10 Jul 20 | News and features, Opinion
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”114273″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Free speech is a powerful thing. It gives us all the right to use our voice, to engage in debates about the future and the past. It is one of our basic human rights and gave authority to so many campaigns which have shaped the countries we live in. It empowered the civil rights movement, it enabled the feminists, it galvanised the LGBT+ rights campaign and it facilitated the anti-racism and anti-fascism campaigns which gave so many of us a place in society. As with all our human rights it is to be used, celebrated and protected and cherished. It is a force for good.
There are times though when ‘debate’ on social media could make you believe that everybody hates each other. That we have nothing in common and that no-one else’s voice or opinion is valid. That anger and hate rather than conversation and debate are the current manifestation of our free speech. We know that not to be true in our offline world – but like it or not this does have an impact on our free speech; it doesn’t engender positive engagement but it does create a chilling effect. And the quality of our national conversation is all the poorer for it.
Index takes no position on any issue other than the protection of free speech. We don’t advocate for one side over another in a debate. But rather we celebrate debate and engagement and education, things that I think we should all cherish.
On Tuesday night, 150 leading writers and academics from across the political spectrum signed a joint open letter for Harper’s magazine decrying the current state of debate and engagement. Many of them have a track record in the fight to protect free speech, in fact several have previously written for Index. All of these people have a profile and voice. They aren’t being silenced. But they are rightly worried about the quality and calibre of our collective national conversations. And they raise valid concerns that other people are being silenced.
Their words are a warning and a message that should inspire debate, as it has in recent days:
“The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other.”
Our role at Index is clear – we exist to provide a voice for the voiceless – a platform for the persecuted. That’s what we were established to do 49 years ago. But, we also will campaign relentlessly to ensure that our basic human right of free speech and free expression is not only enshrined in law, but protected and respected.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”YOU MIGHT LIKE TO READ” category_id=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
08 Jul 20 | Campaigns - new test
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. In laoreet lorem in erat sollicitudin, ac convallis ante auctor. Sed ac ipsum malesuada, iaculis metus vel, vestibulum dolor. Aliquam eget vulputate libero, vel accumsan enim. Pellentesque id sapien sodales, finibus ligula sed, tempor metus. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia curae; Morbi laoreet tristique quam, sed pretium orci vulputate et. Vestibulum eros ipsum, blandit vitae porta vitae, bibendum elementum massa. In a consequat leo, vel ultrices dolor. In vel enim accumsan, sollicitudin mauris tincidunt, vulputate nisl. In molestie non ex ut rhoncus. Morbi lobortis lorem dolor, sit amet pulvinar magna ultrices sed. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Proin tempus ex a velit placerat sagittis. Morbi ut viverra est. Phasellus rhoncus mattis facilisis.
Nullam mollis dui ut tellus malesuada elementum. Phasellus nisi quam, finibus a purus sed, tincidunt malesuada enim. Aliquam erat volutpat. Sed at viverra metus. Vestibulum non consectetur nulla, et dignissim turpis. Phasellus finibus erat nec mattis porta. Duis nisi dolor, sodales vel nisi rhoncus, hendrerit laoreet mi. Vivamus sagittis turpis ut dolor rutrum pharetra. Nullam dictum nibh dolor, non pellentesque sem pulvinar ac. Aliquam erat volutpat. Ut nulla nibh, ullamcorper in finibus at, sodales eget dui. Quisque vel lacus eu dolor scelerisque ullamcorper
25 Jun 20 | Magazine, Volume 49.02 Summer 2020
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”What do citizens in South Korea, Italy and Spain think about the long-term consequences of signing up to Covid-19 apps? Our reporters Silvia Nortes, Steven Borowiec and Laura Silvia Battaglia report for Index on Censorship magazine.” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_single_image image=”114058″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]
SOUTH KOREA
Kim Ki-kyung, a 28-year-old who lives in Seoul, is used to the idea of his mobile phone tracking his movements, so he wasn’t bothered when he learned that his government would have access to his location data as part of efforts to contain the coronavirus outbreak.
He is far from the only one being tracked in this way. Several times a day, the millions of smartphones in South Korea bleat in unison with alerts from governments that users cannot opt out of receiving. When COVID-19 cases are diagnosed, the age and gender of the patients is disclosed to the public, along with the routes the patients took in the days before their diagnosis, so that others can avoid those places.
While the system raises issues of privacy, Kim thinks the potential benefits outweigh the concerns. “Everyone is at least somewhat reluctant to share personal data with the government, but the tracking app allows the authorities to monitor people who are in self-quarantine, and will allow epidemiological surveys to be done faster,”Kim said.
“The government system sounds terrible at first but it really isn’t all that different from regular smart services, like Google Maps or Nike Run Club,”Kim said.
Kim says he follows, through the news, how the government plans to handle the data gleaned from the program, but isn’t much worried about the data being used for some nefarious purpose somewhere down the road. He feels the more urgent task is containing the public health crisis.
SPAIN
In Spain, our interviews found respondents were more concerned about the use of personal information collected by monitoring apps, than in the other countries. The main conclusion drawn from the interviews is that people do not trust this system completely and fear data might be misused by the government and private companies, perhaps because some people have memories of what it was like living under the General Franco dictatorship.
Juan Giménez, 28, agreed with using these apps “only for controlling the spread of the virus”. Cristina Morales, 26, considers it “a violation of privacy, but, at the same time, it is appropriate to guarantee the citizens’safety and prevent confinement violations”.
Ana Corral, 22,said it is “OK as long as we know which information is used exactly, how it will be used and where the data is saved. If the goal is to know if you might have infected or been infected, that is fine”.
Some also mention social good as a priority. “There are always individual sacrifices for the common good”, said Manuel Noguera, 40. For Eduardo Manjavacas, 40, “the end justifies the means.” “Everything made for a global good and with a clear privacy policy is welcome. We live in a digital age, our data is studied daily for commercial purposes”, said Amelia Rustina, 30, while Sabina Urraca, 36, added she is “ready for that sacrifice. I would like to trust individual responsibility, but I don’t.”
On the other hand, older people are more reluctant, and many claim they would not register in these apps at all.
ITALY
They trust the government but with some doubts; they believe that giving up part of their privacy is a negotiable asset to protect public health; they want more reassurances on the functioning of the tracking app, wishing to know who will keep the sensitive data after the end of the pandemic.
These are the attitudes of Italian citizens of all ages relating to the use of a Covid-19 tracking app.
Index spoke to 50 Italian citizens – aged between 20 and 60, of different parts of the country, different professions and different backgrounds – about their thoughts on the Immuni tracking app announced by the Italian government as part of its approach to Covid-19.The Immuni app was preceded by a similar experiment in the Italian region most affected by the pandemic: Lombardy, where some of them live.
Federica Magistro, 22, university student, and Anna Pesco, 60, a teacher, living in Milan have downloaded the app in Lombardy, and are currently using it. They also plan to use the national app. Both hope that the remaining 60% of Italians also think the same way, so it maximises its use to of the entire population. Federica said: “I think I should trust those who are developing it and the government that offers it”, while Tesco said: “I would like maximum transparency and I would like to have absolute guarantee on the cancellation of my data at the end of the pandemic.”
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
15 Jun 20 | News and features
Credit: Singlespeedfahrer/Petr Vodicka/Amy Fenton/Executive Office of the President/ Philip Halling/Isac Nóbrega/The White House
George Floyd. Dr Li Wenliang. Amy Fenton. JK Rowling. Edward Colston. Jair Bolsonaro. Donald Trump.
Love or loathe these people, the actions of each have opened a new debate in 2020. From the Black Lives Matter movement to the debate on sexuality, to the freedom of the press in the UK, to the role of Government and state actors hiding details of a public health emergency from their citizens.
If we have learnt anything at all from the turmoil that 2020 has given the world, it’s that free speech is vital; free expression is central to who we are and; that journalistic freedom is integral to the type of global society we aspire to live in.
Today, I’m joining the team at Index on Censorship as its new CEO. Index has spent the last half century providing a voice for the voiceless. Giving those who live under repressive regimes a platform to tell the world of their experiences and enabling artists to share their work with the world when they can’t share it with their neighbours.
Our work has never been more important. There have been over 200 attacks on media freedom across the globe, since the end of March this year, related to Covid-19. In the US alone there have been over 400 press freedom ‘incidents’ since the murder of George Floyd, including 58 arrests of journalists, 86 physical attacks and 52 tear gassings. In the UK, this weekend, on the streets of London we saw journalists attacked while reporting on a far-right demo in our capital.
My role in the months ahead is to highlight the threats to free speech, both in the UK and further afield, to celebrate free speech, to open a debate on what free speech should look like in the 21st century and most importantly to keep providing a platform for those people who can’t have one in their own country.
The editorial in the first edition of Index on Censorship in 1972, stated: There is a real danger… of a journal like INDEX turning into a bulletin of frustration. But then, on the other hand, there is the magnificent resilience and inexhaustible resourcefulness of the human spirit in adversity.
With you, the team at Index will continue to fight against the frustration while celebrating the magnificent resilience of the human spirit. And I can’t wait to get stuck in.
Ruth
PS Join us to protect and promote freedom of speech in the UK and across the world by making a donation.
