Nabeel Rajab during a protest in London in September (Photo: Milana Knezevic)
Nabeel Rajab has been freed without bail as a court postponed his trail until 20 January.
A Bahraini court had ruled last week that Nabeel Rajab would face criminal charges stemming from a single tweet in which both the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Defense allege that he “denigrated government institutions.” The court had postponed the trial until Sunday, 2 November. If convicted, Rajab could face up to six years in prison.
many #Bahrain men who joined #terrorism & #ISIS came from security institutions and those institutions were the first ideological incubator
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB), the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR), the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD), and Index on Censorship condemn the criminal prosecution brought against Rajab, denounce his continued detention on charges related to his right to free speech and call for his immediate and unconditional release.
Rajab, President of BCHR and Co-Director of the Gulf Center for Human Rights (GCHR), was summoned to the Cyber Crimes Unit of the Central Investigations Directorate’s (CID) for interrogation and promptly arrested on 1 October after spending months advocating for human rights in Bahrain throughout Europe. After 19 days in pre-trial detention, Mr. Rajab appeared in front of a judge on 19 October, where the court postponed sentencing until 29 October and denied him release on bail.
This is not the first time Rajab has faced arbitrary detention. From July 2012 to May 2014, he was detained after calling for and participating in peaceful protests in Bahrain’s capital of Manama. Rajab was also previously sentenced to 3 months imprisonment for allegedly defaming citizens of Muharraq via Twitter. Despite his eventual acquittal by the Court of Appeal, Rajab served most of his sentence.
We, the undersigned human rights organizations, call on the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and other national and international bodies to actively engage the Government of Bahrain to:
Immediately and unconditionally release Nabeel Rajab;
drop all charges against him in relation to or retaliation for his work and his exercise of the right to freedom of expression; and
ensure that all civil society organizations and human rights defenders in Bahrain are able to conduct their work without fear of retaliation or reprisal.
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
The undersigned 40 organisations call on the international community to publicly condemn the ongoing crackdown on human rights defenders, who face harassment, imprisonment, and forced exile for peacefully exercising their internationally recognised rights to freedom of expression and assembly. With parliamentary elections in Bahrain scheduled for 22 November, the international community must impress upon the government of Bahrain the importance of releasing peaceful human rights defenders as a precursor for free and fair elections.
Attacks against human rights defenders and free expression by the Bahraini government have not only increased in frequency and severity, but have enjoyed public support from the ruling elite. On 3 September 2014, King Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa said he will fight “wrongful use” of social media by legal means. He indicated that “there are those who attempt to exploit social media networks to publish negative thoughts, and to cause breakdown in society, under the pretext of freedom of expression or human rights.” Prior to that, the Prime Minister warned that social media users would be targeted.
The Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR) documented 16 cases where individuals were imprisoned in 2014 for statements posted on social media platforms, particularly on Twitter and Instagram. In October alone, some of Bahrain’s most prominent human rights defenders, including Nabeel Rajab, Zainab Al-Khawaja and Ghada Jamsheer, face sentencing on criminal charges related to free expression that carry years-long imprisonment.
Nabeel Rajab, President of the BCHR, Director of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR), and Deputy Secretary General of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), was arrested on 1 October 2014 and charged with insulting the Ministry of Interior and the Bahrain Defence Forces on Twitter. Rajab was arrested the day after he returned from an advocacy tour in Europe, where he spoke about human rights abuses in Bahrain at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, addressed the European Parliament in Brussels, and visited foreign ministries throughout Europe.
On 19 October, the Lower Criminal Court postponed ruling on Rajab’s case until 29 October and denied bail. Rajab’s family was banned from attending the proceedings. Under Article 216 of the Bahraini Penal Code, Rajab could face up to three years in prison. We believe that Rajab’s detention and criminal case are in reprisal for his international advocacy and that the Bahraini authorities are abusing the judicial system to silence Rajab. More than 100 civil society organisations have called for Rajab’s immediate and unconditional release, while the United Nations called his detention “chilling” and argued that it sends a “disturbing message.” The United States and Norway called for the government to drop the charges against Rajab, and France called on Bahrain to respect freedom of expression and facilitate free public debate.
