8 Jan 2025 | Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Syria
For more than five decades, Syria has lived under a repressive regime that has made freedom of expression a distant dream. Under Bashar al-Assad, expression was curtailed by repressive laws and strict censorship, while the security services were used as a tool to silence dissenting voices. With the Syrian revolution in 2011, a new age of free expression seemed to be emerging, but it quickly collided with security, political, and social challenges. Now that the Assad regime has been overthrown, what does this mean for the future of free expression in the country?
Freedom of expression under Assad
There were many forces at play within Assad’s regime that were used to silence those critical of the government and stop dissent.
The first were repressive laws. Throughout the decades of the Assad family’s rule, laws were designed to serve the security services and ensure the political domination of society.
The emergency law, which remained in place from 1963 to 2011, gave the security services unlimited powers to prosecute dissidents and protesters and restrict freedoms. Assad lifted the law following Syria’s Arab Spring protests, though opposition politicians called this move “useless” without reform of the legal system and accountability for security services. The 2001 Publications Law, which tightly censored the press, banned the emergence of any independent media voices. This was later repealed and replaced with a Media Law in 2011, but this still placed restrictions on journalists, including that freedom of expression should be “exercised responsibly and with consideration”. More recently, the cybercrime law in 2022 was used to silence dissenting voices online, and has made public criticism of the regime a crime punishable by imprisonment.
In this context, writer, dissident and former political detainee Fayez Sarah told Index: “The policies of the Assad regime pushed me and many activists to confront [them], as muzzling voices and preventing political and civil activities motivated me to engage in political and social work.” Sarah said he had been arrested several times simply for participating in opposition political activities.
The second tool used was that of the “official” media, which became the regime’s only voice. The official media was focused on perpetuating the public image of Assad’s regime, and presenting his version of events without space for other opinions. All mass media TV channels and newspapers were under direct control of the state, which ensured the promotion of the regime’s ideology and the obscuration of truth.
Journalist and writer Ali Safar recalled that while working for a state media organisation, creativity was rejected, and security reports suppressed any attempt to deviate from the official line.
The third oppressive weapon was direct repression against activists and journalists. Syria is one of the most dangerous countries for journalists, having witnessed unprecedented levels of violence towards media workers over the past few years. According to Reporters Without Borders, Syria has lagged behind in the Global Press Freedom Index, consistently ranking amongst the 10 worst countries since the outbreak of the Syrian revolution in 2011.
Under the Assad regime, journalists were subjected to arbitrary arrests, torture, and enforced disappearances. In areas of armed opposition, despite there being space for independent media, journalists have also been threatened and kidnapped by some factions who saw media coverage as a threat to their interests.
As journalist Sakhr Idris told Index: “Even in liberated areas, journalists faced challenges such as the intervention of military factions and pressure from funders or local communities.”
At least 300 journalists were killed whilst covering the civil war, whilst others lived in exile or under constant threat. Thousands of people have been threatened, arrested and forcibly disappeared. Muhannad Omar has been forcibly disappeared since 2012. His fate is currently unknown but there are fears that he was tortured and killed in detention in prison.
The Impact of the Syrian revolution on freedom of expression
With the outbreak of the Syrian revolution, social media platforms began to play a crucial role in breaking the regime’s monopoly on the media.
Activists have used platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to convey the truth to the world, and expose the regime’s abuses.
Citizen media began to emerge as an alternative to official media, with on-the-ground journalists relying on simple technology to circulate coverage of demonstrations and violations.
But despite a promising start, freedom of expression has faced numerous challenges as the conflict morphed into an all-out war. The regime’s repression continued in new forms, including through digital smear campaigns and intensive surveillance.
In areas outside of the regime’s control, armed factions also began to impose their own visions, limiting press freedom.
The takeover of the Syrian State Television building
After the fall of the Syrian regime on 8 December, concerns emerged about the future of the official media as new forces started to dominate the media landscape. One such case was the takeover of the Syrian State Television building in Damascus, raising widespread concern that the official media could turn from a tool to serve the regime into a platform that promotes the vision of dominant rebel groups.
For example, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the group which led the deposition of Assad, is known for its directed political and religious rhetoric, and may use state television to spread its ideology and strengthen its influence over public opinion in Syria.
The move also raises questions about the fate of free and pluralistic media in a post-Assad Syria, especially with the country’s record of restricting press freedom, suppressing independent journalists, and directing the media to serve its political and religious goals.
