24 Apr 24 | Libya, News and features, United Kingdom
A new exhibition, The Storyteller, showcasing the work of acclaimed late photojournalist Tim Hetherington has opened at the Imperial War Museum in London, providing a fascinating insight into his experiences covering conflicts around the world.
The event marks the 13th anniversary of Hetherington’s tragic death. He was killed in Libya in 2011, fatally wounded by a mortar explosion while covering the country’s civil war for a project that would never be finished.
I was 12 years old when he died, still in school, and the thought of being a journalist hadn’t even entered my mind. As I attended the exhibition last week, I did so as the Tim Hetherington Fellow for Index on Censorship.
Set up by the Tim Hetherington Trust, the fellowship is a partnership between Liverpool John Moores University and Index on Censorship and allows one graduate to spend a year working on Index’s editorial team. I took up the role in September 2023 following the completion of my MA in Sports Journalism.
The Storyteller exhibition was the first chance I had to really delve into the life and work of the man responsible for the incredible opportunity I’d been granted. My interest in sport immediately drew me to Healing Sport, Hetherington’s first major project, which followed Liberian football team Millennium Stars as they toured the UK in 1999, during which he noted that “despite the social breakdown that transpired during the war, football always remained an important way to bring the youth together”.
This interest in the intersection between sport and conflict was the beginning of his exploration of the human experience of war, an interest which remained throughout his career and is clearly visible in his photo archive on display at the Imperial War Museum.
Hetherington’s biggest strength was his ability to find and capture humanity in times of violence. The exhibition states that he wished to “challenge assumptions about conflict and those caught up in it” and his photos do just that, primarily focusing on individuals rather than getting too drawn into the background context of war itself. In one striking collection called Sleeping Soldiers, he captures US soldiers at their most vulnerable: in bed, asleep.
Hetherington’s photos capture the human – many of his shots are focussed on combatants and soldiers bonding with each other rather than being actually engaged in combat. They highlight the importance of seeing the individual human beings impacted by conflict rather than getting lost in the broader actions of oppressive states.
These photographs serve as rich inspiration for up-and-coming journalists – not just in their composition and quality but in the motivations behind them. Hetherington was something of a pioneer in this sense – he questioned traditional methods of photography and preferred to spend great lengths of time with his subjects in order to document their character properly rather than parachuting in and out, as was the more common approach.
Hetherington often followed a ‘trojan horse’ method of photography whereby he focused on difficult topics such as war and conflict, which so often people are reluctant to observe or discuss, and repackaged them into a more digestible context, such as a sport. It’s a powerful idea and adds emotional weight to his projects. It’s difficult not to wonder how he would have documented modern conflicts had his life not been cut too short.
The exhibition at the Imperial War Museum does an impeccable job of placing Hetherington’s work in context by showcasing his photographs alongside a range of his personal belongings, including diary entries and camera equipment, giving a sense of the man behind the lens in a profession where they often go unnoticed.
As a Tim Hetherington Fellow, viewing his work is humbling. The commitment and determination that pushed him to the frontline in order to capture the humanity of those impacted by war was what made him such a great photojournalist, yet also cost him his life. It is up to those coming after him to take on the mantle.
Without his talents and bravery, I wouldn’t be a journalist – at least not at Index. It is strange to be in debt to someone you’ve never met, but the only way to try and repay it is by striving to produce quality journalism for a deserving cause – there’s no greater motivation for that than to do so in the name of a genuinely extraordinary photojournalist.
Storyteller: Photography by Tim Hetherington runs until 29 September 2024 at the Imperial War Museum, London.
11 Apr 24 | News and features, United Kingdom
Over sixty editors, journalists, writers, publishers, academics, and experts have written to Justice Secretary Alex Chalk KC MP calling on the Government to support amendments to the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill. Signatories include the editors of DMG Media, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times and The Sunday Times, Private Eye, and The Economist.
“We are closer than ever to establishing a standalone anti-SLAPP law, but we cannot let its roximity stop us from ensuring the Bill does what it is intended to: protecting public interest speech from being silenced by SLAPPs,” the letter said.
The signatories are calling on the Government to address the fundamental flaw at the centre of the Bill’s early dismissal mechanism that requires a court to make a subjective judgement as to the intent of a SLAPP claimant in order to determine whether the legal action can be identified as a SLAPP. They echo concerns raised by the Law Society and MPs, that identifying a claimant’s intent “is a notoriously difficult, time-intensive, expensive and uncertain process that would undermine the effective operation of the protections the law provides.”
