Index on Censorship, in association with Doughty Street Chambers, invites you to attend our high-level panel discussion asking who runs the internet?
At a moment when the revelations on NSA and GCHQ mass surveillance are opening up a wide debate about our digital freedoms, our panel will discuss how free the net is today, and the main challenges that lie ahead. In the next couple of years, major international summits will debate new rules on internet governance, and whether to adopt a top-down approach as favoured by China and Russia, or maintain a more open, multistakeholder networked approach. Meanwhile, from the EU to Brazil, reactions to the Snowden’s revelations of mass snooping suggest there is a growing risk of fragmentation of the internet, with calls for forced local hosting of data.
We are delighted to be hosting speakers:
Bill Echikson – Head of Free Expression EMEA, Google
Richard Allan – Head of Europe, Middle East and Africa, Facebook
Tusha Mittal – formerly a correspondent for Tehelka and currently a Fellow at the Reuters Institute, Oxford University
Kirsty Hughes – CEO, Index on Censorship
The panel will make short introductory remarks ensuring plenty of time for a lively Q&A session.
Over a year after the Leveson report came out, regulation of the British press is still a question of intense debate. Meanwhile, the NSA/Snowden revelations – and the related detention of David Miranda (supported recently by British courts) – open up core questions of how investigative and public interest journalism can function in a world of mass surveillance. In the US, while Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger rightly praises the first amendments, Obama himself has a growing reputation as a president who has pursued sources and journalists through the courts.
Join us on a Google Hangout with Guardian Digital journalist, James Ball (now based in New York) and LA Times London correspondent, Henry Chu, hosted by our Editor, Online and News, Sean Gallagher for a lively debate around the media freedom on either side of the Atlantic.
The recording will be broadcast live via Index’s Google+ and YouTube accounts from 10am (EST)/ 2pm (GMT) on Wednesday 26th March. Get involved in the discussion on our Twitter feed and website. Visit the Google+ page here and the YouTube page here.
Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, will be interviewed by Index on Censorship’s CEO Kirsty Hughes, on his experience surrounding digital freedom while in office.
Frank La Rue is a lawyer and current Director of the Centro-American Institute for Social Democracy Studies (DEMOS) in Guatemala. He holds a degree in law from the University of San Carlos, Guatemala, and a postgraduate degree in U.S. foreign policy from Johns Hopkins University. He was also a professor of human rights at the University of Rafael Lavinder de Guatemala. La Rue has worked extensively on human rights issues, and as founding member and Director of the Centre for Legal Human Rights Action (CALDH), he was involved in presenting the first Guatemalan human rights case before the Inter-American Court for Human Rights. Mr. La Rue also brought the first case of genocide against the military dictatorship in Guatemala. As a human rights activist, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004. La Rue has been serving as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression since August 2008.
Join us for this exciting insight into digital freedom between leaders in the field from 4pm (GMT) on Wednesday 26 March. The event will be live streamed on Google+ here as well as via Index’s YouTube account here. Get involved with your questions prior to the event via Twitter or during the live stream on Google+.
Since becoming a barrister in 1987, Sir Keir Starmer has made headlines for offering free legal counsel during the McLibel trial, won awards as a leading human rights QC, and set precedents as director of public prosecutions (DPP) in England and Wales. During the five-year post as DPP, he took on prosecution guidelines for the abuse of women and sexual abuse of children. He also tackled the as yet largely unchartered territory of cases involving social media and is mooted as a Labour candidate in the UK’s 2015 general election.
In this Index podcast Rachael Jolley, editor of Index on Censorship magazine, speaks to the newly knighted former DPP about his time overseeing the prosecution service, plus the right to offend, whistleblowing and legal challenges for social media.
On online abuse: “We haven’t got a law that has been designed to deal with this. We are falling back on the Communications Act, which was designed for abusive messages on telephones in the 1930s that might have been listened to by exchange staff.”
On the web: “You can’t have a law-free zone. If you simply say it doesn’t matter that the court order is breached because you are using social media, you undermine the entire criminal justice system and you remove all the protection that’s intended for very vulnerable victims.”
On whistleblowing: “It is important that legal protection is there and that everyone appreciates it. A lot of people labour under the misrepresentation that if you whistleblow you are necessarily engaging in wrongdoing and it is something you can’t do. There is still a great fear.”
