Index on Censorship’s Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom project tracks press freedom violations in five countries: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. Learn more.
30 April 2019 – Editor of qafqaznews.az Mahmud Tagiyev was sentenced to 12 years reported Azerbaijan Service for Radio Free Europe.
Tagiyev was found guilty on charges of extortion.
The journalist refutes the accusation and says he is being framed. In his statement, Taghiyev said this was a punishment for his attempt to receive full payment of the property he has sold to an employee of the Prosecutor Office but was unable to receive the payment since the sale of the property. The criminal investigation against the journalist was opened February 8, 2019.
Source of violation: Court/Judicial; Government/State Agency/Public official(s)/Political party
Journalist called in for questioning at the Organized Crime Unit
24 April 2019 – Editor of an online news site az24saat.org Vugar Gurdganli was invited for questioning at the Chief Organized Crime Unit in Baku, reported independent online new platform Meydan TV.
Gurdqanli wrote on his Facebook that he received a phone call from a man who introduced himself as an employee of the Crime Unit and asked that Gurdqanli came in for questioning. The journalist said he told the man on the phone that he needs to see an official letter of complaint first before he comes in. Gurdqanli also mentioned that he asked what this questioning was about, but was only told that there has been a complaint against him.
Gurdqanli suspects this call was linked to previous threats he has been receiving after re-publishing a story that was first released by Meydan TV about Ramil Usubov, the Minister of the Interior and his business empire.
Gurdqanli’s website az24saat.org has been blocked for access since 2018.
News Agency refused accreditation to cover Formula 1 race
24 April 2019 – Turan News Agency, the only remaining independent news agency was refused accreditation to cover the Formula 1 race that will take place between 26 – 28 April, reported independent Meydan TV.
The accreditation was denied by the Baku City Circuit, the main company in charge of organising the race.
Turan News Agency applied for accreditation already in January but the request was denied on no grounds said Turan News Agency in a statement.
The agency considered this decision intentional and continuation of state policy on restricting freedom of the speech. The agency received accreditation in 2017-2018.
9 April 2019 – US based Azerbaijani journalist Sevinc Osmangizi confirmed that a phone conversation with another journalist based in Germany was leaked by a pro-government news platform in Azerbaijan, reported Azadliq Radio, Azerbaijan Service for Radio Free Europe.
Osmangizi believes the conversation with the said journalist was recorded outside of their knowledge and that it was done by the special services in Azerbaijan.
Neither the authorities nor the news outlet that aired the conversation have commented on the developments.
The audio recording that was leaked took place several weeks ago before it was leaked and the two discussed possible project together.
Update:
26 April 2019 – After releasing the exchange between Osmangizi and another journalist, the authorities have now threatened Osmangizi to release intimate footage of the journalist, reported multiple sources in Azerbaijan and internationally.
Osmangizi is threatened by another journalist, formerly with Azerbaijan News Agency, Mirshahin Agayev who now heads a pro-government media platform Real TV.
In a video Osmangizi shared on her own YouTube channel, Osmangizi says, nothing is going to prevent her from doing her work, even such tricks as this one.
Osmangizi previously received death threats against her and her family.
Source of violation: Police/State security, Government/State Agency/Public official(s)/Political party, Known private individual(s), Another media
Independent news website blocked
9 April 2019 – arqument.az has been rendered inaccessible and eventually blocked without any official notification to the editors, reported independent online news site Meydan TV.
The website’s editor Shamshad Aga speaking to the media, said, the website was subject to DDoS attacks before it was made completely inaccessible.
While it was possible to access the website through a VPN on April 8, as of April 9, this was no longer the case.
Source of violation: Police/State security; Government/State Agency/Public official(s)/Political party; Unknown
Blogger not allowed to leave the country
9 April 2019 – Former political prisoner, Mehman Huseynov was prevented from leaving the country reported Azadliq Radio, Azerbaijan Service for Radio Free Europe.
Huseynov was released from jail in March 2019 after having served the two year jail term.
Huseynov has been unable to leave the country for eight years.
The blogger had planned to travel to Berlin and Strasbourg to attend a conference organized by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. He was also scheduled to participate at a conference on journalists’ safety in Vienna, organized by the OSCE representative on freedom of the media.
Update: 13 April 2019 – Huseynov was finally allowed to leave Azerbaijan
Background:
Popular video blogger Mehman Huseynov was sentenced to two years in prison on defamation charges by the Surakhani district court. He was arrested in the courtroom, Azadiiq reported.
Nasimi district police chief Musa Musayev brought a lawsuit against Huseynov, claiming the blogger lied when he said that he had been tortured when he was detained in January 2017. Huseynov is the first person to be arrested for slander in Azerbaijan.
The blogger is the administrator of popular Facebook page Sancaq which has over 300,000 subscribers. He shares videos claiming to expose high level corruption among Azerbaijani officials.
Huseynov was detained on 9 January in central Baku, by a group of plain-clothed police officers. He was held incommunicado overnight allegedly for violating administrative rules. The next day, court fined him 200AZN (€100) on charges of disobeying the police (Article 535.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences). Speaking to journalists following his brief detention, Huseynov said police placed a sack over his head and used force against him during the detention. On 11 January, his lawyer Elchin Sadigov published pictures showing traces of torture on Huseynov’s body and blood stains on his clothes.
UPDATE: 12 April 2017 – Blogger Mehman Huseynov’s appeal was rejected by the Baku court of appeal, independent Azerbaijan service for Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty reported.
Huseynov’s lawyer Elchin Sadigov said they will file an appeal to the supreme court, and described the appeal court’s decision as illegal and failing to observe legal norms.
UPDATE: 25 June 2018 – The Azerbaijan Supreme Court upheld the two-year prison sentence handed down to Mehman Huseynov in March 2017, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty’s Azerbaijan service reported.
Huseynov was not present at the hearing. His lawyer said the case would now be taken up with the European Court of Human Rights.
UPDATE: 24 August 2018 – A regional court in Garadag ruled against the motion for conditional release of the blogger Mehman Huseynov, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Azerbaijan Service reported.
Speaking to Azadliq Radio, Huseynov’s lawyer Shahla Humbatova said the court reached its decision on the basis of a report submitted by the administration of the penitentiary where Huseynov is being held. The report concluded that Huseynov had failed to reform during his time in jail.
UPDATE: 26 December 2018 – New charges are being brought against Mehman Huseynov on the grounds that he “resisted a representative of the authorities with the use of violence dangerous to his health and life” – an accusation that Huseynov denies. If found guilty, he could face a further seven years in jail, the website of the international free expression website Ifex reported.
The new charges were brought just two months before he was due to be released from jail.
On the same day as the fresh charges were brought, Mehman announced that he was going on hunger strike. He refused to drink water until 30 December, but after this severe health complications forced him to start drinking water.
Huseynov suffers from a severe case of varicose vein rupture, and a prison doctor has recommended immediate medical intervention to stop the internal bleeding.
UPDATE: 7 January 2019 – Mehman Huseynov broke off his hunger strike and started to drink liquid dairy products after suffering from stomach pains, the pan-Caucasus website JAM News reported.
UPDATE: 15 January 2019 – Around a dozen people in Azerbaijan have begun hunger strikes as an act of solidarity with imprisoned blogger Mehman Huseynov, JAM News reported.
Five political prisoners have begun hunger strikes in prison, JAM said, adding that award-winning Azerbaijani reporter Khadija Ismaylova joined the hunger strike on 15 January to show her solidarity with political prisoners in the country.
Seven of those who began hunger strikes since the beginning of the year are members of the opposition party Musavat, including the deputy chairman of the party, Tofik Yaqublu. Two of the Musavat members have since broken off their hunger strikes.
UPDATE: 22 January 2019 – The Azerbaijani authorities announced that they are dropping the latest criminal charges brought against imprisoned blogger Mehman Huseynov, who has already spent more than two years in jail, Trend news agency reported.
The country’s Prosecutor General issued a statement saying that “The criminal case against Mehman Huseynov has been cancelled.”
The statement said that the decision to drop the charges had been taken after human rights defenders and Huseynov himself appealed directly to President Ilham Aliyev “to ensure the objectivity of the investigation.”
It noted that, based on the president’s recommendation, “The criminal case on Mehman Huseynov was terminated due to the fact that he is a young man, was not subject to disciplinary liability during his term of punishment, took the path of reform, and his old father is in need of care.”
Trend said that Aliyev, “for whom the principles of justice and humanism are always a priority, took the appeals into account and gave recommendations to the General Prosecutor’s Office to conduct an objective investigation of the criminal case, to take all necessary measures provided by law to make a fair and humane decision.”
The agency added that “the Prosecutor General’s Office of Azerbaijan warns those who, for the sake of personal interests and political goals, are trying to create an artificial fuss around Mehman Huseynov, as well as the media spreading false information about him, that any illegal actions aimed at violating stability and tranquillity in the country will resolutely be stopped within the framework of the law.”
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty noted that the latest move comes after large-scale demonstrations in Baku in support of Huseynov and the adoption of a European Parliament resolution calling for his immediate release.
In response to a letter from Ian Murray of the Society of Editors, which raised concerns about potential impacts on press freedom, secretary of state Jeremy Wright responded stating that journalistic or editorial content will not be affected by the proposed regulatory framework.
However, the far-reaching proposals that aim to address unclearly defined “harms” include a legal duty of care and the possibility of large fines and potentially even personal criminal liability for senior managers. These create a strong incentive to restrict and remove content, which could include “harmful” journalistic content where it appears online. The white paper includes disinformation in its list of harms.
Index on Censorship head of advocacy Joy Hyvarinen said: “The proposed regulation to tackle online harms has not been thought through properly. Based on the proposals in the online harms white paper, press freedom impacts would be very difficult to avoid. Index urges the government to reconsider these proposals.”
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Responding to violations of media freedom in Hungary has become a conundrum for the EU. With populist parties poised for large gains in the next European election, Sally Gimson explores in the spring 2019 issue of Index on Censorship magazine what the EU could do to uphold free speech in member countries” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_column_text]
Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. Credit: EU2017EE Estonian Presidency / Flickr
Dutch MEP Judith Sargentini is enemy number one in the eyes of the Hungarian government. The Green politician incurred that government’s anger when she persuaded the European Parliament to the country losing voting rights.
She accused Hungary, among other democratic failings, of not ensuring a free and uncensored press. But since the vote last September, nothing has happened, except that the Hungarian government launched a campaign against her on state television – and she no longer feels safe to travel there.
“[The government] has been spreading so much hate against me, and if the government is spreading hate, what if there is a lunatic around? I’m not taking the risk,” she said.
“The Hungarian government spent 18 million euros on a publicity campaign against me, after I won the vote – with TV commercials and a full-page advertisement with my face on it.” The other vocal critic of Hungary, Belgian Liberal MEP and former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt, as well as the philanthropist George Soros were targeted in the same campaign.
With the European elections coming up in May 2019, and the possibility of large gains by nationalist, populist parties, the question is what the EU can do to curb freedom of expression violations on its territory.
The problem according to Lutz Kinkel, managing director of the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, is the EU has no specific competences over media freedom. No country can join the EU without guaranteeing freedom of expression as a basic human right under Article 49 of the Lisbon Treaty. Article 7 is triggered when there is “a clear risk” of a member state breaching EU values. Although this can lead to a country’s voting rights being taken away, to get to that point, all the other EU countries have to agree.
As Camino Mortera-Martinez, a senior research fellow at the think-tank Centre for European Reform in Brussels, said: “Article 7 is never going to work because it is so vague. [All the other] member states are never going to argue to punish another one by suspending voting rights.”
Historian Tim Snyder, author of The Road to Unfreedom, a book about how Russia works to spread disinformation within the West, told Index he thought Hungary should have been thrown out of the EU a long time ago. But, with Britain’s exit from the EU, it is difficult to start expelling countries now.
“The tricky thing about the European Union, and this goes not just for eastern Europe but everyone, is that there might be rules for how you get in, but once you are in the rules are a lot less clear,” he said.
[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” size=”xl” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”It’s like joining a sorority with very strict rules for entering, but when you are there you can misbehave and it is covered up by the group” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
Hungary is the most prominent country in Europe to put restrictions on media freedom. Not only is public service media directly under government control, and critical journalists have been fired, but the government has also made sure that private media has either been driven out of business or taken over by a few oligarchs close to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. The only independent media are very small operations, publishing almost exclusively on the internet.
Snyder told Index: “I think Europeans generally made the mistake of thinking that it doesn’t matter if we have one small country which is going the wrong way [and that] Hungary can’t possibly affect others. But the truth is – because it is easier to build authoritarianism than democracy – one bad example does ripple outwards and Hungary isn’t just Hungary and Orbán isn’t just Orbán; they represent a kind of mode of doing things which other people can look to, and individual leaders can say: ‘That’s possible’.”
This is borne out by Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom project which tracked media freedom in 43 European countries and found patterns that showed countries following Hungary’s example including Poland.
Anita Kőműves is an investigative journalist in Hungary who works for non-profit investigative outlet Átlátszó.hu which won an Index award for digital activism in 2015. She says not only does Brussels do nothing to challenge Hungary’s undermining of the free press but people in the commission are persuaded it is not all that bad.
She said: “Orbán is walking a fine line with Brussels. He knows that he cannot go too far. Whatever happens here, it must be deniable and explainable. Orbán goes to Brussels, or sends one of his henchmen, and he explains everything away. He has bad things written about him every single day in Hungary and nobody is in jail, so everything is fine… everything is not fine. Freedom of speech, the fact that I can write anything I like on the internet and nobody puts me in jail, is not the same as freedom of media when you have a strong media sector which is independent of the government.”
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” size=”xl” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”I think Europeans generally made the mistake of thinking that it doesn’t matter if we have one small country which is going the wrong way” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The solution for Brussels, she argues, is not Article 7 but for the EU to use European competition law to challenge the monopoly on media ownership the government and government-backed companies have in Hungary.
Kinkel says that this would be a warning to other countries, such as Bulgaria and Romania, which are trying to control the media in similar ways and in the case of Bulgaria giving EU funds only to government-friendly media.
“Governments try to get hold of public service media: this is one step,” he said. “And the other step is to throw out investors and media they don’t like and to give media outlets to oligarchs who are government-friendly and so on and so on, and to start new campaigns against independent investigative journalists.”
In Poland, the European Commission invoked Article 7 because of the government’s threats to the independence of the judiciary. The government so far controls only the state media but, as journalist Bartosz Wieliński , head of foreign news at the Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper, points out, the government used that state media to hound the mayor of Gdańsk, Paweł Adamowicz, for months before he was assassinated in January this year.
Wieliński believes it was only after Britain voted to leave the EU that countries realised they would face little sanction if they chipped away at freedom of expression. Although the EU did not collapse as they expected, the initial disarray gave them an opportunity to test European mechanisms and find them wanting.
Maria Dahle is chief executive of the international Human Rights House Foundation. She believes financial sanctions could be the way to stop countries from crossing the line, as Poland and Hungary have.
“When allocating funding, it should be conditional,” she said. “If [member states] do violate the rule of law, it has to have consequences … and the consequences should be around financial support.”
But Mortera-Martinez warns if the EU starts punishing countries too much financially, it will encourage anti-EU feeling which could be counter-productive, leading to election wins for populist, nationalist parties. The effect of any populist gains in the May elections concerns Kinkel, also: “What is clear is that when the populist faction grows, they have the right to have their people on certain positions on committees and so on. And this will be a problem… especially for press and media freedom,” he said.
Back at the European Parliament, Sargentini is impatient. “It’s about political will, and the EU doesn’t have it at the moment,” she said. “It’s like joining a sorority [with] very strict rules for entering, but when you are there you can misbehave and it’s covered up by the group.”
Sally Gimson is the deputy editor of Index on Censorship magazine.
Index on Censorship’s spring 2019 issue is entitled Is this all the local news? What happens if local journalism no longer holds power to account?
Look out for the new edition in bookshops, and don’t miss our Index on Censorship podcast, with special guests, on Soundcloud.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Is this all the local news?” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2018%2F12%2Fbirth-marriage-death%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The spring 2019 issue of Index on Censorship magazine asks Is this all the local news? What happens if local journalism no longer holds power to account?
With: Libby Purves, Julie Posetti and Mark Frary[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_single_image image=”105481″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2018/12/birth-marriage-death/”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article has been updated on 18 April 2019 to reflect that the name of organisation Lutz Kinkel works for had been written incorrectly. The article read “European Centre for Press and Media Reform”, when it should have read “European Centre for Press and Media Freedom”.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship has raised strong concerns about the government’s focus on tackling unlawful and harmful online content, particularly since the publication of the Internet Safety Strategy Green Paper in 2017. In October 2018, Index published a joint statement with Global Partners Digital and Open Rights Group noting that any proposals that regulate content are likely to have a significant impact on the enjoyment and exercise of human rights online, particularly freedom of expression.
We have also met with officials from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, as well as from the Home Office, to raise our thoughts and concerns.
With the publication of the Online Harms White Paper, we would like to reiterate our earlier points.
While we recognise the government’s desire to tackle unlawful content online, the proposals mooted in the white paper – including a new duty of care on social media platforms, a regulatory body, and even the fining and banning of social media platforms as a sanction – pose serious risks to freedom of expression online.
These risks could put the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations to respect and promote the right to freedom of expression and information as set out in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, amongst other international treaties.
Social media platforms are a key means for tens of millions of individuals in the United Kingdom to search for, receive, share and impart information, ideas and opinions. The scope of the right to freedom of expression includes speech which may be offensive, shocking or disturbing. The proposed responses for tackling online safety may lead to disproportionate amounts of legal speech being curtailed, undermining the right to freedom of expression.
In particular, we raise the following concerns related to the white paper:
Lack of evidence base
The wide range of different harms which the government is seeking to tackle in this policy process require different, tailored responses. Measures proposed must be underpinned by strong evidence, both of the likely scale of the harm and the measures’ likely effectiveness. The evidence which formed the base of the Internet Safety Strategy Green Paper was highly variable in its quality. Any legislative or regulatory measures should be supported by clear and unambiguous evidence of their need and effectiveness.
Duty of care concerns/ problems with ‘harm’ definition
Index is concerned at the use of a duty of care regulatory approach. Although social media has often been compared the public square, the duty of care model is not an exact fit because this would introduce regulation – and restriction – of speech between individuals based on criteria that is far broader than current law. A failure to accurately define “harmful” content risks incorporating legal speech, including political expression, expressions of religious views, expressions of sexuality and gender, and expression advocating on behalf of minority groups.
Risks in linking liability/sanctions to platforms over third party content
While well-meaning, proposals such as these contain serious risks, such as requiring or incentivising wide-sweeping removal of lawful and innocuous content. The imposition of time limits for removal, heavy sanctions for non-compliance or incentives to use automated content moderation processes only heighten this risk, as has been evidenced by the approach taken in Germany via its Network Enforcement Act (or NetzDG), where there is evidence of the over-removal of lawful content.
Lack of sufficient protections for freedom of expression.
The obligation to protect users’ rights online that is included in the white paper gives insufficient weight to freedom of expression. A much clearer obligation to protect freedom of expression should guide development of future regulation.
In recognition of the UK’s commitment to the multistakeholder model of internet governance, we hope all relevant stakeholders, including civil society experts on digital rights and freedom of expression, will be fully engaged throughout the development of the Online Harms bill.
30 April 2019 – Editor of qafqaznews.az Mahmud Tagiyev was sentenced to 12 years reported Azerbaijan Service for Radio Free Europe. 
24 April 2019 – Editor of an online news site az24saat.org Vugar Gurdganli was invited for questioning at the Chief Organized Crime Unit in Baku, reported independent online new platform Meydan TV.