[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship has recruited a new youth advisory board to sit until December 2017. The group is made up of young students, journalists and researchers from four continents.
Each month, board members meet online to discuss freedom of expression issues around the world and complete an assignment that grows from that discussion. For their first task the board were asked to write a short post about a pressing freedom of expression issue from their countries of residence.
Sean Eriksen – Brisbane, Australia
Eriksen is a 21-year-old Arts/Law student majoring in history and international relations
Notwithstanding the aphorism that ‘if free expression is to mean anything then it must protect unpopular opinions’, censorship is most tolerable at the fringes; and it is a mark of social progress that bigotry is considered so unpopular that many countries have tried to legislate it out of existence. But the suggestion that hate speech laws represent a positive cultural development does not endear them to those who believe free expression is inherently sacrosanct.
Section 18C(1)(a) of Australia’s federal Racial Discrimination Act 1975 prohibits acts that are reasonably likely to ‘offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people’ based on their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. This allows administrative review and ultimately litigation, giving judges a wide capacity to make rulings on acceptable public discourse.
Defenders of the law claim that sufficient legislative exemptions protecting artists, commentators and academics exist elsewhere in the legislation, but in practice the standard for offence has not been particularly high. Most famously in Eatock v Bolt, articles by a conservative columnist were prohibited from further publication because he had suggested that many people were identifying as indigenous solely because it had become trendy to do so. This is perhaps a crass point to make, but not one that adults cannot reasonably be exposed to.
Though it may be meant well, the censorship of ugly or even disturbing speech is still censorship. Bad ideas do exist and the only harm is in hiding them.
Adam Rossi, youth advisory board, July-December 2017
Adam Rossi – Vancouver, Canada
Rossi is a Canadian student pursuing an MA in International Relations. He recently spent a year teaching English in Barcelona, Spain
Seven years after Catalonia’s government outlawed bullfighting in the autonomous region, its officials now find themselves back in the ring. They’ve been thrown in with a great bull, the Spanish government, which has been trying to skewer any Catalan public figure expressing pro-independence views as if they were matadors clad in red.
They have already suspended, fined, and barred from office the former Catalan prime minister, some of his cabinet members, and city councillors for organising a mock referendum back in 2014 and for continually speaking publicly about their belief in the need for real independence. Joan Coma, a leftist city councillor of the Catalan CUP party, now faces an eight-year prison sentence with his passport confiscated for saying, “To make an omelet, you must break some eggs,” in a discussion on independence. Spanish authorities claim that this was a call for political violence. Meanwhile, Spanish President Manuel Rajoy has even threatened to use force to stop the referendum. Not allowing the vote to happen would be undemocratic, essentially ignoring the voice of the people. In addition, these targeted shots at individual citizens such as Joan Coma only serve to drag Spain back to a dark past of civil oppression. They are even using the Francoist penal code to charge Coma. However, these acts only seem to be fuelling the hearts of Catalans, as street demonstrations and “si” vote flags begin to fly proudly outside people’s homes. The current Catalan president, Carles Puigdemont, says the vote will happen regardless, and that the Catalan government will be prepared for immediate separation if the result is a “yes.”
Roberts graduated from Durham University in June 2017 with a BA in Politics. He has been granted a scholarship to study Public Administration at Shanghai Jiao Tong University
In May 2016 major social media firms, including Facebook and Twitter, signed up to a voluntary code of conduct aimed at combating illegal hate speech. This agreement, in partnership with the European Commission, required the signees to remove hate speech posted on their platform within a twenty-four hour period. Since this deal, the pressure placed on these companies to remove hate speech has been increasing, with proposals forwarded by European Union member states for binding legislation and punitive fines. Undoubtedly, the scope for the facilitation and proliferation of hate speech on these platforms requires a response, however, the current demands being placed on social media firms are fostering policies which often lack refinement and curtail legitimate free speech.
Leaked documents from earlier this year revealing Facebook’s hate speech policies typify the problems censorious practices can raise for free expression. The leading headline from these documents was that white men (as a group) were considered a protected category, yet, black children were not. As such, under Facebook guidelines attacks directed against white men were required to be removed, whilst those targeted at black children were permissible. This policy would not only seem discriminatory towards those most vulnerable within society, but has also proven detrimental to discourse. For example, campaigners from social justice groups such as Black Lives Matter have found their accounts blocked due to criticising structural privileges held by white men. Without an overhaul of the current guidelines in place and a more nuanced approach to censoring hate speech, those most marginalised within society risk having a vital outlet for raising debate and challenging inequalities shut down.