Read the full interview in the latest issue of Index on Censorship magazine. This issue’s writers include Lyse Doucet, David Aaronovitch and Julian Baggini. You can buy it, or take out a subscription here.
Lhasa, Tibet (Image: Prasad Kholkute/Creative Commons)
“What kind of device is that sniper on the rooftop using?”
“People’s Armed Police are everywhere.”
“Emerging from military compounds are Special Police, all driving mighty armoured vehicles.”
These are the messages sent by ordinary Chinese tourist about their trips to Tibet, collected by the International Campaign for Tibet, and published on their website.
While Tibetans themselves face fierce internet restrictions and harsh penalties if they try to spread information about the military occupation, Chinese tourists appear to be inadvertently breaching “the great Firewall of China” by sharing holiday snaps with friends back home. The messages and photos, which have been leaking out fairly infrequently since 2009, represent a rare source of information for those interested in repression in Tibet.
The tourists post photos of the considerable military presence — despite occasional warnings. Most comment on the large numbers of troops deployed.
“You can see People’s Armed Police troops everywhere in Lhasa. A guard post every ten meters…”
“Every three steps there’s a heavily armed People’s Armed Police checkpoint, there are armoured vehicles and tanks which you wouldn’t dare to photograph.”
“The Jokhang [most sacred temple in Tibet] is surrounded by heavily armed, fire-extinguisher toting People’s Armed Police.”
One photo shows a column of a hundred or so Chinese soldiers marching down a street. Another shows armoured cars on the move, and another a cohort of tanks. A picture sneakily snapped behind some marching soldiers shows fire extinguishers strapped to their backpacks.
Also striking amongst the comments are what appear to be genuinely held fears by Han Chinese tourists about the Tibetan residents.
“The number of Tibetans going back and forth on the streets made us worry about our safety, but when we asked the officer on duty they said it was safe, no problem.”
“Tibetans have a very strange look in their eyes, especially at night. It’s best not to do anything on the street by yourself,” said one, who admitted to carrying a Swiss Army knife during his trip, for protection.
These images are precious. Research in 2012 showed that half of all Weibo posts originating from Tibet were being deleted, compared to just 12% in Beijing. Last year, authorities installed a new system for monitoring both internet and phone traffic — while Tibetans living in nearby Sichuan province have seen their internet connections shut down en masse.
Anne Henochowicz, Translations Editor for China Digital Times, remembers a recent crackdown: “For several weeks in early summer 2012, Tibet was sealed off from all foreign visitors,” she told Index. “It was following two self-immolations in Lhasa in May. Chinese tourists were still allowed entry, and posted photos of armed troops in the city streets, along with posts describing increased security measures.”
Translations of the messages were posted on China Digital Times, an independent news website with a focus on freedom of expression in China’s complex and highly restricted online space.
Dechen Pemba, UK resident but editor of the Tibetan website High Peaks Pure Earth, put the leaked images in perspective: “Tibetans are not free to comment, document or report on their own situations. You only have to look at what happened to Dhondup Wangchen in 2008,” she told Index.
Wangchen was sentenced on 28 December 2009 following a secret trial in Xining city, western China, receiving six years in prison for producing a documentary film interviewing 100 Tibetans. He is one of many Tibetan political prisoners in China.
“Tibetans are well aware of the risk of using Weibo and public platforms online,” says Pemba. “Despite controls, Tibetans are also finding other ways to speak out and express themselves such as through poetry and song.” Pemba’s blog has been key in highlighting this trend — offering translations of works by Tibetans.
During high-tension periods, Chinese forces are not afraid to take special measures. In 2011, Pemba points out, searching Chinese social media site Weibo for mentions of “self immolations” yielded zero results. This was strange, given seven self-immolations had occurred in the past three weeks.
“After the riots in 2012,” continues Pemba. “Internet connections and mobile phone signals were cut off for over 50 kilometres around the areas affected.”
The Save Tibet campaign continues to document all of these images, under the title “Has life here always been like this?”. It has been extremely difficult to find information about Tibet without either going there, or relying on opportunistic citizen journalism. Chinese tourists, snapping away and posting to Weibo, provide a surprising back-channel into the Tibetan struggle.
This month, British charity Maslaha launched the website “Islam and Feminism”– a new project which aims to unite the two belief systems. “Muslim women have the same core concerns as white, secular, British women: the workplace, discrimination [and] childcare” says the charity’s Latifa Akay, yet they have long been excluded from the feminist debate. This is what the project wants to change by promoting the idea that women of all religions can push for gender equality.
