6 Oct 2011 | Uncategorized
Self-censorship, market forces, nudity in Trafalgar Square and offence were all up for discussion at the launch of Index’s on Censorship magazine’s “Art Issue” on Wednesday at the Free Word Centre.
Artists Langlands & Bell gave a firsthand account of what it was like to have their work censored by the Tate despite their willingness to alter parts of the work to ensure the gallery was not in contempt of court. Ben Langlands spoke of the frustration they felt at not being able to show their work in its entirety – and with Tate for not being transparent about the reasons behind the removal of their film “Zardad’s Dog”, part of their Turner-nominated The House of Osama Bin Laden.
But contemporary politics is of course only one factor determining what art the public gets to see. Langlands also raised the subject of financial forces taking their toll on free expression in the art world. Artist Peter Kennard, who was in the audience, argued that, from the moment a student enrols in art school, censorship is at play, finding a comfortable home in art institutions, supported as they are by corporate sponsors. But London Mayor Boris Johnson’s culture chief Justine Simon argued that all subjects are fair game for artists. Another member of the audience, a legal consultant specialising in art law, spoke of the real danger galleries face if they choose to exhibit controversial art – often resulting in a visit from the police.
The Guardian’s art critic Adrian Searle lamented the fact that gallery publicity materials constantly insisted an exhibition would challenge preconceptions. “I can’t remember the last time that happened”, he said. “I want the right to be offended; I don’t want someone telling me what I can and can’t look at.”
Yasmine Alibhai-Brown, who spoke of her firsthand experience of paying the price for artistic freedom, denied the existence of any “fantastic freedom” in the UK. She insisted the real concern around freedom of expression in visual art was not offence, but a very real need for “sophisticated thought” in a complicated society. An honest and fair look at each individual context was necessary; occasionally “internal censorship is not a bad thing at all”, she added.
To subscribe to Index on Censorship’s award-winning magazine, click here.
6 Oct 2011 | Leveson Inquiry
I’ve just got back from the first session of the Leveson Inquiry seminars, designed to allow interested parties to debate the issues that will be at stake in the Inquiry itself and to give the Inquiry’s panellists an education (Index chief exec John Kampfner will be giving his submission next week).
There was a massive array of speakers, including pretty much every national newspaper editor in the country, and masses of contributions (after brief presentations, the rest of the day was Town-Hall style, with the Inquiry panellists Sir David Bell, Elinor Goodman and George Jones calling on contributions). A few key themes emerged:
– Commercial pressures cannot be blamed for unethical practice. Journalists are competitive, newsrooms are competitive, editors are demanding – but these are newsroom cultures which are separate from commerce. Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger pointed out that the newspaper market is not a true market anyway – in that many titles (his own included) are essentially subsidised by proprietors or trusts.
– There seems to be an odd belief at large that bloggers are not subject to the same legal impediments as newspapers. There was a lot of discussion of how if newspapers didn’t get stories, the stories would circulate online anyway. While say, the breaking of the Ryan Giggs injunction may seem a case in point, the fact is that in terms of what they publish, newspapers face the exact same laws as bloggers, Facebook users, tweeters etc. If something is libellous, it is libellous. If something is in contempt of court, it is in contempt of court.
– Everyone’s still struggling with how to get the web to pay. Media analyst Claire Enders told the room that £1 billion has been knocked off regional newspaper classified revenue since 2008. Alun Edwards, editor of the Western Mail, suggested that targeted online behavioural advertising might help replace this.
– Encouragingly, the morning session didn’t turn into qualities vs tabloids. Though former Daily Star hack Richard Peppiat painted a grim picture of the tabloid newsroom, most were keen to stress that as the Mail on Sunday’s Peter Wright pointed, “It is not intrinsically better to write about the crisis in the Eurozone than it is to write about last night’s big football match.” Steven Barnett of Westminster University expanded on this, saying we should “not confuse news values and news gathering techniques”.
The seminars continue this afternoon and on 12 October
6 Oct 2011 | Index Index, minipost
A Radio Free Europe correspondent in Turkmenistan has been sentenced to five years in prison. Dovletmurad Yazguliyev was sentenced yesterday on charges of inciting his sister-in-law to attempt to commit suicide. Yazguliyev was detained on 27 September and his family were pressured to sign a statement backing up the charges against him. Yazguliyev and his colleagues believe that the arrest is an attempt to silence the journalist for his critical reports: he was one of the first journalists to break news of deadly arms storage explosions in the eastern town of Abadan on 7 July.
6 Oct 2011 | News and features
Defamation cases should be mediated, and if they are not, they should be the subject of an early neutral evaluation by a High Court Judge, say Index on Censorship and English PEN in their report on defamation procedure.
Funded by the Nuffield Foundation, the Alternative Libel Project’s first report published on 6 October also recommends that:
• judges must use stricter case management;
• litigants should be able to make a stand alone application to determine the meaning of the allegations in question; and
• a costs regime must be introduced to redress the inequality of arms between the parties.
John Kampfner, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship said:
Defamation procedure needs to change so the balance between freedom of expression and reputation is not affected by the relative resources of litigants but by the strength of their claims. The recommendations we have made will not only result in many more cases being resolved very early on, they will ensure that those cases that do go to trial in the High Court are dealt with more efficiently.
The report is a preliminary one and Index on Censorship and English PEN are inviting views on their proposals before the 18 November. To comment, please e-mail Helen Anthony at helen[@]englishpen.org.
The Alternative Libel Project Preliminary Report October 2011
