8 May 2018 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, Serbia

Milan Antonijević (Craig Jackson / Human Rights House Foundation)
As one of Serbia’s most influential activists, Milan Antonijević uses the rule of law as his main line of defence in human rights protection. This is a major accomplishment considering he was a law student attending Belgrade University at the end of Milošević era, a time of censorship. Before Antonijević had completed his degree, the government fired any Serbian professor lecturing on the importance of human rights, gutting the education system of these important ideas.
However, Antonijević had barely reached adulthood in the wake of the atrocities that coincided with the Balkan wars and the fall of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Witnessing these events at a young age sparked a passion for activism in him, which was only further fuelled by his professors’ expulsion. He completed an informal education with these persistent lecturers, all of whom were human rights pioneers that bravely continued teaching despite losing their academic careers.
Antonijević has served as the director of YUCOM since 2005, joining the organisation in 2001 after formally receiving his MA in International Law, along with his human rights education on the side. Over the course of his career Antonijević has worked with a large number of human rights organisations, contributing to the creation of multiple campaigns and educational initiatives. This includes the Youth Group of the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, where he advocated for tolerance and reconciliation to the youth of the Balkan region in 2000. He is also currently involved in a coalition project promoting LGBTQ rights in Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo.
Many of Antonijević’s successes in activism were made during his time leading YUCOM, the Belgrade-based Lawyer’s Committee for Human Rights. Internationally recognised for its efforts in defence, its team of lawyers and experts provide legal assistance to victims of human rights violations before Serbian and international courts. YUCOM grants legal aid to more than 1,500 citizens annually and also represents other human rights organisations in court when needed. The organisation is currently aiding citizens in several cases and represents activist groups such as Woman in Black and Youth Initiative for Human Rights.
YUCOM advocates for the rule of the law and seeks court orders to ensure the proper implementation of Serbian legislation when required. With each case, the organisation works to ensure genuine commitment and implementation of new laws protecting human rights. These cases involve economic and social violations such as unequal access to public resources, hate crime, harassment, hate speech, and denied access to healthcare and education.
Many of Serbia’s citizens and marginalised communities are subject to these violations frequently. In addition to legal assistance, YUCOM also organises civic initiatives and campaigns to further advance their cause of human rights protection and defence. In January of 2018, they launched a project to bolster and improve the level of reporting on the rule of law in several Balkan nations.
Antonijević is also a founder and board member of Human Rights House Belgrade, which interacts with an international network to promote and defend human rights in Serbia. YUCOM is one of the five member organisations that contributes to the efforts of Human Rights House Belgrade, the other four being Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, Civic Initiatives, Helsinki Committee, and Policy Centre.
Despite a regime that tried to hinder the formation of activist minds like Antonijević’s, he’s persisted with dedication to his cause, proving that censorship cannot stop a new generation from fighting for the rights of their fellow citizens.
Milan Antonijević spoke with Index on Censorship’s Samantha Chambers about the state of human rights in Serbia and his organisation’s work. Below is an edited version of their interview:
Index: What would you say are the most pressing human rights issues affecting Serbia’s democracy today?
Antonijević: To start, we can look at the rule of law and the possibility of our legal system to provide solutions for human rights violations. First, we spot deficiencies in implementation of existing law in the protection of human rights. So from the point of view of legislation and constitution, we do not have as many deficiencies, but there are still things that should be polished and there are improvements that can be made on the legal side. We’re identifying it in areas of discrimination, hate speech, hate crime, and in freedom of expression. I cannot say that there is any true implementation that we can be proud of. There is improvement, but the whole system of protection and implementation of the laws should be listed in order to really answer the needs of citizens for their rights to be fully protected.
Index: Just to verify, its solely the issue of the implementation laws and not the laws themselves causing human rights issues at the moment?
Antonijević: Yes, only the implementation of the laws, the laws themselves are agreed on by experts and the senate commission and so on, so full standards are there.
Index: Which human rights issues do you find yourself needed to defend the most often? What marginalised communities are facing the biggest threats?
Antonijević: YUCOM usually has around 2,000 cases per year defending rights through representation before the court, so this is our day to day work. Within those, generally we can say that economic and social rights are the biggest challenge for Serbia. But when speaking about marginalised groups and underrepresented minorities, the Roma are subject to multiple forms of discrimination, and there’s a breach on their rights in every level. So, of economic and social rights, specifically in healthcare, education and non-equal opportunities. In the Roma situation, there is no accurate response from the country’s social workers. Things are moving, we used to have a large population of Roma who were not registered, who didn’t have identification, who didn’t have any access to health care or welfare. Now things are solid on the level of the law, and they are solid on the level of implementation. If they do not have an address or live in an informal supplement, there are mechanisms in order to bring them into the system so that the system recognises them and gives them support.
Another minority group, the LGBT community also experiences harassment through hate speech and hate crimes without any adequate response from the state or from the judiciary. In Serbia we recently had a prime minister who was openly a member of this community. However, it hasn’t lowered the number of incidents for hate speech in front of the media or parliament.
Index: Why did you decide to work for and become the director of an NGO (YUCOM) defending human rights? Why is your work so important in the nation’s current state?
Antonijević: My passion for human rights began as a very young student. Some of my professors at Belgrade law school, who were deeply involved in human rights protection were expelled from the law school, by the regime under President Milošević. A new law that was adopted in 1996 on education, and later on in 1999, completely cleared the professors who were dealing with human rights from the law school. I just continued working with them through informal lessons and lectures. From that, I became devoted to human rights. In addition, some of the injustice that I witnessed from the armies in 1994 and 1995. In 1994 and 95 as a young kid of 18 or 19 years, I witnessed some of the mistreatment, and international justice became important to me.
Index: Do you find that academic censorship is still a very pressing issue in Serbia today?
Antonijević: Academically, the moves of Milosevic had a big negative influence, and the law school never recovered from that.Those professors didn’t come back to university to raise new generations, so now the education from the law school is leaning towards disrespect of human rights. I’m sorry to say that now, very rare are the professors who share the ideas of human rights in this law school.
Index: How did continue to learn from these professors after they were expelled?
Antonijević: Those were some of the people who were initially starting the human rights organisations at that time. They met with special groups of students because many of us worked in the same organisations, so we were able to meet and continue our education. You had to do continue with both had the formal education where you could get your degree and your diploma and you’d stay with the informal classes, with professors who were expelled. They were really the pioneers of human rights in 70s, 80s, 90s and are still the names that you quote today.
Index: Do the Balkan wars have an impact on human rights work in Serbia?
Antonijević: Yes.The Balkan wars led to gross human rights violations and displacement of populations on all sides, so neither side is innocent in that sense. Serbs were forced to leave Croatia and parts of Bosnia, Kosovo and the same can be said for all nations that used to live in ex-Yugoslavia. Only the civil society is speaking on the victims of other nations, while politicians are stuck in the rhetoric of proving that the nation that they come from is the biggest victim, quite far from the restoration of justice and future peace. When you have mass murders, mass graves, and disappeared persons, speaking out about human rights becomes a harder task. Frustrations are high on all sides, with reason.
Index: Has media freedom declined under Aleksandar Vučić?
Antonijević: Funding has a negative influence on the media, because subsidies are only given to media if they are pro-government, not to others. Sometimes there are higher taxes for media that is independent and there’s a disregard for journalists posing questions from these organisations. There are also trends that are visible often in other European countries, with officials and others using social media and fake news, there is an atmosphere that you can easily create in a country with that kind of attitude. People are not questioning the information that they’re getting, and its really leaving a lot of space for malinformation, leaving many misinformed.
Index: What do you find is YUCOM’s biggest struggle working under a sometimes oppressive regime? What have been the biggest systematic barriers in accomplishing the goals of the organisation?
Antonijević: I wouldn’t call it oppressive. We’re in this strange situation where you’re sitting at the table discussing legislation with the democratic officials of your country, but — at the same time — not seeing the change of policy on every level. We’ve managed to influence the induction of the laws, and we’re still working on the changes with the government so it’s not a typical regime where you cannot say one word against the government. They have proven that they are able to allow separation of powers and debate in our society. We’re just now talking about the quality of the democracy, not the existence or non-existence of the democracy. The country is really leaning towards the EU and all the EU values are repeated from time to time by our officials. It’s not something that can be compared with Russia. It’s really a bit different, however, we need more commitment to the laws. Examples we see are going in the wrong direction, on an implementation level. We have sets of laws that are not being fully implemented, including the labor laws, the anti-discrimination laws, hate speech and hate crime laws, laws on environmental protection, etc. A few years ago YUCOM organised a panel with the minister of labour at that time, who is still in the government, and we discussed the new labour laws. The minister stated openly that there is no “political will” to implement the law. But we must note that the political will has to come from the government, parliament, judges and prosecutors. Only they can generate it. The public can demand it, but we as a civil society can only demand this implementation.
Index: How have the human rights violations occurring in Serbia affected you personally?
Antonijević: There is a constant side against us by different non-paid sectors. Some of the media that are not quite pro-government are reading that we work with the officials. Sometimes we receive threats but they are not coming from the state. Receiving threats is something that happens in this area of work, especially in issues on war crimes and cases that are more sensitive.
Index: Why is it important for Yucom to be part of a larger organisation like Human Rights House Belgrade? What has the support of the larger organisation done for Yucom?
Antonijević: I’m the director of YUCOM, but we also founded the Human Rights House Belgrade. It’s a new possibility, a new space to have one place dedicated to human rights and the promotion of human rights. The Human Rights House concept has helped YUCOM gain visibility and connect us to activism on an international level with other Human Rights Houses across Europe. There are 19 other houses and we all have one unanimous voice and find support from one another.
3 May 2018 | Journalism Toolbox Spanish
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”La escasez de papel de periódico en Venezuela ha obligado a algunos periódicos a cerrar, pero los medios digitales se están expandiendo con rapidez para ocupar su lugar y mantener a la gente al tanto de las últimas noticias. Luis Carlos Díaz informa desde Caracas”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]

Un hombre vende periódicos en Caracas, Venezuela, FStoplight/iStock
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
En mayo, El Impulso, un periódico venezolano con más de 110 años de andadura, anunciaba su cierre. No era la primera vez. Hicieron un anuncio parecido en enero, y otro en febrero. Cada vez, los periodistas trabajaban a destajo, las páginas seguían maquetándose y había noticias de sobra. Pero algo detenía a las imprentas: no había papel.
El papel escasea en Venezuela desde hace dos años. En 2013 cerraron 10 periódicos, y muchos más han reducido su tamaño.
Los noticieros digitales están tomando el relevo y muchos periódicos han tenido que reexaminar su estrategia. El Correo del Caroni pasó de tener 32 páginas a ocho y El Nacional redujo su sección de noticias, eliminó las de cultura y deporte y se deshizo de las revistas y el suplemento literario. Hasta el Diario Vea, favorable al gobierno, anunció varias veces que estaba condenado, aunque fue rescatado más adelante.
Internet se ha convertido en el lugar donde la información procedente de todas partes del país fluye de forma más libre y espontánea. En Venezuela, un país de 29 millones de habitantes, internet solo llega al 54% de la población, pero proliferan los emprendedores digitales a medida que la gente intenta atraer a nuevos usuarios. Los ejemplos son abundantes. Entre los nuevos sitios de noticias se encuentra Poderopedia.org, lanzado en junio por un periodista de la prensa tradicional que, descontento con la situación, buscaba investigar los vínculos entre la clase política, los empresarios y los oficiales del ejército.
SIC, la revista más antigua del país, dirigida por un centro político jesuita de Caracas, ha decidido imprimir con pérdidas este año mientras trabaja en una estrategia de digitalización. La revista se enfrenta además al reto de atraer a sus suscriptores —de 56 años de media— a lo digital. La diferencia clave entre el paisaje mediático de Venezuela y el del resto del mundo es que, cuando la gente habla del fin del periodismo impreso en otros lugares, normalmente se trata de un debate sobre el cambio tecnológico; en Venezuela, es diferente. Allí, la migración a plataformas digitales es una manera de atenuar una crisis por la falta física de papel.
Fue Andiarios, una organización periodística sin ánimo de lucro de Colombia, quien rescató a El Impulso al intervenir con un envío urgente de papel. «Esto nos permitió imprimir un mes más», dice Carlos Eduardo Carmona, el presidente del diario. «Seguimos sobreviviendo día a día. Los jefes de sección se sienten como bomberos aquí, controlando emergencias constantemente».
La inflación en Venezuela ya era incapacitante (la tasa oficial en 2013 era del 60%), pero entre junio de 2013 y enero de 2014, el coste de imprimir en el país se encareció un 460%.
La carestía de papel no es más que una de las muchas peculiaridades de Venezuela. Esta economía basada en el petróleo ha formado un estado con un punto débil crónico en su mismo centro. Poco se produce de forma doméstica; casi todo es importado, incluso medicinas, alimentos básicos y recambios de automóvil. Y estos productos no se pueden comprar libremente en el mercado internacional. Todas las adquisiciones tienen que hacerse a través del estado, lo que crea un sistema extremadamente complicado que puede llevar a la escasez.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
La economía de Venezuela: cómo funciona
En 2003, el entonces presidente Hugo Chávez puso en marcha una ley de cambio de divisas internacionales que convirtió al gobierno en único administrador de la compraventa de dólares, al provenir estos de la industria estatal del petróleo. La ley estaba pensada para evitar la fuga de capitales y controlar el precio de alimentos básicos. Al mantener los dólares a un precio subvencionado por el gobierno, es más barato importar productos que producirlos en el país.
Actualmente Venezuela cuenta con cuatro tasas de cambio: la Tasa Cencoex, a 6,30 bolívares por dólar (solo para importaciones del estado); la Tasa Sicad 1, a 10 bolívares por dólar (en ventas a empresas controladas por el estado); la Tasa Sicad 2, a 50 bolívares por dólar (en ventas a ciudadanos controladas por el estado), y la tasa del mercado negro, que va de 65 a 80 bolívares por dólar: una tasa ilegal que, pese a no ser oficial, es común en la calle. El estado ha intentado centralizar todas las variables económicas, pero no le ha salido bien.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
El presidente Hugo Chávez pasó en 2003 una ley de cambio de divisas extranjeras que hace que sea el gobierno el único organismo habilitado para administrar la compraventa de dólares. Además, el gobierno también tiene una lista de productos prioritarios para los que concede el uso de dólares y en agosto de 2012 decidió eliminar al papel de la lista, incrementando los costes y las dificultades para el que intentase importarlo.
El efecto no empezó a notarse hasta un año después, cuando se hizo evidente que los suministros de papel se habían agotado y la carestía de papel higiénico a nivel nacional saltó a los titulares de todo el mundo. El daño sufrido por la industria del periódico, sin embargo, fue duradero. Los grandes diarios del país redujeron su número de páginas durante los siguientes seis meses, deshaciéndose de secciones y suplementos enteros.
Aunque fue en 2012, con la decisión del gobierno, cuando comenzó la crisis per se, esta se exacerbó por una sucesión de protestas que se iniciaron en febrero de 2014. Una serie de manifestaciones juveniles que exigían la dimisión del gobierno se tornaron rápidamente en enfrentamientos violentos, en los que hubo 42 muertos y más de 3.000 arrestos. En las semanas previas a las protestas, se habían celebrado manifestaciones de periodistas y estudiantes de periodismo en Caracas, Barquisimeto y Ciudad Guayana, acompañadas de una campaña en las redes sociales. El Bloque de Prensa, una organización de editores afiliados, calculó que existía una deuda a proveedores de al menos 15 millones de dólares estadounidenses.
El gobierno respondió centralizando la compra de papel un día antes de la protesta de más envergadura. A raíz de ello, ahora solamente existe una entidad autorizada para comprar papel al extranjero, y todos los periódicos y la industria editorial dependen de ella para obtener su suministro.
Carmona, de El Impulso, afirma que el proveedor de papel del estado solo cubre la mitad de la demanda de papel del país. Al contrario que otros periódicos, no se ha sentido presionado aún a cambiar su postura editorial oposicionista, pero el tamaño del diario sí se ha reducido de 48 páginas a 12 o 16. «No queremos cerrar, pero tampoco queremos formar parte de un conjunto mediático pírrico con presencia limitada. Ya no tengo espacio para reportajes. Hemos recortado información, reducido el tamaño de la tipografía y el interlineado. Tenemos menos imágenes y las noticias son telegráficas y de peor calidad, pero al menos seguimos funcionando».
Estadísticas oficiales sobre compras de dólares de enero a abril de 2014 revelan que se aprobaron 7,41 millones de dólares estadounidenses para papel destinado a los medios. Y el 85% de esta cantidad (6,3 millones de dólares) fue para Últimas Noticias, el periódico de mayor circulación del país, comprado en 2013 con capital vinculado al gobierno. Tras la adquisición, Últimas Noticias cambió su postura editorial a una progubernamental. Desde aquello, muchos de sus periodistas principales han dimitido o han sido despedidos.
Miguel Henrique Otero es editor jefe de El Nacional, actualmente el único periódico opuesto al gobierno en Caracas desde que El Universal se vendiera en julio. «El gobierno sabe perfectamente cuáles son las necesidades de los diarios. Saben que aprobaron divisas para comprar papel, pero no pagan por motivos desconocidos, que suponemos son políticos. Lo único que han de hacer es comprar una cadena mediática, una que se doblegue ante ellos, para que empiece a fluir el dinero», dice Otero.
Mariaengracia Chirinos, investigadora de comunicaciones y miembro del Instituto Prensa y Sociedad Venezuela, cree que la escasez de papel afecta más a los lectores que a las empresas: «La información ahora llega a medias. Tiene que recurrir a otros espacios y a la autoedición, que a veces es bueno, pero cuando es una respuesta a ciertas restricciones, también puede afectar la capacidad de la ciudadanía para elegir de dónde obtienen la información».
La polarización ha sido intensa en Venezuela desde el golpe de estado de 2002, pero las últimas elecciones en 2013, tras la muerte del divisivo líder Hugo Chávez, han acrecentado la frustración de los activistas de la oposición, al disputar los resultados (el margen de victoria de Nicolás Maduro fue solo del 1,49%). Fernando Giuliani, psicólogo social, explica que «la polarización es tan extrema que los medios del estado no dejan nada de espacio para temas de la oposición, ni en las noticias ni en opinión. Hemos quemado los puentes y ya no queda sitio para el diálogo».
Lo que Venezuela necesita por encima de todo es la puesta en marcha de canales de información que sean fiables y consigan acrecentar la fidelidad del público. Para los medios venezolanos, al ser los costes tan altos, la cantidad de lectores prima por encima de la calidad del contenido. Hoy por hoy, todos los usuarios digitales del país navegan sin ayuda por el complejo ambiente mediático, buscando el modo de procesar la información en un entorno en el que es difícil dilucidar las jerarquías que dominan las redes. Lo que tenemos no basta para enterarnos de lo que está pasando, pero sí está empoderando a la ciudadanía para decidir por sí misma.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Luis Carlos Díaz es un periodista venezolano radicado en Caracas.
This article originally appeared in the autumn 2014 issue of Index on Censorship nagazine
Traducción de Arrate Hidalgo
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row content_placement=”top”][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Seeing the future of journalism” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2014%2F09%2Fseeing-the-future-of-journalism%2F|||”][vc_column_text]While debates on the future of the media tend to focus solely on new technology and downward financial pressures, we ask: will the public end up knowing more or less? Who will hold power to account? The subject is tackled from all angles, from our writers from across the globe.
With: Iona Craig, Taylor Walker, Will Gore[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”80562″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/09/seeing-the-future-of-journalism/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1481888488328{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][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_row]
26 Apr 2018 | Campaigns -- Featured, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Brussels, 26 April 2018
OPEN LETTER IN LIGHT OF THE 27 APRIL 2018 COREPER I MEETING
Your Excellency Ambassador, cc. Deputy Ambassador,
We, the undersigned, are writing to you ahead of your COREPER discussion on the proposed Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market.
We are deeply concerned that the text proposed by the Bulgarian Presidency in no way reflects a balanced compromise, whether on substance or from the perspective of the many legitimate concerns that have been raised. Instead, it represents a major threat to the freedoms of European citizens and businesses and promises to severely harm Europe’s openness, competitiveness, innovation, science, research and education.
A broad spectrum of European stakeholders and experts, including academics, educators, NGOs representing human rights and media freedom, software developers and startups have repeatedly warned about the damage that the proposals would cause. However, these have been largely dismissed in rushed discussions taking place without national experts being present. This rushed process is all the more surprising when the European Parliament has already announced it would require more time (until June) to reach a position and is clearly adopting a more cautious approach.
If no further thought is put in the discussion, the result will be a huge gap between stated intentions and the damage that the text will actually achieve if the actual language on the table remains:
- Article 13 (user uploads) creates a liability regime for a vast area of online platforms that negates the E-commerce Directive, against the stated will of many Member States, and without any proper assessment of its impact. It creates a new notice and takedown regime that does not require a notice. It mandates the use of filtering technologies across the board.
- Article 11 (press publisher’s right) only contemplates creating publisher rights despite the many voices opposing it and highlighting it flaws, despite the opposition of many Member States and despite such Member States proposing several alternatives including a “presumption of transfer”.
- Article 3 (text and data mining) cannot be limited in terms of scope of beneficiaries or purposes if the EU wants to be at the forefront of innovations such as artificial intelligence. It can also not become a voluntary provision if we want to leverage the wealth of expertise of the EU’s research community across borders.
- Articles 4 to 9 must create an environment that enables educators, researchers, students and cultural heritage professionals to embrace the digital environment and be able to preserve, create and share knowledge and European culture. It must be clearly stated that the proposed exceptions in these Articles cannot be overridden by contractual terms or technological protection measures.
- The interaction of these various articles has not even been the subject of a single discussion. The filters of Article 13 will cover the snippets of Article 11 whilst the limitations of Article 3 will be amplified by the rights created through Article 11, yet none of these aspects have even been assessed.
With so many legal uncertainties and collateral damages still present, this legislation is currently destined to become a nightmare when it will have to be transposed into national legislation and face the test of its legality in terms of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Bern Convention.
We hence strongly encourage you to adopt a decision-making process that is evidence-based, focussed on producing copyright rules that are fit for purpose and on avoiding unintended, damaging side effects.
Yours sincerely,
The over 145 signatories of this open letter – European and global organisations, as well as national organisations from 28 EU Member States, represent human and digital rights, media freedom, publishers, journalists, libraries, scientific and research institutions, educational institutions including universities, creator representatives, consumers, software developers, start-ups, technology businesses and Internet service providers.
EUROPE
1. Access Info Europe
2. Allied for Startups
3. Association of European Research Libraries (LIBER)
4. Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties)
5. Copyright for Creativity (C4C)
6. Create Refresh Campaign
7. DIGITALEUROPE
8. EDiMA
9. European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations (EBLIDA)
10. European Digital Learning Network (DLEARN)
11. European Digital Rights (EDRi)
12. European Internet Services Providers Association (EuroISPA)
13. European Network for Copyright in Support of Education and Science (ENCES)
14. European University Association (EUA)
15. Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU
16. Lifelong Learning Platform
17. Public Libraries 2020 (PL2020)
18. Science Europe
19. South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
20. SPARC Europe
AUSTRIA
21. Freischreiber Österreich
22. Internet Service Providers Austria (ISPA Austria)
BELGIUM
23. Net Users’ Rights Protection Association (NURPA)
BULGARIA
24. BESCO – Bulgarian Startup Association
25. BlueLink Foundation
26. Bulgarian Association of Independent Artists and Animators (BAICAA)
27. Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
28. Bulgarian Library and Information Association (BLIA)
29. Creative Commons Bulgaria
30. DIBLA
31. Digital Republic
32. Hamalogika
33. Init Lab
34. ISOC Bulgaria
35. LawsBG
36. Obshtestvo.bg
37. Open Project Foundation
38. PHOTO Forum
39. Wikimedians of Bulgaria
CROATIA
40. Code for Croatia
CYPRUS
41. Startup Cyprus
CZECH REPUBLIC
42. Alliance pro otevrene vzdelavani (Alliance for Open Education)
43. Confederation of Industry of the Czech Republic
44. Czech Fintech Association
45. Ecumenical Academy
46. EDUin
DENMARK
47. Danish Association of Independent Internet Media (Prauda) ESTONIA
48. Wikimedia Eesti
FINLAND
49. Creative Commons Finland
50. Open Knowledge Finland
51. Wikimedia Suomi
FRANCE
52. Abilian
53. Alliance Libre
54. April
55. Aquinetic
56. Conseil National du Logiciel Libre (CNLL)
57. France Digitale
58. l’ASIC
59. Ploss Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (PLOSS-RA)
60. Renaissance Numérique
61. Syntec Numérique
62. Tech in France
63. Wikimédia France
GERMANY
64. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Medieneinrichtungen an Hochschulen e.V. (AMH)
65. Bundesverband Deutsche Startups
66. Deutscher Bibliotheksverband e.V. (dbv)
67. eco – Association of the Internet Industry
68. Factory Berlin
69. Initiative gegen ein Leistungsschutzrecht (IGEL)
70. Jade Hochschule Wilhelmshaven/Oldenburg/Elsfleth
71. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
72. Landesbibliothekszentrum Rheinland-Pfalz
73. Silicon Allee
74. Staatsbibliothek Bamberg
75. Ubermetrics Technologies
76. Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt (Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg)
77. University Library of Kaiserslautern (Technische Universität Kaiserslautern)
78. Verein Deutscher Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare e.V. (VDB)
79. ZB MED – Information Centre for Life Sciences
GREECE
80. Greek Free Open Source Software Society (GFOSS)
HUNGARY
81. Hungarian Civil Liberties Union
82. ICT Association of Hungary – IVSZ
83. K-Monitor
IRELAND
84. Technology Ireland
ITALY
85. Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights
86. Istituto Italiano per la Privacy e la Valorizzazione dei Dati
87. Italian Coalition for Civil Liberties and Rights (CILD)
88. National Online Printing Association (ANSO)
LATVIA
89. Startin.LV (Latvian Startup Association)
90. Wikimedians of Latvia User Group
LITHUANIA
91. Aresi Labs
LUXEMBOURG
92. Frënn vun der Ënn
MALTA
93. Commonwealth Centre for Connected Learning
NETHERLANDS
94. Dutch Association of Public Libraries (VOB)
95. Kennisland
POLAND
96. Centrum Cyfrowe
97. Coalition for Open Education (KOED)
98. Creative Commons Polska
99. Elektroniczna BIBlioteka (EBIB Association)
100. ePaństwo Foundation
101. Fundacja Szkoła z Klasą (School with Class Foundation)
102. Modern Poland Foundation
103. Ośrodek Edukacji Informatycznej i Zastosowań Komputerów w Warszawie (OEIiZK)
104. Panoptykon Foundation
105. Startup Poland
106. ZIPSEE
PORTUGAL
107. Associação D3 – Defesa dos Direitos Digitais (D3)
108. Associação Ensino Livre
109. Associação Nacional para o Software Livre (ANSOL)
110. Associação para a Promoção e Desenvolvimento da Sociedade da Informação (APDSI)
ROMANIA
111. ActiveWatch
112. APADOR-CH (Romanian Helsinki Committee)
113. Association for Technology and Internet (ApTI)
114. Association of Producers and Dealers of IT&C equipment (APDETIC)
115. Center for Public Innovation
116. Digital Citizens Romania
117. Kosson.ro Initiative
118. Mediawise Society
119. National Association of Public Librarians and Libraries in Romania (ANBPR)
SLOVAKIA
120. Creative Commons Slovakia
121. Slovak Alliance for Innovation Economy (SAPIE)
SLOVENIA
122. Digitas Institute
123. Forum za digitalno družbo (Digital Society Forum)
SPAIN
124. Asociación de Internautas
125. Asociación Española de Startups (Spanish Startup Association)
126. MaadiX
127. Sugus
128. Xnet
SWEDEN
129. Wikimedia Sverige
UK
130. Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance (LACA)
131. Open Rights Group (ORG)
132. techUK
GLOBAL
133. ARTICLE 19
134. Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
135. Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
136. COMMUNIA Association
137. Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA)
138. Copy-Me
139. Creative Commons
140. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
141. Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL)
142. Index on Censorship
143. International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR)
144. Media and Learning Association (MEDEA)
145. Open Knowledge International (OKI)
146. OpenMedia
147. Software Heritage
[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1524750347203-f1e70660-87dd-9″ taxonomies=”1908″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row]