[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”112844″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]When the political scientist and historian Benedict Anderson wrote about nations in his 1983 book Imagined Communities, he said that belonging to them was particularly felt at certain moments. Reading the daily newspaper for one; watching those 11 men representing your country on the football field another. If Anderson were alive today, he might add “getting a government text message” to the list. Last Tuesday people throughout the UK all shared in this experience. Following Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s announcement the night before that we must all stay in, with few exceptions, the nation’s phones pinged to the alert “New rules in force now: you must stay at home. More info and exemptions at gov.uk/coronavirus Stay at home. Protect the NHS. Save lives.” It was a first. The government had never before used the UK’s mobile networks to send out a message on mass.
By “force” the message meant exactly that. Police now have the power to fine those who flout the new rules. Quickly videos have emerged of officers approaching people on the streets, such as one showing sunbathers in Shepherd’s Bush being told to leave, and photos of a 25-person strong karaoke party that was dispersed this weekend. Almost overnight we went from being a nation where most people could come and go as they pleased to one in which we can barely leave our front door.
State-of-emergency measures are necessary in a real crisis, which is where we land today. Hospital beds are filling up fast, the death toll is rising, the threat of contagion is real and high. Few would argue that something drastic didn’t need to be done. But that does not mean we should blindly accept all that is happening in the name of our health. Proportionality – whether the measures are a justified or over-reaching response to the current danger – and implication – how they could be used in other aspects – are questions we should and must ask.
The new rules of UK life have been enshrined in the Coronavirus Bill. The bill, a complex and lengthy affair, gives the government a lot of power. Take for example the rules that allow authorities to isolate or detain individuals who are judged to be a risk to containing the spread of Covid-19. What exactly does a risk mean? Would it be the journalist Kaka Touda Mamane Goni from Niger, who last week was arrested because he spoke of a hospital that had a coronavirus case and was quickly branded a threat to public order? Or how about Blaž Zgaga, a Slovenian journalist who contacted Index several weeks back to say he had been added to a list of those who have the disease (something he denies) and must be detained? This followed him calling up the government on their own coronavirus tactics. He’s currently terrified for his life.
It’s easy to dismiss these examples as ones that are happening elsewhere and not here, until one day we wake up and that’s no longer the case.
And while many of us might be far away from authoritarian nations like China, whose government is tracking people’s movements through a combination of monitoring people’s smartphones, utilising now ubiquitous video surveillance and insisting people report their current medical condition, it might only be a matter of time before we catch up.
Singapore, another country with a state that has a tight grip on its population, has already offered to make the app they’re currently using to track exposure to the virus available to developers worldwide. The offer is free but at what other costs? The Singaporean government has been working hard to allay privacy concerns and yet some linger. Will people invite this new technology in their lives? Amid the panic that coronavirus has created, it’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which such tools are imported, embraced and normalised. As Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harrari writes in the FT:
“A big battle has been raging in recent years over our privacy. The coronavirus crisis could be the battle’s tipping point. For when people are given a choice between privacy and health, they will usually choose health.”
The coronavirus bill was meant to come with an expiry date, a “sunset clause” of two years, at which stage all former laws fall back into place. The sunset clause has since been removed, and instead in its place is a clause stating the legislation will be reviewed every six months. Politicians have also sought assurances that the measures will only apply to fighting the virus, to which they have been told yes they will only be used “when strictly necessary” and will remain in force only for as long as required. All positive and stuff we should welcome. And yet how often do politicians say one thing and do another? We must be watchful and hold them to their word.
This is particularly important with the clause that enables authorities to close down, cancel or restrict an event or venue if it poses a threat to public health, a clause that has bad implications for the ability to protest. Of course in the digital age there are many ways beyond going out on to the streets to make your voice heard. And even without the internet, we’ve seen several creative forms of protest from inside the home, such as the Brazilians who have shouted “get out” and bashed kitchenware at the window as a way to voice anger at President Jair Bolsonaro.
Marching on the streets in huge numbers is, however, amongst the most effective, hence its endurance. If in six months’ time the virus is under control and social distancing is no longer essential, this clause should at point-of-review be removed. And if it isn’t, we need to fight really hard until it is. Protest is one of the key foundations of a robust civil society. It’s not a right we want to see disappear.
The great British philosopher John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
The coronavirus crisis passes Mill’s liberty test. It is causing harm to a great number of people. It’s therefore important to take it seriously and to provide the state with adequate powers to fight the pandemic, even if that means losing some of our freedoms in the here and now. At the same time we must make sure politicians do not use this moment to tighten their grip in ways that, as stated, are disproportionate and easily manipulated. And once this is all over we expect the bill to expire too, and any apps that might no longer be necessary. Our freedoms, so hard fought for, can be easily squandered. Let’s not lose liberties on top of lives.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row disable_element=”yes”][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Apply for Free Speech Training and Mentoring” font_container=”tag:h2|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]
>> Applications for Free Speech Is For Me have now closed <<
Following a successful initial pilot of Free Speech is for Me we are now preparing to offer our free speech training to a wider group of the public. We hope to make this next group bigger than ever, and the training will be free and online. If you are interested in these free sessions on free speech and free expression, with links to advocacy, activism and defending human rights please fill in this form to express your interest today.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/_pmpc3CpGn0″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Free speech has been critical to social movements throughout history. It has consistently been used as a powerful tool for marginalised groups to articulate their grievances and demand to be heard.
But today discussions surrounding “free speech” have unfortunately been dominated by a small number of people who seek to use it primarily to curtail the rights of others and spread hate, leading many to question it as a value.
However, when the principle of free speech is abandoned, those who already face oppression are hurt most: including people of colour, religious and ethnic minorities, and those who campaign on sex and gender issues. Free Speech is for Me aims to show how freedom of expression furthers democracy and individual liberty and benefits everyone. If we allow free speech protections to be weakened, we lose our greatest tool in advocating for change.
We are now supporting these advocates in reclaiming free speech as a fundamental right that must apply to everyone by offering training and mentoring on freedom of expression issues. This will include one on one support from leading free speech experts plus media, communications and public speaking training. They will end the programme with a clearer understanding of the challenges of censorship and the tools to overcome them.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row disable_element=”yes”][vc_column width=”1/4″ css=”.vc_custom_1565187480669{background-color: #e52d1c !important;}”][vc_column_text]
We are recruiting six people in the US and six people in the UK, from groups whose belief in the value of free expression principles has been challenged in recent years.
We are seeking applicants who would bring a different angle to discussions around free speech.
Applicants may come from all age groups and particular consideration will be given to activists who have experienced the shutting down of speech. We want applicants who will champion free speech as a right that benefits them and their peers and is essential to their cause but is also a right shared by all.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row disable_element=”yes”][vc_column][vc_separator color=”white”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row disable_element=”yes”][vc_column width=”1/4″ css=”.vc_custom_1565187500255{background-color: #E52D1C !important;}”][vc_column_text]
If your application is successful you will receive:
Mentoring: Advocates will be paired with experienced free speech advocates who will act as an advisor and mentor to each individual over the course of the training. You will have 4-6 meetings delivered either face to face or virtually, plus additional support as needed.
Media training: Advocates will receive one full day of professional media training plus regular training on public speaking/writing as necessary.
Public events: Advocates will be given the skills to talk about issues of free speech at public events, in private meetings and in the media. We will work with you to identify these opportunities. We will pay for your expenses to attend training and a speaker fee for events and writing.
Please complete the following application form and submit to us by Friday 27 September 2019.
If you are shortlisted you will also be asked for full resume and may be invited to an interview, which will take place during the last week of September.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row disable_element=”yes”][vc_column][vc_separator color=”white”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row disable_element=”yes”][vc_column][gravityform id=”42″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_section][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Free Speech is for Me: Class of 2020 US
See what this year’s American intake have been doing as part of their programme.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”112393″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”112394″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”112395″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”112396″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Free Speech is for Me: Class of 2020
See updates from the first intake of the programme, featuring interviews with mentors and advocates.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”111324″ img_size=”large” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2019/12/free-speech-is-for-me-class-of-2020/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qc8MSYLkQg”][/vc_column][/vc_row][/vc_section][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Meet the mentors” font_container=”tag:h2|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]
Through training and mentoring, Free Speech is for Me is equipping people from all backgrounds and beliefs to speak out against censorship. The mentors will work with the 13 advocates to help them defend and champion the issue of free speech.
[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Jodie Ginsberg” title=”CEO, Index on Censorship” profile_image=”104110″]Jodie Ginsberg is the CEO of Index on Censorship. Prior to joining Index, she worked as a foreign correspondent and business journalist and was previously UK bureau chief for Reuters. She sits on the council of global free expression network IFEX and the board of the Global Network Initiative, and is a regular commentator in international media on freedom of expression issues.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Will Gore” title=”Columnist” profile_image=”110641″]Will Gore is the head of partnerships for the National Council for the Training of Journalists and former managing editor of The Independent, i, Independent on Sunday and the London Evening Standard. He writes on a wide range of topics, including politics, the media and cricket, and writes a weekly column for the Independent on memorable journeys.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Kiri Kankhwende” title=”Journalist and campaigner” profile_image=”110611″]
Kiri Kankhwende is a Malawian journalist and political analyst based in London who writes primarily about politics and immigration. She has worked in human rights campaigning and is a member of Writers of Colour. She is also a member of Index on Censorship’s board of trustees.
[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Meera Selva” title=”Journalist” profile_image=”110962″]Meera is an accomplished senior journalist with experience in Europe, Asia and Africa, currently the Director of the Journalism Fellowship Programme at the Reuters Institute. She joined the Reuters Institute from Handelsblatt Global where she had been working out of Singapore, having helped launch the digital daily business paper in Berlin in 2014. Her previous experience includes several years as a London based correspondent for the Associated Press, and three years as Africa correspondent for the Independent based in Nairobi, along with stints in business journalism at a range of publications including the Daily Telegraph.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Nadine Strossen” title=”Professor of law” profile_image=”111384″]New York Law School professor Nadine Strossen, the immediate past President of the American Civil Liberties Union (1991-2008), is a leading expert and frequent speaker/media commentator on constitutional law and civil liberties, who has testified before Congress on multiple occasions. Her acclaimed 2018 book HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship was selected by Washington University as its 2019 “Common Read.”[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Kenan Malik” title=”Writer, lecturer and broadcaster” profile_image=”82874″]Kenan Malik is a British writer, lecturer and broadcaster. His main areas of interest are the history of ideas, philosophy of science, religion, politics, race and immigration. His books include The Meaning of Race (1996), Man, Beast and Zombie (2000) and Strange Fruit: Why Both Sides Are Wrong in the Race Debate (2008). He writes a column for The Guardian and the New York Times.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Xinran” title=”Author and journalist” profile_image=”106837″]Xinran is a British–Chinese author, journalist and activist. Her first book, The Good Women of China, was published in 2002 and became an international bestseller. She has written two novels, Miss Chopsticks (2008) and The Promise (2018) and four other non-fiction books: Sky Burial, China Witness, Message from an Unknown Chinese Mother and Buy Me the Sky. She is an advocate for women’a issues and is a contributor to Index on Censorship magazine.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Konstantin Kisin” title=”Comedian” profile_image=”110630″]Konstantin Kisin is an award-winning Russian-British comedian, podcaster and writer. In 2018 he refused to sign a university “behavioural agreement form” which banned jokes about religion, atheism and insisted that all humour must be “respectful and kind”. He is also the creator and co-host of Triggernometry, a posdcast and YouTube show where comedians interview economists, political experts, journalists and social commentators about controversial and challenging subjects.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Emily Knox” title=”Professor in the School of Information Sciences” profile_image=”111712″]Emily Knox is a professor in the School of Information Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and teaches on information access, intellectual freedom and censorship. She is also the author of Book Banning in 21st Century America and recently edited Trigger Warnings: History, Theory, Context. Knox serves on the boards of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Beta Phi Mu, the Freedom to Read Foundation, and the National Coalition Against Censorship.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Will Creeley” title=”Lawyer” profile_image=”111713″]Will Creeley is a lawyer and senior vice president of Legal and Public Advocacy at Fire (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). Creeley has appeared on television and radio and has spoken to thousands of students, faculty, administrators and lawyers at events across the country. He is a member of the First Amendment Lawyers Association. Creeley’s writing has been published by The New York Times and The Washington Post, amongst others. Creeley edited the second edition of Fire’s Guide to Due Process and Campus Justice, coedited the second edition of Fire’s Guide to Free Speech on Campus and has coauthored amicus curiae briefs submitted to a number of courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Chris Finan” title=”Executive director, National Coalition Against Censorship” profile_image=”111714″]Chris Finan is executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, an alliance of 56 national non-profits that defends free speech. Finan has been involved in the fight against censorship throughout his career. He is former president of American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression. He is author of From the Palmer Raids to the PATRIOT Act: A History of the Fight for Free Speech in America.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Emma Llansó” title=”Director, Centre for Democracy and Technology Free Expression Project” profile_image=”111767″]Emma Llansó is the director of the Center for Democracy and Technology Free Expression Project. Llansó leads CDT’s legislative advocacy and amicus activity around freedom of expression in the USA and the EU. Llansó serves on the board of the Global Network Initiative, an organisation that works to advance individuals’ privacy and free expression rights in the ICT sector around the world. She is also a member of the Freedom Online Coalition Advisory Network, which provides advice to FOC member governments aimed at advancing human rights online.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_empty_space][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Meet the advocates” font_container=”tag:h2|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Ash Kotak” profile_image=”111138″]Ash Kotak is an award-winning playwright & film maker. He is also a curator and journalist. Free speech is at the core of all his work as he is often challenging and questioning popular narratives to illuminate greater truths.
His works as a playwright includes Maa (Royal Court); Hijra (Bush Theatre, Theatre Royal Plymouth, West Yorkshire Playhouse, Theatre Du Nord, Lille (in French), New Conservatory Theatre, San Francisco, USA); No Gain, No Pain (The Other Place, Stratford-Upon-Avon). He is working on a new play entitled The AIDS Missionary. His latest film work includes: The Joneses(Exec Producer, USA, 90 mins, 2017); Punched By a Homosexualist (Exec Producer, Russia, 55 mins, 2018).
He set up an arts curating collective, Aesthesia, in 2014 which works with dehumanised, marginalised and disempowered communities to amplify individual voices through creative art projects.[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Athena Stevens” profile_image=”111594″]Athena Stevens is an Olivier nominated writer and performer, a spokesperson for the UK’s Women’s Equality Party, and a human rights activist.
As both a creative and as an advocate she relies on free speech in the hopes that she and others will be able to give language to trauma, tell their story, and create a systematic change that leads to equality[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Dan Clarke” profile_image=”111595″]Dan Clarke is a master’s student of international public policy at UCL. He is interested in censorship issues around the world, especially in authoritarian countries such as China and many others in the Middle East and Africa.
Promoting freedom of the media and freedom of expression for all in society, including artists and critics, is vital for a fair, equitable and honest society where social issues can be addressed directly and without fear of repercussion. The protests in Hong Kong and the crackdown on the Uyghurs in China are two of the most important censorship issues for him. [/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Max Lake” profile_image=”111181″]Max graduated from the University of Birmingham in July 2019 and, as a liberal, was deeply alarmed at the student union’s censorious policies. He wants to change the culture of free speech, particularly on university campuses, where he and other students were fearful of speaking freely in seminars and lectures.
He has previously been constituency coordinator for Vote Leave in Rossendale and Darwen and is currently a constituency organiser for The Brexit Party. He would love to advocate for free speech, democracy and other constitutional issues as a future career.[/staff][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Rhiannon Adams” profile_image=”111207″]Rhiannon is a researcher and campaigner for human rights and technology. Educated at UCL and UC Berkeley, she trained at Amnesty International in their technology programme. She currently works in the legal sector, working with activists who have been targeted with spyware for their activism. She also works on the #NotYourPorn campaign to end revenge porn.
Her interests are targeted surveillance, spyware, online censorship and the issues that come with free speech on the internet, specifically self-censorship, internet shutdowns and blanket bans on certain types of speech. She hopes her insight into technology and human rights will bring an interesting perspective to the discussion on freedom of expression. [/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Maya Thomas” profile_image=”111601″]Maya is a third-year history undergraduate at Oxford University, and founder of the Oxford Society for Free Discourse, a group dedicated to countering censorship among students and academics. OSFD’s aim is to promote free speech as a universal value essential to facilitating constructive interaction between polarised ideas.
Maya’s work with OSFD varies from organising speaker’s events and public demonstrations, to informal debates and research. Linking her interest in free speech to her former presidency of the History Society, Maya has also become involved in the production of “Clear and Present Danger”, a podcast on the history of free speech.[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Madeleine Stone” profile_image=”111605″]Madeleine recently completed an MA in human rights law at SOAS and is currently working with Big Brother Watch, where she has focused on technology, surveillance, data and free speech online. She is involved in the ‘Preventing Prevent’ campaign, which seeks to educate and organise resistance to the government’s intrusive counter-terrorism strategy, Prevent.
She is particularly interested in how counterterrorism, surveillance and policing combine to create a chilling effect that dampens free speech, particularly for those who have traditionally been at the sharp end of state power. She is also passionate about women’s rights and LGBT rights and seeks to amplify the voices of these communities in her work.[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Marjory Wentworth” profile_image=”112016″]
Marjory Wentworth is the New York Times bestselling author of Out of Wonder, Poems Celebrating Poets (with Kwame Alexander and Chris Colderley). She is the co-writer with Herb Frazier and Bernard Powers of We Are Charleston, Tragedy and Triumph at Mother Emanuel, and also wrote Taking a Stand, The Evolution of Human Rights, with Juan E. Mendez. She is the current poet laureate of South Carolina. Wentworth serves on the board of advisors at The Global Social Justice Practice Academy. She teaches courses in writing, social justice and banned books at The College of Charleston.
[/staff][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Lillian Bustle” profile_image=”112131″]Lillian Bustle is a TEDx speaker, burlesquer and body love activist. Bustle has lobbied the state of New Jersey and municipalities for trans rights and successfully removed laws prohibiting cross dressers in bars and obscenity laws statewide. She is an advocate for sex workers’ rights, the LGBTQ community, and intersectional feminism. She recently led an advocacy workshop at a national burlesque conference and is working to connect her advocacy to the protection and promotion of freedom of expression more directly. Bustle is based in New Jersey.[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Mariana Nogales-Molinelli” profile_image=”112136″]Mariana Nogales-Molinelli is a human rights lawyer in Puerto Rico. She has a breadth of experience and is publicly active in diverse human rights (feminist, queer, environmentalist, anti-austerity) networks. Nogales-Molinelli’s recent free speech work has focused on protecting the right to protest through the organisation, Brigada Legal Solidaria. She is one of the founders of Humanistas Seculares de Puerto Rico, an organisation that advocates for the separation of church and state.[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Maya Rubin” profile_image=”112058″]Maya Rubin is a sophomore at Wellesley College. She is passionate about free speech for students on college campuses, and has worked with the Wellesley Freedom Project as an Adam Smith fellow and senior fellow to further the intellectual diversity at Wellesley. She has also worked with Index on Censorship as an intern. She hopes to show students the importance of free expression to improve their ability to honestly engage with one another.[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Obden Mondésir” profile_image=”112015″]Obden Mondésir is an archivist and oral historian at the Weeksville Heritage Center in Brooklyn, New York. He is also active in the prison abolition movement. Obden’s parents are Haitian immigrants who lived under dictatorship and Obden saw firsthand how a culture of fear was sustained in the USA through self-censorship. Last year, he helped to organise a free speech series with the New School, NCAC and Article 19. As part of that effort, he began a research project on historic “seditious” speech.[/staff][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Adeline Lee” profile_image=”112263″]Adeline Lee is a graduate of Wellesley College. She is currently at the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project which works to advance and defend First and Fourth Amendment freedoms amid developments in technology and science. Prior to the ACLU, Lee helped establish PEN America’s Campus Free Speech Program, working with university officials, faculty and student leaders across the country to foster dialogue and understanding following major free speech controversies. She is the coauthor of Chasm in the Classroom: Campus Free Speech in a Divided America, analysing over one hundred instances of Trump-era free speech infringements and debates, and served in 2019 on education-technology company EVERFI’s first national advisory board for diversity, equity and inclusion.[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_zigzag][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”With contributions from Xinran, Ahmet Altan, Stephen Woodman, Karoline Kan, Conor Foley, Robert Harris, Stefano Pozzebon and Melanio Escobar”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Judged: How governments use power to undermine justice and freedom. The summer 2019 edition of Index on Censorship magazine
The summer 2019 Index on Censorship magazine looks at the narrowing gap between a nation’s leader and its judges and lawyers. What happens when the independence of the justice system is gone and lawyers are no longer willing to stand up with journalists and activists to fight for freedom of expression?
In this issue Stephen Woodman reports from Mexico about its new government’s promise to start rebuilding the pillars of democracy; Sally Gimson speaks to best-selling novelist Robert Harris to discuss why democracy and freedom of expression must continue to prevail; Conor Foley investigates the macho politics of President Jair Bolsonaro and how he’s using the judicial system for political ends; Jan Fox examines the impact of President Trump on US institutions; and Viktória Serdült digs into why the media and justice system in Hungary are facing increasing pressure from the government. In the rest of the magazine a short story from award-winning author Claudia Pineiro; Xinran reflects on China’s controversial social credit rating system; actor Neil Pearson speaks out against theatre censorship; and an interview with the imprisoned best-selling Turkish author Ahmet Altan.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Special Report: Judged: How governments use power to undermine justice and freedom”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Law and the new world order by Rachael Jolley on why the independence of the justice system is in play globally, and why it must be protected
Turkey’s rule of one by Kaya Genc President Erdogan’s government is challenging the result of Istanbul’s mayoral elections. This could test further whether separation of powers exists
The party is the law by Karoline Kan In China, hundreds of human rights lawyers have been detained over the past years, leaving government critics exposed
Balls in the air by Conor FoleyThe macho politics of Brazil’s new president plus ex-president Dilma Rousseff’s thoughts on constitutional problems
Power and Glory by Silvia NortesThe Catholic church still wields enormous power in Spain despite the population becoming more secular
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Global View”][vc_column_text]Small victories do count by Jodie Ginsberg The kind of individual support Index gives people living under oppressive regimes is a vital step towards wider change[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”In Focus”][vc_column_text]Sending out a message in a bottle by Rachael JolleyActor Neil Pearson, who shot to international fame as the sexist boss in the Bridget Jones’ films, talks about book banning and how the fight against theatre censorship still goes on
Remnants of war by Zehra DoganPhotographs from the 2019 Freedom of Expression Arts Award fellow Zehra Doğan’s installation at Tate Modern in London
Six ways to remember Weimar by Regula Venske The name of this small town has mythic resonances for Germans. It was the home of many of the country’s greatest classical writers and gave its name to the Weimar Republic, which was founded 100 years ago
Big Brother’s regional ripple effect by Kirsten HanSingapore’s recent “fake news” law which gives ministers the right to ban content they do not like, may encourage other regimes in south-east Asia to follow suit
Who guards the writers? Irene Caselli reports on journalists who write about the Mafia and extremist movements in Italy need round-the-clock protection. They are worried Italy’s deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini will take their protection away
China in their hands by XinranThe social credit system in China risks creating an all-controlling society where young people will, like generations before them, live in fear
Playing out injustice by Lewis JenningsUgandan songwriter and politician Bobi Wine talks about how his lyrics have inspired young people to stand up against injustice and how the government has tried to silence him[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Culture”][vc_column_text]“Watch out we’re going to disappear you” by Claudia PineiroThe horrors of DIY abortion in a country where it is still not legal are laid bare in this story from Argentina, translated into English for the first time
A rebel writer by Eman AbdelrahimAn exclusive extract from a short story by a new Egyptian writer. The story deals with difficult themes of mental illness set against the violence taking place during the uprising in Cairo’s Tahrir Square[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Column”][vc_column_text]Index around the world – Speak out, shut out by Lewis Jennings Index welcomed four new fellows to our 2019 programme. We were also out and about advocating for free expression around the world[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Endnote”][vc_column_text]
End note – Hanging truth out to dry by Sally Gimson Documentary maker Maxim Pozdorovkin explains why propaganda these days is all about disorientation and creating a situation where it is hard to figure out what is true
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe”][vc_column_text]In print, online, in your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Listen”][vc_column_text]Music has long been a form of popular rebellion, especially in the 21st century. These songs, provide a theme tune to the new magazine and give insight into everything from the nationalism in Viktor Orban’s Hungary to the role of government-controlled social media in China to poverty in Venezuela
LISTEN HERE[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Listen”][vc_column_text]The summer 2019 magazine podcast, featuring interviews with best-selling author Xinran; Italian journalist and contributor to the latest issue, Stefano Pozzebon; and Steve Levitsky, the author of the New York Times best-seller How Democracies Die.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”97329″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”right”][vc_column_text]“Fake news”. The phrase emerged only a matter of years ago to become familiar to everybody. The moral panic around fake news has grown so rapidly that it became a common talking point. In its short life it has been dubbed the Collins Dictionary’s word of 2017 and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists say it was one of the driving factors that made them set their symbolic Doomsday Clock to two minutes from midnight in 2019. It is a talking point on the lips of academics, media pundits and politicians.
For many, it is feared that “fake news” could lead to the end of democratic society, clouding our ability to think critically about important issues. Yet the febrile atmosphere surrounding it has led to legislation around the world which could potentially harm free expression far more than the conspiracy theories being peddled.
In Russia and Singapore politicians have taken steps to legislate against the risk of “fake news” online. A report published in April 2019 by the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport could lead to stronger restrictions on free expression on the internet in the UK.
TheOnline Harms White Paper proposes ways in which the government can combat what are deemed to be harmful online activities. However, while some the harmful activities specified — such as terrorism and child abuse — fall within the government’s scope, the paper also declares various unclearly defined practices such as “disinformation” as under scrutiny.
Internet regulation would be enforced by a new independent regulatory body, similar to Ofcom, which currently regulates broadcasts on UK television and radio. Websites would be expected to conform to the regulations set by the body.
According to Jeremy Wright, the UK’s Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the intention is that this body will have “sufficient teeth to hold companies to account when they are judged to have breached their statutory duty of care”.
“This will include the power to issue remedial notices and substantial fines,” he says, “and we will consult on even more stringent sanctions, including senior management liability and the blocking of websites.”
According to Sharon White, the chief executive of the UK’s media regulatory body Ofcom, the term “fake news” is problematic because it “is bandied around with no clear idea of what it means, or agreed definition. The term has taken on a variety of meanings, including a description of any statement that is not liked or agreed with by the reader.” The UK government prefers to use the term “disinformation”, which it defines as “information which is created or disseminated with the deliberate intent to mislead; this could be to cause harm, or for personal, political or financial gain”.
However, the difficulty of proving that false information was published with an intention to cause harm could potentially affect websites which publish honestly held opinions or satirical content.
As a concept, “fake news” is frequently prone to bleeding beyond the boundaries of any attempt to define it. Indeed, for many politicians, that is not only the nature of the phrase but the entire point of it.
“Fake news” has become a tool for politicians to discredit voices which oppose them. Although the phrase may have been popularised by US President Donald Trump to attack his critics, the idea of “fake news” has since become adopted by authoritarian regimes worldwide as a justification to deliberately silence opposition.
As late US Senator John McCain wrote in a piece for The Washington Post: “the phrase ‘fake news’ — granted legitimacy by an American president — is being used by autocrats to silence reporters, undermine political opponents, stave off media scrutiny and mislead citizens.
“This assault on journalism and free speech proceeds apace in places such as Russia, Turkey, China, Egypt, Venezuela and many others. Yet even more troubling is the growing number of attacks on press freedom in traditionally free and open societies, where censorship in the name of national security is becoming more common.”
In Singapore — a country ranked by Reporters Without Borders as 151 out of 180 nations for press freedom in 2019 — a bill was introduced to parliament ostensibly intended to combat fake news.
Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill would permit government ministers to order the correction or removal of online content which is deemed to be false. It is justified under very broad, tautological definitions which state amongst other things that “a falsehood is a statement of fact that is false or misleading”. On this basis, members of the Singaporean government could easily use this law to censor any articles, memes, videos, photographs or advertising that offends them personally, or is seen to impair the government’s authority.
In addition to more conventional definitions of public interest, the term is defined in the bill as including anything which “could be prejudicial to the friendly relations of Singapore with other countries.” The end result is that Singaporeans could potentially be charged not only for criticising their own government, but Singapore’s allies as well.
Marte Hellema, communications and media programme manager for the human rights organisation FORUM-ASIA explains her organisation’s concerns: “We are seriously concerned that the bill is primarily intended to repress freedom of expression and silence dissent in Singapore.”
Hellema pointed out that the law would be in clear violation of international human rights standards and criticised its use of vague terms and lack of definitions.
“Combined with intrusive measures such as the power to impose heavy penalties for violations and order internet services to disable content, authorities will have the ability to curtail the human rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone who criticises the government, particularly human rights defenders and media,” Hellema says.
In Russia, some of the most repressive legislation to come out of the wave of talk about “fake news” was signed into law earlier this year.
In March 2019, the Russian parliament passed two amendments to existing data legislation to combat fake news on the internet.
The laws censor online content which is deemed to be “fake news” according to the government, or which “exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of the Russian Federation”.
Online news outlets and users which repeatedly run afoul of the laws will face fines of up to 1.5 million roubles (£17,803) for being seen to have published “unreliable” information.
Additionally, individuals who have been accused of specifically criticising the state, the law or the symbols which represent them risk further fines of 300,000 roubles (£3,560) or even prison sentences.
The move has been criticised by public figures and activists, who see the new laws as an attempt to stifle public criticism of the government and increase control over the internet. The policy is regarded as a continuation of previous legislation in Russia designed to suppress online anonymity and blacklist undesirable websites.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
