18 Jul 13 | Media Freedom, United Kingdom
In an editorial published this morning, the Financial Times announced its support for the Royal Charter on press regulation put together by the newspaper industry.
The article said that while the FT agreed with the need for a “robust and independent regulation”, a new regulator should be “proportionate and sustainable.”
The article continued:
“Well-meaning reforms should not open the door to state interference in Britain’s free press.”
Acknowledging that the press had reluctantly accepted that there would be a royal charter for regulation of the press, the Financial Times argued:
[C]ertain points are non-negotiable. If press freedoms are to be preserved, the regime must be genuinely voluntary. It should also balance public protection with freedom of expression. A financially weak press should not be loaded with onerous obligations that deter it from pursuing contentious issues, where reporting serves the public interest and holds the powerful to account.
The industry’s plans to create the Independent Press Standards Organisation were revealed earlier this month. Index on Censorship greeted the proposal as “a starting point for proper discussion on the future“.
Hacked Off, which supports the government’s regulation proposal, reacted angrily to the Financial Times’ suggestion that that document had been “assembled over pizza in the early hours of the morning this spring”.
Director Brian Cathcart denied his group had been present at late-night negotiations, pointing out: “No pizza was served, or at least we saw none.”
18 Jul 13 | Europe and Central Asia, Russia
Alexei Navalny addresses a rally (Pic: Roma Yandolin/Demotix)
The American ambassador to Russia and the British Foreign Secretary have reacted strongly after a Kirov court today sentenced Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny to five years in a penal colony, Sara Yasin reports
(more…)
18 Jul 13 | Americas, Canada, Politics and Society
This year has seen significant developments in Canada’s hate speech legislation, say attorneys Ryder Gilliland and Adam Lazier.
(Wikipedia)
Bill Whatcott is a conservative Christian campaigner who was fined $17,500 dollars in 2005 for distributing hate materials. His case rumbled through the courts until February, when the Supreme Court ruled against him.
In June, however, Parliament voted to repeal a hate speech provision in the federal human rights legislation. This is a significant legislative change, but whether provincial legislatures and courts will follow suit is very much an open question.
The regulation of hate speech in Canada
Hate speech in Canada is regulated in two ways. Section 319 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to wilfully promote or publicly incite hatred. A violation of Section 319 carries serious consequences, including imprisonment for up to two years. Someone charged criminally under Section 319 has a number of defences available, including “truth”, and that the statements were in the public interest and the accused reasonably believed them to be true.
Hate speech is also prohibited by human rights legislation at both the federal and provincial levels. Human rights legislation carries less serious consequences than the criminal law provisions, but a respondent to a human rights claim has far fewer defences available. Human rights complaints are decided by administrative tribunals rather than courts.
Both types of hate speech legislation have been challenged in court as violations of Canada’s constitutional protection for freedom of expression. These challenges have not met with much success. Although the Supreme Court struck down an antiquated “false news” law used to prosecute holocaust denier Ernst Zundel (R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731), it has upheld the constitutionality of the criminal offence of wilfully promoting hatred (R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697).
In Whatcott, the Supreme Court largely upheld a hate-speech prohibition in Saskatchewan’s human rights legislation, despite that the provision does not even allow a defence of truth (2013 SCC 11).
The repeal of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act
Just four months after the Whatcott decision parliament voted to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the “CHRA”), the federal equivalent to the Saskatchewan law at issue in Whatcott. The repeal comes into effect after one year.
Section 13, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990, prohibits anyone from repeatedly communicating hate speech over the telephone or internet. The Tribunal can punish contraventions by ordering that the speaker financially compensate the victim. (A provision allowing the Tribunal to also order a $10,000 “penalty” as well was struck down by a 2012 Federal Court decision).
Human Rights Laws: A blunt instrument for regulating speech
Canada’s criminal hate speech laws arguably have a minimal impact on freedom of expression rights, as there is a high burden of proof and there are numerous defences available, including the defence of “truth”. It seems unlikely that mainstream media will be prosecuted, much less prosecuted successfully, under Section 319 of the Criminal Code.
