11 Oct 2024 | Brazil, Israel, Mexico, News and features, Newsletters, Palestine, United States
Hello, readers. This is Sarah Dawood here, the new editor of Index on Censorship. Every week, we bring the most pertinent global free speech stories to your inbox.
This week, headlines have been dominated by the ongoing devastation of the war in the Middle East, where the death toll is now more than 42,000 in Gaza, and more than 2,100 in Lebanon. Monday also marked a painful milestone for Israelis and Jewish people everywhere, as the first anniversary of Hamas’s attacks, which killed 1,200 people. You can read Jerusalem correspondent Ben Lynfield’s forensic analysis on the region’s risks to journalists and press freedom below.
Attention has also been on the destructive Hurricane Milton in Florida, which has killed at least 16 people. The climate event has resulted in human tragedy, physical damage and the distortion of truth, with false information and AI-generated images accumulating millions of views on social media, including a fabricated flooding of Disney World in Orlando. Such imagery has been seized upon by hostile states, far-right groups, and even US politicians to advance their own aims: Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti reposted the fake Disney World photos to its Telegram channel, whilst Republican members of Congress have proclaimed conspiracy theories of government-led “storm manufacturing”. This emphasises how crises can be manipulated and monopolised to stir up division.
But while disinformation can undermine democracy, so too can information blockades. This brings us to some important stories coming out of Latin America. In Brazil, the social media platform X is now back online after a shutdown in September. The platform was banned by a top judge during the country’s presidential election campaign, in an attempt to prevent the spread of misinformation. But as Mateus Netzel, the executive director of Brazil-based digital news platform Poder360 told Reuters, social media bans not only restrict public access to information, but can undermine journalists’ ability to gather and report on news. Elon Musk himself was using X to post about the development of the ban, but this was inaccessible to Brazilian journalists. “In theory, there are journalists and outlets who do not have access to that right now and this is a very important restriction because they need to report on this issue and they will have to rely on indirect sources,” said Netzel.
We also heard frightening news from Mexico, where a local politician was murdered and beheaded just days after being sworn in as city mayor of Chilpancingo. Whilst we don’t yet know the reason that Alejandro Arcos Catalán was killed, his murder is yet another example of journalists, politicians, and other public figures being routinely targeted by criminal gangs. Bar active war zones, Mexico has consistently been the most dangerous country in the world for journalists, topping Reporters Without Borders’ list in 2022.
Meanwhile, in El Salvador, climate activists are being silenced through false imprisonment. Five protesters, who fronted a 13-year grassroots campaign to ban metal mining due to its devastating environmental impacts are now facing life in prison for the alleged killing of an army informant in 1989. The charge has been condemned by the UN and international lawyers as baseless and politically motivated, and echoes heavy-handed prison sentences being handed to climate protesters globally, including in democratic countries. As Index’s Mackenzie Argent reported last month, human rights lawyers have called out the UK’s hypocrisy in claiming egalitarianism whilst disproportionately punishing environmental activists, pointing specifically to the sentencing of Just Stop Oil’s Roger Hallam to five years in prison in July. These two stories, although taking place 5,000 miles away from each other, underline how climate defenders are currently on the front line of attempts to be silenced.
26 Sep 2024 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, United Kingdom
On Monday 16 September, the United States imposed financial sanctions and visa restrictions on Georgians who they believed to be involved with violent crackdowns on peaceful protests that had occurred in the country’s capital Tbilisi in the spring. The protests were sparked in resistance to the passing of a “foreign agents law”, which shares similarities with an existing law in Russia – raising concerns that the Georgian government is aligning more closely with the Kremlin.
These demonstrations were led by young adults. University students organised and turned out in their thousands, and the majority of protesters on the streets were members of Gen Z. It is commonplace for young people to be vocal about what they believe in, but despite the US supporting the struggle of the youth against their government in Georgia, when it comes to home soil, their commitment to free speech isn’t so steadfast. The US drew condemnation from UN human rights experts regarding the aggressive and harsh measures used by authorities against pro-Palestine protesters on US university campuses – many peaceful demonstrations were met with surveillance and arrests across the country. Further measures are being taken to prevent protests ahead of the 2024/25 academic year, and these have been met with disdain from the American Association of University Professors in a statement made last month.
The USA is far from alone when it comes to recent crackdowns on the right to protest. As Index has previously covered, there have been multiple arrests at both climate protests and pro-Palestine protests in the UK in recent years, and the Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak introduced the much criticised Policing, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Public Order Act 2023, and Serious Disruption Prevention Orders, all of which significantly inhibit people’s right to protest. This crushing of demonstrations even breached the realms of legality when Suella Braverman was ruled to have passed unlawful anti-protest legislation in 2023. In recent times, the sheer scale of punishment for non-violent protesters in the UK has been brought into the public eye with the sentencing in July of Roger Hallam of Just Stop Oil (JSO) to five years imprisonment, and four other JSO members to four years, for coordinating protests on the M25.
Lotte Leicht, a Danish human rights lawyer who holds the position of advocacy director at Climate Rights International – a monitoring and advocacy organisation that recently put out a statement outlining hypocrisy from western governments regarding climate protests – spoke to Index on this issue, and she believes that the UK is the worst offender.
“The crackdown, and particularly the use of law to sentence non-violent disruption by climate protesters in the UK has stood out as the most severe and most extraordinary measure [from any country]. And one thing that’s very disappointing from our point of view is not to see the new Labour government tackling these draconian laws from the previous government, and taking steps to revoke them,” Leicht said.
She added: “The prevention of UK activists from explaining their motivations for their actions in court, and judges actually preventing them from doing so… As a lawyer, I would say this prevents people from having a fair trial.”
This crackdown on protests has become prevalent in many democracies within ‘the Global North’ in recent years, and examples are not hard to come by. On 11 September, thousands of anti-war protesters in Melbourne, Australia gathered outside a weapons expo, protesting the government’s stance on arms, and the use of such weapons in Gaza. The protests quickly became the subject of great scrutiny when there were violent clashes between Melbourne police and demonstrators, with police allegedly using excessive “riot-type” force, resulting in multiple injuries.
In Germany, pro-Palestine protests have also repeatedly been met with harsh measures, such as bans. The country’s history of anti-Semitism has impacted its attitude towards protests and events that are critical of Israel, causing police to be more heavy handed than in other democracies.
Leicht, who is also the council chairwoman at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), a nonprofit dedicated to enforcing civil and human rights globally, told Index that this increasing anti-protest action from western democracies sets a very worrying precedent.
“This represents a massive deployment of double standards. Because these are the same governments that rightfully stand up for freedom of expression, association and assembly in different corners of the world when authoritarian governments are cracking down horrifically on dissent in their countries,” she said.
“These countries are usually there to say ‘Oh, that’s not good’, and we want them to do that! But by not practising what they preach and undermining these principles at home, they will lose that credibility. In a way, they will provide a green light to authoritarian governments to do the exact same for those that they don’t like. I mean, why not?”
Leicht does, however, believe that a continued struggle against these litigations will not be in vain.
“Protests in the past have also been disruptive, annoying and irritating for those in power — look at the Suffragettes. Now, is that something that we today would say ‘That’s just annoying and irritating’? Many felt so at the time. They were disruptive, they were irritating, they were strong, they were principled – and they were successful. And I think history will tell the same story about courageous climate protesters,” she said.
It is clear that countries positioning themselves as “champions of democracy” must truly allow freedom of expression within their own borders, especially when they set the tone globally. If they continue to infringe upon the rights of people to demonstrate their beliefs and advocate publicly for change, then the future will be silent.
19 Jul 2024 | China, Hong Kong, News and features, Newsletters, Russia
Has China entered a “garbage time of history”? Some netizens think so. According to a Guardian article from yesterday, the term is trending, coined to reflect a generation who feel squeezed by rising costs and other social burdens. Those behind the term even created a “2024 misery ranking grand slam”, which tallies up the number of misery points that a person might have earned this year (one star for unemployment, two stars for a mortgage, another for hoarding the expensive liquor Moutai and so on). I always felt bonded to many of my Chinese friends by what I’d say was a shared sense of humour – the dry, acerbic sort that Brits are famed for, the one that is still able to chortle no matter how bad the news. It’s very much on display in this story.
The censors though aren’t laughing. They’re scrubbing. Pity these people who take away the lemonade from those with lemons.
Two other stories emerged from the region this week that, while not necessarily “garbage”, were bad. The first concerned a rumour that Xi Jinping had a stroke (side note: Xi is 71, his mother is 97, and his father died aged 88). The rumour spread across Chinese social media and was picked up on X by the activist Jennifer Zeng, who has a huge following. It was later debunked, including by the Reuters Fact Check team here. In the interim, China’s censors blocked posts about it.
The story was troubling, and not just the censorship angle. There are perils to getting things wrong when you are meant to be on the side fighting for freedoms, a central one being that it’s an own goal, a way to feed into the autocrats’ line that it is others, not themselves, who can’t be trusted.
Another troubling story this week came out of Hong Kong. On Wednesday Wall Street Journal reporter Selina Cheng was laid off. The Post said it was part of a restructuring. Cheng believes it was linked to her taking up the position of chair at the Hong Kong Journalists Association, a union that campaigns for media freedom. She said she was pressed by her employer not to stand for election for chair, being told the role would be “incompatible with my employment at the Wall Street Journal”. The WSJ have not commented on her firing. But a pattern appears to be emerging of major international outlets being spooked by association with the HKJA. According to an article from the China Media Project, three recently elected members of the HKJA board, alongside an outgoing leader of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China, said they faced similar pressures.
“All asked to remain anonymous, fearing reprisals from their employers, but confirmed that the Journal is not alone: the biggest names in Hong Kong and China’s foreign press have been pressuring their employees to stand back and stay quiet, or face the repercussions. For the territory’s embattled journalists, defending the free press has become a fight on two fronts: against both an increasingly authoritarian government and their own employers, based in the West and nominally committed to liberal principles,” the article said.
Meanwhile Tom Grundy from Hong Kong Free Press, one of the few independent media to still operate from Hong Kong, told Index that the news added to the sense of vulnerability felt by journalists there. He said:
“When a giant international news organisation fails to support the city’s only independent media union and its officers, they further erode press freedom by closing precious space. It sends a terrible signal, and makes their own remaining staff more vulnerable in the long run. Especially locals.”
The Beijing supporting media of course is loving it. The Global Times tabloid was calling the press union “a malignant tumour that harms the city’s safety and security”.
Finally on the note of the WSJ, we have just heard news that the reporter Evan Gershkovich has been sentenced to 16 years in a Russian prison on espionage charges after he was arrested last March while on a reporting trip in the city of Yekaterinburg 1,600 km east of Moscow. That this news was predicable doesn’t make it any less disturbing. We will continue to fight for his release.
11 Jun 2024 | Israel, Moldova, News and features, Russia, Ukraine
Israel’s High Court of Justice this week heard a petition challenging new legislation allowing a ban on foreign broadcasters deemed a threat to national security.
Known as the Al Jazeera law, in honour of its inaugural target, this allows the communications minister, with the consent of the prime minister and the committee of national security, to impose far-reaching sanctions.
“There is no doubt that there is a violation of freedom of expression here,” the High Court panel’s head, Justice Yitzhak Amit, told the hearing.
Yet Israel’s May shuttering of Al Jazeera – described as a “terror channel” by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – passed without much domestic concern.
Any outrage was limited to Israel’s small liberal left wing, even though in banning Al Jazeera, Israel joins the august ranks of countries including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Bahrain.
The issue is, of course, rife with politicisation. Al Jazeera is headquartered in Qatar, as is part of the Hamas leadership, and is hardly free from bias. Nonetheless, this law can be used in the future to ban other foreign broadcasters that are deemed to pose an amorphous “threat to national security”.
And crucially, it includes an “override clause” that even Israel’s high court cannot overturn.
It’s important to note that countries often introduce special legislation affecting media in times of war and crisis, amid legitimate national security considerations.
Ukraine is an obvious case in point, not least because it faces such a particularly sharp threat from Russian disinformation.
A year before Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, President Volodymyr Zelensky moved to shut down three pro-Russian TV channels judged to effectively be weapons in Russia’s information war.
Immediately after the full-scale invasion, all national news channels were united into a 24-hour broadcast, and a subsequent newly revised media law was intended to be muscular enough to withstand Russian malign influence.
Yet while criticism of the government in times of war – especially one being fought with a citizen’s army – is not easy, Ukrainian journalists have quite effectively held their leaders to account.
Reporting on corruption in the defence ministry, for instance, heralded the minister’s resignation of defence minister Oleskiy Reznikov and government pledges for greater transparency.
And critically, the Government’s moves in the information sphere have not gone unchallenged. Ukraine, with its history of authoritarian government and a media scene under the sway of oligarchs and political interests, knows all too well how fragile free expression can be.
While officials made clear that the telethon would be completely free of government intervention, not all outlets were included, and critics note that some of those excluded such as Espresso, Channel 5, and Priamyi, had often criticised Zelensky and to varying degrees were associated with his predecessor Petro Poroshenko.
And there was widespread criticism of the March 2023 media law for handing too much power to government intervention, with the same measures to counter Russian disinformation all too easily abused to limit critical voices.
In neighbouring Moldova, scores of pro-Russian outlets were banned under the state of emergency declared immediately after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. More than two years later, the TV channels and websites remain blocked despite the end of the state of emergency, and many critics would argue that the country remains as vulnerable as ever to Russian propaganda.
What is needed to ensure that national security considerations do not become a tool to control free expression is a robust civil society push back and an ongoing debate on the boundary between freedom of speech and the fight against fake news.
In Israel, where the national narrative has become an inextricable part of the conflict itself, the public appears increasingly supine in the face of the official version of events.
Israel has long championed its diverse and outspoken media sector as a sign of a vibrant democracy, alongside robust laws that purport to protect free expression. But civil society and media are now experiencing repression from both official and non-state sources, with Palestinian citizens of Israel bearing the brunt.
Anti-war protests have been curtailed and violently repressed; Jewish and Arab teachers fired over left-wing posts on social media, while students have faced disciplinary actions for simply supporting a ceasefire.
Dissenting voices and journalists are being directly targeted and doxxed. Just after 7 October, Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi suggested police be empowered to arrest those accused of spreading information that could harm morale or fuel enemy propaganda.
Haaretz journalist Rogel Alpher this week noted a column in Yisrael Hayom which called for articles in the penal law that mandate execution or life imprisonment enforced on those disseminating “defeatist propaganda” or “abetting the enemy”.
Of course, Israel is not about to start executing journalists. The vast majority of extreme proposals do not make it into law, just as most anti-war arrests do not lead to indictments. Even bans on specific outlets are not total; Al Jazeera can still be accessed with absolute ease online.
But this all helps create a chilling atmosphere, serving to normalise such actions and increasing self-censorship.
Israel’s Hebrew-language media has chosen to self-censor to such a large extent that Jewish Israelis experience what Esther Solomon, editor-in-chief of Haaretz English, describes as a “cognitive gap” between the content they consume and what the rest of the world sees.
This means that anything confronting the profoundly uncomfortable reality of war and contradicting the accepted IDF narrative is seen as traitorous and a threat to national security.
The public acceptance of vaguely worded censorious media laws seems to fit all too well with the ongoing slow and creeping deterioration of Israel’s democracy.
