presidential vote in June, and hardliners have accused opposition leaders of plotting a second sedition after the last protests were crushed by security forces. They have also called for the execution of both men, but the government are choosing to keep them in solitary confinement.

Saudia Arabia’s minister for media and culture has confirmed that a range of government bodies have been censoring Twitter, reports on 13 February said. Abdel Aziz Khoga called on Saudi citizens to ”raise their awareness” and monitor their social media activity more carefully, as it was proving increasingly difficult to monitor the three million Twitter subscribers around the kingdom. Under the Sunni monarchy, writer Turki Al-Hamad is one of many journalists in prison under blasphemy charges. He was arrested for insulting Islam in January, after he accused radical Islamists of corrupting Prophet Mohammad’s “message of love” in a Tweet in December 2o12. Online activist Raif Badawi was arrested in June 2012 and was charged with apostasy for his tweet, a sentence which carries the death penalty.

On 14 February, two Nigerian journalists appeared in court for criticising the government’s polio campaign. Yakubu Fagge and Mubarak Sani were charged with criminal conspiracy, abetment, defamation of character, obstruction of a public officer carrying out his duty, intentional insult, and incitement to violence. They plead guilty before judge Ibrahim Bello during their appearance before a senior magistrate court in Gyadi Gyadi, Kano. The pair were arrested after hosting a radio show on Wazobia FM on 6 February, where they alleged the government had forced parents to immunise their children against polio, claiming officials were abusing their power. Fagge and Sani have been granted bail with two sureties each at NGN 100, 000, on the condition the surities are community leaders or heads of department of government organisations. The case was adjourned until 13 March.

The post Index Index – international free speech round up 15/02/13 appeared first on Index on Censorship.

— An anti-Valentine’s Day demonstration held in Amritsar, India

Many Indonesian officials and clerics see Valentine’s Day as nothing more than an excuse for illicit pre-marital relations. The deputy mayor of Depok, Idris Abdul Somad, warned the public off celebrating and dismissed Valentines Day as a public holiday for sex and urged citizens to replace romance with religion by participating in Islamic activities. In Jambi, on Sumatra island, and Solo, in Central Java, hundreds of students held protests against Valentine’s Day on 13 February. In Aceh, the only Indonesian province living under Islamic law, authorities enforced a ban on novelty gifts.

In Iran, Valentine’s Day was banned in 2011 to avoid the spread of western culture. It didn’t stop some citizens from celebrating today though, as shoppers hunted for gifts, despite the regime banning the sale of cards or heart shaped novelties, with florists being threatened with closure should they sell red roses. In Saudi Arabia it’s a similar story; Pre-marital relations are met with staunch punishment. Valentine’s is viewed as a pagan holiday and activities are monitored and curbed by the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

The censorship of Valentine’s Day isn’t excluded to Islamic countries. In Florida, high-school goers learned the hard way that school is for learning, not for loving after two Orlando schools banned Valentine’s Day, promising to turn away deliveries of gifts that arrive at school to avoid distraction.

Regardless of sanctions, lovers will still exchange the whispers of sweet nothings and secretly bought gifts. This Valentines Day, whether it’s a Mills and Boon novel for one, or a supermarket meal deal for two, remember that it’s not forbidden — yet.

The post Censoring Saint Valentine appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Autocratic, authoritarian and totalitarian states take it upon themselves to actively stifle freedom of expression. These states can look very different – “socialist” North Korea may seem very different to “theocratic” Iran, but even with vastly differing cultures and political landscapes, we can draw similarities between the methods used by these regimes to suffocate and in some cases entirely suppress free speech.

The three main methods authoritarian states use to curtail free speech are: the chill through direct intimidation; the chill through repressive laws and the chill online — using the internet to curtail free speech.

Direct intimidation

Ai Weiwei

Threats, imprisonment, torture and even murder are used to curtail free speech, particularly that of regime critics and activists. This is particularly common in the most authoritarian countries such as China or Iran. The murder of journalists and political activists in authoritarian states remains frequent and the arrest and beating of Chinese artist Ai Weiwei changed the country’s political landscape by showing that no one, however famous or influential, was beyond the state’s reach.