There is also a risk that media domination will be used to expand repression, leaving Syria stuck in the cycle of media tyranny under different names and parties.
These concerns highlight the greater challenge of ensuring the independence of the official media in this transitional period and putting in place laws to protect it from political or ideological influences that may divert it from its true role as a platform for all Syrians.
Future challenges to freedom of expression after Assad
One major obstacle is the absence of an existing legal and constitutional framework to protect free expression.
Ali Safar, a Syrian writer and executive producer of Radio Sout Raya, a Syrian radio station based in Istanbul, believes that “the only guarantee of freedom of expression is a sophisticated and dynamic media law that revitalises public space”.
Another challenge is existing societal conflict; the war has left deep sectarian divisions that have affected public debate and discourse.
According to Sheikh Riad Drar al-Hamood, a Syrian opposition political activist, writer and human rights activist, the traditional religious community has not helped to build an environment that respects pluralism, but rather has supported authoritarianism under the umbrella of traditional law.
However, he says the role of religious groups will be significant in future, and forward-thinking individuals within them can “form an incubator for the new society”. “The enlightened voices among the clergy can be leaders of social liberation, but unfortunately they are few,” he said. For instance, Sheikh Muhammad Rateb al-Nabulsi and the late Sheikh Jawdat Saeed were supporters of moderate thought in Syria, and called for change by peaceful means. Their influence combined to promote the values of dialogue and tolerance, which made them distinguished voices in the face of tyranny and extremism.
International actors will also have a key role to play in establishing a pluralistic media. Supporting Syria’s democratic transition depends heavily on international support, which is conditional on political reforms. A transition is needed that draws on the experiences of other countries to avoid media and political chaos.
The role of civil society organisations and activists within Syria will also be crucial. Civil society is a key hope for building a free space. According to Fayez Sarah, political and civil activism has contributed to changing the relationship between Syrians and the regime, as they have become more emboldened in expressing their opinions.
But challenges remain significant, including security threats and the stress of living under threat of prosecution.
Comparing Syria with other global experiences
The state of free expression in Syria can be compared to the experiences of other countries such as Iran and Chechnya, where societies have faced similar pressures around the suppression of dissenting voices and the use of religious or national authority to tighten control.
Even before Iran’s 1979 revolution, freedom of expression was limited under the regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, where the press and civil society were censored, and the SAVAK (the Bureau for Intelligence and Security of the State) was used to muzzle voices. While Iranians dreamed of the right to free expression after the revolution, repression has shifted in character from political to ideological.
The new Islamic regime imposed tight control on the media, as obedience to Wali al-Faqih – a doctrine that means the transfer of political and religious authority over to the Shia clergy – became a criterion for the legitimacy of media and intellectual discourse.
Although dissenting voices have emerged from within the religious establishment – such as Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri – they have been marginalised and suppressed, which is consistent with Sheikh al-Hamood’s assertion that enlightened voices in religious communities often have little impact.
Similarly to Syria, in Iran religion or nationality has been used officially to justify restricting freedoms and turning the media into a tool for official propaganda.
In Chechnya, freedom of expression has been heavily affected by armed conflicts and wars between the Russian government and separatist movements.
During the First (1994-1996) and Second (1999-2009) Chechen Wars, independent journalism was virtually wiped out. Russian authorities and local groups have used the media as a propaganda weapon against the opposition, reminiscent of the Syrian regime’s control over the media during and after the revolution.
In the post-conflict era, freedom of expression remained limited under the head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov. Independent journalists were imprisoned and political activity was suppressed. As in Syria, armed conflicts have weakened the free media and have led to the authorities’ exploitation of nationalism and religion to justify repression.
In Iran, Chechnya and Syria, freedom of expression has been affected by volatile political phases and armed conflicts. Free expression was the first casualty of repressive regimes that used religion or nationalism as a pretext for control.
Global experiences continue to offer useful lessons for Syria in the future, as they can be leveraged to build a free media system that respects pluralism and promotes national reconciliation.
Looking to the future
The journey of freedom of expression in Syria is a reflection of the stages that the country has gone through politically and socially, from systematic repression under Assad, to limited openness during the revolution, to successive setbacks as the conflict escalated. There are many challenges to building an environment that incubates free expression post-Assad, from the need for a constitution that protects the right to confront sectarian discourse, to rebuilding trust between the media and society. But despite this, there is still hope that Syria could become a model for free expression within the region.
This article was translated and edited from Arabic by Hussein Maamo.
17 Dec 2024 | News and features, United States
In the name of “free speech”, Donald Trump has laid out an authoritarian plan for his new administration to radically defund and gag universities. Now with a Republican Congress, he might just achieve it all and that spells disaster for freedom of thought, critical inquiry and an informed citizenry in the USA.
Trump’s plan is based on the education chapter within the right-wing think tank Heritage Foundation’s 900-page political roadmap Project 2025, a set of policy proposals that lay out a long-term ultra conservative vision. The chapter is written by Lindsey Burke, director of the organisation’s Center for Education for Policy.
First on the list is dismantling the Department of Education, a realistic threat now Republicans have both the House and Senate. Trump has put a wrestling magnate in charge of the department, Linda McMahon. She was formerly head of the US Small Business Administration and is currently chair of the America First Policy Institute, McMahon financed Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden with its notoriously bigoted speakers, according to Forbes. She will play a key role in rolling out plans that will profoundly shift power to reinforce historical social inequities in universities. These could include reversing protections for the LGBTQ+ community, privatising student loans and halting loan forgiveness.
Trump’s radical overhaul includes defunding universities that he considers to be “turning our students into communists and terrorists and sympathisers of many, many different dimensions” by taxing, fining and suing private university endowments (funds or assets donated to universities to provide long-term financial support).
Trump sees Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programmes that such schools have engaged in as “unlawful discrimination” and he is seeking “restitution” through the law. He plans to “pursue federal civil rights cases” and increase the tax against these schools. During his first presidency, Trump signed a new plan that introduced a 1.4% on endowments of private universities with at least 500 students and $100,000 or more in assets for every full-time student.
America’s most prestigious universities, such as Harvard (which rely greatly on federal funds) will be prime targets. Following a wave of pro-Palestine protests – which were already subdued with arrests and brutality – there was conservative backlash. This prepared the ground for the coming lawfare aimed at punishing higher education institutions for wrong-think. For example, according to The Guardian, Steve Scalise, House majority leader, has discussed plans to punish universities that allow pro-Palestine protests by revoking their accreditation.
With the spoils raised by stripping these educational institutions, Trump will fund a new American Academy. While he describes it as “non-political”, Trump’s ideological agenda is clear: “no wokeness or jihadism allowed”. Trump explains that American Academy will “gather an entire universe of the highest quality educational content, covering the full spectrum of human knowledge and skills, and make that material available to every American citizen online for free”.
In what sounds troublingly like generative AI driven education, delivery of “content” will be through “study groups, mentors, industry partnerships, and the latest breakthrough in computing”. There is no mention of professors or teachers.
There is little detail on the curriculum – so what kind of “content” will be considered “human knowledge” worth teaching? Trump’s scientific beliefs raise concerns. For example, he has previously said: “One of the most urgent tasks, not only for our movement, but for our country is to decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax.”
The role of “industry partners” is left vague but we should be asking whether companies delivering content through “breakthrough” technology could gain access to students’ behavioral data for training AI. Taylor Owen, Beaverbrook chair in media, ethics and communications at McGill University, forewarns of the dismantling of recent AI oversight efforts and an incoming merger of tech and state power where “the interests of select technology companies become indistinguishable from US government policy”.
With Elon Musk leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), my fear is that we could see emerging education policy influenced by the view that AI is a neutral tool for “free speech”, which can replace “unnecessary” educators.
Trump’s own past forays into the education sector don’t inspire confidence in his motives. In 2004, he set up “Trump University” as a for-profit initiative and real estate training programme, which claimed to share the secrets to being a successful entrepreneur. It faced several lawsuits, including allegations that Trump University defrauded its students through misleading marketing practices and aggressive sales tactics. Despite the organisation never admitting wrongdoing, Trump settled the lawsuits, paying 6,000 defrauded victims a $25 million settlement in 2016 shortly after being elected president.
American Academy appears to be designed to extract power from the academe and weaken education, rather than strengthen it. It will compete with universities while its free online courses will be “equivalent” to a bachelor’s degree, accredited, and recognised for federal employment – which will itself further degrade government by hollowing out expertise.