Inna Shevchenko, leader of topless protest group Femen, strongly disagrees. “I will never have a discussion about Muslim feminism because it doesn’t exist. It cannot exist. It’s oxymoronic.” Femen’s intolerance has seen them labelled as “white colonials” and “cultural imperialists” but the group’s real fault is the way it forces women into a mould, leaving no space for individualism.
In 2012, Femen protested against the International Olympic Committee’s collaboration with Islamist regimes. As a demonstrator was led away by police, she screamed “I fight for women who are not free. We are not free”. She had elected herself as spokesperson for women around the globe but the way she spoke for Muslims prompted backlash.
It seemed that many Muslim women did not want to be “liberated” by semi-nude activists. They felt Femen were patronizing and had done little research into the culture of Islam. The Facebook page “Muslim Women Against Femen” was founded and a series of selfies, emblazoned with slogans appeared – “hijab is my right”, “nudity does not liberate me” and “I do not need saving”. A feeling of resentment was prominent; these women did not want western ideals imposed on their faith.
Artist Sarah Maple considers this idea in her current exhibition, “God is a feminist”. Her work turns the tables on common perceptions of Muslim women as trapped and victimized. “In the West there is an obsession with being sexually attractive in a very limited and narrow way. I was looking at how this may be seen as a form of oppression and that there may be a freedom in covering up”.
Feminism should never be rooted in the idea of whitewashing society. Surely nothing is more backward than the mind-set; “to be free, you must look like me, think like me and live like me”. Equality is about giving all genders absolute choice, no matter their religion.
Recently it has become a trend for far right groups to hijack feminist rhetoric – alienating Muslims from feminist dialogue. During an anti-Islam rally in Munich, The Freedom Party’s Michael Stürzenberger furiously revealed to the crowd that Sharia instructs men to hit women. “We don’t want that in Bavaria!” he bellowed. Yet he is not concerned with women’s rights, instead he channels his efforts into spreading Islamophobia. He’s already lead over 100 anti-Islam demonstrations.
British groups like the English Defence League and the British National Party also rush to condemn Islam’s lack of feminist values. But their opinions in this area seem entirely self-serving, especially when they are associated with candidates like the BNP’s Nick Eriksen.
Feminism must separate itself from inflammatory politics. Instead, its focus should be on educating women and empowering them to make their own choices – making sure no one is trapped in any lifestyle. However freedom and tolerance should always be on the same side.
Feminism should mean that women can work in any industry, receive the same pay as their male colleagues and demand respect from their husbands, whether they wear the hijab or not. Of course Muslims can be feminist and their views should be welcomed into the debate.
The Chinese government has revealed it is expanding their censorship of the internet with a new training programme for the estimated two million “opinion monitors” Beijing organised last year.
Training will target civil servants in all aspects of government – from the police force to the judiciary, to academic institutions, and even to the press offices in large and medium sized enterprises, many of which are state-owned, according to the offical state news agency Xinhua.
“The training courses actually began some years ago, I had attend it in 2006 when I was working for Yangcheng evening news in Guangdong province. But this is the first time it has been publicised so widely”, Yunchao Wen, a Chinese anti-censorship activist and social media expert, told Index.
The training course will reportedly cost 6,800 yuan ($1,108) and graduates will receive a certificate according to one of five levels – assistant analyst, analyst, senior analyst, manager and senior manager. The test will take three hours and participants will be required to take a “refresher” course at a later date.
Once trained, monitors will “supervise” the posting of social media messages, deleting those that are deemed harmful. Beijing claims to have deployed “advanced filtering technology” to identify problematic posts, and will need to “rapidly filter out false, harmful, incorrect, or even reactionary information,” according to Xinhua.
Internet monitoring in China is an intensive process. Censored search terms are often placed on the list and then removed as a situation develops.
A recent example saw searches for “terrorist” with “Xinjiang” placed back on a list of banned keywords, after reports of a terrorist attack in Kunming surfaced. Over 140 were injured and 33 were reportedly killed. Weibo quickly turned to theories about Uyghur separatists from the northern province of Xinjiang. “Terrorist” and “Xinjiang” were periodically blocked over similar incidents in 2013 and 2011. Similarly “children stabbed and killed” also re-appeared on the ban list.
Beijing also issued strict instructions to media:
Media may publish a moderate amount of criticism and internet commentary which oppose terrorism and violence and which condemn the killers. However, do not hype this incident.
