04 Apr 19 | Awards, Cameroon, Colombia, Fellowship 2019, News and features, Press Releases, Turkey
[vc_row full_width=”stretch_row”][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/JeDl0BWXXOc”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”105881″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center” css_animation=”fadeIn”][vc_column_text]A Kurdish artist imprisoned for her paintings of the destruction of a town in Turkey’s Kurdish region and a worldwide network monitoring threats and abuses against editorial cartoonists around the world are among the winners of the 2019 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards.
The winners, who were announced on Thursday evening at a gala ceremony in London, also include a Colombian civil society organisation that challenges online trolls by flagging abuse and an award-winning broadcast journalist from Cameroon who was arrested in November 2018 for her reporting.
Awards were presented in four categories: arts, campaigning, digital activism and journalism.
The winners are: Turkish artist Zehra Doğan (arts); Cartoonists Rights Network International (campaigning); Fundación Karisma, an organisation challenging the growing online harassment of women in Colombia (digital activism); and Mimi Mefo, one of less than a handful of journalists working without fear or favour in Cameroon’s climate of repression and self-censorship (journalism).
“These winners deserve global recognition for their amazing work,” said Index on Censorship CEO Jodie Ginsberg. “Like all those nominated, they brave massive personal and political hurdles simply so that others can express themselves freely.”
Drawn from more than 400 public nominations, the winners were presented with their awards at a ceremony at The Mayfair Hotel, London, hosted by comedian Nish Kumar.
Actors, writers and musicians were among those celebrating with the winners. The guest list included Tim Moloney QC, the deputy head of Doughty Street Chambers, writer, broadcaster and chair of Index on Censorship Trevor Philips, Malaysian cartoonist Zunar, historian and commentator Timothy Garton Ash and more.
Winners were presented with cartoons created by Egyptian cartoonist Doaa el-Adl.
Each of the award winners will become part of the fifth cohort of Freedom of Expression Awards fellows. They join last year’s winners — The Museum of Dissidence, a public art project and website celebrating dissent in Cuba (arts); The Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms, one of the few human rights organisations still operating in a country which has waged an orchestrated campaign against independent civil society groups (campaigning); Habari RDC, a collective of more than 100 young Congolese bloggers and web activists, who use Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to give voice to the opinions of young people from all over the Democratic Republic of Congo (digital activism); and Wendy Funes, an investigative journalist from Honduras who regularly risks her life to report on what is happening in the country, an extremely harsh environment for reporters (journalism) — as part of a world-class network of campaigners, activists and artists sharing best practices on tackling censorship threats internationally.
Through the fellowship, Index works with the winners – both during an intensive week in London and the rest of the awarding year – to provide long-term, structured support. The goal is to help winners maximise their impact, broaden their support and ensure they can continue to excel at fighting free expression threats on the ground.
This year’s panel of judges included actor and filmmaker Khalid Abdalla, writer and social activist Nimco Ali, writer and academic Kate Devlin and Rappler CEO and executive editor Maria Ressa.
Awards judge Abdalla said: “The abyss we are facing all over the world requires acts of courage and intellect capable of changing the terms of how we think and respond to the challenges ahead. We have to celebrate those who inspire us and lead by example, not just because they have managed to break barriers in their own contexts, but because some part of what they do holds a key for us all.”
This is the 19th year of the Freedom of Expression Awards. Former winners include activist Malala Yousafzai, cartoonist Ali Ferzat, journalists Anna Politkovskaya and Fergal Keane and Bahrain Center for Human Rights.
Ziyad Marar, president of global publishing at Sage, said: “We are once again proud to sponsor tonight’s awards ceremony. We’re inspired by the achievements recognised tonight and remain in awe of Index’s work to champion, and bring to light, the work of these remarkable individuals. The protection and promotion of free speech is a belief deeply ingrained within our values at Sage and, as publisher of the magazine, we’re committed to supporting Index as they continue to confront issues of censorship globally. Congratulations to all those recognised tonight.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”2019 Freedom of Expression Arts Award” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_single_image image=”105885″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Zehra Doğan | Turkey
Released from prison on 24 February 2019, Zehra Doğan is a Kurdish painter and journalist who, during her imprisonment, was denied access to materials for her work. She painted with dyes made from crushed fruit and herbs, even blood, and used newspapers and milk cartons as canvases. When she realised her reports from Turkey’s Kurdish region were being ignored by mainstream media, Doğan began painting the destruction in the town of Nusaybin and sharing it on social media. For this she was arrested and imprisoned. During her imprisonment she refused to be silenced and continued to produce journalism and art. She collected and wrote stories about female political prisoners, reported on human rights abuses in prison, and painted despite the prison administration’s refusal to supply her with art materials.
