31 Oct 19 | Campaigns -- Featured, Statements
Ahead of the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists on 2 November, 12 partner organisations of the Council of Europe Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists – including Index – are calling on governments to ensure that crimes against journalists are not carried out with impunity.
Earlier this week, the case of courageous Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was moved to the Council of Europe’s category of journalists killed with impunity. The three men charged with her murder have yet to be brought to trial, while those who masterminded her assassination remain at large.
She is one of 36 journalists whose cases remain open on the Council of Europe Platform. As many as nine of the cases, including those of Dada Vujasinović and eight Serbian and Albanian journalists, date back more than 20 years. The platform partners call for thorough investigations to be carried out with the aim of bringing those responsible for their deaths to justice.
“Journalists are killed in an effort to silence their voices, as well as to discourage others from carrying on their line of work. The chilling impact on media freedom is exacerbated when their killers remain at large. We urgently call on governments to tackle impunity by carrying out effective and independent investigations into the deaths of those journalists murdered with impunity. Freedom of the press is unattainable without full justice,” said Jessica Ní Mhainín, Index on Censorship’s policy research and advocacy officer.
At the same time, the undersigned partner organisations welcome the recent indictment of four suspects, including the alleged mastermind, of the murders of Slovak journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancée Martina Kušnírová. However, they emphasise that all those involved in the crime must be convicted in order to fully prevent impunity. Slovak authorities must investigate and take action against associated wrongdoing, including the mass surveillance of journalists prior to Kuciak’s murder, and take concrete steps to protect journalists’ safety in the future.
In the 2019 Annual Report of the Council of Europe Platform, the partner organisations expressed concern that “a climate of impunity has started to take hold in parts of Europe”. They said that “the swift completion of transparent and effective investigations and prosecutions leading to the punishment of all those found responsible […] is essential if public trust in states’ commitment to protecting the safety of journalists and the rule of law is to be restored.”
The partner organisations call on Council of Europe member states to fully implement the Committee of Ministers Recommendation on the protection of journalism and the safety of journalists and other media actors, which includes guidelines related to addressing impunity.
Index on Censorship
Free Press Unlimited
Pen International
ECPMF
INSI
EFJ
IFJ
Association of European Journalists
Reporters sans Frontières
Article 19
IPI
Committee to Protect Journalists
17 Oct 19 | News and features, Student Reading Lists
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship was established in 1972 in a febrile period: Idi Amin had taken power in Uganda, the Vietnam war continued, direct rule was imposed in Northern Ireland, there was a coup in Bolivia and Congo was renamed Zaire by its dictator president. As writer Robert McCrum said in our 40th anniversary issue: “The abuses of freedom worldwide in the 1970s were so appalling and so widespread that the magazine rapidly found itself in the frontline of campaigns. Index became a clarion voice in the cause of free expression.” The right to protest and freedom of expression are now being sought in Hong Kong and elsewhere, and Index is still to the forefront in reporting abuses. Here are just some of the conflicts between freedom and dictatorship we have reported on in the past 47 years.
The first issue of Index on Censorship magazine, in March 1972
The Clockwork Show vol 1, issue 1, March 1972
In an anonymous article about life in Greece under the regime of the Colonels’ junta, the writer considered the psychology of the situation; the feelings and attitudes, the long-ranging impact of this harrowing experience. “There is nothing more demoralizing than to be bound to a public body, an administration, a government with which one can never for a moment identify, which is the exact opposite of everything one believes in. One cannot live side by side with Philistinism, chauvinism, bigotry, blatant hypocrisy, crass ignorance, injustice, violence and brutality and not be affected by them, even if one manages—only just—to keep them out of one’s own life. Under this regime there is no relief; no exception: the regime has penetrated every single aspect of public life.”
