French LGBTQ+ cabaret faces closure due to Instagram bans

This piece first appeared in the Winter 2025 issue of Index on Censorship, Gen Z is revolting: Why the world’s youth will not be silenced, published on 18 December 2025.  

La Mutinerie sits in the heart of Paris’ bohemian Marais district. Two pairs of kohl-lined eyes gaze out from a mural at all who enter.

Inside, on stage, is a familiar scene you might see late at night in neon-lit venues across the French capital. Violente Violette, the host for the evening, delivers a racy blend of music, comedy and striptease, dressed in a tight-fitting corset, leather skirt and suspenders – flaunting a sparkly moustache and beard.

Once a month La Mutinerie, one of the most famous queer bars in Paris, hosts the Purple Slut cabaret. Violent Violette is a cabaret performer, sex worker and Purple Slut’s creator.

Violette started the show a little over a year ago in the hopes of providing a platform for artists from queer and sex-worker communities. The atmosphere is warm, welcoming and full of joy. The audience is packed tightly on benches. Those who can’t find a seat gather along the bar and latecomers crowd around the door, peeking over shoulders just to catch a glimpse of the show. There is a lot of cheering, not much clothing, and plenty of purple. People just seem happy to have a stage and a space.

Yet the Purple Slut cabaret’s very existence is under threat, and Violette says Meta is to blame.

Each show ends with a plea from Violette: “Please show us love online, our Instagram accounts keep getting suspended, many of us are systematically reported, so every follow helps keep these shows running.”

Many in the LGBTQ+ community say that Instagram and Facebook have become increasingly hostile places following policy changes announced by Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg in January 2025.

The changes were significant in two ways. Firstly, previous restrictions were lifted and the moderation guidelines shifted to much broader language. The term “hate speech” was changed to “hateful conduct”, a blurry concept at best. Secondly, how these guidelines are enforced changed. Previously moderation on these platforms was carried out using large teams of human moderators. Following the announcement, thousands of moderators working for Meta were made redundant. Now, users of Meta’s platform – the community – flag content they think breaks its rules. Facebook says that it is reviewed by “technology and human reviewers”.

The platform’s shift towards community moderation paves the way for co-ordinated mob-like behaviour, where moderation tools are weaponised against underrepresented members of society.

The platform’s rules are not only more vague, they allow for homophobia and increased attacks on the LBGTQ+ community. This is most obvious in the “hateful conduct” section of Meta’s guidelines.

Meta policy does not allow for conduct which alleges mental illness or abnormality unless it is motivated by “gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like “weird”. The use of the terms “transgenderism” and “homosexuality” are equally concerning, said Violette. “Transgenderism” has been used by far-right and transphobic groups, intended to imply that being trans is an ideology, says Violette. The advocacy group Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) calls “homosexuality” an “outdated and pathologising way of referring to LGBTQ people”.

The Meta changes were met with outrage by some human rights organisations.

USA-based LGBTQ+ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign decried the dismantling of the hateful conduct policy which “expressly permits abuse against LGBTQ+ people while forbidding the same abuses against all other communities”.

Violette told Index their accounts are suspended every few weeks or so and after their first suspension they hired a lawyer. Every time it happens they send a letter to Meta Europe’s headquarters in Ireland through the post, an old-school strategy to ensure that their request will be “seen by a human”. Methodically, the letters go through the supposed reason for the suspension and argue their case to get their accesses reinstated.

Violette says they know the regulations by heart now. They say they exclusively use Instagram (instagram.com/cabaret_purple_zlut) to post photos and promote the cabaret. Since the platform is particularly sensitive to nudity, they know how to self-censor their posts and avoid automatic suspension. While nudity in general can be an issue on the platform, they say LGBTQ+ nudity comes under much more scrutiny.

“A lot of people don’t like what we do, so they use the tools Meta gives them, which is reporting, and by reporting us over and over again, they eventually manage to get our accounts taken down.”