Trump sees the accreditation process as his “secret weapon” in his war on universities. In the USA, states have varying control of education, and universities have enjoyed a lot of autonomy. The practice of accreditation involves a “non-governmental, peer evaluation of educational institutions and programmes”.
However, eligibility for federal aid, grants, student loans and other funds that universities depend on is contingent on accreditation. And while the government does not control the process of accreditation itself, the Department of Education has the power to “recognise” accreditors, or withdraw this recognition.
With the new Republican Congress behind him, Trump wants to empower new accreditors with ideological standards such as “defending the American tradition and western civilisation, protecting free speech, eliminating wasteful administrative positions that drive up costs incredibly, [and] removing all Marxist diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucrats”.
Incoming Vice President JD Vance once proclaimed that “professors are the enemy”. This year, Vance introduced The Encampments or Endowments Bill in the US Senate which, if passed, would punish “campus disorder” by making federal funding contingent on universities removing campus protest encampments. Efforts to introduce what Pen America has called “educational gag orders” – laws, policies and bills that restrict teaching and training on certain topics such as racism, gender and American history – in colleges and universities are also “likely to disproportionately affect the free speech rights of students, educators, and trainers who are women, people of color, and LGBTQ+.”
Trump has said he will use executive orders to rescind or rewrite regulations, which could be used to undo stronger Biden-era Title IX protections against sexual harassment in universities and colleges. Executive orders are a powerful presidential tool enabling swift changes to federal policies and priorities without the approval of Congress – but they also have the potential for abuse of power. All this accompanies recent efforts to casualise the employment of professors, and weaken the tenure system, which ensures they cannot be removed easily and protects unpopular research, teaching and speech.
As university endowments are purged and their federal resources become contingent on pleasing ideological gatekeepers, it is hard to imagine brave or rigorous research can survive in the hollowed-out husks that remain. Once universities begin losing students to AI-delivered “free degrees” this will of course accelerate the roll-out of EdTech across the sector, resulting in declining educational standards and heightened surveillance in the name of “efficiency”. And should dissenters rise up, student protests will be stifled or exploited to legitimate further attacks on their institutions.
Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, recently stated that the country “is in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be”.
This “revolution” is not without casualties, however: many of America’s more privileged intellectuals will flee this war to financial stability or intellectual freedom overseas, but minority, dissident and refugee academics will be most vulnerable to harassment, insecurity and displacement. It will polarise inequality in an existing two-tier education system: community colleges and non-elite universities won’t survive.
Universities specialising in specific subjects, such as disinformation, will also continue to be uniquely targeted. In 2022 Trump threatened that “within hours” of his inauguration, he would sign an executive order “banning any federal department or agency from colluding with any organisation, business, or person, to censor, limit, categorise, or impede the lawful speech of American citizens. I will then ban federal money from being used to label domestic speech as ‘mis-’ or ‘dis-information’.
The 2024 Murthy v. Missouri Supreme Court ruling may disrupt these plans somewhat, as it reaffirmed that technology researchers are independent and have First Amendment rights to carry out their work, and communicate it with the public, companies and the government. Yet, while some rights can be defended in the courts, legal battles take time, and great damage can be done in the meantime. Technology and disinformation researchers continue to face relentless political pressure, harassment, obstruction and lawfare.
The USA was once considered one of the world’s strongest defenders of academic freedom and free expression. While this was always a romanticised perception in an unequal system, Trumpism over the past decade has resulted in a significant decline in US academic freedom. Attacks on US higher education have already begun, and the USA has fallen below more than 70 other countries in the Academic Freedom Index Update. Universities are pre-emptively ditching inclusivity practices in anticipation of Trump’s policies – but they must not “obey in advance”, as historian Timothy Snyder would say.
Scholars, students, journalists, businesses and civil society must be united to defend against and communicate this threat to ordinary Americans. Given that the changes could also result in a long-term decline in the US economy, business leaders and economists should condemn these regressive plans. US academia must mobilise itself within and between sectors to defend academic freedom issues, and communicate the importance of human interaction and interpersonal communication in education.
The conservatives’ success here spells disaster for the world. Successful authoritarian capture of academia in such a powerful liberal democracy could inspire right-wing political attacks on education globally. The American moral panic over “critical race theory”, for example, became a political weapon that destabilised education policy development in Australia, and we have also seen the authoritarian takeover of education in Hungary. As Trump’s changes unfurl, the UN and its member states must take the lead in condemning measures which unpick the education system and threaten free expression globally. More broadly, we need an international movement of those who embrace low-tech alternatives and who are willing to disrupt “the machine” in sectors where lives, jobs and critical human knowledge are threatened by technofascism.
