Greek Journalist Kostas Vaxevani after his arrest for exposing alleged tax cheats – Athens – Stathis Kalligeris | Demotix
The European Union has a duty to speak out against increasing censorship, writes Rohan Jayasekera (more…)
Cross-posted at Bright Blue
The political hue of a government by no means tells you where it will stand on defending freedom of expression when the chips are down. The signals from Cameron and his team so far are mixed but by the end of 2012, judgements good or bad are likely to start rolling in. A whole mixture of issues, laws, domestic statements and foreign policy stances add up to a picture of whether a government is promoting, defending or limiting freedom of expression – free speech, a free press, freedom to receive and share information online and off. So why is autumn 2012 likely to be so critical in telling us if the government is standing up for one of our most fundamental rights in a democracy?
Three particular issues are on the agenda this autumn, crucial to whether the UK can stand proud in the world as a democracy where free speech thrives: the defamation reform bill, the communications data bill, and the report from the Leveson Inquiry. The rough state of play on these goes as follows: defamation report bill — very welcome but some critical gaps need plugging at committee stage this month; communications data bill — very unwelcome, risks the UK being the pariah of the democratic world in digital surveillance; government response to the Leveson Inquiry — all to play for. If all of these go in the right direction, there will be reason for celebration and plaudits for Cameron indeed. If the three go in different directions, the government may well end up looking confused on freedom of expression. If they go in the wrong direction, criticism is likely to come in from around the world.
Index has been campaigning for three years (with its partners English Pen and Sense about Science) for a reform of England’s libel laws for the last three years. And it was a huge step forward to have the defamation reform bill in the Queen’s speech this May – the bill is likely to complete its path through parliament by the end of the year. In its current form, there is much that is positive — major steps have been taken to tackle libel tourism, so that nationals of other countries no longer use the English courts on the excuse of a small even negligible extent of publication in the UK, just to benefit from the complainant-bias in the existing law. But some of the most notorious cases of libel in recent years — such as those of Simon Singh or Ben Goldacre, both dragged expensively and at length through the courts (even though ultimately cleared) for debating and challenging scientific and medical practices – could still occur. The defamation bill crucially needs a proper public interest defence to be added at committee stage — so that open, reasonable debate can take place without the chill of possible expensive libel suits. Without it, a major opportunity to bring English libel law firmly into the 21st century will have been missed.
The Comms Data Bill – aptly labelled a ‘snooper’s charter’ by the press – has no saving graces. The Bill would lead to collection and filtering of data across the entire British population – emails, mobile and landline calls, websites visited, the list goes on. Monitoring and surveillance of this kind impacts directly both on the right to privacy and on the right to freedom of expression. No other democracy is proposing such an extensive approach to data collection – and it is the kind of approach that would normally be associated with regimes such as Iran and China, who will certainly be watching whether the Bill goes through with interest. If it does, it will be very difficult for Cameron or Hague to tell Iran, China, Russia and others that they must allow and respect internet freedoms when they will no longer be doing so at home. The report stage of the Bill is expected to conclude in November – the committee has an opportunity then to call for the withdrawal of the Bill, and the government should do so.
Then there is Leveson — expected to report in mid-November. It is too soon to say exactly what Lord Leveson will propose, or how Cameron will respond. But many are speculating that Leveson will recommend introducing a so-called ‘light’ form of statutory regulation of the press — through a statute that would go to parliament determining what an ‘independent’ regulator should look like. If so, this would be the thin end of the wedge — introducing government control over how the press can behave — a development which would risk taking the UK in the direction of Hungary with its increased state intervention in the media. Tougher, more effective independent regulation of the British press is surely the direction of travel. But if Leveson goes down the statutory route, Cameron needs to stand up for the basic principles of press freedom — journalists cannot hold government (and opposition) to account if government in the end determines how the press is controlled.
Three crucial choices face the government in the next two months — by December, we hope Index will be applauding Cameron on all three fronts. If not, it will be a sad moment for freedom of expression in the UK.
Kirsty Hughes is Chief Executive of Index on Censorship
In the age of social media, the European Union needs to defend free expression. But it often falls far short, says Padraig Reidy
This post originally appeared on the Independent Blogs
As the often theatrical spectacle of the Leveson hearings — with its mix of posturing, jousting, inquisition and exposé — draws to a close, the big question is what Leveson will recommend this autumn. Will we see proposals that defend press freedom and promote high professional standards, or do we risk facing proposals that limit press freedom and serious investigative journalism?
Given the range of unethical and illegal behaviour exposed in the phone-hacking scandal, and the tawdry tales of political-media cronyism under the spotlight at the Inquiry, there may be a risk that Lord Justice Leveson will prioritise standards and regulation over our sometimes riotous press freedom.
Calling for independent, self-regulation in the face of the excesses of some in News International and elsewhere cuts little ice with many. But it is worth recalling the most basic elements of our democracy that underpin the need to keep the state well out of our press. Our universal and fundamental right to free speech, to hold opinions, share information (across borders and different types of media), and express views is enshrined in international charters and laws for good reason, not least given governments’ proclivity to interfere in that right.
The governments that most go in for controlling the press, bugging their own citizens, snooping on the net, or criminalising speech tend to be the authoritarian or totalitarian ones, whether we are thinking China, Azerbaijan, Iran or North Korea. But intrusions into press freedom in Italy and Hungary show the problem is closer to home and within democracies too. Without a free press — both online and off — we would lose a big element of our free speech, our ability to hold government and other power-holders (including big business) to account, to investigate wrongdoing, lies, and other cock-ups and conspiracies.
So higher press standards cannot come from statutory government control or regulation. But if the excesses of phone-hacking, and over-close cronyism between some in the media, police and politics, are to be tackled, then we need a new deal. That must include a new self-regulatory body with greater teeth to tackle unwarranted invasions of privacy, false allegations and unethical behaviour. It must be a body that can set and monitor standards. And one that can offer rapid, effective and fair resolution of complaints — including a quick, fair voluntary mediation service as an alternative to lengthy, expensive court cases.
One solution propounded by some given the inadequacies of our current set-up is that press outsiders and retired editors should run the new body. But a press regulator that does not include current senior representatives of the press — not least at a time of rapid change in the technology and business model — will not get buy-in. Nor do we need to reinvent the wheel. Where appropriate laws exist we don’t need to give those powers to a statutory regulator: current laws can tackle most unwarranted invasions of privacy and can deal with bribery of public officials.
One big challenge for a new self-regulating body — and for Leveson in his report — will be how to balance the right to privacy with the need for serious journalism in the public interest. Journalists need to know that if they are digging deep into questions of misleading or false statements by politicians, or investigating public health or security risks, or tracking potentially criminal behaviour, that they have a public interest defence. At the moment, some UK laws allow such a defence, others don’t. Journalists are operating in an ad hoc and unclear legal framework that can lead them to draw their horns in and shift towards self-censorship.
And last but not least, while the tales of texts, lunches and cosy chats between some leading media figures, politicians and police may encourage an ever downward trend in trust for these groups, regulating such contacts, beyond existing law, is not the way to go either. Whether it’s the whistle-blower, or just a good source in a government department tipping a journalist off in the right direction, serious probing journalism depends on informal interaction with politicians and officials.
Some of our senior figures have shown they have little idea of where to draw the line in such relationships, so clear professional standards need setting out. But the state will over-regulate given a chance. Voluntary and professional standards combined with good corporate governance remain the only route to go if we still credit press freedom and democracy as inextricable. That is the challenge for Leveson.
Kirsty Hughes is Index on Censorship’s Chief Executive.