19 Mar 21 | Opinion, Ruth's blog, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116411″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]I can’t remember my first protest. I was born into a family where participating in a protest was a normal part of my childhood. My mum claims that my first protest was before I was born – she was eight months pregnant at a demo against mine closures in Scotland.
I have been on marches to save jobs, demos against political extremism, protests against injustice and vigils of remembrance. I’ve even organised a few. I have waved banners, handed out leaflets, marched, chanted and on occasion cried for more decades than I am prepared to acknowledge. I’ve exercised all of my democratic rights – hard-won – to campaign for change and to seek to remedy injustice to fight for a better world. And as an MP I was also protested against. It’s the democratic tradition that I was born into and one that I hold very dear.
Which is why events of the last fortnight in the UK have been so disgusting.
Index has been highlighting how repressive regimes, and others, have been using the Covid-19 pandemic to impose restrictions of their citizens since the start of the crisis. How free expression was being limited and our human rights curtailed. In the UK, most of us have taken it on faith that these were temporary measures and that liberal values would prevail – after all protests have continued throughout the pandemic. But not this week.
This week it wasn’t the Chinese Government in the frame for arresting people in Hong Kong, or Lukashenko’s regime in Belarus, or the military coup in Myanmar – it was the British Government and some very over-zealous policing of a vigil for a murdered woman.
Many people have written about the impact of Sarah Everard’s awful murder. Personally, I cannot stop thinking about her family and how distraught those that loved her must be. A vigil to remember her and as safe place for women to unite to highlight their lived experiences and their daily fears does not seem an extremist request – even during a pandemic. There are always ways to make sure that these things are done safely.
But as awful as the images were of women being forced to the ground and arrested by male police officers on Saturday night were, it was what came next that is so worrying for those of us who cherish the right to freedom of expression, the right of protest, the right to engage in the political process.
On Monday the Government brought forward new legislation in the Police, Crime, Sentences and Courts Bill which specifically restricts the right to protest. In fact according to the BBC: “The proposed law includes an offence of ‘intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance’. This is designed to stop people occupying public spaces, hanging off bridges, gluing themselves to windows, or employing other protest tactics to make themselves both seen and heard.” The law specifically targets people who protest alone.
Demonstrations by design are meant to disrupt normal activity. They are meant to annoy and irritate the establishment – because they are designed to challenge the status quo, or highlight an injustice. Rarely do people organise a protest because they are happy with the actions of their Government.
As the DUP MP Gavin Robinson said during the debate: “The loose and lazy way this legislation is drafted would make a dictator blush. Protests will be noisy, protests will disrupt and no matter how offensive we may find the issue at their heart, the right to protest should be protected.”
This bill needs to be amended. Our right to protest needs to be protected. And we need to defend it – loudly.
To be clear – Index will always defend the right to protest, even during a pandemic, because it’s one of our basic human rights.[/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]
17 Mar 21 | News and features, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116400″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Violence against women and girls begins and ends with censorship. Domestic abuse, sexual violence and all forms of exploitation rely on silence and censorship above any other weapon.
Without curtailing the freedom of a woman’s speech, you cannot curtail her physical and sexual freedoms. Every perpetrator knows that you must convince a victim that if she speaks things will get worse:
“They will take the children off you if you tell anyone.”
“If you say anything, I will have you deported.”
“I will lose my job if this ever gets out and then we would lose the house.”
And of course, the most chilling of all, the threat we associate with tyrannical regimes in faraway lands which is happening on pretty much every street in the United Kingdom:
“I will kill you and the kids if you don’t do what I say.”
The outpouring of grief by women in the wake of the death of Sarah Everard is not just because of our sorrow at her loss and the loss of all the other 119 women who fell to her death at the hands of a violent man in the last year.
The case of the killing of Sarah Everard has reminded women that we have been self censoring on behalf of society who didn’t want to hear about our fears and our pain. We have been putting on a face.
Women say to their friends when they leave them on the street, “text me when you get home.” It is our way of saying I love you and I want you to be safe from likely harm. We have made our language palatable and chipper to mask the reality of what that means. 2.3 million people are living with domestic abuse in the UK, you are likely coming across them week after week.
When you ask them how they are they say that they are fine, because even if it was safe to tell you, it isn’t socially acceptable to do so. She says she’s fine and that she is looking forward to seeing her family again, she knows you cannot bear the truth. She is censored by social norms. She literally cannot move through life truthfully because while we claim to want women to come forward, in reality you don’t want to hear about her rape last night in the queue at Tescos.
Society colludes with perpetrators of abuse by feeling too awkward to confront the scale and reality of violence suffered by women. For the last three years more than half of all violence crime was committed against women. The complaint of women over the past week, months and years and the constant drum beaten by the women’s sector is that women’s voices are not listened to.
Too often we fail to criminalise rape or sexual violence because the police and courts simply cannot find away to give a woman’s voicing of her account an equal billing to that of a man. 55,000 rapes were reported in the UK last year, less that 10 per cent were charged and made it to court and 1,800 rapists were convicted. Does this statistic scream come forward we can hear you?
All state and most private institutions don’t put in place specific measures to enable victims of violence and abuse to be freed from their social and personal censorship. It is on all of us to learn the language that helps these people speak, because at the moment we are all colluding in keeping women pretending and censoring every day. We have done this to such an extent that most women stopped noticing that they were pretending.
Society must get better at confronting and talking about the tyranny of male violence against women because if we don’t we are actively supporting tyranny on our shores.[/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]
12 Mar 21 | China, Hong Kong, Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Yang Xiaoguang
It will not surprise you to know that I think words are important. Both in terms of what they tell you and what they don’t. When words come from a diplomat, a person who is trained to be civil and to not give too much away, from someone who is literally paid to give the official line, then their words can be even more insightful.
Which is why I think it is important to read the words of Yang Xiaoguang, chargé d’affaires of the Chinese embassy in the UK (right), from an interview he did yesterday morning on the BBC’s Today programme.
When questioned about the National Security Law in Hong Kong and the ‘patriots governing Hong Kong’ resolution, which was passed unanimously by the National People’s Congress on Thursday, he said:
Different definition about democracy.
In Hong Kong, we have seen too many political frictions.
The aim is to ensure that patriots have the industry power of Hong Kong so that it will be good for the long run of governance. For the benefit of the whole of the Chinese people.
This is an internal affair.
And when challenged on the treatment of the Uighurs in Xinjiang he said:
British Bias Corporation.
Too much fake news.
Genocide doesn’t exist in Xinjiang.
We are bringing economic development and stability in Xinjiang.
Taken at face value this completely counterfactual narrative could be plausible. Until facts get in the way.
You cannot dismiss images of Uighur men in lines at a train station, waiting to go to the ‘re-education’ camps as fake news. You cannot claim that China has a different definition of democracy when they signed up to the original plans for one country, two systems. And you cannot claim that you are acting for the benefit of the people of Hong Kong and China when you implement a new National Security Law and arrest over 100 leading democracy campaigners, including 47 charged with subversion last week for daring to hold election primaries in Hong Kong.
There is a genocide happening today in Xinjiang province as I type. The few witnesses who have managed to escape have told consistent stories. The images of the queues and of the camps have been verified. The US and Canada recognise these actions as acts of genocide.
In Hong Kong, we’ve looked on in horror as the CCP have moved in, asserting their authority with the National Security Law. We’ve watched as social media accounts have disappeared, as activists have been arrested, as journalists have been silenced and as the BBC World Service was banned.
The CCP seemingly no longer cares what the world thinks. It is has made a strategic calculation that it’s economic might protects it from global condemnation. That a propaganda campaign against public broadcasters like the BBC will be successful. That no one is brave enough to challenge them.
But brave the world must be. People are dying. People are being arrested. People are disappearing. On our watch.[/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]
09 Mar 21 | Media Freedom, News and features, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116383″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]The Action Plan, published today, sets out a range of measures aimed at ensuring that journalists operating in the UK are able to carry out their work safely and without threats of violence. The Plan was drafted in consultation with the National Committee, of which Index on Censorship is a member.
“We welcome the UK Government’s Action Plan for the Protection of the Safety of Journalists and while it is still a work in progress, we are looking forward to working with the Government and partners to make sure it works in practice,” said Index’s CEO Ruth Smeeth.