Human rights hate speech laws are different. There are far fewer protections for respondents in human rights cases and the mainstream media has recently had to defend against human rights complaints. Thus, they appear to be a potentially dangerous incursion into free speech territory.
Hate speech laws in human rights legislation rest on a tenuous and sometimes artificial distinction between hate speech and other speech. In the context of libel law, for instance, a speaker has a constitutional right to defences for truth, fair comment, and responsible communication in the public interest. Once statements are classified as “hate speech” in the context of a human rights complaint, however, they lose that protection – a human rights tribunal may order compensation even if the statement is true, and even if it was made in good faith on a matter of public interest.
The line between hate speech and the merely offensive is slippery at best. Whatcott and earlier Supreme Court decisions define hate speech as statements that tend to expose people to “unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation and vilification” on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, which includes things like race, religion, and sexual orientation. However, human rights legislation doesn’t require that anyone prove the statements at issue actually caused hatred. This leaves tribunals and courts guessing about whether the statements at issue could have that effect, or whether they are just “offensive comments or expressions of dislike”.
This combination of strict laws with a slippery definition of hate speech puts everyone’s expression at risk, not just that of extremists. In a recent British Columbia case, the Human Rights Tribunal found that a stand-up comic had engaged in “discriminatory” speech by insulting audience members based on their sexual orientation. The decision was recently upheld by on judicial review (Ismail v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2013 BCSC 1079).
Media organisations have successfully defended against hate speech complaints brought before human rights tribunals, but have incurred significant legal expenses along the way. The imprecise definition of hate speech makes it difficult for the media to assess its risk before publication, and therefore risks chilling debate.
More broadly, freedom of expression relies on courts and legislatures accepting the importance of the “marketplace of ideas”; the notion that society is best served when ideas, even hateful ideas, are disproven through public debate. The “marketplace of ideas” concept formed part of the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision to recognize the responsible communication defence in libel law in 2009 (Grant v. Torstar Corp, 2009 SCC 61). “In the course of debate,” the Court wrote then, “misconceptions and errors are exposed. What withstands testing emerges as truth”.
Hate speech laws in the human rights context, and court decisions that uphold them, are inconsistent with concept of a marketplace of ideas. They threaten free speech. It is encouraging to see parliament repealing section 13 of the CHRA. The question now is who will follow.
Ryder Gilliland is a Toronto-based attorney at Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP and an executive member of Ad IDEM, the Canadian Media Lawyers Association.
Adam Lazier is an attorney with Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP.
18 Jul 13 | In the News
INDEX EVENTS
18 July New World (Dis)Order: What do Turkey, Russia and Brazil tell us about freedom and rights?
Index, in partnership with the European Council on Foreign Relations, is holding a timely debate on the shifting world order and its impact on rights and freedoms. The event will also launch the latest issue of Index on Censorship magazine, including a special report on the multipolar world.
(More information)
19 July: What surveillance means to YOU
Join us 19 July for a live Google hangout with Index on Censorship as Trevor Timm of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Rebecca Mckinnon of Gloval Voices discuss what mass surveillance means to all of us as individuals. Hosted by Padraig Reidy of Index, the hour-long event will delve in the issues around government surveillance of innocent civilians.
(More information)
ASIA
Internet Censorship is Taking Root in Southeast Asia
Every time Le Anh Hung starts to write he thinks of his three young children. The 38-year-old has already been imprisoned twice for blogging about human rights and corruption from his home in Hanoi and lives half-expecting another fateful knock at the door. And yet “I’m not scared,” he says, “I know what I choose to do is risky but I accept the fight.”
(Time)
BRAZIL
Brazil protesters hope for Pope’s backing during visit
Young Brazilians who marched in June to demand more funding for health and education are hoping Pope Francis will back their cause when he visits Rio next week. But organizers ruled out a resumption of the street protests during the pontiff’s week-long stay to attend World Youth Day (WYD), a major Catholic gathering expected to draw 1.5 million people.
(AFP)
CHINA
China says it’ll relax film, TV censorship; directors unimpressed
Chinese authorities said Wednesday they would relax some restrictions on film, TV and radio productions, though the immediate impact of the changes was unclear and several prominent movie directors said they did not believe the reforms were game-changers.
