You searched for exhibit b - Page 7 of 101

Free speech & the law: Obscene Publications

21 Jan 20 | Campaigns -- Featured, Free Speech and the Law, United Kingdom

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579268532812{margin-bottom: 30px !important;background-color: #f5f5f5 !important;}”]Please note: This is part of a series of guides produced by Index on Censorship on the laws related to freedom of expression in England and Wales. They are intended to help understand the protections that exist for free speech and where the law currently permits restrictions.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]This guide is available to download as a PDF here.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”112007″ img_size=”large” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][vc_custom_heading text=”1. Obscene publications offences explained” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes” el_id=”ct1″][vc_column_text]It is nearly 300 years since bookseller Edmund Curll was convicted in 1727 on a charge of obscenity in an English court for his publication of the mildly pornographic Venus in the Cloister or The Nun in Her Smock. Obscenity was thereafter recognised as a crime under common law. Since then, the definition of obscenity has narrowed from the broad concept under common law of engendering “revulsion, disgust or outrage” (although this remains the definition of obscenity for the offence of outraging public decency) to the notoriously vague current definition under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 of “tending to deprave and corrupt”.

Obscenity law is concerned with protecting “public morals” – it seeks to steer people away from immoral or criminal behaviour and vice. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has recognised that convictions under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 – which criminalises publishing “obscene” material – interfere with individuals’ rights to free expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, in the 1972 case of Richard Handyside v United Kingdom, the ECtHR acknowledged that prosecutions under the act were permissible under the restrictions set out in Article 10(2) of the ECHR where freedom of expression can be restricted to protect “morals in a democratic society.”[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

What does Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights say?

Article 10(2) says that the right to freedom of expression “carries with it duties and responsibilities”. Because of this, the right to free expression may be subject to restrictions and conditions that are necessary in a democratic society and are set out clearly in the law. To be valid, any restrictions must be for one or more of the following purposes: national security, public safety, territorial integrity, preventing crime or disorder, protecting health or morals, protecting the reputation or rights of others, preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, and for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579616809073{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #44573b !important;}”]

Case study: Richard Handyside and The Little Red Schoolbook

The Richard Handyside case was about The Little Red Schoolbook. This was a book intended for teenagers written by two Danish authors and intended to be published in the UK by Handyside, the owner of publishing house Stage 1. It had chapters on education, learning, teachers, pupils and “the system”. However, it also had a section on sex, which contained sub-sections on masturbation, orgasm, intercourse and petting, contraceptives, wet dreams, menstruation, child molesters or “dirty old men”, pornography, homosexuality and impotence. There were also references to smoking pot and references to porn as “a harmless pleasure”. In March 1971, the Daily Mirror, The Sunday Times and The Daily Telegraph published accounts of the book’s contents, leading to a number of complaints to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who asked the police to investigate. Following a criminal trial, Handyside was convicted of possessing 1,208 obscene books for publication for gain. He was fined and the books were ordered to be destroyed.

The question the ECtHR had to consider was whether Handyside’s criminal conviction (plus the fine and the destruction of the books) amounted to a breach of his Article 10 rights to freedom of expression. The court decided that, since there was no “uniform European conception of morals”, the authorities in the UK were better placed than the European judges to determine the need for acts such as the Obscene Publications Act. It also said the British judges were entitled, in the exercise of their discretion, to think that the Schoolbook “would have pernicious effects on the morals of many of the children and adolescents who would read it”. The court found no breach of Handyside’s Article 10 rights.

However, the case did establish an important precedent because it established the principle that “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.”[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579616619475{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #44573b !important;}”]

Case study: Obscene publications and the internet

The case of R v Perrin (Stephane Laurent) 2002 established that the creation of a web page was sufficient to establish publication and that a jury only had to be satisfied that there was a likelihood of vulnerable persons seeing the obscene material. The prosecution did not have to demonstrate that such a person actually did or would see it. Pornographic content on a web page that has the tendency to deprave and corrupt the viewer would therefore be sufficient to establish criminal liability and the court found the in this instance did not violate the defendant’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, subsequent cases have tested this assumption (see Case dropped against Girls Aloud blogger below).[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]In recent years, there have been multiple and increased calls to abolish the Obscene Publications Act. Because prosecutions under the act require convincing a jury that a video, sound recording or image “tends to deprave or corrupt” those receiving it – a standard judged against prevailing moral standards – there have been many recent high-profile acquittals in cases where jurors have simply been unmoved by the potentially obscene material in front of them.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579616636337{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #44573b !important;}”]

Case study: Shocked then bored

In 2012, Michael Peacock was unanimously acquitted by 12 members of a jury at Southwark Crown Court on six counts of publishing obscene articles likely to “deprave and corrupt”. He had sold hardcore gay pornography DVDs online from his flat in Brixton. The police saw adverts and operated an undercover purchase. They found six DVDs featuring hardcore pornography and Peacock was prosecuted. The jury was shown hours of footage from the DVDs. Peacock’s defence solicitor remarked that although the jury “were quite shocked initially, they started to look quite bored very quickly”. The jury returned a not-guilty verdict.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579616658097{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #44573b !important;}”]

Case study: Girls Aloud blogger

In 2008, a case was dropped against a blogger charged with obscenity after he wrote an erotic story detailing the kidnap, sexual torture and murder of pop group Girls Aloud. A key part of the prosecution’s case against the blogger was that his post could be easily accessed by young Girls Aloud fans. However, shortly before the trial, an IT expert gave evidence that the blog could be found only by people specifically searching for it. On discovering this, the prosecution dropped the case and the judge issued a not-guilty verdict.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]While many of the obscenity laws created in the latter half of the 20th century remain in place, in recent years the risk of prosecution has reduced. Following the Peacock case, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) recently changed its guidance to narrow what it considers “obscene”. Consensual legal sexual acts between adults such as spanking, fisting, BDSM and female ejaculation are no longer considered obscene by prosecutors, and so people who distribute or sell videos or images of such acts will likely no longer be prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act. Equally, the number of prosecutions and convictions secured under obscenity laws in England and Wales has dropped dramatically in recent years. For example, while in 1984 there were 429 successful convictions under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, in 2014 there were just 10.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”op2″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”2. Overview of UK laws” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The UK laws applicable to the broad area of obscenity include:

Obscene Publications Act 1959
Obscene Publications Act 1964
Theatres Act 1968
The common law offence of outraging public decency
Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981
Video Recordings Act 1984
Protection of Children Act 1978 (please see the Child Protection Guide)
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Possession of indecent photograph of a child – please see Child Protection Guide)
Broadcasting Act 1990
Postal Services Act 2000
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (covering the definition of “extreme pornography”)

Below we highlight the main offences that might concern freedom of expression and the law.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”op3″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”3. The Obscene Publications Act 1959″ font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The offence of publishing an obscene article, or possessing one for gain, is set out in the Obscene Publications Act 1959. This act states the legal test for obscenity to be applied to the offence and certain defences to the crime.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”What is “obscene”?” use_theme_fonts=”yes” el_id=”ct41″][vc_column_text]

Credit: Thomas Hawk (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Section 1(1) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 describes an “obscene” item as one that has the effect of “tending to deprave and corrupt” persons likely to read, see or hear it. This statutory definition is largely based on the common law test of obscenity, as laid down in the case of R v Hicklin 1868, namely:

“whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.”