Anne Henochowicz, Translations Editor for China Digital Times, told Index about the constantly shifting world of Weibo censorship.
“As a story trends in the news cycle, more terms are blocked on Weibo; and when that story ebbs, many of those words become searchable again,” she explained.
Alongside the announcement about the training course, the government emphasised its concern over “the spreading of rumours,” which have recently become a euphemism for political discussion, including possible corruption of senior officials online. Those who spread “rumors” would be “severely punished,” the statement confirmed.
Ten days ago, opinion monitors identified forty five users of Weibo, who were accused of “spreading rumours” about the deadly knife attack in Kunming. Several of the accounts are operated by well-known figures: Some of whom questioned the veracity of media reports, or speculated about the ethnicity of the attackers. All of the users received an official warning while some were detained.
Politics, claimed the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck, is the art of the possible. Exceed that limit, and you are bound to make a hash of it. By all means, care to dream, but be aware of limitations. The Turkish government, led by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has given that sentiment substance. Ahead of the local elections on March 30, he has attempted to shut off Twitter via a court order. Google has similarly been subject to requests by the Erdoğan government to remove material alleging government corruption from its YouTube sites.
It all began late on Thursday. At a rally, Erdoğan apparently told reporters that, “We will wipe out all of these.” Another reported comment from the speech was even less edifying: “Twitter, mwitter!” Erdoğan then hit his strides, claiming that he would target his political enemies, and that he did not care one iota for international opinion. “The international community can say this, can say that. I don’t care at all. Everyone will see how powerful the Republic of Turkey is.”
Those using the site were taken to a government statement issued by the telecommunications regulator TIB. Four court orders were cited behind the ban. In theory at least, 12 million account users in Turkey were to be shut off from the site. “If Twitter officials insist on not implementing court orders and the rules of law… there will be no other option but to prevent access to Twitter to help satisfy our citizens’ grievances.” Importantly, Erdoğan is suggesting that Turkish citizens have been mocked and insulted, and that he is stepping in to protect citizens against the misuse of Twitter.
As ever, classic authoritarianism is based on merging civic responsibility with a leader’s aspirations. Insult the body politic and you are insulting the people of the nation state. The reaction shows how rattled Erdoğan has been by a series of postings and recordings seemingly showing corruption within the prime minister’s circle. Wiretap records of telephone conversations between the prime minister, media and business figures, members of Cabinet and family members do not paint a good picture.
Hurriyet Daily is also speculating that the move against Twitter by Erdoğan may be motivated by concerns that those who have been behind the leaks may have a recording between the Turkish Intelligence Organisation (MIT) Chief Hakan Fidan and the imprisoned Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan. That in itself is not a problem – apart from the suggestion that the conversation may contain guarantees for Öcalan’s release. That might well put a dampener on government aspirations.
The barrel of the ruling regime is certainly filled with more than the odd rotten apple. Last year’s annus horribilis for the government saw at least 52 people, including the sons of three Cabinet members, businessmen, officials and a mayor detained in three separate investigations. Accusations were levelled on the receipt of construction permits for protected areas in exchange for cash, and bribery over state projects. The graft probe resulted in the resignations of four ministers. As more corruption is being exposed, officials are getting desperate.
Attempts to rein in expression of the political sort shows up in the country’s jails, which are being filled with non-compliant journalists. In 2013, the Committee to Protect Journalists revealed that Turkey was the world’s top jailor of journalists, something it has been for some time. Given the stiff competition, this was a remarkable statistic, inflated by the retaliation on the government’s part against coverage of the Gezi Park protests. Additionally, 22 journalists were fired and 37 forced to quit. The desire to control the streams of opinion and expression is proving powerful.
Twitter users in Turkey reacted with immediate effect to the ban, some helped by instructions from the San Francisco based firm to use the medium in other ways. The company does enable users to employ trimmed down version of it. A particularly potent picture appeared, showing Twitter-style birds making droppings on the Prime Minister. The medium had muddled with the message.
Ankara has been keen on controlling various multimedia platforms for some time. The Gezi Park protests last summer were accused of being a social media confection, though the government erred in classic fashion by assuming that the platforms being used were the protests. A request was made to Twitter to establish a Turkish based office for one simple reason: ease of control. Material objectionable to the government would be more easily removed.
Such efforts are simply not working. In an embarrassing turn of events for Erdoğan, he has found the Twitter ban broken by his own Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arinç and Ankara Mayor Melih Gökçek. Even President Abdullah Gül, who claims to have been an unwilling approver of the Internet law, said via his own Twitter account how opposed he was to the ban. To rub salt into an already suppurating wound, the use of Twitter in Turkey has actually soared, rising by 33 per cent.
Controlling the internet continues to remain the ignoble dreams of those in authority. The Turkish prime minister has proven to be no exception, using his AK Party’s majority in Parliament to pass legislation regulating its use. But the lesson for Erdoğan should be simple: ban Twitter, and you are set for the dump. Even his own officials are starting to believe it.
For many years, the Indian public in particular, had very little interest in who controlled the internet and decisions taken at a structural level that shaped its future.
The press carried little tidbits about the World Summit on Information Society; a pair of United Nations-sponsored conferences about information, communication and, with an aim to bridge the so-called global digital divide separating rich countries from poor countries by spreading access to the internet in the developing world, the UN body, International Telecommunications Union (ITU); which coordinates the shared global use of the radio spectrum, promotes international cooperation in assigning satellite orbits, works to improve telecommunication infrastructure in the developing world, and assists in the development and coordination of worldwide technical standards, and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which coordinates the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, which are key technical services critical to the continued operations of the Internet’s underlying address book, the Domain Name System (DNS) and also UN Commission of Science and Technology Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, where governments come together to discuss issues like internet governance.
What was commonly known followed a similar trajectory: America invented the internet, it is a global commons, and it works well.
Over the last few years, however, as the Indian experience with the internet has matured, questions of governance, both internally and externally have started making headlines. Allegations of mass surveillance have hogged all headlines. Another factor cannot be missed: the Indian digital economy is growing rapidly, and while internet governance is nowhere close to being an election issue in India, domestically, access, freedom of expression, cyber crime and cyber security are growing concerns. There also the reality that as India’s population gets increasingly connected, it will host one of the biggest online demographies in the world. Therefore, India’s views and actions in terms of how the internet should grow and be governed is crucial to the future of the internet itself.
In October 2011, the Indian government proposed that a UN Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) be formed, so that governments can debate and deliberate on vital issues such as intellectual property enforcement, privacy and data protection, online filtering and censorship and network neutrality. Those opposed to the idea have warned that the “open” nature of the internet will be threatened by governments who favor a controlled and censored form of the internet. Also the proposed structure of the UN-CIRP seemed to be the very anti-thesis of a dynamic internet; it involved setting up a 50 member committee that only met for two weeks in the year. Those opposed to this bureaucratic suggestion, instead, favour a multi-stakeholder transnational governance mechanism, which gives all stakeholders of the internet a place on the table; including governments, businesses and civil society members.
The last few months of 2013 were very active internationally, on questions of internet governance. Three big international events made headlines, and India’s role in them is especially telling. The first was the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Indonesia in November. This event brought together all members of civil society on a common platform to deliberate on the rules of global governance, but in effect did not have any binding powers. Given that it was held in the wake of the Snowden revelations of NSA surveillance, the conversations centered around the need to ensure better protection of all citizens in the online environment and to reach a proper balance between actions driven by national security and respect for freedom of expression, privacy and human rights. While in the 2012 IGF, India’s Minister for Communication Technology had been present, in 2013, was “extremely small” according to Dr Anja Kovaks who participated there. She added that, “many developing countries look up to India’s engagement with internet-governance forums to ensure that the concerns of the developing world are not ignored during policy-making.”
In December, 2013, the UN Commission of Science and Technology Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation released a statement which also carried India’s proposal that, “The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources.” Earlier this year, a note written by India’s National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS), leaked to an Indian newspaper in March 2014, warns of the DNS system under US control, and goes on to say that “India’s position is aligned with Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran who also want governments to collectively drive internet management worldwide…” It adds that, “trust in the internet has declined and India’s objective in the Geneva session was to ensure its concerns are accommodated in whatever international regime of Internet governance finally emerges.”
However, in the backdrop of continuing internet governance discussions, came the announcement by Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff that in the light of revelations of global mass surveillance by the US, Brazil was going to host an internet governance conference — NETmundial — in April 2014. This announcement was made after consulting the head of ICANN, Fadi Chehde. In contrast, the Indian reaction to these revelations seemed rather muted, perhaps because India too is building a mass surveillance regime within its national borders. It is also believed that Brazil asked India take a bigger role with them, however, Indian foreign ministry officials have stated off-the-record that details about the conference were not easy to come by from Brazil. Either way, the conference dates coincide with Indian general elections of 2014 and the formation of a new national government, and will most likely see a small Indian delegation.
