UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition welcomes end of Realtid case

In January 2023, Swedish business and finance publication Realtid confirmed that they had reached a settlement with businessman Svante Kumlin over a legal action Kumlin had taken as a result of articles published in late 2020. Under the terms of the settlement, while Kumlin will pay part of Realtid’s legal fees, Realtid is obliged to share a clarification and apology on its website on three of its articles about Kumlin and his company Eco Energy World (EEW).

The settlement comes more than two years after the legal action against Realtid and their journalists was initiated, and seven months after a judge ruled that the courts of England and Wales did not have jurisdiction over ten of the thirteen defamation claims EEW and Kumlin had initially brought.

Dozens of human rights and media freedom organisations had repeatedly expressed solidarity with Realtid due to the case having been deemed a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) from the outset. SLAPPs seek to put pressure on public watchdogs by draining them of time, money, and energy in a bid to silence them.

“Overall, we welcome the fact that Realtid’s SLAPP has come to an end and that their articles will remain online in an unamended format,” the organisations said. “Nonetheless, Realtid and their journalists have paid dearly to defend their public interest reporting, not only financially, but in time and energy also. They will never be made whole.”

“We believe that, once again, this case emphasises the urgent need for concrete action to be taken, including the enactment of robust anti-SLAPP legislation in the UK. It is difficult to imagine a case like this getting this far if more robust protections were in place,” the organisations said. “We need to ensure that public watchdogs are empowered to carry out their work, which is so crucial to our democracy.”

Signed:

Index on Censorship

RSF Sweden

Justice for Journalists Foundation 

ARTICLE 19 

Blueprint for Free Speech

Society of Authors

National Union of Journalists

The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation

International Press Institute (IPI)

OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

Global Witness

Free Press Unlimited (FPU)

Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)

Media Law Resource Center

Xnet, Spain

Spotlight on Corruption

European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)

Association Justice and Environment, z.s.

Swedish Union of Journalists

PEN International 

English PEN

Major new global free expression index sees UK ranking stumble across academic, digital and media freedom

A major new global ranking index tracking the state of free expression published today (Wednesday, 25 January) by Index on Censorship sees the UK ranked as only “partially open” in every key area measured.

In the overall rankings, the UK fell below countries including Australia, Israel, Costa Rica, Chile, Jamaica and Japan. European neighbours such as Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Denmark also all rank higher than the UK.

The Index Index, developed by Index on Censorship and experts in machine learning and journalism at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU), uses innovative machine learning techniques to map the free expression landscape across the globe, giving a country-by-country view of the state of free expression across academic, digital and media/press freedoms.

Key findings include:

  • The countries with the highest ranking (“open”) on the overall Index are clustered around western Europe and Australasia – Australia, Austria, Belgium, Costa Rica, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland.

  • The UK and USA join countries such as Botswana, Czechia, Greece, Moldova, Panama, Romania, South Africa and Tunisia ranked as “partially open”.

  • The poorest performing countries across all metrics, ranked as “closed”, are Bahrain, Belarus, Burma/Myanmar, China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, Laos, Nicaragua, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

  • Countries such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates performed poorly in the Index Index but are embedded in key international mechanisms including G20 and the UN Security Council.

Ruth Anderson, Index on Censorship CEO, said:

“The launch of the new Index Index is a landmark moment in how we track freedom of expression in key areas across the world. Index on Censorship and the team at Liverpool John Moores University have developed a rankings system that provides a unique insight into the freedom of expression landscape in every country for which data is available.

“The findings of the pilot project are illuminating, surprising and concerning in equal measure. The United Kingdom ranking may well raise some eyebrows, though is not entirely unexpected. Index on Censorship’s recent work on issues as diverse as Chinese Communist Party influence in the art world through to the chilling effect of the UK Government’s Online Safety Bill all point to backward steps for a country that has long viewed itself as a bastion of freedom of expression.

“On a global scale, the Index Index shines a light once again on those countries such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates with considerable influence on international bodies and mechanisms – but with barely any protections for freedom of expression across the digital, academic and media spheres.”