In cases such as Lady Chatterley’s Lover (R v Penguin Books Ltd 1961) and the prosecution of the publishers of Last Exit to Brooklyn (R v Calder and Boyars Ltd 1969), the courts have defined “deprave” as meaning to make morally bad, debase, pervert or corrupt morally; and “corrupt” as meaning to render morally unsound or rotten, destroy moral purity or chastity, pervert or ruin a good quality, and debase or defile. If the item is “filthy, loathsome or lewd” but does not tend to corrupt and deprave, it will not be obscene for the purposes of the act.

“Obscene” material is not limited to material of a sexual nature. In fact, it has been held by the courts that material glamourising or promoting potentially dangerous behaviour, such as drug-taking or brutal violence, may amount to an obscene publication. See, for example, the ruling in Calder (Publications) Ltd v Powell 1965: “A tendency to deprave or corrupt may be defined as a tendency to make people behave worse, more violently, or be more addicted to drugs than they otherwise would be.” The purpose or intention of the creator of the material, however noble or otherwise, will be immaterial to whether something is deemed to be obscene or to outrage.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Offences” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The Obscene Publications Act 1959 makes it an offence to “publish” an obscene article (whether for gain or not). “Publish” is defined in Section 1(3) of the act and includes distributing, circulating, selling, hiring, giving, lending, showing and electronically transmitting an obscene article. If the article is an obscene film or sound recording, it is a crime to show, play or project it.

The Obscene Publications Act 1964 added the offence of merely possessing an obscene article, provided it is intended for “publication for gain”. This is intended to catch situations where an item is in a person’s possession but not yet on display or sold or distributed to a customer. For example, Handyside was convicted of possessing obscene books intended for publication for gain.

“Gain” is broadly defined. Section 1(5) of the 1964 act defines it as gain accruing “by way of consideration for the publication or in any other way”. “Consideration” will cover financial advantage. However, “any other way” is not defined further so the exact parameters of this form of offence are unclear. There can be a “publication” under the Obscene Publications Act even if the material is shown to only one person. Private conversations in internet chat rooms or on online messaging services can be publications for the purposes of the act.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579616691016{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #44573b !important;}”]

Case study: One-to-one online sexual fantasy chat

In 2012 a convicted paedophile was charged under the Obscene Publications Act for engaging in individual online chats about the physical and sexual abuse of children: the first prosecution of an individual under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 for online one-to-one chats in which the content was fantasy. The question was whether the comments had been “published” if they were sent to only one person. The court said that publication under the act did not need to be to more than one person, and it did not matter that neither participant was wholly innocent to begin with – the act “protects the less innocent from further corruption, the addict from feeding or increasing his addiction” (quoting the case of DPP v Whyte 1972).

The prosecutor in the case stated “there will be many who focus on the fact that these conversations were private and fantasy to highlight how this decision indicates an erosion upon an individual’s freedom of expression”. However, he said the content of the discussions “was not the legal and consensual sexual activity of adults rather it was the sexual and physical abuse of children”, which he said merited the protection of the law. Smith’s lawyer, Myles Jackman, has described this case as a “landmark Court of Appeal decision extending publication under the OPA to private, one-to-one, sexual fantasy text chat via the internet; potentially criminalising millions of adults”.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]It is important to note that the Obscene Publications Act 1959 does not criminalise writing or otherwise creating an obscene article. Nor does it criminalise merely possessing an obscene article so long as it is not being held for future gain. It is primarily the distributors of obscene material who are penalised under the statute.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Update to the CPS guidance on obscenity” use_theme_fonts=”yes” el_id=”ct42″][vc_column_text]

The police have statutory and common law powers to deal with disorder and to prevent anticipated disorder. They can do so by making arrests for various offences, and, importantly, by making arrests or giving directions to people to prevent breaches of the peace.

In exercising these powers, the police also have duties to give protection to the freedom of speech of all groups and individuals, and any other relevant freedoms, including the right to protest and to manifest a religion. The role of the police naturally shifts with changes in culture and the law. The current position is that the police have an obligation to ensure law and order and, as a public authority, an additional obligation under the Human Rights Act 1998 to preserve, and in some cases to promote, fundamental rights such as the right to protest and the right to freedom of expression protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR, currently incorporated into the UK’s domestic law.

The result is that the police conduct a pragmatic balancing act between the different parties. However, in certain contexts, the correct balance may not be being struck. For example, in the artistic world there have been numerous incidents where police have advised the closure or cancellation of controversial shows or exhibits in order to avoid public disorder. For example, Exhibit B – an installation showing a series of tableaux vivants recreating the 19th century “human zoo” fashion of presenting Africans as exhibits to European audiences – was closed following the police’s advice that if the show were not closed, it could trigger riots. The manager of the venue showing Exhibit B said that when police issued their “advice” to close the show, five officers stood over him while he wrote a letter agreeing to close it.

Other problems with policing controversial artwork remain. One issue is the police’s requests for fees to cover their services when policing controversial shows.

The CPS publishes its own legal guidance on “obscene publications”. The guidance details how prosecutors should approach the question of “obscenity”. Until January 2019, the guidelines listed certain sexual acts taking place between consenting adults as “obscene”. Spanking, bondage, female ejaculation and sadomasochism were included on the list, and the distribution of such images or videos was considered a criminal offence under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. However, following a campaign led by obscenity lawyer Myles Jackman and organisations for freedom of sexual expression such as Backlash, the CPS removed the sexual acts from its guidance. A spokesperson for the CPS said: “It is not for the CPS to decide what is considered good taste or objectionable. We do not propose to bring charges based on material that depicts consensual and legal activity between adults, where no serious harm is caused and the likely audience is over the age of 18.”

Prosecutors will instead now focus on pornographic material that features non-consenting adults, or where serious harm is caused, or it is linked with other criminal acts, or the likely audience is younger than 18.

As stated above, what is obscene is determined by reference to “contemporary community standards”, which inevitably change over time.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579609930041{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #44573b !important;}”]

What is likely to be a crime under the Obscene Publications Act 1959?

Handing out pamphlets featuring images of non-consensual sex between adults.
Selling pornographic material showing serious harm being caused to the participants.
Keeping this material in your home with a view to selling it or otherwise profiting from it.
Showing this pornographic material on a projector to customers at a rooftop bar.

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579610040718{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #44573b !important;}”]

What is likely to not be a crime under the Obscene Publications Act 1959?

Being an actor in this pornographic material.
Being in possession of the pornographic material, provided it is for private use only.
Writing the script of this material.
Thinking up or discussing it out loud with friends (although it may be a crime to discuss it online).

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]The likely viewer or recipient can be a specific individual or a group. Participants need not be wholly innocent to begin with – an article can be obscene if it leads to “further corruption” of the less innocent. It is not necessary that all people likely to read, see or hear the material would be corrupted. If a significant proportion (which can be much less than 50 per cent) would be corrupted, that is enough.

Defences under the Obscene Publications Act 1959

There are limited defences that apply under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The accused may assert that they had not seen the material and had no reason to believe that it was obscene. Alternatively, they may assert that their actions were for the “public good”, as defined by Section 4. This says there will be no conviction if it is proved that the material in question is presented in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or other reasons of general public concern. “Learning” means “being the product of scholarship, something with inherent excellence gained by the work of a scholar” (DPP v Jordan 1977).

To succeed with the Section 4 defence, the court or jury must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the publication was made for the public good. This means the jury must think it is more likely than not that the publication was made for the public good. Expert witnesses can be called to testify.

There is a slightly different “public good” defence for films and soundtracks. Here there is a defence if publication of the film or soundtrack is for the public good because it is in the interests of drama, opera, ballet or any other form of art, literature or learning.

There is a time limit on prosecuting an offence under the 1959 act. Prosecutors have two years from the date of commission of the offence to bring a prosecution.

Works that fall outside the scope of the Obscene Publications Act may come under the Theatres Act or the common law offence of outraging public decency, while possession of extreme pornographic images could fall under the offence set out in Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”op4″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”4. Theatres Act 1968″ font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The Theatres Act 1968 applies a similar definition of obscenity to plays and performances. This means that anyone directing or presenting an obscene performance of a play is guilty of an offence with a maximum sentence of three years’ imprisonment and a fine. A play is obscene if, taken as a whole, its effect was to “tend to deprave and corrupt” those people likely to attend it. While the play can take place in public or in private, plays “given on a domestic occasion in a private dwelling” cannot fall under this offence. Rehearsals are also excluded, and if prosecutors want to pursue an individual for this crime, they must begin proceedings within two years of the alleged crime taking place.

Prosecutions are rare. In the early 1980s, moral campaigner Mary Whitehouse brought a private prosecution against director Michael Bogdanov for his production of The Romans in Britain but the trial collapsed in 1982.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”op5″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”5. Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981″ font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]This act criminalises publicly displaying any “indecent matter”. “Indecent” is not defined in the act, and case law indicates something can be “indecent” without being “obscene” under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (that is, tending to deprave or corrupt). There is no defence of the indecent material being for the “public good” as there is under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Notably, the act does not criminalise indecent displays of one’s own (or another’s) body. Section 1(5) says that “indecent matter” does not include “an actual human body or any part thereof”. Materials in a shop that people can access only by passing behind a warning notice are also excluded from this offence.

Prosecutions under this act are rare. Between 2002 and 2004 there were only three successful convictions.

Outraging public decency

Outraging public decency is a common-law offence. This means it has been made by judges deciding individual cases over time. Outraging public decency has two elements. First, there must be a lewd or disgusting or obscene act that outrages minimum standards of public decency as judged by a jury in contemporary society. Second, the act must be in public view and in the presence of two or more people, regardless of whether they actually witness the act or are outraged by it.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579616725941{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #44573b !important;}”]

Case study: Human Earrings

In 1987, gallery owner Peter Sylveire displayed earrings made from human foetuses by artist Rick Gibson at the Young Unknowns Gallery in London. It was described in the catalogue as “Human Earrings”. Police seized the earrings and Gibson and Sylveire were prosecuted for outraging public decency. The jury returned a guilty verdict, finding that the earrings were “obscene” in that they tended to engender disgust, revulsion or outrage.

In Sylveire and Gibson’s appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled that the so-called “Human Earrings” were not likely to “corrupt public morals”. Sylveire and Gibson could therefore not be found guilty under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which had a stricter test for whether material was obscene or not. However, their convictions for outraging public decency remained in place.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”op6″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”6. Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008″ font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]Unlike the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which criminalises the distribution of obscene material, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 criminalises the possession of an “extreme pornographic image”. An image will be “pornographic” if it was solely or principally produced for the purpose of sexual arousal. It is “extreme” if it is “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character” and it portrays any one of a number of acts in an explicit and realistic way. Extreme acts include acts that threaten a person’s life or are likely to result in serious injury to a person’s genitals, anus or breasts. Acts involving sexual activity with corpses or animals will also be extreme for the purposes of this offence.

In determining whether an image is “pornographic”, the identity or purpose of the creator or sender of the image is irrelevant – the only question is whether the image can be assumed to be produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal of anyone who came to have it. In the case of Regina v Baddiel (David) 2016, the defendant had argued that an image on his iPhone of a person performing a sexual act with an animal was not pornographic because it had been sent to “disgust, shock or amuse” and not to arouse sexually. The court said the sender’s purpose did not matter for the purposes of what was “pornographic”. If the WhatsApp image could be “reasonably assumed” to be for the principal or sole purpose of sexual arousal of whoever came to have it, it was pornographic for the purposes of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579617776220{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #44573b !important;}”]

Case study: Possessing extreme pornography

In 2012, barrister Simon Walsh was unanimously acquitted by a jury, having been charged with five counts of possessing extreme pornography under Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. He was charged with possessing six email attachment images sent to his personal email account, which showed acts of fisting and urethral sounding (where surgical rods are inserted into the urethra for sexual gratification). Although the acts shown in the images were consensual, they allegedly fell under the extreme porn crime because they could possibly result in “serious injury to a person’s genitals or anus”. The defence argued that the images were not extreme because the activities were conducted safely and were relatively commonplace acts, particularly within the LGBT community.

Walsh pleaded not guilty and was acquitted by a jury who took less than 90 minutes to make their decision. However, as a consequence of the prosecution, Walsh had been fired from his position on the London Fire Authority and excluded from his chambers. Post-acquittal, Walsh issued this statement:

“I would like to take this opportunity to encourage our legislators and regulators not to prosecute individuals in possession of images depicting private and consensual adult sexual acts. Nonetheless, these allegations have damaged my career and personal standing. As I said in my evidence, I do not believe that when I stood for public office I gave up my right to a private sexual life. I reiterate that point now.”

Following the acquittal David Allen Green, solicitor and legal correspondent for the New Statesman, said: “This was a shameful and intrusive prosecution which should never have been brought. It was bad law to begin with, but a good man has had his sex life examined in open court for no good reason. There are serious questions for the CPS to answer about bringing this prosecution.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”op7″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”7. Where can I find out more information about obscenity law?” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]Backlash (www.backlash.org.uk) is a UK-based NGO defending freedom of sexual expression between consenting adults in the UK. It successfully campaigned to update the CPS’s guidance on what will be prosecuted for being obscene.

Myles Jackman is a lawyer specialising in obscenity law and sexual freedoms. You can read his blog at www.mylesjackman.com/index.php/my-blog.

Open Rights Group (www.openrightsgroup.org) is a digital rights campaign group, campaigning on issues such as age-verification for pornographic sites and ensuring free expression on the internet (particularly in response to the government’s Online Harms White Paper and post-Brexit).[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”70″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Ackowledgements” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]This guide was produced by Index on Censorship, in partnership with Clifford Chance.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Free speech & the law: Public Order

20 Jan 20 | Campaigns -- Featured, Free Speech and the Law, United Kingdom

Under the Human Rights Act 1998, police officers must respect people’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, Article 10 of the convention states that restrictions on people’s free expression rights may be justified on the grounds of preventing disorder or crime, protecting public safety and protecting the rights of others (see text box).

Many of the public order crimes discussed in this guide are contained in the Public Order Act 1986, which sets out the offences of riot, affray, violent disorder, and the different types of criminal harassment, alarm or distress. However, there are also more specific offences, such as “indecent or racist chanting” at a football match under the Football (Offences) Act 1991. The police also retain a common law power to arrest an individual for “breach of the peace”. The Public Order Act also includes special provision on offences intended to stir up religious and racial hatred and hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. Please see our separate guidelines: “UK laws relating to ‘hate speech’” for more information.

In addition to speech-related actions that may constitute public order, individuals may break the law for things they say or share online, in phone calls or in written form, such as letters. These are offences are largely covered by the Communications Act and Malicious Communications Act.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”po2″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”2. Breach of the peace” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]A breach of the peace is an act (or the threat of an act) that harms a person as a result of violence, or is likely to cause such harm, or makes a person fear such harm. The belief that actual harm is likely to occur must be reasonable.[/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Actual harm” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The courts have defined “actual harm” to mean harm to a “person’s body or property” (R v Howell (Errol) 1982). There should be a “wrongful” or unlawful act, such as an assault or riot, leading someone to be harmed, or to fear harm, before the police can make an arrest for breach of the peace.

Police officers (and ordinary citizens) can arrest people committing a breach of the peace in their presence, or those they reasonably think will commit a breach of the peace in the immediate future, or who have committed a breach of the peace and are likely to do it again. To comply with human rights law, the purpose of arrest must be to bring the perpetrator before a “competent legal authority”. No warrant is required, and a breach of the peace can take place on private or public property. When the police believe a breach of the peace is likely to happen in the immediate future, they can use their powers only when the breach is imminent. Judicial Review proceedings may be brought against the police if their actions contravene these requirements.

Breach of the peace is governed by common law. Common law, also referred to as case law, is made by judges and developed in the cases that come before the courts over time. (This is in contrast to statutory law, which is written law passed by Parliament.) It means that there are no specific, relevant extracts of written legislation for common law.

Case law tells us that the police must exercise their breach of the peace power of arrest in a way that respects people’s rights to free expression and assembly (as well as their other human rights). Arresting preachers for refusing to stop preaching because they might cause a breach of the peace, for example, was found to breach the preachers’ rights in the case of Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions 1999. The court said the police should have used their power of arrest against the large crowd that had gathered and were showing hostility towards the women preachers, and not against the women themselves. However, the court said that if the preachers were being so provocative that someone in the crowd might – not wholly unreasonably – be moved to violence, the police would be entitled to ask the preachers to stop, and arrest them if they refused to.

Although there is a power of arrest for breach of the peace, there is no criminal offence of breach of the peace. Therefore, while someone can be arrested for breach of the peace, they cannot be prosecuted. However, they might be prosecuted for assault, violent disorder, or any other crime that led to the breach of the peace.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”po3″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row gap=”35″][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”111978″ img_size=”large” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_custom_heading text=”3. Public Order Act 1986″ font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The Public Order Act covers several offences, including:

Riot (Section 1)
Violent disorder (Section 2)
Affray (Section 3)
Fear or provocation of violence (Section 4)
Intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress (Section 4a)
Harassment, alarm or distress (Section 5)

While the riot, violent disorder and affray sections are more focused on preventing physical displays of violent or threatening behaviour, Sections 4, 4a and 5 criminalise the use of threatening, abusive or offensive words (or behaviour) in a way that is likely to cause distress, harassment or alarm.[/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Public Order Act offences” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]

Riot

A riot involves 12 or more people using or threatening violence for a common purpose, with their conduct (taken together) resulting in reasonable people present at the scene fearing for their safety.

Violent disorder

Violent disorder involves three or more people using or threatening violence, with their conduct resulting in reasonable people present at the scene fearing for their safety.

Affray

Affray involves one person using or threatening violence, with his or her conduct resulting in reasonable people present at the scene fearing for their safety. Under affray, “a threat of violence cannot be made by the use of words alone”.

Fear or provocation of violence (section 4)

Fear or provocation of violence involves one person using towards another person “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” or “distributing or displaying to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting” with the intention of making a person believe immediate violence will be used, or to provoke such violence, or where it is likely violence would be provoked. There is no crime if both parties are inside a private residence. (Neither a domestic garden nor a communal landing in a block of flats are classed as residences.)

Intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress (section 4a)

Intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress involves one person using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displaying writing, a sign or another visual that is threatening, abusive or insulting, with the intent and result of causing harassment, alarm or distress.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579537002672{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 0px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #397cbf !important;}”]

Case study: Intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress

In July 2019, a 38-year-old woman was arrested under Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986 for shouting homophobic abuse at people taking part in a Pride march. Footage posted on social media showed the woman shouting “Shame on you” to participants, one of whom was wearing a rainbow flag. She also shouted: “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Shame on you, shame on all of you. Shame on you, you despicable people.” Jamila Choudhury was given a three-month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay a £122 victim surcharge and £100 compensation.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Harassment, alarm or distress (section 5)

Harassment, alarm or distress involves one person using threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displaying material which is threatening or abusive, within the hearing or sight of someone likely to suffer harassment, alarm or distress as a result.

There is no requirement to prove that anyone was actually harassed, alarmed or distressed. It is enough if the abusive words can be heard or seen by someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. Uniquely among the Public Order Act offences, there is no need to prove intention here.

Section 5 is therefore broader than the other offences, particularly Section 4a, as it can apply where the person is aware of the potential for their conduct to be threatening or abusive, even without intending this result. [/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space height=”16px”][vc_column_text]The Public Order Act itself also has additional rules applying to conduct intending to stir up racial or religious hatred, or hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation (see separate guide on this).

Parts III and IIIA of the act create offences against writings, plays, recordings or broadcasts where these are intended to stir up racial hatred (in Part III) or religious hatred or hatred on grounds of sexual orientation (Part IIIA).

However, Part IIIA specifically contains protections for free speech where religion is involved. This protection significantly narrows the scope of Part IIIA.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579536813352{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #397cbf !important;}”]

The PEN amendment

Section 29J of Part IIIA (the so-called ‘PEN amendment’) states that the rules on public order must not be applied “in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Harassment, alarm or distress

“Harassment”, “alarm” and “distress” have not been defined within the legislation. However, courts have ruled that “distress” requires emotional disturbance and upset. “Harassment” does not require emotional disturbance, but it must not be trivial. It does not need any element of apprehension about personal safety.

Insults

Section 5 no longer contains a prohibition on “insulting words or behaviour”. This reference was removed in 2013 following a high-profile campaign spearheaded by religious and secular campaign groups as well as comedian Rowan Atkinson, human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell and MP David Davis.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”po4″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”4. Theatres Act 1968″ font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The Theatres Act 1968 provides a specific offence, under Section 6, of using threatening, abusive or insulting words if the intention is to provoke a breach of the peace, or the performance as a whole is likely to result in a breach of the peace.

The offence criminalises only the actions of the director or the “presenter” of the play, although these roles are not defined within the legislation. Performers are immune unless they are not performing in accordance with directions they have been given.

The act states that a decision to prosecute under Section 6 may be taken only with the consent of the attorney-general (the government’s chief legal adviser). The requirement for the attorney-general’s permission means that a decision to prosecute is likely to be considered particularly carefully, given that the attorney-general has a higher profile than other prosecutors, and such a decision would be subject to greater public scrutiny. This scrutiny may include whether or not the director’s right to freedom of expression and the public’s right to receive information have been sufficiently considered.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Gang injunctions” use_theme_fonts=”yes” el_id=”ct41″][vc_column_text]The Policing and Crime Act 2009 introduced the so-called “injunctions to prevent gang-related violence” that mean a court can require an individual to do, or be prevented from doing, “anything” described in the injunction. The police and local government can apply to a court for an injunction. In the explanatory notes to the legislation, the government said the purpose of the gang injunctions was to prevent serious acts of violence from occurring, break down gang culture and prevent younger gang members’ behaviour from escalating, and give local authorities an opportunity to engage with gang members and help them develop effective strategies to exit gangs.

For the purposes of gang injunctions, something is “gang-related” if it relates to the activities of a group of three or more people who share one or more characteristics that enable them to be identified as a group.

To grant an injunction, a court must first be satisfied that the proposed subject of the injunction has engaged in – or encouraged or assisted – gang-related violence. The court must also think it necessary to grant the injunction in order to prevent that person from engaging in gang-related violence or to protect them from such violence. The court can require the individual to do, or be prevented from doing, “anything” described in the injunction. Although this gives a court very broad discretion, any requirements must be compliant with human rights law, which means it must not unlawfully restrict free expression or free assembly rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR.

Gang injunctions have been used in recent years to prohibit people from making music. In 2011, “Matt” (whose real name was not revealed so as to maintain his safety), a teenage rapper from south London, was served with a gang injunction that banned him from making any songs or videos that might encourage violence. He faced up to two years in prison if he breached the conditions. Southwark Council – the local authority that applied for the injunction – asked for it partly because videos featuring the rapper contained threats targeting other gangs in the area. While Matt admitted some of his lyrics were violent, he said his lyrics should not be seen as a real threat but as a description of life growing up on an estate in London.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579536569934{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #397cbf !important;}”]

Case study: Gang injunctions against Drill musicians

In January 2019, drill artists Skengdo and AM were given nine-month suspended prison sentences for breaching a gang injunction issued against them in August 2018. The injunction banned them from going to certain areas and associating with certain individuals, and restricted their ability to make music and perform. The police claimed the injunction was breached when Skengdo and AM “performed drill music that incited and encouraged violence against rival gang members and then posted it on social media”. The police used footage of them performing Attempted – a response to music from other south London artists – in a club to make their case.

In February 2019, 65 signatories from human rights organisations as well as academics, musicians and lawyers wrote an open letter, urging the Metropolitan Police to stop using gang injunctions against musicians as a means of preventing violence.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In the case of Jones v Birmingham City Council 2018, the Court of Appeal ruled that gang injunctions did not breach people’s fair-trial rights under the ECHR. Jerome Jones, who had an injunction imposed on him, argued that it was unlawful for the legislation to require proof of involvement in gang-related violence based on the lower civil-law standard of proof (i.e. the balance of probabilities). He argued that because of the punitive and serious nature of gang injunctions, the higher criminal standard of being “beyond a reasonable doubt” should be satisfied before a gang injunction could be imposed. The court disagreed.

Jones’s injunction included a prohibition on appearing in any music videos.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Powers of the police and prosecutors” use_theme_fonts=”yes” el_id=”ct42″][vc_column_text]

Other problems with policing controversial artwork remain. One issue is the police’s requests for fees to cover their services when policing controversial shows.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”po5″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”5. Communications Act 2003″ font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 placed a legal duty on certain bodies to “have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”. This duty is one aspect of the government’s Prevent strategy, within its wider counter-terrorism strategy, known as Contest. The aim of Prevent, according to the government, is to “reduce the threat to the UK from terrorism by stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism”. The duty applies to bodies in the UK that have a role in protecting vulnerable people and/or national security, including schools, universities, prisons, National Health Service trusts and local authorities.

The Prevent guidance demands the bodies take a “risk-based approach”. They must first understand the “risk of radicalisation” within their institutions, and form appropriate policies and procedures to deal with that risk, ensuring frontline and managerial staff are equipped to deal with the risk of radicalisation. This means developing training for staff members on the Prevent duty.

The guidance states that the Prevent programme must not include any “covert activity against people or communities”. But it also states that information-sharing of personal data may be allowed in order, for example, to refer a person at risk of being drawn into terrorism to the appropriate support.

Many institutions will need to work with Home Office Prevent co-ordinator teams who will monitor the institutions’ activities.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Prosecutions under section 127″ use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579536539583{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #397cbf !important;}”]

Case study: The Twitter joke trial

In 2010, Paul Chambers, who was planning to fly to Northern Ireland to meet his then girlfriend posted a message on Twitter, saying “Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!”

Chambers was subsequently arrested and charged with “sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003.” He was found guilty fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs.

The conviction was widely condemned as a miscarriage of justice and was appealed three times, the conviction being quashed as a result of the third appeal.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

Other examples

Azhar Ahmed (2012): Convicted for posting on Facebook that British soldiers “should die and go to hell” on Facebook March 2012. Ahmed was sentenced to 240 hours of community service and £300 fee.

Robert Riley (2014): Sent to prison for eight weeks for saying he would have killed murdered teacher Ann Maguire and all her colleagues. Chairwoman of the bench, Georgina Scannell, said the court had no choice but to send the defendant to jail. “The offensive messages outraged the public,” she said. “You had complete disregard for the tragic death of Ann Maguire. Besides this, countless other vile messages were made by you. The bench finds these were racially and religiously aggravated. The offences are so serious that only a period of immediate custody can be justified.”

Count Dankula (2018): Scottish police arrested Mark Meecham (known on YouTube Count Dankula) in May 2016 for posting a video online of him teaching his girlfriend’s dog to make a Nazi salute. He was found guilty in March 2018 and fined £800. The judged sided with the prosecution who said “context and intent are irrelevant” even though Count Dankula made clear the video was a joke.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”po6″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”6. Malicious Communications Act” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The Malicious Communications Act 1988 states that any person who sends to another person a letter, electronic communications or article of any description which conveys a message which is indecent or grossly offensive, a threat or information that is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature is guilty of an offence if their purpose in sending it is to “cause distress or anxiety to the recipient”.

Prosecutions under Malicious Communications

Roman Catholic Veronica Connolly, who objected to the morning-after pill, sent images of aborted foetuses to pharmacies. Connolly was prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which she held prosecution violated her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR. Her appeal against prosecution was dismissed after it was deemed that Connolly’s right to express her views did not justify the distress and anxiety she intended to cause those who received the photographs and they had the right not to receive such material. It was significant in that it was argued those who received the material were in no position to influence public debate.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Ackowledgements” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]This guide was produced by Index on Censorship, in partnership with Clifford Chance.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Eric Gill / The Body

15 May 19 | Artistic Freedom Case Studies

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”The case study of the exhibition Eric Gill: The Body at Ditchling Museum of Arts & Crafts is different from the others in this section. In all the other cases, Index on Censorship got involved because artwork had been removed or cancelled, but in this case we were brought in at the early stage of the museum’s planning of an exhibition that was potentially divisive and controversial.” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]Name of exhibition: Eric Gill: The Body
Artist/s: Eric Gill and Cathy PIlkington, RA
Date: 29/04/17 – 03/09/17
Venue: Ditchling Museum of Art & Craft (DMAC)
Brief description of the exhibition: “Co-curated by Cathie Pilkington, Eric Gill: The Body features over 80 works on loan from public and private collections including a new commission by Cathie Pilkington. Within Gill’s work, the human body is of central importance; the exhibition asked whether knowledge of Gill’s disturbing biography affects our enjoyment and appreciation of his depiction of the human figure.” DMAC Programme[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”106694″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]The Ditchling Museum of Arts & Crafts wanted to use the summer exhibition 2017 as the platform to bring Eric Gill’s history of sexually abusing his teenage daughters centre stage. The case study records the process leading up to the exhibition which offers some interesting insights and positive ways of approaching difficult and sensitive subjects and includes some of the documentation that was produced that could be adapted for use in other situations.

Central to the planning was the workshop day – ‘Not Turning a Blind Eye’. This produced a lot of very interesting discussion and debate, in particular about the role of the museum as a place for difficult conversations. This has been recorded in detail and can be reached through a link in the case study. At the end there is a range of different responses to how the exhibition was managed, rather than looking at the content of the show, with a reflection from Steph Fuller, the new Director and CEO of Ditchling Museum, on the impact and legacy of the exhibition.[/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Why was it challenged?” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]Since the biography of Eric Gill by Fiona McCarthy, published in 1989, revealed that he had sexually abused his teenage daughters, awareness of this aspect of his biography is widespread and has been fully discussed and debated. In spite of this, DMAC, the museum which is effectively built around the Guild that Gill co-founded and of which he was its most famous protagonist, had not responded to the consequences of this revelation in their collection or their narrative. When Nathaniel Hepburn came to DMAC as Artistic Director in 2014 he was clear that he found the museum’s failure to take an open stance Gill’s sexual abuse of his daughters was problematic for a number of reasons.

Inconsistency: some members of staff were able to talk to visitors about Gill’s disturbing behaviour, others found it difficult;
Inappropriateness: a text panel describing Gill as ‘controversial’, where sexual abuse cannot have any moral ambiguity; a volunteer joking about Gill as a ‘naughty boy’ during a tour, because of an embarrassment or lack of knowledge.
Unpreparedness: the museum would not have an answer if a visitor (maybe via social media or TripAdvisor), or the media or any other organisation were to question its moral or ethical standpoint regarding Gill.
Self-censorship: there were objects in the collection that were not possible to exhibit because there was not necessary language, or confidence, to engage with the issues which would emerge.
Failing in duty: the museums’ failure to provide proper contextual information about a nude of Petra, or a torso of Elizabeth [Gill’s daughters who were also his models], risked visitors’ trust in the museum. Either they visited with prior knowledge and felt DMAC was disingenuous; or they enjoyed Gill’s work and discovered later about his sexual abuse of his daughters, and then felt misled.
Complicity: the staff were concerned that the silence could be taken as complicity. An all woman team with a male director, all bringing different experience, they felt a shared moral imperative to break the silence in relation to behaviour that is perpetuated by non-disclosure.

With difference of opinion across the team and trustees, and knowing how Gill’s continued respect as a major 20th century British artist, in spite of the revelations about his sexual abuse of his daughters, also divides public opinion, it was clear that this project was not going to be about the museum agreeing a place in the debate. It would have to be about the debate itself. There was a lot at stake. If it was handled clumsily it could cause distress to survivors of abuse, could be sensationalised in the press and risked more reputational damage than the museum’s long silence on the issue. The ongoing stream of revelations exposing the prevalence and scale of sexual abuse of children across society heightened the sensitivity and enormity of the issue, and the risk of getting it wrong. If successfully handled, then DMAC’s openness could send out a positive message across the sector for other museums to be proactive in finding ways of taking on difficult stories and objects within collections to stimulate rather than avoid debate with visitors and the wider public. The aim to create a well-researched space, designed to support dialogue, where all opinion on the issues raised could be held and handled with confidence, required considered discussion and preparation about language, terminology, financial and reputational risk, about relationships with stakeholders, visitor experience, communications, supporting staff and more.

[/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”What action was taken?” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]Partnership

Hepburn secured Brighton Festival as a partner early in the process. The festival’s reputation for taking on political issues connected DMAC to wider territory than it could occupy by itself which, by association, helped frame communication with the public. It also acknowledged that the issues DMAC was tackling extend far beyond the museum and its very particular relationship with Gill.

Commission

Hepburn commissioned Royal Academician, Sculptor Cathie Pilkington, in partnership with Brighton Festival, to respond to the themes of the exhibition. She took the contentious object known as Petra’s doll, made by Gill for his daughter’s 4th birthday, as the inspiration for her work. Pilkington was considered to be an ideal choice, a strong woman artist engaging with these themes as another way to respond to Gill’s life and work and the collection in the museum as a whole.

Consultation with survivors of abuse

Hepburn spoke very early on about his plans to Peter Saunders, a survivor of abuse and founder of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC). Saunders became an ally, willing to speak in support of the project to the media. Hepburn had meetings with four charities, to give them advance information about the forthcoming show, why DMAC felt it was important to do it and to ask for advice on language and what kind of responses the work might provoke. One of the four was not supportive and spoke out against the show to the media.

Workshop with peers

Not Turning a Blind Eye was a carefully structured workshop day bringing together museum professionals, curators, lawyers, journalists, academics to respond to specific objects and artworks in the collection. The workshop took place in October 2016 and was structured around the presentation of contentious pieces in the collection – to discover first-hand what questions and feelings they provoked; and to discuss whether and or how they could be exhibited. Other ethical challenges that the staff encounter on a daily basis were also posed and discussed. The workshop elicited strong and insightful responses from different disciplines and approaches and voicing clearly articulated positions and options for Hepburn and the staff to consider. A detailed description of the workshop can be found here.

Staff, volunteer and trustee preparation and training

Hepburn brought new trustees on board, sought out individuals and organisations from outside the museum who could share their expertise and experience; the staff took every opportunity to talk amongst themselves, with friends and colleagues. The museum’s approach was characterised by transparency, openly acknowledging and sharing dilemmas, seeking advice, talking to a very wide range of people. There was a lot of training for staff and volunteers with sessions run by charities supporting survivors of abuse. There was preparation for every eventuality and audience response:

defacing the artwork, protests, upset, anger, triggers. Front of house staff informed every audience
member at point of sale that the the exhibition invited the audience into the debate. There were
helplines and support literature for people who could have been adversely affected by the content of the show.

Communications

The goal of the exhibition was to generate dialogue with a broad range of constituents – media, general public, visitors, survivors, and stakeholders, with members of the Gill family, family members of the original Guild still living in the village and others. The idea was not to ask permission, but to talk about the planned programme and invite feedback. The decision to involve multiple stakeholders in the planning of the exhibition helped shape the way the artwork would be discussed and showed there was no single answer to the dilemmas that Gill’s story throws up. Arriving at a shared sense of how to talk about the exhibition and to respond to audience questions and reactions was a major area of work. A series of documents were created – here are some examples: Director’s statement; FAQ; Gill terminology; and any complaints were dealt with fully and personally by the director. A series of procedures were created for staff and volunteers to follow in the case of adult or child disclosure and a complaints procedure.

Managing the media

Hepburn made the first mention of his plan in an article Self-censoring Museums Have to Be Braver in the Art Newspaper by Maurice Davies who Hepburn knew would not sensationalise the issue. Though Hepburn has since spoken publicly, lectured and written extensively on the subject, he remembers “agonising” over the words he used to describe the museum’s position

in that first outing. Another important move in the press strategy was to commission Observer columnist and art critic, Rachel Cooke (see extract below) to follow the process from the start. The idea was that the article, published before the opening, would open up museum’s approach, leading to an honest discussion with the public.

Writers in Residence

Two writers in residence were commissioned to respond to the exhibition, bringing additional artistic voice to explore and process the exhibition. When writer Bethan Roberts saw the exhibition she felt that the voices of the women particularly the daughters in it were missing and in response decided to write Petra’s story. Alison Macleod based her response on the wide-ranging responses on the audience feedback which ranged from “Disgusted!” and “Elated!”. In response she wrote “something that [is] multi-voiced, multi-perspectival” to get at the complexity of the subject matter.

More information about the writers in residence project, and extracts from the work created can be found here.

Audience feedback

There were 316 comments submitted on the feedback postcards, all of which have been transcribed – a sample of them can be found here. Some visitors praised the DMAC’s handling of the issues: “I believe the exhibitors have struck the right balance: the genius of the artist, and the honesty in depicting his sexual abuse, are both necessary and well represented. I love the work still, but have no illusions about the artist.” Others condemned it: “Angry at the focus on Gill’s behaviour with no acknowledgement of its impact on the lives of his daughters.” The front of house staff had the most face to face contact with the visitors; many wanted to talk about the show. There were lots of different reactions. “It showed human nature in all its forms. Some said – what’s the fuss? why does it have to be shoved in our face? we’ve known this for years. This is brilliant! One or two wanted more of the survivor story – expecting more from the [survivors] network. Several said it was not shocking enough. One told me ‘I’m survivor of abuse and I was interested to come and see how you were presenting it.’”

A catalogue was produced after the end of the show.

Press coverage Eric Gill: The Body.[/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Interviews” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship carried out a series of interviews with a range of stakeholders including the staff and trustees. Here are some extracts:

Cathie Pilkington, RA – artist, co-curator of Eric Gill: The Body.

There are different kinds of risk to this [commission]. I felt I had to go with that initial intuitive response, my genuine engagement with the doll [carved by Gill for his daughter’s 4th birthday] and with the dilemma. As an artist you have to trust those drives towards things, even though they are risky. Quite a few people said, don’t do this, don’t put yourself in this dilemma, you are making yourself vulnerable and actually there is part of that you are being used as a resource to mediate something. But I recognised it as well and I knew that I was the right artist to do this regardless of the difficulties that I might have. I came away [from the workshop] very excited and elated by realising that there was a moral responsibility of the artist to allow these things to happen and for speech to be open. It was exciting to see a real role for art. It as as much about that, as the subject of the abuse and the problems associated with the project.

Alice Purkiss – leader of Trusted Source Knowledge Transfer Partnership between Oxford’s History Faculty and the National Trust (2016-2018)

They told the story with utmost sensitivity but without censorship and I think that was an important factor. It wasn’t salacious which it could have been. It wasn’t accusatory. It was quite frank and objective and I was interested in their use of language in the show. A lot of colleagues will see this as an opportunity to see what goes into the process – more will have the confidence to do this themselves.

Andrew Comben – Director of Brighton Festival and board member

Collectively and Nathaniel particularly managed it brilliantly, sensitively thoughtfully and patiently. It felt like a textbook example of how to navigate all this territory. I am also interested now in hearing that museum professionals see it as a sort of blueprint of how to manage sensitive issues. Embedding a journalist in the process and having someone follow that right from the start so there could be a public conversation and an honest one I thought was very smart. Talking to charities working in the territory, not of the arts world was something all too frequently arts organisation don’t do. [Ref partnership with Brighton Festival] It seems something really obvious and quite straightforward, that maybe organisations don’t have to go it alone when they addressing these sorts of things and there is strength in a collective response.

From Rachel Cooke’s detailed account published in The Observer before the show opened: Eric Gill: can we separate the artist from the abuser?

“Hepburn’s decision to mount Eric Gill: The Body might be thought rather brave – and certainly this is the word I hear repeatedly from those who support his project… But still, I wonder. Is it courageous, or is it merely foolhardy? And what consequences will it have in the longer run both for Gill’s work and those institutions that are its guardians? Is it possible that Hepburn, in fighting his own museum’s “self-censorship”, will start a ripple effect that ultimately will see more censorship elsewhere, rather than less? And once Gill is dispensed with, where do we go next? Where does this leave, say, artists such as Balthus and Hans Bellmer? Even if their private lives were less reprehensible than Gill’s, their work – that of Balthus betrays a fixation on young girls, while Bellmer is best known for his lifesize pubescent dolls – is surely far more unsettling.”

Peter Saunders – NPAC

They were bold in saying that whilst he was an artist and produced works of some significance he also admitted to some extremely nasty crimes against his own children. I felt positive with their approach. When we are talking about something that goes back quite a long time and there are no living victims of these people, then it is slightly different from dealing with someone who is uncovered as being a current abuser and thereby is likely to have living victims who will still be living with the trauma probably and of what had been done to them by the individuals. It therefore calls for a slightly different approach. My opinion is that if we were to actually delve into the lives of many people of prominence from the past we would potentially uncover some pretty unpleasant stuff I expect. Does that change the quality or significance of what they contributed to the arts or whatever it was? Or do we ignore it, do we acknowledge it or sweep it under the carpet?

Alison McLeod – writer in residence

There doesn’t seem to be one point of view on it, the more I looked into the more complex it became, and my own point of view is irrelevant in a sense, it’s not even what guides the writing project. Yes, the biography is upsetting disturbing in part and there was clearly a history of abuse that is without question. But it is made slightly more complex by the fact that the two daughters were abused said they were unembarrassed about it, not angry about it, loved their father, and didn’t give the response that perhaps I’m imagining, or some people expected them to give – to be angry about it and condemn their father’s behaviour. They didn’t. So maybe they have internalised their trauma, but you could say that that response is almost patronising to the two women, the elderly women who were very clear about what they felt, so it goes into a loop of paradoxes of riddles that you cannot really ever solve.

Nathaniel Hepburn speaking three weeks into the process.

I have underestimated the emotional strain on the team that delivering this project, and continuing to deliver it for the next four months, has caused and will continue to cause and the amount of time needed to hold the team through that process. We are looking out for each other and that is going to have to continue. Although we have put in place everything that was needed I think it will continue to be an issue for the next four months. That we cannot quite switch off. I am really lucky to have a great, supportive team and that we will be OK.

Staff feedback

So many of the things we [DMAC staff] put into place, structures, approaches which we talked about and rehearsed and gone over and over, language, openness and confidence in being open about it, willingness to engage, not justifying, or defending, or shutting down – all those things – I have seen them played out.

The Founder of NAPAC came to talk to the staff about how someone who had been abused would feel about coming to this show. He told his own story and he had been abused. But actually it was good to have a survivor in the room and to hear the incredibly negative impact it had had. Although it was hard, it brought people together.

We didn’t give our own opinions; we were being professional. This is what we are doing and we hope we have done it well. When people knew that it had taken 2 years and we had thought so carefully about it, it helped.

Yes we’ve done it, we’ve done it pretty well and it had to be done and we have put so much in place and so many discussions, such sensitivity about how it was going to be done. Everyone’s voice, concerns and anxieties from members of staff have found a way through into this.

Over the first weekend there were lots of visitors, and positive feedback, good that you’ve done it – rather than beautiful exhibition. There was discussion going on in the café afterwards. More children than expected. Teenage daughters with their mums. That made me feel proud. That’s a good conversation to have, brings the abuse out into the open…

It got more difficult as the show went on – he was on the inside and I got really sick of it by the end – it [the end of the show] is a weight lifted off our shoulders.

We have all had to cover for front of house. It’s exhausting – giving everyone the time and attention they need. The flippant comments, people trying to make light – that was quite difficult to hear again and again.

I wasn’t sure I wanted to do this – how dare he [Gill] put me in this position every day and think about this, as the mother of a young daughter, but in fact it was very interesting to work.

There was lots of mutual support – helps that it is a small team that gets on. Individuals checking in on each other – backing each other up – we have all had our moments.

Now that we are getting positive responses and level of engagement is really encouraging I feel much more confident about communicating it. The biggest concern would be to get people outside and faced with an anger that is difficult to be rational with. It didn’t happen but there could still be a reaction. 3 weeks in – and I’m trying not to be complacent – I am still prepared. The first week was the most intense – but it has dried up for the past couple of weeks.

After this exhibition, and the learning that we have undertaken as a result, we will reflect on how the permanent collection displays can incorporate this information so that the museum does not turn a blind eye to Gill’s more disturbing biography again.

Reflection – Steph Fuller Artistic Director Ditchling Museum of Art and Craft

A few observations, being on the outside and being recruited while the show was on:

I thought it was a good thing for the museum to do; it was important not to hide from issues. I felt that, within the exhibition, if the public didn’t read all the background material, watch the film and the discussions, they could miss quite a lot of the nuance of what was happening and I thought that was a pity. People in the museums and galleries business, who did read all of that stuff and listened to it and who knew much more about the process [had one kind of experience]. But I think the visitor experience was a bit partial in the museum.

The real legacy issue, which I am grappling with at the moment, is that the voice that was not in the room, was Petra’s. She was very front and centre as far as Cathie’s commission was concerned, but there is something about how the work conflated Petra with the doll and being a child victim, that I’m a bit uncomfortable about actually. There is lots of evidence of Petra’s views about her experiences, and how she internalised them, that was not present at all anywhere. It is easy to project things on to someone being just a victim and Petra would have completely rejected that.

In terms of legacy how we continue to talk about Gill and his child sexual abuse and other sexual activities which were fairly well outside the mainstream, I think – yes acknowledge it, but also – how? I am feeling my way round it at the moment. There are plenty of living people, her children and grandchildren who are protective of her, quite reasonably. I need to feel satisfied that when we speak about Petra, we represent her side of it and we don’t just tell it from the point of view of the abuser, to put it bluntly. If it is about Petra, how do we do it in a way that respects her views and her family’s views?

I feel very much it’s a piece of work that is not done. But the thing to do is to start. It’s much better to do something than to do nothing, then expose the next layer of issues which need to be addressed.

In terms of the staff, I think some of the staff were quite damaged by the experience of having to deal with it, and it would have been good if there had been more psychological, emotional support for staff in place. For most people, they accepted that it was difficult, but it was important and everybody got on with it. But it’s really hard to work with it all the time and I am thinking about doing more internal work for staff, and as new staff come in – this is never going away.

It was quite a high risk thing for the museum to do and for a lot of people who had nurtured the museum over a long time there were concerns about if this was the right thing to do, or the right way to do it. I think quite a few of the trustees breathed a deep sigh of relief when it had happened, that it had been OK; the museum had been recognised and applauded for doing it, much more than people who had thrown bricks at it, and that was a result. We have had to talk round a couple of people in the village who said they would never have anything to do with the museum again – and we managed to lure them back in, this is one aspect of what we are about, but we are still the place you are supportive of.

The exhibition absolutely is informing our future thinking around interpretation and how we tell that narrative about Eric Gill and the Guild, and subsequently. I don’t want it to be the only thing that people ever think about in the context of our content. Gill is very important and an important part of the museum’s story, but there is a huge amount of other stuff and other artists and a much longer history for us. We’ve had a run of shows that have been looking more at women and that’s a sort of balancing act, certainly internally. There is a show coming up when we will be looking at material from our collection. We will need to be some new interpretation and that’s a useful next step, putting in a tangible form the things that have been learned and thought about and mulled over as a result of doing the exhibition.

At the beginning, I asked myself – what is my position on this? In many ways – I don’t feel it is a black and white thing. I love Eric Gill’s work, I loved it before we knew that he was a child sex-abuser, obviously I have known that for a very long time, and, having thought about it a lot, I still feel that the work is interesting and valid. I am able to think about the work in a way that is detached from his behaviour, which is very much not acceptable. Post #MeToo there is a real desire for a binary position: ‘this is wrong’ and therefore everything that has anything to do with it is wrong, and therefore we should whitewash Eric Gill and his work out of our collection, we should never show his work or speak of him again. I think that’s not helpful and makes no sense to remove someone from the narrative, who is really important and influential in art historical and in philosophical terms. We couldn’t talk about what the museum is about without talking about Eric Gill. It’s not doable.

While I have a critique of the work, I I am not in any way critical of Nathaniel doing the show; I think it was a really great thing Nathaniel did to do and very courageous. It was about moving the narrative into the public space and that was the big step. It was done in a way that managed it pretty effectively for the museum, although there have been some very negative responses. Overall, the museum has been respected for doing things in the way they did, even by some people who don’t altogether agree with where it landed. I think there are things that could have been handled differently that might have added some extra layers of complexity in some respects, but maybe you can only deal with so much complexity at once. If I had approached this and done it from scratch, I would have done it in a different way and it would have been flawed in another way – there is never a perfect answer.[/vc_column_text][three_column_post title=”Case Studies” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”15471″][/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.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »