27 Jan 09 | Campaigns
We, the undersigned, oppose the use of lese majeste in Thailand in order to prevent freedom of speech and academic freedom. We demand that the government cease all proceedings in lese majeste cases.
The 19th September 2006 military coup in Thailand claimed ‘royal legitimacy’ in order to hide the authoritarian intentions of the military junta. Lese Majeste charges have not been used to protect ‘Thai Democracy under a Constitutional Monarchy’ as claimed. The charges are used against people who criticised the coup and disagree with the present destruction of democracy. They are used to create a climate of fear and censorship.
One obvious case is that of Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn, from the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University. He is facing Lese Majeste charges for writing a book ‘A Coup for the Rich’, which criticised the 2006 military coup. (Read the book at http://wdpress.blog.co.uk/). Others who have been accused of lèse majesté are former government minister Jakrapop Penkae, who asked a question at the Foreign Correspondent’s Club in Bangkok, about exactly what kind of Monarchy we have in Thailand. There is also the case of Chotisak Oonsung, a young student who failed to stand for the King’s anthem in the cinema. Apart from this there are the cases of Da Topedo and Boonyeun Prasertying. In addition to those who opposed the coup, the BBC correspondent Jonathan Head, an Australian writer names Harry Nicolaides, social critic Sulak Sivaraksa are also facing charges. The latest person to be thrown into jail and refused bail is Suwicha Takor, who is charged with lèse majesté for surfing the internet. The Thai Minister of Justice has called for a blanket ban on reporting these cases in the Thai media. The mainstream Thai media are obliging. Thus we are seeing a medieval style witch hunt taking place in Thailand with ‘secret’ trials in the courts. The Justice Ministry is also refusing to publish figures of lèse majesté cases.
We call for the abolition of les majeste laws in Thailand and the defence of freedom and democracy.
Leave your name and location in the comments below and they will be forwarded to Giles Ji Ungpakorn and his campaign. Thank you. Alternatively, forward your details to [email protected]
19 Mar 08 | Events
Now that downloading the wrong kind of material can get you a prison sentence, is it time to challenge an encroachment on a fundamental liberty, or does the internet need tighter controls to combat the influence of extremism?
Index on Censorship presents a debate about the limits of free speech online, with AC Grayling, Panorama’s Shiraz Maher and Dr Ian Brown of the Oxford Internet Institute, chaired by Index editor Jo Glanville.
Call 0870 429 6883, or visit www.sohotheatre.com for tickets
21 Aug 24 | Americas, News and features, United States
Reframing the US government’s relationship with the media and placing free speech and democracy in the firing line is at the heart of Project 2025, the 922-page policy plan supported by over 400 conservatives and led by the Heritage Foundation thinktank.
Contributed to by more than 100 of Donald Trump’s former administration officials, the document lays out a comprehensive vision for the next conservative US administration, and seeks to fundamentally change the nature of government’s relationship with the media.
The US has one of the most highly developed mass media networks in the world, TV being the most consumed. The “big three” – Fox, MSNBC and CBS – dominate the mainstream independent sphere and are often criticised for a consistently “far left” or “far right” bias; public government-supported networks PBS and NPR, meanwhile, promise to provide unbiased factual reporting.
Many on the right, including former President Donald Trump, accuse NPR and PBS of left-leaning bias and call for ending government-funded media. Republican lawmakers’ past efforts to defund NPR and PBS have gained traction with Project 2025.
But defunding public media could lead to local news station closures, increasing the influence of biased reporting from major networks like Fox, which the left claims is a mouthpiece for Trump’s political agenda.
Trump has always tried to reframe free speech as biased and has sought to place journalists in the news itself in the pursuit of delegitimisation.
As explained by Russian economist Sergei Guriev and American political scientist Daniel Treisman, authors of Spin Dictators, the new generation of autocracy is diverse. While the primary goal remains the same – monopolising political power – this new power is maintained “by repressing any opposition, controlling all communications, [and] punishing critics.”