Zainab Al-Khawaja, who is over eight months pregnant, remains in detention since 14 October on charges of insulting the King. These charges relate to two incidents, one in 2012 and another during a court appearance earlier this month, where she tore a photo of the King. On 21 October, the Court adjourned her case until 30 October and continued her detention.
Zainab Al-Khawaja is the daughter of prominent human rights defender Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, who is currently serving a life sentence in prison, following a grossly unfair trial, for calling for political reforms in Bahrain. Zainab Al-Khawaja has been subjected to continuous judicial harassment, imprisoned for most of last year and prosecuted on many occasions. Three additional trumped up charges were brought against her when she attempted to visit her father at Jaw Prison in August 2014 when he was on hunger strike. The charges are related to “entering a restricted area”, “not cooperating with police orders” and “verbal assault”.
Zainab’s sister, Maryam Al-Khawaja, was also targeted by the Bahraini government recently. The Co-Director of the GCHR is due in court on 5 November 2014 to face sentencing for allegedly “assaulting a police officer.” While the only sign that the police officer was assaulted is a scratched finger, Maryam Al-Khawaja suffered a torn shoulder muscle as a result of rough treatment at the hands of police. She spent more than two weeks in prison in September following her return to Bahrain to visit her ailing father. More than 150 civil society organisations and individuals called for Maryam Al-Khawaja’s release in September, as did UN Special Rapporteurs and Denmark.
Other human rights defenders recently jailed include feminist activist and women’s rights defender Ghada Jamsheer, detained since 15 September 2014 for comments she allegedly made on Twitter regarding corruption at Hamad University Hospital. Jamsheer faced the Lower Criminal Court on 22 October 2014 on charges of “insult and defamation over social media” in three cases and a verdict is scheduled on 29 October 2014.
While the government of Bahrain continues to publicly tout efforts towards reform, the facts on the ground speak to the contrary. Human rights defenders remain targets of government oppression, while freedom of expression and assembly are increasingly under attack. Without the immediate and unconditional release of political prisoners and human rights defenders, reform cannot become a reality in Bahrain.
We urge the international community, particularly Bahrain’s allies, to apply pressure on the government of Bahrain to end the judicial harassment of all human rights defenders. The government of Bahrain must immediately drop all charges against and ensure the release of human rights defenders and political prisoners, including Nabeel Rajab, Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, Zainab Al-Khawaja, Ghada Jamsheer, Naji Fateel, Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace, Nader Abdul Emam and all those detained for expressing their right to freedom of expression and assembly peacefully.
Signed,
Activist Organization for Development and Human Rights, Yemen
African Life Center
Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI)
Avocats Sans Frontières Network
Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR)
Bahrain Human Rights Observatory (BHRO)
Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
Bahrain Salam for Human Rights
Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights (BYSHR)
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE)
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
English PEN
European-Bahraini Organisation for Human Rights (EBOHR)
Freedom House
Gulf Center for Human Rights (GCHR)
Index on Censorship
International Centre for Supporting Rights and Freedom, Egypt
International Independent Commission for Human Rights, Palestine
International Awareness Youth Club, Egypt
Kuwait Institute for Human Rights
Kuwait Human Rights Society
Lawyer’s Rights Watch Canada (LWRC)
Maharat Foundation
Nidal Altaghyeer, Yemen
No Peace Without Justice (NPWJ – Italy)
Nonviolent Radical Party, Transnational and Transparty (NRPTT – Italy)
PEN International
Redress
Reporters Without Borders
Reprieve
Réseau des avocats algérien pour défendre les droits de l’homme, Algeria
Solidaritas Perempuan (SP-Women’s Solidarity for Human Rights), Indonesia
Strategic Initiative for Women in the Horn of Africa (SIHA)
Syrian Non-Violent Movement
The Voice of Women
Think Young Women
Women Living Under Muslim laws, UK
Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic speaking at LSE (Photo: Milana Knezevic)
It wasn’t quite a remote controlled drone carrying a provocative political message, but Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic’s Monday night lecture at the London School of Economics (LSE) came with its own controversial incident.
“What can you say about the total censorship of all opposition media”, Vucic was asked by a young woman in the audience just as the premier sat down for the question and answer portion of the event. She explained that she was representing Nikola Sandulovic, an opposition politician from the Serbian Republican Party, who was sitting beside her. Sandulovic said later he had travelled to London to confront Vucic.
