6 Mar 2019 | 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 2019 | 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 2019 | 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]
12 Feb 2019 | Europe and Central Asia, Index Reports, News and features, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Britain’s new counter-terrorism bill, which passed into law on Tuesday, threatens freedom of expression, free speech group Index on Censorship has warned.
While lawmakers and the public focused on Brexit, the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill slipped through parliament with far too little attention from politicians.
“The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act crosses a line that takes the law very close to prohibiting opinions,” said Index on Censorship’s Head of Advocacy Joy Hyvarinen. The act criminalises expressing an opinion or belief that is “supportive” of a proscribed (terrorist) organisation if done in a way that is “reckless” as to whether it encourages another person to support a proscribed organisation. “This is a very dangerous legislative step to take in a democratic society,” Hyvarinen added.
Index on Censorship is also concerned about the implications of the new legislation for press freedom in the UK. It is now an offence to publish a photo or video clip of clothes or an item such as a flag in a way that raises “reasonable suspicion” (a low legal threshold) that the person doing so is a member or supporter of a terrorist organisation. This is highly likely to restrict and encourage self-censorship of journalistic activities. The clause also covers posting pictures on social media which have been taken in a private home.
In relation to press freedom, Index is also particularly concerned about the wide-ranging new border security powers contained in Schedule 3, which lack adequate safeguards to protect journalists and their confidential sources. The draft Code of Practice that will guide implementation of Schedule 3 must be strengthened to safeguard press freedom.
Index has, however, welcomed the government’s announcement during debates on the bill that it will undertake an independent review of the Prevent strategy, which Index had called for.
Background
The sections below highlight some of Index on Censorship’s concerns with the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act.
Index on Censorship began campaigning against the bill (draft law) as soon as it was introduced in the Parliament of the United Kingdom last summer because of its damaging implications for freedom of expression, including press freedom.
International concerns
The bill was widely criticised in the UK and also raised international concerns. The Media Freedom Representative of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) wrote to the UK authorities to express concerns and recommend changes to protect journalistic activities. United Nations special rapporteur Fionnuala Ní Aoláin stated that the bill needed to be brought in line with the UK’s obligations under international human rights law(1). Index filed an official notification with the Council of Europe’s platform for the protection of journalism about the bill’s implications for media freedom in the UK.
Small improvements: not enough
Index was pleased that some MPs and peers proposed amendments and argued for changes to safeguard freedom of expression. This led to some improvements to the bill, such as explicit recognition that carrying out work as a journalist or carrying out academic research is a reasonable excuse for accessing material online that could be useful for terrorism (see Clause 3).
Index also welcomed the government’s announcement that it will undertake an independent review of the Prevent strategy. Index and other organisations campaigned for such a review.
However, the improvements were not enough and Index remains very concerned about the impacts of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act on freedom of expression.
Reckless expressions of support for a proscribed organisation (Clause 1)
This clause criminalises expressing an opinion or belief that is “supportive” of a proscribed organisation if the person does so in a way that is “reckless” as to whether it encourages someone else to support a proscribed organisation.
This is a vague and unclear clause that comes far too close to criminalising opinion.
The clause risks closing down democratic debate. The Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out: “It is arguable that clause 1 could include, for example, an academic debate during which participants speak in favour of the de-proscription of currently proscribed organisations.”(2) The News Media Association (NMA) pointed out: “It is easy to envisage a similar debate taking place among commentators on the pages of the UK’s newspapers.”(3)
The government decides which organisations are included on the list of proscribed organisations (see below). Legislation that could discourage someone from arguing in favour of removing an organisation from the list, for fear that it could be viewed as “supportive” and “reckless”, is deeply concerning from a freedom of expression point of view.
Proscribed (terrorist) organisations
The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act expands crimes related to organisations on the government’s list of proscribed organisations.
At the time of writing there are 88 proscribed organisations, including 14 in Northern Ireland. Proscription has significant consequences, including on freedom of expression.
The Home Office has informed Lord Anderson, the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, that at least 14 organisations (4) do not meet the criteria for proscription. In other words, they should not be on the list.
An organisation can be removed from the list by applying to the Home Office. The very high legal costs involved, especially if it involves appealing a decision to refuse deproscription, are likely to be a significant obstacle. Only three organisations have been deproscribed (5).