Madara is a law student at University of Latvia. She has also studied in Salzburg and Berlin
At the beginning of July 2017 one of the most popular sports commentators in Latvia, Armands Puče, was dismissed from covering the Latvian Kontinental Hockey League club Dinamo Riga’s games. Although he was dismissed by the private media enterprise MTG TV Latvia, this case is noteworthy as the journalist claims that the decision on his dismissal was taken after the company received an ultimatum from the KHL bureau in Moscow, threatening to end the KHL’s broadcasting agreement with MTG TV unless Puče was removed.
His colleagues hinted that “just like in Soviet times”, all of the articles written by Puče in his parallel work as a journalist, in which he criticised the political ideology of the KHL and its impact on Dinamo Riga, had been translated into Russian and sent to the KHL main bureau in Moscow. It is important to stress that the mentioned articles were not connected to his hockey broadcasts.
After some time, the media enterprise claimed that its cooperation with Puče was ended due to plans for a new show concept, which would include also changing the anchor of the broadcast. Thus Puče, who had led the Hockey studio ever since the first season of the renewed hockey club Dinamo Riga, had to be let go.
Of course, the commentator is connected to his media employer and represents it. However, can the fate and work opportunities of a sports commentator absolutely depend on his ideology and activities done outside work – and will the teams suddenly play better, if their games are covered by loyal commentators?
Daniel Penev, youth advisory board, July-December 2017
Daniel Penev – Kyustendil, Bulgaria
Penev is a Bulgarian freelance journalist and a member of the Association of European Journalists
Valentin Todorov is a journalist from Novi Iskar, a town in western Bulgaria, who owns the local news website www.noviiskar.bg. He registered the website under this name in 2010. In June, Todorov learned that Daniela Raycheva, the mayor of the district since 2011, had challenged his right to use this domain. According to the general terms set out by Register BG Ltd., which administrates web domains in Bulgaria, the names of municipalities and regions are reserved for domains registered by the respective administrations. However, when the name is already in use, the parties wanting to use it must either choose another name or wait until it becomes vacant. Here comes the gist of the struggle: when he registered his website, Todorov secured a declaration in which Valentin Kotov, then mayor of Novi Iskar, explicitly states that he will not claim the name while it is active.
“There arises the question as to whether the public administration may, whenever it wishes, make claims in relation to something it has given away and which a citizen owns and has invested in for years,” the Association of European Journalists – Bulgaria wrote in July. “Trust is a media outlet’s greatest capital and it is inseparably connected to its name.”
Todorov suspects that the district mayor resorted to such actions because of the website’s more critical reporting on the various problems in the district. Notably, the mayor only decided to challenge his use of the domain six years after she took office. The administration also already has its own website, www.novi-iskar.bg. Todorov is optimistic about the outcome of the dispute, due by the end August, but if the Register BG commission rules in favour of the mayor, this will set worrying a precedent for all media outlets in Bulgaria.
Sophie Baggott, youth advisory board, July-December 2017
Sophie Baggott – London, UK
Baggott is a journalist focused on promoting human rights
Another resounding voice has blasted proposed changes to the regime protecting official information in the UK, which would deem anyone who communicates information seen ‘to prejudice the United Kingdom’s safety or interests’ or anyone who ‘obtains or gathers’ such information as having committed an offence, potentially resulting in a jail sentence of up to 14 years. To what extent will our government listen to the outcry?
“The proposals threatened would be ‘both retrograde and repressive’”, said the News Media Association (NMA) in a 20-page document released at the end of July. The NMA, which speaks for national and regional UK news media, has highlighted the industry’s concerns about consultative proposals for changes to the Official Secrets Acts and the Data Protection Act, as well as to other unauthorised disclosure offences.
The proposed reforms would lead to ‘damaging and dangerous inroads into press freedom by making whistle-blowers, journalists and media organisations prime targets for state surveillance and criminal prosecution’, the NMA warned. The association said the changes would ‘extend and then entrench official secrecy’, adding: ‘It would be conducive to official cover up. It would deter, prevent and punish investigation and disclosure of wrongdoing and matters of legitimate public interest’.