A skilful ruler can control people by reshaping their beliefs about the world, fooling them into compliance and even enthusiastic approval. “In place of harsh repression, the new dictators manipulate information. Like spin doctors in a democracy, they spin the news to engineer support. They are spin dictators.”
A closer look at Chapter 8 of Project 2025, with its policy proposals against public media and press freedom and its potential to endanger journalists both domestically and abroad, reveals these strategies and beliefs in action.
Mike Gonzales, a journalist and senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, lays out the plan for how a future administration could defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).
The CPB operates as a private nonprofit corporation and is the primary financial backer of public radio and television, using tax dollars to finance public media institutions to ensure Americans have access to free, local public media. While fully funded by the federal government, the organisation doesn’t engage in programme production, distribution, or station ownership.
At the centre of Gonzales’s case against the CPB is the need to defund National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS). The claim is that the nonprofit media organisations have a liberal bias, and the country cannot afford to spend half a billion dollars on “leftist opinion”. The “government should not be compelling the conservative half of the country to pay for the suppression of its own views,” his document asserts.
NPR and PBS have faced longstanding criticism from Republican politicians on the basis of an alleged liberal bias. Republican nominee Donald Trump took to Twitter earlier this year, writing, “No more funding for NPR, a total scam!” He claimed that the organisation is “Only used to damage Trump’” and that “they are a liberal disinformation machine,” after a former editor at NPR criticised Katherine Maher, NPR’s new CEO, for fostering a liberal bias.
Gonzales asserts that a Project 2025 defunding of public media would not lead to the end of such organisations. “Defunding CPB would by no means cause NPR or PBS – or other public broadcasters that benefit from CPB funding – to file for bankruptcy,” he argues, “The membership model and support from corporations and foundations would enable these broadcasters to continue thriving.”
David Liberman, a media studies professor who has been covering the industry for decades agrees: “Project 2025’s proposal to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting falls into a familiar trap. The Heritage Foundation believes that it would undermine what it calls the “leftist opinion” it perceives on PBS and National Public Radio. But the initiative is mostly symbolic: little federal money goes to their most controversial newscasts.”.
Only 8% of NPR’s revenues actually come from federal funds and 15% for PBS. Cutting the amount of cash the government gives them would likely have a detrimental, but not fatal, effect. But the CPB has another function, it supports almost 1,500 smaller stations including rural stations across the USA. According to the CPB, rural public broadcasting stations heavily rely on its Community Service and that’s where 70% of CPB’s annual appropriation goes.
Liberman, who has reported on these populations firsthand, adds: “The entities that would be most hurt are independently owned NPR stations—particularly the ones that provide local journalism. The money from CPB accounts for about 12% of their budgets. The lost contributions would be especially damaging to stations in rural news deserts that have lost their daily newspapers.”
This not only diminishes the visibility of local issues but also deprives communities of trusted journalism, making more accessible news outlets such as social media platforms like X and biased news organisations like Fox the primary sources people turn to for information,
Defunding and denouncing public media sources like PBS and NPR not only has a financial impact, but also a profoundly chilling effect on public broadcasters, setting a dangerous precedent for the topics and individuals that they cover or give a voice to. Gonzales concludes that NPR and PBS are “non-educational.”
While the argument for maintaining unbiased public media is valid, penalising free speech and dismissing information as lacking educational value simply because it doesn’t align with the Republican Party’s values blurs the boundaries of governmental influence and challenges the distinction between fact and opinion in the public media sector.
But it is the attack on local journalism that is the most pernicious.
09 Aug 24 | Belarus, Europe and Central Asia, News and features
Four years ago today, Belarusian president Alyaksandr Lukashenka claimed victory in the country’s elections garnered more than 80% of the vote. The victory meant a sixth term in office.
That 80% figure is as meaningless as Vladimir Putin’s recent 88% in Russia and Paul Kagame’s patently ridiculous 99.15% in Rwanda. If you’re a dictator it’s just a matter of choosing a number you’re comfortable with.
