Do western democracies protect free speech?
In the age of social media, the European Union needs to defend free expression. But it often falls far short, says Padraig Reidy
What?!? Now we're not even allowed to link to the Olympics website?
We’ve heard a lot about how the Olympics Games will take over London in the past few weeks: missile launchers on rooftops, non-approved chips banned from the Olympic site, protest threatened, Twitter accounts censored. But we must admit we hadn’t noticed the Olympic organisers attempts to change the way the entire internet works. Our attention has been drawn to the terms of use of the London 2012 website, which make it very clear under what circumstances you’re allowed link to the site:
- Links to the Site. You may create your own link to the Site, provided that your link is in a text-only format. You may not use any link to the Site as a method of creating an unauthorised association between an organisation, business, goods or services and London 2012, and agree that no such link shall portray us or any other official London 2012 organisations (or our or their activities, products or services) in a false, misleading, derogatory or otherwise objectionable manner. The use of our logo or any other Olympic or London 2012 Mark(s) as a link to the Site is not permitted. View our guidelines on Use of the Games’ Marks.
Got that? You’re only allowed link to the official site of the Olympics if you’re going to say nice things about the Olympics.
This obviously presents a problem. I really, really want to say that this is one of the silliest things I’ve read in my entire life, and that it demonstrates a level of control freakery that even the most hardened Olympisceptic could not have imagined. But the problem with that is that I’d be breaking the rules by linking to the page containing this information so that you could read it for yourself.
So I’m not going to say that. I’m going to say that this is a brilliant piece of brand management that’s not at all open to ridicule and scorn, and that’s it’s extremely unlikely that anyone would ever make a joke about this rule by linking to the Olympic site with language that could be “false, misleading, derogatory or otherwise objectionable”.
Here’s the link to the eminently sensible Terms of Use
Padraig Reidy is News Editor at Index on Censorship
More London 2012
Olympic organisers shut down “Space hijackers” protest Twitter account
In a league of its own
Plus read more on Sport v human rights in Index on Censorship magazine’s Sports issue
Turkey: “Free journalists” challenge courts
The trial of several journalists accused of being involved in an alleged plot to overthrow the Turkish government had degraded the status of press freedom in the country, writes Ece Temelkuran
UK media inquiries – now is the time for scepticism
This is may be an odd observation at a moment when barely credible stories about hacking are breaking by the hour, but it’s worth maintaining some level of scepticism. It is likely that some of the allegations being made at the moment will not, in time, stand up to close scrutiny. Some accepted facts in the scandal will probably be found to have no basis in evidence, and some dubious actions will turn out to have innocent explanation.
At the same time, as the criminal investigations and the public inquiry unfold over the next couple of years, new horrors will emerge. The experience of the past days, months and years leaves no room for doubt about that.
The Hacked Off campaign was founded at a time when it looked as though the truth about hacking, whatever it might be, might never be known. Rupert Murdoch’s News International was using its wealth to silence the civil litigants — the victims of hacking who were suing and had forced much of what we knew into the daylight. And lawyers were warning that any criminal prosecutions might end quickly with guilty pleas and thus without trials. I heard people close to the affair saying that it would all be over by November and we would never know any more.
Thanks to the great journalism of Nick Davies and his Guardian colleagues, that threat has evaporated and (let us give credit where it is due) thanks also to the three main party leaders, we will have a proper public inquiry. That was Hacked Off’s objective. Whether the inquiry will have exactly the right terms of reference or membership only time will tell; we did what we could to help shape the former and found the party leaders open-minded and constructive.
There is another whirlwind to come, because this inquiry and the debate which will accompany it will certainly bring big changes to British journalism. A lot of people will wish at times that the Pandora’s Box had never been opened and no doubt some will look back and rue these frenzied, disorienting days.
We will need to remember that the frenzy was the work of people who claimed to be journalists and who managed to do something so outrageous that, for at least a couple of weeks, everyone was thinking and talking about journalism and how it needed to change. And it isn’t just the hackers who are responsible but also the people who employed them and the people who indulged them — among them all those cynical journalists who make jokes about ethics.
If all goes well, what we will learn from the inquiry, over time, is something like the truth about hacking and the culture that created it. And journalists can’t really argue with the idea of learning the truth.
Brian Cathcart is founder of the Hacked Off campaign for a full inquiry into phone hacking. He teaches journalism at Kingston University and tweets at @BrianCathcart