“I was arrested in Mufakose and severely assaulted by the police for inciting people to demonstrate,” says Linda Masarira, a Zimbabwean human rights activist and director of the Zimbabwean Women in Politics Alliance, who was convicted under the country’s anti-protest laws last year.
The 34-year-old mother of five has emerged as a leading figure in the fight against president Robert Mugabe’s repressive government, a role which has made her a regular target of the authorities.
Recent protests in Zimbabwe represent a key turning point for a nation burdened by widespread unemployment, poverty and hyperinflation. Following his accession to the presidential post — the first leader since Zimbabwe gained its independence in 1980 — Mugabe has pushed through a number of controversial reforms, including the land redistribution programme implemented after the turn of the century. This had a dire effect on the country’s economy. “Since 2000, life has deteriorated by the day in Zimbabwe,” says Masarira. “By the time we reached 2007, everything was in a deplorable state and someone had to do something.”
Linda Masarira
According to a report by the development organisation Hivos, instances of violence against women in Zimbabwe rose significantly from the year 2000, sparked by the country’s “political authoritarianism” and “unprecedented economic decline”. Such violence was often politically motivated, taking the form of assault and sexual violence, and making it increasingly difficult for the women’s movement in operation at the time to function.
As well as her general opposition towards Zimbabwe’s current political regime, Masarira maintains a particular focus on issues surrounding women’s rights. In April 2016 the campaigner led a demonstration against Harare City Council following the murder of three girls whose bodies were found dumped in the suburbs of the city. She also organised a successful protest with ZWPA for the safe return of Zimbabwean women trafficked to Kuwait. After sending a petition to the Kuwaiti embassy, the women were returned to Zimbabwe within two months.
Despite the protests Masarira has been involved with thus far, the activist is well aware of the numerous difficulties women face when speaking out against injustice in Zimbabwe. “Any female politician or activist is labelled all sorts of names and discriminated [against] for wanting to behave like a man. The government hasn’t made it any easier for women to freely participate in civil and political matters as the playing ground is uneven and tainted with violence.”
The poor treatment of Zimbabwean women is a problem recognised by many. Magodonga Mahlangu, the leader of activist organisation Women of Zimbabwe Arise, has herself been arrested 70 times for speaking out against the authorities, although she has never been convicted.
“Zimbabwe is a patriarchal society and has a very repressive regime,” she says. “I had to deal with a society that thought my struggle was not acceptable for a woman and the system beat, arrested and detained me as I am perceived to be a threat to society.”
Mahlangu says that the difficulties faced by Zimbabwean women in challenging injustice were worsened by poverty, familial responsibilities and the widely held view that “a woman’s place is in the kitchen”. Mahlangu, who is frequently accused by Zimbabwean police officers of misleading the country’s women, has refused to accept the status quo; namely that women should always be obedient and never question.
“The use of strategic nonviolence and understanding how to deal and overcome fear is the only way we can change the current situation,” Mahlangu says.
In addition to her support of women’s rights, Masarira has engaged in a number of other public protests. June 2016 saw the #16DayOccupation, during which activists demonstrated outside Africa Unity Square in the Zimbabwean capital of Harare. Masarira, alongside fellow activist Lynette Mudehewe, occupied Africa Unity Square with many others to mark their dissatisfaction over a number of issues including Zimbabwe’s economic climate, rampant corruption, high unemployment levels, poor health care facilities and human rights violations.
Masarira says that following the demonstration, she and other protesters were ambushed by military police on 5 June 2016. Her finger was broken during the attack and activists had their phones taken. They were arrested on false charges of obstruction of justice on 10 June 2016 but later released on bail.
On 6 July 2016, Masarira was arrested for her involvement in a national shutdown, fronted by pastor Evan Mawarire’s #ThisFlag movement and Tajamuka (meaning “we are fed up”), an anti-government pressure group in opposition to Mugabe’s regime, of which Masarira is a founding member.
Despite the many protests that took place before Mawarire’s video, it was the passionate appeal made to the Zimbabwean people by the pastor-turned-human rights campaigner that brought activism to the forefront, encouraging millions across Zimbabwe to challenge the corrupt activities of the government.
Mawarire, whose remarks about the government led him to flee to the USA over fears surrounding his family’s safety, was arrested upon his return to Zimbabwe earlier this year. A recent statement by human rights organisation Amnesty International says that Zimbabwean authorities are looking to “make an example out of Pastor Evan Mawarire”, sending “a clear message to anyone who dares dissent”.
During the national shutdown, operations all over the Zimbabwean capital were brought to a halt in protest against social and economic grievances in the southern African nation. Masarira was severely assaulted by the police for her role in encouraging the demonstrations. She was charged with obstruction of the free flow of vehicles and pedestrians and remained in jail for 87 days, the authorities arguing that she was a state security threat. Masarira was physically and psychologically abused throughout her detention period. After leading protests among female inmates in opposition to poor prison conditions, the pro-democracy advocate was forced to stay in solitary confinement for 10 days. Her detention was later deemed illegal.
Following her release in September 2016, Masarira was convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, with a seven-month suspended sentence. The remainder of her sentence was converted to 385 hours of community service and Masarira has since appealed against her conviction and sentence.
In spite of the difficulties she has encountered in speaking out under the current political regime, Masarira vows to continue protesting against the violation of human rights and urges her fellow Zimbabweans to do the same.
