11 Oct 2021 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117686″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]As you may have seen from our social media feeds and our website, Index on Censorship is working to ensure MPs and the public are aware of the unintended consequences that may arise from the UK Government’s planned Online Safety Bill.
The Bill is based on the ‘duty of care’ concept, which underpins health and safety law in the workplace. However, there is a huge difference between protecting workers from workplace injury and protecting citizens from harm on the internet at the same times as protecting our fundamental freedom of expression rights.
The Bill has introduced the concept of ‘legal but harmful’ and would give social media platforms the power to remove content that could be considered ‘harmful’ to some people. But who makes that decision? Governments, private companies, an algorithm? Who decides when an idea is harmful but remains legal? Where would we be if the suffragettes had been considered harmful? Where would we be if Pride marches had been considered harmful? Where would we be if the civil rights movement had been considered harmful? This is a fundamentally flawed concept.
We already have laws against child abuse, against hate speech, and against death threats – what we need is not more legislation, but more training and resources for the police and relevant organisations to tackle these crimes. The risk with the Online Safety Bill is that not only are these resources not given to tackle issue of child abuse, but that more freedoms and rights are taken away from people and our democracy threatened.
The EU are now developing their own online legislation along the lines of the Online Safety Bill with their Digital Services Act. Across the world, the dominance of social media is generating real issues for regulation and, particularly, in considerations of who is responsible for what is posted online and what is liable to be taken down. Determining the answers to both of these questions is not a simple process with no simple answer but considerable pitfalls for democratic rights. Failing to answer these questions in hurried legislation is a poor substitute for a considered response to what are legitimate concerns.
Over the next few months, Index will be working with European organisations to raise awareness of the ‘unintended consequences’ of the Digital Services Act that will hopefully also help to inform the debate here in the UK. The internet is worldwide, borders are irrelevant, and we have to ensure that vulnerable and marginalised voices are not erased from our societies. The internet is our new Wild West, but we must be careful of knee-jerk reactions that aim to do some good but end up restricting the freedoms we all value.
We have launched the #OffOn campaign to tell MEPs not to switch off our freedoms online and instead to protect fundamental freedoms of expression while strengthening the rule of law relating to criminal offences.
The aims of this campaign are to:
- Preserve what works and fix what is broken
The internet is still a formidable network that connects and empowers people. Preserving and enhancing fundamental rights must be the cornerstone upon which any legislation is built.
- Limit online regulation to addressing illegal content
Ensure that the process of judicial review is at the core of any adjudication mechanism.
- Support user empowerment and wider participation
Legislation should focus on putting users first by allowing them to have more control over the content they see, the ability to remain anonymous online, the right to end-to-end encryption and the right to be faced with proportionate and fair content moderation practices.
- Ensure due process and legal certainty
The rules applying to the online environment should offer the same due process safeguards as those that apply offline. Arbitration about the legality of content, or its use, often entails long and careful assessments by courts offline, while unrealistic turnaround times are imposed online for the same type of decisions. We must protect the careful balance of the rights at stake, as well as create an environment of legal certainty.
- Promote these principles in international discussions
The principles and objectives we endorse should not apply only to Europeans – they should be at the centre of the EU’s contributions in any discussions in multilateral and bilateral fora it participates in.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
8 Oct 2021 | Kazakhstan, Legal action against journalists, Media Freedom, News and features, Slapps, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Metal Alloy plant. Worker in orange jacket and white hardhat on train with Eurasian Resources Group (ENRC). Alexey Rezvykh / Alamy Stock Photo
The undersigned organisations express their serious concern at the legal proceedings that have been filed in a UK court against journalist and author Tom Burgis, his publisher HarperCollins, and his employer the Financial Times (FT). Two lawsuits have been filed by Kazakh multinational mining company, Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), for what it claims are a series of “untrue” and “highly damaging” allegations made by the defendants about the company.
The first lawsuit, against Burgis and HarperCollins, centres around multiple passages in Burgis’ 2020 book Kleptopia: How Dirty Money is Conquering the World. The second lawsuit, against Burgis and the FT, relates to two FT articles by Burgis, eleven Twitter posts by Burgis based on the articles, and an FT podcast in which Burgis was interviewed about his investigation.