This, of course, is a hint that the US government would rather restructure ICANN and keep the multistakeholder approach towards internet governance open, rather than let some governments steer the course towards a government led body governing the internet.
In a reaction to the announcement, Member of Parliament and vocal critic of the Indian government’s position, Rajeev Chandrasekhar told Index that “India needs to think ahead, because its position on the governance of the internet and its inexplicable alliance with China, Saudi Arabia on this issue has been based on the so called US control of the net. First, the Ministry of External Affairs’s entrenched position of a UN body needs to be withdrawn forthwith. I have substantiated its problems at multiple levels. India has lost its leadership status to Brazil in the internet governance space, thanks to government’s position, and reflects complete failure of thought by Indian leadership.” Looking towards the future, Chandrasekhar added that, “the new government needs to hold national, open public consultation on the issue. Parliament needs to be involved. Governments want to regulate; industry invests, builds infrastructure and drives innovation; and civil society/academia protects civil ideals and users’ interest, including privacy, free speech and human rights. A free, open, safe, secure and truly global internet can only be managed through a multi-stakeholder mechanism with specific areas of intergovernmental cooperation, such as cyber terrorism, international jurisdiction.”
Other civil society voices, too, have called for the Indian government to rise to this new challenge. Security expert, Dr. Raja Mohan wrote in the Indian Express that, “Delhi has a long record of posturing at multilateral forums and shooting itself in the foot when it comes to national interest. Believe it or not, in the 1970s, India opposed, at the UN, the direct broadcast satellite technology in the name of protecting its territorial sovereignty. With an IT sector that is deeply integrated with the global economy and contributing nearly 8 per cent of India’s GDP as well as the world’s third-largest group of internet users, India does not have the luxury of quixotic pursuits. Delhi’s negotiating position must be rooted firmly in India’s economic interests. Issue-based coalitions — with countries, companies and civil society groups — are critical for ensuring the best possible outcomes.”
Given the Indian government’s taste for pushing unilateral mechanisms for governing the internet at an international level, and Indian civil society, which for the most part seems to vocally support a multistakeholder approach, the Indian elections might bring about a new opportunity for both sides to find clarity. Some argue that multistakeholder models give an equal seat to governments like the US, but also to their corporate giants such as Google, Facebook, AT&T, which might help them secure a majority over crucial issues and therefore an international unilateral model might be beneficial for smaller countries. Alternatively, a government-led model, as India suggests, pre-supposes a consultative mechanism within countries so that the will of the people can be reflected. One thing is clear, with its technology boom, population, and growing dependence on the internet for economic prosperity, governance and free expression, the country can no longer afford to not assume a leadership role in this area, while at the same time sticking to its core democratic principles. It needs to rise to its leadership potential and reflect the will of its people.
SIR – The British sense of humour is famous around the world. Anyone who has watched Prime Minister’s Questions can see that even our MPs are funny – occasionally intentionally.
Satire is a vital tool for campaigning organisations to create debate, expose hypocrisy and change opinion. However, the importance of parody in public debate is not recognised in copyright law. This omission has led to the removal of material that is undoubtedly in the public interest – such as Greenpeace films taken down from YouTube.
Since 2005, two governments have run reviews on copyright, both of which said that there should be a copyright exception to allow parody.
We now have less than a week for the Government to commit to a vote. If it doesn’t, the opportunity to change the law may be postponed until after the next election. That isn’t funny. We call upon Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, and Lord Younger, the minister for intellectual property, to act now and ensure that an exception to copyright for parody is put into law.
Jenny Ricks
Director of Policy, ActionAid UK
Maureen Freely
President, English PEN
Kirsty Hughes
Chief Executive, Index on Censorship
John Sauven
Executive Director, Greenpeace UK
Thomas Hughes
Executive Director, ARTICLE 19
Ann Feltham
Parliamentary Co-ordinator, Campaign Against Arms Trade
Niall Cooper
Director, Church Action on Poverty
Simon Moss
Managing Director, Programs, Global Poverty Project
Turkey’s late night decision to block Twitter last evening is emblematic of the increasing authoritarian tendencies of the prime minister Recep Erdogan.
Index condemns prime minister Erodgan’s move to block Twitter as censorship of which the worst authoritarian regimes would be proud.
Index CEO Kirsty Hughes said: “The degree of censorship in Turkey has gone from bad to very grave. Index calls on the Turkish government to restore freedom of expression in Turkey and to end its block on Twitter.”
She added:
“Index calls on the European Union to demand Turkey stops its attacks on freedom of expression – on social media, the broadcast and print media, and the right of assembly, or to suspend its membership negotiations.”
After weeks of threats against social media, the blocking of Twitter sends a clear sign that Turkey should no longer be accepted as even a talking partner for accession to the EU. Index calls on the EU to suspend all discussions with Turkey until the government takes steps away from censorship of its press and social media outlets.
Couched in terms that throw a thin veneer of legality and protection of public morals, the block against Twitter was either instituted at the behest of citizen complaints or court orders to remove content that were resisted by the social network. The government’s move against Twitter follows the leak of recorded conversations of Erdogan that are embarrassing to his administration ahead of local elections.
Twitter is an increasingly important tool in Turkey where it is used by more than 36 million internet users, of which 31 per cent use Twitter (according to eMarketer). As the election approaches, clearly the Erdogan government is worried about the power of social media to spread news and information it doesn’t want its people to know. It was expected that Twitter would a big part of the upcoming election strategy for all parties.
From upper left: Shahzad Ahmad, Rahim Haciyev, Shu Choudhary, Mayam Mahmoud. (Photos: Alex Brenner for Index on Censorship)
This year’s Freedom of Expression Awards 2014 were awarded to a diverse group of remarkable individuals and organisation from the young female Egyptian Rapper to a Pakistani internet campaigner, from an Indian digital pioneer to an Azerbaijani newspaper.
The Freedom of Expression Awards 2014 took place this evening at the Barbican Centre in London and saw 18 year old, Egyptian rapper, Mayam Mahmoud win the Arts Award; Pakistani internet freedom fighter, Shahzad Ahmad pick up the Advocacy Award; Shu Choudhary, the Indian journalist who has created an egalitarian news platform receive the Digital Activism Award; and the Azeri newspaper, Azadliq, win the Journalism Award.
The Freedom of Expression Awards recognise the bravest journalists, artists and activists from around the world. From Edward Snowden to FreeWeibo and David Cecil to Colectivo Chuhcan, their remarkable true stories remind us that the right to free expression must be defended at all costs. Index is proud to bring these voices to London and shine a light on their work for the world to see.
Index Arts award: Mayam Mahmoud, Egyptian Hip-hop Artist
Mayam Mahmoud, Egyptian Hip-hop Artist, accepting her award (Photo: Alex Brenner for Index on Censorship)
A finalist on Arab’s Got Talent, hijab wearing Egyptian rapper Mayam Mahmoud uses hip-hop to address issues such as sexual harassment and to stand up for women’s rights in the country that, after the hope of Tahrir Square, is slipping back into authoritarianism.
Google Digital Activism award: Shubhranshu Choudhary, Indian Journalist
Shubhranshu Choudhary at the Index awards (Photo: Alex Brenner for Index on Censorship)
Shubhranshu Choudhary is the brains behind CGNet Swara, a mobile-phone based news service that allows some of India’s poorest citizens to upload and listen to hyper-local reports in their own dialect, no smartphone required! CGNet Swara is both circumventing India’s strict radio licencing laws and creatively providing an outlet for those overlooked people on the wrong side of the digital divide.
The Guardian Journalism award: Azadliq, Azerbaijani independent Newspaper
Rahim Haciyev, deputy editor-in-chief of Azerbaijani newspaper Azadliq (Photo: Alex Brenner for Index on Censorship)
One of the last independent media outlets in Azerbaijan, Azadliq has continued to report on government corruption and cronyism in spite of increasing pressures and a financial squeeze enforced by the authorities.
Doughty Street Advocacy award: Shahzad Ahmad, Pakistani Campaigner
Shahzad Ahmad at the Index awards (Photo: Alex Brenner for Index on Censorship)
Shahzad Ahmad leads the fight against online censorship in Pakistan. He has sued the Pakistani government over their suspected use of surveillance software, FinFisher, and he is suing the government over its ongoing blocking of YouTube which is depriving his people of one of the world’s most popular video channels.
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.Â
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.Â
Thanks for your understanding.Â
?
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:
