17 Jun 2013 | In the News
CANADA
Free speech doesn’t cover libel or slander, in any language
It was back in 2006 that Vancouver lawyer Roger McConchie warned in a CanWest News Service interview that libel cases were on the increase in Canada and that the Internet was “the single most important reason for the increase.” His law firm, McConchie Law Corp., has kept track of Canadian cases since the first Internet libel suit was launched in 1995, with one Julian Fantino awarded $40,000 in damages.
(Times Colonist)
CHINA
Is Hong Kong really free or does Beijing call the shots
The flight of a government whistle-blower – or possible fugitive from justice – to the quasi-democratic Chinese enclave of Hong Kong has given this former British colony a bit of free PR.
(Patriot-News)
EGYPT
Egyptian Politician: Jews Use Human Blood for Passover Matzos
The Muslim world is keeping the centuries old “matzah blood libel” alive and well – even in Egypt, with which Israel has a peace treaty.
(Arutz Sheva 7)
EUROPEAN UNION
EU deal to protect film, TV, sets the stage for transatlantic trade pact
Compromise protecting film, TV from market liberalisation permits progress on transatlantic talks but could stoke protectionism in US
(South China Morning Post)
INDIA
EU not ready to give India ‘data secure’ status
The European Union has picked holes in India’s data security system and suggested that a joint expert group be set up to propose ways on how the country should tighten measures to qualify as a data secure nation.
(The Hindu)
MIDDLE EAST
Lifting of censorship boosts Arab media
Lifting of media censorship in Arab Spring countries has boosted local channels which have stepped into the role Aljazeera had been playing in the region for years, according to a new book.
(The Peninsula)
UNITED KINGDOM
Met chief ‘faces libel claim over Plebgate’
Britain’s most senior police officer faces being called to testify on oath over leaks in the Andrew Mitchell ‘Plebgate’ affair.
(Daily Mail)
The home of free speech closes down for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden
The news that the Government is trying to prevent whistleblower Edward Snowden from travelling to this country by telling airlines not to accept him as a passenger has made me furious.
(The Independent)
DIY YouTube directors to self-regulate under new censorship scheme
Film watchdogs in three countries including UK are to pilot a program in which amateur video-makers can self-regulate
(The Observer)
UNITED STATES
First Amendment Ban on ‘gruesome images’ threatens free speech
For those of us who worry about the vitality of free speech in the “land of the free,” recent news isn’t good. On June 10, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a Colorado appeals court decision banning anti-abortion activists from displaying “gruesome images” of mutilated fetuses that might be seen by children.
(Pantagraph)
15 Jun 2013 | Magazine, Volume 42.02 Summer 2013
[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”90659″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://shop.exacteditions.com/gb/index-on-censorship”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
Subscribe to Index on Censorship magazine on your Apple, Android or desktop device for just £17.99 a year. You’ll get access to the latest thought-provoking and award-winning issues of the magazine PLUS ten years of archived issues, including The multipolar challenge to free expression.
Subscribe now.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
14 Jun 2013 | Comment, Europe and Central Asia, News and features
Russia’s new blasphemy law is censorship under the guise of protection for believers, says Padraig Reidy
In his speech on Russia’s Constitution Day in December 2012, Vladimir Putin bemoaned the decline of spiritual values.
“Today, Russia suffers an apparent deficit of spiritual values,” said Putin, as his Orthodox ally Patriarch Kirill nodded along.
The former KGB man continued: “We must wholeheartedly support the institutions that are the carriers of traditional values.”
So far, so Mother Russia.
What was interesting was that the president went on to say that it would be “amoral” to create laws governing spirituality. Putin commented ““Any attempts of the government to intervene with people’s beliefs are effectively a sign of totalitarian rule. It’s absolutely out of the question. It’s not our way.”
This would seem at odds with this week’s passing of a new blasphemy law, which will impose prison sentences and fines on people convicted of “public actions expressing clear disrespect for society and committed with the goal of offending religious feelings of the faithful”.
But it is in fact very much in the mould of the current trend for religious defamation law.
Traditionally, blasphemy was the crime of causing offence to God himself; now it is recast as causing offence to believers. Blasphemy laws are here to protect us. Look back at the testimony durings Pussy Riot’s trial, and again and again you hear the stories of poor innocent believers who were shocked by the women’s behaviour; even if the Patriarch and the president had wished to forgive the punk group, they had to think of the poor pious babushkas who had been rocked to the very core by an act that some admitted to not actually having witnessed.
