09 Jul 14 | News and features, Young Writers / Artists Programme
(Image: Katie Dancey)
Twitter trolls, online mobs and “offensive” Facebook posts are constantly making headlines as authorities struggle to determine how to police social media. In a recent development, links posted on Facebook allow users to see which of their friends have “liked” pages, such as those representing Britain First, the British National Party and the English Defence League. When clicking the links, a list appears of friends who have liked the page in question. Many Facebook users have posted the links, with the accompanying message stating their intention to delete any friends found on the lists. One user wrote, “I don’t want to be friends, even Facebook friends, with people who support fascist political parties, so this is just a quick message to give you a chance to unlike the Britain First page before I un-friend you.” Tackling racism is admirable, but when the method is blackmail and intimidation, who is in the wrong? All information posted on Facebook could be considered as public property, but what are the ethical implications of users taking it upon themselves to police the online activity of their peers? When social media users group together to participate in online vigilantism, what implications are there for freedom of expression?
This online mob is exercising its right to freedom of expression by airing views about right wing groups. However, in an attempt to tackle social issues head on, the distributors of these links are unlikely to change radical right-wing ideologies, and more likely to prohibit right-wing sympathisers from speaking freely about their views. In exerting their right to free speech, mobs are at risk of restricting that of others. The opinions of those who feel targeted by online mobs won’t go away, but their voice will. The fear of losing friends or being labelled a racist backs them into a corner, where they are forced to act in a particular way, creating a culture of self-censorship. Contrary to the combating of social issues, silencing opinion is more likely to exacerbate the problem. If people don’t speak freely, how can anyone challenge extreme views? By threatening to remove friends or to expose far right persuasions, are the online vigilantes really tackling social issues, or are they just shutting down discussions by holding friendships to ransom?
Public shaming is no new tactic, but its online use has gone viral. Used as a weapon to enforce ideologies, online witch-hunts punish those who don’t behave as others would want them to. Making people accountable for their online presence, lynch mobs target individuals and shame them into changing their behaviour. The question is whether groups are revealing social injustices that would otherwise go unpunished, or whether they are using bullying tactics in a dictatorial fashion. The intentions of the mob in question are good; to combat racism. But does that make their methods justifiable? These groups often promote a “with us or against us” attitude; if you don’t follow these links and delete your racist friends, you must be a racist too. Naming and shaming those who don’t follow the cultural norm is also intended to dissuade others from participating in similar activities. Does forcing people into acting a certain way actually generate any real change, or is it simply an act of censorship?
With online mobs often taking on the roles of judge, jury and executioner, the moral implications of their activities are questionable. It may start as a seemingly small Facebook campaign such as this one, but what else could stem from that? One Facebook user commented, “Are you making an effort to silence your Facebook friends who are to the right of centre?” This concern that the target may become anyone with an alternative political view demonstrates the cumulative nature of online mobs. Who polices this activity and who decides when it has gone too far?
Comments under the Facebook posts in question invite plenty of support for the deletion of any friends who “like” far right groups, but very rarely does anyone question the ethics of this approach. No longer feeling they have to idly stand by, Facebook users may feel they can make an impact through strength in numbers and a very public forum. Do those who haven’t previously had a channel for tackling social issues suddenly feel they have a public voice? Sometimes it’s difficult to accept that absolutely everyone has the right to free speech, even those who hold extreme views. In a democracy, there may be political groups that offend us, but those groups still have a right to be heard. The route to tackling those views can’t be to silence them, but to encourage discussion.
This article was posted on July 9, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
21 Jan 14 | Asia and Pacific, Bangladesh, News and features
Election day in Bangladesh (Image: Md Manik/Demotix)
It is a story worthy of great theatre: the bitter rivalry between two women that is tearing apart a country.
Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia head the two main political parties of Bangladesh, and have swapped power back and forth for the last 20 years.
The relationship between the two “battling begums” has come under international scrutiny recently, after Bangladesh suffered the most violent election in its short history. More than 100 people died during the campaign, with the country disrupted by strikes, blockades, and violent clashes between police and opposition supporters.
The controversy started well before the country went to the polls on 5 January. Since 1996, Bangladesh has held elections under a neutral caretaker government. In 2010, Hasina’s Awami League party, buoyed by a strong parliamentary majority, decided to abolish the provision. The opposition, Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) took issue with this, saying that a fair election could not be guaranteed without a neutral body overseeing it. The Awami League would not set up a caretaker government. The BNP boycotted the election.
Hasina decided to go ahead with the poll. Inevitably, her party – unopposed in 153 of the country’s 300 constituencies – won. But, equally inevitably, the validity of a contest in which there was only one real option has been questioned. The election result was also undermined by an unusually low turnout, with the government putting the figure at under 40 per cent and others reporting far less than that.
This was not just to do with voters choosing not to vote, but with a systematic campaign of intimidation and violence by supporters of the opposition BNP. Enforcing blockades, strikes, and boycotts, supporters of the BNP and their allies, the Jamaat-e-Islami, petrol bombed buses carrying workers, and set fire to shops that had opened in defiance of the strikes.
“The violence perpetrated against people who have not complied with the opposition call is a criminal act and it is the responsibility of the government to bring the attackers to justice,” says Abbas Faiz, Bangladesh researcher for Amnesty International. “But the majority of people who died during the two months of elections died from gunshot wounds. There is a strong possibility the police may have used excessive force.” Amnesty is calling for immediate investigations to identify the perpetrators of attacks, and to establish whether the force used by police was lawful. In a statement, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called on “all sides to exercise restraint and ensure first and foremost a peaceful and conducive environment, where people can maintain their right to assembly and expression.”
Elections in Bangladesh tend to be big public events, with people getting up early to join famously long queues and proudly displaying their ink stained fingers. Yet people in the capital Dhaka during this year’s election described an eerie calm. Voting took place in just nine of 20 seats in the city. There were vicious attacks on the country’s Hindu minority, who make up around 10 per cent of the population and tend to support the Awami League.
The consensus seems to be that both of the main parties are equally culpable for the farce that the election has descended into. An editorial in the country’s Daily Star newspaper said that the Awami League had won “a predictable and hollow victory, which gives it neither a mandate nor an ethical standing to govern effectively”. Its verdict on Zia and her associates was no better: “Political parties have the right to boycott elections. But what is unacceptable is using violence and intimidation to thwart an election.”
The election chaos comes after a year of ugly political violence in Bangladesh: around 500 people were killed in political clashes during 2013, making it one of the most violent years since independence in 1971. This began with a mass popular movement against religious fundamentalism. Named the Shahbag movement, after the area of Dhaka where it began, the protests swiftly triggered a backlash from the religious right and their supporters. Much of this polarisation – between secularists and Islamists – had been precipitated by the government’s war crimes tribunal. Prosecuting people for crimes committed during the war of independence in 1971, the tribunal has reopened old tensions. Islamists claim it is being used to shut down the opposition, while secularists argue that the sentences (which include the death penalty) are not harsh enough.
Now, several weeks after the election, the political system remains in crisis. Zia is effectively under house arrest, while Hasina’s victory is seen across the board as empty. International and domestic observers alike say that the only way forward is for the two women to sit down together and hammer out a compromise. With early elections expected within the next 18 months, and with political uncertainty and violence continuing, this is ever more pressing.
This article was published on 21 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
21 May 12 | Digital Freedom, News and features
A number of British mobile networks are blocking the far-right British National Party’s website, it has been revealed.
Following a report by LSE Media Policy Project and Open Rights Group (ORG) on mobile internet censorship, a number of web-users alerted ORG that the BNP’s website is blocked on a variety of mobile networks if child protection filters are active, once again raising the question of the efficacy of online filtering systems.
Though these sites are blocked through child protection systems, ORG argues that often filters such as these are “on by default” and can block too much content through “mistaken categorisations”.
ORG also raise the question of whether internet service providers (ISP’s) should be blocking the website of a political party at all, citing political speech as “the core of the activities protected by freedom of expression rights”.
Upon further investigation of the alleged blocking, Index found it was blocked on Tmobile, Orange and Vodafone. We also noted with particular interest that the site was restricted to over 18s on 02, and subject to a charge of £1 to clarify you were of age to access the controversial political party’s website, and any other age restricted sites. Is this perhaps some kind of “porn tax” from the mobile networks? Why should a customer pay to verify their age?
In her response to the Mobile Censorship report on the LSE Media Policy Project’s blog, Index’s editor Jo Glanville said: “It has long been demonstrated that filtering systems are a blunt tool that censor content beyond the sites that are targeted”.
Glanville added that the criteria for blocking content on mobile phones are “alarmingly opaque” and explains that companies do not inform their customers that their phones “are blocked by default”. Glanville also describes “alarming evidence” detailed in the report, that phone companies failed to act when they were informed that a site had been wrongly blocked.
There is a particular concern that sites which are being blocked by child protection filters cover broader categories than adult sexual content, and that mobile networks are making decisions about what under 18s should be exposed to. ORG argues that the scope of content blocked on the mobile phones of young people should be determined by parents, in a discussion with their children.
“The current panic around protection of children has introduced the mistaken belief that filtering is a solution,” explains Glanville. “ORG and LSE have provided the timely evidence to show that it is, on the contrary damaging.”
It’s not just party political sites which are being blocked by these networks. Users also alerted ORG to a number of “anti-feminism” sites which were being blocked, including www.antimisandry.com, www.exposingfeminism.wordpress.com and www.angryharry.com, are all blocked on o2 and Vodafone, while www.manwomanmyth.com is blocked on Three and Orange. They also detail a number of reports that “lifestyle” sites have been blocked by mobile network providers, along with a number of technology-related news sites and some discussion forums.
And this problem seems to be fairly widespread. A Twitter user today alerted The F Word, a UK feminist site, that access to their website was blocked on o2.
Following their report, ORG and LSE called on mobile networks to offer an “opt in” system for filtering, rather than having to “opt out”, and for further clarity on the source of filtering technology. The report also recommends regular reviews of filtering systems and their efficacy.
Alice Purkiss is an editorial assistant at Index. She tweets at @alicemaypurkiss
11 Apr 11 | minipost, News and features
A Public Order Act charge against British National Party member Sion Owens, who was arrested over the weekend for burning a copy of the Koran in his garden and posting a video of the act on the internet, was dropped this morning.
Owens had been arrested for incitement to religious hatred under Section 29 of the Public Order Act. However, it is understood that permission for such a prosecution had not been sought from the Attorney General, as is required.
