20 Aug 2010 | Index Index, minipost
Following the news that a journalist was jailed for six years for broadcasting an interview with a Islamist rebel chief, the authorities in the semi-autonomous state of Puntland have officially banned all journalists from interviewing rebels in the area.
20 Aug 2010 | News and features
The Turkish government’s battle with the PKK threatens to stifle art itself, says Kaya Genç
(more…)
19 Aug 2010 | Uncategorized
On Tuesday the Guardian ran a letter urging Waterstone’s to cancel its book-signing on 8 September for Tony Blair‘s memoirs. Iain Banks, AL Kennedy, Moazzem Begg, John Pilger, Michael Nyman and others described the event as “deeply offensive to most people in Britain.”
In today’s Guardian, Index editor Jo Glanville, Article 19 trustee Dr Evan Harris and Jonathan Heawood, director, English PEN respond.
We respect the writers of yesterday’s letter (18 August) and share their view on the illegality of the Iraq war and Tony Blair‘s nefarious role in engineering this country’s participation in it. But we can not share their call for Waterstone’s to desist from promoting it on the grounds that the event “will be deeply offensive to most people in Britain”, even if that were the case.
When it comes to literature, drama, journalism, artistic expression and scientific publication we must be consistent in our support for free speech. How can we defend the right of the Birmingham Repertory to put on and advertise a play like Behzti, despite it being deemed offensive to some Sikhs, and then call on a bookseller not to promote one of its books – or a library not to stock it — on the grounds of offence? The answer, in a liberal society, is to not read the book if it offends you, and to not buy a copy if you don’t wish royalties to go to the author.
While Iain Banks and colleagues say “Waterstone’s will seriously harm its own reputation as a respectable bookseller by helping him [Blair] promote his book”, we think its reputation would now be harmed by caving in to this sort of pressure.
19 Aug 2010 | Index Index, minipost
Yesterday (18 August) El Nacional, a leading Venezuelan newspaper ran a front page with “censored” written across it. The move was a response to a Caracas court ruling that has effectively banned newspapers from publishing images of violence or bloody scenes. El Nacional was found guilty of publishing pictures which may have been harmful to children after it ran a photo showed dead bodies at a morgue. The anti-Chavez publication was told that it may be fined up to two per cent of its revenue for its actions. The newspaper’s editor has accused the government of trying to cover up violent crime in run-up to next month’s election.