11 Dec 2024 | India, News and features
What connects cricket fans, protesters and journalists in India? They have all fallen foul of India’s outdated sedition law.
According to the Indian watchdog, Article 14, between 2010 and 2021, 13,000 people have been charged with sedition. When the conviction rate for concluded cases remains low – approximately 0.1% – and those accused of sedition spend an average of 50 days in prison until a court grants bail, the bite of this law is not necessarily a prison sentence, but the long and unpredictable time spent in pre-trial detention.
The original clause was not of India’s own making. It formed part of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that was imposed by British colonial rule. However, following independence, successive Indian governments found the code to be a helpful cudgel when trying to restrict free speech. In 2023, the Indian Government, led by Narendra Modi’s BJP party, proposed the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a reform to the penal code to remove the colonial stain from India’s law books. When the bill was presented to parliament, the Home Minister Amit Shah said this about the existing penal code: “The foundation of these procedures was to protect the British, not the common people of India.”
But the reform was an example of decolonisation in name only.
In terms of sedition, the bill did little to protect the “common people of India”. In fact, it went further than simply transferring the existing sedition provisions – it modernised and expanded them. The new section 152 of the BNS covers online and financial actions that “excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India”.
It is hard to shake the belief that the motivation underpinning the reform was to maintain the government’s ability to shut down independent and protected speech, under the guise of taking back control. The relabelling of the sedition provision came after the Supreme Court, in 2022, heard petitions related to the existing sedition provisions in the IPC. The court stated that “we hope and expect that the State and Central Governments will restrain from registering any FIR [First Information Report], continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking Section 124A of IPC while the aforesaid provision of law is under consideration.” However strongly held the hope was, it was not strong enough to curtail the government’s legislative intentions.
Only a week after the BNS bill was put into effect on 1 July 2024, two freelance journalists Zakir Ali Tyagi and Wasim Akram Tyagi had First Information Reports, or FIRs, lodged against them for their reporting on an alleged lynch mob attack in Uttar Pradesh. While not using the sedition clause, this was only a sign of things to come.
The co-founder of Alt News, Mohammed Zubair, is no stranger to pressure and threats related to his journalism, fact-checking and use of social media. Two years ago he was stuck in a seemingly unending cycle of persecution following his online reporting of statements made by a BJP spokesperson. A cavalcade of FIRs were issued against him and whenever he was granted bail in one case, another FIR would be lodged. Ultimately six were lodged against him, ensnaring him in a 24-day cycle of arrest, bail and re-arrest. It took the intervention of the Supreme Court to break the cycle but it didn’t take long for the threats to escalate.
On 29 September 2024, the controversial Hindu priest Yati Narsinghanand held an event at Hindi Bhavan in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, during which he allegedly made “objectionable remarks against Prophet Muhammad”. Zubair used his X account to highlight these remarks, as well as others allegedly made by Narsinghanand in relation to the role of women in politics, and soon found himself the target of a FIR, brought by the priest’s supporters, which was lodged on 6 October.
However it was not until 27 November that it was revealed that the sedition clause of BNS had been invoked against Zubair, alongside a number of other charges. On the same day, Zubair claimed that police officers from Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka visited his family house and the house of his neighbour inquiring after his location, searching their property for him and searching their computers and mobile phones.
The case is expected in court in the coming months after a bench of judges at the Allahabad high court recused themselves during a hearing last week. But this case should put to bed any hopes that the BNS had taken the sting out of India’s brutal, ineffective and out-dated sedition provisions.
When it comes to threats to civil liberties and free expression in India, it is a decidedly crowded field. The BNS is not the only vehicle of jeopardy for anyone speaking out.
For instance, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is similarly directed at threats of terrorism and anti-state agitation but has been used to stamp out dissent, most notably in the Kashmir and Jammu region. Online speech has similarly been restricted through the extensive use of the Information Technology Act and IT Rules and the widespread use of internet shutdowns, for reasons as diverse as elections, protests and school exams. Many activists, academics and campaigners have rung the alarm bell regarding the recently passed Telecommunications Act as another legislative threat to online speech. These laws lay a narrow path through which people in India can express themselves free from the threats of judicial persecution.
