2 Nov 2012 | Index Index, minipost, News and features
A man who shouted “no ifs, not buts, no public sector cuts” at Prime Minister David Cameron during a speech in Glasgow in July has been sentenced to 100 hours of community service, it was reported today.
Activist Stuart Rodger, 23, admitted behaving in a threatening or abusive manner by violating a security cordon; shouting and failing to desist; attempting to approach Cameron and causing fear and alarm. His sentence was reduced from 150 hours of community service to 100 due to his guilty plea. The BBC has reported that Rodger was previously fined £200 for hitting Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg with paint.
2 Nov 2012 | Uncategorized
“Can we say that?” “Can we say that publicly?” Last night’s discussion at the Free Word Centre, marking 30 years of Channel 4, hinged on these questions. For the filmmakers, programmers, board members and legal department at Channel 4, these questions are also at the heart of their day-to-day operations.
Chief Executive David Abraham’s opening words sketched an outline of Channel 4’s trajectory as “an irritant and a challenger to vested interest”. Without shareholders, state funding or fear of its commercial advertisers’ feelings, its editorial autonomy has brought it the trust of its audiences, Abrahams said.
Channel 4’s legal team, led by Prash Naik, are motivated by a presumption to publish. Line by line, shows are vetted and cleared before airing. “Can we say that?” Can we say that publicly?” It may be a struggle, but the default final answer is, rightly, “yes”.
Following Abraham’s speech, English PEN’s Jo Glanville brought together filmmakers Peter Kosminksy and Brian Woods, and media law silk Adrienne Page QC, to join David Abraham on stage.
The extortionate costs of defending a libel charge causes Adrienne Page to worry that media organisations will run scared from airing controversial material. In Brian Woods’ experience it can take years to find a home for shows addressing subjects like sexual abuse by teachers, or documentaries critiquing Islam. Though Channel 4 sometimes gets it wrong, last night’s discussion showed that the intention to provoke, stimulate and inform is still firmly part of their remit. Shocking and offending some of your audience might even be considered part and parcel of good television making. The only caveat, as Abraham put, is, “If you are gong to shock and offend do it for a purpose”.
The trend towards making more content available online, in shorter formats, with high levels of commentary and user interaction around each show, means the challenges to free expression will proliferate. Channel 4 has its own battles to fight in keeping television an essential vehicle for finding and challenging boundaries.
Eve Jackson is events manager at Index
1 Nov 2012 | Index Index, minipost, News and features
Investigative journalist Kostas Vaxevanis, whose Hot Doc magazine published a leaked list (nicknamed the “Lagarde list”) of over 2,000 names of Greeks with Swiss bank accounts, has been acquitted of breaking data privacy laws. In a video uploaded the night before his arrest earlier this week, Vaxevanis said: “They are after me instead of the truth.” His arrest drew widespread condemnation from rights groups and international media.
1 Nov 2012 | Middle East and North Africa, Opinion
Bahrain has a funny definition of free speech.
After jailing human rights activists and social media users critical of the government and even going as far as banning protests, the country’s government still insists that it protects its citizens’ right to freedom of expression.
A child protester at a rally in Bahrain, 12 October 2012 – Demotix
In the most recent case, Bahraini officials reportedly sentenced a social media user to six months in jail for insulting the country’s King Hamad on Twitter. He was one of the four Twitter users arrested last month for “defaming public figures on social media” — which, according to the Ministry of Interior, is a no-no:
The acting Director-General said that the freedom of expression was protected under the Bahraini constitution and the law. However, this freedom did not allow the defamation of others. He stressed the importance of using the social media responsibly and ethically.
So expressing discontent with Bahrain’s government seems to fall outside the bounds of what is responsible and ethical, while the online war Bahrain wages against activists and protesters seems to fall within it.
Earlier this week, Bahrain banned all protests, after “repeated abuses” of free expression. The ban is supposedly being used to diffuse what has become an even more violent and desperate situation. In the past two months, security forces have killed two teenagers. After a roadside bomb took the life of a police officer during clashes in the village of Akar, seven were arrested in connection to the attack.
Rather than merely cracking down on dissent, Bahrain would do better to follow through on its promise to implement the 140 of the 176 recommendations that came from this year Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the UN. Or even follow through on the seemingly long-forgotten recommendations from the Bahrain Independent Commission for Inquiry (BICI) last year.
But Bahrain’s desperation to silence its unrest — rather than address it — is only contributing to the country’s declining situation, and its disregard for reforms only spells out a bleak picture for its human rights situation. While insisting that it protects freedom of expression, Bahrain has actually declared war on it.
Sara Yasin is an editorial assistant at Index on Censorship. She tweets at @missyasin
