23 Jul 2021 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117110″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]When launching Index on Censorship 50 years ago, our founder, the poet and novellist Stephen Spender, stated: “The world is moving in two directions: one is towards the narrowing of distances through travel, increasing interchange between scientists (who take a world view of problems such as the exploration of space, ecology, population): the other is towards the shutting down of frontiers, the ever more jealous surveillance by governments and police of individual freedom. The opposites are fear and openness; and in being concerned with the situation of those who are deprived of their freedoms one is taking the side of openness.”
This was written in 1971 – 36 years before the launch of the iPhone – and yet could easily have been written today, especially our increasing reliance on scientists as global citizens in the world of global pandemics.
But given the news this week about the reach of the spyware Pegasus we are reminded of both the advances of emergent technology and the ongoing determination of repressive regimes and hostile actors to use it against their citizens, to silence critics and to restrict media freedom. Those seeking to censor and intimidate in the 21st century may be using different tools, but the objective remains the same.
Pegasus, developed by NSO, is being used to extract information from the smartphones of its targets. In theory this technology was developed for use by the security services of those countries that have a positive human rights record. In reality it seems that the use of this technology is much more extensive and it is being used to target human rights defenders, civil rights activists and journalists around the world.
Using this spyware to undermine those who seek to uphold the liberal values we all hold dear is not only a breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – it is also an attack on every one of us who stands for those values.
The public exposure of the impact of this technology is investigative journalism at its best; the use of this technology by state actors to undermine their citizenry and core human rights is the new frontier in the fight against censorship and surveillance.
How we communicate with each other has evolved beyond all recognition in the last half century and yet we know that tyrants and repressive regimes around the world have the same objectives that they always have – to retain power by any means necessary, which is why they are using every tool at their disposal. Our job is to fight loudly and expose each attack on our collective human rights.
Index has always been on the side of openness and proudly (and loudly) taken a stand against repression. We continue that tradition today and stand with the journalists and activists around the world who are being targeted by repressive regimes – whether by Pegasus or any other technology.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
22 Jul 2021 | Academic Freedom, News and features, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117096″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]A high school cheerleader has won an important victory for the right of students to express their opinions freely while off campus.
At the end of June, the US Supreme Court ruled eight to one that the rights of high school student Brandi Levy had been violated in a case dating back to 2017.
After failing to make the varsity cheerleading team, Levy had posted profanity-laced criticisms of the team roster on Snapchat while off campus at a local convenience store. The team captain kicked her off the junior varsity cheerleading team for a year as punishment.
The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether schools had the right to regulate off-campus speech; it ruled that her posts did not disrupt school operations so Levy’s rights had been violated. The court maintained that schools have a right to regulate speech in some “school-related, off-campus activities” without defining what that would look like.
David Cole, the legal director of the ACLU, called the ruling a victory for students, saying “the message from this ruling is clear – free speech is for everyone, and that includes public school students”. The director of the Pennsylvania ACLU, which represented Levy, characterised the precedent established by the ruling, saying they successfully argued that “students have greater free speech rights out of school and on their own time.”
Despite the nature of her comments, Levy was motivated to fight for her rights. She commented publicly that she was proud to have advocated for the rights of students saying, “young people need to have the ability to express themselves without worrying about being punished when they get to school”.
Recent graduates from Blake High School in Maryland broadly agree with the principle the court ruled on – that her speech did not disrupt the safety of the school.
Cole Shankel, class of 2023, said, “She’s overreacting… cheerleading is lame,” but added, “I don’t think public schools should be allowed to punish students for off-campus speech.”
Jeniffer Ventura, class of 2021, pointed out, “Being held accountable for your actions online is important,” expressing concern about online hate speech and racism affecting the safety and security of the community. Julian Kabik, also the class of 2021, stated simply, “If you are not making a deliberate threat online, then I don’t think you should be punished.”
This is the first student free speech case to favour students since the landmark 1969 case Tinker v Demois. The case considered students who had been suspended for wearing black armbands in protest at the war in Vietnam; the court ruled schools must show a substantial disruption to school operations, besides the speech being unpleasant, to restrict a student’s right to free speech.
The right of students to exercise free speech established in the case has been eroded by others since then. In 1986, Bethel v Fraser ruled that schools could regulate certain styles of expression if they were sexually vulgar. In 1989, in Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier, the court ruled schools had the right to regulate the content of school publications. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Morse v Frederick that schools may restrict speech at or in view of a school-supervised event if it promoted illegal drug use. The US Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit Court in 2013 and Ninth Circuit Court in 2014 ruled a student’s dress could be restricted in two separate cases related to wearing the confederate flag or American flag, respectively. The courts ruled student dress had incited disruption, and the Supreme Court declined to hear both cases.