The average Belarusian was not at all comfortable with that 80% and hundreds of thousands went onto the streets to protest.
Such huge demonstrations did not sit well with Lukashenka and they were met with a huge show of force.
At the time of the 2020 election, the EU said the election was “neither free nor fair”, the UK said it “did not accept the result” and called the subsequent repression of protesters “grisly” while the US Government said “severe restrictions on ballot access for candidates, [the] prohibition of local independent observers at polling stations, intimidation tactics employed against opposition candidates, and the detentions of peaceful protesters and journalists marred the process”.
The demonstrations did not manage to topple Lukashenka, one of Russia’s biggest allies. Vladimir Putin congratulated him on his victory and offered military help to put down protests..
Almost 1,400 political prisoners now languish in Belarusian jails, according to the human rights centre Viasna. That’s one political prisoner for every day that has elapsed since the rigged 2020 election.
A few weeks ago, the UK and 37 other countries condemned the human rights situation in Belarus. Speaking on behalf of all these countries, the Slovenian ambassador to the OSCE Barbara Zvokelj said those jailed “experience torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, acts of physical or sexual violence, lack of basic medical care and privacy, lack of a fair trial, psychological pressure and discrimination, with their cells and clothing marked with yellow tags.”
Those behind bars experience horrendous conditions and include Nobel laureate Ales Bialiatski, the lawyer Maksim Znak and musician Maria Kalesnikava who are all being held incommunicado. They also include our former colleague Andrei Aliaksandrau, who was previously the Belarus and OSCE programme officer at Index.
Also imprisoned is former blogger Siarhei Tsikhanouski who announced his intention to stand in the 2020 elections against Lukashenka but was arrested two days later. In the event, his wife Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya stood against the incumbent. The regime claimed she won just 8.8% of the vote.
In an Index exclusive, the country’s would-be president has written an article for us on the country’s political prisoners. Sviatlana has not heard from her husband since 9 March 2023. She writes, “For my son and daughter, sending letters, postcards and drawing pictures to their father was keeping us morally afloat. They constantly wrote to him but never received any answer.”
Despite many families not receiving answers from their jailed loved ones in Belarus, they are not forgotten.
On Monday 5 August, Index hosted an evening of film and activism in partnership with St John’s Waterloo and Roast Beef Productions, joining a room full of friends and colleagues passionate about free expression, human rights and democracy to mark the fourth anniversary of Lukashenka’s fraudulent elections.
The event’s organiser Index development officer Anna Millward said, “In the belly of the old crypt, we stood in solidarity with, and gave voice to, just some of the many political prisoners in Belarus. Together, we watched the powerful and unmissable documentary The Accidental President (Roast Beef Productions), which charts the presidential campaign of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. As the film ended and the lights stayed dimmed, the audience started to softly sing the resistance song Moment: it was an unexpected, moving moment full of hope. A panel discussion followed exploring everything from following Sviatlana’s campaign behind the scenes through to the chilling reach of transnational repression with PEN Belarus President, Taciana Niadbaj; Belarusian poet, writer and activist Hanna Komar; and Roast Beef Productions’ Mike Lerner and Martin Herring.”
She adds, “Finally, we launched our pilot exhibition Letters from Lukashenka’s Prisoners, giving unjustly detained individuals a voice by collecting, translating, publishing and displaying their letters. The exhibition was designed and curated by Martha Hegarty on behalf of Index, and is inspired by a project of the same name carried out by Index in partnership with Belarus Free Theatre, Human Rights House Foundation and Politzek.me between 2021 and 2023.”
As we mark this dark anniversary of Belarus it is poignant to think about the words of the song sung this past Monday.
“We are Belarusians, we are going in peace. In a bright and sunny way.
Destroy the prison walls! If you want freedom, take it!
The wall will soon collapse, collapse, collapse — And the old world is buried!”
Let us hope that is the case sooner rather than later.