Nik Williams, Index on Censorship policy and campaigns officer, said:

“With global threats to free expression growing, developing an accurate country-by-country view of threats to academic, digital and media freedom is the first necessary step towards identifying what needs to change. With gaps in current data sets, it is hoped that future ‘Index Index’ rankings will have further country-level data that can be verified and shared with partners and policy-makers.

“As the ‘Index Index’ grows and develops beyond this pilot year, it will not only map threats to free expression but also where we need to focus our efforts to ensure that academics, artists, writers, journalists, campaigners and civil society do not suffer in silence.”

Steve Harrison, LJMU senior lecturer in journalism, said: 

“Journalists need credible and authoritative sources of information to counter the glut of dis-information and downright untruths which we’re being bombarded with these days. The Index Index is one such source, and LJMU is proud to have played our part in developing it.

“We hope it becomes a useful tool for journalists investigating censorship, as well as a learning resource for students. Journalism has been defined as providing information someone, somewhere wants suppressed – the Index Index goes some way to living up to that definition.”

Index on Censorship and Reporters Without Borders welcome High Court’s decision in Realtid case

Reporters without Borders and Index on Censorship welcome the High Court’s decision to throw out large parts of the libel case against the Swedish business and finance publication Realtid, its editor-in-chief, and two of its investigative journalists. 

The High Court’s decision comes fifteen months after a jurisdiction hearing aimed at deciding whether England and Wales is the appropriate jurisdiction for the defamation case to be heard. On 11 May 2022, the judge ruled that the courts of England and Wales do not have jurisdiction over ten of the thirteen defamation claims. One of the claimants, Eco Energy World (EEW) has been precluded from bringing its claim over five different articles on the basis that it has not shown it suffered serious financial loss stemming from Realtid’s publications. The second claimant, EEW’s founder Svante Kumlin, may proceed with the case as an individual on only three of the eight articles he sued over, but these actions have been restricted to claiming for any harm he suffered in England and Wales.

Jessica Ní Mhainín, policy and campaigns manager for Index on Censorship, said: “While we welcome the High Court’s decision, we remain concerned that Realtid may nonetheless have to continue defending themselves in London’s courts. This case one again underlines the urgent need for the UK to adopt anti-SLAPP legislation, particularly a filter mechanism capable of rooting out SLAPPs at the earliest possible stage of proceedings”. 

Erik Halkjaer, president of Reporters Without Borders Sweden said: “The fact that Swedish reporters in Sweden, which currently ranks third out of 180 countries on the RSF World Press Freedom Index, with its own set of solid media laws and regulations concerning publications, needs to take into account that they can be sued in another countries courts is a threat not only against the journalists, but the Swedish media laws. The Swedish government should find ways of blocking these kinds of SLAPP cases against Swedish journalists”.

Realtid’s editor-in-chief Camilla Jonsson said: We are glad that the court listened to our arguments about the company’s claims being unfounded and therefore not suited for a trial in London. We also note that five of the eight articles in the case have been ruled as not being libelous even before we have filed our full defence on this. However we feel it is problematic that a Swedish magazine and Swedish journalists still might have to continue defending ourselves in a British court. But we are confident that our reporting will prove to be factually substantiated and in the public interest which in the end will lead to a successful outcome of the case”.

For press inquiries contact: 

Erik Halkjaer, [email protected]

Jessica Ní Mhainín, [email protected] 

The free speech Euros: Group E

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Sweden fans before their match with Slovakia at Euro 2020. Igor Russak/DPA/PA Images

Sweden fans before their match with Slovakia at Euro 2020. Igor Russak/DPA/PA Images

In celebration of one of football’s biggest international tournaments, here is Index’s guide to the free speech Euros. Who comes out on top as the nation with the worst record on free speech?

It’s simple, the worst is ranked first.

We continue today with Group E, which plays the deciding matches of the group stages today.