The Levy ruling has broken the trend in student speech law, affirming students’ off-campus rights and considering the role of extracurricular activities for the first time. A ruling against Levy would have further crippled the original 1969 ruling, allowing schools to restrict students based on their speech being unpalatable and extending a school’s authority to restrict student speech to include online and off-campus speech.
Despite this, the Levy ruling is not a decisive victory for American students’ right to free speech.
When students are on campus, schools act in loco parentis – they function in place of parents. This gives schools legal authority over minors’ rights while they are at school and formally gives all other authority over minors to their legal guardians. This doctrine and the fact that Levy was off campus when she made the posts was at the centre of the majority opinion’s arguments. Since the Levy ruling reaffirms the school’s on-campus authority over student’s rights, this aspect can be interpreted as an opening to further restrict student speech when on campus.
In questioning, some justices raised concerns about a school’s ability to punish off-campus speech that was threatening to other students. Other justices raised concerns of what schools would do with authority over off-campus speech that was politically controversial.
The justices’ questions indicate that they feel the issue of off-campus speech needs to be further unpacked. All but two of the justices are under the age of 70, and all three of former President Donald Trump’s appointments are under the age of 60. With the composition of the court being unlikely to change any time soon, the right of students to express themselves freely may yet be further eroded.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
18 Jul 2021 | Cuba, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117089″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]The Cuban revolution has always been adept at PR. Even in the early days, before the revolution succeeded in overthrowing the American backed dictator Fulgencio Batista, Cuban rebel leader Fidel Castro was a master of propaganda.
When the American journalist Herbert Matthews visited the Sierra Maestra in 1957 and sat down with Castro for an interview, the guerrilla chief fooled Matthews into thinking rebel forces were stronger than they were by marching the same columns of men past at various intervals and by having ‘messengers’ report the existence of non-existent rebel units.
“From the look of things, General Batista cannot possibly hope to suppress the Castro revolt,” wrote The New York Times’ correspondent in his subsequent dispatch.
Over the ensuing half a century, Havana’s propaganda has been equally powerful, fostering an image of Cuba abroad as a besieged outpost against United States aggression; as a beacon of healthcare and education; and as a country in which children are taught to live lives of heroic self-sacrifice in emulation of revolutionary icon Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara (who is the subject of a cult of personality in Cuba).
For those living at a great distance from the Cuban reality, it is easy to be fooled by the idealistic penumbra that surrounds the Cuban revolution. The arbitrary arrests, the grinding poverty, the tentacles of the state that reach into every aspect of daily life – all are submerged in the minds of foreign admirers beneath a tide of romantic kitsch.
Yet as thousands of Cubans take to the streets in unprecedented protests against the dictatorship, it is important that Western human rights and free speech organisations do not allow the distorted image of Cuba as a tropical socialist outpost against capitalism to muddy their thinking.
Many, thankfully, have not. Each year Amnesty International produces a detailed and damning report on the human rights situation in Cuba. In its 2020 report, Amnesty noted that the authorities in Havana “continued to repress all forms of dissent, including by imprisoning independent artists, journalists and members of the political opposition”. Since the mass protests began on 11 July 2021, Amnesty has been closely monitoring the situation, publishing regular updates as to the whereabouts of Cuban activists and dissident voices.
Human Rights Watch has produced similarly comprehensive reports in its coverage of the deteriorating situation on the island for opponents of the dictatorship. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the Cuban government’s repression of citizen protests.
Yet despite the mass of evidence that the government in Havana is an egregious violator of human rights, evidence that is accumulating in real time; and despite the landmark protests by thousands of Cubans who risk imprisonment simply for taking to the streets, one senses that Cuba is unlikely to become a cause célèbre activists in the way that, say, Palestine has become so, or even Belarus or Myanmar.
Worse, some left-wing organisations in the United States and Britain, ostensibly dedicated to human rights and firmly embedded within the social democratic institutions within their countries, have sided openly with the dictatorship. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Young Labour, Black Lives Matter and the Progressive International have all released statements in support of the dictatorship in recent days.
It is vital that organisations dedicated to free speech and human rights continue to draw attention to repressive conditions and abuses inside Cuba. However it is also important that liberals and progressives take the reports that these organisations produce seriously – as seriously as they do when the same accusations are made of less fashionable (or PR-savvy) dictatorships.
