GLOBAL Facebook and the outer limits of free speech
The great thing about the Web is that it has given the opportunity to billions of people, who would otherwise never have had a chance to publish, to express their most urgent thoughts with an Internet connection and a few finger-flicks. (Reuters)
BRAZIL Brazilian court gags protester in latest social media ruling
A judge from the Brazilian state of São Paulo has barred a protester from an allegedly illegal construction site or even posting about it on Facebook. It’s the latest in a string of rulings targeting social media in the country. Rafael Spuldar reports (Index on Censorship)
CANADA Rob Ford, Toronto Star, And Libel Chill: How Gawker Got The Crack-Smoking Scoop
If a newspaper isn’t willing to deliver news of public interest to its readers, it’s only a matter of time before someone else will step in. The Toronto Star learned that lesson the hard way earlier this month when Gawker, a New York-based gossip blog, scooped the century-old newspaper by announcing Toronto Mayor “Rob Ford Smokes Crack Cocaine” in a blog post that has since been viewed by almost 1 million people. (International Business Times)
IRAN US eases export restrictions in bid to aid free speech
The United States has lifted a ban on sales of communications equipment to Iranians and opened access to internet services and social media, aiming to help the Iranian people circumvent tough government controls. (The Telegraph)
SINGAPORE Singapore: Regulation or censorship?
Singaporean journalists and bloggers are criticising a new media regulation that they believe will stifle independent news and information about the country. (Al Jazeera)
TUNISIA Tunisia: Amend Counterterrorism Law – Reforms Necessary to Protect Fundamental Rights
Tunisian legislators should revise the 2003 counterterrorism law, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to the National Constituent Assembly. The 2003 law uses an overly broad definition of terrorism and incitement to terrorism and undermines the right to an effective defense. Prosecutors should not charge anyone under the law until it is amended in line with Tunisia’s human rights obligations, Human Rights Watch said. (All Africa)
Tunisia topless protester faces new charges
A Tunisian judge on Thursday announced fresh charges against a young Tunisian woman with the topless protest group Femen, as three Europeans began a second night in custody after baring their breasts. (AFP)
UNITED STATES Did Public Television Commit Self-Censorship to Appease Billionaire Funder David Koch?
Filmmakers Tia Lessin and Carl Deal say plans for their new documentary to air on public television have been quashed after billionaire Republican David Koch complained about the PBS broadcast of another film critical of him, “Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream,” by acclaimed filmmaker Alex Gibney. Lessin and Deal were in talks to broadcast their film, “Citizen Koch,” on PBS until their agreement with the Independent Television Service fell through. (Democracy Now)
Dark money is not free speech
Let’s be clear. Gov. Rick Perry’s veto of a “dark money” bill is not about free speech, as he claims.
It’s about dirty politics and secret donors. The veto is support for old-school cronyism. (San Antonion Express-News)
ZIMBABWE Baba Jukwa manifests freedom of speech
THE Baba Jukwa social media phenomenon — which has taken Zimbabwe by storm as the anonymous writer nears 100 000 likes on Facebook — needs to be evaluated in the context of free speech and free flow of information in a democratising society such as Zimbabwe, as it gives a critical dimension into resistance struggles that do not necessarily involve “big men” but “small men” agency which has sent shock waves across the entire authoritarian system while ruffling feathers of the powers that be. (Zimbabwe Independent)
Widespread self-censorship and fear of causing offence is suppressing creativity and ideas in the United Kingdom, according to a conference report published by Index on Censorship.
The findings are based on the January 2013 conference ‘Taking the Offensive – defending artistic freedom of expression in the UK’ — the first national debate about the social, political and legal challenges to artistic freedom of expression.
The conference was hosted by Jude Kelly, OBE, artistic director of Southbank Centre. The keynote speech was delivered by Nicholas Serota, director of Tate. It brought together arts leaders with senior police, lawyers, media and internet executives, religious commentators and arts funders to explore challenges to artists and the growth of self-censorship in contemporary culture.
There are multiple pressures on artistic freedom of expression and censorship has become a major issue for the arts sector in this country, the report reveals. Among the key findings:
• Widespread self-censorship at an institutional level is suppressing creativity and ideas, with some artists from black and ethnic communities experiencing additional obstacles
• Worries about public and media ‘outrage’ or the loss of funding if they cause offence are causing many cultural institutions to be overly cautious in their choice of work at commission and production stages
• The fear of police intervention or legal action is fuelled by a lack of information about the legal framework around freedom of expression
Some of the pressures on artistic free expression in the UK can be explained by a climate of caution and security consciousness. A preoccupation with risk assessment in arts organisations and public institutions, including the police, can lead to a prevalence of uncontentious, safe programming that limits both the range of voices and the space for artistic expression.
Throughout the day-long conference, there was a recurring call for programmers and producers to reclaim controversy; to embrace the disagreement and discord that is inherent to art work that engages with socially sensitive subjects. Many participants stressed the importance of art that explores challenging questions and the contribution that debate, generated by artwork, makes to democracy. Greater transparency about decision making, greater co-operation between organisations and more open debate with the public were seen as key components to any strategy to reinforce support for freedom of expression.
The full conference report is available in PDF or online here
Banning hate preachers from the airwaves is the wrong response
Theresa May’s proposals to ban radical preachers from the airwaves and block extremist websites are illiberal, impractical and may breach the UK’s commitment to human rights.
What a difference a month makes. Just weeks after a Queen’s Speech that heralded the end of the draft Communications Data Bill (aka the ‘Snoopers’ Charter’), the government seems to be mounting a dramatic U-turn after the attack in Woolwich. Home Secretary Theresa May has signalled plans are afoot for wider surveillance powers, new bars on the broadcast of radical preachers and the blocking of extremist websites. This is the wrong response. Not only would these measures be wrong in principle, they are likely to make the fight against extremism harder as the government undermines the values it seeks to promote.
It is expected that a new task force will propose granting Ofcom the power to pre-emptively bar radical preachers from the television, in response to Anjem Choudary’s invitation onto Newsnight. Right now, Ofcom can intervene after an unacceptable broadcast has been made. It’s not as if Ofcom wants additional powers – it has publicly stated its powers are already sufficient to tackle extremism on television and the internet. Not unreasonably, Ofcom doesn’t want to get into the censorship game with its staff instructing TV stations which preachers they can and cannot broadcast. It’s not even clear how pre-emptive censorship would work – is the Home Secretary going to create a list of people so undesirable they can’t appear on television (but not so extremist they could be prosecuted for an actual crime)? This heavy-handed political interference in the working of the media would be totally unacceptable in a free country. Former Home Secretary Jack Straw, John Whittingdale MP and former BBC director-general Greg Dyke have all expressed their concerns over this knee-jerk response with Dyke adding: “The point is that the BBC makes its own editorial decisions. If they turn out to be wrong someone can make a complaint to Ofcom afterwards. But you fundamentally change the BBC’s role if they can intervene before. It isn’t workable.”
This isn’t in fact a new proposal. The British government has tried this tactic before by censoring the voices of leading Sinn Fein spokespeople. After a visit to Poland during which Margaret Thatcher told her Communist hosts ‘In modern societies, success depends on openness and free discussions’, her government back home banned the voices of groups associated with terrorism from television. Instead actors had to dub over the words spoken by these group’s spokespeople. Not only was the legislation unworkable, it was embarrassing. When Gerry Adams visited the USA in February 1994, US broadcasters boasted of carrying the voice of ‘the man whose voice is banned in Britain’. There is little doubt Choudary would exploit any ban on his appearance on TV.
Time is running out
Think you have what it takes to be published by Index on Censorship? Here’s your chance to find out. Enter our blogging contest for a chance to win £100. More >>>
Index on Censorship Events Caught in the web: how free are we online? June 10, 2013
The internet: free open space, wild wild west, or totalitarian state? However you view the web, in today’s world it is bringing both opportunities and threats for free expression. More >>>
This embarrassment would have profound implications for our role in attempting to promote freedom in the world. How would the Foreign Office be able to decry the trampling of media or internet freedom in Belarus or Iran, if the Home Secretary is busy creating the lists of individuals banned from British TV and which websites to block? How would the British government point to the principle of freedom of expression after controversies such as the Innocence of Muslims when it would be censoring individuals before they have even aired views?
Tough laws are already in place. The Terrorism Act 2000 has proven too broad in scope and detrimental towards freedom of expression. Section 57 of the Terrorism Act makes it illegal to possess an article for a purpose connected with terrorism which has criminalised the study of extremist or terrorist ideology. In 2008, Rizwaan Sabir, a student was arrested on suspicion of possessing extremist material after he worked on his PhD on radical Islamic groups. He was arrested and detained for 6 days and subsequently released without charge. Curtailing researchers’ ability to examine and deconstruct terrorism is just one way in which this law is detrimental to our security.
Anjem Choudary will have his fingers crossed for a TV ban, so he can level the charge of hypocrisy at the British government. Theresa May should not rise to the bait. Inciting violence is already illegal, the law should be enforced. Yet, creating lists by political dictat of who can and can’t appear on TV or the internet is a step too far. If we are to tackle violent extremism it will require the full exposure of flawed opinions to open scrutiny.
Michael Harris, Head of Advocacy, Index on Censorship. Follow him on Twitter @mjrharris
A judge from the Brazilian state of São Paulo has barred a protester from an allegedly illegal construction site or even posting about it on Facebook. It’s the latest in a string of rulings targeting social media in the country. Rafael Spuldar reports