Speech: “It is not only art that has had boundaries drawn around it in Turkey”
Profile: Artist Zehra Doğan refused to be silenced[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”2019 Freedom of Expression Campaigning Award” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_single_image image=”105883″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Cartoonists Rights Network International | United States / International
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI) is a small organisation with a big impact: monitoring threats and abuses against editorial cartoonists worldwide. Marshalling an impressive worldwide network, CRNI helps to focus international attention on cases in which cartoonists are persecuted and put pressure on the persecutors. CRNI tracks censorship, fines, penalties and physical intimidation – including of family members, assault, imprisonment and even assassinations. Once a threat is detected, CRNI often partners with other human rights organisations to maximise the pressure and impact of a campaign to protect the cartoonist and confront those who seek to censor political cartoonists.
Speech: “Like virtually no other profession the cartoonist makes it their business to remind the citizenry that the emperor is naked”
Profile: Cartoonists Rights Network International defends cartoonists worldwide[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”2019 Freedom of Expression Digital Activism Award” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_single_image image=”106261″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]
Fundación Karisma, Colombia
Fundación Karisma is a civil society organisation that challenges online trolls by using witty online ‘stamps’ that flag up internet abuse. It is an initiative that uses humour to draw attention to a serious problem: the growing online harassment of women in Colombia and its chilling effect. The organisation offers a rare space to discuss many issues at the intersection of human rights and technology in the country and then tackles them through a mix of research, advocacy and digital tools. Karisma’s “Sharing is not a crime” campaign supports open access to knowledge against the backdrop of Colombia’s restrictive copyright legislation.
Speech: “At the heart of Karisma’s work has always been the promotion of access to knowledge and culture”
Profile: Colombia’s Fundación Karisma works to enhance digital rights
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”2019 Freedom of Expression Journalism Award” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_single_image image=”105884″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Mimi Mefo | Cameroon
Mimi Mefo is one of less than a handful of journalists working without fear or favour in Cameroon’s climate of repression and self-censorship. An award-winning broadcast journalist at private media house Equinoxe TV and Radio, Mefo was arrested in November 2018 after she published reports that the military was behind the death of an American missionary in the country. Mefo reports on the escalating violence in the country’s western regions, a conflict that has become known as the “Anglophone Crisis” and is a leading voice in exposing the harassment of other Cameroonian journalists, calling publicly for the release of those jailed.
