Laws that protect our rights to read, research, debate and argue are too easily removed. Index is concerned that clauses of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security bill, now being debated in the UK’s Houses of Parliament, will diminish those rights and freedoms. It submitted this paper to parliament to ask it to consider changes to the proposed bill.
Index on Censorship is a London-based campaigning organisation supporting freedom of expression internationally since 1972. Founded to publish writings banned within the Soviet Union and beyond, we publish censored writing from around the world in our quarterly internationally read magazine and monitor and map media freedom in 43 countries. We are globally recognised as a leading authority on freedom of expression. While our focus is international, we have always also covered the UK, and we have concerns about the restrictions on free expression that are implied by the Counter-terrorism and Border Control Bill.
We would be pleased to be able to give oral evidence, and Rachael Jolley, editor of the Index on Censorship magazine, would be available, if invited to any of the planned oral evidence sessions.
We shall raise concerns, in particular, about the extension of anti-terrorist legislation to the expression of opinion or belief in Clause 1 of the Bill, and the potential stifling of legitimate journalistic, academic and other research into the opinions, methods and aims of terrorist organisations contained in Clause 3. We are also alarmed by the potential discouragement of legitimate journalistic inquiry that may result from the extension of already significant sentencing maximums in clause 6 and chapter 2 of the Bill.
The first priority of governments is said to be the security of their peoples. Yet that security exists not as an end in itself but as a means to enabling peoples to live freely. Free expression is vital to living in freedom. It creates the space for the exchange of ideas in the arts, literature, religion, academia, politics and science, and is essential for other rights like freedom of conscience. Without free expression, ideas cannot be tested. Without free expression, individuals cannot make informed decisions. Parliament itself recognises this concept in its claim for itself, on each election, to the privilege of freedom of speech in debate without fear of arrest or hindrance, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of 1689.
Free expression is also a universal human right enshrined in international law and in UK law. Article 19 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” The Prime Minister has spoken of her pride in the heritage of freedom of expression in this country and called it a fundamental British value. As was noted in the conclusion to the Handyside v United Kingdom case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1976: “Freedom of expression…is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population”.
It is our contention that Clause 1 of the Bill raises conflicts with those principles by introducing a new offence that outlaws a person who “expresses an opinion or belief”. No matter how vile, offensive, disagreeable and wrong an opinion or belief may be, we have the Article 10 right “to hold opinions … without interference by public authority”. The Bill seeks to distinguish between holding an opinion (legitimate) and expressing it (illegitimate in the circumstances envisaged in the Bill). This, we believe is a distinction without a difference, and it potentially crosses the line into the policing of thought. The former DPP Ken MacDonald wrote in Index on Censorship (vol37/3/08): “The mere fact that someone holds an opinion can never be a reason to prosecute. You can think what you like.” But without the right to express a thought or belief, freedom of expression would be meaningless. The right to express an opinion is fundamental. Clause 1 would prove him wrong by creating a reason to prosecute someone simply for expressing an opinion.
Ken MacDonald wrote that our response to terrorism must be to strengthen our liberal institutions, rather than degrade them, a position that Index would echo when considering the amendments to the Terrorism Act 2000 contained within this new Bill.
Clause 1 makes it a criminal offence to express an opinion or belief in support of a proscribed organisation and be reckless as to whether that would influence others to do so. In the same Index on Censorship magazine on Extremism, the former Attorney-General Dominic Grieve MP wrote: “If the Irish Taoiseach made a speech about the Easter Rising as a glorious moment in Irish history, and if you have someone who happened to be a member of the Real IRA and it motivated them to go on with some unfinished business, could the Taoiseach be arrested?” That would be absurd. Yet, for a UK citizen, it could be the effect of introducing Clause 1 of this Bill 10 years later.
The new Bill’s explanatory notes make it clear that Clause 1 has been drafted in response to comments by the judges in the appeal of Choudary and Rahman that the existing offences in the Terrorism Act 2000 do not prohibit the holding of an opinion. The Government appears to have interpreted that as meaning that opinions with which it disagrees should be prohibited and criminalised. Since the Terrorism Act 2000 powers were sufficient to result in prison sentences for Choudary and Rahman without being bolstered by the new and disquieting power proposed in Clause 1, we argue that it is unnecessary as well as alarming, and we propose, in the attached suggested amendments to the Bill, that Clause 1 be left out of it. The proposed Clause (1A) is also clumsily worded – whose expression or belief does 1A(a) apply to? Moreover, how can a two-stage test of recklessness apply to firstly, encouraging another person to secondly, support a proscribed organisation? This imposes a test of prophecy not recklessness.
We are similarly concerned that Clause 3 extends already existing powers further than is tolerable in a free society. The clause makes it an offence to download or stream material likely to be useful to a terrorist if done three times. Our concern is the potential restrictive and frightening effect on researchers, students, academics and journalists, among others, who are researching case studies, making arguments and carrying out interviews. The act of researching information using the internet, or any other method, should not be a criminal act. We propose an amendment below to the Bill to provide a clear exemption from the clause’s provisions for those whose purposes in downloading or streaming material are not motivated by terrorist intent. Simply stating that a defence available is not enough. Without this addition, you are creating a climate of self-censorship for researchers and journalists who would fear that their legitimate work would put them at a risk of a significant, expensive and time consuming court case, and would therefore not carry out that work. The media’s capacity to operate should not be unduly restricted. In this regard, as stated in the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, “The media plays a crucial role in informing the public about acts of terrorism and its capacity to operate should not be unduly restricted. Journalists should not be penalized for carrying out their legitimate activities”.
Finally, we are concerned about the impact on legitimate research and journalistic inquiry of the extension of maximum sentences proposed for various offences in Clause 6 of the Bill, in particular those provisions relating to collection of information and publishing and communicating information (subsections (2) and (3)).
We support this by noting that the Terrorism Act 2000, whose maximum sentences this Bill seeks to increase, has been used to seek to pursue journalists who have published legitimate stories or to require them to give up their sources. For example, the 2000 Act was used to prosecute reporters such as Newsnight’s Richard Watson, and the investigative reporter and author Shiv Malik, when reporting on Islamists or violent extremism.
Watson and the BBC spent six months fighting proceedings to oppose what they thought were vague police orders requiring them to produce a wide range of materials. A journalist working for a smaller organisation or as a freelance would have far less support than Watson had, and therefore would have come under pressure to avoid “difficult” stories even when they had a clear public interest, because of the huge financial and personal risk.
Police took Malik to court using Section 38 and 19 of the Terrorism Act, for withholding information that could be relevant to a terrorist investigation. As Malik told Index on Censorship, you “have to raise thousands of pounds and you drag your family through turmoil”. To risk those takes a certain type of strength and determination that many will not have, therefore threatening that as a society will be unable to see important journalism that would be valuable. The current law threatens 10 years in prison; the Bill would extend that to 15. We believe this may have a negative impact on legitimate inquiry in a free society.
Governments around the world are responding to very real threats of terrorism. Index on Censorship is fully conscious of the effects of terror: journalists have been silenced by murder in many of the countries we map and monitor. We know that the balance between security and freedom is a hard one to achieve.
The legislation many countries use, however, tends to have negative impacts on civil liberties and democracy. We are all too aware of how laws intended to maintain the conditions of freedom can be used, and abused, to stifle freedom of expression, opinion and belief. The UK government should not follow the example of, for one, Turkey, but should instead ensure that security serves to ensure that freedoms for all are upheld.
As the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Max Hill has said: “Weakening human rights laws will not make us safer. Terrorists cannot take away our freedoms – and we must not do so ourselves.” This is something we should keep at the heart of this debate, and never forget.
Our proposed amendments to the Bill are as follows:
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out Clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
Leaving out the Clause would prevent the criminalisation of expression of an opinion or belief.
Clause 3, page 2, line 15, at end, leave out “.”’, and add – “, provided that the act is intended to provide practical assistance to person who prepares or commits an act of terrorism.”
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would avoid the possibility of legitimate researchers, academics, journalists, or others being caught by the offence of downloading or streaming material likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
Clause 6*, page 3, line 27, delete subsections (2) and (3).
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would keep at 10 years’ imprisonment the maximum sentence for offences involving collection of information, and eliciting, publishing or communicating certain types of information.
*An earlier version mistakenly referred to Clause 5, this was edited on 27/July/2018
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Seventeen international freedom of expression and professional organisations have sent a joint letter with their demands for how to protect and strengthen media freedom and independent journalism in Turkey to all candidates in the upcoming presidential elections :
Your term starts in critical times. Freedom of expression in particular has declined drastically in the last couple of years in your country. To this day, more than 150 journalists remain in prison, thousands of critical thought leaders have lost their jobs and a large number of them have left the country.
We, the undersigned international freedom of expression and professional organisations, ask you to prioritise the following points in the upcoming term to uphold the rule of law and to protect and strengthen media freedom and independent journalism in Turkey:
– release all journalists who have been imprisoned for exercising their right to freedom of expression and their journalistic work and drop all charges against them.
– restore the impartiality of the judiciary and ensure the functioning of the Constitutional Court by refraining from exerting any political pressure on it and guaranteeing the implementation of its decisions.
– reform the system of criminal law that is currently being abused in order to prosecute and jail journalists, specifically the Penal Code and the Anti-Terror Law, which are among the main obstacles to freedom of the press and freedom of expression in Turkey.
– de-centralise and end state control of the regulation of media. Let media policy and media regulation processes be implemented by journalist associations, media representatives and academics, in compliance with the jurisprudence of the ECtHR.
– support the independence and pluralism of the media by redesigning ownership restrictions, support public broadcasting media to become free from political and economic interference, ensure media pluralism by subsidising small independent local media. Legal, political and administrative measures must be adopted to ensure free and fair competition in the media.
– reform and monitor the Press and Advertising Agency (Basın İlan Kurumu) to ensure that independent newspapers are not deprived of public advertising revenue. The appointment of media and internet regulatory bodies such as RTÜK and BTK should be transparent and must answer to the principles of media independence and freedom.
17 uluslararası ifade hürriyeti kuruluşu, basın özgürlüğü ve bağımsız gazeteciliğin korunarak güçlendirilmesi adına taleplerini içeren ortak bir açık mektup yazarak 24 Haziran öncesi tüm cumhurbaşkanı adaylarıyla paylaştı.
“Döneminiz çok kritik bir zamanda başlıyor. Ülkenizde ifade hürriyeti özellikle son iki yılda büyük bir gerilemeye maruz kaldı. Bugüne kadar 150 gazeteci hapsedilmiş, binlerce muhalif fikir önderi işinden edilmiş ve çoğu ülkeyi terk etmiştir.
Biz aşağıda imzası bulunan uluslararası ifade hürriyeti kuruluşları olarak, önümüzdeki dönemde hukukun üstünlüğünü temel ilke edinerek ve Türkiye’de basın özgürlüğü ve bağımsız gazeteciliğin korunarak güçlendirilmesi için şu hususları öncelikli olarak dikkate almanızı rica ediyoruz:
-ifade hürriyeti hakkını kullanmış ve görevini yaptığı için hapsedilmiş tüm gazeteciler tahliye edilerek haklarında açılmış tüm davalar düşürülmeli,
-şu an gazetecileri yargılamak için kullanılan ceza hukukunda, özellikle de Türkiye’de basın özgürlüğü ve ifade hürriyeti önündeki ana engellerden olan Türk Ceza Kanunu ve Terörle Mücadele Yasasında bir reform yapılmalı,
-medya üzerinde devlet denetimini sonlandırılmalı ve yetkiler sorumlu kurumlara dağıtılmalı. Basın yasasının ve medyayı ilgilendiren düzenlemelerin gazetecilik kurumları, basın temsilcileri, akademisyenler tarafından Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi yönetmelikleriyle uyumlu şekilde uygulanması sağlanmalı,
-bağımsız gazetecilik ve basında çoğulculuğu, medya sahipliği önündeki kısıtlamaları kaldırarak, kamu yayını yapan medya organlarının siyasi ve ekonomik müdahalelerden arındırılmasıyla, küçük ölçekli bağımsız yerel medya organlarına mali destek sağlayıp medyada çoğulculuğu sağlayarak desteklenmeli. Basında özgür ve adil bir ortam oluşturulabilmesi için gerekli yasal, siyasi ve idari adımlar atılmalı,
-bağımsız gazetelerin kamu reklam gelirlerinden mahrum kalmamasını sağlamak adına Basın İlan Kurumu reform edilerek denetlenmeli. RTÜK ve BTK gibi medya ve internet denetimi yapan kurumlara yapılan atamalarda şeffaflık olmalı ve basının bağımsızlığı ve özgürlüğü ilkelerine tabi olmalıdır.
20 Haziran 2018
İlginiz için teşekkür ederiz
Saygılarımızla,
Alman Yazarlar Birliği
Amerikan Yazarlar Birliği
Avrupa Basın ve Medya Özgürlüğü Merkezi ECPMF
Avrupa Gazeteciler Derneği AEJ
Avrupa Gazeteciler Federasyonu EFJ
Danimarka Yazarlar Birliği
Dünya Gazeteler ve Haber Yayıncıları Derneği WAN-IFRA
Global Editors Network GEN
Güneydoğu Avrupa Medya Kurumu
Index on Censorship
International Press Institute IPI
İsveç Yazarlar Birliği
Norveç Yazarlar Birliği
Ossigeno per l’Informazione
Sınır Tanımayan Gazeteciler RSF
Transeuropa – Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso OBCT
Uluslararası Karikatürist Hakları Ağı CRNI[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Turkey” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”55″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]We the undersigned call on Bahraini authorities to drop all charges and ensure the immediate and unconditional release of Sheikh Ali Salman, Secretary-General of Bahrain’s largest political opposition society, al-Wefaq National Islamic Society, who has been serving a four-year prison sentence for charges in response to political speeches he delivered in 2014, and who is now facing a potential death sentence in a groundless new trial on politically motivated charges.
Since his incarceration in 2014, several international bodies have spoken out against the imprisonment of Sheikh Ali Salman. On 30 December 2014, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) spokesperson urged Bahrain to immediately release Sheikh Ali Salman as well as all other persons convicted or detained for “merely exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly.” In addition, the European Union expressed concern about the sentence issued against Sheikh Ali Salman, and the United States Ambassador to the United Nations called the sentence against Sheikh Ali Salman a blow to freedom of expression.
However, despite the growing concern over the silencing of Sheikh Ali Salman and the subsequent 2017 dissolution of the political opposition society al-Wefaq, Bahraini authorities announced on 27 November 2017 the start of a new trial against him on charges of spying for Qatar.
The latest trial against Sheikh Ali Salman reinforces the closing of democratic space in the country; as the 2018 elections for Bahrain’s lower house of parliament approach, the government has forcibly dissolved Wa’ad, the largest secular leftist society, and indefinitely suspended Bahrain’s only independent newspaper Al-Wasat, in addition to upholding its arbitrary decision in 2017 to dissolve the political opposition society al-Wefaq.
On 24 April 2018, the High Criminal Court adjourned the new trial against Sheikh Ali Salman until 21 June, when it is expected to issue a verdict in the case. The Public Prosecution Office has called on the High Criminal Court to hand down the “maximum penalty” – which in this case could be a death sentence.
NGOs have decried this use of the judiciary to punish opposition activists for publicly expressing views that oppose the Bahraini government. The trial is in violation of Sheikh Ali Salman’s rights to liberty, fair trial, free expression, and free association.
We, the undersigned, call on Bahraini authorities to:
1. Drop all charges and ensure the immediate and unconditional release of Sheikh Ali Salman and the cancellation of the sentence issued against him in the previous case;
2. Stop prosecution of political dissidents and human rights activists for reasons related to freedom of expression;
3. Stop the arbitrary use of domestic legislation, including some articles of the Penal Code and the Law on the Protection of Society from Terrorist Acts, to criminalize the peaceful practice of freedom of opinion and expression;
4. Release all detainees who have been arrested for reasons related to exercising their fundamental rights to expression, organisation and peaceful assembly guaranteed by international laws.
Bahrain Interfaith
Danish Pen
Global Human Rights Geneva
MENA Monitoring Group
No Peace Without Justice
Salam for Democracy and Human Rights
Vivarta Limited[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.
Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook) and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter, our monthly events email and periodic updates about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share, sell or transfer your personal information with anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1529484624151-5c87189d-f27a-5″ taxonomies=”6534″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article is part of Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist’s Project Exile series, which has published interviews with exiled journalists from around the world.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
Egyptian journalist Abdullah Elshamy
“I face probably a life sentence or maybe even worse. The idea of not being able to go back to your own country…is just heartbreaking.”
For a time, journalist Abdullah Elshamy was the face of resistance in Egypt.
After then-army chief Gen. Abdel Fatah el-Sissi led a coup, in July 2013, toppling the democratically-elected president Mohammed Morsi, major street protests against the military took place in Cairo.
Elshamy, who is originally from Beheira in the Nile Delta, was a correspondent working for Al Jazeera at the time. He had only recently returned to Egypt from an assignment in Nigeria to cover the unrest.
On Aug. 14 of that year, Elshamy was covering a sit-in near the Rabaa al-Adawiya mosque when security forces began to open fire. More than 800 people were left dead at Rabaa and one other protest site in Cairo in what Human Rights Watch has called the “world’s largest killings of demonstrators in a single day in recent history.”
Elshamy managed to avoid the bullets, but he and hundreds of others were arrested as crowds fled the area around the mosque. Elshamy was taken to prison and held without trial for months.
Losing hope, in January 2014 Elshamy decided to begin a hunger strike. Over the next several months, he would lose about 88 pounds (40 kg). His case garnered international headlines, especially after he managed to record a dire video from inside jail on the 106th day of his hunger strike and have it smuggled out. “If anything happens to my safety, I hold the Egyptian regime with the responsibility of that,” he said on the video.
Update: In September 2018 am Egyptian court sentenced Abdullah Elshamy in absentia to 15 years in prison.
Efforts by prison authorities to force-feed him and punish him by placing him in solitary confinement failed. In June 2014 Egyptian prosecutors decided to release him because of his declining health. Elshamy was met outside the prison by a throng of family members, supporters and the press.
“I have won,” he told the cameras. “And everybody who is a freedom fighter, either a journalist or anyone doing his work credibly and with honesty has won. This experience has changed my life.”
Elshamy soon moved to Qatar and resumed work for the Qatari-owned al-Jazeera, which Egyptian prosecutors brought charges against him in absentia, as well as against hundreds of others imprisoned after the 2013 demonstrations. A verdict in the trial is expected in the coming months.
Meanwhile, press freedom in Egypt has not improved under el-Sissi, who has been president since 2014. More than 35 journalists and bloggers are in prison in the country, according to Reporters Without Borders.
Now 29, Elshamy lives in Doha and hosts the monthly investigative show “Eyewitness” for Al Jazeera’s Arabic channel. Nearly four years after his release, Elshamy spoke with Global Journalist’s Taylor Campbell about his ordeal and the consequences of exile. Below, an edited version of their interview:
Global Journalist: What happened in the lead-up to your arrest?
Elshamy: Back in 2013 I was working as a reporter for al-Jazeera when the events started taking place in Egypt, the tensions between the president [Morsi] and the army. Just a few days before the military coup took place in Egypt on the 3rd of July 2013, I was asked by management to go from Nigeria where I was stationed, to Cairo, to be able to cover events.
I never had in my wildest dreams [thought] things would end up like that. I mean, I covered more serious and dangerous things. Before this I was in Libya during the [civil] war back in 2011 and I was also in Mali when the [2013] French intervention happened in the north of the country. So it was for me, probably just another round of demonstrations and things would cool down eventually and the politics would work out.
So I went there and I covered the events from both sides. Things went on for several weeks [after the coup] until the army and the police moved in on the demonstrations on the eastern side of Cairo.
On the 14th of August 2013, the army and the police were detaining everyone coming out of [the Rabaa al-Adawiya] area. I was among those arrested.
And from that point, from the 14th of August 2013 until the 18th of June 2014, I was put in detention without trial.
GJ: How did being a journalist affect your time in prison?
Elshamy: At the beginning, they didn’t know I was a journalist because I tried not to mention that. I feared there might be a severe response if they found out.
When the authorities [learned] I was a journalist it didn’t actually change much. It made them put more restrictions on my time in prison. They monitored the letters I got and the visits from my family. But at they put me among the demonstrators that were arrested on that day. They insisted I was a criminal, not a journalist.
There were I would say, focused attacks on me because when they found out I was a journalist at al-Jazeera, relations between Egypt and Qatar were not the best. I was harassed by the guards because they thought of me as a spy.
Nothing made sense at that point…I was not the only journalist in prison. One of my colleagues [Mahmoud Abu Zeid, better known as Shawkan], is a freelance photojournalist who was detained on the same day with me, and up until this day he is in prison.
Shawkan is a freelance photojournalist detained in Egypt since 14 August 2013, he was my cell mate and he doesn’t deserve death as the prosecution demanded. #MyPicForShawkanpic.twitter.com/PK9SvSpeRJ
GJ: Tell us about the hunger strike and how it led to your release.
Elshamy: The last week of January 2014 I decided I was going on a hunger strike, because I was in prison at that point for five months and nothing was happening in terms of my release. My lawyers gave several documents to prove I was [at the protest] doing my work. They’d requested I be released on bail.
When I decided that I was going on hunger strike, the prison authorities at the beginning…they made fun of the whole thing. But then when it was March and I was losing weight and my health was not the best, the Ministry of Interior thought that they would start to intimidate me into giving up on the whole thing.
It eventually came to the point where the prison’s manager, an assistant of the minister himself, came to see me and said: “This is not good. What are you doing? You are young, your health isn’t going to take it.”
Eventually, when they found out that I wasn’t giving up on the hunger strike, I was sent to a maximum security prison for the next five weeks before my release.
That was the hardest part of the whole prison experience because I only saw my family once in those five weeks. I was kept in a solitary confinement cell. I wasn’t allowed to see anyone. Even when I was given time to walk out of my cell, it was at the end of the day while all the other inmates in the ward were not present. It was psychological pressure. They thought maybe this would break me down.
GJ: How is life for you now?
Elshamy: Although I was released four years ago, I’m still being tried in absentia. I cannot go back to Egypt. I risk being arrested and it’s kind of a dead end for me at this point. As the trial approaches its end, I face probably a life sentence or maybe even worse. The idea of not being able to go back to your own country is just heartbreaking.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/tOxGaGKy6fo”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist is a website that features global press freedom and international news stories as well as a weekly radio program that airs on KBIA, mid-Missouri’s NPR affiliate, and partner stations in six other states. The website and radio show are produced jointly by professional staff and student journalists at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism, the oldest school of journalism in the United States. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.
Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook). We’ll send you our weekly newsletter, our monthly events update and periodic updates about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share, sell or transfer your personal information to anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”6″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”2″ element_width=”12″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1542640554551-b7c870c1-3f87-6″ taxonomies=”22142″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
