24 Apr 2012 | Events
Date: Sat 26 May
Time:4.30pm
Venue: Brighton Festival (Pavilion Theatre, New Road, Brighton, BN1 1UG)
Tickets: here (more just released)
Open dialogue is the key to a healthy, cohesive society, but some fear the disruptive, dangerous potential of truly free speech.
Inspired by themes of DV8’s show Can We Talk About This? (see Dance), the event presents an interactive conversation about how, when and why we censor ourselves. Chaired by Kenan Malik, author of From Fatwa to Jihad and regular guest on The Moral Maze, the discussion moves between panellists – DV8 choreographer and director Lloyd Newson, activist, author and broadcaster Maryam Namazie, Rabbi Elli Sarah, co-founder of women’s rights organisation Inspire Tahmina Saleem, Oxford University’s Jeremy Waldron and the audience using electronic polling terminals, with poll results screened live.
In association with Free Word.
24 Apr 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
In an explosive afternoon at the Leveson Inquiry, culture secretary Jeremy Hunt was branded a “cheerleader” for the News Corporation’s bid for BSkyB.
A round of revelations from former News International chairman James Murdoch, detailing extensive emails between the media proprietor and News Corporation’s director of public affairs, Fréderic Michel, suggested Hunt was in close contact with News International during the time business secretary Vince Cable was considering the BSkyB bid.
The inquiry heard that Hunt had received “strong legal advice” against meeting with Murdoch, but one email suggested that the pair speak on the telephone at a later date. As the hearing continued through the afternoon, Robert Jay QC explored numerous emails describing communications between Michel and Hunt’s office and advisors.
Jay told Murdoch that the emails made it “clear that you were receiving information along the lines that the UK government as a whole would be supportive of News Corp”, but Murdoch replied that Hunt had made similar comments publically, and the emails were “not inappropriate”.
Murdoch said: “I think Mr Hunt had said personally he didn’t see any issues … there’s no special information in there.”
The court heard that Hunt had said he was “frustrated” at not being able to contact Murdoch. After exploring a number of emails, Jay proposed that as informal contact had been discouraged, Michel continued communications with Hunt’s office through back door methods:
Jay said: “Mr Hunt must have taken the advice that formal meetings were ok, that would not impugn the fairness of the process. Informal contact would be inappropriate and the way to avoid the appearance of that is to let that contact take place secretly via Michel.”
Despite the support being given to Murdoch and News Corporation by Hunt, he denied thinking the BSkyB deal was “in the bag”, stressing that he was “very worried” about the transaction and his concerns grew as the process continued.
The Leveson Inquiry today published the 163 pages of correspondence between Jeremy Hunt’s office and News Corp over the BSkyB takeover.
Hunt was handed responsibility for the bid in December 2010 after it was taken away from Vince Cable, and has repeatedly stressed that the bid was handled in a way which was “completely fair, impartial and above board”.
Pressure has begun to mount on Hunt to resign amid the allegations, and a number of bookmakers have stopped taking bets that he will be the next cabinet minister to leave the government. A source reportedly told the BBC that the politician was “not even considering resignation” and would present his own evidence to the inquiry within the coming days.
Murdoch was also probed on his relationships with other politicians, including Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron. He admitted, for the first time, that in 2010 during a dinner at the home of Rebekah Brooks, former News International chief executive, he discussed the BSkyB deal with Cameron, but Murdoch said he mentioned the dismissal of Cable during a “tiny conversation”.
The former chairman denied that his meetings with Cameron were to ascertain where he stood on issues such as regulation of press and TV, which would affect Mr Murdoch’s companies.
Murdoch also denied linking the political affiliation of a newspaper to a “commercial transaction like this”.
He added: “Nor would I expect that political support one way or another ever to translate into a minister behaving in an appropriate way, ever. I simply would not do business that way.”
James Murdoch resigned from News International in February 2012.
Rupert Murdoch will give evidence to the inquiry tomorrow, to deal with allegations that he was aware of allegations that phone hacking was more widespread than “rogue reporter” Clive Goodman.
Follow Index’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry @IndexLeveson
24 Apr 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
James Murdoch underwent a grilling at the Leveson Inquiry this morning, and denied accusations that he approved “over the odds” phone hacking settlements to prevent further damage to the reputation of News International.
The former chairman of News International denied the claims that the settlements were used to prevent details of more widespread hacking allegations coming into the public domain.
