27 Oct 14 | About Index, Campaigns, Mexico, Statements
María del Rosario Fuentes Rubio, best known under the pseudonym “Felina”, was kidnapped by armed men on 15 October in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas. The following day a photograph of her body was posted to her Twitter account with messages warning others to be silent.
A doctor by profession, Fuentes Rubio was a contributor to the Valor por Tamaulipas citizen information service, a website that seeks to expose violence and organised crime activities in the state. She posted under the handle @Miut3, which has since been suspended by Twitter. Fuentes Rubio actively posted alerts that pinpointed the location of violent incidents in real time. Her online activities defied the media blackout imposed by drug cartels since 2010.
“The work of individuals like Fuentes Rubio is critical in an environment where the press is muzzled by organised crime groups. Her murder is yet another blow to the right to information and to freedom of expression, and highlights the risks faced by individuals in the country who are striving to expose wrongdoings,” said Index on Censorship Chief Executive Jodie Ginsberg. “Impunity for the killing of journalists and digital activists is a threat to media and online freedom. We urge the authorities to investigate the killing thoroughly to identify and bring to justice those responsible.”
This is not the first time organised crime groups have targeted journalists and citizens who use the internet to provide information on violence and criminal activities. According to Reporters Without Borders, “four netizens were murdered in Tamaulipas in 2011 for having reported on narcotraffickers’ activities. The murders included that of María Elizabeth Macias, an influential blogger found decapitated on 24 September 2011 in Nuevo Laredo, a crime for which gangsters claimed responsibility.”
16 Oct 14 | Draw the Line, Youth Board
This month the Index Youth Advisory Board is discussing legal regimes and how they nurture or stifle the free expression of ideas. Examples of draconian laws abound: from Russia’s law banning “homosexual propaganda” to the UK’s use of RIPA legislation to violate the confidentiality of journalists’ sources.
When it comes to free speech: laws, what are they good for?
Legal frameworks protect speech and broader free expression. Take for instance Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which tells us that we all have the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Most of us, I’m sure, would cherish this right – who wouldn’t want to be able to express themselves freely and say what they like without the interference of the state?
In the United Kingdom, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act grants citizens freedom of expression. Most countries have different forms of Article 10. It is these laws – the ones that promote and protect our right to free speech – that form the crucial pillars of any democracy.
But do all laws protect our right to free speech?
Article 10 does a good job of granting us the confidence to speak out and ensure our voices are heard, but do other laws do the same? Or are there laws that, in some way, serve to restrict free speech? The example from Russia underline the use of legislation to restrict the right to expression. The law also curtails the right to assembly, another important part of a democratic society.
When you look into Article 10 itself, you begin to learn about the restrictions of the law and begin to understand how, in many ways, the state still does have authority over our freedom of expression. For example, Article 10 can be restricted “in the interests of national security” and in order to “maintain the authority of the judiciary”.
And what about the countries that don’t have specific laws that promote freedom of expression as strongly as the UK’s Article 10? Many may find it easy to conclude that countries like Iran have more laws that serve to restrict free speech, rather than protect it. It’s interesting to look at blasphemy laws in this instance to examine whether it protects the rights of those who are religious or restricts the rights of those who wish to criticise religion.
This month on Draw the Line, we discuss the impact a country’s laws have on our freedom of expression. Join the discussion and let us know whether laws serve to protect or restrict your right to free speech.
This article was posted on 16 Oct, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
13 Oct 14 | Events
For this month’s Draw the Line event, Index on Censorship held a workshop to discuss what role the police should play in encouraging or protecting freedom of expression. The debate kicked off asking if the police should have a role in protecting free speech at all. The group’s opinion varied with some thinking it was not in their remit while others thought that the police ultimately restricted free speech.
Morgan Meaker, a member of our Youth Advisory Board, then interviewed the schools officer for the London borough of Southwark on what his views were on the police’s role in protecting free speech. He suggested that it was not the responsibility of the police, but the people who make the laws which protect our human rights. When questioned about the police’s involvement in the recent arrests of several trolls on Twitter he said that if someone is breaking the law and threatening someone then the police have every right to arrest that person, but with online abuse the issues become more complicated.
This gave the group more to think about as they took on some real-world case examples and had to decide how they would respond if they were a police officer. One of the case studies covered online abuse and the other the role of police during protests. The groups carefully considered how they might handle these situations and concluded that while there were no clear cut answers that the police did have a role, but it was difficult as they couldn’t create the laws and could only enforce them.
03 Oct 14 | Campaigns, Statements
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has proved itself a vital last line of defence in protecting free speech in the UK, not least in defending a free press.
It was the European Court that ruled Britain had acted unlawfully in gagging newspapers over Spycatcher, it was the European Court that ruled in favour of a journalist punished by the UK courts for refusing to reveal a source, and it is the court in which UK legislation on mass surveillance is currently being challenged to ensure continued protection for journalists‚ and their sources.
Under extensive plans mooted by the UK’s Conservative Party, to be introduced if it won the next election, it claimed ECHR judgements would only be advisory, rather than binding. Final rulings instead would be made by the London-based Supreme Court. The party also pledged to write a new British Bill of Rights, which would reduce or qualify existing rights. They have also suggested the UK government would withdraw from the European Convention if parliament and the British courts did not have the power to overrule ECHR judgements.
Index believes that any UK government that attempts to undermine the ECHR would provide countries with appalling human right records a ready-made excuse to ignore the internationally recognised standards that the court represents.
