31 Oct 18 | News and features, Press Releases
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship, one of the world’s leading freedom of expression organisations, is to start taking donations in digital currency.
The move to accept cryptocurrency donations comes following a major gift from blockchain company Mainframe and will be used to support projects defending freedom of expression worldwide, including the Freedom of Expression Awards Fellowship, which supports those on the frontline of censorship.
“The technology that underpins digital currencies is owned and maintained by all its users rather than being controlled by a single authority – this means it offers a powerful alternative to traditional forms of giving and also for challenging censorship,” said Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of Index on Censorship.
“Blockchain technology promises a future that can belong to everyone, where no voice can be muzzled. Mainframe was honored to be the first to donate cryptocurrency to Index on Censorship, and we’d encourage anyone else serious about combatting censorship to do the same,” said Mick Hagen, CEO of Mainframe.
For more information, please contact Dave Sewell, Head of Finance: [email protected]. Deposit addresses are available via QR or text on the Index donations page.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1540974934855-8eaa7149-a33d-7″ taxonomies=”5692″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
25 Oct 18 | Campaigns -- Featured, Counter Terrorism, Statements
The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill would restrict freedom of expression and press freedom, threaten the protection of journalistic sources, and undermine academic research in Britain. It would limit the right to access information online and it would sneak in a new, harsh border regime for Northern Ireland.
The Bill has been slipping through Parliament with little attention. The House of Lords will consider it next on 29 October.
The Bill would criminalise expressing an opinion that is ‘supportive’ of a proscribed (terrorist) organisation if the person does so in a way that is ‘reckless’ as to whether it encourages someone else to support a proscribed organisation. The vaguely defined offence comes far too close to making opinion a crime. It would shut down democratic debate: who would dare to argue in favour of removing an organisation from the proscribed list if you risk 10 years in prison? (Clause 1)
The Bill would make it a crime to view online content that is likely to be useful for terrorism, even if you have no terrorist intent. The crime would carry a prison sentence of up to 15 years. It would make the work of investigative journalists and academic researchers difficult or impossible. (Clause 3)
The Bill would bring in a vaguely defined crime of “hostile activity” accompanied by wide-ranging new powers to stop, search and detain. A journalist taking a domestic flight could be stopped without any suspicion of wrong-doing. It would be an offence for the journalist not to answer questions or hand over materials, with no protection for confidential sources. Special rules would apply in the border area in Northern Ireland, meaning that anyone could be stopped, whether the person was planning to cross the border or not. (Section 3)
Joy Hyvarinen, Head of Advocacy at Index on Censorship, said “The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill would change the law on freedom of expression in Britain, restrict press freedom, damage academic research and endanger fundamental rights. The Bill is fatally flawed and we urge the House of Lords to ensure that the government rethinks the Bill”.
Rebecca Vincent, UK Bureau Director for Reporters Without Borders (RSF), said “This bill has extremely worrying implications for press freedom and the protection of journalistic sources. We have underscored our concerns over a number of specific clauses that should be struck, or at a very minimum, amended to include clear exemptions for journalistic activities. We call on Lords to carefully scrutinise this problematic bill and amend it to ensure that it does not contribute to further deterioration of UK press freedom”.
Daniel Holder, Deputy Director of the Belfast-based human rights NGO, CAJ, said “The existing port and border controls powers contained within the Terrorism Act 2000 have been used in Northern Ireland almost 16,000 times in the last four years without one single resultant detention for a Terrorism Act offence. Instead of this bill introducing yet another power that can be used post-Brexit for de facto passport control on the land border, we need extra safeguards over the existing powers. We are particularly concerned that further checks risk increasing racial profiling on the land border and at ports.”
Gracie Bradley, Policy and Campaigns Manager at Liberty, said “By criminalising activities like overseas travel and browsing the web, this Bill risks chilling free speech and curbing journalistic and academic inquiry. The Lords should reject it and the ill-judged expansion of power that it represents. It will not make us more safe, but it will make us less free.”
Thomas Hughes, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19, said “The proposed Bill would introduce extremely broad offences that have the potential to chill free speech and impede the right to seek information for people in the UK. Moreover, the Government has not convincingly shown any need for introducing these new offences or harsher penalties to the existing, expansive legal framework governing terrorist offences and counter-terrorism measures, which itself has already proven prone to abuse.”