The signatories highlight concerns that deficiencies of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) were previously made clear to the Government, but yet have been replicated in full in the Anti-SLAPP Bill.
“If enacted in its current form, the Bill risks becoming an ineffective, inaccessible, and ultimately redundant legal instrument,” the letter said. “[B]y making a small but important amendment, we can ensure courts and judges are able to make timely, consistent and evidence-based determinations of SLAPP cases before legal costs have accrued.”
The signatories also called for the definition of public interest in the Bill to be refined in order to further strengthen the legislation. “We believe the current definition of public interest could introduce unnecessary uncertainty, which must be avoided for this Bill to be effective”, they said.
“[A]n Anti-SLAPP Law must be accessible, simple and trusted by public watchdogs to effectively protect free expression,” the signatories said.
Katharine Viner, Editor-in-Chief, The Guardian said: “SLAPPs threaten free speech and a free press by enabling those with deep pockets to harass, intimidate and exhaust critics with the goal of deterring public interest journalism. We welcome the work to get a workable anti-SLAPP law in place, with these small changes being vital to making that happen.”
Catherine Belton, International investigative reporter, Washington Post, Author, Putin’s People, said: “It’s really important that after all the crusading work by NGOs and MPs, journalists don’t end up with a law that is ultimately ineffective or worse, counterproductive, in combating SLAPPs. In its current form, the proposed legislation would not improve the situation for any journalist and instead more likely strengthen any claimant’s hand, as it will be near impossible to prove a claimant’s intent. This law must be urgently amended, otherwise we risk shooting ourselves in the foot.”
Here is the full letter to Alex Chalk KC MP sent on 10 April 2024:
Rt. Hon. Alex Chalk KC MP, Secretary of State for Justice
Rt. Hon. Rishi Sunak MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Rt. Hon. Lucy Frazer KC MP, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
Ms. Julia Lopez MP, Minister of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
Rt. Hon. Lord Cameron, Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
Ms. Shabana Mahmood MP, Shadow Labour Secretary of State for Justice
Rt. Hon. Alistair Carmichael MP, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Home Affairs, Justice and Northern
Ireland
Mr. Chris Stephens MP, Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Justice)
Mr. Paul Philip, Chief Executive, Solicitors Regulation Authority
Mr. Mark Neale, Director-General, The Bar Standards Board
Mr. Matthew Hill, Chief Executive, Legal Services Board
Mr. Michael O’Flaherty, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
Ms. Teresa Ribeiro, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Representative on Freedom of the
Media
Mr. Volker Türk, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Ms. Irene Khan, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of
Opinion and Expression
10 April 2024
Dear Rt. Hon. Alex Chalk KC MP,
We are contacting you ahead of the committee stage of the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill, a Private Members’ Bill brought by Wayne David MP to support the small but crucial amendment proposed by the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. We are closer than ever to establishing a standalone anti-SLAPP law, but we cannot let its proximity stop us from ensuring the Bill does what it is intended to: protecting public interest speech from being silenced by SLAPPs. As drafted we fear the Bill falls short of the necessary protections needed to achieve this goal.
Since the anti-SLAPP amendment was published in the Economic Crimes and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) last year, stakeholders on both sides of the SLAPP debate have raised concerns about the efficacy of the Government’s approach. The deficiencies of the ECCTA’s anti-SLAPP provisions have been made clear to the Government, yet they have been reproduced in their entirety in the Private Members’ Bill. If enacted in its current form, the Bill risks becoming an ineffective, inaccessible, and ultimately redundant legal instrument.
However, there is still an opportunity to remedy this to ensure it is a Bill that will serve its purpose. Currently, the definition of a SLAPP requires a court to make a subjective judgement as to the intent of a claimant in order to determine if the legal action in question can be identified as a SLAPP. This is a notoriously difficult, time-intensive, expensive and uncertain process that would undermine the effective operation of the protections the law provides. Using the subjective test will hinder the early dismissal mechanism that sits at the heart of this Bill, but by making a small but important amendment, we can ensure courts and judges are able to make timely, consistent and evidence-based determinations of SLAPP cases before legal costs have accrued.
As the Bill comes before the Bill Committee for scrutiny, we call for the Government to support amendments to Clause 2(1) to replace the subjective test with an objective test. This would give SLAPP targets greater certainty, while also providing the clarity courts need to effectively apply the new mechanism.
Refining the definition of public interest in the Bill would further strengthen this piece of legislation. We believe the current definition of public interest could introduce unnecessary uncertainty, which must be avoided for this Bill to be effective. While the examples in the Bill are only illustrative, it is vital that the definition demonstrates the breadth and diversity of public interest reporting to give confidence to public watchdogs.