The Plan is published here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
08 Mar 21 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116379″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]I was a teenage journalism student when I first discovered the magnificent Nellie Bly.
It was my first week at university in Northern Ireland and my tutor handed each person in our class a list of suggested books to read for the upcoming term.
When scouring the shelves of the campus library, I stumbled across ‘Cupcakes and Kalashnikovs’, a book which, 15 years later, I still pick up and flick through when I need a dose of inspiration.
Put together by the wonderful Eleanor Mills and Kira Cochrane, it is one of the first detailed collections of groundbreaking and history-making journalism by women over the last 100 years.
It includes powerful pieces such as Martha Gellhorn’s ‘Dachau’; Audre Lorde’s haunting ‘That Summer I left Childhood was White’ and the late Ruth Picardie’s deeply emotive, and last ever, Observer column, ‘Before I Say Goodbye’.
It was in this breathtaking anthology that I found Nellie, a fierce female who trailblazed her way through newspaper journalism and paved the way for female investigative reporters around the world.
Born Elizabeth Jane Cochrane in 1864, she began her career after her parents’ deaths by writing a letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Dispatch.
That letter – signed simply ‘Lonely Orphan Girl’ – piqued George Madden so much, he immediately hired her.
It was Madden who suggested she change her name to Nellie Bly, taken from a popular Stephen Foster song at that time, and the rest, they say, is history.
From the moment she entered journalism, Nellie refused to conform.
Instead of writing about society gatherings and parties, a genre many women journalists were pigeonholed at that time, she sunk her teeth into social issues affecting women, from divorce laws to factory working conditions.
When working for the New York World in 1888, she feigned insanity to be committed into an asylum where she lived side by side with vulnerable women to expose the horrific, rat-infested and abusive conditions they were incarcerated in.
Her fearless piece, ‘Ten Days in a Madhouse’ led to the City of New York spending an extra $1,000,000 per annum on the care of those with serious mental health issues. She risked her freedom and her welfare for the truth.
She saw it as a small price to pay to highlight injustice, particularly for women who at that time didn’t even have the right to vote.
It’s been over 100 years since Nellie Bly penned her last article, but the bravery, tenacity, and resilience she showed back then still inspires me today.
In her own words: “I said I could and I would. And I did.”
Timeless.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
08 Mar 21 | China, Cuba, Hong Kong, Media Freedom, Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Saudi Arabia, Turkey
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116366″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]West Wing writer Aaron Sorkin has taken another foray into the world of American politics with The Trial of the Chicago 7, starring Sacha Baron Cohen, Eddie Redmayne and Mark Rylance. The film delves into the trial of seven activists arrested for inciting violence during clashes with police that resulted from protests against the Vietnam War at the 1968 Democratic National Convention; it is a reminder of the importance of a fair trial.
Similar in tone, then, to BAFTA’s best film nominee The Mauritanian (pictured above) and the story of Mohamedou Ould Salahi.
Salahi was imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay due to perceived connections with terrorist group al-Qaeda for more than 14 years without charge until his eventual release in 2016.
In 2005, Salahi wrote a memoir that was eventually published in 2015 with numerous redactions and is the basis of the film.
Forty prisoners still remain at the camp and most have not been charged or tried with any crime. Despite this, as the film shows, legal challenges are deliberately stifled for political purposes.
President Joe Biden has committed to close the camp by the time he leaves office.
There are several recent documentaries that celebrate the crucial work of investigative journalists.
Collective is remarkable film about corruption and political cover-up at the heart of Romanian institutions.
In 2015, a fire broke out at Colectiv night club in Bucharest, resulting in the deaths of 64 people. Hospitals were overwhelmed by the casualties and the deaths of 13 of the victims were attributed to bacterial infections that arose from being treated with watered down disinfectant used to save money. The story would have been forgotten had it not been for the tireless work of a daily sports newspaper. The ordeal exposed corruption and corner-cutting that fuelled anger on the streets of Romania. Protests eventually led to the resignation of Prime Minister Victor Ponta.
During the film, lead investigator for the paper Catalin Tolontan says of the situation: “When the press bows down to authorities, the authorities will mistreat the citizens.”
Collective is an insight into how teams of journalists break such stories
Athlete A is another testament to the power of investigative journalism.