Jim Killock, Executive Director of Open Rights Group, said ““One click” criminalisation of viewing streamed content is not the answer to online radicalisation. It may be unclear to journalists or academics that they have a “reasonable excuse” to view such content, and keep them from investigating serious issues.”
Index on Censorship
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ)
Liberty
ARTICLE 19
National Union of Students (NUS)
Big Brother Watch
Rights Watch (UK)
Open Rights Group
16 Oct 18 | Fellowship, Fellowship 2017, Maldives, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”89549″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]After five years the president of the Maldives may be on his way out — but no one is celebrating yet.
The Indian Ocean island nation voted on Sept. 23, 2018 to oust sitting president Abdulla Yameen in favor of challenger Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, who won 58 percent of the vote. The message? They were done with Yameen’s increasingly authoritarian rule.
Yameen came into power in 2013 and has jailed or forced many of his political opponents into exile. He’s restricted protests and reduced media freedom, all while boosting corruption in the government with bribes, embezzlement and human rights abuses.
The Maldives Independent, winner of the 2017 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Journalism Award, is one of the few independent news organisations left in the country. In 2014, Maldives Independent journalist Ahmed Rilwan, known for criticising the government, went missing. He has still not been found. Many believe Yameen’s hand played a role in his disappearance and the subsequent lack of investigation.
Two years later, Yameen signed a criminal defamation law that created fines and jail sentences for slander or defamatory speech, speech threatening “social norms” or national security, and remarks against Islam. The law was criticised by the United Nations and the United States, both calling it a move against freedom of expression.
Yameen’s biggest accomplishments have been in development, building an extension to a public hospital in the capital, new airports, and the country’s first overwater bridge. But behind these projects was even more corruption, critics say.
In 2016, Al Jazeera exposed a major scandal in which Yameen and then vice-president Ahmed Adeeb leased islands to tourism companies and embezzled the money for themselves. Zaheena Rasheed, then editor-in-chief of the Maldives Independent, appeared in Al Jazeera’s investigative documentary. Hours after the documentary went online, police raided the news organisation’s offices. Rasheed has since fled the country.
Addressing the embezzlement at a debate a week before the election, Yameen pointed his finger at the former vice president and “the system” as the cause behind the corruption, denying any wrongdoing.
With a platform based on restoring democracy and freeing Yameen’s political prisoners, Solih represents a new leaf for the nation.
Riazat Butt, current editor of the Maldives Independent, called the two candidates “night and day.” And though Solih may want to make significant changes in the government, Butt said three out of four of the parties in the coalition backing Solih have shown little interest in democracy.
“The opposition alliance has not said what will happen if the coalition falls apart,” Butt said. “There is an agreement they have to sign about steps to be taken in such an event, but the agreement has not been made public and the president-elect’s spokeswoman is refusing to answer questions on it.”
On top of the issues Solih may face within his coalition, Yameen is not going down without a fight.
The leader of Yameen’s party, the Progressive Party of the Maldives, launched an investigation into complaints regarding the authenticity of the ballots cast, citing “systematic irregularities.” The party has asked the Elections Commission to delay publishing the final results and has reportedly told their supporters to submit electoral complaints to the commission.
The move has been denounced by the opposition party and the Human Rights Watch, who say it is an attempt to annul the election.
“Yameen has too much to lose to just step aside,” Butt said. “He may find a non-violent way to steal the election after all….he just needs to do it in a way that avoids sanctions and military action against him.”
On Oct. 10, Yameen challenged the election results in the Supreme Court. If the Court finds proof of irregularities, the election could be annulled.
Meanwhile, members of the Elections Commission have received anonymous threats due to their dismissal of the ruling party’s claims of fraud.
If Solih is able to secure the presidency and move his coalition government into power, it may not result in much change regarding journalism in the country. Butts called the coalition manifesto “fantastically vague” about press freedom. Though journalists have asked for specifics, like if the anti-defamation law will be repealed or if background checks for foreign journalists will end, they have not received answers.
“There is no detail, and that’s not good enough,” she said. “I honestly think it is too soon for anyone to relax or believe that their job will become easier or safer.”
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1539606582611-fd540886-18b2-7″ taxonomies=”9028″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Oct 18 | Campaigns -- Featured, Digital Freedom, Digital Freedom Statements, Statements, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”103235″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Global Partners Digital, Index on Censorship and Open Rights Group are concerned about recent government proposals and announcements related to the regulation of online content, which could have significant adverse impacts on human rights, and particularly freedom of expression. It is well established and accepted that human rights should be protected online as they are protected offline, however proposals and announcements from the government relating to online content in recent months have focused almost entirely on ‘safety’ with little or no consideration for their potential impacts on freedom of expression and other rights.
As well as our concerns over the substance of the proposals and announcements, we also believe that greater coordination among government departments, and collaboration with other interested stakeholders, including civil society, would be beneficial and help achieve more effective policies.
We fully acknowledge the importance of dealing effectively with unlawful and harmful online content, however we are concerned that the failure so far to properly consider the impacts upon human rights when developing legislation and other policies risks undermining internationally agreed human rights laws and standards, especially those relating to freedom of expression.
In particular, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, working with the Home Office, is expected to publish a White Paper on Internet Safety in the winter. The White Paper is expected to contain details of a binding social media code of practice and make mandatory transparency reporting by social media platforms with the aim of allowing the government to monitor and evaluate efforts made by social media companies to ensure online safety. Existing drafts of the Code of Practice and transparency reporting guidelines, however, contain no recognition or reference to the importance of freedom of expression. The government is also considering establishing a new regulator of online content however no details have been provided on its potential remit, powers or degree of independence.
These proposals, and others that have been announced, will all have significant impacts on the enjoyment and exercise of human rights online. Given the potential risks, we therefore consider that it essential that human rights considerations be at the heart of the policymaking process, and would urge a ‘human rights by design’ approach be taken towards all legislation and regulation ultimately proposed.
In particular, we call for:
- No new restrictions on types of content. Existing legislation restricting freedom of expression already covers a wide range of harmful speech and we are unconvinced of any need for further forms of expression to be prohibited. Existing legislation should, instead, be appropriately adapted to take into account online forms of expression, rather than to prohibit further forms of speech.
- Any regulation of social media or other online companies to be evidence-based, appropriate, proportionate and in full conformity with international human rights law and standards. In particular, we caution against any regulation which incentivises the removal of content with strict time limits or the threat of sanctions, due to risks of excessive caution and the removal of lawful and legitimate content.
- Social media companies to be encouraged to develop fair, simple and transparent oversight mechanisms under which requests for the removal of content, whether by users or governments, can be challenged by those affected. These mechanisms should include transparent dialogue with users, including notifying users why a decision has been made.
- Recognition of the limits to any use of algorithms or automated decisionmaking related to reviewing content, and the need for human involvement and responsibility in content review processes.
- Civil society organisations, and other relevant stakeholders, to be fully consulted and involved during the White Paper’s development.
QUOTES:
Jodie Ginsberg, CEO at Index on Censorship:
“Any future regulatory framework for online platforms must be designed with freedom of expression in mind, not just safety. Protecting freedom of expression should be a guiding principle, including in the proposed code of practice for social media companies. It is a major failing that freedom of expression has been ignored completely in the code of practice.”
“The transparency reporting template must be amended to include information about safeguarding users’ freedom of expression. It is extremely surprising that this has been ignored in the current draft version and it confirms that the government is not paying attention to freedom of expression when developing online regulation”.
Charles Bradley, Executive Director at Global Partners Digital:
“Across the world, from Malaysia to Germany, China to South Africa, we are seeing concerning proposals from governments seeking to regulate online content – and the internet more broadly – in ways that pose real risks to human rights. It is therefore especially critical that the United Kingdom government, whose proposals will be watched closely elsewhere, addresses the legitimate challenges it has identified in a way which fully respects international human rights law and standards. Any proposals should also encourage businesses to comply with their human rights responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles.
“This means that any legal or regulatory frameworks which are proposed should enable and encourage companies to design and implement terms of service relating to online content with which are fully compatible with the right to freedom of expression. They should also ensure that there is accountability and meaningful transparency by these companies when they make decisions relating to online content. By doing so, the UK government has the opportunity to enhance the protection of freedom of expression online, rather than undermine it.”
Jim Killock, Executive Director at Open Rights Group:
“If legal material is censored or incorrectly removed, the result will be that laws are not seen as fair and legitimate. The government says it wants the same rules online as offline: this must include the right to a fair decision, and to assert your right to publish, just as you have in the offline world.
“We hope the government takes this opportunity to discuss with us and others how Britain can get this right.”[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1553267832735-54b2dc9e-3f72-7″ taxonomies=”16927, 4883, 6507″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