(Los Angeles Times)
ISRAEL
Israel’s Plague of Self-Censorship
The affair surrounding Edward Snowden, former employee of the United States National Security Agency (NSA) who leaked information about NSA surveillance programs, reminded me of a personal story from more than 30 years ago.
(The Times)
LIBERIA
Newspaper Slapped With U.S $1.5 Million Libel Ruling
Liberia’s Supreme Court has ruled that a $1.5 million verdict against the FrontPage Africa newspaper should be enforced.
(All Africa)
UNITED KINGDOM
An unpleasant odour is rising from Northern Ireland’s libel law
The recently passed Defamation Act 2013 will introduce much-needed reform of an area of the law that has become an anachronistic, obscure and unjustifiable fetter on freedom of speech. It comes into force later this year. But not in Northern Ireland. The reluctance of Northern Ireland politicians to adopt the 2013 Act will, as a libel lawyer would say, lower them in the estimation of right-thinking people.
(The Times)
UNITED STATES
Federal Campus Sexual Harassment Policy Draws Free Speech Concerns
The federal government is facing pressure from civil-liberties advocates to back down from a policy meant to curb sexual harassment at colleges and universities — just as sexual-assault survivors demanded in a protest this week that the Education Department do more to punish colleges that fail to address campus assaults.
(Huffington Post)
Student Who Disagrees With Homosexuality Wins Free Speech Lawsuit Against Teacher
A federal district judge ruled in favor of a Michigan student who was removed from the classroom by his teacher for expressing his religious beliefs against homosexuality. The judge said punishing the student for his freedom of expression violated his First Amendment rights.
(Christian Post)
The Attack on Free Speech and the Press
Over the past three years, we have seen an assault on free speech and freedom of the press by those in power. Campaign finance laws have always been used less as a restriction on money in politics and more as a restriction of freedom of speech.
(Texas GOP Vote)
Previous Free Expression in the News posts
July 17 | July 16 | July 15 | July 12 | July 11 | July 10 | July 9 | July 8 | July 5 | July 4
17 Jul 13 | In the News
INDEX EVENTS
18 July New World (Dis)Order: What do Turkey, Russia and Brazil tell us about freedom and rights?
Index, in partnership with the European Council on Foreign Relations, is holding a timely debate on the shifting world order and its impact on rights and freedoms. The event will also launch the latest issue of Index on Censorship magazine, including a special report on the multipolar world.
(More information)
19 July: What surveillance means to YOU
Join us 19 July for a live Google hangout with Index on Censorship as Trevor Timm of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Rebecca Mckinnon of Gloval Voices discuss what mass surveillance means to all of us as individuals. Hosted by Padraig Reidy of Index, the hour-long event will delve in the issues around government surveillance of innocent civilians.
(More information)
BURKINA FASO
Burkina Faso state media journalists protest censorship
In Burkina Faso, tens of journalists from state media today held a sit-in in front of the Ministry of Communications in the capital Ouagadougou to protest what they deem to be excessive government censorship of news coverage.
(CPJ Blog)
CHINA
Censorship in China is Deeper and More Insidious Than You Think
Despite a free-wheeling micro-blogging scene, traditional media sources still operate under heavy government constraints.
(The Atlantic)
JAPAN
Former premier sues Shinzo Abe for libel over Fukushima disaster
Prime minister says Kan’s instructions to dampen nuclear emergency were ‘made up’
(South China Morning Post)
LIBYA
Libya moves a step closer to new post-Gaddafi constitution
Libya’s national assembly passed a law on Tuesday providing for the election of a committee to draft a new constitution following the overthrow of dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.
(Reuters)
RUSSIA
Russian senator officially demands ‘measures’ against ‘flagrant’, ‘privacy-breaching’ Google
A high-profile Russian lawmaker has lodged an official request with the general prosecutor to investigate Google’s activities in Russia, saying the web services company’s privacy policy “gravely violates the Russian constitution.”