Over recent years, numerous scandals have revealed the toxic atmospheres of some elite sports teams. None more so, perhaps, than the sexual abuse of US gymnasts shown in Athlete A. The Indianapolis Star helped uncover victims’ stories of sexual abuse by USA team gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar, who was found to have assaulted at least 265 girls over a period of two decades. The film’s title refers to Maggie Nichols, the gymnast who reported her experiences in 2015, only to be dropped from the 2016 Olympics team shortly after.
Collective and Athlete A highlight the lengths governments and organisations will go to keep quiet such scandals.
More extreme examples can lead to deaths, such as the brutal killing of Jamal Khashoggi, investigated in The Dissident.
Khashoggi was a US-based journalist and columnist for the Washington Post and was murdered inside the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. The CIA eventually determined the killing was premeditated and ordered by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
After its release in January 2020, producer Thor Halvorssen alleged there were attempts by “Saudi-backed trolls” to reduce its score on film-rating sites IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes to below 70 per cent.
“The moment you drop under 70 per cent, your film is essentially dead,” Halvorsson told Variety at the time. “People who follow individual critics will watch it; but the regular public will not.”
Public pressure that arises as a result of the revelations of the press are important, democratic displays of dissent. Their value is emphasised when authorities try to take away such expression.
Protests over a proposed extradition law allowing people in Hong Kong to be sent for trial in mainland China began in 2019. The law was met with such hostility by people in Hong Kong, that China eventually brought in the controversial National Security Law, criminalising any act of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with external forces.
The citizens of Hong Kong have suffered under the law, as have the press. On 6 January, 53 pro-democracy activists were arrested by Chinese authorities.
Do Not Split – which takes its name from a Cantonese phrase which translates loosely as “Do not split, do not divide, do not snitch on others” – follows the course of the early protests up to the imposition of the law that now threatens freedom in Hong Kong.[/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]
05 Mar 21 | Afghanistan, Burma, Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Ma Kyal Sin aka Deng Jia Xi aka Angel (photo: Facebook)
Everything will be OK…
I really hope it is. But this week has been heartbreaking and it’s been women who have featured in the news paying the ultimate price for their beliefs, as they have stood tall against tyrants, as they refused to be silenced, as they demanded their rights and their freedoms. Brave, inspirational women. Women who were doing their bit to make our world just a little bit fairer, a little freer, a little better informed.
It’s hard to read the headlines. Three women journalists murdered in Afghanistan. A teenager among the 38 dead in Myanmar.
But it’s even harder to think about the reality behind the headlines. Of the person no longer with us, of the family grieving and the friends who are scared. The only thing we can really offer them as they grieve is our support and solidarity. We must bear witness, we must tell their stories, so that the world knows what happened to their loved ones. Our job is to make sure that the tyrants (whoever they are) don’t win and that they are ultimately held accountable.
So, we must not forget them. We have a responsibility to celebrate their lives, to know who they were. We need to know their stories.
Ma Kyal Sin, was known to her friends and family as Angel. A dancer from a family who just wanted to live in a democratic state. A teenager wearing a t-shirt which said “Everything Will Be OK”.
On Wednesday, she was shot dead by the police on the streets of Myanmar, while on a peaceful protest. She was one of 38 who died this week protesting against the military coup.
Mursal Wahidi, 23. Mursal had just started her dream job, that of being a journalist at the local TV station in Eastern Afghanistan (along with Sadia and Shahnaz). She was gunned down as she left her office on Wednesday.
Sadia Sadat, 21, worked at the same station in the dubbing department. Sadia was on her way home in a rickshaw when she and her colleague, Shahnaz, were ambushed and killed by a gunman on Wednesday evening near their homes.
Shahnaz Raufi, 21, who had fought for her right to be educated and who dreamed of going to university was murdered with Sadia as they travelled home together on Wednesday. Islamic State have claimed responsibility of these assassinations of young women. Women determined to be part of a free press.
On Monday, we mark International Women’s Day. This year the theme is Choose to Challenge. These women chose to challenge the status quo. They chose to stand up for their rights. They chose to believe in a better future.
In their memory – for Angel, Mursal, Sadia and Shahnaz, we need to choose to challenge tyranny wherever we see it. And we need to choose to remember them as the inspirational women they so clearly were.[/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]
05 Mar 21 | Equatorial Guinea, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116347″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Delfin Mocache Massoko, an investigative journalist from Equatorial Guinea, has been the subject of threats following the publication of an article alleging corruption at the highest level in his home country.
Mocache Mossako is the founder of Diario Rombe, a website dedicated to Equatoguinean affairs based in Spain, where he has refugee status. He was one of the authors of a cross-border investigation published in January by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.
According to the investigation, Gabriel Obiang, minister of mines and hydrocarbons and son of the President of Equatorial Guinea, diverted funds into offshore companies controlled by his associates.
A Twitter campaign launched by South Africa-based lawyer NJ Ayuk (who has close ties to the Obiang family) accused Mocache Massoko of spreading misinformation. One tweet read: “the lies of Delfín Mocache … have generated an incalculable amount of damage to many people, businesses and Africans.”
In another tweet, Ayuk said: “He is scared because we are going to catch him… those responsible for his lucrative lies. I’m looking forward to questioning these money-hungry charlatans. You will have a lot of fun. We will imprison him.”
At present, there is no suggestion that Ayuk is threatening anything beyond lawful investigation and prosecution, but there is a risk that his words will be misinterpreted in the environment of a country where dissidents are forced into exile.
Mocache Massoko told Index: “There is a history of citizens of Equatorial Guinea critical of the country’s political system being abducted abroad and clandestinely transferred to African prisons. In the past there have been cases of torture against dissidents, activists, and human rights defenders.”
This week, a South African court ordered Ayuk and his company, Centurion Law Group, to cease its campaign against Mocache Mossako and OCCRP and issue apologies. However, they responded today by issuing further threats to issue “multiple legal claims in various jurisdictions.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”540″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
03 Mar 21 | Burma, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116336″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]The new military junta in Myanmar is continuing to assault and jail journalists as it progresses with its bloody coup.
At least 26 journalists have been arrested since Min Aung Hlaing seized power on 1 February and at least ten have been charged under section 505(a) of Myanmar’s penal code.
Two of the journalists, MCN TV News reporter Tin Mar Swe and The Voice’s Khin May San, have been granted bail but the remaining eight are still detained in the notorious military-run Insein prison in Yangon, known as “the darkest hell-hole” in the country and a byword for torture, abuse and inhumane conditions for inmates.
Section 505(a) makes it a crime to publish any “statement, rumour or report”, “with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty”, essentially making criticism of the military government impossible.
Reporters are particularly vulnerable during protests. Myo Min Htike, former secretary of the Myanmar Journalist Association, recently told Index that journalists are being targeted across the country, particularly if they have covered protests against the coup and many have fled in fear for their lives and liberty.
Credible reports from the country show the dangers facing reporters covering the protests. Shin Moe Myint, a 23-year-old freelance photo journalist was severely beaten and arrested by policemen while she covered a protest in Yangon on 28 February.
Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB) journalist Ko Aung Kyaw live-streamed a violent arrest in which, according to reports by The Irrawaddy, he had stones thrown through his window and police officers firing threateningly into the air when asked if they had obtained a warrant to enter his premises.
Aung Kyaw could “be heard shouting that a stone injured his head and appealing to neighbours for help before the security forces broke into his house and arrested him”.
Thein Zaw, covering the protests for Associated Press, has been charged with violating public law while Ma Kay Zon Nway of Myanmar Now and Aung Ye Ko of 7 Days News have also been arrested.
Others still detained include the journalists Hein Pyae Zaw, Ye Myo Khant, Ye Yint Tun, Chun Journal chief editor Kyaw Nay Min and Salai David of Chinland Post.
Sit Htet Aung of the Myanmar Times, who took the picture above, was one of the lucky ones who managed to escape a beating and detention.
Use of section 505(a) shows an automatic crackdown on criticism of the military regime and since the coup, the junta has implemented a number of problematic legislation changes which could easily be used against journalists in the country.
According to Amnesty International: “Courts routinely convict individuals under this section without evidence establishing the requisite intent or a likelihood that military personnel would abandon their duty as a result of the expression.”
“In practice, the section has often been used to prosecute criticism of the military – expression protected by international human rights law.”
The law has since been amended, meaning anyone charged under it can be arrested without a warrant and it is no longer a bailable offence, thus any future arrests – which are likely – will find journalists in Myanmar detained with little hope of an immediate reprieve.
The same amendments apply to 124(a) of the penal code, which previously made anti-government comments illegal.
Journalists also rely heavily on the internet to publish their stories, but amendments to the Electronic Transactions Law allow law enforcement to harvest the personal data of anyone deemed to be in breach of a cyber-crime, or – more broadly – those critical of the regime online.[/vc_column_text][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”38″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
27 Feb 21 | News and features, Russia, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116328″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship was established to provide a voice for dissidents living either under authoritarian regimes or in exile. Throughout our history extraordinary people have written for us and we have campaigned for their freedom. Every time Index seeks to intervene there is obviously a consideration made about who we seek to shine a light on and which regimes are of concern but the reality is we don’t get to choose dissident leaders and we don’t get to choose who inspires a movement. Our role is simple – we are here to campaign for equal access to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We may not like the actions of some dissidents, we may not like how they have used their rights to free expression – but we exist to ensure that they have that right.
Index operates from a position of luxury, from the security of a democratic country. Our human rights are protected in law. For far too many people in the world that is not the case. Which brings me to the case of Alexei Navalny – we may find his comments as a younger man abhorrent, but his actions as a dissident leader cannot be questioned. His ability to inspire a nation to challenge an authoritarian regime is extraordinary. And the fact that he has nearly lost his life in an attempted chemical poisoning is beyond doubt. Navalny is a political prisoner. He is a dissident. He deserves our solidarity.
Index stands with Navalny.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
26 Feb 21 | News and features, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116325″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Student journalists across the USA are marking Student Press Freedom Day. But as for many journalists, the Covid-19 pandemic has posed challenges to the ability of students on university publications to do their jobs.
Limited access to equipment, resources and interviews are obvious hindrances to their reporting.
Hadar Harris of the Student Press Law Council (SPLC), which helps advocate the day, spoke of how important it is for student journalists not to be limited in their work.
“Student journalists’ efforts should not be limited or censored during this critical time,” he said. “Rather, they must be supported and encouraged as part of providing an essential service to the community during the current Covid-19 pandemic and beyond.”
Even before the pandemic, censorship of high-school and college students was a problem. Between 2017 and 2019, there were 15 cases recorded by media watchdog US Freedom Tracker of censorship of students.
In 2015, The Wesleyan Argus published an op-ed critical of the Black Lives Matter movement. In response, some of Weslyan’s students put together a petition demanding the paper lose its funding.
A satirical article criticising Jewish stereotypes was met with multiple complains when it was published in the Promethean in 2016, the newspaper of the University of Wisconsin. The incident was investigated by the university, before being dropped after pressure from student rights body The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
Student journalists are easily censored in the USA due to a ruling in 1988 allows schools to dictate what can and cannot be published.
The Supreme Court reversed a court of appeals decision and ruled that a newspaper produced as part of a class and without a “policy or practice” could be censored.
Harris said, “Since 1988, with the handing down of the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier case at the US Supreme Court, public school administrators have been able to censor the work of student journalists for any “legitimate pedagogical concern”.”
“This has led to overzealous administrators censoring student work because it would put the school in a bad light, is embarrassing, is controversial or may get pushback from parents. In addition, after more than 30 years of Hazelwood, we are deeply concerned about the impact of self-censorship – students who don’t even try to write a story that they think won’t be “acceptable” to school authorities.”
“Only 14 states have student press freedom legislation which protects the independence of student journalists in the US.”
Across the world there have been instances of student journalists being censored. Emergency measures by governments are often opportunistic ploys to go against freedom of information. Without full accreditation more difficult to receive during a pandemic, responding to questions from student journalist is less of a priority.
Journalism lecturer at UK university Liverpool John Moores (LJMU), Steve Harrison, spoke of the difficulties facing his students over the past year.
“Students have found it incredibly challenging,” he said. “From practical things like not being able to access broadcast kit from or not being able to go out to do vox pops, to more social support, such as meeting up with mates to discuss ideas or popping into a lecturer’s office for a chat.”
