Index condemns arrest of Nabeel Rajab

13 Jun 16 | About Index, Bahrain, Bahrain Statements, Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Statements

Index on Censorship condemns the arrest on Monday 13 June of human rights campaigner Nabeel Rajab in Bahrain. According to reports Rajab was charged on Tuesday 14 June with “publishing and broadcasting false news that undermines the prestige of the state” and detained for seven days.

Rajab, a former Freedom of Expression Award winner and a judge on this year’s awards, is one of the Gulf region’s most well-known human rights activists. Since the Bahraini uprising of 2011, he has been arrested on numerous occasions: he spent two years in jail between 2012 and 2014, and was arrested just months after his 2014 release for tweets in which he called Bahraini institutions “ideological incubators” for ISIS.

Rajab, president of the award-winning Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR), and a member of the advisory committee of the Human Rights Watch Middle East division, spent three months in jail for the tweets. He was rearrested on Monday, according to the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy. The reasons for the arrest were unclear.

“The harassment of Nabeel Rajab must stop. We call on the international community – and especially Bahrain’s close ally, the United Kingdom – to condemn this ongoing attempt to silence one of the region’s most highly respected human rights campaigners,” said Index chief executive Jodie Ginsberg.

Bahraini authorities have repeatedly targeted Rajab as well as other human rights campaigners and political activists. Last week, Zainab Al-Khawaja was forced into exile in Denmark. Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, her father, is serving a life sentence for his calls for democracy in Bahraini society. Her sister, Maryam Al-Khawaja, has also been harassed by the authorities and has been exiled to Denmark.

Related: Bahrain continues to use arbitrary detention as a weapon to silence critics

Index urges President Trump to speak out forcefully for press freedom

11 Jun 20 | Statements

President Donald Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500via emailDear President Trump,We are writing to you as journalists, press freedom organizations, and industry groups to express our deep dismay at the recent violence perpetrated against journalists in the United States as they have sought to report on mass protests across the country. On behalf of the 72 groups listed below, we urge you to speak out forcefully against these attacks and in support of the rights of journalists to report freely, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The United States’ history of protecting free expression and defending and protecting the rights of journalists is much admired beyond U.S. borders. This is born out of a recognition that journalists serve as independent monitors of social and political developments, and are essential to democracy, transparency, and accountability.

Attacks on journalists in the U.S. threaten to undermine this commitment. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has received reports of at least 320 violations of press freedom across the country since protests demanding an end to police brutality and calling for social justice broke out on May 26. It is vital that state and local government officials take steps to ensure such violations never happen again, and that the perpetrators are held to account.

We call on you to send a clear and unambiguous message across the country and around the world about the importance of the press freedom and work of the press. Local leaders need to hear unambiguously from you that they have a responsibility to fully investigate these attacks, protect journalists, and ensure that they can work unobstructed and without fear of injury or reprisal.

Press freedom in the United States is critical to people around the world. Thousands of foreign correspondents are based in Washington D.C. and throughout the U.S., where they are tasked with telling the story of America to their publics back home. The ability of journalists to work freely in the U.S. creates a more enlightened global citizenry.

What happens in the United States also has repercussions for journalists around the world, including American correspondents. When the U.S. backslides it sends a green light to authoritarian-leaning leaders around the world to restrict the press and the free flow of information.

Authoritarian regimes in China, Iran, and Turkey have already opportunistically spoken out about the heavy-handed police tactics used here, using the crackdown on the press in this country to legitimize their own repression of independent journalism.

Instead of condemning journalists and the media, we urge you to commend and celebrate them as the embodiment of the First Amendment, which is the envy of so many countries around the world.

Sincerely,

Acclaim Nigeria Magazine (ANM)

Afghanistan Journalists Center (AFJC)

Aliansi Jurnalis Independen (AJI) Indonesia

Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain

Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ)

ARTICLE 19

Associação Brasileira de Jornalismo Investigativo (Abraji)

Association for International Broadcasting

Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication

Bytes 4 All

Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies

Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)

Canadian Media Lawyers’ Association

Cartoonist Rights Network International (CRNI)

Centre for Law and Democracy

Centre for Media Studies and Peacebuilding (CEMESP)

Committee to Protect Journalists

Community Media Forum Europe (CMFE)

DW Akademie

Free Media Movement – Sri Lanka

Free Press Unlimited

Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI)

Fundación Gabo (Gabriel García Márquez Foundation)

Fundación para la Libertad de Prensa (FLIP)

Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD)

Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN)

Global Voices

Hong Kong Journalists Association

Independent Journalism Center

Independent Journalism Center (IJC)

Index on Censorship

Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey (IFoX)

INSI – international News Safety Institute

Institute for Regional Media and Information

Instituto Prensa y Sociedad Venezuela

International Center for Journalists (ICFJ)

