18 Jul 2025 | Africa, Burkina Faso, Chad, DR Congo, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, News, Niger, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sudan, Togo
The 2020s have been a busy time for military coups in Africa.
University of Kentucky political scientists Jonathan Powell, who specialises in the study of political instability, and Professor Clayton Thyne, whose research focuses on domestic conflict and coups d’état, said there were 13 attempted coups in Africa in the years 2021 to 2023.
Powell says eight of those coups succeeded – in Chad, Mali, Guinea and Sudan in 2021, two separate coups in Burkina Faso in 2022, one on 23 January of that year and another on 30 September, and in Niger and Gabon in 2023..
The remaining five coups failed: in Niger and Sudan in 2021, in Guinea-Bissau and São Tomé and Príncipe in 2022 and in Sudan in 2023. In the latter, the military rulers who had seized power in 2021 continued to run the war-torn country.
Where the military have been successful in taking control, the army generals leading the coups have since shown no appetite for a return to civilian rule despite promising to do so when they took control..
Two of the coup leaders – Chad’s military leader Mahamat Idriss Déby, who seized power in 2021,and Gabon’s General Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema who masterminded a coup in 2023 – have since held disputed elections in an attempt to give their rule a measure of legitimacy. In May 2024, Déby swept the presidential polls with more than 60% of the vote while Nguema won with 90% of the vote in April this year.
The effects of these coups have been devastating: brutal repression marked by arbitrary detentions, torture, disappearances, and extrajudicial killings to stifle political dissent.
There has also been corruption, erosion of free speech and strained relations with neighbouring countries or former colonial powers in some instances.
Promises to restore security, revitalise the economy or champion the will of the people that were invariably given as a motivation to seize power have been substituted by measures to entrench the rule of the military dictatorships.
Powell said the wave of coups have a common thread, a reluctance to relinquish power and erosion of rights such as free speech.
“The big takeaway is that previously coup leaders or the armed forces typically retreated from power, and often very quickly. This has radically shifted since 2021. Since then, all coups have seen the coup leaders remain in power,” he told Index.
“The coups since 2021 occurred within varying contexts, but major commonalities are other forms of domestic instability, civil war, violence, political manipulation and governments’ loss of legitimacy in the eyes of their people even with [previously] elected leaders “
In those countries where coups have seen the de facto establishment of military rule, freedoms in general are suffering, with journalists and media freedom in particular coming under attack.
“We have seen the arbitrary arrest of journalists in different countries, while Mali’s junta has attempted to virtually ban political coverage altogether,” Powell added.
Mali, Burkina Faso, and Gabon offer a study in how military rulers are corrupted by power, becoming worse or more brutal than the regimes they overthrew.
Mali’s transitional military government, which seized power in May 2021, announced that scheduled elections would be delayed indefinitely for technical reasons.
The military government also suspended political parties, a development the human rights watchdog said violates both Malian law and the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly under international human rights law.
Human Rights Watch also said that Mali’s council of ministers has adopted a decree directing all media to stop “broadcasting and publishing the activities” of political parties and associations.
In the case of Burkina Faso, coup leader Lieutenant Colonel Paul-Henri Damaogo Damiba became interim president in January 2022 but was ousted by Captain Ibrahim Traoré in a subsequent coup nine months later.
Traoré pledged to restore the civilian government by 1 July 2024 but last year he extended the transition period by another five years, adding that he would be eligible to contest the elections.
In Gabon, according to the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, the country is on track to swap one form of autocratic governance with another. The military regime of Brigadier General Brice Oligui Nguema, who seized power in a coup on 30 August 2023, has instituted a “sequence of actions to pave an unobstructed pathway to claim the presidency” in upcoming elections.
This includes appointing loyalists to two-thirds of the Senate and National Assembly, appointing all nine members of the Constitutional Court, hosting a tightly scripted national dialogue process in mid-2024, from which 200 political parties were banned and rewriting of the constitution to allow members of the military to contest political office, and extend presidential terms to seven years.
An activist from Niger, Dr Mayra Djibrine, told Index that since the July 2023 coup in her country led by General Abdourahamane Tiani, there has been a rise in arbitrary arrests and detentions of political opponents, activists, and journalists.
Djibrine said while military leaders may justify coups as necessary measures to restore order or combat corruption, history has shown that military governance often leads to prolonged instability.
She said the military leaders in Niger have announced their intentions to transition to civilian rule but have not specified a concrete timeline for elections but given the uncertainty and historical precedents in the region, skepticism remains about how soon Niger will revert to a stable civilian government.
“The military regime has imposed restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, accompanied by heightened surveillance and censorship of media outlets critical of the government. Additionally, ongoing insecurity due to extremist violence in certain regions has further complicated the human rights landscape. Humanitarian access has also been limited in some areas, worsening the plight of those in need,” said Djibrine.
“Freedom of speech in Niger is facing significant challenges in the wake of the coup. While there was some degree of media freedom prior to the coup, the current military government has implemented measures that stifle dissent and control public discourse. Journalists are often subjected to intimidation, harassment, and detention for reporting critically on the regime. Access to independent media has been increasingly limited, and public protests against the government are met with a strong repressive response. This environment has led to self-censorship, diminishing the space for open dialogue and critical expression.”
She said to prevent coups throughout Africa, several approaches could be considered that include building robust democratic institutions that ensure citizen representation and accountability can help reduce discontent and the likelihood of military takeovers.
She said this involves not only conducting credible elections but also promoting transparency within the government.
She said there is also a need to strengthen the role of civil society organisations to enhance public engagement and create mechanisms for citizens to collaboratively voice their concerns, thus reducing disillusionment with political systems.
“Reforming security forces to ensure they operate under civilian authority and focus on national defense rather than political ambitions is crucial. Prioritising military professionalism is essential for building trust between civilians and the armed forces,” she said.
In July 2023, as the world was witnessing an uptick in coups in African countries, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) released a report titled Soldiers and Citizens: Military Coups and the Need for Democratic Renewal in Africa as part of its partnership with the African Union Commission which offered insights into what fuels coups in Africa.
The report said readily exploitable grievances, linked to African leaders’ failures to deliver inclusive development as they rule behind a façade of democracy while deploying innately exclusionary models of governance has created fertile ground for coups to be staged on the continent.
It said there is a correlation between heightened coup risk and stagnant growth, exclusionary economic governance, multidimensional poverty, inequality, reduced youth and women’s participation, governance deficits, among others.
The findings confirm that coup risk can be viewed as a subset of state fragility. Countries that experience contemporary coups perform poorly on global development indices. These rankings are not abstract, but represent millions of lives marred by exclusion, infringement of rights, restriction of opportunity and frustration. These grievances create a base of frustration that coup leaders can readily exploit,” the report said.
Nick Watts, the vice president of EuroDefence UK told Index that the countries affected by coups have been courted by China and Russia who are playing on anti-colonial sentiment.
He said a Russian proxy, the Wagner Group, has been providing the means of removing governments deemed too close to their former colonial masters.
Watts said Wagner has continued operating in the region even after the death of its former powerful leader Yevgeny Prigozhin.
He offered an explanation on why these coups have taken place.
“The regimes have been seen as out of touch, which has played into the hands of ‘liberation’ movements,” he said.
The desire for power in Africa has not diminished.
In May 2024, a failed coup took place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo while other African dictators, such as Togo’s Faure Gnassingbé who ruled the country from 2005 after he was installed by the army when his autocratic father Gnassingbé Eyadéma died, changed the constitution to prolong his rule. Gnassingbé, whose family has ruled the country for nearly six decades, was sworn into a new post of President of the Council of Ministers which has no official term limits, a move which sparked deadly protests.
While the 2020s have been a particularly fertile period for coups in Africa, it continues a historical precedent. The UNDP report says there have been 98 coups in Africa between 1952 and 2022, more than one a year.
The report’s authors said that to mitigate coup risk, African governments must strive to deliver better governance, deepen democracy and inclusive development.
It called on regional and international actors to engage proactively with countries where presidents are nearing the end of their term limits to secure public assurances that they will resign and allow for a peaceful transfer of power. History tells us that Africa’s military leaders are unlikely to listen.
10 Jul 2025 | Europe and Central Asia, News, United Kingdom
What’s one book that changed how you see the world?
Books can transform us. They open up new perspectives, help us understand lives different from our own, and spark ideas we might never have imagined. The freedom to read – to explore, question and connect through stories – is a vital part of any free and open society.
But that freedom is under threat.
Around the world, writers face censorship, imprisonment and violence simply for putting words on a page. Booksellers from Iran to Belarus, Israel to Hong Kong have been harassed and silenced. Publishers in China and Russia are being pressured and censored. In places like the USA, Brazil, Hungary and even the UK, books are being banned and pulled off the shelves in libraries because of the ideas they hold and the questions they raise.
Why? Because stories are powerful. Because reading can challenge the status quo.
Banned Books Week UK returns from 5–11 October 2025. It’s a week to celebrate the books that have been challenged, removed or silenced, and to stand with the people who write, sell and share them. Join Index on Censorship in honouring the right to read freely and the courage it takes to speak up. In partnership with the International Publishers Association and Hay Festival Global.
Get Involved!
- Booksellers and libraries are invited to host displays, organise events or highlight books that have been banned or challenged around the world.
- Writers and readers are encouraged to celebrate books that have come under fire ( globally or locally)
- Publishers and literature organisations are invited to join the campaign, whether curating online reading lists, hosting events or posting online
Email: [email protected] to take part.
About Banned Books Week UK
Index on Censorship is the UK partner for the USA Coalition, which runs ‘Banned Books Week’. Banned Books Week was launched in 1982 in response to a sudden surge in the number of challenges to books in libraries, bookstores, and schools. Typically (but not always) held during the last week of September, the annual event highlights the value of free and open access to information and brings together the entire book community — librarians, educators, authors, publishers, booksellers, and readers of all types — in shared support of the freedom to seek and to express ideas. You can read more about Banned Books Week here: About | Banned Books Week.
Banned Books Week UK is led by Index on Censorship as a parallel campaign to Banned Books Week in the USA. It ran successfully for a couple of years prior to the pandemic and is re-launching in 2025. Index invites booksellers, libraries, literary organisations, publishers, schools, writers and any other organisations interested in getting involved with the campaign. The aim of Banned Books Week UK is to become a truly nationwide campaign. Follow us on X.
26 Jun 2025 | Americas, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Czech Republic, Europe and Central Asia, News, Russia, Ukraine, United States
A version of this article was originally published in the British Journalism Review.
Let me tell you about four brave journalists. One morning last May, Farid Mehralizada was arrested by masked police. The Azerbaijani financial reporter later described how the officers put a bag over his head, handcuffed him and forced him into a police car. They accompanied him home, where they searched for incriminating evidence as his pregnant wife watched. He was charged with smuggling and money laundering. Mehralizada has been in prison ever since and missed the birth of the child his wife was carrying. His only crime was exposing Azerbaijan’s overreliance on its reserves of oil and gas. “90% of Azerbaijan’s exports and 50% of its budget revenues depend on the oil and gas sector, which poses significant risks for the country,” he told a Baku court in April. Earlier this month, Mehralizada was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison following a trial his employer called a “sham”.
Belarusian journalist Ihar Losik was detained in June 2020 in advance of the rigged elections in his country and accused of “organising mass riots” and “incitement to hatred”. In December 2021, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Losik was transferred to a labour camp in June 2022 and added to a terrorist watch list. He has since used hunger strikes to protest against his detention but is currently incommunicado.
Ukrainian Vladyslav Yesypenko left Crimea after the Russian annexation of the peninsula in 2014, but he kept returning to his homeland to report on Vladimir Putin’s illegal occupation. He was arrested in March 2021 on suspicion of collecting information for Ukrainian intelligence and later charged with the “possession and transport of explosives”. In February 2022, he was sentenced to six years in prison. He was finally released on 22 June 2025, after more than four years of detention and separation from his family.
In November 2024, Russian freelancer Nika Novak was sentenced to four years in prison on charges of “confidential collaboration” with a foreign organisation. Earlier this year, she was placed in a detention centre usually reserved for prisoners at risk of escape, violent inmates or members of extremist organisations. At the end of March, the court of appeal in Novosibirsk in the far east of Russia upheld her sentence, fined her 500,000 roubles ($6,380) and made her pay prosecution witnesses’ expenses.
What these journalists have in common – apart from their courage and determination to report on authoritarian abuses – is that they all worked for the US Congress-funded broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) before their detention.
In February, Richard Grenell, presidential envoy for special missions, posted on X [now deleted] that “state-owned” broadcasters such as RFE/RL were “a relic of the past”. Elon Musk, the billionaire former head of Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) responded: “Yes, shut them down. Europe is free now (not counting stifling bureaucracy). Nobody listens to them anymore. It’s just radical left crazy people talking to themselves while torching $1B/year of US taxpayer money.”
It’s hard to imagine a more ill-informed statement about the state of liberty in eastern Europe. It would be laughable to describe Mehralizada, Losik, Yesypenko and Novak as “radical left crazy people”, if the consequences of Musk’s words weren’t so catastrophic.
On 15 March, barely a month after Grenell and Musk’s statements, RFE/RL was informed by the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) that its grant from Congress had been terminated. Lawyers acting for the broadcaster immediately challenged the decision to terminate the funding and Judge Royce Lamberth of the US District Court for the District of Columbia granted the application. He concluded that closure would cause “irreparable harm” and added “in keeping with Congress’s longstanding determination… the continued operation of RFE/RL is in the public interest”.
Despite the ruling, USAGM at first refused to release funds for April, forcing RFE/RL to furlough staff to keep the organisation afloat. Then, on 29 April, Judge Lamberth concluded that USAGM’s refusal to pay the grant on the same terms as the previous month was “arbitrary and capricious”. He rejected USAGM’s argument that it could withhold the funds until a new grant agreement had been signed with amended working conditions. The judge concluded that the actions of the agency could “threaten the very existence” of RFE/RL.
RFE/RL president and CEO Stephen Capus said the ruling meant his journalists could “continue doing their jobs holding dictators and despots accountable”. The organisation will continue to fight for funding to be restored in full.
Meanwhile, at the time of going to press, the future of its 1,300 journalists and support staff hangs in the balance. The fate of its imprisoned staff is even more precarious.
One peculiar and surreal aspect to the Trump administration’s attacks on RFE/RL is that the organisation was traditionally seen by the “radical left” as a propaganda arm of the US government, along with its sister broadcaster Voice of America (VOA), which also faces closure. The soft-power value of these institutions seems lost on those surrounding the US president.
It was not lost on Ronald Reagan. As a young actor in the 1950s, the future Cold War warrior recorded an advert for RFE that recognised its ideological worth in the battle against communism. “This station daily pierces the Iron Curtain with the truth, answering the lies of the Kremlin and bringing a message of hope to millions trapped behind the Iron Curtain,” he said.
It is perhaps not surprising that Musk has conflated the various Congress-funded broadcasters as they are often mixed up in the public imagination. But they have very specific origins and functions. VOA was founded during the Second World War to counter the fascist ideology of Nazi Germany, while RFE was a post-war response to communist propaganda in Soviet-occupied countries. RL had the specific task of broadcasting inside Russia. VOA was designed, as its name suggests, to speak for the US government and the American people, whereas RFE/RL began by representing dissident views from within Soviet-occupied countries. As a mark of its significant role during the Cold War, the Czech president Vaclav Havel, himself a former dissident, invited RFE/RL to move its headquarters from Munich to Prague in 1995.
RFE/RL now operates in 27 languages across 23 countries, with specialist services in Iran and Afghanistan. In recent years, it has made the case for independent journalism in the countries where it operates, part of the reason it is so despised by Putin and other authoritarian leaders across Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. In February 2024, it was designated an “undesirable organisation” in Russia, forcing many of its journalists to move into exile and operate remotely from Lithuania and Latvia. In April this year, the US government shut off a satellite that transmitted its Russian-language service into Russia.
The move against RFE/RL came as a surprise to the organisation’s management, who had no inkling that it was a potential target. No one within the organisation was consulted and no warning given.
Nicola Careem, vice president and editor in chief of RFE/RL, said: “In some of the places we work, we’re not just one voice among many – we are the media. When every other outlet has been silenced, taken over or driven out, our journalists stay. They keep reporting, often at great personal risk, just to make sure the truth still gets through. I’ve seen what that means on the ground. For millions of people, we’re their only source of trusted news. If RFE/RL disappears, so does independent journalism in those countries. That’s the reality. There’s no safety net – except us.”
One tragedy among many in this miserable saga is that RFE/RL had begun to find a new role for itself in the Putin era. This was especially true after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Its Russian-language channels reached a peak of 400 million views on YouTube in February 2022 as the invasion began. This is why the recent blocking of the Russian-language satellite takes on such a sinister edge.
When I spoke to Patrick Boehler, head of digital strategy for RFE/RL, in the summer of 2022 for Index on Censorship, he was full of optimism: “We have fantastic teams serving Russia. And I think it’s really one of those moments where you see our journalists living up to the task and the challenge that they face. And it’s really inspiring.” That optimism has been torpedoed by the news from Washington.
The reality is that in parts of Central Asia, where independent journalists find it difficult to operate, RFE/RL is there to provide an important check on Russian and Chinese misinformation. As a result, its affiliates have been periodically blocked across the region.
Careem said: “Make no mistake – we’re in the middle of an information war. Authoritarian regimes in Russia, China and Iran are standing by, ready to take over any space RFE/RL is forced to leave behind. They will spend billions to capture our audiences, flood the region with propaganda, and fuel instability. This is not the moment for the free world to look away, or to leave the field open. If we step back, they step in. It’s that simple.”
But the picture is complicated. The organisation has not been without its critics, even before the arrival of Trump in the White House. Journalists in the region already expressed their concern in 2023 when the broadcaster announced its Kazakh service (Radio Azattyk) would move away from broadcasting in Russian. The US organisation argued that a combined service operating across Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan would pool resources and produce better journalism. Local journalists, some of whom had been critics of REF/RL for years, were not convinced.
Asem Tokayeva, who worked at Azattyk for 14 years, has been calling for reform of the organisation since she left in 2017. Speaking to The Times of Central Asia in April in response to the grant cut, she said: “The organisation has long had an opaque management system and a culture of mutual protection. Real control over the content and personnel decisions rests with mid-level managers, vice presidents, and regional directors, who actively resist reforms. The leadership shields its own from accountability, allowing the system to remain unchanged.”
RFE/RL’s critics in Washington are not motivated by these criticisms and are unlikely even to be aware of them. The drama playing itself out in the US District Court for the District of Columbia is existential. On 22 April, Judge Lamberth ruled that the decision to require VOA to stop broadcasting was illegal. He ordered the administration to restore VOA and two other independent networks operated by the USAGM – Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks. He did not make the same order for RFE/RL.
The uncertain situation at RFE/RL raises unsettling questions for the future of independent journalism across Central and Eastern Europe, not least for the exiled journalists who could find themselves stranded and jobless in Prague or the Baltic countries.
As the future of the broadcaster hangs in the balance, the Czech government has led the way by pledging to support RFE/RL’s continued presence in Prague. Prime minister Petr Fiala told the Financial Times in March: “We will do everything that we can to give them the chance to continue in this very important role.” He also emphasised the historical significance of the organisation. ‘‘I know what it meant for me in communist times,” he said. At the same time, Czech foreign minister Jan Lipavský celebrated its relevance to the present global situation on X: “Radio Free Europe is one of the few credible sources in dictatorships like Iran, Belarus, and Afghanistan”.
The Czech government has led calls for the European Union to step in to fill the hole left by USAGM. That is likely to face resistance from the so-called “hybrid democracies” of Hungary and Slovakia, where the leaderships are sympathetic to Russia and independent media are under attack. The UK government has so far not commented on developments, but Index on Censorship has called on the Foreign Office to make representations on behalf of the stranded journalists.
Could there also be a role for the BBC World Service, a historical competitor? There are certainly parts of Eastern Europe and Central Asia where the BBC’s coverage could benefit from the expertise of RFE/RL journalists. Careem is exploring all possibilities: “We’re facing real financial and political uncertainty, but one thing is clear: anyone who values democracy, press freedom, and truthful information has a stake in ensuring RFE/RL survives. We’ve been deeply gratified by the support from our European partners as we work through a range of solutions that would allow us to continue this critical work.”
Meanwhile, the exiled journalists at RFE find themselves in the bizarre position of being double dissidents: in their home countries and now, effectively, in the USA too.
To see Index’s coverage of these broadcasting institutions, click here.
20 Jun 2025 | Cambodia, India, Iran, Israel, News, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, United Kingdom
In the age of online information, it can feel harder than ever to stay informed. As we get bombarded with news from all angles, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at how Israel has targeted Iranian media in bombing strikes, and the state execution of a Saudi journalist.
Bombed live on broadcast: Israel strikes Iranian state media
In the early hours of Friday 13 June, Israel launched strikes against Iran which has since escalated into a larger conflict, with major population centres such as Tehran and Tel Aviv facing missile attacks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims the initial attack, dubbed Operation Rising Lion, was pre-emptive to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon which Israel believed was imminent – a claim that is not backed up by US intelligence. Beyond nuclear targets, Israeli missiles have targeted another facet of the Iranian state: the media.
On 16 June, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting’s (IRIB) TV channel was broadcasting live news coverage of the conflict when an explosion rocked the studio, forcing the presenter to flee and the broadcast to cut to pre-recorded bulletins. Israel had bombed the studio live on air in a direct attack on Iranian media. Israeli defence minister Israel Katz described the attack as a strike on the “propaganda and incitement broadcasting authority of the Iranian regime“, while an Israeli military spokesperson alleged that IRIB was aiding the Iranian military “under the cover of civilian assets and infrastructure“. Iranian officials described the attack as a war crime, while the head of IRIB Peyman Jebelli stated that the studio was damaged, but vowed that broadcasting would return. Local media reported that three members of staff were killed in the attack, including a senior news editor.
“High treason” or Twitter?: Saudi journalist executed after social media posts
On 14 June 2025, the Saudi Interior Ministry announced on X that it had carried out the death penalty on Saudi journalist Turki al-Jasser, who stood accused of high treason and terrorism charges, in the first high-profile killing of a Saudi journalist since Jamal Khashoggi. But campaigners close to the case believe that the true reason for al-Jasser’s arrest and execution in 2018 was his posts made on X (then called Twitter).
Al-Jasser reportedly had two accounts: one under his real name, and a second, anonymous account that was critical of the Saudi government, accusing the Saudi royal family of corruption. The Saudi government is thought to have identified al-Jasser as someone involved with attempting to topple the government because of his posts; Saudi Arabia allegedly infiltrated Twitter’s databases to access information about anonymous users in 2014 and 2015, and could have identified Al-Jasser using a similar method. It has been reported that Al-Jasser, who founded the news website Al-Mashhad Al-Saudi (The Saudi Scene), was tortured during his seven-year detention.
Changing views: Reforms to freedom of expression on UK campuses
The university campus is often considered a battleground for free speech, with conflicting ideals constantly in debate and student protests making national news. Universities are often caught between supporting staff or students, and are frequently criticised for giving or denying controversial speakers a platform.
Following some high-profile incidents, universities have asked for clarity. Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor at the University of Sussex, resigned in 2021 following protests on campus regarding her gender-critical views, for example. The Office for Students (OfS) fined the university £585,000 for the poor handling of her case and failing to uphold free speech.
A set of new OfS guidelines are intended to provide clear advice on what is permitted and what is not. In the guidelines, the OfS has ruled that universities in England will no longer be able to enforce blanket bans on student protests. This follows a wave of pro-Palestine student protests, with encampments appearing on university grounds across the country. Some universities have looked to prohibit such demonstrations, as Cambridge University did when a court ruled to block any further Israel-Palestine protests until the end of July.
The OfS guidelines also address the protection of viewpoints by staff and students that some may find offensive. Arif Ahmed, director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at OfS, stated that students “have to accept that other people will have views that you find uncomfortable” when attending university. The guidelines come into effect in UK universities on 1 August.
No more soap operas: Cambodia bans Thai TV in border dispute
Since a clash at a disputed border area between Cambodia and Thailand claimed the life of a Cambodian soldier on 28 May, the two southeast Asian nations have seen tensions escalate. Each side blamed the other for the skirmish, which has resulted in an increased armed presence at the border and the introduction of retaliatory measures by both governments. With neither side looking to back down, the Cambodian government has taken a further step to sever ties with its neighbour by banning Thai TV and movies from being shown in Cambodia.
The ban also includes a boycott of any Thai internet links; a move that Cambodia’s minister of post and telecommunication Chea Vandeth claimed would cost Thailand hundreds of millions of dollars. Every cinema in the country has been informed that import and screening of Thai films is strictly prohibited as of 13 June, and Thai TV broadcasts – such as Thai soap operas, which are especially popular in Cambodia – must be replaced with Chinese, Korean or Cambodian dramas. Tensions continue to rise, and Cambodia instituted a ban on Thai fruit imports on Tuesday.
Citizen journalism under fire: Government of Jammu and Kashmir has YouTubers and online content creators in their sights
The government of Jammu and Kashmir has issued an order targeting those it deems to be “impersonating journalists”, including content creators on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. The order restricts speech vaguely defined as “provocative” or “false” content, and content creators reporting on political affairs in the region could be classified as “impersonating a journalist”. The order comes with significant legal threats such as fines, imprisonment and the confiscation of electronic devices, allowing for anyone deemed to be “disrupting public order” to face consequences.
Threats to free speech in Jammu and Kashmir have been prevalent since a deadly terrorist attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir in April claimed 26 lives. Journalist Rakesh Sharma was physically assaulted while covering a protest in Jammu and Kashmir, and following the terrorist attack, the Indian government implemented widespread digital censorship on Pakistani and Muslim content on social media. With the new order, it will be even harder for residents of Jammu and Kashmir to stay informed.