Referring to a settlement in the case of football Chief Gordon Taylor, in which both Taylor and News International sought confidentiality, Robert Jay QC described the payout, believed to be in the region of £700,000 in 2008, as “hush money.” Murdoch denied these claims, explaining that he had received advice from lawyers not to pursue the case further, to prevent events of the past being “dragged up”.
Jay also suggested that Taylor sought a higher payout because he was aware of the reputational damage that News International could have been subjected to as a result of his claim, though Murdoch denied ever hearing any discussion of the case as one of blackmail.
When asked if Murdoch considered the payout to be an extraordinary amount, he said: “I was told sufficient information to authorise them to go and negotiate at a higher level. I was not told sufficient information to turn over a load of stones that I was told had already been turned over.”
Murdoch added that he left it to Colin Myler, editor of the News of the World, and legal manager Tom Crone to negotiate the fee. A memo from Crone suggested that Myler was becoming increasingly frustrated with Taylor, because he felt he was attempting to blackmail the organisation.
The inquiry also heard details of a meeting on 10 June 2008, when the full extent of phone hacking was believed to be revealed in the “For Neville” email, and Taylor’s case was discussed. Murdoch denied that he had seen the email which suggested that phone hacking at News of the World was more widespread than one rogue reporter. Murdoch also claimed that the purpose of the meeting was not to bring him up to speed on the whole story.
In the same meeting, Jay suggested that Crone and Myler were “very keen” for the Taylor issue to be resolved, “to transmit the message to you that if you didn’t there were serious reputational risks to the company”.
Murdoch denied the suggestion that there was a failure of governance within the company, and that there was a cover-up of evidence linking others at News of the World to Mulcaire. He explained that he had been given “repeated assurances that the newsroom had been investigated,” and that ethics training had been undergone, and was continually ongoing.
When referred to the settlement of Max Clifford, Murdoch said he was not aware of the size of the claim. He added: “My understanding was that there was a litigation pending with Mr. Clifford but it was decided, that because there was a commercial relationship he and Rebekah Brooks wanted to re-establish, they settled it at that.”
Murdoch also recognised that the corporation had been too quick to dismiss Guardian claims in 2009, telling the court he was advised it was a smear campaign. He added: “”No matter where something comes from, whether it’s a commercial or political rival, being more dispassionate, forensic and understanding is very important.” Murdoch also acknowledged that they needed to assess allegations of wrongdoing in a way which was “dispassionate and forensic”, and regretted the “cavalier” attitude of News of the World.
James Murdoch’s testimony will continue throughout the afternoon.
Follow Index’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry @IndexLeveson
24 Apr 2012 | Digital Freedom, Middle East and North Africa
Jordanian internet users have reacted angrily to government encroachment on the freedom of the internet. Flying in the face of the reputation of Jordan as a Middle East haven for technology and relative liberalism, the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology has stated its support for a blanket ban on online pornographic material, an easy jumping-off point for wider controls.
The Ministry was responding to a petition set up through the social-networking site Facebook to censor x-rated material in order to “bring an end to sexual crimes such as incest, rape and adultery”. Leaving aside the dangers of writing policy based on Facebook petitions, the majority state-owned Jordan Times named the petition, which garnered 29,459 “likes”, as the main driver behind government support.
The petition is at the very least convenient for the government: the article, extolling this movement of “people power” glossed over the use of actual sources, hinting at the possibility that the petition could originate from within the government itself. The same article also quotes Alexa, “an Internet metrics company”, as providing the figure that “between 77 per cent and 80 per cent of Internet users in Jordan access pornographic sites”.
The Ministry of ICT will now begin consulting with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as to how to filter and block the sites, although the obliging “anonymous source” at the Jordan Times told the paper that “at this stage, there are no financial allocations for a project to block these sites.”
Jordanian bloggers have responded furiously to the implication that the government will now either use part of its’ taxpayer-funded research and development budget to pay for this move, or that the cost of censoring will be built into ISP costs. Blogger Roba Abassi cited the eventual aim of having “Internet Service Providers…provide a restricted Internet ‘by default’ and for those who want an unrestricted internet to ask for that and pay extra.”
Jordan was recently ranked at 128 out of 179 countries in Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) annual ranking of freedom of expression. A previous attempt to sanction and “regulate” online content was eventually quashed in 2010 after a widespread outcry: potential penalties ranged from fines to forced labour for posting material online that violated vaguely defined rules of “public decency” or “national security”. It seems that with the first attempt to control the internet directly by state having failed, the Jordanian government is now finding more insidious ways to pressure private companies to do their dirty work for them, citing “public interest” as their motivation.