This close to establishing an Anti-SLAPP Law that is universal in scope, we must ensure it can live up to the expectations of everyone who speaks out in the public interest. Only then will free expression be protected.
We hope that you agree that an Anti-SLAPP Law must be accessible, simple and trusted by public watchdogs to effectively protect free expression.
Kind regards,
Editorial and media senior management
Rozina Breen, CEO, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ)
Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief, DMG media
Chris Evans, Editor, The Telegraph
Tony Gallagher, Editor, The Times
Alessandra Galloni, Editor-in-Chief, Reuters
Isabel Hilton, Co-Chair, TBIJ
Ian Hislop, Editor, Private Eye
John Micklethwait, Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg News
Zanny Minton Beddoes, Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
Paul Radu, Co-Executive Director, OCCRP
Richard Sambrook, Co-Chair, TBIJ
Aman Sethi, Editor-in-Chief, openDemocracy
Drew Sullivan, Publisher, Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)
Ben Taylor, Editor, The Sunday Times
Emma Tucker, Editor-in-Chief, The Wall Street Journal
Ted Verity, Editor, The Daily Mail
Katharine Viner, Editor-in-Chief, The Guardian
Paul Webster, Editor, The Observer
Franz Wild, Editor, TBIJ
Associations, foundations and media support organisations
Lionel Barber, Chairman, The Wincott Foundation
Sarah Baxter, Director, Marie Colvin Center for International Reporting
Matthew Caruana Galizia, Director, The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
Anthony Fargo, Director, Center for International Media Law and Policy Studies
George Freeman, Executive Director, Media Law Resource Center
Alexander Papachristou, Executive Director of the Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice
Michelle Stanistreet, General Secretary, National Union of Journalists
Sayra Tekin, Director of Legal, News Media Association
Lawyers and other legal professionals
Rupert Cowper-Coles, Partner and Head of Media, RPC
Matthew Dando, Partner and Head of Media Litigation, Wiggin LLP
David Hooper, Media Lawyer and writer on SLAPPs, Author, Buying Silence
Matthew Jury, Managing Partner, McCue Jury & Partners LLP
Baroness Helena Kennedy of the Shaws KC, Director, International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute
Nicola Namdjou, General Counsel at Global Witness
Gill Phillips, Editorial Legal Consultant
David Price KC
Pia Sarma, Editorial Legal Director, Times Newspapers Ltd
Mark Stephens CBE, Lawyer, Co-Chair International Bar Association Human Rights Committee, Trustee, Index on Censorship
Samantha Thompson, Media Defence Lawyer, RPC
Writers, journalists and authors
Catherine Belton, International investigative reporter, Washington Post, Author, Putin’s People
Tom Bergin, Author and investigative journalist, Reuters
Richard Brooks, Journalist, Private Eye
Bill Browder, Author, financier, and Head of Global Magnitsky Justice campaign
Tom Burgis, Author and investigations correspondent, The Guardian
Paul Caruana Galizia, Reporter, Tortoise Media
Bill Emmott, Journalist, author, and former editor-in-chief of The Economist
Peter Geoghegan, Journalist and author
George Greenwood, Investigations Reporter, The Times
Eliot Higgins, Author and journalist
Edward Lucas, Author, European and transatlantic security consultant and fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA)
Thomas Mayne, Researcher and writer
Trevor Phillips, Broadcaster, writer and chair of Index on Censorship
Clare Rewcastle Brown, Journalist
Publishers
José Borghino, Secretary General, International Publishers Association
Dan Conway, CEO, Publishers Association
Andrew Franklin, Founder and publisher, Profile Books and trustee of Index on Censorship
Arabella Pike, Publishing Director, HarperCollins Publishers
Nicola Solomon, Chief Executive, Society of Authors
Academics
Peter Coe, Associate Professor in Law, Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham
John Heathershaw, Professor of International Relations, University of Exeter
Andrew Scott, Associate Professor, London School of Economics and Political Science
Ursula Smartt, Media Lawyer, Associate Professor of Law, Northeastern University London
Media Contacts
For any questions or quotes from the Coalition, or to organise any media engagement on this, please contact [email protected]
Notes
● The letter was coordinated by the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, which is an informal working group established in January 2021, co-chaired by the Foreign Policy Centre, Index on Censorship and CliDef. It comprises a number of freedom of expression, whistleblowing, anti-corruption and transparency organisations, as well as media lawyers, researchers and academics who are researching, monitoring and highlighting cases of legal intimidation and SLAPPs, as well as seeking to develop remedies for mitigation and redress.