(RT)
SRI LANKA
Sri Lankan film ban halts French festival, sparks anger
The Sri Lankan government’s decision to ban the acclaimed film, “Flying Fish” and halt the French film festival, where it was screened has sparked outrage in a country that’s no stranger to threats to free speech.
(France 24)
TURKEY
Turkey regulator to appoint two board members to Turkcell
Turkey’s Capital Markets Board will appoint two board members to Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri AS soon, Chairman Vahdettin Ertas told Turkish TV channel CNBCe Tuesday, after a series of failed annual shareholder meetings amid the long-running dispute over control of Turkcell.
(Total Telecom)
UNITED STATES
Emails show ex-Gov. Daniels sought to quash political opposition in Ind. schools
Former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels pledged to promote academic freedom, not stifle it, when he became president at Purdue University in January.
(AP via Daily Reporter)
Advice column is free speech; Ky. psychology board overreaches
What do the Westboro Baptist Church, Larry Flynt and John Rosemond have in common? All have turned to federal courts to protect their First Amendment rights. Westboro and Flynt prevailed at the Supreme Court which ruled that, no matter how noxious or crude, protests at military funerals and Hustler satire are constitutionally protected forms of expression.
(Lexington Herald-Leader)
Terror Supporter May Have Free Speech Case
A man convicted of aiding al-Qaida can pursue claims that Uncle Sam has cut off his speech in prison, but he’ll face a heavy burden of proof, a federal judge ruled.
(Courthouse News)
‘Veterans’ Free Speech Trial Ends in Guilty Verdict, Followed by Dismissal of Charges
Judge Robert Mandelbaum covered all his bases with his verdict July 12 in the case of 12veterans and their allies arrested last Oct. 7 at New York City’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial Plaza.
(The Indypendent)
‘US citizen has no right to free speech?’ State Dept spokesperson
During a daily press briefing State Department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki was given a thorough grilling on the Snowden affair by journalists, including AP’s Matthew Lee and CNN’s Elise Labott and was left lost for words at almost every turn.
(RT)
Previous Free Expression in the News posts
July 16 | July 15 | July 12 | July 11 | July 10 | July 9 | July 8 | July 5 | July 4 | July 3
16 Jul 13 | News and features, Russia
The feminist punk collective has released a new song and video ahead of an appeal hearing for jailed member Maria Alyokhina on 24 July, Padraig Reidy reports
(more…)
16 Jul 13 | Africa
A public campaign has been launched to protect fragile manuscripts rescued from Timbuktu during the Mali crisis earlier this year. Sara Yasin reports
The campaign, called “Libraries in Exile”, is raising money for protection and storage for the documents. They are now threatened by moisture damage, thanks to inadequate storage and a change in humidity. The campaign will use donations to reverse existing damage, and to purchase moisture traps and archival boxes. Many of the texts were transferred to Bamako, the country’s southern capital.
The ancient religious texts, some dating back 700 years, were initially thought to have been destroyed by rebels belonging to radical Islamist group Ansar Dine. At least 4,200 documents were damaged by either looting or arson during the crisis, but approximately 300,000 documents were saved.
A UN mission was sent to Mali to assess the damage, from 28 May to 3 June 2013. A programme specialist in UNESCO’s cultural section, David Stehl, told the Associated Press that “4,203 manuscripts were either burned by the Islamists or stolen.”
Most of the manuscripts were housed at the Ahmed Baba Institute, a state-owned library that became Ansar Dine’s headquarters when they captured Timbuktu in March 2012. While they initially did not know the value of the manuscripts, they eventually went looking for them. One of the institute’s employees, Alkamiss Cisse told the Washington Post that once the jihadists “heard of the manuscripts’ importance to the world, they would destroy them.”
In June 2012, fighters from Ansar Dine began destroying Timbuktu’s historic shrines and tombs for being “idolatrous.”
Timbuktu is a UNESCO world heritage site. The organisation listed it as “endangered” following Ansar Dine’s takeover of Mali’s government in March. Shortly before the fighters began destroying the shrines, UNESCO warned that the Ansar Dine’s presence might endanger the city’s “outstanding architectural wonders”.
Timbuktu Deputy Mayor Sandy Haidara told Reuters at the time that the attack was “a direct reaction to the UNESCO decision.”
A team of librarians and archivists risked their lives to smuggle the documents out of Timbuktu. The manuscripts, hailing from centres of medieval learning in Timbuktu, Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Andalusia and Southern Europe, and the Arab trading ports on the Indian Ocean. Timbuktu was once a lively trading hub, and was key to Islam’s spread in West Africa.
Sara Yasin is an Editorial Assistant at Index. She tweets from @missyasin
16 Jul 13 | In the News
INDEX EVENTS
18 July New World (Dis)Order: What do Turkey, Russia and Brazil tell us about freedom and rights?
Index, in partnership with the European Council on Foreign Relations, is holding a timely debate on the shifting world order and its impact on rights and freedoms. The event will also launch the latest issue of Index on Censorship magazine, including a special report on the multipolar world.
(More information)
19 July: What surveillance means to YOU
Join us 19 July for a live Google hangout with Index on Censorship as Trevor Timm of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Rebecca Mckinnon of Gloval Voices discuss what mass surveillance means to all of us as individuals. Hosted by Padraig Reidy of Index, the hour-long event will delve in the issues around government surveillance of innocent civilians.
(More information)
BAHRAIN
Bahrain warns against attending protest rallies
A spokesperson for the Bahrain government has warned against participation in the so-called “Rebellion of Bahrain” rallies and said participants will face legal action.
(Khaleej Times)
CHINA
Head of Google China leaves post, to be replaced by executive from Europe
Google’s leader for its China operations, John Liu, is leaving his position as the company continues to maintain a low-key presence in the nation following heated disputes over online censorship.
(PC World)
Incoming West Kowloon museum curator vows to be ‘politically incorrect’
Censorship has no place in at ideas places like venues such as museums, which should stimulate people to think for themselves, says a top New York curator who is due to join Hong Kong’s West Kowloon Cultural District’s visual culture museum.
(South China Morning Post)
INDIA
India Marks End of Era with Last Telegram
Thousands of people crowded telegraph offices around India to send the country’s last telegrams, as the government shut down the 163-year old service on Sunday.
(VOA)
MALTA
Malta FA presidential candidate sues for libel
Peter Fenech is to file two libel suits against Maltatoday and the newspaper’s website, maltatoday.com.mt, over two articles published yesterday entitled ‘Peter Fenech in impossible attempt at MFA presidency’ and ‘Dede’s supporters play down MFA rival’s transparency credentials’.
(Times of Malta)
RUSSIA
Russia’s Putin wants Snowden to go, but asylum not ruled out
President Vladimir Putin said on Monday he wanted Edward Snowden to leave after three weeks holed up at a Moscow airport, but also signaled that the former U.S. spy agency contractor was moving towards meeting Russia’s asylum conditions.
(Reuters)
TUNISIA
Tunisia’s dark turn
While Egypt’s revolution devolves into chaos, Tunisia’s democratic transition, which until now has been the most promising of any in the Arab world, is also in jeopardy. A bill being pushed by Islamists and their allies in National Constituent Assembly called the “law for the protection of the revolution” seems in reality designed to protect the ruling Islamist party, Nahda, from having to face real competition in the next elections.
(Los Angeles Times)
UNITED KINGDOM
The murky world of literary libel
Lawsuits, pulped books, family rifts: when novelists base their characters on real people, trouble tends to follow. John Preston investigates literary libel.
(The Telegraph)
Want to force ISPs to censor porn? Pass a law
As I write this, representatives from ISPs are meeting with the government for further talks on parental controls.
(PC Pro)
Online blogger set to appeal libel ruling
THE Towy Valley blogger, who lost her libel case against Carmarthenshire chief executive Mark James, is appealing against the ruling.
(South Wales Guardian)
UNITED STATES
ACLU says new Fairfield social media policy violates free speech rights
Maine’s American Civil Liberties Union says a new policy governing the online habits of Fairfield town employees is unconstitutional, but town leaders say they’re just trying to prevent their workers from attacking each other on social media sites.
(Kennebec Journal)
Zimmerman lawyer says he’ll move to sue NBC for libel
George Zimmerman is preparing to resume their effort to sue NBC News for libel following the network’s extraordinary breach of trust when they edited Zimmerman’s 911 call to make him look like a trigger happy racist.
(American Thinker)
Canned for Speaking Out?
It’s not unheard-of for a college to tell a faculty member partway through a probationary period before tenure that things just aren’t working out. And that may well be why Weber State University failed to rehire Jared Lisonbee, a professor of child and family studies. But the timing of his termination – after he and his wife spoke out against plans to name a new family program after a Mormon leader who has expressed controversial views on gays, women and intellectuals – has raised suspicion about what motivated the decision.
(Inside Higher Ed)
Would the Supreme Court silence pro-lifers?
A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court decided to hear a major free-speech case during its next term. The case, McCullen v. Coakley, concerns a 2007 Massachusetts law that prohibits some speakers from coming within 35 feet of free-standing abortion clinics. In effect, the law bans pro-life advocates from trying to peacefully persuade those entering the clinic to consider alternatives to abortion.
(The Washington Times)
Previous Free Expression in the News posts
July 15 | July 12 | July 11 | July 10 | July 9 | July 8 | July 5 | July 4 | July 3 | July 2 | July 1
15 Jul 13 | Burma
Fifty years of authoritarian rule has left its mark on Burmese society affecting the speed and process of transition.
This chapter will explore the political landscape and its potential effect on freedom of expression, the current impact of the government, constitution and judiciary on freedom of expression. Following this the chapter will explore how the ongoing ethnic conflict has impacted upon free speech and how recent developments in the right to freedom of association have affected the ability to protest in Burma.
It is unclear whether the transition to a functioning democracy based on the rule of law and human rights will be completed, or whether the transition will remain incomplete: this will have the largest impact on freedom of expression in Burma in the near-future.
(more…)
15 Jul 13 | Burma
It will be argued in this chapter that the media in Burma is freer now than at any point in the last decade, yet significant challenges remain and there are troubling signs on the horizon.
The abolition of the pre-censorship of the printed press, the return of daily newspapers and of formerly exiled independent newspapers and media outlets all point to demonstrable change since the beginning of the transition. It is also a better climate for journalists with the release of a number of journalists from jail during the transition.
(more…)
15 Jul 13 | Burma
“In the past political art was very easy – ‘this government is bullshit’ – but now due to the transition period and role of Aung San Suu Kyi in government it’s more complex, people are wary of making sweeping statements.”[21]
The abolition of pre-censorship in the print media has created a more widespread relaxation of pre-censorship including for other artistic forms. Artists were clear that the situation had improved significantly since the beginning of the transition, in particular there was more freedom to criticise the military and the USDP. One clear indicator of the greater openness was demonstrated by The Art of Transition symposium co-produced by Zarganar’s company HOME (House of Media and Entertainment) and Index. The symposium, which was a licensed event, was the first cross art form debate about artistic freedom of expression in the country.
(more…)
15 Jul 13 | Burma, Digital Freedom Reports
Real improvements have been made that strengthen digital freedom of expression in Burma from ending the blocking of Skype calls, to restrictions on internet cafe use being lifted and a reduction in SIM costs which will open up access to the internet and mobile telecoms. However, the legal framework remains largely unchanged during the transition to civilian government, in particular the draconian Electronic Transactions Act which contains many restrictive provisions on internet use. Built into the network infrastructure there are physical restraints on the internet in Burma with only one internet gateway for personal users allowing the possibility of deep packet inspection and web filtering. Upload speeds in Burma remain slow and the country’s mobile telephone and internet usage is one of the world’s lowest, which affects the dissemination of information. It is also alleged that activists’ email accounts have been hacked by the state. While in practice the internet and internet activists are considerably freer than a year ago, in theory they are still liable to lifetime prison sentences for the political use of email accounts. Without legal reform and technical reform, digital freedom of expression will remain chilled and mobile and internet use will continue to be highly limited.
(more…)