Read the full article
March 1974: TV, politics and Chile Index on Censorship magazine
Book burning and brutality vol 3, issue 1, March 1974
A fascinating insight into life in Chile six months after a coup ended the tyranny of President Salvador Allende: worse was to come under a military dictatorship, reported Michael Sanders, an Englishman in Santiago. “When Allende left Chile to address the UN in December 1972, a leading opposition newspaper had as its front-page a photo depicting the president flushing himself down a lavatory, with the caption ‘ good riddance’. The contrast in December 1973 is gloomy indeed. Not so much, or not only because of the drab uniformity of censored newspapers that, for all they may be censored, willingly reflect the views of the Military Junta. But for the fact that 43.6% of the population have been deprived of all means of expression, of all normal communication, and live in daily fear of their lives and jobs.”
Read the full article
Russia, East Germany, South Africa: May 1979 Index on Censorship magazine
Black journalists under apartheid volume 8, issue 3, May 1979
William A Hachten reports: Black journalists came to the fore in the Soweto riots of 1976 when they reported from the ghetto for a white press without access. Yet black journalists still faced daily harassment under apartheid, which worsened with the death of Steve Biko in 1977. Vusi Radebe, a black stringer for the Rand Daily Mail, said: “The situation is worse since the 1976 riots. Police will beat up reporters on the slightest provocation for what they consider obstruction of justice.” While whites had 23 newspapers, there were none for non-whites to express their political frustration. Black journalist Pearl Luthuli said: “The black journalist can’t be objective. We try to tell it like it is but the white editors won’t print it.” Another said: “We are black people first, journalists second. If it comes to a conflict between the struggle and the job, the struggle comes first.”
Read the full article
Beckett and Havel: Index on Censorship magazine, February 1984
Iran under the party of God, volume 13, issue 1, February 1984
“Censorship was planned by the regime of the Islamic Republic even before the February 1979 revolution brought Ayatollah Khomeini’s theocratic oligarchy to power. This particular kind of censorship may not be without precedent in history, but it must certainly be rare. There were attacks on coffee-houses, restaurants and other public places by men armed with clubs and stones; unveiled women were harassed; slogans of the opposition were cleaned from the walls; banks, cinemas and theatres were burned” – a personal account of the first years of the revolution and its attack on culture, by one of Iran’s leading writers Gholam Hoseyn Sa’edi. “And it keeps on happening. The Islamic regime of today has gone a step beyond censoring the creations of science, culture and art, beyond censoring life itself: it has rendered life vain and all but unliveable.”
Read the full article
Romania, Albania, USSR: Index on Censorship magazine January 1991
A sense of solidarity, volume 20, issue 1, January 1991
Romania’s celebrated poet, Ana Blandiana, on censorship under Ceausescu and how she fought back. Her work was completely banned three times. “In my case, the form of censorship progressed from the banning of a word to that of a line, then of a poem, then of a book, to the total erasure of my signature as author: an eradication of identity. My inner freedom was assured by a decision I took in 1980, a personal one rather than as a writer. I decided to be outspoken and say what I thought at the risk of becoming a victim myself, rather than suspect a possibly honest person. At first it kept me sane, and then it helped me to be a normal writer, relatively free of self-censorship. This was the strongest form of censorship under Communism in the last 10 or 15 years, and was much more refined and subtle than the official censorship.”
Read the full article
How free is the Russian media? Index on Censorship, Spring 2007
The Big Squeeze, volume 37, issue 1, Spring 2008
“The fact remains that since the departure of the oligarchs, Russian media freedom has gone from the imperfect and beleaguered to the moribund. At national television, which 90 per cent of Russians say is their main source of news, editors receive weekly or even daily instructions from the Kremlin on the ‘line to take’ on important stories; around half of Russian viewers think that what they watch is objective, a 2007 poll said. Foreign coverage is polemical and outrageously politicised. The message of all this is ‘be quiet’. If you annoy the rich and powerful you face threats, beatings or death. Even when the Kremlin is not directly involved, its reaction to the persecution of journalists sends a clear message: if you offend the powerful, don’t expect the law to protect you.” Edward Lucas gave an early taste of what freedom of expression meant under Putin.
Read the full article
40 years of Index on Censorship March 2012
Grit in the engine, volume 41, issue 1, Spring 2012
Robert McCrum on the 40th anniversary of Index on Censorship. “The success of Index was not a foregone conclusion. Stephen Spender, its founder, was fully alert to the potential for windbaggery and failure. There was, he wrote, ‘the risk that the magazine will become simply a bulletin of frustration’. Actually, the opposite came to pass. Index became a clarion voice in the cause of free expression. The abuses of freedom worldwide in the 1970s were so appalling and so widespread that the magazine rapidly found itself in the frontline of campaigns. Perhaps the most important thing Index did, from the beginning, was to universalise an issue in peril of becoming a special interest: freedom was not ‘a luxury enjoyed by bourgeois individualists’. Along with self-expression, it was a human right, and an instrument of human consciousness.
Read the full article
The big squeeze: Index on Censorship magazine Spring 2017
Freedom of expression under pressure, volume 46, issue 1, Spring 2017
The spring 2017 issue of Index on Censorship magazine looks at how pressures on free speech are currently coming from many different angles, not just one. Special features on how to spot fake news, articles from former BBC World Service director Richard Sambrook and former UK attorney general Dominic Grieve, an exclusive interview with the Spanish puppeteer arrested last year, and fiction from award-winning writer Karim Miské.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
13 Nov 18 | Campaigns -- Featured, Statements
Dear Mark Zuckerberg:
What do the Philadelphia Museum of Art, a Danish member of parliament, and a news anchor from the Philippines have in common? They have all been subject to a misapplication of Facebook’s Community Standards. But unlike the average user, each of these individuals and entities received media attention, were able to reach Facebook staff and, in some cases, receive an apology and have their content restored. For most users, content that Facebook removes is rarely restored and some users may be banned from the platform even in the event of an error.
When Facebook first came onto our screens, users who violated its rules and had their content removed or their account deactivated were sent a message telling them that the decision was final and could not be appealed. It was only in 2011, after years of advocacy from human rights organizations, that your company added a mechanism to appeal account deactivations, and only in 2018 that Facebook initiated a process for remedying wrongful takedowns of certain types of content. Those appeals are available for posts removed for nudity, sexual activity, hate speech or graphic violence.
This is a positive development, but it doesn’t go far enough.
Today, we the undersigned civil society organizations, call on Facebook to provide a mechanism for all of its users to appeal content restrictions, and, in every case, to have the appealed decision re-reviewed by a human moderator.
Facebook’s stated mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. With more than two billion users and a wide variety of features, Facebook is the world’s premier communications platform. We know that you recognize the responsibility you have to prevent abuse and keep users safe. As you know, social media companies, including Facebook, have a responsibility to respect human rights, and international and regional human rights bodies have a number of specific recommendations for improvement, notably concerning the right to remedy.
Facebook remains far behind its competitors when it comes to affording its users due process. 1 We know from years of research and documentation that human content moderators, as well as machine learning algorithms, are prone to error, and that even low error rates can result in millions of silenced users when operating at massive scale. Yet Facebook users are only able to appeal content decisions in a limited set of circumstances, and it is impossible for users to know how pervasive erroneous content takedowns are without increased transparency on Facebook’s part. 2
While we acknowledge that Facebook can and does shape its Community Standards according to its values, the company nevertheless has a responsibility to respect its users’ expression to the best of its ability. Furthermore, civil society groups around the globe have criticized the way that Facebook’s Community Standards exhibit bias and are unevenly applied across different languages and cultural contexts. Offering a remedy mechanism, as well as more transparency, will go a long way toward supporting user expression.
Earlier this year, a group of advocates and academics put forward the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation, which recommend a set of minimum standards for transparency and meaningful appeal. This set of recommendations is consistent with the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of the right to freedom of expression and opinion David Kaye, who recently called for a “framework for the moderation of user- generated online content that puts human rights at the very center.” It is also consistent with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which articulate the human rights responsibilities of companies.