During the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, many liberal and progressive voices were quick to jump on news stories featuring battalions of heroic Cuban doctors sent around the world to aid the anti-pandemic efforts. It would be nice if such interest in Cuba wasn’t so fleeting; if it looked beyond Havana’s carefully manufactured PR operation; and if it expressed itself for once by actually listening to the Cuban people and what they want.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”7874″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Jul 2021 | Media Freedom, Netherlands, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117066″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Nine days after he was shot multiple times, Dutch crime reporter Peter R de Vries has died of the injuries he sustained, his family announced on Thursday afternoon. Peter will be remembered not only for his investigations and stories, but also for the way he stood in solidarity with crime victims, deeply motivated to help them find justice. It is widely believed that his decision to act as the confidant of a crown witness in a big organised crime trial was the reason for his murder.
Reactions to De Vries’s death have started to pour in. RTL, the station that broadcasts the daily news show RTL Boulevard, in which De Vries had appeared on the day he was attacked, said: “Peter’s influence remains stronger than any act of hate can ever be. We will continue to speak freely about wrongs and injustice in society, like he did his whole life.” The Dutch Association of Editors-in-Chief said: “Peter R de Vries was an icon of Dutch journalism and an incredible support for many people. It is intensly sad that he is no longer among us. With Peter, we lost an tireless and courageous fighter for justice.”
Many victims of crimes he investigated and solved expressed their sadness over De Vries’ death.
The crime beat
De Vries started his career in 1978 as a trainee-journalist at De Telegraaf, the biggest newspaper in the Netherlands. He started using the R of his second name Rudolf to distinguish himself from a colleague with the same name. Crime journalism wasn’t really a beat yet, but he took it up and soon published his first story about a murder.
He became more famous in 1983, when he reported about the kidnapping of beer magnate Freddy Heineken. The book he published about the kidnapping a few years later remained the bestselling true crime book in the Netherlands for years.
He left the paper within a year to become the editor-in-chief of the weekly Aktueel, which he soon turned into a crime magazine. After that, he switched to TV, although he always continued to write as well.
In the early 1990s, he went freelance and started the weekly TV show ‘Peter R de Vries, crime journalist’. An episode in 2008 brought international fame: he used an undercover reporter to trigger Joran van der Sloot, a suspect in the disappearance of US teenager Natalee Holloway on the Caribbean island of Aruba, into confessing. He won an Emmy Award for it.
Another one of De Vries’s investigations revealed one of the biggest errors of judgement in Dutch judicial history: two brothers were convicted of murder, but De Vries’ investigations lead to a re-trial and acquittal, after which the real murderer could be apprehended.
Apart from his investigation into the Heineken kidnapping, De Vries was not known for reporting organised crime. He mostly focused on cold cases, deceit and scams, standing beside the victims and often confronting perpetrators in front of the camera. Him being there carrying out his own investigations with a thorough knowledge of both the criminal world and the justice system became a fact of life for both police and prosecutors, who were relentlessly held to account by De Vries as well.
Looking in the mirror
Soon after the attack on De Vries’s life last week, two suspects were arrested: a 21-year old man from Rotterdam and a 35-year old man from Poland. Although the police investigation into the murder continues, it is assumed that they were hired by suspects in the so-called Marengo case, which revolves around an extensive, exceptionally violent drugs gang, lead by Redouan Taghi, who was arrested in 2019. Peter R de Vries was the confidant of the Crown witness in the case, Nabil B.
In an interview with monthly magazine Vrij Nederland, De Vries explained: “I couldn’t have looked at myself in the mirror anymore if I had refused his request. I hold the police and the prosecutor to account and I couldn’t do that if I recoiled from requests for help myself, even if they involved risks.”
The risk was clear: in 2018, Nabil B’s brother was murdered by Taghi’s men. A year later, Derk Wiersum, Nabil B’s lawyer, was murdered. To be able to get access to his client, he gave up his position in the law office of his son Royce, where he was director and advisor.
In the last couple of years, Peter R de Vries became increasingly vocal about social issues in the Netherlands, speaking up for the rights of refugees and against racism. Even though he was respected and popular in the Netherlands, this stance triggered a flood of hate and threats against him like never before, he said.
In 2016, he won an award for speaking out against racism and inequality with ‘courage and nerve, with arguments and substance and without fear’ – which sums up De Vries quite accurately.
Peter R de Vries was 64 years old. He leaves behind a partner and two children.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