Student journalism is often a vital part of local discourse and important for communities. Many well-known journalists cut their teeth at student papers such as Jeremy Paxman and David Frost.
Their dedicated resources mean there are additional voices challenging authorities and important figures within different areas.
LJMU third-year student Wes Powell, though admitting that local authorities – in Liverpool at least – have been generous and forthcoming, said reporting during the pandemic had become more difficult.
“Reporting, at least from my own experience, has been flipped entirely on its head since the start of the pandemic,” he said. “Getting in touch with contacts for stories has been made harder, and even though many people are now readily available and are using Zoom almost all day when working from home, many are much more reluctant to provide comments for ongoing stories.”
“There’s also the added difficulties of trying to carry out reporting while adhering to lockdown restrictions and social distancing, which has made things a lot more complicated.”
Some excellent student journalism has been complied by the SPLC and can be read here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also like to read” category_id=”5641″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
26 Feb 21 | Opinion, Ruth's blog, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116315″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Legal but harmful speech – what does it even mean and why is every government body so insistent that the best way to deal with hate is to legislate against it?
So, you may guess from my tone that I am getting a little irked. There seems to be a pattern emerging in the UK, that rather than genuinely tackling some of the thornier issues–we’re seeing calls for more laws and regulations as the quick fix. Seemingly so people can say they are doing something, anything, rather than tackle the root causes of the problems at hand.
This week was a case in point. Building on the Government’s plans to create a new designation of unacceptable language for our online conversations in the Online Safety Bill – legal but harmful – we saw yet more headlines outlining the latest initiative from a well-intentioned quasi-government body seeking legislation to regulate speech in order to protect us from extremists.
The Centre for Countering Extremism published a paper calling for a new legal framework to tackle extremism – or rather extremist language which is creating an environment conducive to building new extremist groups. In principle, this is something that is difficult to knock and I have huge admiration for many of the people involved, but this is a slippery slope.
Let me be clear. I am not suggesting (nor would I ever) that all is well in our online world. It isn’t – there are too many examples of toxic abuse. Political and ideological extremism seems to be on the march; bullying, trolling, hate speech and threats are becoming far too normalised online. I should know, after all I still seem to attract a little too much of it…
But the question is can you or even should you regulate speech. Would that even work? Is regulation going to make people be nicer to each other online – or is there something more sinister at play that we need to focus our efforts on. As Taylor Swift said “haters gonna hate”.
So surely the real challenge here is how we balance dealing with the minority who choose to incite hatred and create a toxic environment which is attacking our very value system without undermining one of our basic fundamental rights – free speech.
Reaching for the statute book as a legislator is the easy option – politicians can say they have done something – even if that something hasn’t fixed the problem. They can point at a law and say job done. But let’s be honest, you can’t legislate culture and you can’t regulate language and nor should we be trying to.
People aren’t stupid, extremists aren’t stupid, recruiters to terror groups aren’t stupid – they are abhorrent, evil and wrong – and while some may not be that bright, the most effective tend not to be stupid.
If you change the law to restrict what they can and can’t say – all they will do is moderate their language, introduce coded phrases and push extremism into spaces that can’t be monitored. Suppression of language simply will not defeat the dangerous ideology at play. But what you will have done is create an environment where certain communities feel that they can’t speak at all – a chilling effect which will both create martyrs and undermine community cohesion.
Moving the line of legality will simply result in extremists developing a new vocabulary to achieve the same outcomes as they did before. And then we enter a dangerous period of cat and mouse where restrictions become even tighter, ensnaring legitimate debate and discussion in order to catch those purveyors of hate.
Someone famous once said, “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” and that mantra should be the starting point for any government on this issue. I have always said that speech should be free but not free of consequences.
The penalty for incitement should be severe – severe enough to be a deterrent but, and it’s a big but, the same level of resource, if not more, should be used to meet the continually emerging challenges of political extremism through education, engagement and community investment.
Empowering people to challenge hate speech and building a society where debate is celebrated but extremism is rightly ostracized. I know that for many that may be a naïve aspiration – but the alternative is a world where silence becomes the norm – because speech is too difficult.
Postscript. Just a note to thank Hannah who, in between doing her schoolwork yesterday, helped type my blog this week.
[/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]