Investigative journalism could endure a ‘chilling effect’, said the NMA, from how the changes would make it easier for the government to prosecute anyone involved in obtaining, gathering and disclosing information, even if no damage were caused, and irrespective of the public interest. The proposed reforms might also precipitate a more widespread use of state surveillance powers against the media under the guise of suspected media involvement in offences. This would pose a threat to confidential sources and whistle-blowers, the NMA noted.
Is the government going to reconsider or restrict? Either way, the media industry will certainly have to remain on high alert for the foreseeable future.
Dan Bateyko, youth advisory board, July-December 2017
Dan Bateyko – Sarasota, Florida
Bateyko is an internet rights researcher from Sarasota, Florida. He is currently travelling on a Watson Fellowship, a one-year purposeful grant for global independent study
U.S. Twitter users blocked by their twit president might have a remedy. On July 11, the Knight First Amendment Institute filed a lawsuit arguing that US President Donald Trump violated the First Amendment rights of dissenting citizens when he blocked them from reading his tweets and contributing their own. Speaking to Index, Katie Fallow, senior staff attorney at Knight Institute, distilled the issue:
“The president may be using social media in a new way, but the First Amendment principles at stake are longstanding. When the government sets up a public forum, whether on Twitter in a town hall, it can’t exclude people just because it doesn’t like what they have to say.”
But whether Trump’s Twitter account can be considered a public forum is a point of contention. As the Knight Institute argues, Trump’s account has all the hallmarks of a public forum; the account tweets news on policy and provides a platform for public debate. However, in a recent statement, the justice department rejoined that Trump’s editorial control over who to follow and block on his private account is not a constitutional issue.
I chose to highlight this case in my first blog post as a member of Index’s youth advisory board because social media is an incredible tool for giving citizens a voice, granting them a platform to exchange views and petition their public officials. But where and how free speech rights extend online is still far from clear—as Lyrissa Lidksy, dean of Missouri’ School of Law, writes, determining whether comment removal on government-sponsored pages is constitutional “requires close examination of the U.S. Supreme Court’s public forum and government speech doctrines, both of which are lacking in coherence – to put it mildly.” With clarity, public officials once reticent to tackle the thorny issue of public accounts could feel comfortable with more online civic engagement. And by establishing further precedent, the Knight Institute’s defense of Twitter users will hopefully protect people’s hard-fought rights to free expression online.
Isabela Vrba Neves youth advisory board, July-December 2017
Isabela Vrba Neves – Stockholm, Sweden
Vrba Neves is a journalist and writer based in Sweden, and a graduate from Kingston University London
Sweden is known for having a good track record when it comes to freedom of expression, and is regarded as being an example in democracy and equality. However, the Nordic country has recently been faced by a wave of threats by far-right groups attacking journalists and media organisations. In February 2017 journalist Evelyn Schreiber received hundreds of death threats and threats of sexual violence after questioning a Facebook post by Peter Springare, a police officer who heavily criticised immigrants for violent crimes.
Springare received support by far-right groups who went after Schreiber with messages and phone calls. In a radio interview Schreiber explained how she believed the threats were “organised” as she would receive a large amount of messages every time a far-right group shared her article on Facebook.
She also described how at first the groups mostly criticised her article, but then progressed to personal vulgar and sexist attacks towards her. The newspaper, Nerikes Allehanda, which published her article, reported the threats to the police.
An issue that Schreiber brings up with these kinds of incidents is that journalists may self-censor for their own safety, which in turn can threaten freedom of expression. To combat this, the Swedish government announced in July 2017 an action plan which aims to strengthen the preventative work towards hate and threats against journalists, artists and elected representatives.
The Swedish Victim Support and the Swedish Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority have been commissioned to develop material that will provide knowledge and support to those who have been under threat for participating in public conversations, in order to strengthen free speech and freedom of expression.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content”][vc_column][three_column_post title=”More from the youth advisory board” category_id=”6514″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Each youth advisory board sits for six months, has the chance to participate in monthly video conferencing discussions about current freedom of expression issues from around the world and the opportunity to write blog posts on Index’s website.
The next youth board is currently being recruited. The next youth advisory board will sit from January to June 2018.
We are looking for enthusiastic young people, aged between 16-25, who must be committed to taking part in monthly meetings, which are held online with fellow participants. Applicants can be based anywhere in the world. We are looking for people who are communicative and who will be in regular touch with Index.
