[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship has for the past four decades published the work of censored writers and artists. Now we face the possibility of censorship thanks to a UK government law that means — as a publisher that refuses to sign up to a regulator approved by a state-created body — we could end up paying both sides in a legal dispute even if we ultimately win the case. The law, Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, as it stands is a danger to a free press.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner content_placement=”top”][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-times-circle” color=”black” background_style=”rounded” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act is a direct threat to press freedom in the UK and must be scrapped.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]This part of the act, created as a response to the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking, has been on the statute for three years but was not enacted because — until earlier this year — there was no approved regulator of which publishers could be part. That changed when Impress, a regulator to which so far only small local media publishers have signed up, was approved in October by the Press Recognition Panel (PRP). The PRP was established through an arcane state mechanism called a Royal Charter following the Leveson Inquiry. Having an approved regulator means Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act could now be brought into force and that we and many other small publishers could face crippling costs in any dispute, threatening investigative journalism or those who challenge the powerful or the wealthy.
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act is a direct threat to press freedom in the UK and must be scrapped. The government is currently consulting the public on section 40.
Index has warned consistently of the dangers from the Crime and Courts Act.
1. Under s.40, or the “cost provisions”, in relevant media-related court cases, newspapers which are members of a recognised self-regulator are exempt from paying their opponents’ legal costs, even if they lost a case. The presumption would also mean that newspapers outside a recognised self-regulator must pay their own and their opponents’ legal costs, even if they win a case. The s.40 incentive is based on the fact that recognised self-regulators have to have a low cost arbitration scheme that replaces the need for court action.
2. Please provide the evidence that supports your view (max 250 words)
As a small, independent magazine publisher that is a “relevant publisher” of news-related material as per the definition provided in section 41 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and that is not subject to any of the exemptions listed in Schedule 15, Index on Censorship faces the prospect of having to pay the costs for both sides if a claim is brought against us – even in a case we are ultimately successful in winning. This could potentially bankrupt the organisation, effectively silencing a magazine that has for the past 44 years dedicated its existence to the publishing of work by, and information about, censored writers and artists worldwide.
3. To what extent will full commencement incentivise publishers to join a recognised self-regulator? Please use evidence in your answer. (max 250 words)
Index on Censorship will not sign up to a regulator that has to be approved by a state-appointed body. Freedom of the press – including total freedom from any state involvement in regulation of the press – is the bedrock of a free and democratic society. Section 40 stands in direct opposition to this principle. Introducing punitive statutory penalties is not an incentive – it is a threat. Forcing publishers to join a recognised regulator or face the threat of punitive costs makes a mockery of the notion that the self-regulator is in any way voluntary.
We urge everyone to write to their MP and to Secretary of State Karen Bradley requesting its immediate repeal or to respond to the online consultation.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Press Regulation” category_id=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
25 November: The Finnish prime minister, Juha Sipilä, pressured the national broadcasting company Yle by claiming they had published false information about him and acted unprofessionally.
Three journalists as Yle, who have chosen to remain anonymous, told Suomen Kuvalehti that at least two Sipilä stories were censored after receiving the emails. The Office of Parliamentary Ombudsman is investigating complaints that the prime minister has limited press freedom.
29 November: A motion to stop the sale of the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Express at a Plymouth University shop was passed by the Plymouth University Student Union Executive Council.
The University of Plymouth Students’ Union-run shop will no longer carry these news outlets. “Whilst we believe that freedom of expression and speech are inalienable human rights… a number of British tabloids are known to express hateful views,” the union stated.
According to the union, the publications “demonise certain groups in society, such as immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, disabled people, the LGBTIQA+ community, Muslims, Black and Asian communities.”
The union further explained: “UPSU is a safe space in which any abusive language or behaviour is not tolerated. UPSU opposes hatred, discrimination…Because of these very values that we hold and we are proud of, we believe that it is unethical for us to profit out of the sale of hateful, non-factual and anti-scientific media platforms.”
These newspapers will not be banned from Plymouth University, students will still be able to access them online or from alternative stores.
30 November: A former presenter for the now closed pro-Kurdish outlet Özgür Gün TV, Müjgan Ekin, was abducted on 24 October, and there is still no news of her whereabouts.