International Federation of Journalists

International Media Development Advisers (IMDA)

International Media Support (IMS)

International Press Institute

International Women’s Media Foundation

Internews

Media Focus International (MFI)

Media Foundation for West Africa

Media Institute Southern Africa – Zimbabwe

Media Matters for Democracy (MMFD)

Media Watch

Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA)

Metamorphosis Foundation

Newsgain

Norwegian PEN

Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)

Pacific Islands News Association (PINA)

Pakistan Press Foundation

Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA)

PEN America

PEN International

Press Union of Liberia

Project Syndicate

Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting

Reporters Without Borders

Rory Peck Trust

Rural Media Network Pakistan

Samir Kassir Foundation – SKeyes Center for Media and Cultural Freedom

SembraMedia

Social Media Exchange (SMEX)

Somali Media Women Association (SOMWA).

South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)

South East European Network for Professionalization of Media (SEENPM)

The Center for Independent Journalism, Romania

World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC)

World Association of News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)

CC:

Vice President Michael R. Pence

Kayleigh McEnany, White House Press Secretary Ambassador

Kelly Craft, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations

Moldovan authorities need to act as the safety of journalists is threatened

03 Jul 19 | Campaigns -- Featured, Moldova, Statements

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

In the last month, the number of cases of assaults against journalists in the Republic of Moldova has been staggering and follows a troubling trend of harassment in recent years

Media and free expression NGOs around the globe condemn the assaults, intimidations and violent actions taken against at least 16 journalists during the protests and surrounding events of 7-9 June 2019 organized at Chisinau by the Democratic Party of Moldova. Over the three-day period, several media outlets published video materials broadcasting assaults against their reporters while they were in the field to document the events and inform citizens.

In one example, TV 8 reporter, Sergiu Niculita, and a cameraman were assaulted, their camera obstructed, and their microphone struck; a protester also extinguished a cigarette on the microphone sponge and damaged it. Another reporter from UNIMEDIA was assaulted and intimidated by the bodyguard of top democratic leaders, and members of the State Protection and Guarding Service when she attempted to ask the leaders of the Democratic Party questions. These are two examples of several attacks that took place during the aforementioned timeframe. Following these incidents, both Reporters without Borders and the OSCE Media Freedom Representative issued condemnations and called for action.

These intimidation tactics are part of a broader trend of harassment towards journalists over the last two years. As noted in the Independent Journalist Center (IJC)’s 2018, Moldovan Press Status Index, verbal assaults and threats against journalists continue to increase around the country, often met with a weak response, or complete lack thereof, from law enforcement bodies (pg. 50).

Our position on such attacks is unequivocal: We strongly condemn any form of verbal assault or violence against journalists.

We remind those involved that any violent behaviour against the media is a serious breach of the rights of journalists enshrined in Moldovan law. Article 20 of Moldova’s Law on Press states that journalists are guaranteed the freedom to receive and share information through media, to make audiovisual recordings, to take pictures, and to attend rallies, demonstrations and all other kind of public manifestations.

According to Article 180 of the Criminal Code, intimidation of the media or journalists in can be subject to criminal liability. The State also guarantees the defense of honor and dignity of a journalist and protects his or her health, life and property through Article 20(3) of the Law on Press.

We, the undersigned, therefore urge the international community, including international press outlets, local embassies in the Republic of Moldova, and relevant international institutions to take note of the cases attached below, and call on them to demand that authorities ensure the safety and security of journalists in the country, while investigating instances of aggression towards them.

ActiveWatch – Media Monitoring Agency
Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
ARTICLE 19
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR)
Center for Media Studies & Peace Building (CEMESP)
Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Free Media Movement
Independent Journalism Center (IJC)
Index on Censorship
Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Media Rights Agenda (MRA)
Mediacentar Sarajevo
Pacific Islands News Association (PINA)
Pakistan Press Foundation
PEN America
PEN International
Public Association “Journalists”
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
South East Europe Media Organisation
South East European Network for Professionalization of Media (SEENPM)
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1562147008234-237d82de-dce4-6″ taxonomies=”6534″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

An open letter to Mark Zuckerberg

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

1See EFF’s Who Has Your Back? 2018 Report https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2018, and Ranking Digital Rights Indicator G6, https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2018/indicators/g6/.

2 See Ranking Digital Rights, Indicators F4 https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2018/indicators/f4/, and F8, https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2018/indicators/f8/ and New America’s Open Technology Institute, “Transparency Reporting Toolkit: Content Takedown Reporting”,https://www.newamerica.org/oti/reports/transparency-reporting-toolkit-content-takedown-reporting/

3 For example, see Article 19’s policy brief, “Self-regulation and ‘hate speech’ on social media platforms,”https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Self-regulation-and-%E2%80%98hate- speech%E2%80%99-on-social-media-platforms_March2018.pdf.