Speech: “This award is for those who stood and have continued to stand for press freedom”
Profile: Mimi Mefo works without fear or favour in Cameroon’s climate of repression and self-censorship[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content”][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”105882″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” css_animation=”fadeIn”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content_no_spaces”][vc_column][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][vc_media_grid grid_id=”vc_gid:1554969857859-f1f04179-f2a6-10″ include=”105874,105875,105876,105878,105879,105880,105881,105882,105883,105884,105885,106094,106029,106030,106031,106032,106033,106034,106048,106049,106050,106051,106052,106053,106054,106055,106056,106057,106058,106059,106060,106063,106064,106065,106066,106067,106068,106069,106075,106077,106078,106079,106080,106090,106091,106092,106261″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1554969857860-55772dad-9263-1″ taxonomies=”8935, 26925″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content_no_spaces” css=”.vc_custom_1554478654304{margin-top: 20px !important;padding-top: 20px !important;padding-bottom: 20px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_custom_heading text=”SPONSORS” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1484567001197{margin-bottom: 30px !important;}”][vc_column_text]
Index is grateful to those who are supporting the 2019 Awards:
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner equal_height=”yes” el_class=”container container980″][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″ offset=”vc_col-xs-6″][vc_single_image image=”80918″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” img_link_target=”_blank” link=”https://uk.sagepub.com/”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″ offset=”vc_col-xs-6″][vc_single_image image=”80921″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” img_link_target=”_blank” link=”https://www.google.co.uk/about/”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner equal_height=”yes” el_class=”container container980″][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″ offset=”vc_col-xs-6″][vc_single_image image=”85983″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″ offset=”vc_col-xs-6″][vc_single_image image=”85977″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://www.edwardian.com/”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″ offset=”vc_col-xs-6″][vc_single_image image=”105358″ img_size=”234×234″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://mainframe.com/”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner equal_height=”yes” el_class=”container container980″][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″ offset=”vc_col-xs-6″][vc_single_image image=”105536″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” img_link_target=”_blank” link=”http://www.vodafone.com/content/index.html#”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″ offset=”vc_col-xs-6″][vc_single_image image=”105360″ img_size=”234×234″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.francemediasmonde.com/”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″ offset=”vc_col-xs-6″][vc_single_image image=”105359″ img_size=”234×234″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner equal_height=”yes” el_class=”container container980″][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″ offset=”vc_col-xs-6″][vc_single_image image=”80924″ img_size=”200×200″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” img_link_target=”_blank” link=”https://psiphon.ca/”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″ offset=”vc_col-xs-6″][vc_single_image image=”105361″ img_size=”200×200″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.telegraph.co.uk/”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″ offset=”vc_col-xs-6″][vc_single_image image=”105363″ img_size=”200×200″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.societyofeditors.org/”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner equal_height=”yes” el_class=”container container980″][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″ offset=”vc_col-xs-6″][vc_single_image image=”105365″ img_size=”200×200″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.news.co.uk/”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″ offset=”vc_col-xs-6″][vc_single_image image=”106100″ img_size=”200×200″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.mirror.co.uk/”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″ offset=”vc_col-xs-6″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]
If you are interested in sponsorship you can contact [email protected]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
06 Mar 19 | Campaigns -- Featured, Digital Freedom, Digital Freedom Statements, Statements, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”103235″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]The Rt Hon Jeremy Wright QC MP
Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
100 Parliament Street
London SW1A 2BQ
6 March 2019
Re: Online Harms White Paper
Dear Secretary of State,
We write to you as civil society organisations who work to promote human rights, both offline and online. As such, we are taking a keen interest in 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, we published a joint statement noting that any proposals 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 your 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 imminent, we wanted to write to you personally. A number of our organisations wrote to you about this last summer, and your office kindly offered to meet us. We would be very keen to meet in person, if that offer is still open.
While we recognise and support the government’s legitimate desire to tackle unlawful and harmful content online, the proposals that have been mooted publicly by government ministers in recent months – including a new duty of care on social media platforms, a new regulatory body, and even the fining and banning of social media platforms as a sanction – have reinforced our initial concerns over the serious risks to freedom of expression online that could stem from the government’s proposals. 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. There is a real risk that the currently mooted proposals may lead to disproportionate amounts of speech being curtailed, undermining the right to freedom of expression.
Given this risk, we believe that it is essential for human rights requirements and considerations to be at the heart of the policymaking process. We urge the government to take a ‘human rights by design’ approach towards all legislation, regulation and other measures ultimately proposed. In particular, we make the following specific recommendations:
- First, the government must set out a clear evidence base in relation to any proposals put forward in the Online Harms White Paper. 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 proposed in the White Paper should be supported by clear and unambiguous evidence of their need and effectiveness.
- Second, we urge the government to fully to consider non-legislative measures before opting for regulation in this field. Other potentially highly effective options such as increasing public awareness and digital literacy, a curriculum and resource focus on digital skills in schools, promoting “safety by design” amongst tech product designers and developers, and supporting existing initiatives being undertaken, should be set out in the Online Harms White Paper.
- Third, greater transparency on the part of social media platforms and others involved in the moderation and removal of online content should be the starting point when it comes to any regulation being considered. Transparency should not simply focus on the raw number of pieces of content flagged and removed; it should instead more holistically require platforms to provide user-accessible information about the policies they have in place to respond to unlawful and harmful content, how those policies are implemented, reviewed and updated to respond to evolving situations and norms, and what company or industry-wide steps they have or are planning to improve these processes.
- Fourth, we strongly caution against proposals which attach liability to platforms for third party content, such as a binding Code of Practice, a new ‘duty of care’ or a new regulatory body. 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.(1)
- Fifth, we expect any legislative or regulatory proposals to contain explicit and unambiguous language on the importance of freedom of expression. It is vital that any legislative or regulatory scheme which seeks to limit speech explicitly references the human right to free expression so that this infuses how the scheme is implemented and enforced in practice. Such language should be set out both any legislation ultimately proposed, as well as any secondary legislation or regulatory guidance ultimately developed.
- Sixth, in recognition of the UK’s commitment to the multistakeholder model of internet governance, we stress the importance for all relevant stakeholders, including civil society, to be fully engaged throughout the Online Harm White Paper’s consultation period, and able to participate in the design and implementation of any measures which are finally adopted.
We appreciate your consideration of these points and look forward to continuing our engagement with your department as the Online Harms White Paper is published and throughout the policy process.
Yours sincerely,[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Charles Bradley
Executive Director
Global Partners Digital[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Jodie Ginsberg
Chief Executive
Index on Censorship[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Jim Killock
Executive Director
Open Rights Group[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]
1. See, for example, Scott, M. and Delcker, J., “Free speech vs. censorship in Germany”, Politico, 14 January 2018, available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-hate-speech-netzdg-facebook-youtube-google-twitter-free-speech, and Kinstler, L., “Germany’s Attempt to Fix Facebook Is Backfiring”, The Atlantic, 18 May 2018, available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/germany-facebook-afd/560435/.[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1551880941891-44b3d529-2ac3-9″ taxonomies=”16927, 4883″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
22 Feb 19 | History, Magazine, News and features, Press Releases
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
“With concern for those not free” The spring 1972 Index on Censorship magazine was the first issue. Read it now for free.
Index on Censorship is pleased to announce that the online archive of 45 years of publications of Index on Censorship magazine, published by SAGE Publishing, will be free to read globally.
Free archive access will cover the years 1972 to the end of 2017, and will give students, researchers and those interested in research and reading on freedom of expression online access to journalism and reporting about freedom of expression issues, plus stories by and about censored writers and artists.
The archive is available on the SAGE Publishing website, where users can browse by year or keyword search.
“Free speech is increasingly becoming one of the most fiercely contested and misunderstood issues of our time,” said Rachael Jolley, editor of Index on Censorship magazine. “It’s incredibly important that people can trace and learn from trends in freedom of expression and censorship as we experience many authoritarian leaders following a similar playbook to the 1970s and 1980s. We want to ensure as many people as possible are able to access stories and articles on issues of freedom of expression and by censored writers and artists by using this archive.”
Until now, access to the Index on Censorship magazine archive has been through paid subscription. From February 21 2019 all back issues of the magazine, excluding the four most recent issues, will be freely available.
Since its establishment in 1972, Index on Censorship magazine has published some of the greatest names in literature including Samuel Beckett, Nadine Gordimer, Mario Vargas Llosa, Hilary Mantel and Kurt Vonnegut. It also has published some of the greatest campaigning writers of our age from Vaclav Havel to Amartya Sen and Ariel Dorfman plus journalism from Mexico, Argentina, South Africa, China, India, Turkey and more. Editor Rachael Jolley was named British Society of Editors’ editor of the year in the specialist publication category (2016) and the magazine has received numerous awards including the APEX Award for Excellence and the Hermann Kesten prize.
With each new issue of the magazine, an archival issue will become available for students, researchers and supporters of free expression. The four latest issues of the magazine are available for purchase in print or digital formats via SAGE Publishing, bookshops and Exact Editions.
For more information, please contact [email protected].
Subscription information
Annual digital subscription (four issues) £18
A complete digital replica of the magazine
Annual print subscription (four issues) £35
Four high-quality print editions delivered to your door
Available at these bookshops
BFI, Serpentine Gallery and MagCulture (London), News from Nowhere (Liverpool), Home (Manchester) and Red Lion Books (Colchester).
Apps
- iPad/iPhone £1.49 (USD $2.90) per issue
- Buy one or more issues. Download the preview app (21 pages of latest issue for free), free upgrade the preview app to a 30-day subscription.
- Android tablets/phones
- Download the Exactly app from the Google Play store. A one-year subscription is £17.99 | $17.99
- Kindle Fire
- Download the Exactly app from Amazon. A one-year subscription is £17.99 | $17.99
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
18 Feb 19 | Campaigns -- Featured, Digital Freedom, Digital Freedom Statements, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Index on Censorship welcomes a report by the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee into disinformation and fake news that calls for greater transparency on social media companies’ decision making processes, on who posts political advertising and on use of personal data. However, we remain concerned about attempts by government to establish systems that would regulate “harmful” content online given there remains no agreed definition of harm in this context beyond those which are already illegal.
Despite a number of reports, including the government’s Internet Safety Strategy green paper, that have examined the issue over the past year, none have yet been able to come up with a definition of harmful content that goes beyond definitions of speech and expression that are already illegal. DCMS recognises this in its report when it quotes the Secretary of State Jeremy Wright discussing “the difficulties surrounding the definition.” Despite acknowledging this, the report’s authors nevertheless expect “technical experts” to be able to set out “what constitutes harmful content” that will be overseen by an independent regulator.
International experience shows that in practice it is extremely difficult to define harmful content in such a way that would target only “bad speech”. Last year, for example, activists in Vietnam wrote an open letter to Facebook complaining that Facebook’s system of automatically pulling content if enough people complained could “silence human rights activists and citizen journalists in Vietnam”, while Facebook has shut down the livestreams of people in the United States using the platform as a tool to document their experiences of police violence.
“It is vital that any new system created for regulating social media protects freedom of expression, rather than introducing new restrictions on speech by the back door,” said Index on Censorship chief executive Jodie Ginsberg. “We already have laws to deal with harassment, incitement to violence, and incitement to hatred. Even well-intentioned laws meant to tackle hateful views online often end up hurting the minority groups they are meant to protect, stifle public debate, and limit the public’s ability to hold the powerful to account.”
The select committee report provides the example of Germany as a country that has legislated against harmful content on tech platforms. However, it fails to mention the German Network Reinforcement Act was legislating on content that was already considered illegal, nor the widespread criticism of the law that included the UN rapporteur on freedom of expression and groups such as Human Rights Watch. It also cites the fact that one in six of Facebook’s moderators now works in Germany as “practical evidence that legislation can work.”
“The existence of more moderators is not evidence that the laws work,” said Ginsberg. “Evidence would be if more harmful content had been removed and if lawful speech flourished. Given that there is no effective mechanism for challenging decisions made by operators, it is impossible to tell how much lawful content is being removed in Germany. But the fact that Russia, Singapore and the Philippines have all cited the German law as a positive example of ways to restrict content online should give us pause.”
Index has reported on various examples of the German law being applied incorrectly, including the removal of a tweet of journalist Martin Eimermacher criticising the double standards of tabloid newspaper Bild Zeitung and the blocking of the Twitter account of German satirical magazine Titanic. The Association of German Journalists (DJV) has said the Twitter move amounted to censorship, adding it had warned of this danger when the German law was drawn up.
Index is also concerned about the continued calls for tools to distinguish between “quality journalism” and unreliable sources, most recently in the Cairncross Review. While we recognise that the ability to do this as individuals and through education is key to democracy, we are worried that a reliance on a labelling system could create false positives, and mean that smaller or newer journalism outfits would find themselves rejected by the system.
About Index on Censorship
Index on Censorship is a UK-based nonprofit that campaigns against censorship and promotes free expression worldwide. Founded in 1972, Index has published some of the world’s leading writers and artists in its award-winning quarterly magazine, including Nadine Gordimer, Mario Vargas Llosa, Samuel Beckett and Kurt Vonnegut. Index promotes debate, monitors threats to free speech and supports individuals through its annual awards and fellowship programme.
Contact: [email protected][/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1550487607611-2c41f248-b775-10″ taxonomies=”6534″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