During debates on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill Lord Anderson proposed an amendment that would have required an annual review of proscribed organisations. This amendment was unfortunately not accepted.
Publication of images (Clause 2)
This clause criminalises publication of pictures or video of an item of clothing or an article such as a flag in a way that raises “reasonable suspicion” (a low legal threshold) that the person doing so is a member or supporter of a terrorist organisation. The clause covers posting pictures on social media which have been taken in a private home.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights found that the clause “risks a huge swathe of publications being caught, including historical images and journalistic articles”(6). United Nations rapporteur Fionnuala Ní Aoláin expressed concern that the clause risks criminalising “a broad range of legitimate behaviour, including reporting by journalists, civil society organisations or human rights activists as well as academic and other research activity”(7).
Obtaining or viewing material over the internet (Clause 3)
This clause makes it an offence to view or otherwise access information online that is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing acts of terrorism. No terrorist intent is required.
Index is pleased with the recognition, following debates in parliament, that carrying out work as a journalist or carrying out academic research is a reasonable excuse for accessing material online that could be useful for terrorism.
However, the clause remains very problematic. Anyone who wanted to understand terrorism and its causes better could be caught by the clause; for example someone who was concerned that a family member was at risk of being attracted to terrorism.
In a submission related to this clause, Max Hill QC and Professor Clive Walker stated: “[T]he inherent claim is that viewers will either be seduced or have their will overwhelmed by the inevitable power and persuasion of the terrorist messages […] Yet, other outturns are statistically more likely by far.”
Hill and Walker highlighted that the government and researchers have repeatedly asserted that there is no clear production line from viewing extremism or even being “radicalised” into becoming an active terrorist (8). United Nations rapporteur Ní Aoláin made the same point noting “the danger of employing simplistic “conveyor-belt” theories of radicalization to violence, including to terrorism”(9).
Schedule 3 – border security powers
Schedule 3 introduces new border security powers, aimed at “hostile activity”. This is a vague and unclear concept, which is combined with very wide, intrusive new powers to stop, detain and search.
For example, under Schedule 3 a journalist who catches a domestic flight could be stopped without there being any suspicion that she or he had engaged in hostile activity. It is an offence not to answer questions or provide any material requested. At this point there are no protections for confidential journalistic material. It is extremely important that the draft Code of Practice that will guide how Schedule 3 is put in practice is strengthened to safeguard journalistic sources and press freedom.
Northern Ireland
During the passage of the bill, the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) identified a catalogue of problems in the bill related to Northern Ireland, which also threw its general flaws into sharp relief. As a CAJ briefing paper noted:
“We can quite properly criticise this draft legislation for criminalising what could often be innocuous or trivial behaviour. When looked at in the light of Northern Ireland reality, however, it looks grossly disproportionate if not ridiculous (10). […] The idiocy of applying these measures to Northern Ireland ought to give legislators pause for thought before they pass them for the whole of the UK.”(11)
It is regrettable that the majority of lawmakers do not seem to have paused for thought.
Contact: Joy Hyvarinen, Head of Advocacy, [email protected]
(1) Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Submission, House of Commons Public Bill Committee, OL GBR 7/2018, 17 July 2018, para.5.
(2) Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, Ninth Report of Session 2017–19, para. 12.
(3) News Media Association, Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill: Briefing for the House of Lords, Second Reading, p. 1.
(4) This figure does not consider the 14 Northern Irish organisations, which may also include ones that do not fulfil the criteria for proscription.
(5) The Peoples’ Mujaheddin of Iran in 2008, the International Sikh Youth Federation in 2016 and Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin in 2017. The Red Hand Commando has recently applied for deproscription. Reportedly the application was rejected.
(6) Note 2, para. 26.
(7) Note 1, para. 14.
(8) Max Hill QC & Clive Walker, Submission in relation to Clause 3 of the Counter Terrorism & Border Security Bill 2018, July 2018, para. 2(a).
(9) Note 1, para. 17.
(10) Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ), 2018, 9 August 2018, Briefing on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, para.8.
(11) Above, para. 13.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1567076180113-10dba29d-3162-2″ taxonomies=”21″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