As long as the “world’s largest democracy” holds onto outdated and repressive laws, relabels colonial era laws instead of reforming them, and presents independent reporting as a threat to the state, this title holds little meaning. Like the BNS, it is little more than a name.
20 Nov 2024 | Awards, Fellowship 2024, Iran, News and features, Palestine, Russia, Uganda
Index on Censorship has announced the winners of its 2024 Freedom of Expression Awards. This year’s honourees are Aleksandra Skochilenko (Russia), Diala Ayesh (Palestinian Territories), Kuchu Times (Uganda), and Nasim Soltanbeygi (Iran), recognised for their impactful work in the fields of art, campaigning, and journalism. Additionally, Evgenia Kara-Murza (Russia) received the prestigious Trustee Award.
The Freedom of Expression Awards celebrate the brave efforts of individuals and organisations worldwide to protect free expression, advocate for the right to information, and combat censorship. Selected by a distinguished panel of judges, the winners are honoured for their extraordinary courage and commitment to truth, justice, and human rights—often in the face of serious threats, including harassment, imprisonment, and even death.
The winners are:
Art
- Aleksandra Skochilenko (Russia) – An anti-war musician, artist and campaigner who was imprisoned for her creative opposition to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Campaigning
- Diala Ayesh (Palestinian Territories) – A lawyer and prison advocate who has campaigned for the rights of prisoners in Israel and Palestine, who was detained by Israeli authorities and remains incarcerated.
- Kuchu Times (Uganda) – A media and campaigning organisation working to protect and support the LGBTQ community amid increased legal persecution.
Journalism
- Nasim Soltanbeygi (Iran) – A journalist who reported on the Women, Life, Freedom protests and women’s rights issue who has been imprisoned and persecuted for her reporting.
Trustee
- Evgenia Kara-Murza (Russia) – A human rights activist and wife of political prisoner Vladimir Kara-Murza, twice-poisoned Russian opposition leader, imprisoned since 11 April 2022 for protesting the war on Ukraine.
Jemimah Steinfeld, CEO of Index on Censorship said: “The Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award, established in 2001, has long championed those who have risked everything for the right to speak out and defend democracy and human rights. Previous winners include the imprisoned Iranian rapper, Toomaj Salehi; the Pakistani education campaigner Malala Yousafzai; the global whistleblowing platform, Wikileaks; the Turkish artist, Zehra Dogan; Honduran investigative journalist, Wendy Funes and many others.”
The jury panel for the 2024 awards is made up of Baroness Hollick OBE; Ziyad Marar, President of Global Publishing at Sage; Sir Trevor Phillips OBE, chair of Index on Censorship; Ben Preston, Culture Editor of The Times & Sunday Times; Jemimah Steinfeld, CEO of Index on Censorship.
The award winners and their families have shared their thoughts on their success on the night.
Aleksandra Skochilenko said: “I’m really flattered to have received this award because I’m awarded just for being myself and sometimes being yourself is really hard work.”
Diala Ayesh’s family said: “Diala has worked for many years defending political prisoners and detainees in Israeli occupation prisons and Palestinian Authority facilities. She has been tirelessly dedicated to defending stolen rights. Diala’s nomination for this award comes in recognition of her efforts in defending freedom of expression and independent voices.”
Ruth Muganzi, the programs director for Kuchu Times, said: “The right to use our voices and our stories, to speak out and defend our lives, is a right worth fighting for. To be silent will never be an option.”
Nasim Soltanbeygi said: “Censorship in Iran creates new boundaries every day. Security institutions expand censorship by arresting, summoning, and implementing illegal practices. Iran is on the list of the 10 countries with the largest prisons for journalists, and in the past year, more than 280 legal cases have been filed against journalists. Despite this, we independent journalists have always stood by the truth and the people. Despite the threats and the difficulties of the challenging path to freedom, I believe that a free press is the way to illuminate the truth and the path to achieving a humane society.”
Evgenia Kara-Murza said: “It is easier to commit crimes in the silence, in the darkness, and behind closed doors. This is why freedom of speech is always the first victim of any autocracy. But free speech is not just some abstract notion. Behind it are countless stories of those who risk their freedom and often their lives to defend their right to exercise it. Those who break the silence, light candles in the dark and throw open the doors to make it harder for dictators to hide the truth about their evil acts.”