In most cases, suspensions are due to users reporting the account as inappropriate or sexually explicit. In their letters, Violette and their lawyer systematically compare the accusations to the photos or posts, knowing that each one was posted taking into account Meta’s guidelines. It takes a few days for their request to be processed and for the account to be reactivated.

Violette says that some of their fellow queer cabaret performers have given up Instagram altogether, fed up of having to fight the platform. Some tried to move over to less effective social media platforms such as Bluesky or Mastodon. If they are not considered to be able to contribute to the promotion of an event effectively, then they do not get booked. Those who choose to stay on Instagram but who cannot get their accounts back often have to start again, building their following back up from scratch. LGBTQ+ cabaret performers are struggling to make ends meet online, but is this just the symptom of a much larger homophobic and transphobic problem?

Human Rights Watch technology researcher Deborah Brown argues that the platform had already shown patterns of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment, but the January changes demonstrated that Meta was no longer even pretending to align its content guidelines with human rights norms – protecting against homophobia. “Even if they were not actively properly protecting LGBTQ+ communities before,” she said, “at least they used to communicate that they needed protection.”

The new policies also decrease the reach and visibility of “political content”. Accounts which publicly share political content are left out of algorithms which might otherwise amplify their message. Since then, many pro-equality or LGBTQ+ rights groups have seen their audiences drop significantly, leading many to accuse social media companies of “shadow-banning”.

Difficult to trace and even harder to prove, shadow-banning is broadly defined as limiting the visibility of social media users without their knowledge. While social media companies often justify the practice by arguing they protect users from harmful content, this algorithmic censorship can disproportionately impact LGBTQ+ communities. According to a recent study by the University of Sussex, shadow-banning is “often mis-applied and overly-targets the LGBTQIA+ community and other minorities” and has contributed to what they call “the algorithmic erasure of drag”.

Violette said many queer artists feel like they are fighting the algorithm. “It is a constant battle, the problem is it is difficult to prove.”

Brown added that shadow-banning is often the result of an account being previously flagged. “If there is a strike on an account, then that will affect the reach of the content it posts online,” she explained.

Meta’s policies and guidelines were never perfect to begin with, now they are “simply unacceptable”, believes Violette. The platform’s latest iteration hinders the reach and visibility of LGBTQ+ content, paving the way for homophobic and transphobic behaviour, whilst also reducing the protections offered to people from marginalised communities.

A platform which presents itself as the pinnacle of free speech cannot foster free expression if people feel unsafe. Brown said: “If you accept that that kind of abuse is permissible, then people will be forced to self-censor or leave.”

It means that there is less “space” for LGBTQ+ communities and their content online, the impact of which is being felt beyond our screens. Violette has struggled to fill clubs and theatres.

They said: “If our social media presence isn’t a useful communication tool, then venues won’t book us. If people don’t know we exist, then they won’t come to our shows. If clubs aren’t full, then they can’t survive.”

La Mutinerie and the Purple Slut cabaret have a pay-what-you-can policy, designed to keep their safe space open to everyone in their community. Violette and their partner make Purple Slut merchandise which they sell to support the artists as best they can.

Queer and trans venues in Paris are crucial cultural and safe spaces, their disappearance would be devastating to the under-represented communities they welcome.

Both space and speech should be protected, be it on or offline. Today’s online environment enables homophobia and is slowly suffocating LGBTQ+ spaces, leaving communities fighting for air. Social media is fast becoming a far-right tool for political influence and algorithmic erasure, where the whims of billionaires take precedence over the brilliant diversity of humanity.

But the show must go on, and Paris’s queer cabarets will keep dancing through these dark times in joyful defiance.

Leicester: city of migration

This article was first published in Index on Censorship volume 32, issue 2 in 2003.

My departure early in the 1960s from Leicester, where I was born, more or less coincided with the beginning of a process of transformation that changed the city from a small town in the East Midlands grown complacent on its long prosperity to the vibrant Asian capital of Britain. In the process, it was to be physically brutalised by overzealous developers and, for a time, to suffer the reputation of the most racist city in the UK.