“Freedom doesn’t come on a silver platter,” she says. “The future is brighter with an empowered citizenry who know their rights and can stand up against the government demanding transparency and accountability.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1493369816086-07ad279a-23c0-0″ taxonomies=”173, 9019″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
This non-exhaustive study of threats to media freedom in the United States researched over 150 publicly reported incidents involving journalists. It uses the criteria developed for and employed by Mapping Media Freedom, Index on Censorship’s project launched in May 2014 that monitors the media landscape in 42 European and neighboring countries. This survey reviewed media freedom violations that occurred in the United States between June 30, 2016, and February 28, 2017.
Reports were submitted by a team of researchers. Each incident was then fact-checked by Index on Censorship against multiple sources.
Index on Censorship is a UK-based nonprofit that campaigns against censorship and promotes freedom of expression worldwide. Founded in 1972, Index has published some of the world’s leading writers and artists in its award-winning quarterly magazine, including Nadine Gordimer, Mario Vargas Llosa, Samuel Beckett and Kurt Vonnegut. Index promotes debate, monitors threats to free speech and supports individuals through its annual awards and fellowship program.
Acknowledgements
Author: Sally Gimson Editor: Sean Gallagher
Research: Hannah Machlin, Elise Thomas, Amanda James, Laura Stevens, Alex Gibson, Gary Dickson, Courtney Manning, Madeline Domenichella
Additional research/editing: Ryan McChrystal, Melody Patry, Atticus O’Brien-Pappalardo, Esther Egbeyemi, Samuele Volpe, Jemimah Steinfeld
Smears about the media made by US President Donald Trump have obscured a wider problem with press freedom in the United States: namely widespread and low-level animosity that feeds into the everyday working lives of the nation’s journalists, bloggers and media professionals. This study examines documented reports from across the country in the six months leading up to the presidential inauguration and the months after. It clearly shows that threats to US press freedom go well beyond the Oval Office.
“Animosity toward the press comes in many forms. Journalists are targeted in several ways: from social media trolling to harassment by law enforcement to over-the-top public criticism by those in the highest office. The negative atmosphere for journalists is damaging for the public and their right to information,” said Jodie Ginsberg, CEO at Index on Censorship, which documented the cases using an approach undertaken by the organization to monitor press freedom in Europe over the past three years.
The US study shows journalists have been on the receiving end of online and offline harassment, as well as being arrested and charged with criminal offenses just for doing their job.
Reporters traveling into the country have also been caught up in the move to tighten border security, a trend that began during President Barack Obama’s administration but gathered pace after the Trump inauguration on January 20, 2017. Without clear guidelines, journalists have found themselves at the mercy of Customs and Border Protection agents who have seized and searched their electronic devices.
The arrests and border searches come as states are introducing new legislation or interpreting older laws in ways likely to have a detrimental effect on reporting.
For citizen reporters and freelancers, who do not have the protection of media organizations, the climate was already hostile and is now becoming more so. As the experience of Gawker has shown, even large media websites can be driven out of business if they rile the rich and powerful.
“Attention on the media has focused on the very public spat between Donald Trump and major news outlets,” Melody Patry, head of advocacy at Index on Censorship, said. “But this survey shows that threats to media freedom are far more deep-rooted and affect local journalists, bloggers and investigative reporters across the country. This is a serious cause for concern in a country that prides itself on the First Amendment principles protecting a free press.”
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Arrests and detainments” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]
The arrest of journalists covering demonstrations poses one of the largest direct threats to the freedom of reporters performing their professional duties. Not only are they physically removed from the protests but they are also being charged with serious criminal offenses. Previously journalists may have been charged with misdemeanors – the most serious of which only carries a large fine or up to a year in prison. Now they are being charged with felonies, which can carry decades in jail.
“This trend towards treating reporters at protests as active participants is alarming. Although these charges are most often dropped, the continuing arrests could cause journalists to think twice about covering a demonstration or reporting on police abuses against participants,” Hannah Machlin, project officer for Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom, said.
This pattern did not begin with the election of Trump. These decisions were also taken during the Obama administration by local law enforcement agencies and state attorneys.
Six journalists who were covering protests at Trump’s inauguration were arrested in the capital and charged with felonies, the most severe punishment under Washington DC’s law against rioting.
They included two reporters, a documentary producer, a photojournalist, a live-streamer and a freelance reporter. However, charges against four of the journalists were dropped nine days later. Charges against videographer Shay Horse were dismissed on February 21. Only freelance reporter Aaron Cantu remains charged with felony rioting.
Other examples of reporters targeted during protests include those covering the Dakota Access Pipeline and Black Lives Matter demonstrations discussed in more detail below.
More incidents suggest law enforcement officers need training and directives to respect journalists’ rights to cover events – like the case of Chris Hayes, a Fox 2 St. Louis journalist, who on June 30, 2016, was handcuffed and shackled to a bench in Kinloch, Missouri. He was detained after objecting to being barred from a public meeting on uninsured and unregistered police cars, a story that Fox 2 had originally investigated. Hayes was issued a court summons for failure to comply and disorderly conduct.
North Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) and associated protests
Several journalists and documentary filmmakers covering protests against the controversial oil pipeline project have been arrested and charged with felonies.
Among journalists arrested and charged were Amy Goodman, host of the news program Democracy Now! She was taken into custody on September 3, 2016, after she filmed private security guards employed by Dakota Access LLC using dogs and pepper spray to disperse the protests against construction work. Her video has been viewed over 14 million times on Facebook. At first Goodman was charged with a misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass, but that was escalated by the state attorney to a rioting felony. A district judge finally dismissed the charges in October.