Chaos ensued. Sandulovic claimed, among other things, that a police officer connected to Vucic had threatened to kill him and that he had evidence contained on a CD he held aloft. Vucic hit back that the Republican Party had only 0.01% of public support, and disputed Sandulovic’s assertion that he had been an adviser to former Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic, who was assassinated in 2003. Accusations flew across the room until LSE’s moderator James Ker-Lindsay finally managed regain control of the situation.
After the event, Sandulovic told Index he came to London because the media in Serbia ignore him and his party, apart from when government-friendly outlets attack him.
That press freedom was a popular topic on the night did not comes as a surprise. Serbia has seen a string of censorship incidents during Vucic’s time in power, as Index and many others have reported.
The prime minister himself brought up the press in his introductory lecture. He explained how his government has passed several new laws aimed at improving the media landscape, and complained that despite this, they are “scapegoated”. He directly addressed the recent controversial cancellation of a political talk show, Utisak Nedelje (Impressions of the Week), saying authorities have been subjected to a blame campaign for what was a commercial decision. Supporters of the show, including host Olja Beckovic, say it was down to political pressure.
In a joking reference to his infamous role under Slobodan Milosevic, he said he had been the “worst minister of information”. Curiously, he also used this former job as a counterargument to critics, arguing that his past had made it easy to blame him for any instance of censorship.
But this didn’t seem to stop the press-related questions, though none of the journalists present were chosen to ask one. Apart from the memorable Sandulovic intervention, an audience-member pointed out that Utisak Nedelje wasn’t the only show to have been taken off air in recent times.
If there was an overarching theme to the night, it was that it seemed to showcase different — some would say conflicting — sides of Vucic and his administration. He reminded the audience that Belgrade had recently organised a successful Pride parade, before adding that he didn’t want to attend. To have that choice, he argued, was a real mark of freedom.
There were, of course, questions about the football drone. While Vucic said he didn’t want to share his own views, he said UEFA (European football’s governing body) saw Serbia’s side of the story by awarding them the win, before pointing out that Serbia carries its share of the responsibility. The planned state visit from Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama — the first in 68 years — will go ahead, he also confirmed, despite the post-drone postponement.
In response to questions about relations with Russia — just weeks after the Belgrade military parade where Vladimir Putin was the guest of honour — he said the two countries would continue to build their relationship, but that this would have no impact on Serbia’s ultimate goal of European Union accession.
Much has been made of Vucic’s apparent journey from Milosevic man to EU enthusiast. He seemed to reference this as he said he is “not perfect” and that he works “every single day” to change and better himself. But on Monday, he left more questions than answers about the direction he is taking Serbia in.
A journalist from Azerbaijani opposition newspaper Azadliq was today sentenced to 25 days of administrative detention. Khalid Garayev, who also hosts online show Azerbaijani Hour, was found guilty of hooliganism and insubordination to the police by a court in the capital Baku. He told the court the case against him is “fabricated, and politically motivated” because of his “journalistic activities and active civil position” reports contact.az.
Also today, jailed human rights activist Leyla Yunus said she has been denied access to her lawyer. Yunus made the claim in a letter sent from the detention centre in Baku where she is being held. This comes a day after her husband Arif Yunus, who was arrested with her in July, had his pretrial detention extended until 5 March, 2015. Azerbaijani authorities also announced yesterday that police will be able to use electric shockers, following an amendment to the police law.
Leyla Yunus’ lawyers have previously reported being denied access to her cell or an opportunity to see her. She has also reportedly been beaten and denied medical attention. The lawyers say the conditions she is being exposed to in prison “raise a lot of concerns”.
In addition to the Yunus couple, rights activist Rasul Jafarov, lawyer Intigam Aliyev and journalist Seymur Hezi have been detained since late this summer.
Last week, the European Union praised an announcement from President Ilham Aliyev that 80 prisoners, including at least four activists, would be granted amnesty. This was “a positive first step in reversing the trend of recent months,” said the EU in a statement.
Previously, the European Parliament has called on Azerbaijan to release political prisoners, including Arif and Leyla Yunus. The parliament also called on the government to cease its harassment of civil society organisations, opposition politicians and independent journalists.
On 13 October, thousands protested in Baku, calling for the resignation of President Ilham Aliyev, the release of political prisoners and an end to human rights abuses in the country. Two days prior, a travel ban had been placed on journalist Khadija Ismayilova. She currently faces a lawsuit over libel and document forgery, accusations she denies. As Index has reported, government supporters have threatened Ismayilova in the past.
Fellow journalist Arzu Geybulla was threatened on social media and accused of treason following a recent interviewed with Azerbaijani news site Modern.az. In July, the Index award-winning newspaper Azadliq was forced to suspend publication due to financial pressure from authorities.
Index on Censorship held its latest Draw the Line workshop with the young associates of Ovalhouse theatre in south London. The young associates are the theatre’s steering group for the national Truth about Youth initiative, which aims to challenge and change negative perceptions about young people, by supporting projects which enable them to work with adults, the media and the wider community. The group individually explored different freedom of expression issues before examining this month’s question “Do laws restrict or protect free speech?” in more detail as a group.
Young Associate Jordan Mitchell shares his experience of the workshop:
Going into the freedom of expression workshop, I had a couple of questions in mind; who defines freedom? Does freedom mean something different to each person? And how do we draw the line between free expression and infringing on another person’s freedom and sense of self? As a young associate, my colleagues and I are actively involved in the community, and one of the things we encourage and are encouraged to do ourselves is to appreciate different opinions, and respect that everyone has the right to that opinion.
The exercises were informative and engaging, particularly the “belief scale” (this involves being given a statement and having to answer how far you agree/disagree by positioning yourself on an invisible line across the room with either end representing “agree” or “disagree”). Often the questions posed to us led to a spread across the scale, which showed how varied opinions can be, even in a group containing people with similar interests. The great thing about it was that the reasoning put forward by people was incisive, and even if my view didn’t change, I understood and accepted that point of view.
One thing was reaffirmed in my mind at the end. Freedom of expression is limited dependent on who you know. Influence plays a big part, and tying in with the work that we do as young associates, something has to be done to build more platforms for people to be heard.
Nabeel Rajab during a protest in London in September (Photo: Milana Knezevic)
President of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR) and director of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR), Nabeel Rajab, is due to face trial on Sunday 2 November. Rajab was charged after he allegedly “denigrated government institutions” on Twitter, according to the Ministry of Interior.
Rajab was released from prison in May after serving a two years on charges which included making offensive tweets.
The trial against Zainab Al-Khawaja was delayed until December, her sister Maryam Al-Khawaja reported on Twitter on 30 Oct. The prominent human rights defender is currently eight months pregnant and could face up to seven years in prison. Al-Khawaja is the sister of Maryam Al-Khawaja, who held a press conference at Index earlier this month urging the UK government to speak out against human rights violations in Bahrain. Zainab Al-Khawaja faces charges of publicly insulting King Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa for ripping up a photo of him when she was recently in court over charges connected to previous rights campaigning. A verdict is expected on Thursday 30 October.
According to the 2012 Index advocacy award-winning BCHR, a total of 40 arbitrary arrests, including three children under the age of 18, were documented last week. Six individuals were released, leaving over 3000 prisoners still in arbitrary detention.
Nominations are now open for the Index Freedom of Expression Awards 2015. Put forward your free expression heroes here.
Hungarians gathered in Budapest on Sunday to protest plans to introduce a tax on internet bandwidth. (Photo: 100,000 Against the Internet Tax /Facebook)
Barring a u-turn from the Hungarian government, demonstrators will return to the streets of Budapest this afternoon to oppose Prime Minster Viktor Orban’s plans to tax the internet
The draft law proposed by Orban’s government would levy a fee of 150 forints (£0.40; €0.50; $0.60) per gigabyte of data traffic. In the face of public outrage, ruling party Fidesz promised that the tax will be capped at 700 forints for consumers and 5,000 forints for businesses. However, this did not calm the angry protesters.
Sunday’s rally that drew thousands of people to the Hungarian captial’s city center. The peaceful protest became heated when some demonstrators marched to the Fidesz headquarters, and broke the windows of the building with old computers and peripherals.
This protest was arguably the largest anti-government demonstration since 2010, when Viktor Orban came to power. In contrast with other protests, the gatherings denouncing the internet tax were not organized by the weak, discredited and fragmented opposition.
According to the Hungarian media, the new tax was Viktor Orban’s own brainchild. He did not consult with his staff or the members of his government. The prime minister plans to use the money to raise the salaries of policemen and other employees of the interior ministry.
According to official estimates, the new tax will bring into the budget about 20 billion forints annually. While the Hungarian government is saying that the companies will pay the new tax, consumers fear that in the end the costs will be pushed onto their bills. The Association of IT, Telecommunications and Electronics Companies has already said the tax would force them to raise prices.
The protests are likely to continue because Hungarians realise this is more than just another tax. Many fear that the new tax will restrict access to information, put another burden on already impoverished small businesses and act as a curb on freedom of expression. It will also be a leash on young people who mainly use online media and who tend to be critical towards the government.
“The move… follows a wave of alarming anti-democratic measures by Orban that is pushing Hungary even further adrift from Europe,” the organisers of the Facebook group 100,000 against the internet tax said in a press release. “The measure would impede equal access to the internet, deepening the digital divide between Hungary’s lower economic groups and limiting internet access for cash-poor schools and universities,” they added. The group has drawn more than 200,000 likes.
Moreover, many people believe the plan of the tax is just a way to direct the public’s attention away from the US visa ban scandal. Recently Washington banned six Hungarian state officials from entering the United States, because of their alleged involvement in high-level corruption.
This is an unprecedented step towards a country that is member of the EU and NATO, and signals a low point between the relations of Hungary and the United States.
The tax didn’t go unnoticed in Brussels either. Neelie Kroes, vice president of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda for Europe tweeted that it was “a shame for users and a shame for the Hungarian government”. Her spokesperson, Ryan Heath also criticized the tax in harsh terms during an EU Commission press briefing.
The internet tax is just another in a series of “special taxes” the Orban government introduced in the last couple of years to be able to keep the budget deficit in check. Retail, banking and energy sectors, as well as telecommunications providers are required to pay extra taxes. At the same time, the Hungarian government lowered the personal income taxes and subsidises the price of electricity and water.
María del Rosario Fuentes Rubio, best known under the pseudonym “Felina”, was kidnapped by armed men on 15 October in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas. The following day a photograph of her body was posted to her Twitter account with messages warning others to be silent.
A doctor by profession, Fuentes Rubio was a contributor to the Valor por Tamaulipas citizen information service, a website that seeks to expose violence and organised crime activities in the state. She posted under the handle @Miut3, which has since been suspended by Twitter. Fuentes Rubio actively posted alerts that pinpointed the location of violent incidents in real time. Her online activities defied the media blackout imposed by drug cartels since 2010.
“The work of individuals like Fuentes Rubio is critical in an environment where the press is muzzled by organised crime groups. Her murder is yet another blow to the right to information and to freedom of expression, and highlights the risks faced by individuals in the country who are striving to expose wrongdoings,” said Index on Censorship Chief Executive Jodie Ginsberg. “Impunity for the killing of journalists and digital activists is a threat to media and online freedom. We urge the authorities to investigate the killing thoroughly to identify and bring to justice those responsible.”
This is not the first time organised crime groups have targeted journalists and citizens who use the internet to provide information on violence and criminal activities. According to Reporters Without Borders, “four netizens were murdered in Tamaulipas in 2011 for having reported on narcotraffickers’ activities. The murders included that of María Elizabeth Macias, an influential blogger found decapitated on 24 September 2011 in Nuevo Laredo, a crime for which gangsters claimed responsibility.”
Index on Censorship is partnering with the BFI and others for a screening of We Are the Giant – a documentary featuring inspirational and gripping stories of three individuals who spoke their minds during the Arab Spring including Bahraini activist Maryam Al-Khawaja. The screening will be followed by a discussion featuring Maryam and Index on Censorship’s Melody Patry.
Directed by award-winning filmmaker Greg Barker and first presented at the Sundance Film Festival 2014, We Are the Giant tells the stories of three ordinary individuals who are transformed by the critical, moral and personal challenges they encounter when standing up for what they believe is right during the Arab Spring.
The screening will be followed by a panel discussion featuring Bahraini human rights activist Maryam Al-Khawaja with Greg Barker (film director), Kristyan Benedict (Amnesty International) and Melody Patry (Index on Censorship). The chair will be New York Times columnist and Arab spring authority Roger Cohen.
When Turkish political cartoonist Musa Kart faced nine years in prison for “insulting” President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, his colleagues from across the world fought back in the best way they know how — by drawing their own #erdogancaricature.