While on her way to a friend’s house, Ekin was dragged into a police car by individuals who posed as police officers. There were multiple eyewitness accounts of the incident. The police officers told Ekin’s family that she was detained for being a suspected suicide bomber.
According the the Human Rights Association there doesn’t seem to be any official report of Ekin’s suspected detention.
There is a history of disappearances in Turkey’s Kurdish provinces: these disappearances peaked in the 1990s when Turkey’s security forces allegedly carried out extrajudicial executions.
1 December: István Tiborcz, the son-in-law for the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has requested through his lawyer that news outlet 444.hu takes down a video of him and to issue him a written apology because they used the footage without his consent.
Hír TV originally aired the video on 28 November. It was filmed from a distance and shows a Hír TV reporter speaking to Tiborcz on the street, asking him questions about his role in a company involved in real estate. Tiborcz responds with: “Why do you care?” He then proceeds to tell the reporter she is beautiful, and asks if she is married.
2 December: Dozhd cameraperson, Sergey Petrov, was detained on 2 December while investigating property illegally built on a nature preserve in the northern Caucasus.
Yevgeny Prigozhin, Putin’s personal chef, allegedly owns the property. While working on a report covering the property, Petrov and several environmental activists were detained in Kabardinka village by private security guards in a wooded area. According to Petrov’s wife, Irina Kovalenko, they were not trespassing on Prigozhin’s property.
The security guards deleted the information Petrov had gathered on his flash drive. Afterwards, Petrov and the activists were taken to the police station to give an explanation. They were later released.
A man lays flowers near the picture of murdered journalist Anna Politkovskaya, during a rally in Moscow, Russia, 7 October 2009. CREDIT: EPA / Alamy Stock Photo
On 7 October 2006 investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya was shot and killed in her apartment building in Moscow. In the latest issue of Index on Censorship magazine, Russian journalist Andrey Arkhangelsky reflects on Politkovskaya’s legacy 10 years on and looks at the state of journalism in the country today.
Politkovskaya, who worked for newspaper Novaya Gazetta, was known for her investigative reporting, particularly looking into the atrocities committed by Russian armed forces in Chechnya, and her criticism of the Putin administration.
She was a recipient of an Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award in 2002.
Ahead of the anniversary of her death, Index has compiled a reading list of articles written for the magazine both by Politkovskaya and about her. The collection also includes articles exploring media freedom in Russia and why the deaths are Russian journalists seem to go unnoticed and uninvestigated.
From The Cadet Affair: the Disappeared; an extract, written by Anna Politkovskaya, was published in the winter 2010 issue of Index on Censorship magazine
In 2010 Index published this extract from Nothing But the Truth: Selected Dispatches, a collection of Politkovskaya’s best writings. In this piece, she writes about the disappeared in Chechnya.
An interview with Politkovskaya who, at the time of publication, was living in Vienna, having been sent there for her own safety by Dmitry Muratov, editor-in-chief of Noveya Gazetta, after receiving threats from high-ranking officials who had been annoyed by her reports from Chechnya.
Irena Maryniak considers the hidden network of relationships that continue to shape Russian society, undermine the rule of law and protect the status quo. In this article Maryniak highlights Politkovskaya’s concerns of the effects of the Kremlin’s reach and her work reporting on the atrocities inflicted on the Chechen population by the Russian armed forces and the Russian-backed administration of Akhmad Kadyrov.
Grit in the engine by Robert McCrum, in the 40 year anniversary issue of Index on Censorship magazine.
Maria Eismont talks to Dmitry Muratov, editor of the newspaper Novaya Gazeta, at which Politkovskaya spent seven years as a journalist, about his struggle for press freedom and justice in Russia.
In this article Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, discusses how impunity is an urgent issue facing press freedom campaigners; and, after reflecting on Politkovskaya’s murder, outlines a roadmap for action
Edward Lucas explains how during Putin’s presidency media freedom has moved from the imperfect to the moribund, in an adaption from his book The New Cold War: how the Kremlin menaces Russia and the West.
Into the Future; Index interviews Anna Politkovskaya in the winter 2005 issue of Index on Censorship magazine.
Robert McCrum considers Index’s role in the history of the fight for free speech, from the oppression of the Cold War to censorship online; and highlights how Politkovskaya turned to Index for help in making the west understand the dangers Russian journalists face.
Carole Seymour-Jones celebrates the achievements of 50 years of fighting for authors’ freedoms and explains why there is so much more work to be done.
You can read Andrey Arkhangelsky’s article by subscribing to the magazine or taking out a digital subscription from anywhere in the world via Exact Editions (just £18* for the year). Each magazine sale helps Index on Censorship fight for free expression worldwide.
*Will be charged at local exchange rate outside the UK.
Magazines are also on sale in bookshops, including at the BFI and MagCulture in London, News from Nowhere in Liverpool and Home in Manchester; as well as on Amazon and iTunes. MagCulture will ship to anywhere in the world.
Büşra Erdal, one of 89 journalists subject to arrest, surrendered in Manisa and was taken to police headquarters in handcuffs.
Media freedom must be treated for what it really is: a strong test of democracy. And any response to a crisis requires a cautious approach if basic civil liberties, the building blocks of any free society, are to be protected. Make no mistake about it, in the case of Turkey, we are faced with a situation where authorities are violating the basic human right of Turkish citizens to engage in free media.
Just consider the following media freedom issues that have taken place after the attempted coup in Turkey on 15 July.
The authorities have ordered the closure of 45 newspapers, 15 magazines, 16 television channels, 23 radio stations, 3 news agencies, and 29 publishers;
Arrest warrants have been issued against 89 journalists, accusing them of supporting terrorism; seven of them have already been detained;
370 journalists at the state broadcaster TRT have been suspended;
Press accreditations for 34 journalists from eight other Turkish media outlets have been revoked;
60 staff members with Cihan News Agency have been fired;
The Radio and Television Supreme Council of Turkey (RTÜK) has cancelled the licenses of more than 20 radio and television stations;
The Telecommunications Authority (TIB) has blocked more than 20 news websites.
These issues must also be put in the context of the general, sharply deteriorating media freedom situation in Turkey in the past few years. An anti-terror law in Turkey, in effect since 1991, is being used to round up terrorists but also many others, including those who it is my job to lobby for – journalists and media.
Today there are dozens of journalists in jail in Turkey, prosecuted and convicted mostly under a law designed to fight terrorism and protect people. The number of journalists jailed in Turkey is without precedent in the OSCE region. Under the anti-terror law, merely reporting on controversial topics could land a journalist in court.
The latest case in a string of the recent crackdown activities on media in Turkey is the detention of seven journalists in the last two days, while arrest warrants were issued against several dozens more, accusing them of supporting terrorism. To say that dissenting voices, although still present and persisting, are under duress in Turkey is a severe understatement.
The authorities’ systematic abuse of media and its players, done with the intention of guaranteeing control of the media landscape, is nothing short of a clear and present threat to democracy in the country.
Media-freedom advocates like myself, must and will continue to raise our voices and provide the defenses necessary for free expression and free media to flourish in Turkey.
I will raise the issue of the rights of media and of journalists before national legislatures. I will engage in public awareness campaigns on behalf of free media. I will continue to do everything in my power to protect and safeguard the independent and pluralistic voices that are the cornerstones of any society. And I will call on elected officials to spend the resources, including political capital, essential to build environments conducive to free expression.
I believe that a society that respects human rights is working towards the common good of its people and that limiting and breaching fundamental democratic and civil liberties negatively affects the common good. I also believe that the role of elected officials is to write good laws and appoint good law enforcement authorities, including police, prosecutors and judges to interpret those laws in a manner that will make free expression possible.
All democratically elected governments must adhere to the underlying rules of their society – free markets, universal suffrage, access to government information and other basic civil liberties, including a free and pluralistic media environment.
Freedom of expression is a universal and basic human right; it does not stop at views deemed appropriate by the authorities. It remains the role of journalists to inform people of public issues, including highly sensitive issues. And it remains the role of the authorities to ensure that journalists, no matter how critical or provocative, can do so freely and safely. Turkey fails on this account.