In another pipeline protest, documentary filmmaker Deia Schlosberg was detained while filming a demonstration on October 11, 2016, where climate change activists manually closed off the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline in Walhalla, North Dakota, which brings tar sands oil across the border from Canada. It was one of five similar demonstrations that day held by climate change activists as an act of solidarity with the campaign against the DAPL. Schlosberg was charged with three offenses which could have landed her in prison for 45 years: conspiracy to theft of property, conspiracy to theft of services and conspiracy to tampering with or damaging a public service. The charges were eventually suspended and will be formally dropped, but only if she commits no further crimes for six months. Schlosberg told The Guardian that she hasn’t covered a protest since October to avoid serious consequences were she to be arrested again, demonstrating the effect that such actions can have on journalism.
Though neither Grayzel nor Davis were on pipeline property, they were charged with second-degree burglary, criminal sabotage and assemblage of saboteurs, all felony cases which could lead to a 30-year prison sentence. The charges were ultimately dismissed, but Grayzel said the police still had her memory cards with footage on them, her phone and her notes.
The charges against other filmmakers, who also filmed activists on October 11, are still pending and they could still face prison sentences.
[/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”black” style=”dashed”][vc_column_text]CASE STUDY
TRACIE WILLIAMS
Tracie Williams is an experienced documentary photographer. She had been covering the main protest camp at Standing Rock for three weeks before she was arrested on February 23, 2017, during a police operation to evict protesters from the site. She says the police arrived at the camp with humvees, helicopters and automatic weapons. “I feared for the protesters’ safety and felt a duty to photograph their imminent arrests,” Williams said, recalling the photograph she made as members of the Morton County Sheriff’s Department advanced towards two men praying near the sacred fire with weapons aimed at them at point-blank range. Officers approached her from the side, without notice or warning, Williams said, and she was arrested while photographing the arrests. She was covering the protest for the National Press Photographers’ Association and told police she was a journalist, but they did not seem to care, she added.
Williams was handcuffed with zip ties and transported first to the Morton County Sheriff’s Department, where she, along with seven other women were held in chain-link cages in a drafty garage. They were asked to strip down to their base layers and all their belongings, including their jackets, were placed in clear plastic bags. They were then transferred to McLean County, where they were charged with “Obstruction of Gov. Function.” The plastic ties they used to handcuff her, she said, have caused her nerve damage. She now faces a class A misdemeanor charge, which carries a possible sentence of up to a year in prison and $3K in fines. All of her gear including her camera, phone, audio recorder and memory cards, were confiscated as evidence. Williams got the equipment back but not until she had harnessed help from two lawyers, several advocacy groups and a local senator. She is still facing charges in North Dakota.
Journalists at Black Lives Matter and similar demonstrations have been arrested by police, even though they clearly identified themselves as members of the press.
Kailath said of his experience: “I was transferred between six locations, searched naked, given an orange jumpsuit and a medical and mental health screening, and finally checked in to the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. In the morning, we were given the local paper, The Advocate. It was only when an inmate paging through it looked up at me and said: ‘Hey, you’re in here!’ that I learned I was being charged with simple obstruction of a highway.” Within the week all charges against him had been dropped.
I was transferred between six locations, searched naked, given an orange jumpsuit and a medical and mental health screening, and finally checked in to the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison
Two black reporters were briefly handcuffed by police in Rochester, New York during similar protests over the shooting of black men. Carlet Cleare and Justin Carter of WHAM-TV were detained in the early hours of July 9, 2016, for a short time before being released with a public apology from the mayor and chief of police.
On November 9, 2016, two reporters, Jason Silverstein and EJ Fox, were arrested while covering protests outside Trump Tower in New York. Silverstein said in an article for the Daily News, New York that he was handcuffed with plastic ties by a police officer who accused him of blocking the sidewalk. He was charged with disorderly conduct and refusing an order to disperse. Fox said he was held from 9pm until 2am and considered himself lucky, but hoped that the behavior of the NYPD had not been affected by the Trump presidency.
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
US border detentions
Many journalists have found themselves detained at the US border. Over the period covered by the survey, there were several reports of journalists being stopped by US Customs and Border Protection agents, detained and asked to hand over equipment and notes. Some of these incidents occurred before Trump was elected and before he signed an executive order for a travel ban. According to NBC News, data provided by the Department of Homeland Security shows that searches of all travelers’ phones by border agents has grown fivefold in just one year, from fewer than 5,000 in 2015 to nearly 25,000 in 2016. DHS officials told the network that 2017 would be a “blockbuster” year. Some 5,000 devices were searched in February 2017 alone, as many as in all of 2015.
Customs and Border Protection officials should respect the right of journalists to protect confidential information, and refrain from demanding access to people’s devices and passwords
In one incident, a Wall Street Journal Middle East correspondent and US citizen, Maria Abi-Habib, was detained on July 14, 2016, by border control officers at Los Angeles International Airport and asked for access to her two phones. She recounted in a Facebook post how she managed to hold them off by threatening to call WSJ lawyers because the phones were the property of her employer. Another journalist, Kim Badawi, was held at Miami International Airport for 10 hours when he flew in from Rio for Thanksgiving. A US citizen who works for Le Monde in Rio, Badawi was questioned by Customs and Border Protection agents about his passport stamps for Middle Eastern countries, his political views and his religious affiliation. His baggage was searched and he was forced to surrender the password of his phone so agents could go through all of his contacts, photos and messages, including confidential WhatsApp messages from Syrian refugees. Badawi wrote a first-person account of his experience for the Huffington Post.
After the travel ban was imposed in January, more journalists found themselves detained. BBC journalist Ali Hamedani, a British citizen born in Iran, live tweeted his detention. He was held for two hours on January 29, 2017, and said he was subjected to “invasive checks” after he had flown into Chicago. Hamedani said he was forced to hand over his phone and its password. Sama Dizayee, a Washington-based Iraqi journalist who planned to fly to London in February 2017, told NPR she was afraid to travel because of her belief that she might not be allowed back in the country. Although she has a green card, she said, she had no certainty that her rights to live in the USA would be guaranteed if she left and tried to come back into the country. Meanwhile, senior CNN editor Mohammed Tawfeeq filed a lawsuit against the travel ban after being detained at Atlanta’s airport over the weekend of January 28 and 29, the days following Trump’s signing of the travel ban executive order. He is an Iraqi citizen with a US green card. The lawsuit argued that officials have used Trump’s executive order “to subject returning residents like Mr. Tawfeeq to inappropriate exercises of discretion with regard to their right to return to the United States, and to lengthy delays and interrogations at ports of entry”.
“Officials should respect the right of journalists to protect confidential information and refrain from demanding access to people’s devices, online accounts and passwords. Journalists must be aware of possible requests by border agents, which may compromise their security and that of their sources,” Mapping Media Freedom’s Machlin said.
[/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”black” style=”dashed”][vc_row_inner css=”.vc_custom_1493046167981{background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}”][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1493047187785{margin-left: -117px !important;border-left-width: -117px !important;padding-left: -117px !important;}”][/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]CASE STUDY
ED OU
Ed Ou, an award-winning Canadian photojournalist, tried to cross the US-Canadian border to cover the Dakota Access Pipeline protests on October 1, 2016. He found himself detained for six hours, had his phone searched, his journal photocopied and was then refused entry. Border security was not interested in Ou’s concerns about protecting his sources. In a letter to Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Hugh Handeyside wrote: “[W]e believe that CBP took advantage of Mr. Ou’s application for admission to engage in an opportunistic fishing expedition for sensitive and confidential information that Mr. Ou had gathered through his newsgathering activities in Turkey, Somalia, Iraq and elsewhere.”
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black” style=”dashed”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Physical violence against journalists” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]
On October 18, 2016, in North Dakota, activists at the Sacred Stone Camp were accused of assaulting journalist Phelim McAleer, who was making a documentary called FrackNation in favor of fracking. His microphone was taken away and he was assaulted after he asked DAPL protesters about their use of fossil fuels. When McAleer and colleagues went back to their car, a group of about 30 individuals surrounded the vehicle and the journalists were forced to call the police for help.
During separate protests in north Baltimore on the evening of November 9, Fox45 reporter Keith Daniels and photographer Ruth Morton had to be moved to safety by police. An angry crowd had surrounded them and ordered them to leave the scene. The end of the encounter was broadcast live on Fox45. Daniels reported that this had never happened to him before. The crowd had told him they did not believe that he would put the “correct narrative” on his coverage.
“Journalist safety must be taken extremely seriously by law enforcement. Whether the perpetrators of violence are police officers or private citizens, violence against journalists, cases of robbery or harassment must be investigated vigorously and charges filed promptly to ensure that a culture of impunity is unable to take root,” Mapping Media Freedom’s Machlin said.
[/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”black” style=”dashed”][vc_column_text]CASE STUDY
DALTON BENNETT
Dalton Bennett, a video reporter for the Washington Post, has experience covering demonstrations all over the world, from Greece to the Arab Spring. He was filming demonstrators on inauguration day when he was pushed over and grabbed by a police officer. Most of the protesters were peaceful, he said, but a smaller group of black bloc protesters were causing trouble, which was unusual for Washington DC. At one point during the protest “all hell was breaking loose” and the police began using pepper spray and stun grenades before kettling the protesters.
“In the process of getting kettled, we’re filming it, which is what a video reporter is supposed to be doing, and a police officer felt that I was too close, and decided to get me away from the situation and so pushed me,” Bennett said. “My backpack was being grabbed and I was pushed by another guy and fell to the ground in the process. I wouldn’t say it was a concerted effort to prevent us from capturing the moment, there were a lot of journalists there. I think it was, more than anything, just a police officer, just authorities generally caught up in this ebb and flow of the demonstration. I mean I don’t think it was done out of malice, or to prevent us reporting. That being said, I don’t think it was necessary at all, it definitely wasn’t necessary, and the city itself has issued a report saying some of its tactics weren’t exactly kosher.”
Bennett doesn’t believe the right to film protests is under threat in the USA, but he said: “Inevitably as more and more protests happen across the country, this is a question which is going to continue to arise. I think the only solution is a greater awareness of both media organizations and police departments on the role that the media plays in covering these protests and better practice among media organizations, [understanding] how demonstrations work, how to keep safe covering the protest.”
However, current US libel laws have already led to one news organization, Gawker, closing after a lawsuit alleging the site had invaded the privacy of a celebrity.
Most criminal charges against media professionals have been related to journalists caught up in protests, which we have detailed above.
However, there is another worrying case of a publisher from Blue Ridge, Georgia, and his attorney, who were arrested on June 24, 2016, for requesting public records. They were charged with three felonies – identity fraud, attempted identity fraud and making a false statement on an open records request – which carries up to 20 years in prison. Fannin Focus publisher, Mark Thomason, said he was held for two days before being granted bail, but only after a $10,000 bond had been posted. An outcry in the national press led to the charges being dismissed three weeks later. Thomason and attorney Russell Stookey were charged in part because they requested copies of checks written on the operating accounts of the judge’s office, which were “cashed illegally”. Chief Judge Brenda Weaver, who presides in the three-county Appalachian Judicial Circuit, had urged the district attorney to seek an indictment. Weaver, who was in control of one of those accounts, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution she pushed for the case because “I don’t react well when my honesty is questioned.” She was eventually forced to resign.
“US libel law has long been a model for the rest of the world. Lowering the burden of proof or otherwise loosening restrictions on lawsuits would pose a serious threat to press freedom in the country. At the same time, the misuse of the criminal justice system to silence journalists is a common occurrence in some European countries. This is not something that journalists in the USA should be exposed to,” Index’s Patry said.
[/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”black” style=”dashed”][vc_column_text]CASE STUDY
What laws are passed and how the law is interpreted can have an impact on journalists’ ability to report. Even when laws are not intended to restrict access to public information, they can be used to do so.
For instance, the so-called Marsy’s Law, which protects victims’ rights, has been enacted by some states. Although not its original intention, the law is being used by police forces in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to justify withholding all information about crime locations, car accidents and crash victims in the area from journalists, according to a report in the Argus Leader on December 4, 2016. Journalists and others argue the law states that information should only be withheld “on request of the victim” and so a blanket ban on information is not justified. Similar laws have now been passed in North Dakota and Montana.
“Even well-intentioned laws can have a deleterious effect on journalists. In the case of Utah, the proposed legislation could penalize reporters doing investigative pieces around animal welfare and food safety. Even the Humane Society of the United States has expressed reservations about the draft bill,” Index’s Patry said.
The other pattern that is emerging concerns journalists who, all over the country, are being asked to hand over unpublished documents they have used in investigations, potentially compromising key sources. State “shield” laws should give legal protections for journalists, but this principle is being increasingly challenged. In Nashville, Tennessee, television reporter Phil Williams, who reported on the district attorney Glen Funk, was told by a judge on February 2, 2017, to hand over key documents. To add further pressure Funk has filed a $200 million defamation suit against the journalist and his employer, News Channel 5. The channel has condemned the actions as “an attempt by an elected public official to silence and intimidate a journalist and news organization that has accurately reported on questionable conduct and judgment by that official”.
“Politically independent public broadcasters are a vital segment of the media landscape at a time of increased propaganda. We’ve documented a series of moves by European governments to nationalize the public media in ways that make it more likely to toe the ruling party’s line,” Index’s Ginsberg said.
[/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”black” style=”dashed”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Works censored or altered” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]
There is little information about works censored during the period we examined. This may well be because journalists tend not to report these kinds of incidents out of fear of negative repercussions for their career or because the pressure is more subtle. The case study below, however, is taken from a New York Times article from February 17, 2017.
On university campuses, there were more published examples of censored works. A report entitled Threats to the Independence of Student Media, published in October 2016 by the American Association of University Professors and others, explains how “college and university officials threatened retaliation against students and [media] advisers not only for coverage critical of the administration but also for otherwise frivolous coverage that the administrators believed placed the institution in an unflattering light.” The document details particular cases, including when “California’s Southwest College mounted a campaign of intimidation and bullying of student journalists – including freezing the newspaper’s printing budget, cutting the adviser’s salary and even threatening staff members with arrest – as part of an effort to conceal high-level wrongdoing.” There are many other examples given in the report of censorship and intimidation on campus, and of media advisers who have lost their jobs or been demoted as a result of not exercising enough censorship.
[/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”black” style=”dashed”][vc_column_text]CASE STUDY
RICK CASEY
Rick Casey is the host of a show called Texas Week for San Antonio television station KLRM. At the end of every show he presents a short commentary. On this occasion, Republican representative from Texas, Lamar Smith, was on his agenda for giving a speech on January 24, 2017, about the unfair way he believed the media covered Trump. Smith suggested the only way of getting the truth was from the president himself. Casey was so outraged that he ended his commentary: “Smith’s proposal is quite innovative for America. We’ve never really tried getting all our news from our top elected official. It has been tried elsewhere, however. North Korea comes to mind.” Some 40 minutes before the show, the president of the station, Arthur Rojas Emerson, called Casey to tell him the commentary had been pulled. Emerson said he was worried that the commentary could affect the financing of the station, which is publicly funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It was also the case, as The New York Times reported, that Emerson had left journalism for several years to work in advertising and Smith had been a client. After the affair was publicized in a local newspaper column, another prominent local journalist took Casey’s censored commentary up with the PBS board and Emerson finally agreed to run the clip. He admitted to the Times it was a “mistake”, but he only had 20 minutes to make a decision. Casey is 70 years old and said that he was more ready to push back because of his age. He said he didn’t know whether he would have acted differently at 45, when it could have affected his career.
Blocking access to events, places and – more crucially – information is a way of government, lawmakers and others preventing journalists in the USA from covering their activities.
“Mapping Media Freedom has documented a growing list of incidents from across Europe and neighboring countries where journalists have been barred from reporting in the public interest. Though this survey looked at a small number of cases in the context of the American media market, we expect there were many more cases during the same period that were not reported by the media or located by our researchers,” Mapping Media Freedom’s Machlin said.
Reporters have recently been blocked from covering the airport protests over the travel ban in January 2017. Time journalist Charlotte Alter tweeted early on January 28, 2017, that reporters were asked to move from terminal 4 of JFK airport in New York because it was a “private space”.
“Having access to this information is important for journalists, because without knowing what cases are being scheduled, they cannot cover them. And without general access, plaintiff’s lawyers are then able to leak cases to friendly news outlets,” Machlin said.
“Imposing expensive fees to fulfill public records requests can deter investigative journalism, especially for publications already struggling for funding in a shifting media landscape,” Machlin said.
“Picking media outlets friendly to the country’s government is a tactic often deployed in illiberal democracies or by political parties on the far-right, like France’s Front National or Germany’s AfD. In the context of Mapping Media Freedom, the Trump administration and staffers have repeatedly and routinely threatened press freedom before and after the election,” Machlin said.
Intimidation is probably the most widely reported form of violation against press and media freedom. It takes various forms of offline and online harassment, including defamation, psychological abuse and sexual harassment.
“As we have seen increasingly in Europe, groundless, derogatory and corrosive comments by a country’s leaders – specifically in Hungary, Russia and the Balkans – have a tendency to permeate into law enforcement and local administrations, and undermine trust in media coverage among the general public. In addition, the use of pro-government media outlets to target journalists further undermines press freedom in some European countries. Though it remains to be seen whether this trend will continue at an alarming rate in the United States, it is certainly something for press freedom organizations to be alert to,” Index’s Patry said.
Much of the most prominent intimidation has come from both Trump and his aides during the presidential campaign, after his election and after his inauguration. This intimidation and harassment has also been mirrored by people who appear to be his supporters.
[/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”black” style=”dashed”][vc_single_image image=”89761″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]CASE STUDY
During Trump’s election campaign, journalists were routinely jeered and intimidated.
His campaign rallies frequently became places where the media and journalists in general were accused of being part of a broad conspiracy against him and his supporters. During a weekend in mid-August 2016 when his poll numbers were dropping, Trump went on the offensive against media bias. On Friday August 12, at a rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, Trump called journalists the “lowest form of humanity”. At a rally the following day in Fairfield, Connecticut, he declared: “I am not running against crooked Hillary Clinton, I’m running against the crooked media.” On Sunday August 14, he issued a series of tweets including claims that the biased media was affecting his poll ratings and that The New York Times wrote fiction.
In October 2016, when reporters uncovered stories about Trump’s abusive behavior towards women, his public attacks on the “mainstream media” intensified.
After Trump’s election, intimidation of the media changed, in part because he was making the comments personally, often through Twitter, while holding the office of president. Trump devoted a whole press conference on February 17 to berating the media as “the enemy of the people”, a phrase news organizations reported is more commonly associated with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and other dictators throughout history. Since his election, Trump’s official spokespeople, most notably Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway, have been brought more prominently into the frame. Both have repeatedly attacked journalists and defended lies told by the president. Conway has gone so far as to say in an interview with Fox News on January 27, 2017, that it was “dangerous for democracy” for journalists to accuse Donald Trump of lying.
Other Trump administration staffers have also threatened journalists. In February 2017, reporter April Ryan accused Trump staffer Omarosa Manigault of physically intimidating her. Ryan, a onetime friend of Manigault’s, also said the communications official made verbal threats, including the assertion that Ryan was among several journalists on whom Trump officials had collected “dossiers of negative information”.
“Collecting ‘dossiers’ about journalists is the type of tactic practiced in countries like Azerbaijan, which routinely targets anyone trying to hold the regime to account. The US executive branch should not be seeking to emulate the behaviors of some of the world’s most authoritarian regimes,” Index on Censorship CEO Jodie Ginsberg said.
“Alternative facts”, or the more frequently used “fake news”, have been the catchphrases of the Trump administration to describe news stories they do not like, or that challenge statements they have made. Trump also uses the phrase generally to discredit news organizations and claim they never report the truth. In one instance, Trump accused CNN on Twitter of cutting off Senator Bernie Sanders (D) because he was exposing the fact they reported fake news. Sanders was in fact doing the opposite, joking about Trump’s tendency to dismiss any negative reports as “fake news”.
In a series of tweets from his personal account, Trump has called some of the USA’s major news organizations “failing” and purveyors of “fake news”, including the Washington Post, The New York Times, NBC news, CNN and ABC.
The other way that Trump and people speaking on his behalf have tried to intimidate the media is to call for the sacking of individual journalists. The most prominent calls have come from members of congress and Trump aides.
On January 31, Rosa Brooks, a professor of law at Georgetown University, wrote in Foreign Policy magazine about threats Trump poses to the US Constitution, and what would happen if he arbitrarily decided to carry out some form of military action. Two days later she was accused by Trump-friendly Infowars of inciting a military coup. Although Brooks said that she had concerns about the way executive power was used under Obama, the intimidation she has received – including death threats – for suggesting the dangers under Trump, went far beyond anything that had happened before. She wrote: “Here’s the other thing that’s different now: The alt-right has long occupied the internet’s darker corners, but with the elevation of Bannon to the Trump White House and National Security Council, it’s now occupying the White House itself.”
Some of the most virulent harassment cases have been against conservatives like Kelly who did not support Trump. On October 26, 2016, David French, who writes for the conservative publication National Review, told National Public Radio program Fresh Air how he was targeted. He wrote an article about the alt-right movement being white nationalist in its tone and tenor and found himself and his wife bombarded with hateful tweets and messages, including an image of his seven-year-old child, who was adopted from Ethiopia, in a gas chamber. He said it was his linking of Trump and the alt-right that specifically led to his family being subjected to anti-Semitic, racist and pornographic abuse.
French received anti-Semitic abuse despite not being Jewish. The abuse against Jewish journalists has been more systematic.
[/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”black” style=”dashed”][vc_column_text]CASE STUDY
ANTI-SEMITISM
In October 2016, the Anti-Defamation League published a report entitled The Anti-Semitic Targeting of Journalists During the 2016 Presidential Campaign. One of its key findings was that 800 journalists received anti-Semitic tweets with an estimated reach of 45 million. The top 10 most targeted journalists (all of whom were Jewish) received 83% of those anti-Semitic tweets. The report found the abuse got worse as the presidential campaign intensified in the period between January and July 2016. The words most frequently used in anti-Semitic tweets directed at journalists included “kike”, “Israel” and “Zionist”. A majority of tweets (60%) were in reply to tweets by journalists. Writer and former Breitbart reporter Ben Shapiro, who was on the receiving end of vast amounts of abuse for launching the #NeverTrump campaign, told ADL: “It’s amazing what’s been unleashed. I honestly didn’t realize they were out there. It’s every day, every single day.” Despite Shapiro’s efforts to shield his family from the abuse, his wife and child were targeted as well. “When my child was born there were lots of anti-Semitic responses talking about cockroaches.”
Though our review of incidents represents just a short period of time, it points to areas that journalists and law enforcement, as well as the country’s political establishment, need to improve
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
Frontline police services – as well as journalists – should be clear on the rights of protesters and those covering demonstrations, rallies and other public events and receive regular training in this area. It is also vital that journalists are aware of these rights when covering such events.
Police forces must adhere to Freedom of Information laws. All levels of government should work to minimize fees associated with FOI requests.
Customs and Border Protection officials should respect the rights of journalists to protect confidential information and cease immediately the invasive examination of people’s online activity at the border.
States need to enact strong shield laws to protect journalists from having to reveal sources. This is vital especially in cases involving whistleblowing in the public interest.
State lawmakers need to ensure that that new or revised legislation does not encroach on the First Amendment rights of journalists. Where necessary, laws should have a public interest clause that could be used by journalists.
Harassment and crimes against journalists that go beyond protections offered by the First Amendment – whether online or off – must be investigated and prosecuted vigorously to prevent the establishment of a culture of impunity.
To: Sheikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa King of Bahrain
CC: Hon. Zeid Ra’ad Zeid al-Hussein High Commissioner for Human Rights
Ms. Frederica Mogherini High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Mr. Sigmar Gabriel Vice-Chancellor and Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany
Mr. Rex W. Tillerson United States Secretary of State
The Right Honorable Boris Johnson Foreign & Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom
Mr. Jean-Marc Ayrault Minister of Foreign Affairs of France
King Hamad,
We, the undersigned, express our deep concern with the government of Bahrain’s continued targeting of journalists, which further restricts free press and expression in the country. On 23 April 2017, the court of appeals will hold another hearing for Sayed Ahmed Salman al-Mousawi, an internationally-renowned photographer, after he was arrested more than three years ago for alleged terrorist activities. The government’s repeated harassment of al-Mousawi and other journalists highlight the ongoing censorship and restrictions on free press and expression in Bahrain.
Sayed Ahmed Salman al-Mousawi is a 29-year-old freelance photographer who has won 169 international photography prizes—a number of which he even won while in detention. He is a member of FIAP, PSA, UPI and Qatif photos.
Authorities arrested al-Mousawi, along with his brother Sayed Mohammed, on 10 February 2014 from their home in Duraz. The plain-clothes masked policemen did not present any arrest warrant and confiscated his cameras and electronic devices. After holding al-Mousawi for six days, officials transferred him to Dry Dock prison. Security forces then took him to the Criminal Investigations Directorate (CID) for another six days where they tortured him “cruelly without mercy,” as he later told his father. Security officers hung him on a door four times, electrocuted him, and did not allow him to sit for four days. They stripped him naked, beat him and sexually assaulted him. No independent investigation into his torture allegations has ever been conducted.
Al-Mousawi spent over nine months in detention without official charges against him. At his first trial on 24 December 2014, the prosecutor charged him with forming and participating in a terror cell, accusing him of providing SIM cards to protesters —“terrorists”—and taking photos of anti-government demonstrations. He and other witnesses denied that he had anything to do with the riots. Over the course of 2015, officials postponed his trial six times. Meanwhile, the government continued to deny him his basic human rights, including restricting access to a lawyer, placing him in solitary confinement, and denying family visits.
On 23 November 2015, the Bahraini court sentenced al-Mousawi to 10 years imprisonment and revoked his citizenship. However, the Court of Cassation overturned the ruling earlier this year. His postponed appeal hearing next month provides an opportunity to end his prolonged arbitrary detention and mistreatment. Al-Mousawi has now been held arbitrarily for over three years, merely for exercising his right to free expression.
Al-Mousawi’s case is representative of the Bahraini government’s growing repression against basic civil rights. We, the undersigned, have raised our concern over numerous cases of torture, arbitrary detention, unfair trials, and trumped up terrorism charges used to restrict expression unfavourable to the government. Journalists, bloggers, online activists and human rights defenders such as Faisal Hayyat, Nazeeha Saeed, and Nabeel Rajab, among others, have increasingly come under attack by authorities since the 2011 pro-democracy protests. Arbitrary arrests of journalists, systematic torture and impunity have turned Bahrain into a dangerous country for those who speak out. The country is ranked 162nd out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ (RSF) 2016 World Press Freedom Index and has become one of the biggest detainers for journalists and bloggers with at least 14 behind bars as of today.
Furthermore, the government has also censored and restricted the media, most recently in January, temporarily suspending the online version of Alwasat, the only independent newspaper in the country. Through a combination of media and counterterrorism legislation, as well as excessive government oversight, to justify their actions against the press and journalists, Bahraini officials continue to act with impunity.
The targeting and judicial harassment of journalists simply performing their work is unacceptable and violates international human rights standards. Bahrain is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states in Article 19 that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression.” This includes the requirement that “a free press and other media [be] able to comment on public issues without censorship or restraint and to inform public opinion.” The pattern of reprisals and suppression of freedom of express far exceeds the limited restrictions placed on this right under article 19.3.
We, the undersigned, raise our concerns about restrictions on free press and expression in Bahrain and call on the Bahraini government to:
Immediately and unconditionally release Sayed Ahmed Salman al-Mousawi and all other journalists arrested and imprisoned for merely exercising their right to free expression;
Guarantee the right to free expression by removing restrictions on the media and peaceful dissent, and foster an independent free press to fulfil Bahrain’s international human rights obligations.
Signed,
ActiveWatch (Romania)
Africa Freedom of Information Centre
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Article 19
Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
Bytes for All, Pakistan
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
European Center for Democracy and Human Rights
Freedom House
Gulf Center for Human Rights
Index on Censorship
Journaliste en Danger (JED)
Maharat Foundation
Media Foundation for West Africa
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1492705737868-c65e7005-0971-10″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In a Russian republic marked by a clash between the rule of law, the weight of traditions, and the growing influence of Islamic fundamentalism, Daptar, a website run by journalists Zakir Magomedov and Svetlana Anokhina, covers the issues affecting women that receive little coverage by other local media. Daptar seeks to promote debate. The small team of journalists, working alongside a volunteer lawyer and psychologist, also tries to provide help to the women they are in touch with.
Index spoke to Magomedov ahead of the Freedom of Expression Awards.
Ryan McChrystal: What led you to set up Daptar?
Zakir Magomedov: I am a journalist from Dagestan. A few years ago I worked for a human rights organisation there, helping people mistreated by the police. During that time we received a lot of statements from victims of domestic and sexual violence. In Dagestan there are a lot of human rights organisations, but they are human rights organisations in name only – they don’t actually do anything, especially when it comes to women’s rights.
I decided it would be a good idea to create a website for women, which we started in 2014. We write a lot of articles about domestic violence and honour killings in Dagestan, Chechnya and other North Caucasus regions. And our content isn’t just about women’s problems; we also profile women doing well in business, sports and other areas.
McChrystal: What does the name “Daptar” mean?
Magomedov: It’s an Arabic word that means different things in different caucuses. In the Chechen language it means copybook. In one of the Dagestani languages it means diary.
McChrystal: How is Daptar staffed?
Magomedov: It’s just me and my colleague Svetlana. I am like the director and she is the editor. These are positions without money or salary. The little funds we do receive go towards paying journalists for their articles, for example. We also worked with a lawyer and a psychologist for online consultation services, but now we haven’t any support. I often spend my own money to pay for articles.
We sometimes got support from some local businessmen, but it wasn’t enough. But Svetlana and I aren’t working for money. For me, it’s about doing something good.
McChrystal: How has the lawyer helped?
Magomedov: In one case, the child of a woman from Dagestan was kidnapped by her ex-husband. The woman was beaten. He then took gasoline and said if she didn’t sign papers to say the children could live with him, he would burn her.
After that, she came to us and we took her to the police to give her statement. Every day during that month, I waited for her after work to walk her home because she feared her ex-husband would come. In the end, she got her child and is now living in Russia. We helped her move from Dagestan.
McChrystal: Why do journalists in the region seem to neglect these issues? What are the main difficulties?
Magomedov: In Dagestan, for example, there is freedom of speech, but local journalists don’t cover women’s problems. I don’t know why – perhaps they don’t want to work with unpopular topics, or maybe it’s because of the dangerous.
When we wrote an article about FGM we got a lot of abuse from the internet, especially directed at Svetlana. She got very depressed when a lot of people wrote things like: “we’re going to kill you”, “we’re going to destroy your website”, “you shouldn’t write about this topic”, “you are lying”.
Many suppose we were lying about the extent of FGM, domestic violence and honour killings.
McChrystal: You say Svetlana has suffered quite badly as a result of Daptar’s work. Is it any easier for you as a man to speak out on these issues?
Magomedov: It was difficult for me at first. I was born and grew up in this society. My friends would call me a feminist and say things like: “Today you write about women’s issues and tomorrow it’ll be LGBT issues.” They didn’t mean this in a good way. They would say horrible things, but I’m OK with that. I can write about these topics just like an ordinary journalist with a job.
I was the first person to write about women’s circumcising in Dagestan and I got bullied a lot for that. I don’t care though.
McChrystal: What is it about the culture in Dagestan that makes a word like “feminism” such a dirty word?
Magomedov: It is definitely a dirty word in Dagestan, especially for men. This is a patriarchal society. The culture is that a women’s place is the kitchen. She should just look after the children and be a housewife. Anyone writing about women’s rights is seen as an enemy. The word “feminist” is a dirty word in Russian, but in Dagestan it is especially negative. But I have no problem with calling myself a feminist.
McChrystal: Your investigation into FGM last year went a long way to breaking the silence around the practice by fostering a nation-wide debate. This must make you very proud. What other investigations are you proud of in the last year?
Magomedov: The generation gap among Chechens means that a lot of older relatives don’t like the behaviour of their children. They don’t it like when Chechen girls have dates or are meeting with guys, especially if they aren’t Chechen guys. It all brings shame on that person. There have been a few situations where parents take their girls and kill them. We are currently investigating these cases. We worked with an expert in Chechnya on this issue.
We also cover dress codes in Chechnya, because officials there want girls to wear the hijab. We wrote about divorce in the region and one story in particular where one murdered woman’s sister wasn’t able to get justice for her in court.
Children with HIV is a big issue in Chechnya, and we’ve done work in this area. We cover a lot of stories, and all of them are very important.
McChrystal: What have been some of the more positive reactions to Daptar?
Magomedov: I won’t lie – we haven’t really seen much of a positive reaction. After the work on FGM, we met with Muslim leaders in Dagestan. They acknowledged it was a big problem and said we shouldn’t talk about it, we should write more and more articles, even in religious newspapers. But it was just one meeting and nothing happened after that.
We do hear stories from and about women we have aided or encouraged, including the eight victims of domestic violence we helped last year.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1492084802623-2cd71c55-f5dc-8″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]CASE STUDY
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Conclusions” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]
Ryan McChrystal: What led you to set up Daptar?