By: Martin Rowson
The online campaign was started on Thursday by Martin Rowson, cartoonist for The Guardian, The Independent and Index on Censorship among others, as Kart was scheduled to appear in court.
Erdogan himself filed the complaint against Kart over a cartoon published in the daily Cumhuriyet on 1 February 2014 showing the then prime minister as a hologram watching over a robbery. This was a reference to his alleged involvement covering up a high-profile graft scandal.
Erdogan claimed Kart was guilty of “insulting through publication and slander,” reports Today Zaman. And while the court initially ruled that there were no legal grounds for action, this decision was revoked following complaints from Erdogan’s lawyer. Kart was also fined in 2005 for drawing Erdogan as a cat.
In court on Thursday, Kart stated: “Yes, I drew it [the cartoon] but I did not mean to insult. I just wanted to show the facts. Indeed, I think that we are inside a cartoon right now. Because I am in the suspect’s seat while charges were dropped against all the suspects [involved in two major graft scandals]. I need to say that this is funny.”
He was finally acquitted, but many of his fellow cartoonists has already shared their artistic interpretations of Erdogan and the case.
By: Morten Morland
By: Ben Jennings
“I was alerted to Musa Kart’s plight by the excellent Cartoonists’ Rights Network International (CRNI) and previously, when an Iranian cartoonist was sentenced to 40 lashes, a bunch of us got together to draw the offended politician who’d had him arrested, the sentence was commuted,” Martin Rowson told Index via email.
By: Steve Bright
By: Kanika Mishra
“It seems this kind of international bullying by cartoon does have an effect, as even the chippiest despot out there can usually detect a batsqueak of the shamefulness of not being able to take a joke. In Musa Kart’s case, the threat of up to nine years in prison was such an outrageous abuse of power I didn’t wait for anyone else to organise this and simply put out a call via Twitter for cartoons of Erdogan to show solidarity. No idea if it had any effect on the court (I doubt it) though it may put Erdogan off the idea of taking the case to a higher court. I hope so. And I hope it gave Musa Kart a feeling that he wasn’t on his own in there. Basically, this is cartoonists playing the Spartacus card, because if one of us, anywhere, is persecuted for laughing at power, we all are,” said Rowson.
By: Harry Burton
By: Brian Adcock
“Cartoonists are often the last bastion of free speech in repressive regimes and equally valued for telling the truth as it is, in democratic societies too; some consider their work to be of just as much value, if not more, as journalists, and many respected for the courage and ability to often say and report what others cannot, or fear to do, alongside the just as valued use of satire to reveal a truth which otherwise might not see the light of day,” Patricia Bargh from CRNI explained to Index in an email.
By: Mike Roberts
By: Tjeerd Royaards
“Thus as societies we should value and protect their right to do what they do, and if they know there is an organisation out there who will take up their case, should they be targeted, we hope that gives them the confidence to continue to on and assists them in their valuable work too,” Bargh added.
“If we do not change, I think the world will suffer enormously … as a world we’re going to be less and less informed,” said Amie Ferris-Rotman, former Reuters Afghanistan correspondent and panellist for Index on Censorship’s future of journalism at London’s Frontline Club on Wednesday. Ferris-Rotman highlighted concerns over shrinking coverage of world news due to reduction in foreign desks’s budgets, as well as the increasing reliance on underpaid freelancers – especially in conflict zones.
The sold-out event was chaired by columnist, author and Index chairman David Aaronovitch. The panel also included journalism professor Richard Sambrook; director of Hostage UK Rachel Briggs; former Reuters Afghanistan correspondent Amie Ferris-Rotman; and Raymond Joseph, a data journalist and former regional editor of the South African Sunday Times, who appeared via Skype from South Africa.
The debate looked at serious issues affecting journalists today, from surveillance and encryption, to kidnappings and how the media, in turn, should cover kidnappings.
Talking points included whether Isis are using techniques of citizen journalism to spread their propaganda; and how verification is crucial when using information from social media.
Sambrook said hearing something on Twitter doesn’t make it journalism, although it could be vital as “raw material, or a lead”. Joseph spoke of the need to “separate the news from the noise”.
In addition to the main panel, a future panel also provided a contrasting view through the eyes of a selection of young people at the beginning of their journalism careers.