● For more information about the Coalition – www.antislapp.uk
● The letter sent to Alex Chalk KC MP with the full signatory list – https://antislapp.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Anti-SLAPP-Amendment-Letter-to-Alex-Chalk-KC-MP-1.pdf
● The Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill – https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0021/230021.pdf
● For more details about the proposed amendment – https://antislapp.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Amendment-Text.pdf
● The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition response to the publication of the Anti-SLAPP Private Members’ Bill – https://antislapp.uk/2024/02/20/anti-slapp-pmb-amendments/
● The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition response to the publication of the ECCTA – https://antislapp.uk/2023/10/26/a-landmark-moment-but-we-cant-stop-here/
10 Apr 24 | News and features, Press Releases, United Kingdom
Index on Censorship, a leading international organisation promoting freedom of expression, has today announced the appointment of its next Chief Executive Officer. The decision was made by the organisation’s Board of Trustees after a comprehensive search process.
Jemimah Steinfeld will succeed Ruth Anderson, who is leaving Index to focus on her role as a Labour Party shadow minister in the House of Lords.
Jemimah is the current Editor-in-Chief of Index on Censorship magazine. She is a published author and an expert on China. Jemimah has been a core part of the Index team for over seven years.
Sir Trevor Phillips, Chair of the Board stated:
“We are delighted that Jemimah will become our new Chief Executive Officer. Her track record, particularly as Editor-in-Chief of our magazine, and her dedication to defending free expression, have been vital to our growth over the past few years. We are confident that in this new role she will lead our organisation with distinction and further our mission to champion freedom of speech worldwide.
“She inherits an organisation in rude financial and campaigning health. Ruth has been an exceptional CEO, transforming Index on Censorship into the leader in its field, and doing so with vision and integrity. Her dedication to the cause of free speech has been unwavering, and we are deeply grateful for her service.”
Jemimah Steinfeld, the next CEO of Index commented:
“It is a huge privilege to be appointed CEO of Index on Censorship, to lead an organisation that was created over 50 years ago in response to calls for help from Soviet dissidents. The role of Index has always been essential and no more so today as people’s basic rights to free expression are being attacked from all angles around the world. I’m looking forward to continuing our work exposing censorship as and when it occurs, to building up our network of remarkable dissidents and to making the case for free expression.”
Reflecting on her tenure, Ruth Anderson remarked:
“It has been an honour to lead Index on Censorship during such a critical period for press freedom and free expression. I am immensely proud of what we have accomplished together over the last four years and have every confidence in the organisation’s continued success under Jemimah’s leadership.
Jemimah’s appointment marks an exciting new chapter for Index on Censorship as the organisation continues its vital work in safeguarding freedom of expression around the world.”
ENDS
Notes to Editors:
For media inquiries, please contact Ben Goldsborough at [email protected].
About Index on Censorship:
Index on Censorship is a renowned international organisation dedicated to promoting and defending the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Established in 1972, Index on Censorship works tirelessly to support journalists, writers, artists, and activists who are facing censorship and persecution for their work. Through advocacy, campaigns, and publications, the organisation strives to shine a spotlight on censorship issues globally, challenging restrictions on free speech and advocating for the rights of individuals to express themselves without fear of reprisal. Index on Censorship is widely respected for its commitment to upholding the principles of free expression and is a leading voice in the fight against censorship in all its forms.
About Jemimah Steinfeld:
Jemimah will become CEO on 24 May having served four years as Editor-in-Chief of Index on Censorship.
Jemimah Steinfeld’s career journey began in Shanghai before she pursued an MA in Chinese studies at SOAS and settled in Beijing, where she witnessed firsthand the challenges of censorship. Transitioning from her experiences, she found herself drawn to the rich historical narratives of China and secured a position at the History Channel, aligning with her undergraduate studies in history. Her exploration of Chinese society culminated in a book examining the one-child generation, leading to a notable book tour in China and positive reviews from outlets like The Financial Times.
As a writer, Steinfeld’s work has been featured in prestigious publications such as The Times, The Guardian, and CNN. She has also been a vocal advocate for Hong Kong’s freedoms, speaking in the UK Parliament and participating in global panels and events, including the esteemed Hay Festival.
26 Mar 24 | News and features, United Kingdom, United States, Volume 53.01 Spring 2024
I first met Julian Assange before he was Julian Assange. Or rather, when he was just becoming Julian Assange. For a few short months our fates were intertwined. And it all started with Index on Censorship.