1st Poland

Poland is divided. The recent 2020 presidential election was the smallest election victory since the end of communism in 1989. Its record on free speech is also increasingly problematic.

Incumbent president won the race to the Pałac Prezydencki with 51.2% of the vote. He is opposed to reform on LGBTQ+ rights as well as his extremely divisive abortion laws.

In January 2021, Duda’s government imposed a law that allows an abortion only in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy. It caused country-wide protests.

Assistant professor at the Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw, Katarzyna Kasia explained in the recent winter issue of Index’s magazine how the restrictions on abortion laws by Duda is indicative on regressive policy that threatens freedom of expression.

“I fear that Duda will continue his work as a strong supporter of the ruling nationalist coalition, obediently signing laws that will limit the power of the judiciary, freedom in academia and media, and the rights of minorities and women,” she said.

Duda has attacked the Poland’s independent media too, and thus the dissenting voices in the country have less of a platform to speak from.

This is due, in part, to the Polish state-owned oil company Orlen purchasing 20 of 24 regional newspapers previously owned by German company Polska Press. During the election there was mistrust around the media due to its German ties and accusations, therefore, that Germany was interfering in Polish politics.

All 24 of the papers have a combined readership of around 17 million people.

It is fairly clear that Orlen purchasing the papers is a deliberate attempt to change the editorial line to support Duda and consolidate support for him and his party, the Law and Justice Party (PiS). Four of the editors were recently fired, despite a court ruling by the Warsaw District Court to suspend the acquisition, pending a review.

Defamation laws also acta as a deterrent for open criticism of party officials. Under Article 212 of the criminal code, defamation is an offence that can be punished by up to two years’ imprisonment. According to Reporters Without Borders, there is “a growing tendency to criminalise defamation”.

Under Duda, the situation is unlikely to improve and there have been other attempts to control the narrative.

There is a bill supposedly designed to protect freedom of speech online and force social media companies to stop blocking content online by fining them, as well as the setting up of a “free speech council”. However, there are concerns that this will have a negative aspect on free speech and encourage disinformation online.

A changing nationalist narrative is worrying and this now extends to Poland’s role in the holocaust.

Two prominent Polish historians were forced to apologise to the niece of a former polish mayor. This, after the two had co-authored a book about Polish complicity in the holocaust.

Previously, the Polish government has attempted to criminalise any suggestion of complicity.

2nd Slovakia

Free speech in Slovakia is currently at the mercy of a hugely significant murder case.

In February 2018, journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancé Martina Kušnírová were shot dead in their home, around 50 kilometres from the capital Bratislava.

Kuciak was heavily involved in investigating both tax fraud relating to the then ruling Slovak party Smer, as well as report examining an Italian mafia organisation. The murders caused country-wide protests.

Prime Minister Robert Fico insisted there would be an investigation, but had shown repeated showings of disdain for the media, generating what non-profit Freedom House describes as a “hateful atmosphere”. He was later forced to resign.

Two of the five original suspects were sentenced, and the retrial of influential businessman Marián Kočner in connection with the murders was ordered on 15 June. The judge ordered the retiral on the basis of “several mistakes” in the original trial that acquitted Kočner.

In a statement, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) spoke of the significance of the retrial.

“We welcome the Slovak Supreme Court’s decision to cancel the acquittals of Marián Kočner and Alena Zsuzsová and hope to see full justice in the killing of journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancée Martina Kušnírová.”

“This ruling is a crucial step toward ending impunity in Kuciak’s killing and ensuring that all journalists can work safely and freely in Slovakia.”

Any rightful conviction of Kuciak’s murderers will surely be a positive sign for journalists working in Slovakia and symbolic of a country that holds such murders accountable to the law and deter any acts similar to this in the future.

Other journalists have also received alarming threats. In June 2020, journalist for online news site Aktuality.sk, Peter Sabo, received a pistol cartridge in his mailbox.

Independent media in Slovakia is lacking. Much of the country’s news outlets are owned by a select few and there are also concerns over the impartiality of the public broadcaster Radio and Television of Slovakia after a number of its staff were sacked in 2018.

3rd Spain

The far-right is on the rise in Spain. Populist party VOX have been relatively successful in helping to create an atmosphere where journalists are being targeted.

In 2020, protests against the government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis and VOX supporters were heard shouting abuse at Spanish reporters.

During the pandemic, controversy arose over the Spanish governments attempt to control the questions given in press conferences by ordering journalists to send questions into the press secretary beforehand. In response, over 400 Spanish journalists were forced to sign an open letter asking the government to reconsider.

The information released by the government during the pandemic was also problematic. Data journalists found that the information released by the governments was overly confusing. As the CPJ reported, one journalist explained why this was a problem: “In Spain, the government sometimes releases data on the number of people who have tested positive on viral tests, while at other times it also includes the number who have tested positive on antibody tests.”

“Other reports contain different figures, such as the number of asymptomatic cases. The constant changes “hinder good analysis and projections,” he said. To complicate things further, national and local data sets often do not add up with national authorities reporting far fewer deaths from the virus than the total number reported by local authorities.”

There have been several notable attacks in the past few years.

Police have been criticised for being heavy-handed during protests. During the demonstration for Catalonian independence in October 19, there were numerous incidents of journalists being targeted by police and protesters.

Police detained El País reporter Albert Garcia after he documented the arrest of a protester, while French journalist Elize Gazendgel reported two separate occasions where she “received blows” from police. Both were wearing the correct, identifiable media accreditation.

Earlier the same month, a particularly appalling incident took place when Laila Jiménez of Telenico TV, was repeatedly pushed and subjected to abuse, as well as having vodka poured over her head.

Despite protests being of vital importance to upholding free speech in a democracy, the Spanish Citizen Security Law (also known as the “gag law”) puts bureaucratic barriers in the way of organising a protest, where authorities must be informed beforehand. Sharing images of police officers that may “endanger” them is also prohibited.

Laws such as this have come under further scrutiny after the case of Spanish rapper Pablo Hasél earlier this year.

Hasél has been jailed for his lyrics, which are crass at best and he has rapped about a “noose for the king”. But Spanish law deems these words illegal.

His arrest sparked widespread protests, particularly among Spanish youths. In response, the government has promised a review in to Spanish free speech laws.

4th Sweden

Sweden’s record on free speech is encouraging and were the first country in the world to adopt a press freedom law, they also have a media ombudsman to deal with ethical issues.

However, one damaging defamation case could set an alarming precedent, concerning the finance publication Realtid.

The case has seen Monaco-based Swedish businessman Svante Kumlin use a vexatious defamation lawsuit against Realid after they began to investigate his company Eco Energy World.’

The lawsuit is also known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (Slapp) and are used by governments or large corporations to saddle a journalist (or anyone publishing allegedly defamatory claims) with long term court cases and legal costs.

The case is awaiting a judgement from to see if it can be tried in England and Wales, where defamation laws are not constitutionally protected.

In December, Index, along with free expression groups RSF, Article 19 and Defence and European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) expressed their concern over the matter.

The letter read “Realtid is being sued by Svante Kumlin, a Swedish businessman, domiciled in Monaco. Realtid had been investigating Kumlin’s group of companies, Eco Energy World (EEW), ahead of an impending stock market launch in Norway, a matter of clear public interest. The investigation began in September when Realtid’s reporters wrote about another stock market launch and discovered off-market sales of shares in EEW.”

While Swedish journalists report in a relatively safe environment, there have been threats towards journalists foreign or exiled reporters in recent years. Turkish journalist Turkish journalist Abdullah Bozkurt was beaten by three men in Stockholm in September 2020 in an incident that was believed to be a threat to exiled Turkish journalists working abroad.

Critic of the authorities in the Chechen region of Russia, Tumso Abdurakhmanov was assaulted by two individuals in his hometown of Gävle, Sweden in February 2020.

Other groups

Group A

Group B

Group C

Group D[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also like to read” category_id=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]