Below are some highlights from the Twitter discussion that took place under the hashtag #futurejournalism.
The instant messaging app LINE has strengthened its censorship methods in mainland China, according to new findings from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. The academic researchers not only found proof that the app now censors more topics than ever before, but also that LINE is censoring in a way that is harder to detect for the average user.
Want to discuss the China’s ruling Communist Party (CPC) with your friends on LINE? Go ahead. Compare foreign leaders to dictators? No problem, chat away. Unless you mention both the CPC and dictatorship in one chat message, you won’t notice LINE’s new censorship policy. That’s because LINE recently “improved” its censorship methods in China by adding almost fifty so-called regular expressions to its long list of taboo subjects; that is, groups of words that users are allowed to use independently, but not in combination.
The findings are interesting because LINE’s novel use of regular expressions allows a more subtle form of censorship, argues Jason Q. Ng, one of the researchers at the University of Toronto. “It allows for a more nuanced censorship for topics such as Xinjiang, instead of just a blanket block,” he told Pao-Pao over the phone, referring to the western province which has long been plagued by tensions between Chinese authorities and the indigenous Uighur people.
That’s positive for the authorities, he explains: “If you hide a smaller set of things, less people will encounter censorship than if you block everything related to a certain topic. Many people might want to speak in a so-called ‘legitimate’ way on a topic like Xinjiang, so if [the censors] block everything related to the topic, it will just make those people curious about the censorship, and the reasons behind its existence.”
Ng says that he thinks that the new method of censorship will only hinder the small minority of people already aware of the existence of censorship. One of the new, blocked combinations of words on LINE includes “Xinjiang”（新疆）and “independent” (獨立). Similar censorship techniques have already been implemented on Weibo, also known as Chinese Twitter.
There’s a whimsical name for the phenomenon that the Chinese authorities are trying to avoid with these new techniques: the Streisand effect, after American singer Barbara Streisand. In 2003, she attempted to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California by suing a photographer. The lawsuit ended up inadvertently generating a storm of publicity: whereas only six people had viewed the photographs before the lawsuits — two of which were her attorneys — the case caused 420,000 people to look up the photos within the month.
But it is a serious principle, as demonstrated earlier this month, during the protests in Hong Kong which were in a sense also a prime example of the dreaded Streisand effect. After a few students were teargassed by the police in an effort to suppress their protest, local outrage and support only swelled, resulting in a much higher turnout at demonstrations on the following days.
The Citizen Lab researchers have been tracking and analyzing LINE’s censorship for close to a year. They have reverse engineered the application, finding that when the user’s country is set to China it will enable censorship by downloading a list of banned words from a website called Naver. Whenever the list is updated, they study the differences compared to previous lists.
In a post on their website, Citizen Lab also show users how they can change their regional settings, allowing them to circumvent censorship on LINE within China.
In Citizen Lab’s report on the new methods, the researchers conclude that the new list “demonstrates LINE Corporation’s continued commitment to filtering keywords for users based in China and a push to improve the underlying technology”.
Still, Jason Q. Ng says that it is hard to say whether LINE’s censorship is better or worse than other chat apps like WeChat. “For LINE it is easier to see the exact way they censor,” he says. “Normally we can’t do that: we have to test the app word by word. We are still working on WeChat. Also, it depends on the way you measure: some apps might censor less, but have the ability to surveil a lot. That might be worse for the users.”
We are currently working hard to ensure that our new website is in perfect working order so we can continue to bring you the latest news, views and content from around the world. You may find that some pages are currently offline or that you are unable to find something that you are looking for. This is only temporary - and we apologise for any convenience this may cause.
Please consider subscribing to our weekly newsletter below, so that you are among the first to hear from our contributors and don't miss anything in future.
Thanks for your understanding.
?
STAY INFORMED.
Be the first to hear from uncensored writers and artists
For over 50 years, Index has published work by censored writers and artists. Subscribe to our email newsletter to get regular updates from our incredible contributors.
Be the first to hear from uncensored writers and artists
For over 50 years, Index has published work by censored writers and artists. Subscribe to our email newsletter to get regular updates from our incredible contributors.
?
SUPPORT OUR WORK
Index on Censorship’s work is only possible because of donations from people like you.
Please consider chipping in to help us give a voice to the voiceless:
