20 Jan 2017 | Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In recent years, there has been a perceptible increase in far-reaching restrictions on the media across the globe. This impulse to restrain media freedom stems from a variety of real and perceived “threats” – from concerns about national security, to demands for media “ethics” and “responsibility”, to accusations of the media’s role in the dissemination of so-called “fake news”, most recently. The urge of states to regulate is also reinforced by the overall devaluation of the critical role played by a free and independent media across liberal democracies around the world.
The trend towards ramping up the regulation of the media has worrying implications in these states and others who are currently considering a similar response: the inability of the media to perform its role as a – if not, the – key public watchdog, the erosion of states’ international legal obligations and political commitments on freedom of expression, and a lessening of freedom of the media as a whole.
Under international law, specifically Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, states do not have free reign to control the media. Limitations on media freedom, as an aspect of freedom of expression, are allowed only in certain, narrowly defined circumstances, such as national security or the protection of privacy. However, a great many governments are currently approaching media regulation as though restrictions may be imposed at the complete discretion of states regardless of international law and commitments.
[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner content_placement=”top”][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”black” size=”lg” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
The trend towards ramping up the regulation of the media has worrying implications
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]There have been moves to exert political control over how the media is regulated in a number of OSCE participating states. Take, for example, the January 2016 decision by Poland in a move reminiscent of Hungary’s media law reforms of 2012, to enact a law handing over the power to appoint and dismiss members of management boards of public service broadcasters, Polski Radio and Telewizja Polska, from the National Broadcasting Council to the government. I warned, before the adoption, that the legislation “endanger[s] the basic conditions of independence, objectivity and impartiality of public service broadcasters”.
Anxieties about the effects of media regulation on media freedom are not limited to transitional or newer democracies, however, as the recent debate around the implementation of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 in the UK, a traditional bastion of press freedom, suggests. As I have noted, the commencement of the provision would have punitive effects on the press for reporting on public interest issues in the UK, and have an especially onerous impact up on local and regional newspapers who are already facing significant financial challenges. It would also mean that the UK as a long-standing bastion of press freedom would send out a negative message to other states on the possibilities to regulation.
The picture is not all bad, of course. Some states have made significant positive strides in advancing freedom of the media by engaging with my office on legislative amendments, such as the government of the Netherlands on its draft Law on the Intelligence and Security Services, while others have shown advances in terms of case-law, such as Norway on the protection of sources.
Unfortunately, however, the dominant trend is a regressive one – towards control of the media rather than the reinforcement of it through, among other things, the promotion of media self-regulation and pluralism. This tendency of states to try and control the media is not just a matter of concern for my office, other international institutions, the media itself and civil society organisations. It is one that should worry all those who care about democratic values, the rule of law and human rights.
Dunja Mijatović is the Representative on Freedom of the Media for the OSCE, based in Vienna.[/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:1484907257319-fb6254e3-0fad-6″ taxonomies=”6380″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
11 Dec 2016 | Index in the Press
Karen Bradley, our newish secretary for culture, media and sport, has an infernal December dilemma to solve. No, not the relatively simple business of seeing Rupert gobble all Sky TV. She’s over halfway through her 10-week consultation on the future of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act: the currently dormant provisions that could land an outraged press with the full, crippling costs of libel actions even when they win. Does she stick or does she twist? Read the full article
23 Aug 2016 | Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Media Freedom, Statements
Index on Censorship welcomes the delay in the Royal Charter recognition of Impress by the Press Regulation Panel and hopes it provides an opportunity for further consultation. We are extremely concerned that recognition of Impress has the potential to introduce punitive measures for small publishers and to stifle investigative journalism. We are also concerned that about the transparency of its funding. These are factors that threaten freedom of the press.
We hope the decision today gives an opportunity for a rethink.
Index remains concerned that, aside from the Royal Charter, other elements of legislation introduced in the wake of the Leveson Report represent a threat to media freedom. One of the most worrying of these is Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which sets out that an organisation which does not join a recognised regulator but falls under its remit (through being considered a “relevant publisher”) will potentially become subject to exemplary damages should they end up in court, and could also be forced to pay the costs of their opponents.
|
Such measures could be especially punitive for small publishers and news organisations with limited financial means.
|
|
There are two principles here that threaten a free press. Firstly, that in effect joining a regulator becomes less than voluntary if you have the threat of punitive damages hanging over your head. Secondly, that those who do not join and therefore feel under threat of exemplary damages will skirt away from controversial subjects and investigative journalism, and opt instead for “safe” stories.
Such measures could be especially punitive for small publishers and news organisations with limited financial means. This has a damaging effect on free expression. Supporters of this aspect of the act argue that exemplary damages would only apply to “reckless” action by journalists, but it is possible that a court could find that a breach of Article 8 rights to privacy and reputation was by definition “reckless” even when a journalist was pursuing an investigative news story in the public interest.”
Impress said in January it would accept donations of £3.8 million to cover the first four years of expenditure, which have been reported as coming almost exclusively from The Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust. The organisation’s own website provides only scant information about its current funding.
Although Impress has said it would not “be beholden to anyone” and that a charity would act as “buffer” between any donor from which it receives funds, the idea that a single wealthy individual should control the purse strings for a supposedly independent regulator should strike fear into the hearts of those who believe in a free press.
Index, a small publisher since 1972, has not signed up to a regulator.
21 October 2016: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that section 42 (3) of the Crime and Courts Act sets out that an organisation under its remit could be subject to damages if it does not join a recognised regulator.
4 Jul 2025 | Africa, Algeria, Americas, Asia and Pacific, China, Europe and Central Asia, France, India, News and features, United Kingdom, United States
In the age of online information, it can feel harder than ever to stay informed. As we get bombarded with news from all angles, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at the complete shutdown of USAID, and the imprisonment of a French football journalist in Algeria.
The end of an era: USAID closes its doors
After six decades, USAID – the world’s largest humanitarian aid agency – has been completely shut down. Following an increasing number of funding cuts, restrictions and staff layoffs that left it with only 20% of its agency programmes still running by March, the Trump administration has ordered USAID to be absorbed into the US state department, under the control of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Founded in 1961 under President John F Kennedy with the goal of fighting extreme poverty, disease and fostering democratic societies around the world, USAID also supported initiatives protecting free expression – like in Uganda, where crucial shelters and aid for LGBTQ+ citizens has been withdrawn, leaving them at the mercy of ever-increasing government crackdowns on their community. Such initiatives were criticised by Rubio, who described USAID as inefficient and stated that Americans will no longer “pay taxes to fund failed governments in faraway lands“. The state department will look to ensure that any foreign spending “prioritises national interests” to align with Trump’s “America First” approach.
The move has been condemned by former presidents Barack Obama and George W Bush; Obama stated at a video conference with USAID workers that “Gutting USAID is a travesty, and it’s a tragedy. Because it’s some of the most important work happening anywhere in the world”.
A Lancet study estimates that by 2030, roughly 14 million lives will have been lost as a result of USAID’s dismantling.
Arrested for sport: French football journalist imprisoned for seven years in Algeria
Prominent French football journalist Christophe Gleizes has been sentenced to seven years in prison by an Algerian court.
Gleizes, who was in Algeria to report on football clubs Jeunesse Sportive de Kabylie (JSK) and Mouloudia Club d’Alger, was held in the country for 13 months following his arrest on 28 May 2024. He has been charged with “glorifying terrorism” and “possessing publications for propaganda purposes harmful to national interests”, charges that Reporters Without Borders have described as “shockingly unfounded” and “nonsensical”.
Gleizes allegedly corresponded three times with an individual who was a prominent figure at JSK, but is now the leader of Movement for Self-Determination of Kabylia (MAK); a separatist group dedicated to independence of the Kabylia region of Algeria and the Kabyle people, a minority group in the country. They were proscribed as a terrorist organisation by Algeria in 2021.
RSF have stated that two of the three interactions with this person were before MAK’s proscription, and that all discussions were purely related to football. So Foot, a French Football magazine to whom Gleizes would regularly contribute, stated that he was “imprisoned for doing his job”.
No freedom to write: Women arrested in China for writing gay erotica
Female authors in China are being targeted and arrested for writing danmei – homosexual erotic novels, largely written for a straight female audience. It has garnered a strong following amongst young Chinese women in recent years, but at least 30 danmei authors have been arrested in China since February 2025, accused of breaking China’s law against “producing and distributing obscene material”.
The law specifically targets “explicit descriptions of gay sex or other sexual perversions”, meaning that similar novels depicting heterosexual relations are often subjected to far less scrutiny. Authors who earn a profit from such material could face up to 10 years in prison, while any online work that garners more than 5,000 views is seen as “criminal distribution”.
Public backlash has been significant despite censorship around the topic. Chinese social media websites Weibo and WeChat have both seen discussions and articles critical of China’s anti-obscenity laws swiftly taken down. Xi Jinping has overseen increasing crackdowns on LGBTQ+ expression in recent years, calling for the “purification” of the internet, and in 2021 China’s National Radio and Television Administration issued a directive banning the appearance of “effeminate men” on screen.
State-sanctioned truth: Proposed jail terms for fake news in India
Legislation has been drafted in India that would see up to seven years’ jail time for those deemed to be spreading “fake news”. Proposed by the state of Karnataka, a prominent tech-hub state in southwest India, the Misinformation And Fake News (Prohibition) Bill outlines that posting fake news, “anti-feminist” content or “promoting superstition” would be subject to fines and imprisonment, but has not yet specifically defined what these offences entail.
Misinformation and fake news have been rampant online in India for years, with AI generated reports, deepfakes and lies causing major problems in a country with over 1 billion internet users. But this new proposal has raised concerns among free speech advocates over how it would be implemented, risking selective enforcement and honest mistakes being met with judicial punishment.
Apar Gupta, founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation who first made the draft legislation public, argued that misinformation is subjective in some cases, and that “every person who uses the internet is susceptible to falling within the dragnet of this law“. An opinion piece in The Deccan Herald, an Indian-English publication based in Karnataka, slammed the legislation as “anti-democratic” and a “remedy worse than the menace”.
UK book ban: Trans books removed from children’s sections across UK council
A Reform UK councillor at Kent County Council has announced that he has ordered the removal of all transgender-related literature from the childrens’ section of libraries in the county based on a single complaint from a “concerned member of the public”. The ban will affect 99 libraries and five mobile library vans.
Reform UK’s communities portfolio holder Paul Webb, who has responsibility for libraries, compared transgender literature to “alcohol, cigarettes and gambling” in terms of potential damage to children and stated that they should be protected from “potentially harmful ideologies and beliefs such as those held by the trans lobbyists.” Kent County Council leader Linden Kemkaran described it as a “victory for common sense in Kent”.
LGBTQ+ activists have expressed deep concern over the decision. Erin Strawbridge, manager of an LGBTQ+ bookshop in Folkestone, Kent, told the BBC that the ban “pushes kids into the closet, into worse mental health situations”. Liberal Democrat opposition leader Anthony Hook said that “it feels like an act of bullying towards a small, vulnerable group of people”, and that “We risk becoming a narrow-minded society if we limit what individuals choose to read.”
