08 Sep 20 | News and features, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship has filed an alert to the Council of Europe about a defamation action that is being taken against the Dublin Inquirer, its co-founder Sam Tranum and reporter Laoise Neylon. The Council of Europe has formally notified Ireland of the legal action.
The alert is the first media freedom alert on Ireland since the Council of Europe’s alert platform was launched in 2015. The platform catalogues threats to media freedom in the Council of Europe’s 47 member states.
On the back of the alert, Index on Censorship and seven other media freedom organisations have also written to justice minister, Helen McEntee, and foreign affairs minister, Simon Coveney, to express their concerns over the lawsuit.
“We believe that this legal action is a Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (Slapp), intended to intimidate and silence an independent media outlet that is reporting in the public interest,” they wrote.
“The aim of a Slapp is not to succeed in court, but to drain their targets of money, time, and energy in an effort to discourage them from reporting further on a particular person or issue,” the letter explains.
The organisations urge the government to pursue reform of Irish defamation law and to support the creation of anti-Slapps legislation at EU level. “We call on you to get behind such measures in order to bring about concrete protections – including an anti-Slapps directive – for freedom of expression, access to information, and ultimately our democracies.”
Click here to read our report on the rise of Slapps.
Read below the letter to McEntee and Coveney in full:
8 September 2020
Dear Minister Helen McEntee TD, Minister for Justice
Dear Minister Simon Coveney TD, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade
Cc: Permanent Representation of Ireland to the EU
Index on Censorship, alongside the undersigned press freedom organisations, are writing to raise our concern about legal action that is being taken against the independent news outlet, the Dublin Inquirer, its co-founder Sam Tranum, and its reporter Laoise Neylon.
As outlined in the media freedom alert that was issued by the Council of Europe today, the Dublin Inquirer is facing a defamation lawsuit for an article it published on its website on 26 August, which reported on an eviction that had taken place in Glasnevin the previous week. Tranum, Neylon, and the Dublin Inquirer, were served with summons on 31 August.
We believe that this legal action is a Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (SLAPP), intended to intimidate and silence an independent media outlet that is reporting in the public interest. The aim of a SLAPP is not to succeed in court, but to drain their targets of money, time, and energy in an effort to discourage them from reporting further on a particular person or issue.
The SLAPP that the Dublin Inquirer is facing is just one example of a phenomenon that has become widespread in Europe in recent years: at the time of her death in 2017, Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia had 47 vexatious lawsuits filed against her. This year, the Council of Europe Platform for the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists has recorded SLAPPs in Belgium, Malta, France, Bulgaria, Poland, and Romania – and we have reason to believe that these are just the tip of the iceberg.
The lengthy process and extremely high costs associated with defending a defamation case means that Ireland’s draconian defamation laws are an ideal tool with which to threaten and intimidate. Because of the arduousness of exhausting domestic measures, the European Court of Human Rights provides little practical protection to Irish journalists and media outlets. This means that small media outlets, like the Dublin Inquirer, could face closure when targeted with such legal threats and actions.
We therefore urge you, not only to pursue the long overdue reform of Irish defamation law, but to support the creation of robust anti-SLAPPs legislation at EU level. The European Commission has committed to considering suitable anti-SLAPP measures as part of its upcoming European Democracy Action Plan. We call on you to get behind such measures in order to bring about concrete protections – including an anti-SLAPPs directive – for freedom of expression, access to information, and ultimately our democracies.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our concerns. We look forward to your response and would be glad to schedule a meeting to discuss in more detail.
Kind regards,
Index on Censorship
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL)
Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
Article 19
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
23 Jul 20
Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia is murdered. Index join a group of organisations to launch the campaign #JusticeForDaphne. Both the magazine and the website keep up the pressure and focus on Malta through publishing articles about the case and Maltese journalism more broadly. Index campaign regularly outside the Maltese Consulate in London.
The same year the magazine interview Mexican journalist Javier Valdez about difficulties of working in the country. “I’ve had phone calls telling me to stop investigating certain murders or drug bosses. I’ve had to suppress important information because they could have my family killed if I mention it. Sources of mine have been killed or disappeared… The government couldn’t care less. They do nothing to protect you. There have been many cases and this keeps happening.” Valdez is killed one month after publication.
23 Jul 20 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”104009″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]There are so many ways you can infringe on someone else’s free speech and obviously some examples are much more egregious than others. Some instances undermine the very premise of this most basic of human rights whilst others are so personal that they create a chilling effect on people’s ability to participate in their own national conversation.
This week, we’ve been able to witness everything on the spectrum from people being trolled for taking a stand against racism to Maria Ressa facing yet more legal action in the Philippines. There is also the awful case of one of the key witnesses in the Daphne Caruana Galizia murder trial being found with a slit throat on the morning they were due to give evidence.
Each of these issues demands their own platform, their own space to explore what is happening and what it means both for the individuals concerned and for the societies we live in, whether they be physical or virtual. Context and analysis are key; collectively we need to understand what each of these cases mean for our society and where they fit into the current debate on free speech.
Index was launched, nearly half a century ago, to be a voice for the persecuted, giving space to those people who could not be published elsewhere. We were also tasked with shining a spotlight on repressive regimes, exposing authoritarian attacks on free speech and celebrating those people who were brave enough to speak out. And just as importantly we were established to ensure that the UK remained a bastion of hope for those people who lived in societies which didn’t respect their core human rights. These three pillars remain at the core of what we do and who we are.
Index will always be a home for people who want to be heard. We will always stand against authoritarian and repressive regimes to protect our collective free speech. And we will stand against anyone who seeks to use their power to silence those less powerful. Our role is to expose, to listen and to stand with some of the bravest people in the world so that their voices can be heard. So that you can hear directly from them
To do this we need your help – please take a minute and, if you can, donate to Index so we can keep doing this vital work.[/vc_column_text][vc_btn title=”DONATE” color=”danger” size=”lg” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fdonate|||”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE TO READ” category_id=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
08 Jun 20 | Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The problem: gag lawsuits against public interest defenders
The EU must end gag lawsuits used to silence individuals and organisations that hold those in positions of power to account. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) are lawsuits brought forward by powerful actors (e.g. companies, public officials in their private capacity, high profile persons) to harass and silence those speaking out in the public interest. Typical victims are those with a watchdog role, for instance: journalists, activists, informal associations, academics, trade unions, media organisations and civil society organisations.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]Recent examples of SLAPPs include PayPal suing SumOfUs for a peaceful protest outside PayPal’s German headquarters; co-owners of Malta’s Satabank suing blogger Manuel Delia for a blog post denouncing money laundering at Satabank; and Bollore Group suing Sherpa and ReAct in France to stop them from reporting human rights abuses in Cameroon. In Italy more than 6,000 or two-thirds of defamation lawsuits filed against journalists and media outlets annually are dismissed as meritless by a judge. When Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was brutally killed, there were 47 SLAPPs pending against her.
(Index has recently published a comprehensive review of the laws being used to silence journalists – click on the report cover to the right to read it.)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”113782″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” img_link_target=”_blank” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/campaigns/the-laws-being-used-to-silence-media/”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]SLAPPs are a threat to the EU legal order, and, in particular:
● A threat to democracy and fundamental rights. The EU is founded on the rule of law and respect for human rights. SLAPPs impair the right to freedom of expression, to public participation and to assembly of those who speak out in the public interest, and have a chilling effect on the exercise of these rights by the community at large.
● A threat to access to justice and judicial cooperation. Cross-border judicial cooperation relies on the principles of effective access to justice across the Union and mutual trust between legal systems. That trust must be based on the legally enforceable upholding of common values and minimum standards. To the extent that they distort and abuse the system of civil law remedies, SLAPPs undermine the mutual trust between EU legal systems: member states must be confident that rulings issued by other member states’ courts are not the result of abusive legal strategies and are adopted as the outcome of genuine proceedings.
● A threat to the enforcement of EU law, including in connection to the internal market and the protection of the EU budget. The effective enforcement of EU law, including the proper
functioning of the internal market, depends on the scrutiny of the behaviour of individual entities by the EU, member states and – crucially – informed individuals. Watchdogs, be it media or civil society actors, play a key enforcement role. Therefore, the absence of a system which safeguards public scrutiny is a threat to the enforcement of EU law. The same reasoning applies to the management of EU programmes and budget, which cannot be monitored through the sole vigilance of the European Commission.
● A threat to freedom of movement. The absence of rules to protect watchdogs from SLAPP has an impact on the exercise of the Treaty’s fundamental freedoms, since it affects the ability of media, civil society organisations and information services providers to confidently operate in jurisdictions where the risk of SLAPPs is higher, and discourages people from working for organisations where they can be the target of SLAPPs.
The solution: an EU set of anti-SLAPP measures
The EU can and must end SLAPPs by adopting the following complementary measures to protect all
those affected by SLAPPs:
1. An anti-SLAPP directive
An anti-SLAPP directive is needed to establish a Union-wide minimum standard of protection against SLAPPs, by introducing exemplary sanctions to be applied to claimants bringing abusive lawsuits, procedural safeguards for SLAPP victims, including special motions to contest the admissibility of certain claims and/or rules making the burden shifting to the plaintiff to demonstrate a reasonable probability of succeeding in such claims, as well as other types of preventive measures. The Whistle-Blower Directive sets an important precedent protecting those who report a breach of Union law in a work-related context. Now the EU must ensure a high standard of protection against gag lawsuits for everyone who speaks out – irrespective of the form and the context – in the public interest.