States that inhibit freedom of expression often curtail a spectrum of co-dependent human rights: freedom of association (UNDHR Article 17), the right to privacy (UNDHR Article 12), even the right to life (UNDHR Article 3) and freedom from torture (UNDHR Article 5). And because these rights are co-dependent, the most active members of civil society place themselves in direct danger of reprisal: journalists attempting to document human rights violations are targeted by the state as they attempt to stop such information being diseminiated. Azeri journalist Idrak Abbasov, an Index on Censorship award winner, was beaten earlier this year by security guards for writing about the government of Azerbaijan’s demolition of private housing. States generally don’t attempt to hide these attacks, knowing that the fear they arouse in civil society is useful in dissuading others from challenging its power.

In autocratic states —  those that at least attempt the veneer of democratic respectability — repressive laws are at the forefront of the state’s attempt to silence dissent. In Apartheid South Africa, the hated Publications Act banned any work “harmful to the relations between any sections of the inhabitants of the Republic”, which the authorities defended as an attempt to stop racial violence (like similar race hate legislation elsewhere). Every member of the ‘committee of experts’ on the censoring Appeal Board was white and part of the regime and the legislation was used to silence dissenting voices calling for change. Russia, which as a Council of Europe member must implement rulings by the European Court of Human Rights, has recently passed a series of strikingly repressive laws including legislation making protesting extremely difficult, a new law to restrict NGOs accepting foreign donations and the re-introduction of criminal defamation.

Using the law to silence opposition

The most effective repressive laws mirror edicts also on the statute books of more democratic states. Russia can justify its position on criminal libel by noting that this legislation is still on statute in France and Italy.

Repressive laws in authoritarian states act to shut down the space for dissenting opinions: focusing on limiting independent media, the right to freedom of association (by banning certain NGOs) and the right to protest and organise. Restrictions on the free media may include laws that enforce the registration of newspapers; draconian libel laws, the offence of lese majeste, and laws that prevent whistleblowing or harm to “national interests”.

Legal impositions on free speech typically use a politicised judiciary to act as the censor within a restrictive legal framework that may also include tough laws on public order, hate crime, anti-terror legislation, blasphemy and the protection of public morality. These laws are often used against those deemed to pose the greatest threat to the stability of the regime – with the broader legal framework making it hard for opposition media to succeed commercially, or for civil society to operate legally.

Online censorship

Autocratic states are highly alert to the challenge they face online in the wake of the Arab Spring. Online freedom is increasingly under fire through server-side ISP blocking of particular websites, or even the use of national firewalls to create a highly sanitised state intranet. This prevents the spread of politically sensitive information from external sources.

In Belarus, the opposition news website Charter97 has been subjected to systematic DDOS attacks in an attempt to close the site down. These attacks often force the website’s webhost to pull the site as it causes their servers to fail. In many ways, this method is simply a continuation of the physical assaults and raids on newsrooms practiced by the regime against opposition journalists.

The internet is often seen as a force for good in these states, but it can be used against activists. State surveillance online has expanded dramatically in recent years, in part as the cost of equipment has fallen. Index has raised concerns over the export of surveillance equipment by Western firms, a failure of corporate responsibility that has allowed authoritarian states to exponentially increase their knowledge of the activities of civil society. As we are discovering, technology such as the integration of GPS into smartphones can be used in authoritarian states to track dissidents and monitor their movements to a single metre. The anonymity of the internet whilst generally useful as a tool for protecting the privacy of human rights activists, can also cloak the actions of states.

By understanding the methods of repression, democracies can act to prevent complicity.

Mike Harris is Head of Advocacy at Index on Censorship

The post The modern Big Brothers appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Iranian blogger detained for criticising regime dies in custody appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The more we live our lives online, the greater the temptation for governments and private companies to spy on us. Padraig Reidy highlights the dark side of our increasing dependence on digital communications

While the internet offers opportunities for mass communication and social interaction unprecedented in human history, the chances for governments to monitor and control how we communicate are also ample

The simplest way to control usage is to block sites. This is widespread practice, in democracies this technique is often used to block child pornography.  However, more authoritarian regimes will block sites carrying sensitive political content, and increasingly, sites will be blocked to prevent religiously “offensive” material from being viewed. YouTube remains inaccessible in Pakistan, having been blocked in September after it failed to remove the controversial anti-Islam film, The Innocence of Muslims. In Turkey, the site was blocked in its entirety between 2007 and 2010 to prevent the viewing of “sensitive material”. The Russian government recently pushed through a bill that will allow websites classified as “extremist” (often a catch-all term in Russia) to be blacklisted without judicial oversight. The amendments, reportedly in place to “protect minors from all ‘dangerous content’”, will take effect on 1 November.

The Great Firewall of China

Perhaps the most infamous example of web policing is the complex system broadly known as the Great Firewall of China. China will not only block sites, but also search terms (such as “Tiananmen”). But the Chinese model goes far beyond algorithms blocking an established set of forbidden terms. Thousands are employed to monitor social media, immediately pouncing on sensitive terms and stories which could expose the governing class to scorn or ridicule. When a (true) rumour of a party official’s relation crashing a Ferrari sports car spread on the web, the term “Ferrari” was banned from searches on Weibo, China’s internal equivalent of Twitter. Many more are employed to intervene in message boards and discussion groups, monitoring threads and steering any displaying signs of dissent back to a more pro-regime view.

China’s cartoon police officers, Jingjing and Chacha, who appear when users attempt to visit censored sites

China has even gone so far as to introduce cartoon police officers which appear on web portals, reminding users of internet laws.

The national intranet is the ultimate web blocking tool. The Islamic Republic of Iran claims to be building a “halal internet” which would limit content to topics and terms deemed acceptable by the regime in Tehran. Meanwhile, users in cybercafés are obliged to provide ID before logging on to a computer, thereby making it easier for authorities to later track the online activities of individuals. In Belarus, commercial websites are forced to register domestically, with a .by domain name. This not only restricts commerce, but severely impairs the functioning of the “world” wide web.

Data retention & preservation

But it is not only authoritarian regimes that police the web. In the UK, the government is currently attempting to push through the Communications Data Bill, which would oblige internet service providers (ISPs) to hold information on users web and email usage for 12 months. ISPs would then have to hand over information to government agencies on request, highlighting the huge potential for the surveillance that is a by-product of our increasing dependence on digital communications.

This dependence can provide governments with apparently easy solutions to dissent. In Cuba, for example, online connections are deliberately kept slow, making communication with the outside world, even via proxies, frustrating.  At the height of the protests against Hosni Mubarak in Egypt in 2011, authorities even tried turning off the internet entirely, costing the country millions, but only temporarily hindering the progress of the uprising that eventually toppled the president.

Living our lives in public

Our increasing tendency to live our lives online, particularly via social networks, provides easy ways for authorities to pursue people. In the wake of the Iranian “green revolution” in 2009, many who had used Twitter to mobilise and share information were rounded up by the authorities. In the democratic world, the UK has seen prosecutions for public order and “menacing communications” after postings on Facebook and Twitter. Several young people were arrested for incitement after posting about the riots of 2011 on Facebook, and Prime Minister David Cameron even suggested shutting down social networks during the disturbances.

Much of what causes governments to seek to control the web are old, familiar themes: dissent, blasphemy etc. Some, such as the controversies over copyright and online “trolling”, have emerged because of the technology. But whatever the issue — new or traditional — the web is now the battleground in the 21st century fight against censorship.

Padraig Reidy is News Editor at Index on Censorship

The post Policing the internet appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Iran court finds Reuters bureau chief guilty of “spreading lies” appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Bounty on Salman Rushdie’s life increased appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Iranian forces deployed in Syria to curb rebel dissent appeared first on Index on Censorship.