Specifically, we ask Facebook to incorporate the Santa Clara Principles into their content moderation policies and practices and to provide:
Notice: Clearly explain to users why their content has been restricted.
- Notifications should include the specific clause from the Community Standards that the content was found to violate.
- Notice should be sufficiently detailed to allow the user to identify the specific content that was restricted and should include information about how the content was detected, evaluated, and removed.
- Individuals must have clear information about how to appeal the decision.
Appeals: Provide users with a chance to appeal content moderation decisions.
- Appeals mechanisms should be easily accessible and easy to use.
- Appeals should be subject to review by a person or panel of persons that was not involved in the initial decision.
- Users must have the right to propose new evidence or material to be considered in the review.
- Appeals should result in a prompt determination and reply to the user.
- Any exceptions to the principle of universal appeals should be clearly disclosed and compatible with international human rights principles.
- Facebook should collaborate with other stakeholders to develop new independent self-regulatory mechanisms for social media that will provide greater accountability3
Numbers: Issue regular transparency reports on Community Standards enforcement.
- Present complete data describing the categories of user content that are restricted (text, photo or video; violence, nudity, copyright violations, etc), as well as the number of pieces of content that were restricted or removed in each category.
- Incorporate data on how many content moderation actions were initiated by a user flag, a trusted flagger program, or by proactive Community Standards enforcement (such as through the use of a machine learning algorithm).
- Include data on the number of decisions that were effectively appealed or otherwise found to have been made in error.
- Include data reflecting whether the company performs any proactive audits of its unappealed moderation decisions, as well as the error rates the company found.
Article 19, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy and Technology, and Ranking Digital Rights
Fundación Ciudadano Inteligente
7amleh – Arab Center for Social Media Advancement
Access Now
ACLU Foundation of Northern California
Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC)
Albanian Media Institute
American Civil Liberties Union
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Arab Digital Expression Foundation
Artículo 12
Asociación Mundial de Radios Comunitarias América Latina y el Caribe (AMARC ALC)
Association for Progressive Communications
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Bytes for All (B4A)
CAIR San Francisco Bay Area
CALAM
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
Cedar Rapids, Iowa Collaborators
Center for Independent Journalism – Romania
Center for Media Studies & Peace Building (CEMESP)
Child Rights International Network (CRIN)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Digital Rights Foundation
EFF Austin
El Instituto Panameño de Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías (IPANDETEC)
Electronic Frontier Finland
Elektronisk Forpost Norge
Foro de Periodismo Argentino
Foundation for Press Freedom – FLIP
Freedom Forum
Fundación Acceso
Fundación Ciudadano Inteligente
Fundación Datos Protegidos
Fundación Internet Bolivia.org
Fundación Vía Libre
Fundamedios – Andean Foundation for Media Observation and Study
Garoa Hacker Club
Gulf Center for Human Rights
HERMES Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights
Hiperderecho
Homo Digitalis
Human Rights Watch
Idec – Brazilian Institute of Consumer Defense
Independent Journalism Center (IJC)
Index on Censorship
Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
Instituto Nupef
International Press Centre (IPC)
Internet without borders
La Asociación para una Ciudadanía Participativa ACI Participa
MARCH
May First/People Link
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Media Rights Agenda (MRA)
Mediacentar Sarajevo
New America’s Open Technology Institute
NYC Privacy
Open MIC (Open Media and Information Companies Initiative)
OpenMedia
Pacific Islands News Association (PINA)
Panoptykon Foundation
PEN America
PEN Canada
Peninsula Peace and Justice Center
Portland TA3M
Privacy Watch
Raging Grannies
ReThink LinkNYC
Rhode Island Rights
SFLC.in
SHARE Foundation
SMEX
South East Europe Media Organisation
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
SumOfUs
Syrian Archive
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
t4tech
Techactivist.org
The Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression
Viet Tan
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
Visualizing Impact
Witness
07 Nov 18 | Burma, Campaigns -- Featured, Statements
At the recent World Economic Conference in Hanoi, Viet Nam, Aung San Suu Kyi defended the 3 September conviction and sentencing of Reuters reporters Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo and invited anyone who believes in the rule of law to point out why the judgment was problematic. 52 IFEX members and other groups have taken her up on this invitation.
Aung San Suu Kyi
State Counselor
Naypyidaw
Myanmar
Your Excellency,
Recently, at the World Economic Conference in Hanoi, Viet Nam, you defended the September 3 conviction and sentencing of Reuters reporters Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo for violating the Official Secrets Act, and invited anyone who believes in the rule of law to point out why the judgment was problematic. As a concerned group of more than 50 human rights and free expression organizations from around the world, we would like to take this opportunity to respond to your invitation and to call for Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo’s immediate and unconditional release.
First and foremost, contrary to your comments, the case is a clear attempt to restrict freedom of expression and independent journalism in Myanmar. Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were arrested on December 12, 2017, in the course of doing their job as professional journalists: investigating military operations in northern Rakhine State. Specifically, the two men were investigating a massacre that took place in the village of Inn Din, during which 10 Rohingya men and boys were summarily executed by the security forces—a crime which the military later admitted to. This investigation—which came at a time when the Myanmar military and the civilian-led government rejected mounting reports of human rights violations in northern Rakhine State—was clearly in the public interest, and still is.
The law that was then used to prosecute them—the colonial-era Official Secrets Act—is one of a number of repressive laws that have been used to prosecute journalists and stymie media freedom. The Act is broadly worded, and grants wide powers to the government to determine what classifies as a “secret”—indeed, the entire Act goes well beyond the restrictions on the right to freedom of expression which are permitted under international human rights law on the grounds of national security.
Even within the terms of the Act itself, for a conviction under Section 3.1 (c), evidence should demonstrate that the accused had in their possession secret documents that “might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy.” However, evidence and testimony presented during the pre-trial and trial hearings failed to demonstrate this was the case and instead established the following facts:
• The documents Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo are accused of possessing are not secret, but contain information already in the public domain;
• There is no evidence of intent to turn documents over to an enemy or to harm the country;
• Police testimony regarding the circumstances of their arrest was contradictory;
• Moreover, a police whistleblower credibly testified that the two journalists had been framed: namely, that police were ordered by their superiors to invite Wa Lone to a meeting so he could be handed documents and then immediately arrested;
• Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were subject to ill-treatment after their initial arrest, including incommunicado detention for two weeks, hooding, and sleep deprivation.
In summary, we believe that that Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo should never have been arrested in the first place, let alone prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned. Their trial, which was already manifestly unfair, was made more so by the repeated failure to uphold key tenets of the rule of law and to build a convincing evidence-based case against these journalists.
We therefore call on the Myanmar authorities to immediately and unconditionally release these two men, and reject the convictions against them. We further urge your government to work towards the swift review and amendment of all laws that can be used to unlawfully restrict the right to freedom of expression, so as to bring them into line with international human rights law and standards.
Yours respectfully,
PEN America
Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
Afghanistan Journalists Center (AFJC)
Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC)
Albanian Media Institute
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
ARTICLE 19
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE)
Bytes for All (B4A)
Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR)
Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Freedom Forum
Fundamedios – Andean Foundation for Media Observation and Study
Globe International Center
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
Independent Journalism Center (IJC)
Index on Censorship
Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
International Press Institute (IPI)
Mediacentar Sarajevo
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA)
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Media Rights Agenda (MRA)
Mizzima News
Norwegian PEN
OpenMedia
Pakistan Press Foundation
PEN Canada
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
South East Europe Media Organisation
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers
Amnesty International
Athan – Freedom of Expression Activist Organization
Burma Campaign UK
Civil Rights Defenders
CSW
English PEN
Equality Myanmar
Free Expression Myanmar
Myanmar Media Lawyers’ Network
Norwegian Myanmar Committee
PEN Myanmar
Society for Threatened Peoples – Germany
South East Asian Journalist Unions (SEAJU)
The Swedish Burma Committee
