02 May 13 | Uncategorized
GLOBAL
Report: World Media Freedom At Low Point
Media freedom throughout the world declined last year to its lowest point in almost a decade, according to a new report from Freedom House, a U.S.-based democracy-monitoring organization. (Radio Free Europe)
CANADA
Harper Government muzzles scientists
The Harper government is facing an investigation by the Federal Information Commissioner’s Office concerning allegations of the censorship of Canadian scientists. (The Canadian)
CUBA
No freedom of speech in Cuba despite easier foreign travel
The Castro government’s easing of foreign travel restrictions on Cubans has not led to greater freedoms on the island, a leading dissident said yesterday. (Free Malaysia Today)
INDIA
No consensus on sex, violence and censorship in Bollywood
Getting directors, producers and activists into a room to figure out Indian cinema’s connection to violence toward women, rape and crudeness in society can be like a family gathering. People shout, get angry and fail to solve fundamental problems because they can’t agree on anything. (Reuters)
LIBYA
Voices in Danger: In Libya, Gaddafi’s media suppression lingers
Though Gaddafi is gone, the tools he used to stop Libyan journalists attacking him are still being used. (The Independent)
The New Libya Is Free, if You Don’t Count the Jailed Journalists
Being a journalist under the autocratic rule of Libyan dictator Moammar Qadhafi was an exercise in choice: between promoting state propaganda and spending time in jail. Now that NATO has toppled the regime, Libya is a little better at letting reporters practice their trade. But the press in Libya is by no means free. (Wired)
SOUTH KOREA
S. Korea ranks higher in terms of press freedom in 2013
How free is the press in South Korea? Well, according to the U.S.-based human rights organization Freedom House’s latest report, Korea’s level of press freedom increased this year ranking sixty-fourth out of 196 countries. (Arirang News)
SRI LANKA
World Press Freedom day, Uthayan and Freedom of Expression in Sri Lanka
This year, World Press Freedom Day focuses on themes that are particularly relevant to Sri Lanka. “Safe to Speak: Securing Freedom of Expression in All Media” and focuses on safety of journalists, combating impunity for crimes against freedom of expression, and securing a free and open Internet as the precondition for online safety. (Ground Views)
TRINIDAD
Libel laws to be amended
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar will today take a note to Cabinet to amend the laws to ensure that no journalist can be jailed under section nine of the Libel and Defamation Act for the malicious publication of any defamatory libel. (Trinidad Express)
UGANDA
We should protect freedom of expression in all media
World Press Freedom Day is celebrated every May 3 to celebrate the fundamental principles of press freedom and to honour journalists who have lost their lives in pursuit of their profession. (Daily Monitor
UNITED KINGDOM
Don’t give politicians final say on changes to press regulation system, say public
Most members of the public do not want to see politicians interfering in a new system regulating the press, new research suggests. (The Telegraph)
UNITED STATES
Black pastor uninvited from speaking at college for criticizing Obama
Rev. Kevin Johnson, senior pastor of Bright Hope Baptist Church in North Philadelphia and alumni of the famed Morehouse College in Atlanta, was scheduled to speak at the school until he criticized Barack Obama in an op-ed at the Philadelphia Tribune. As a result of that op-ed, The Blaze reported Tuesday, Johnson was uninvited by the school. (Examiner.com)
In First Amendment Case Over Afghan War Memoir, Justice Department Asks Judge to End Lawsuit
The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to conclude that a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer “has no First Amendment right to publish the information at issue” in a memoir he penned at on his service in the war in Afghanistan. (The Dissenter)
Texas House OKs measure mitigating defamation lawsuits
The Texas House has passed a bill allowing publishers to mitigate the effects of libel lawsuits if the party affected by a mistake doesn’t request a correction or retraction. (SFGate)
26 Apr 13 | Leveson Inquiry, Newswire
Yesterday’s announcement by several newspaper groups that they had launched their own royal charter for press regulation was met with anger by Hacked Off campaigners and, to be frank, confusion by the public at large.
Index, for our part, welcomed the rejection of the government’s royal charter, while still being opposed to the papers’ royal charter.
Why? Well, there’s the issue that Index doesn’t really want there to be any royal charter, at all, no matter who’s dreamt it up. It still creates the prospect of external political approval of press regulation.
There’s also a problem that the papers’ version of the charter gives them a veto over appointments to the regulatory board, which risks the regulator being seen as a tool of the industry, just as the PCC was perceived to be.
Then there’s the issue that it doesn’t really address the problem of the threat of exemplary damages for those outside the regulator, one of Index’s key concerns.
And it leaves us none the wiser as to the whole “What’s a newspaper/journalist/website/blog?” question, which has been the cause of some confusion (as illustrated by Martin Belam‘s satirical take on the government’s explanatory flowchart below).
Still, the rejection is the interesting part. And the furore over the rejection has somewhat undermined the claims made by government and campaigners that they believed in a wholly voluntary system.
What happens next? By Leveson’s own admission, if a substantial part of the industry refuses to sign up, then the regulator has failed before it has even begun. That is where we seem to be now.
It was interesting to note that in his interview on BBC radio’s World At One yesterday, Peter Wright, who has been leading the discussion for Associated, Telegraph and News International publications, said that the other papers who are not part of that group saw the alternative royal charter proposal as a way to “get the ball rolling again” on negotiations over reform. That would suggest that even Wright sees this merely as the opening gambit in fresh negotiations.
So perhaps now we can start discussing the terms of a new, genuinely independent and voluntary regulator, without the mad rush that led to the government’s ultimately botched effort.
26 Apr 13 | Leveson Inquiry
Yesterday’s announcement by several newspaper groups that they had launched their own royal charter for press regulation was met with anger by Hacked Off campaigners and, to be frank, confusion by the public at large.
Index, for our part, welcomed the rejection of the government’s royal charter, while still being opposed to the papers’ royal charter.
Why? Well, there’s the issue that Index doesn’t really want there to be any royal charter, at all, no matter who’s dreamt it up. It still creates the prospect of external political approval of press regulation.
There’s also a problem that the papers’ version of the charter gives them a veto over appointments to the regulatory board, which risks the regulator being seen as a tool of the industry, just as the PCC was perceived to be.
Then there’s the issue that it doesn’t really address the problem of the threat of exemplary damages for those outside the regulator, one of Index’s key concerns.
And it leaves us none the wiser as to the whole “What’s a newspaper/journalist/website/blog?” question, which has been the cause of some confusion (as illustrated by Martin Belam‘s satirical take on the government’s explanatory flowchart below).
Still, the rejection is the interesting part. And the furore over the rejection has somewhat undermined the claims made by government and campaigners that they believed in a wholly voluntary system.
What happens next? By Leveson’s own admission, if a substantial part of the industry refuses to sign up, then the regulator has failed before it has even begun. That is where we seem to be now.
It was interesting to note that in his interview on BBC radio’s World At One yesterday, Peter Wright, who has been leading the discussion for Associated, Telegraph and News International publications, said that the other papers who are not part of that group saw the alternative royal charter proposal as a way to “get the ball rolling again” on negotiations over reform. That would suggest that even Wright sees this merely as the opening gambit in fresh negotiations.
So perhaps now we can start discussing the terms of a new, genuinely independent and voluntary regulator, without the mad rush that led to the government’s ultimately botched effort.
04 Feb 13 | United Kingdom
Index on Censorship’s Kirsty Hughes talks to Sir Hugh Orde, one of the UK’s most senior police officers, about protest, public order and politics
(more…)