“We are extremely concerned that the lawsuits against Tom Burgis, HarperCollins, and the FT are Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs). SLAPPs are a form of legal harassment used by those with deep pockets to silence journalists and other public watchdogs by exploiting intimidatingly long and expensive legal procedures,” the undersigned organisations said.
The lawsuits filed in London follow earlier legal suits by ENRC in US courts against HarperCollins seeking disclosure of wide-ranging information relating to the publication of Burgis’ book and newspaper articles published in the FT. In the London lawsuits, ENRC claims that the publications defamed the company, including by falsely suggesting that it was involved in the deaths of two whistleblowers (former ENRC employees), whose bodies were found at a motel in Missouri in 2015.
A criminal investigation by the UK’s Serious Fraud Office into alleged corruption within ENRC opened in 2013 and is ongoing. It is understood to be focused on allegations of fraud, bribery and corruption around the acquisition of substantial mineral assets in the Democratic Republic of Congo and elsewhere. No charges have yet been brought. ENRC denies all allegations.
Since the SFO announced its investigation, ENRC has initiated a wave of more than 18 legal proceedings in the US and the UK against journalists, lawyers, investigators, contractors, and a former SFO official and the SFO itself. In June 2021, twenty-two organisations issued a statement condemning the ENRC’s lawsuits against public watchdogs.
“The lawsuits against Burgis, HarperCollins, and the FT are the latest in a deluge of litigation brought by ENRC as it attempts to robustly challenge corruption allegations,” the organisations said. “We are extremely concerned that ENRC’s legal tactics are a further attempt to silence those who interrogate any possible links between the company and incidents that warrant proper public scrutiny.”
“We urge the UK government to consider measures, including legal measures, that would protect journalists and other public watchdogs from abusive legal actions that are aimed at silencing them,” the organisations concluded. “Our democracy relies on their ability to hold power to account.”
The legal proceedings against Burgis, HarperCollins, and the FT were filed at the High Court of Justice of England and Wales on 27 August. The first hearing has yet to be scheduled.
Note to editors: ENRC was listed on the London Stock Exchange until 2013, when it became embroiled in controversy over governance issues and went private. Today it is owned by Eurasian Resources Group registered in Luxembourg. The ‘Trio’ who own the majority shares in ENRC (now ERG) are Alexander Machkevitch, Patokh Chodiev and Alijan Ibragimov. Mr Ibragimov died in February 2021. The Kazakh state owns an estimated 40 percent of the company.
SIGNED:
ARTICLE 19
Blueprint for Free Speech
Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland (CFoIS)
English PEN
IFEX
Index on Censorship
Justice for Journalists Foundation
Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)
Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
PEN International
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID)
Spotlight on Corruption
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
1 Oct 2021 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Book burning, photo: Fred Kearney
It seems surreal that in the 21st century in Europe and in the US, we still have to make the argument for a free press and public access to literature. But since 1982 an international coalition against censorship has had to make exactly that case.
I find the concept of banned books chilling. Why would you seek to ban or destroy literature, culture and history? Why would you seek to remove arguments you disagree with rather than challenge them and prove that you are right? Banning books is a weak act – done by those who know that their arguments are easily defeated. But is this level of control and repression which scares me – we know where it can lead.
Of all the touching and heart-breaking Holocaust memorials in Berlin, it is the Empty Library that made me stop – a visual representation of what book burning is and what happens when intolerance is allowed to dominate. On 10 May 1933 20,000 books were burned – their authors were Jews, Communists and Socialists – 40,000 people crowded the Bebelplatz to watch them burn.
This is where banning books can lead. This is the ultimate reality of censorship and intolerance.
Occasionally I am asked why free speech is so important to me. Why is this even important anymore in the age of the internet and nearly unfettered access to the accumulated knowledge of the world for those of us lucky enough to live in liberal democracies. But this is why I fight for free expression, for tolerance, for knowledge, for debate. This is why I work at Index on Censorship. I don’t have to agree with an author to defend their right to publish. I don’t have to like a book to defend its right to be in a library and I don’t have to delete works that I fundamentally oppose.
Which brings us to Banned Book Week. Every year, in fact nearly every day, there are reports of libraries removing books or authors being challenged – not necessarily for their published works but on occasion for their views. The American Library Association publishes an annual list of the most challenged books in the US:
- George by Alex Gino. Challenged, banned, and restricted for LGBTQIA+ content, conflicting with a religious viewpoint, and not reflecting “the values of our community”.
- Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You by Ibram X. Kendi and Jason Reynolds. Banned and challenged because of the author’s public statements and because of claims that the book contains “selective storytelling incidents” and does not encompass racism against all people.
- All American Boys by Jason Reynolds and Brendan Kiely. Banned and challenged for profanity, drug use, and alcoholism and because it was thought to promote antipolice views, contain divisive topics, and be “too much of a sensitive matter right now”.
- Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson. Banned, challenged, and restricted because it was thought to contain a political viewpoint, it was claimed to be biased against male students, and it included rape and profanity.
- The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie. Banned and challenged for profanity, sexual references, and allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of the author.
- Something Happened in Our Town: A Child’s Story about Racial Injustice by Marianne Celano, Marietta Collins, and Ann Hazzard, illustrated by Jennifer Zivoin. Challenged for “divisive language” and because it was thought to promote antipolice views.
- To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. Banned and challenged for racial slurs and their negative effect on students, featuring a “white saviour” character, and its perception of the Black experience.
- Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. Banned and challenged for racial slurs and racist stereotypes and their negative effect on students.
- The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison. Banned and challenged because it was considered sexually explicit and depicts child sexual abuse.
- The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas. Challenged for profanity, and because it was thought to promote an antipolice message.
These are not the only banned works we know of but it gives us all a flavour of the debate that is occurring across our liberal democracies and makes it clear of the work we still have to do. Of course, it isn’t just literature that is challenged or banned – but poetry and arts continue to be censored. Which is why, in partnership with the British Library. we held an event to mark Banned Books Week exploring poetry and protest – with Dr Choman Hardi and ko ko thett, chaired by Index on Censorship’s vice chair Kate Maltby. You can watch the event on catch-up here.
So, as we collective mark Banned Books week – I urge you – go into a bookshop or a library and get a book that challenges you, that inspires you and one that others seek to ban![/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”41669″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
30 Sep 2021 | Events
[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”117589″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]In preparation for COP26, Index on Censorship invites you to reflect on the role of indigenous activists in climate activism.
As we prepare for challenging and necessary conversations at COP26, Index on Censorship brings attention to the cases of people whose voices are too easily forgotten in climate change debates. Index sheds light on the challenges of speaking up about climate change.
Join us for the launch of the new Index on Censorship magazine, A Climate of Fear. The conversation will be chaired by Index on Censorship acting editor Martin Bright with a focus on indigenous activists in Ecuador fighting for environmental justice and those who tell their stories.
Steven Donziger is a US lawyer who was part of an international legal team that obtained a multi-billion-dollar pollution judgment designed to remedy decades of deliberate toxic dumping by global oil company Chevron on indigenous ancestral lands in Ecuador.
Jimmy Piaguaje is an indigenous defender and filmmaker of Siekopai nationality from the community of Siekoya Remolino in Ecuador’s northeastern Amazon region. He is the co-founder of the Sëra Foundation, a grassroots organisation created by a group of young people from Siekoya Remolino to preserve their ancestral knowledge via audiovisual techniques and education. His latest documentary, about fighting covid in the Amazon with ancestral medicine, was published by the New Yorker.
Bethany Pitts is a writer and activist who has been working with indigenous communities in Ecuador since 2013, especially those defending the Amazon from oil exploitation. She is the author of the Moon Guide to Ecuador & The Galapagos Islands, the first internationally published guidebook on Ecuador with a focus on ethical travel. It was while Bethany was in the Amazon researching for her book in 2018 that she met Jimmy Piaguaje. Since then, she has been working to support the Sëra Foundation.
Martin Bright has over 30 years of experience as a journalist, working for the Observer, the Guardian and the New Statesman among others. He has worked on several high-profile freedom of expression cases often involving government secrecy. He broke the story of Iraq War whistleblower Katharine Gun, which was made into the movie Official Secrets (2019) starring Keira Knightley. He is the founder of Creative Society, a youth employment charity set up in response to the economic crash of 2008.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
When: Tuesday 19 October 2021, 17:30 to 18:30 BST
Where: ONLINE
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