Shamefully, Ireland has led the way in this trend. The Irish Defamation Act of 2009 established definitions and punishments for blasphemy where none had previously existed (in spite of the fact that the 1937 constitution recognised blasphemy as a crime, it did not define what blasphemy was, and thus, there had never been a conviction for blasphemy, or even a full trial, in the country).
The Irish law defines religious defamation as any action likely to cause “outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion”, with fines of up to e25,000 payable by those found guilty.
The wording of the Irish bill was used as a template in the Organisation of Islamic Conference’s attempts to get the UN to recognise religious defamation as a crime.
Of course, the old-fashioned definitions of blasphemy still exist: in Egypt this week, writer Amer Saber was given a five-year sentence for “contempt of religion” for authoring a short story collection called “Where is God?”. And in Syria, a teenager was reportedly shot in front of his family merely for uttering the name of Muhammad. The abuses of blasphemy law in Pakistan are only too well known.
But the justification for blasphemy laws, as with many other censorious impulses, is increasingly tied up in the idea that people should be protected from offence, from controversy, even from being challenged.
Perhaps the most offensive notion is that we cannot deal with ideas, even aggressively expressed ideas, that we disagree with. Government’s such as Putin’s are all too happy to shut down free speech and repackage censorship as benign protection.
14 Jun 2013 | Digital Freedom
Once labelled the “enemy of the internet” — Tunisia has made tremendous strides in the past two years towards opening up the internet. Still, the country continues to face challenges in its road to expanding freedom online. Afef Abrougui reports
Tunisia is scheduled to host the third annual Freedom Online Coalition conference next week (17-18 June). The country became part of the coalition in September 2012, joining 17 other countries pledged to advance internet freedom.
A great leap forward
In a press conference last September, Tunisia’s ICT minister Mongi Marzoug announced the end of online filtering — killing “Ammar 404” (the nickname given to the country’s filtering system by its netizens).
Just this month, CEO of the Tunisian Internet Agency (ATI) Moez Chakchouk announced that ATI won an appeal against filtering of adult content. The case dates back to May 2011, when a primary court ordered the agency to filter X-rated websites on the ground that they represent a “threat to minors and the values of Islam.” After losing the appeal in August 2011, the Cassation Court quashed the filtering verdict and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal in February 2012.
“This is not about pornography; it’s a matter of principle. In post-revolutionary Tunisia, we are determined to break with the former regime’s censorship practices”, Chakchouk wrote for Index on Censorship magazine in December 2012.
Under the autocratic rule of now ousted President Zeine el Abidin Ben Ali, the ATI enforced government requests for content filtering — even though the country has never had a law requiring the agency to do so. The ATI’s recent win will only help reinforce its role as a neutral internet exchange point.
Threatened Freedom
Despite ending its filtering practises, internet freedom remains threatened by legislation inherited from the era of Tunisia’s dictatorship. For instance, laws that make ISPs liable for third-party content, obliging them to monitor and take down material deemed to violate public order and “good morals” remain on the books. While this particular law has not been enforced post-Ben Ali, other relics from Tunisia’s dictator days have been used to prosecute bloggers.
On 29 May, Hakim Ghanmi, author of the blog Warakat Tounsia, stood trial before a military court for a post he made on 10 April, critical of the administration of a military hospital in Gabes, a city in the south of Tunisia. Ghanmi alleged that his sister-in-law was denied medical treatment by the hospital director, despite having an appointment. The blogger has been accused of “undermining the reputation of the army” (article 91 of the Code of Military Justice), “disturbing others through public communication networks” (article 86 of the Telecommunications Code), and “defamation of a public official” (article 128 of the Penal Code) following a complaint lodged by the hospital director. He currently faces up to three years in prison, and his trial is set to resume on 3 July.
Last year, a court convicted Jabeur Mejri and Ghazi Beji to seven and a half years in prison over publishing content deemed to be offensive to Islam online, under article 86 of the Telecommunication Code, and article 121(3) of the Penal Code which bans the publication of content “liable to cause harm to the public order.” On 12 June, Courrier de l’Atlas reported that Beji, who was sentenced in absentia, has now obtained political asylum in France. Mejri, however, remains in prison after losing appeal at the Cassation Court on 26 April.
If Tunisia is serious about serving as a model of internet freedom in the region and guaranteeing freedom of expression, legal reforms are urgently needed. Adopting a constitution that enshrines free speech — in accordance with the country’s obligations under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) — is equally fundamental.