Applications include:
Cover letter
CV
250-word blog post about any free speech issue
Applications can be submitted to Danyaal Yasin at [email protected]. The deadline for applications is 10 January at 11:59pm GMT.
What is the youth advisory board?
The youth board is a specially selected group of young people aged 16-25 who will advise and inform Index on Censorship’s work, support our ambition to fight for free expression around the world and ensure our engagement with issues with tomorrow’s leaders.
Why does Index have a youth board?
Index on Censorship is committed to fighting censorship not only now, but also in future generations, and we want to ensure that the realities and challenges experienced by young people in today’s world are properly reflected in our work.
Index is also aware that there are many who would like to commit some or all of their professional lives to fighting for human rights and the youth board is our way of supporting the broadest range of young people to develop their voice, find paths to freely expressing it and potential future employment in the human rights, media and arts sectors.
What does the youth board do?
Board members meet once a month via Zoom to discuss the most pressing freedom of expression issues. During the meeting members will be given a monthly task to complete. There are also opportunities to get involved with events such as debates and workshops for our work with young people as well as our annual Freedom of Expression Awards and Index magazine launches.
How do people get on the youth board?
Each youth board will sit for a six-month term. Current board members are invited to reapply up to one time. The board will be selected by Index on Censorship in an open and transparent manner and in accordance with our commitment to promoting diversity. We usually recruit for board members during May and December each year. Follow @IndexCensorship on Twitter or subscribe to our Facebook feed to watch for the announcements.
Why join the Index on Censorship youth advisory board?
You will be associated with a media and human rights organisation and have the opportunity to discuss issues you feel strongly about with Index and peers from around the world. At each board meeting, we will also give you the chance to speak to someone senior within Index or the media/human rights/arts sectors, helping you to develop your knowledge and extend your personal networks. You’ll also be featured on our website.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship has recruited a new youth board to sit until June 2017. The group is made up of young students, journalists and legal professionals from countries including India, Hungary and the Republic of Ireland.
Each month, board members meet online to discuss freedom of expression issues around the world and complete an assignment that grows from that discussion. For their first task the board were asked to write a short bio and take a photo of themselves holding a quote that reflects their belief in free speech.
Fionnuala McRedmond – Dublin
I graduated last June from the University of Cambridge with a degree in classics. I am now studying for a MSc in political theory at the London School of Economics. I was an active student journalist during my time at Cambridge, and it was there that I first developed an interest in the struggles of censorship and speech across the globe. The propensity for governments to censor speech and ideas is not a modern phenomenon. In ancient Rome book burning was not unheard of, and Cicero once expressed the all too familiar idea: “it is not permitted to say what one thinks… it is obviously permitted to keep silent.” Then, as much as now, free speech was the cornerstone of a healthy society. And then, as much as now, speech was censored by tyrannical power. I am particularly interested in the relationship between censorship and identity. In the past, and even more so now, people have been denied the right to share their words and ideas on the basis of ethnic, religious and political identity. Work by groups like Index on Censorship is crucial in protecting people’s right to speak, no matter who they are. I hope to better understand and develop these ideas with the Index on Censorship youth board.
Júlia Bakó – Budapest
I am a Hungarian journalist, student and activist currently living in Budapest. After finishing my first degree in journalism, I have started studying international relations.
As a journalist and as someone who is deeply committed to human rights I am naturally drawn to freedom of expression and freedom of press issues. During the last couple of years I have worked with several NGOs and other organisations like Transparency International, Amnesty International, OSCE and Atlatszo.hu. I have dealt with corruption cases as an investigative journalist, I have studied human rights monitoring and – partly because of my studies, but mostly because of my personal interest and commitment – I have tried to explore freedom of expression and other issues not just in my own country, but all over the world, to find patterns, similarities and possible measures that could be taken either on a national or international level.
The quote I chose about freedom of expression says something what we sometimes tend to forget about. Being able to express our own opinions, however right they may seem to us, should never stop us from fighting for the rights of others to be able to act the same way, even though their opinions seem fundamentally different sometimes. Granting the chance to express opinions we do not agree with is what is able to create the diversity of thought, the debate about social issues and with that democracy itself.
Samuel Earle – Paris
I currently live in Paris, where I am a freelance writer and English teacher.
I became interested in freedom of expression while studying politics at university – first at undergraduate and then at MSc level – and that continues today through my interest in journalism. What’s clear to me is that although freedom of expression is always valuable, the challenges it faces globally are never the same.
In the west, I think there is a complacency concerning freedom of expression: that stopping censorship is assumed to be enough. But I believe that in societies as unequal as our own, and where market forces reign, the value of freedom of expression can be diminished – as shown, for example, by the fake-news phenomenon.
Samuel Rowe – London
I am currently a postgraduate law student, having studied literature as an undergraduate in the UK and the USA. I hope to become a public law barrister, specialising in media and information law and human rights. Like the character in Kurt Vonnegut’s Hocus Pocus, I believe that the right to freedom of speech is innate. It is not a commodity; it is not something to be bargained with. My interest in issues surrounding freedom of speech directed my undergraduate dissertation, which focused on the western surveillance state. This sort of covert action can have the effect of creating an environment of self-censorship, and often has a disproportionate impact on marginalised communities. I looked at methods of resistance (of which there are many) to see how groups maintained freedom of speech under the gaze of the state. The suppression of freedom of speech is hardly a novel phenomenon and mass surveillance is just one way in which it is currently under threat. From White House officials calling disagreeable information “fake news” to irresponsible no platforming in universities, this is an era in which the limits and value of freedom of speech are being questioned. I believe that without freedom of speech, there can be no full interrogation of the evils which face us. And without interrogation, we risk losing sight of the full scope those evils might pose.
Tarun Krishnakumar – New Delhi
In recent times, there has been much concern expressed about the proliferation of “fake” news online and the impact it can have on democratic processes, politics and the public at large. These concerns have stirred various stakeholders – including governments, news media and internet intermediaries – into action. For instance, the German government recently declared fake news from Russia to be a significant threat to its upcoming elections. In a similar vein, internet giants like Google and Facebook – likely in the wake of unfavourable political outcomes – have been clamouring to show that they are willing to clamp down on content that is false or misleading.
In response to these developments, the quote I’ve selected manifests what, I feel, should be the appropriate response to fake speech: more “non-fake” speech – and not more regulation. While many justifications to clamp down on fake news may be well-intentioned, the history of regulating speech has shown us that inserting an intermediary into a conversation creates unintended and harmful consequences for free speech. Often this manifests as overt censorship while, in other cases, it is the creation of private arbiters of what may or may not be said on a platform – a more covert and creeping harm. Given the subjectivity in judging what news is “fake”, the debate also presents an excuse for regimes to tighten existing censorship controls or establish new ones.
The internet has given everyone an opportunity to have an equal say. This must be preserved at all costs. Fake news must be countered not through bans, blocking or regulation but by targeting the societal information asymmetries that allow it to flourish and creating conditions that facilitate society to produce more speech that is not “fake”. Policy efforts should focus on educating readers and providing them the tools to judge content for themselves – thereby minimising the effect of false or misleading content. For this, what is necessary is a culture of being exposed to a balanced diet of diverse content. When governments peddle nationalistic, religious, or political rhetoric in educational curricula and skew facts, little do they realise that they are creating the very conditions that allow “fake” news to flourish and have the harmful impacts that they complain of.
Sophia Smith-Galer – London
I’m a MA student studying broadcast journalism at City University in London. I studied Spanish and Arabic previously at Durham University and I’m particularly interested in how artists and writers overcome challenges to their freedom of expression in Latin America and the Middle East. As a singer I have always been intrigued by the imagery of a caged bird that sings despite its entrapment; Charlotte Bronte instead uses this metaphor to show how independent Jane Eyre has become by the end of the eponymous novel. Humans have always connected birds with freedom, or lack of – just look at Twitter’s logo – and so the quote really resonated with me.
Freedom of expression is particularly important to me as several countries that speak both of the languages I have dedicated years of study to continue to be plagued by tyrants and censors. I’m particularly interested addressing censorship in Latin America and the Middle East, especially with regard to the arts, as I’m also a classical singer and keen art historian.
Constantin Eckner – St Andrews
I am originally from Germany. I graduated from University of St Andrews with an MA degree in modern history. Currently, I am a PhD candidate specialising in human rights, asylum policy and the history of migration. Moreover, I have worked as a writer and journalist since I was 17 years old, covering a variety of topics over the years. Longer stays in cities like Budapest and Istanbul have raised my awareness for pressures exerted upon freedom of expression.
I chose this particular quote, because Hermann Hesse emphasised the importance of the written word and how it had an impact on the concept of humanity. In his time, Hesse was conscious that without writing it was not possible to express thoughts and spread ideas. Therefore, all those who fought the existence of the written word threatened humanity which was a frightening thought for a humanist like Hesse.
In a perfect world, every human being would live without fear of state censorship and potentially facing repercussions for the words they write—or for the pictures they draw, for the photos they shoot, for music they play.
Isabela Vrba Neves – Stockholm
I’m half Brazilian and half Czech, raised in Sweden, but currently living in London where I work in communications for a mental health charity. I‘m also a Latin America correspondent for the International Press Foundation (IPF), a platform where young journalists get to write about stories that matter the most to them. It was during my time at Kingston University, studying journalism and French, when my interest in censorship and freedom of expression first emerged.
During my undergraduate studies I learned how important a free press is for a working democracy. It is a platform bringing together multiple voices, by sharing news, ideas and holding those in power to account. However, many journalists around the world suffer repression for simply doing their job and for using their right to free speech.
For me, Nelson Mandela‘s quote represents the importance of respecting and listening to each other, even with different views, but also highlighting the voices of those who are forced into silence.
Interviewing journalists from Venezuela and Pakistan, who face these types of constraints, has made me more engaged in sharing stories concerning freedom of expression, not only by journalists, but also by artists and activists. In the future, as a journalist, I want to focus on freedom of expression and by being part of the youth advisory board, I will be able to expand my knowledge and have great conversations with other young people who are passionate for justice and social change.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content”][vc_column][three_column_post title=”More from the youth advisory board” category_id=”6514″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Each youth advisory board sits for six months, has the chance to participate in monthly Google Hangout On Air discussions about current freedom of expression issues from around the world and the opportunity to write blog posts on Index’s website.
The new board will hold the position for six months from January-June 2017.
We are looking for enthusiastic young people, aged between 16-25, who must be committed to attending monthly meetings, which are held online with fellow participants. Applicants can be based anywhere in the world. We are looking for people who are communicative and who will be in regular touch with Index.
The application period has now closed. We will begin recruiting for the next board in June 2017.
Successful applicants will be contacted via email by mid-January 2017.
What is the youth advisory board?
The youth board is a specially selected group of young people aged 16-25 who will advise and inform Index on Censorship’s work, support our ambition to fight for free expression around the world and ensure our engagement with issues with tomorrow’s leaders.
Why does Index have a youth board?
Index on Censorship is committed to fighting censorship not only now, but also in future generations, and we want to ensure that the realities and challenges experienced by young people in today’s world are properly reflected in our work.
Index is also aware that there are many who would like to commit some or all of their professional lives to fighting for human rights and the youth board is our way of supporting the broadest range of young people to develop their voice, find paths to freely expressing it and potential future employment in the human rights, media and arts sectors.
What does the youth board do?
Board members meet once a month via Google Hangout to discuss the most pressing freedom of expression issues. During the meeting members will be given a monthly task to complete. There are also opportunities to get involved with events such as debates and workshops for our work with young people as well as as our annual Freedom of Expression Awards and Index magazine launches.
How do people get on the youth board?
Each youth board will sit for a six-month term. Current board members are invited to reapply up to one time. The board will be selected by Index on Censorship in an open and transparent manner and in accordance with our commitment to promoting diversity. We usually recruit for board members during May and November each year. Follow @IndexCensorship on Twitter or subscribe to our Facebook feed to watch for the announcements.
Why join the Index on Censorship youth advisory board?
You will be associated with a media and human rights organisation and have the opportunity to discuss issues you feel strongly about with Index and peers from around the world. At each board meeting, we will also give you the chance to speak to someone senior within Index or the media/human rights/arts sectors, helping you to develop your knowledge and extend your personal networks. You’ll also be featured on our website.
Fionnuala McRedmond – Dublin
Júlia Bakó – Budapest
Samuel Earle – Paris 
Samuel Rowe – London
Tarun Krishnakumar – New Delhi
Sophia Smith-Galer – London
Constantin Eckner – St Andrews
Isabela Vrba Neves – Stockholm