When I returned for an extended stay in the 1980s, the landscape of my memory had been swept away; the house where I grew up was now the city’s leading sari emporium. In repeated visits to family and friends over the past decade, I have had to relearn the city, try to fathom the complex economic, social and ethnic geography that has today earned it the title of ‘beacon city’, a place others look to for lessons in racial harmony and pointers to the achievement of that elusive target ‘cultural cohesion’, a newtake on what we once called ‘multiculturalism’.

But all that was a long way in the future in the year of my birth, 1938. Let me remember. In 1801, the population of Leicester was a modest 17,000; by 1901 it had grown to 212,489. They came for jobs from all over the UK and Ireland to work in the thriving hosiery, knitwear and boot and shoe factories, and the engineering works that provided the machines for these industries on which Leicester’s wealth was built. They lived in spreading acres of terraced houses thrown up in the latter part of the century to accommodate them.

Out of Africa

But, to all intents and purposes, Leicester remained a provincial market town, its medieval street plan and many of its timber-frame houses more or less intact. Despite the Victorian incursion with its factories, villas and teeming streets of workers’ housing, it was not a creation of the Industrial Revolution. Nor was it dependent on a single heavy industry and vulnerable to the vagaries of recession.

The population grew only another 60,000 or so in the following century. Most of the new arrivals came in the past 50 years, many of them from Africa. Their arrival in this provincial town brought changes more lasting and profound than anything since the Romans.

The town I walked with my schoolmaster grandfather was the ancient town of the Romans, with medieval streets and buildings dating from the time of the Crusades. We would stroll from the Castle Gardens at the foot of the remains of the castle by the river to the timbered Guildhall, the houses and almshouses built by city merchants, narrow streets with huddled shops smelling of tobacco and liquorice. These led, finally, into the Victorian facades of department stores and gents’ outfitters — and, of course, the vast (or so it seemed then) Leicester Co-operative Society store that dominated the high street of the modern town.

The second richest city in the Empire

Today, most of the old town has gone. The winding streets have been swept away in doubtless necessary slum clearance; much more has been sacrificed to a 1960s orgy of road-building. The Magazine stands marooned between the lanes of an urban freeway, accessible only by underpass; the castle, its gardens and the monuments of my childhood are cut off by swirling motorways and elevated roads. They have become a ‘heritage park’, no longer a living part of the city, a backwater for tourists and a throughway for students at De Montfort University. The murky waters of the Soar have been cleaned up and offer a riverside walk and, so the brochure tells me, a unique variety of river flora and fauna. Leicester is the UK’s first ecological city and is doing its best with what is left, but the destruction of the 1960s razed more than just slums. It is too late now for the once shabby but characterful seventeenth- and eighteenth-century city-centre facades, replaced with bland, anonymous reconstructions in the 1960s and 70s.

In 1936, Leicester, I was told, was the second richest city in the Empire; by 1953, it could still claim the distinction of having the second highest per capita income of any city in Europe. We grew up being told by my banker father we should be proud to live in such a city. But it didn’t translate into anything we wanted to do. Joe Orton, a local boy, said it was the most boring city in England and got away as fast as fame would carry him; JB Priestley, on a brief visit, stayed only long enough to remark that there were many worse places in which he’d rather stay. We agreed with them: it was a cultural wilderness, the result, perhaps, of the inward-looking nonconformist temperance spirit that had ruled the city council for decades and lingered still. The city fathers of the 1950s had no more time for culture entertainment than they were to show for architectural heritage. The last three commercial theatres — the Theatre Royal, the Opera House and finally the Palace of Varieties — closed, depriving us of pantomime, the Royal Ballet and other visiting delights. It was long after my day, in 1973,that the Haymarket Theatre opened and restored Leicester to the theatre circuit. We had music in De Montfort Hall, named for a long-dead earl; swimming in the open-air Lido; expeditions to the countryside, and long months spent vegetating in Lincolnshire with our grandparents. Our school was the best the city had to offer — but it was dull, provincial, and we longed to escape.

Which I did, in 1957, to university. And only then did I find out that Leicester is not what you see; at least not what I had seen. For all its complacency, Leicester had another side, invisible but discovered with shock when I delivered Christmas post in the vacations. The mean streets of working-class housing, by now down at heel and many still without bathrooms or inside lavatories, crowding up with the factories to the iron railings of our own house were familiar enough. But they hid much worse. Slums that could have come out of Dickens.

The Asian transformation

When I returned, the transformation of these places was even more dramatic than the loss of the city landscape I had once known. What I wandered through seemed nothing less than a small miracle. With the help of local council grants, whole neighbourhoods had been regenerated, houses as well as factories. Grey, depressing streets of mouldering Victorian housing had burst forth in candy colours and were once again thriving local communities — of Asians. Corner shops sold food and spices from India alongside the stock-in-trade of any neighbourhood store; the Leicester Mercury rubbed pages with publications in Gujarati and Punjabi; colourful bilingual books and wall posters for children displayed the alphabet and numbers in several languages.

It was the same with the factories and inner-city churches. Mills where the looms had long fallen silent were back in business, with the names of their new Asian owners superimposed on the ghostly letters of former household names; others had been divided into a myriad of small manufacturing units and workshops for Asian enterprise. Churches, nonconformist meeting houses, even in one case an old factory site, had become temples and mosques serving the neighbourhood.

The same was true of other old inner-city housing areas that had escaped demolition in the nick of time and had been rescued by the arrival of Asians from East Africa. The brand new Sikh gurdwara built on the site of Holy Bones, disappeared site of my ancient city, summed things up: not an appropriation, but a restoration of the city to itself. Economically and socially, the migrations of the late 1960s and early 70s — largely of Gujaratis fleeing ‘Africanisation’ in Kenya, Uganda and most recently Malawi — had, it seemed to me, saved a dying city. Along the Belgrave Road, for instance, the neglected shops of the old city centre were now Leicester’s ‘Golden Mile’, a glittering strip of shops dominated by jewellers and goldsmiths. Asians from all over the UK come here for their wedding finery, I was assured, rather than make the trip to Bombay. Diwali brings huge crowds into the area to celebrate the Hindu festival of light when this part of the city is lit up with a million lights and the explosion of fireworks. The biggest celebration outside India, it brings people into this once enclosed city. Leicester is no longer the self-regarding, inward-looking place it was, but looking out and welcoming a wider world.

Leicester is no stranger to migration. As Cynthia Brown of Leicester University’s Living History programme points out, people have been coming here since early in the nineteenth century. Then it was in pursuit of work; latterly, that went hand in hand with flight from war and persecution. Many, like the Poles who had fought in World War II and now found themselves unwelcome back in Communist Poland, settled in Leicester after the war; the late 40s saw the arrival of immigrants from the Caribbean plus the first Asians.

The flatness of the city

In 1951, the Asian population was just 624. Migration was hastened by the Commonwealth and Immigration Act of 1962: fuelled by people anxious to pre-empt its more restrictive conditions, migration had risen by 1961 to 4,624. They settled in the older inner-city areas, where cheap housing was available in the wake of the departure of English residents offered the chance to escape the decay by moving to council estates around the city. It was this early settlement that acted as the magnet, drawing dramatically increased immigration from Africa. Only a decade later, the arrival of Asians, largely Gujarati from Kenya, had swelled Leicester’s Asian population to 20,190. Despite warnings by Leicester City Council printed in Ugandan papers and inflammatory headlines speaking of disaster in the influential Leicester Mercury, it was inevitable that a ready-made community of their own kind and Leicester’s reputation as a ‘friendly’ city would draw the majority of Idi Amin’s Asian refugees to the city. The appeal of friends, family and their own community, as well as the promise of jobs, increasingly in Gujarati-owned enterprises, were not the only reasons, it seems. ‘I travelled all over the UK,’ says one African Asian, ‘and I made up my mind if I could choose anywhere I could come that I would settle in Leicester . . .I particularly liked Leicester . . . I was attracted to the flatness of the city.’

Of the 30,000 Asians expelled from Uganda in 1972, 6,000 came to the city. By 1981, the New Commonwealth population was 59,709 in a population of something over 250,000. The arrival of the new settlers in the ’70scoincided with Leicester’s first serious economic downturn. The city’s staple manufactures were being replaced by cheaper goods from abroad: factories were in decline and closing; unemployment was rising. Resentment among the white population burst into open racism and discrimination, at the workplace as well as in the streets. Bolstered by Enoch Powell’s dire warnings of the dangers of unbridled immigration, the National Front targeted Leicester and inserted itself into local politics. In 1976, it won 18 per cent of the vote in local elections; in 1979, in a climate of racial hostility fostered by the NF, Leicester witnessed one of worst racial confrontations in the country. Shocked and shamed out of complacency, it actively began to work at escaping the opprobrium of being labelled the UK’s most racist city.

Why riot when they had money?

Twenty years on, hard work, dedication and commitment from all the communities have ensured that, unlike Oldham, Burnley, Bradford, Southall, Toxteth, Brixton and other places with high immigrant populations, Leicester has not exploded again. A lot of money has been funnelled to minority community projects. Not always the answer, but as Leicester race relations policy officer Paul Winstone said with a certain realism: ‘Leicester City Council poured millions of pounds into ethnic groups. Almost every group could get something like £50,000 more or less just by asking. It wasn’t open bribery, but it most certainly was bribery — and it worked. Why should the leaders riot when they had money and an office?

‘In retrospect, Winstone describes the 1970s as the years of conflict, the 80s as the bribery years and the 90s as the decade of consolidation. But there is more to it than that. Asked why Leicester has become something of a model multiracial city, why, given that the minority population is now around 38 per cent and forecast to become the first majority ethnic community in the UK within the present decade, it doesn’t explode in racial violence, Asians themselves have another explanation. Above all, they point to the fact that they came not from India or Pakistan but from Africa, where they had occupied a privileged position as professionals, businessmen and entrepreneurs. They explode the myth still current in many places that they came with their pockets stuffed with money, but point out that they knew how to do things, did not rely on the local authority for housing or jobs but bought modest properties and eventually built businesses again from scratch. They were not like the uneducated communities of Bangladeshis or funda-mentalist Pakistanis who settled in other places.

Something else too, they say: ‘Remember, this was our second migration. In Africa we already knew what it was to be an unloved but tolerated minority. We knew how to keep our heads down, blend in and get on with people. We’d learned all that before we came here.’

The next generation

Sitting in a local pub, once a down-and-out watering hole but now Asian-owned, bright and cheery, I am struck at the convivial mix of people— Hindus and Muslims, Gujaratis, Sikhs from the Punjab, a few white Englishmen. I am struck by the lack of tension. Are there really no sectarian problems in the city? Jay, a Gujarati from Uganda, explains: ‘Most of us African Asians had never seen India. Unlike the people who came from the subcontinent, its politics and its religious hatreds were nothing to do with us, and so we didn’t carry all that baggage and perpetuate the old quarrels when we got here. The common experience of coming from Africa keeps us close; that is stronger than any religious divide.’ And that, he concludes, is something else that keeps his city, Leicester, from the sectarian extremism that divides other communities.

But this mixture of races and religions is rare. Again, Leicester is not what you see when you meet and talk to the dedicated people who work to bring communities together. The city is as segregated and zoned as it ever was in the days of the old working-class and middle-class divide. That it is largely self-segregated raises the question of how these parallel lives will settle down in the long run when the white English are in a minority, as they already are in most of the city’s schools. Maybe it’s only the next generation, now in the schools, who can answer the question. As one Asian boy put it to me: ‘If there are as many of me as there are of you, we don’t have to be afraid of anything, do we?’

Meanwhile, as people in the city admit, there are challenges to be met. Asians will say they are not yet strongly enough represented in the upper echelons of local government and industry, despite the presence of a growing number of local councillors from the minority communities. And the mix of poverty and ethnicity on local sink estates is creating tensions between black and white not evident in the city itself.

But, more than anything else, representatives on both sides of the ethnic divide fear the import of religious and political extremism from outside. The Hindu nationalist fundamentalist BJP government in India keeps close contacts in the city; following the outbreak of sectarian violence in Gujarat last year, they have been keen to put their version of events to the Gujarati community in Leicester. In much the same way, the Muslims of Leicester are disturbed by the ongoing trial in the city of alleged al-Qaida suspects. They feel a threat from the identification in the media and elsewhere of ‘terrorism’ and Islam. They have become introspective and assertive at the same time, demonstrating a sense of insecurity in a more aggressive assertion of their religion.

But all of this, I am assured more than once, is manageable as long as the city remains aware of it and is sensitive to its handling. There is optimism and a justifiable pride in Leicester’s record. ‘There are things to be done, but compared to other places we are doing well. And that’s official: it said so in the Cantle report that came out after the riots in Oldham and Burnley in 2001.’

 

Losing three years of your life to litigation abuse isn’t funny

This is a newsletter sent out by the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, which Index co-founded, from the SLAPP target, survivor and coalition member Nina Cresswell. This was due to be read at the Houses of Parliament at the launch event for a new report. Nina explains why she was unable to attend in person

I’m not supposed to be writing this. Last night I was supposed to be in Parliament with Index on Censorship, helping present its new report – From Survivor to Defendant: How the law is being weaponised to silence victims of sexual violenceand sharing my own story of being sued by the man who sexually assaulted me. 

The trains were booked. The hotel was sorted. Plans penned in. 

But I couldn’t do it. 

Last week, my family noticed I wasn’t myself. I was jittery, easily overwhelmed, and having unexplained flare-ups. It wasn’t until they pointed it out that I realised: the closer we approached the Parliament date, the worse my mood and health became. I knew I had to start planning my talk – and to do that, I was slowly and reluctantly prising open the file in my brain marked “The Time You Nearly Died.” 

In 2023, after publicly sharing my story at a SLAPPs event, I developed shingles from the stress. I spent weeks alone, feeling as though scalding electricity was running down one side of my face. It left physical scars for life. 

So I took almost two years away from public campaigning to heal – to stop reopening my wounds for others to see. But the painful truth is that people need to see the ugly reality to understand why stronger protections are so urgent. They need to see what happens when people with power and money use the law to intimidate survivors into silence.

Now I’m talking about it again. I can reach into that file, but I can’t stay there for long. Each time I tell my story, I catch myself sanding down the rough edges – making it easier to hear, and maybe, for me, easier to bear. More often than not, I’ll throw in a Carry On Courtroom anecdote. I’ll try to make it funny.

Only, it really wasn’t funny. None of it was funny. 

Losing almost three years of your life to litigation abuse isn’t funny. Being publicly called a liar for telling the truth isn’t funny. Watching your business collapse so you can act as your own lawyer isn’t funny. Moving house because your abuser found out where you live isn’t funny. Desperately filming pleas for legal funding, mid-trauma, isn’t funny. Having your personal journals read out in a public courtroom isn’t funny. Four hours of cross-examination isn’t funny. Panic attacks in court aren’t funny. Seeing your mother have a panic attack in court isn’t funny. And that night in 2010 – being violently assaulted by the man who would later sue me for naming what he did – that definitely wasn’t funny.

The most shocking part of all this? I’m considered a ‘winner’. I successfully defended the truth and public interest nature of speaking out to protect others. I set a legal precedent for survivors of sexual abuse. But sometimes it doesn’t feel like a victory as most survivors who are sued can’t make it that far. Public judgments are rare because most SLAPP cases settle before trial. For many, silence is the only way to survive.

Across the UK and Ireland, laws against sexual violence remain inconsistent, insufficient, and poorly enforced. When justice fails and harm is buried, it can burn you from the inside – allowing cycles of abuse, shame, and stigma to continue. If we can’t speak about it without facing legal bullying, the violence will never end.

This is what the law is allowing to happen to those failed by the system who dare to speak out. 

My story could have happened to anyone. It could happen to you. 

If the Government continues to lean on limited anti-SLAPP protections in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, it won’t protect people in the position I was in. Without a universal anti-SLAPP law, what happened to me will happen again. And next time, the target might not make it out alive. 

That’s why I keep going. It’s why I’m so grateful to our coalition members – especially Lucy and Verity Nevitt – for this urgently needed report, and for their tireless work to end the use of civil lawsuits by abusers to silence survivors.

The legal system is being weaponised to silence survivors of sexual and gender-based violence

 

A new report, From Survivor to Defendant: How the law is being weaponised to silence victims of sexual violence by Index on Censorship reveals how survivors of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in the UK and Ireland are being silenced through abusive legal actions known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).

Since 2017, the #MeToo movement has encouraged millions of women to share their experiences of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). But speaking out has not come without risks. Some survivors (and the journalists covering their stories) have faced legal threats from the very people accused of perpetrating SGBV. As a result, courts are increasingly being weaponised to continue abuse, with few protections in place. 

An anonymous survivor of SGBV said: “So much was taken from me when I was sexually abused, but I still had my voice. It felt like in suing me he was taking that final piece. Being sued for defamation felt like the ultimate form of gaslighting. The impact of these proceedings will follow me for the rest of my life.”

Until now, the majority of policy discussions surrounding the issue of SLAPP have largely been related to journalism, with less focus on cases arising from other public interest issues. From Survivor to Defendant represents an effort to address that awareness gap. It focuses on the four legal systems in the UK and Ireland: Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales, and the Republic of Ireland. The report includes a wide range of recommendations to policy-makers across all four jurisdictions, regulators, law firms and other relevant stakeholders, including a call to establish universal anti-SLAPP protections in legislation to ensure all survivors are protected. 

Baroness Helena Kennedy KC said: “I commend this report for shining a light on an issue that has for too long operated in the shadows. It exposes the profound and far-reaching impact that SLAPPs have, not only on survivors themselves, but on society as a whole. The cost of failing to take action against SLAPPs falls not only on those directly targeted, but also on survivors silenced by fear, on the public denied access to vital information, and on our justice systems undermined and discredited when manipulated in this way.”

Jemimah Steinfeld, CEO of Index on Censorship said: “We are really grateful to the women who have spoken to us for this report. Their bravery in confronting what happened to them and fighting for their rights to speak out is truly commendable. We hope that through their words, and our work here, we can finally put an end to the terrible practice of SLAPPs. As the report shows this isn’t a niche issue, but instead one that impacts justice across the spectrum.”

Professor Olga Jurasz, Director of the Centre for Protecting Women Online, The Open University said: “This report is pivotal in revealing how SLAPPs are used to silence survivors of sexual and gender-based violence, compounding their trauma and deterring them from speaking freely about their experiences. It serves as a critical reminder that the law, while a tool for protection and justice, can also be distorted into an instrument of suppression (and oppression) against the very individuals it seeks to safeguard.”sexusexual and gender-based violence

Index on Censorship is a non-profit organisation that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide, including by publishing work by censored writers and artists and monitoring threats to free speech. We lead global advocacy campaigns to protect artistic, academic, media and digital freedom to strengthen the participatory foundations of modern democratic societies. www.indexoncensorship.org 

ENDS

Media contact:

  • For more information or press enquiries, please contact: [email protected]
  • Index on Censorship is grateful for the funding from Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Open University Centre for Protecting Women Online to support the production of this report. 
  • Index on Censorship is the co-founder and co-chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. Learn more here: https://antislapp.uk/ 

You can download the report here or read it below:

 

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK