Dunja Mijatović: Resisting the urge to over regulate the media

20 Jan 2017 | Media Freedom, News and features

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In recent years, there has been a perceptible increase in far-reaching restrictions on the media across the globe. This impulse to restrain media freedom stems from a variety of real and perceived “threats” – from concerns about national security, to demands for media “ethics” and “responsibility”, to accusations of the media’s role in the dissemination of so-called “fake news”, most recently. The urge of states to regulate is also reinforced by the overall devaluation of the critical role played by a free and independent media across liberal democracies around the world.

The trend towards ramping up the regulation of the media has worrying implications in these states and others who are currently considering a similar response: the inability of the media to perform its role as a – if not, the – key public watchdog, the erosion of states’ international legal obligations and political commitments on freedom of expression, and a lessening of freedom of the media as a whole.

Under international law, specifically Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, states do not have free reign to control the media. Limitations on media freedom, as an aspect of freedom of expression, are allowed only in certain, narrowly defined circumstances, such as national security or the protection of privacy. However, a great many governments are currently approaching media regulation as though restrictions may be imposed at the complete discretion of states regardless of international law and commitments.

[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner content_placement=”top”][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”black” size=”lg” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]

The trend towards ramping up the regulation of the media has worrying implications

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]There have been moves to exert political control over how the media is regulated in a number of OSCE participating states. Take, for example, the January 2016 decision by Poland in a move reminiscent of Hungary’s media law reforms of 2012, to enact a law handing over the power to appoint and dismiss members of management boards of public service broadcasters, Polski Radio and Telewizja Polska, from the National Broadcasting Council to the government. I warned, before the adoption, that the legislation “endanger[s] the basic conditions of independence, objectivity and impartiality of public service broadcasters”.

Anxieties about the effects of media regulation on media freedom are not limited to transitional or newer democracies, however, as the recent debate around the implementation of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 in the UK, a traditional bastion of press freedom, suggests. As I have noted, the commencement of the provision would have punitive effects on the press for reporting on public interest issues in the UK, and have an especially onerous impact up on local and regional newspapers who are already facing significant financial challenges. It would also mean that the UK as a long-standing bastion of press freedom would send out a negative message to other states on the possibilities to regulation.

The picture is not all bad, of course. Some states have made significant positive strides in advancing freedom of the media by engaging with my office on legislative amendments, such as the government of the Netherlands on its draft Law on the Intelligence and Security Services, while others have shown advances in terms of case-law, such as Norway on the protection of sources.

Unfortunately, however, the dominant trend is a regressive one –  towards control of the media rather than the reinforcement of it through, among other things, the promotion of media self-regulation and pluralism.  This tendency of states to try and control the media is not just a matter of concern for my office, other international institutions, the media itself and civil society organisations. It is one that should worry all those who care about democratic values, the rule of law and human rights.

Dunja Mijatović is the Representative on Freedom of the Media for the OSCE, based in Vienna.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1484907257319-fb6254e3-0fad-6″ taxonomies=”6380″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Groups condemn removal of police protest painting from US Capitol

20 Jan 2017 | Statements

Untitled #1, by David Pulphus

As organisations devoted to promoting the arts and freedom of expression, we condemn the recent removal of a student painting from a public passageway on Capitol Hill. The removal shows a deep disregard of a young person’s constitutional right to free expression and is a flagrant violation of the principles underlying the nation’s commitment to the protection of free speech. It is a sad day when elected representatives of the people of the United States send a message to young people in this country that they should stifle passionate expression concerning important issues of public policy.

The painting, by St. Louis High School Senior David Pulphus, is among the winners of the annual Congressional Art Competition. It depicts, in an allegorical manner, a young artist’s vision of one of the facts of our recent past: a protest against police violence. Pulphus’ painting was selected through a process set by the Competition, which included a review by the office of the Architect of the Capitol. It was approved and remained on display for six months until conservative news outlets built up a controversy around it in late December.

The media-generated controversy was followed by multiple attempts on the part of several Republican Representatives to take down the work with their own hands (each time, Representative Clay (D-Mo) put it back up). On Friday, January 13th, Stephen Ayers, the Architect of the Capitol, ordered the painting’s removal on the basis that it violated competition guidelines stipulating that “subjects of contemporary political controversy or a sensationalistic or gruesome nature are not allowed.”

The retroactive use of the very guidelines by which the painting was selected in the first place to remove the work only serves to draw attention to the how vague these guidelines are. Worse, the fact that the decision to censor the work was made under strong political pressure coming from one side of the aisle proves how easy it is to use the vague guidelines to suppress political viewpoints.

What is “controversial” is entirely subjective and thus open to abuse and the enforcement of political bias: Indeed, many other artworks in the exhibition may be deemed controversial, including a depiction of white police officers harassing an African American playing checkers, a portrait of Bernie Sanders and another of President Obama. And, of course, portraits and statuary on permanent display in Congressional buildings represent many political figures that are controversial. That Pulphus’ painting of police protests was singled out among all these for a hasty removal, after partisan political pressure by representatives who claimed the work was offensive to law enforcement, only deepens our concerns about the elected representatives enforcing political bias and stifling speech.

Political artistic expression is protected speech, no matter how controversial or offensive some may find it. Criticism of government actors such as law enforcement officials is one of the foremost reasons why we have the First Amendment. Citizens’ freedom to speak out against perceived governmental abuses and injustices is necessary to the health of our democracy: were government able to silence such criticisms, meaningful political discourse would be rendered impossible.

Removing the work sends a message to young people – and everybody else – that they should not depict the world around them for fear of offending our political representatives. At a time when we have a new administration and nationwide concerns about free speech, the censoring of an artwork because of its viewpoint is a deeply disturbing and divisive act in an already polarised nation.

We urge the Architect of the Capitol to take the time to consider arguments from both sides of the aisle and make a decision that upholds one of the nation’s most cherished values, a value that should not be subject to partisan strife: the value of free speech. We hope that rather than exacerbating partisan conflict, the controversy around this young person’s painting becomes a unifying educational opportunity to reinforce free speech principles across both sides of the aisle.

National Coalition Against Censorship
American Civil Liberties Union
American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia
American Society of Journalists and Authors
Authors Guild
College Art Association
Comic Book Legal Defense Fund
Free Speech Coalition
Index on Censorship
PEN America
Vera List Center for Art and Politics
Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts

#FashionRules: Fashion is a crucial element of free expression

19 Jan 2017 | Event Reports, News and features, Volume 45.04 Winter 2016 Extras

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”It may be easy to dismiss fashion as a trivial issue, but an expert panel argued otherwise at the launch of the winter 2016 Index on Censorship magazine’s new issue.” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlUhPA3TuB56uIAdpLWxk_kqBzjVOV9_J” title=”#FashionRules at Google”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

“I wasn’t trying to rebel,” former Elle magazine editor Maggie Alderson told the room at the launch of Index on Censorship’s winter 2016 issue Fashion Rules: Dressing to Oppress, which was hosted by Google at its central London offices. “I was just expressing myself.”

Maggie Alderson was speaking about how she was arrested in London as a teenager for wearing a t-shirt featuring two naked cowboys, and she lamented what she sees as a lack of creativity in modern western fashion, longing for the days when she would be frequently shocked and even appalled by designers such as Alexander McQueen.

Alderson was joined by fellow panelists — fashion historian Amber Butchart, New African Woman magazine editor Regina Jane Jere-Malanda, and award-winning journalist Laura Silvia Battaglia — for a wide-ranging discussion chaired by Index magazine editor Rachael Jolley to explore the nexus between fashion and freedom of expression.

Battaglia explained the literal interpretation of the Koran that requires women to cover their faces with “a towel”, and told of a teenage girl in Saudi Arabia who received death threats after posting a selfie without her compulsory abaya, but pointed out that those same sects of Islam also require men to dress a certain way.

Regina Jane Jere-Malanda did not hesitate to call out the misogyny of attitudes to women’s clothing in African countries, telling of how an MP in her home country of Zambia was thrown of Parliament for wearing a skirt that was too short, while Amber Butchart said that people have never liked being ordered to conform, explaining how American sailors used to sew intricate patterns into the inside of their uniforms to express themselves while on shore leave, and mentioning that Tartan became a symbol of Scottish rebellion simply because it was banned by the English.

Audience questions raised new topics such as the politics surrounding black women wearing natural hairstyles, and the taboo on men wearing women’s clothing.

Listen to the #FashionRules playlist.

Thank you to Google for hosting #FashionRules, as well as our publishers SAGE for helping to make the event happen.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]You can order your copy of the latest issue here, or take out a digital subscription via Exact Editions. Copies are also available at the BFI, the Serpentine Gallery, MagCulture, (London), News from Nowhere (Liverpool), Home (Manchester), Calton Books (Glasgow) and on Amazon. Each magazine sale helps Index on Censorship continue its fight for free expression worldwide.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”84974″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_media_grid element_width=”3″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1484923141783-3032303e-c962-0″ include=”84955,84957,84958,84959,84960,84961,84962,84963,84965,84966,84967,84968,84969,84970,84971,84972,84973,84974,84975″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row content_placement=”top”][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Fashion Rules” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2016%2F12%2Ffashion-rules%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The winter 2016 issue of Index on Censorship magazine looks at fashion and how people both express freedom through what they wear.

In the issue: interviews with Lily Cole, Paulo Scott and Daphne Selfe, articles by novelists Linda Grant and Maggie Alderson plus Eliza Vitri Handayani on why punks are persecuted in Indonesia. Special report on clothes and freedom, how Shakespeare challenges the censors, and assessing Correa’s free speech heritage.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”82377″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2016/12/fashion-rules/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1481888488328{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.

Subscription options from £18.

Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.

SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK