30 May 2013 | United Kingdom
Banning hate preachers from the airwaves is the wrong response
Theresa May’s proposals to ban radical preachers from the airwaves and block extremist websites are illiberal, impractical and may breach the UK’s commitment to human rights.
What a difference a month makes. Just weeks after a Queen’s Speech that heralded the end of the draft Communications Data Bill (aka the ‘Snoopers’ Charter’), the government seems to be mounting a dramatic U-turn after the attack in Woolwich. Home Secretary Theresa May has signalled plans are afoot for wider surveillance powers, new bars on the broadcast of radical preachers and the blocking of extremist websites. This is the wrong response. Not only would these measures be wrong in principle, they are likely to make the fight against extremism harder as the government undermines the values it seeks to promote.
It is expected that a new task force will propose granting Ofcom the power to pre-emptively bar radical preachers from the television, in response to Anjem Choudary’s invitation onto Newsnight. Right now, Ofcom can intervene after an unacceptable broadcast has been made. It’s not as if Ofcom wants additional powers – it has publicly stated its powers are already sufficient to tackle extremism on television and the internet. Not unreasonably, Ofcom doesn’t want to get into the censorship game with its staff instructing TV stations which preachers they can and cannot broadcast. It’s not even clear how pre-emptive censorship would work – is the Home Secretary going to create a list of people so undesirable they can’t appear on television (but not so extremist they could be prosecuted for an actual crime)? This heavy-handed political interference in the working of the media would be totally unacceptable in a free country. Former Home Secretary Jack Straw, John Whittingdale MP and former BBC director-general Greg Dyke have all expressed their concerns over this knee-jerk response with Dyke adding: “The point is that the BBC makes its own editorial decisions. If they turn out to be wrong someone can make a complaint to Ofcom afterwards. But you fundamentally change the BBC’s role if they can intervene before. It isn’t workable.”
This isn’t in fact a new proposal. The British government has tried this tactic before by censoring the voices of leading Sinn Fein spokespeople. After a visit to Poland during which Margaret Thatcher told her Communist hosts ‘In modern societies, success depends on openness and free discussions’, her government back home banned the voices of groups associated with terrorism from television. Instead actors had to dub over the words spoken by these group’s spokespeople. Not only was the legislation unworkable, it was embarrassing. When Gerry Adams visited the USA in February 1994, US broadcasters boasted of carrying the voice of ‘the man whose voice is banned in Britain’. There is little doubt Choudary would exploit any ban on his appearance on TV.
Today on Index: Brazilian court gags protester in latest social media ruling | Free expression in the news
Time is running out
Think you have what it takes to be published by Index on Censorship? Here’s your chance to find out. Enter our blogging contest for a chance to win £100. More >>>
Index on Censorship Events
Caught in the web: how free are we online? June 10, 2013
The internet: free open space, wild wild west, or totalitarian state? However you view the web, in today’s world it is bringing both opportunities and threats for free expression. More >>>
This embarrassment would have profound implications for our role in attempting to promote freedom in the world. How would the Foreign Office be able to decry the trampling of media or internet freedom in Belarus or Iran, if the Home Secretary is busy creating the lists of individuals banned from British TV and which websites to block? How would the British government point to the principle of freedom of expression after controversies such as the Innocence of Muslims when it would be censoring individuals before they have even aired views?
Tough laws are already in place. The Terrorism Act 2000 has proven too broad in scope and detrimental towards freedom of expression. Section 57 of the Terrorism Act makes it illegal to possess an article for a purpose connected with terrorism which has criminalised the study of extremist or terrorist ideology. In 2008, Rizwaan Sabir, a student was arrested on suspicion of possessing extremist material after he worked on his PhD on radical Islamic groups. He was arrested and detained for 6 days and subsequently released without charge. Curtailing researchers’ ability to examine and deconstruct terrorism is just one way in which this law is detrimental to our security.
Anjem Choudary will have his fingers crossed for a TV ban, so he can level the charge of hypocrisy at the British government. Theresa May should not rise to the bait. Inciting violence is already illegal, the law should be enforced. Yet, creating lists by political dictat of who can and can’t appear on TV or the internet is a step too far. If we are to tackle violent extremism it will require the full exposure of flawed opinions to open scrutiny.
Michael Harris, Head of Advocacy, Index on Censorship. Follow him on Twitter @mjrharris
This article originally appeared at politics.co.uk
30 May 2013 | In the News
Time is running out
Think you have what it takes to be published by Index on Censorship? Here’s your chance to find out. Enter our blogging contest for a chance to win £100. More >>>
Index on Censorship Events
Caught in the web: how free are we online? June 10, 2013
The internet: free open space, wild wild west, or totalitarian state? However you view the web, in today’s world it is bringing both opportunities and threats for free expression. More >>>
GLOBAL
Blogs still aid global freedom of expression
While blogging has existed for more than a decade, WordPress, the software that runs millions of blogs and websites, celebrated its 10th anniversary. The free service has made it simple for anyone to share their views. (DW)
AUSTRALIA
Freedom of speech our basic right
SINCE October last year, I have been regularly warned that “dissent” against the views and interests of the State Government would jeopardise the riverfront funding, create dangerous “unintended consequences” in vaguely-defined ways, and even cause the government to appoint an administrator to strip council of legal and administrative powers. (Sunraysia Daily)
More Australian government departments admit censoring websites
A national security agency has used federal powers to block Australian access to websites, in the latest development surrounding revived fears of internet censorship. (Financial Review)
BRAZIL
Brazilian court gags protester in latest social media ruling
A judge from the Brazilian state of São Paulo has barred a protester from an allegedly illegal construction site or even posting about it on Facebook. It’s the latest in a string of rulings targeting social media in the country. (Index on Censorship)
IRAN
As Iran’s Presidential Election Approaches, Iranian Journalists Live In Fear
As Iran’s June presidential election approaches, Iranian authorities, as a precautionary measure, have intensified their crackdown on journalists. (International Business Times)
NORWAY
Norwegian Newspaper Dagbladet Sparks Outrage with ‘Blood Libel’ Cartoon
Norwegian newspaper, Dagbladet, has sparked outrage after publishing a cartoon “blood libel” Tuesday. Norway’s third largest newspaper, published the cartoon, in which a modestly dressed woman can be seen holding a blood soaked book and telling law enforcement officers: “Mistreating? No this is tradition, an important part of our belief”! (The Algemeiner)
PAKISTAN
Promoting culture: Artists want clear policy, freedom of expression
The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz has won the elections and now people are wondering whether or not they will deliver on all that they promised in their manifesto and how. (The Express Tribune)
RUSSIA
Economist Sergei Guriev flees Russia
Sergei Guriev leaves after being questioned by state investigators amid clampdown on groups critical of Vladimir Putin.
(The Guardian)
UNITED KINGDOM
Index responds to Theresa May comments
Theresa May’s comments on the Andrew Marr Show have lead to a round of speculation around the actions that the Home Secretary will take in the wake of Woolwich, especially in regard to the shelved Communications Data Bill. (Index on Censorship)
UNITED STATES
Iowa Community College to Pay $14,000 to Settle Free Speech Lawsuit
An Iowa community college will pay nearly $14,000 to settle a free-speech lawsuit filed by a student who was barred from distributing fliers criticizing a conference on gay youth. (KCRG.com)
Conservative Media Predicted Obama’s First-Amendment Scandals
The Obama administration’s free-speech scandals of today were repeatedly and accurately predicted by conservative pundits during the 2008 election. Obama’s first presidential campaign launched a series of novel and troubling assaults on its critics, leading many conservatives to warn that both the press and political speech would come under attack should Obama be elected president. Some of the predictions about Obama made by conservative writers in 2008 seem uncannily on-the-mark today. (National Review Online)
How Did Facebook Let Rape Speech Go Unpoliced for So Long?
As of today, Facebook officially no longer allows the pages “Violently Raping Your Friend Just for Laughs” and “Kicking your Girlfriend in the Fanny because she won’t make you a Sandwich” to exist on its social network, and — what do you know? — it only took a well publicized media campaign and angry advertisers to do it. In a message to its users, Facebook has outlined a new policy for dealing with violent and hateful speech to better deal with — though, not outright ban — this kind of “distasteful humor,” which, of course, begs the question: How come Facebook wasn’t doing anything about this in the first place? (The Atlantic)
School Rules and a Twitter “Social Media Riot” or Student Free Speech?
A graduating high school senior finished a 3-day suspension on Wednesday for creating a Twitter hashtag about a budget controversy, but the upstate New York case continues to play out in social media. (Huffington Post)
Colorado county limits free speech to a remote, tiny area around its buildings
With much of Colorado embroiled in a debate about the Second Amendment, one county has decided to ruffle feathers over the First. (The Daily Caller)
The Kochs’ expansive power: PBS donations, censorship, bidding for the Tribune Company
When only six corporations own all of the media in America, who controls the narrative? Are we even a part of the conversation? Now the only bastion of “public programming,” Public Broadcasting Service, looks like it is not so independent of corporate control after all. Big money is also trying to get their corrupt paws on the Tribune Company but those who want to protect a free press are fighting to stop it. (All Voices)
LePage says Medicaid expansion pressure, Democrats’ ‘censorship’ starts in Washington
Gov. Paul LePage on Wednesday railed against an expansion of Medicaid eligibility in Maine, calling it a disturbing national trend of damaging federal mandates. LePage also linked what he called censorship he has experienced in the past two weeks to a pattern of the same at the national level, suggesting that citizens go home and arm themselves if it continues. (Bangor Daily News)
Comcast and Verizon’s Phony Free-Speech Claim
Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wrote this week that the First Amendment shields Comcast Corp. from Congress’s authority to ensure the free flow of information across the basic network connections it provides. (Bloomberg)
22 May 2013 | In the News
AZERBAIJAN
Azerbaijani journalist reports threats
The Index Award-winning Azerbaijani journalist Idrak Abbasov says he had been threatened by the family of a man who was arrested after an online posting, according to Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS). (Index on Censorship)
BURMA
Myanmar media test new freedoms
Myanmar is planning to hold elections in 2015. Key to the success of the elections will be a free and uncensored press. Recent changes to media law mean that there are more newspapers going to print and censorship has for the most part been lifted. Myanmar’s journalists are now busier – and freer – than ever before. (RFI)
EGYPT
Little regard for freedom of speech in the Arab World
Human Rights Watch published an article Monday evening in which the executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division, Sarah Leah Whitson, said there is a “disconnect between the public’s passionate demonstrations for freedom and their commitment to the legislative and institutional reforms needed to protect their rights against future abuses.” (Daily News, Egypt)
INDIA
India’s plan to monitor web raises concerns over privacy
The Indian government has been implementing a system to track and access calls, texts and online activities. (Index on Censorship)
IRAN
Iran Induces Internet ‘Coma’ Ahead of Elections
With the Iranian presidential elections coming up on June 14, high-speed, filter-free Internet access in the Islamic republic has become scarce. Earlier this month, the Iranian daily Ghanoon likened the state of the Internet in Iran to being in a coma — alive but barely functioning. (Al-Monitor)
IRELAND
Irish Justice Minister’s erotic novel referred to censor’s board
Alan Shatter’s 24-year old work of fiction sent to censor amid controversy over abortion and police contact. Padraig Reidy reports. (Index on Censorship)
ISRAEL
Al Jazeera Caves to Pro-Israel Advocates and Censors Columbia Professor
In what author and founder of website The Electronic Intifada Ali Abunimah, has called “an unprecedented act of political censorship,” Al Jazeera has deleted an op-ed by Colombia University professor Joseph Massad, bowing to pressure from pro-Israel advocates. (PolicyMic)
TUNISIA
Tunisian feminist Amina Tyler arrested for ‘immoral gestures’
Tunisian member of radical feminist group FEMEN was arrested Sunday after allegedly attempting to stage a topless protest. Sara Yasin reports. (Index on Censorship)
UNITED KINGDOM
UK arrest guidelines are a shift towards secrecy
Justice is better served by openness and transparency, writes Padraig Reidy. (Index on Censorship)
UNITED STATES
War on Free Speech: Is violating the Constitution the new normal for the government?
Back in 2010, it was said that if you were not “authorized” to have discussed “classified” information disclosed from WikiLeaks, then you could be implicated for crimes under the U.S. Espionage Act. One legal expert warned that the Espionage Act could make “felons of us all.” (ComputerWorld)
20 May 2013 | In the News
GLOBAL
Social media isn’t a free-for-all space
It is often thought that social media breaks down barriers and allows the oppressed an avenue for free speech. Social media can also allow easy sharing of information with a wider audience, all with just a click of a button. (Asia One)
Cannes 2013:Iran’s Farhadi and China’s Jia talk cinema & censorship
Two directors from countries with tough film censorship brought bold and probing movies to the Cannes Film Festival on Friday — one exploring China’s social problems, the other delving into the mysteries of the human heart. (India Live)
ALGERIA
Algerian newspaper editor accuses government of censorship
An editor has accused Algeria’s government of censorship after it blocked the publication of his two newspapers. (Washington Post)
Bouteflika’s ‘coma’ leads to censorship of two Algerian dailies
Algeria censored two dailies over reports that President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, hospitalised in Paris since April 27, will return home in a coma after his health took a turn for the worse, their chief said on Sunday. (Middle East Online)
BAHRAIN
Letter: Bahrain citizens denied basic rights
In the U.S., many citizens exercise their right to peaceful assembly. However, in Bahrain this basic human right is being denied. Citizens are subject to ridiculous punishments for peaceful expression and assembly. Bloomington Pantagraph
Video: Surveillance for Sale: ‘UK exports spyware to Bahrain to track activists’
The Bahraini government is accused of using surveillance software from a UK-based company, to spy on a leading rights activist. That’s according to documents filed at the High Court in London, by one of the founders of the rights group, Bahrain Watch. The programme works by infecting your computer, and then recording your Skype conversations and social media activity. It can also take screenshots without your knowledge, and access information on your hard disk. Alaa Shehabi, who filed the court documents – told RT that digital surveillance has been spreading in Bahrain, since former high ranking UK police officer John Yates became security advisor there. (RT)
INDIA
Send Section 66A bullies home
We’re all familiar with the use of IT Act Section 66A to stifle dissent. Even the apex court has admitted that the law cannot be entrusted to ordinary policemen. But now big organisations are figuring out how to take advantage of this censorship tool too. (India Today
ITALY
Amanda Knox claims she is penniless after facing libel lawsuits over her memoir
Amanda Knox has revealed that she is almost broke because of her huge legal bills – despite a $1.5million book advance. (Daily Mail
RUSSIA
EU ‘worried’ about Russia’s human rights record
The European Union criticised Russia’s human rights record, saying it was increasingly concerned at a wave of restrictive legislation and prosecutions against activists. (TV New Zealand)
UNITED STATES
What We Said 150 Years Ago: How free speech is abridged
The New York copperheads (who were Democrats living in northern states opposed to the Civil War) had a meeting the other afternoon to denounce the (Lincoln) administration for suppressing the liberty of “free speech.” (Wisonsin State Journal)
Ashley: Chilling effect on free expression worth worrying about
What’s going on here? By coincidence or terrible karma, the unsettling developments on the free expression of ideas, open government and our ability to monitor that government are reason for concern and anger. (The Herald-Sun)
‘IRS suppressed advocates of free speech’
The Internal Revenue Service has sought to “suppress” advocates of free speech by targeting conservative groups based on their ideology, says Jim W. Dean, managing editor and columnist at Veterans Today. (Press TV)