In 2008, when I was political editor of the New Statesman, I was asked to collect an Index on Censorship New Media award on behalf of WikiLeaks, the organisation Assange founded two years earlier. I duly turned up for the event and was told the man himself had appeared at the caterers’ entrance at the last-minute and my services would not be required. Secretive and not a little melodramatic, I soon discovered this was the way Assange liked to do business. The speech was impressive, expressing how much Assange valued solidarity and his admiration for “syndicalism”, the belief that direct action can drive political change.
I wrote about that evening in my New Statesman blog and Assange noticed another item, where I discussed the newly aggressive approach the law firm Carter Ruck was taking with one of its clients, Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire convicted of fraud in France as part of the giant Elf-Aquitaine scandal. Mr Auchi continues to deny the charges. Newspapers who had written about Auchi’s business dealings were being threatened with legal action if they didn’t remove articles from their websites. Most of them eventually complied rather than face steep legal bills. Assange acted quickly to hoover up everything he could about Auchi and published it on WikiLeaks. It was a bold move because Carter Ruck were playing hardball. When I published a link to the Auchi files on my blog, the law firm threatened to sue the New Statesman.
I recently came across an email from Assange which he sent in November 2008, when he found out the New Statesman was planning to cave. He condemned the magazine for removing the original blogpost and objected to plans to issue a statement saying the articles collected by WikiLeaks (and published by respected journalists in national newspapers) contained significant inaccuracies. He pointed out that this action would in itself be defamatory.
This was solidarity and syndicalism, Assange-style. The New Statesman decided to settle with the billionaire, and I soon parted company with the magazine.
A few months later, a WikiLeaks emissary walked into the offices of a charity I had set up to help young people break into the creative industries on London’s Southbank. He showed me footage of the 12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrike in which two Reuters journalists and several civilians were killed by a missile from a US helicopter. After a few further discussions, I advised him to talk to major news outlets about this extraordinary story. Shortly after this, WikiLeaks (in collaboration with The Guardian, The New York Times, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El Pais) began publishing the US diplomatic cables that made Assange’s reputation. It was a new, collaborative way of doing journalism that challenged the way the United States conducted foreign policy. Solidarity and syndicalism in action, perhaps.
We live in different times and Julian Assange finds himself in Belmarsh high-security prison awaiting the result of his final appeal against extradition to the United States, where he faces trial under the Espionage Act. In the interim, he has become a highly divisive figure and much of the solidarity from his former journalistic collaborators has evaporated. He has made serious errors of judgment and attracted some unfortunate allies. His radar for what constitutes genuine dissent has always been questionable. As former Index journalist Padraig Reidy pointed out in an important piece on Assange in BuzzFeed News in 2019: “Assange’s definition of ‘power’ and ‘elite’ often stretched only as far as Western governments and their allies.” Over the years, it has sometimes seemed that the principles of solidarity only worked in one direction. With each new twist in the story, a new layer of support dropped away. When Assange jumped bail and found refuge in London’s Ecuadorian embassy, when he published hacked emails from Hilary Clinton’s 2016 election campaign, when he suggested he was the victim of a conspiracy of Jewish journalists and was found to have employed a Holocaust denier, this all contributed to the picture of Assange as a narcissistic, paranoid self-publicist whose path was littered with the collateral damage of his overblown ego.
The question is whether it is possible to set all this aside and look at the bigger picture or if Assange’s flaws and failings are an integral part of the bigger picture. Meanwhile, those journalists who have worked with him over the years need to ask themselves if his present predicament as a prisoner in the UK’s highest security prison is just desserts or a travesty of justice.
The French free expression organisation, Reporters Without Borders, which has been consistent in its support for Assange, published a useful list of common misconceptions in the Assange case: that he is a traitor to the United States (he is Australian), that he leaked classified information (he published it), that he knowingly put people at risk (the prosecution has struggled to prove harm). But most powerful is the misconception that if he is convicted this will have no wider effect. There is already ample evidence that governments are determined to deter journalists from ever working with the likes of Assange again. The new UK National Security Act has specific measures to increase sentences for journalists working on data leak stories involving official secrets. Add to this the use of the US Espionage Act. Assange would be the first publisher tried under this act and if convicted he might not be the last.
Julian Assange is so wrong about so much. He has made many terrible mistakes. He is, in some ways, the agent of his own misfortune. But he taught journalists that some stories are so important that they need international collaboration to put them into the public domain. He was not wrong about the importance of solidarity.