The legal basis for an anti-SLAPP directive is to be found in multiple provisions of the Treaty; for example, Article 114 TFEU on the proper functioning of the internal market, Article 81 TFEU on judicial cooperation and effective access to justice and Article 325 TFEU on combating fraudrelated to EU programmes and budgets.
2. The reform of Brussels I and Rome II Regulations
Brussels I Regulation (recast) contains rules which grant claimants the ability to choose where to make a claim. This must be amended to end forum shopping in defamation cases, which forces defendants to hire and pay for defence in countries whose legal systems are unknown to them and where they are not based. This is beyond the means of most and falls foul of the principles of fair trial and equality of arms.
Rome II Regulation does not regulate which national law will apply to a defamation case. This allows claimants to select the most favourable substantive law and therefore leads to a race to the bottom. Today, victims may be subject to the lowest standard of freedom of expression applicable to their case.
3. Support all victims of SLAPPs
Funds are needed to morally and financially support all victims of SLAPPs, especially with legal defence. Justice Programme funds should be used to train judges and practitioners, and a system to publicly name and shame the companies that engage in SLAPPs, for example in an EU register, should be created.
Finally, the EU must ensure that the scope of anti-SLAPP measures include everybody affected by SLAPPs, including journalists, activists, trade unionists, academics, digital security researchers, human rights defenders, media and civil society organisations, among others.
This paper was signed by the following 116 organisations
Abalone Alliance Safe Energy Clearinghouse
Access Info Europe
Access Now
ActionAid International
Adéquations
Amigas de la Tierra
Amis de la Terre France
ANTICOR
ARTICLE 19
Association Justice and Environment, z.s.
Bruno Manser Fonds
Terre Solidaire (CCFD)
CEE Bankwatch Network
Centre for Free Expression
Citizens Network Watchdog Poland
Civil Liberties Union for Europe
Civil Rights Defenders
Civil Society Europe
Clean Air Action Group (Hungary)
Committee to Protect Journalists
Common Weal
Consumer Association the Quality of Life
(EKPIZO)
Corporate Europe Observatory
Defend Democracy
European Digital Rights (EDRi)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Environmental Partnership Association
ePaństwo Foundation
Environmental Paper Network International
(EPN)
Estonian Forest Aid / Eesti Metsa Abiks
ETC Group
Eurocadres / Council of European Professional
and Managerial Staff
European Center for Not-for-Profit Law
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
European Civic Forum
European Coalition for Corporate Justice
European Coordination Via Campesina
European Environmental Bureau (EEB)
European Federation of Journalists
European Federation of Public Service Unions
(EPSU)
European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)
Fern
Fitug
Forest Initiatives and Communities
Forum Ökologie & Papier
FOUR PAWS International
Free Press Unlimited
Friends of the Earth Europe
Friends of the Earth Nuclear Network
Friends of the Siberian Forests
Fundacja Otwarty Plan
Fundacja Strefa Zieleni
Global Justice Ecology Project
GM Watch
Gong
Government Accountability Project
Green Light Foundation
Greenpeace EU Unit
Homo Digitalis
IFEX
Index on Censorship
Institute for Sustainable Development
Institute of Water Policy
International Corporate Accountability
Roundtable (ICAR)
International Press Institute (IPI)
Iraqi Journalists Right Defence Association
JEF Europe
Jordens Vänner
Journalismfund.eu
Justice Pesticides
Legal Human Academy
Maison des Lanceurs d’Alerte
Mighty Earth
Milieudefensie / Friends of the Earth
Netherlands
MultiWatch
NGO Neuer Weg
NGO Shipbreaking Platform
Nuclear Consulting Group
Ending Gag Lawsuits in Europe – Protecting Democracy and Fundamental Rights 4
Nuclear Transparency Watch
OGM dangers
On ne se taira pas (We will not remain silent)
Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa
PEN International
Polish Ecological Club Mazovian Branch
Polish Ecological Club Pomeranian Branch
Polish Institute for Human Rights and Business
Protection International
RECLAIM
Reporters Without Borders
Rettet den Regenwald e.V.
Salva la Selva
Sciences Citoyennes
Sherpa
Society for Threatened Peoples Switzerland
SOLIDAR
SOMO
Stowarzyszenie Ekologiczno-Kulturalne
Wspólna Ziemia / Common Earth
SumOfUs
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
The Ethicos Group
The Good Lobby
The Signals Network
Transnational Institute
Transparency International EU
Umweltinstitut München e.V.
Vouliwatch
Vrijschrift
vzw Climaxi
Chceme zdravú krajinu / We want a healthy
country
WeMove Europe
Whistleblower Network Germany
Whistleblowing International Network (WIN)
WildLeaks / Earth League International
Women Engage for a Common Future (WECF)
XNet
Zielone Wiadomości[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
