03 Jan 14 | Digital Freedom, News and features, United States
San Fransisco based Reddit.com made headlines when it allegedly banned climate change deniers from posting on the site.
UK-based freedom of speech advocate Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked magazine, claimed it had “shredded its own reputation” in a piece for The Telegraph, while James Delingpole, a right-wing commentator for The Spectator delivered a hot-blooded attack on the policy via Fox News website – “The greenies — and their many useful idiots in the liberal media — are terrified of open debate on climate-change because the real world evidence long ago parted company with their scientifically threadbare theory.”
Reddit is a huge online links directory and lively discussion board, with a reputation for scale, wit, lack of censorship and a strong sense of community. Over eighty million monthly unique visitors, two hundred and sixty million comments to date and a presence in one hundred and eighty countries are some of the stats that led Conde Nast to buy the company a year after it was launched in 2005. Last year, analysts valued it at over $200 million dollars. It’s no Facebook or Twitter in terms of publicity attracted, but it gets more traffic than CNN, and the Guardian.com’s monthly readership could fit into Reddit’s three times over.
It’s the famed lack of censorship that has lead opinion writers on both side of the Atlantic to point out this new policy on climate change denial.
For those who haven’t visited, the site is divided up into sub-reddits–links and discussions, which are classified according to themes, and run by unpaid volunteers.
“TIL,” shorthand for “Today I Learned,” offers obscure trivia and little known facts. “foreignpolicy” offers links and discussion on international relations, defence and diplomacy. “foodforthought” collates links to thought-provoking essays. There are subreddits for jokes, celebrity gossip, memes and funny videos – for agony aunts and video gaming.
In fact, rather than reddit.com having banned climate change skeptics, it’s the moderators of the “/r/science” reddit who have instigated the ban. Run by volunteers, it collects links about new research and scientific articles.
“/r/science is not the beginning or the end of internet discussion”, defends Carl Ellstrom from Sweden – a reddit user, scientist and moderator of the science subreddit. “Users who are banned from /r/science are not banned from reddit, and can discuss their opinions in other subreddits.”
While it’s not the beginning or the end, /r/science still attracts millions of visitors each month. So the decision to ban climate change scepticism is of note.
Typical of their profession–other moderators backed up the decision by citing research–97% of climate scientists agree that man is changing the planet, according to a report from the respected Institute of Physics.
The move principally revolved around aggressive and repeated comments, which a small group of malicious users were posting on every article or piece of research concerned with climate change. Their allegations generally focused on conspiracy theories, didn’t address the article with constructive, focused criticism, were repetitive and, critically, had a disproportionate silencing effect on any discussion.
“These problematic users were not the common ‘internet trolls’ looking to have a little fun upsetting people,” explains Nathan Allen, a PhD chemist with a major chemical company and reddit moderator who wrote for The Guardian.
“These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking. They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong. They were completely enamoured by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.”
Expanding on that last point Allen says the same comparison could be made with the climate change denial lobby in general, and their disproportionate influence on the press.
“Like our commenters, professional climate change deniers have an outsized influence in the media and the public. And like our commenters, their rejection of climate science is not based on an accurate understanding of the science but on political preferences and personality.”
He ends his piece with a deliberate challenge to the editors of the world’s largest websites
“If a half-dozen volunteers can keep a page with more than 4 million users from being a microphone for the antiscientific, is it too much to ask for newspapers to police their own editorial pages as proficiently?”
If Allen’s suggestion was ever to be noticed and accepted by editors–he ramifications for freedom of speech and media censorship would be radical. Editors might be forced to ignore lobbying from certain spheres of belief, or might miss out on important stories.
But UK research published earlier in the year, shows the disproportionate effect on distorting the truth that having a free and open press creates.
On average, Brits think teenage pregnancies are twenty five times higher than official estimates. The public think 31% of the population are immigrants–the reality is closer to ten percent. Welfare benefit fraud is thought to be 34 times higher than it actually is.
All of the misconceptions covered by IPSOS Mori, the polling company that undertook the research, have been central to political party manifestos and been aggressively pushed by their PR companies.
Or that journalists are too readily being made tools of political parties who want to get elected, who want the issues that they care most about continually in the press, hotly discussed and “on the agenda.” Perhaps we, as journalists, need to remain ever vigilant to the briefing of misinformation and our responsibility to the truth.
This article was published on 3 Jan 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
02 Jan 14 | European Union, News and features, Politics and Society
The law of libel, privacy and national “insult” laws vary across the European Union. In a number of member states, criminal sanctions are still in place and public interest defences are inadequate, curtailing freedom of expression.
The European Union has limited competencies in this area, except in the field of data protection, where it is devising new regulations. Due to the impact on freedom of expression and the functioning of the internal market, the European Commisssion High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism recommended that libel laws be harmonised across the European Union. It remains the case that the European Court of Human Rights is instrumental in defending freedom of expression where the laws of member states fail to do so. Far too often, archaic national laws have been left unreformed and therefore contain provisions that have the potential to chill freedom of expression.
Nearly all EU member states still have not repealed criminal sanctions for defamation – with only Croatia,[1] Cyprus, Ireland, Romania and the UK[2] having done so. The parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe called on states to repeal criminal sanctions for libel in 2007, as did both the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and UN special rapporteurs on freedom of expression.[3] Criminal defamation laws chill free speech by making it possible for journalists to face jail or a criminal record (which will have a direct impact on their future careers), in connection with their work. Many EU member states have tougher sanctions for criminal libel against politicians than ordinary citizens, even though the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Lingens v. Austria (1986) that:
“The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual.”
Of particular concern is the fact that insult laws remain in place in many EU member states and are enforced – particularly in Poland, Spain, and Greece – even though convictions are regularly overturned by the European Court of Human Rights. Insult to national symbols is also criminalised in Austria, Germany and Poland. Austria has the EU’s strictest laws in this regard, with the penal code criminalising the disparagement of the state and its symbols[4] if malicious insult is perceived by a broad section of the republic. This section of the code also covers the flag and the federal anthem of the state. In November 2013, Spain’s parliament passed draft legislation permitting fines of up to €30,000 for “insulting” the country’s flag. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muiznieks, criticised the proposals stating they were of “serious concern”.
There is a wide variance in the application of civil defamation laws across the EU – with significant differences in defences, costs and damages. Excessive costs and damages in civil defamation and privacy actions is known to chill free expression, as authors fear ruinous litigation, as recognised by the European Court of Human Rights in MGM vs UK.[5] In 2008, Oxford University found huge variants in the costs of defamation actions across the EU, from around €600 (constituting both claimants’ and defendants’ costs) in Cyprus and Bulgaria to in excess of €1,000,000 in Ireland and the UK. Defences for defendants vary widely too: truth as a defence is commonplace across the EU but a stand-alone public interest defence is more limited.
Italy and Germany’s codes provide for responsible journalism defences instead of using a general public interest defence. In contrast, the UK recently introduced a public interest defence that covers journalists, as well as all organisations or individuals that undertake public interest publications, including academics, NGOs, consumer protection groups and bloggers. The burden of proof is primarily on the claimant in many European jurisdictions including Germany, Italy and France, whereas in the UK and Ireland, the burden is more significantly on the defendant, who is required to prove they have not libelled the claimant.
Privacy
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to a private life throughout the European Union. [6] The right to freedom of expression and the right to a private right are often complementary rights, in particular in the online sphere. Privacy law is, on the whole, left to EU member states to decide. In a number of EU member states, the right to privacy can restrict the right to freedom of expression because there are limited protections for those who breach the right to privacy for reasons of public interest.
The media’s willingness to report and comment on aspects of people’s private lives, in particular where there is a legitimate public interest, has raised questions over the boundaries of what is public and what is private. In many EU member states, the media’s right to freedom of expression has been overly compromised by the lack of a serious public interest defence in privacy law. This is most clearly illustrated by the fact that some European Union member states offer protection for the private lives of politicians and the powerful, even when publication is in the public interest, in particular in France, Italy and Germany. In Italy, former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi used the country’s privacy laws to successfully sue the publisher of Italian magazine Oggi for breach of privacy after the magazine published photographs of the premier at parties where escort girls were allegedly in attendance. Publisher Pino Belleri received a suspended five-month sentence and a €10,000 fine. The set of photographs proved that the premier had used Italian state aircraft for his own private purposes, in breach of the law. Even though there was a clear public interest, the Italian Public Prosecutor’s Office brought charges. In Slovakia, courts also have a narrow interpretation of the public interest defence with regard to privacy. In February 2012, a District Court in Bratislava prohibited the distribution or publication of a book alleging corrupt links between Slovak politicians and the Penta financial group. One of the partners at Penta filed for a preliminary injunction to ban the publication for breach of privacy. It took three months for the decision to be overruled by a higher court and for the book to be published.
The European Court of Human Rights rejected former Federation Internationale de l’Automobile president Max Mosley’s attempt to force newspapers to give prior notification in instances where they may breach an individual’s right to a private life, noting that the requirement for prior notification would likely chill political and public interest matters. Yet prior notification and/or consent is currently a requirement in three EU member states: Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
Other countries have clear public interest defences. The Swedish Personal Data Act (PDA), or personuppgiftslagen (PUL), was enacted in 1998 and provides strong protections for freedom of expression by stating that in cases where there is a conflict between personal data privacy and freedom of the press or freedom of expression, the latter will prevail. The Supreme Court of Sweden backed this principle in 2001 in a case where a website was sued for breach of privacy after it highlighted criticisms of Swedish bank officials.
When it comes to data retention, the European Union demonstrates clear competency. As noted in Index’s policy paper “Is the EU heading in the right direction on digital freedom?“, published in June 2013, the EU is currently debating data protection reforms that would strengthen existing privacy principles set out in 1995, as well as harmonise individual member states’ laws. The proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation, currently being debated by the European Parliament, aims to give users greater control of their personal data and hold companies more accountable when they access data. But the “right to be forgotten” clause of the proposed regulation has been the subject of controversy as it would allow internet users to remove content posted to social networks in the past. This limited right is not expected to require search engines to stop linking to articles, nor would it require news outlets to remove articles users found offensive from their sites. The Center for Democracy and Technology referred to the impact of these proposals as placing “unreasonable burdens” that could chill expression by leading to fewer online platforms for unrestricted speech. These concerns, among others, should be taken into consideration at the EU level. In the data protection debate, freedom of expression should not be compromised to enact stricter privacy policies.
This article was posted on Jan 2 2013 at indexoncensorship.org
[1] Article 208 of the Criminal Code.
[2] Article 168(2) of the Criminal Code.
[3] Article 248 of the Criminal Code prohibits ‘disparagement of the State and its symbols, ibid, International PEN.
[4] Index on Censorship, ‘UK government abolishes seditious libel and criminal defamation’ (13 July 2009)
[5] More recent jurisprudence includes: Lopes Gomes da Silva v Portugal (2000); Oberschlick v Austria (no 2) (1997) and Schwabe v Austria (1992) which all cover the limits for legitimate criticism of politicians.
[6] Privacy is also protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights through Article 7 (‘Respect for private and family life’) and Article 8 (‘Protection of personal data’).
31 Dec 13 | Europe and Central Asia, European Union, Greece, News and features, Politics and Society
(Photo illustration: Shutterstock)
As Greece prepares to take on the presidency of the Council of the European Union on January 1, the country continues to grapple with the free expression fallout from its financial crisis.
The Greek constitution protects freedom of expression in Article 14, a very lengthy provision detailing the rights and restrictions. As set in the first paragraph of Art. 14 “every person may express and propagate his thoughts orally, in writing and through the press in compliance with the laws of the State”.
Aside from domestic legislation, Greece cooperates with a number of international organizations and is a contracting party to treaties related to freedom of expression, civil/political rights and access to information, for instance the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
However, the heavy austerity measures imposed since 2010, after the fiscal agreements between the Greek government and the “troika” (IMF, European Commission, European Central Bank), resulted in serious violations of human rights including freedom of speech. Cuts in government spending forced impoverishment upon large segments of society and came with a heavy price of social exclusion and marginalization.
Reports from various intergovernmental organizations, NGOs and civil society groups are raising alarms about policies followed by the Greek state. Human rights such as free expression, free thought, free movement, right to work, equal treatment, access to decision-making and right to protest are being systematically attacked.
On 16 April 2013, Nils Muižnieks, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, published a report on human rights issues. Muiznieks urged the Greek government to use all legal instruments, domestic and international, to combat hate speech and racist crime, largely attributed to the rise of the neo-nazi party Golden Dawn.
Government Transparency: call for social justice
Looking at the evidence coming from official institutions and NGOs, the “pillar” of government accountability is characterized by corruption and maladministration.
Although “micro-corruption” is less of a problem, mainly due to economic problems, Greece is still perceived as the most corrupt nation in the European Union. In a total of 177 countries worldwide, Greece ranks 80, although some progress has been made from last year.
According to the 2012 annual report of the Greek Ombudsman, a constitutionally sanctioned independent authority investigating administrative actions regarding personal rights, “the call for social justice is the main feature of people’s complaints, reflecting the existing social fatigue.”
After evaluating the significant increase in the number of complaints, the Ombudsman reported that citizen encounters with the administration have intensified, while the explosive social conditions have lead to greater loss in human rights protection.
Press Freedom: under attack
Greece’s dramatic fall in the ranking of 2013 World Press Freedom Index, is evidence of the oppressive environment journalism is practised. Since 2008, Greece has fallen from 31 place to 84.
In the past three years, mainstream media have been experiencing a significant deterioration in their “watchdog’ role, as a result of the crisis and of long-term weaknesses and practices.
The Greek media market is shaped by media groups owned by magnates, shipowners and big contractors. Having vested interests in profitable industries, these tycoons have been working closely with every regime to ensure their dominance at any cost.
In additiona, the financial crisis has led to closures and severe cutbacks at print and broadcast outlets while hindering effective reporting and quality journalism.
Ιndex on Censorship has thoroughly reported on politically motivated firings or suspensions at both state and private media.
The case of investigative journalist Kostas Vaxevanis is an indicative example of the governments’ approach to press freedom. Vaxevanis was arrested and prosecuted after publishing a list of more than 2,000 suspected tax evaders, the so called “Lagarde list”.
Moreover, Reporters Without Borders, in a special investigation report dating from September 2011, suggested that a crisis of confidence in journalism has resulted to a devaluation process of the profession. RWB highlighted the risks entailed in reporting at street demonstrations and violent clashes with the police: “Working conditions during demonstrations are nowadays rather like in a war zone”.
During the crisis, the need for more investigative reporting led several bloggers and online activists to form independent media collectives.
While mainstream media failed to report on the social struggle, these collectives managed to report complaints and publicise dissent. But not without a cost. On April 11 2013, Indymedia, an anti-authoritarian internet collective, had its plug pulled by the government for reporting on police brutality cases and exposing the deeds of neo-fascist Golden Dawn.
In late September 2012, the case of Elder Pastitsios showed that online satire cannot be tolerated. A 27-year-old man, who published a Facebook post mocking a well known Orthodox monk, was arrested on charges of malicious blasphemy and religious insult.
It’s perhaps the first time an internet company disclosed information to the Greek authorities in order to identify an individual accused of an alleged offense relating to religious satire.
LGBTI: Living in a conservative society
Several incidents of state censorship and social discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation illustrate the mentality of an oppressive society.
According to IGAL’s Annual Review Greece ranks 25 among 49 European countries. A wave of violence has been recorded against LGBTI activists and supporters, from conservatives, extremists and supporters of the Golden Dawn party.
In 2013, (ex) Greek State television ERT decided to censor a kissing scene between men from the TV drama Downton Abbey. Following the reactions from the LGBTI community and the intervention of Greek Ombudsman, the broadcaster issued a communiqué apologizing for the “unfortunate decision”.
It is worth noting that Greece has been found violating the European Convention of Human Rights, regarding its decision to exclude same sex couples from the institution of civil partnership. Although the government plans to extend the legislation to same sex couples, there are continuing pressures from conservatives as well as from the Church.
The impact of orthodox religion to Greek society is so strong that sometimes it can be an obstacle in the perception of artistic attempts. Recently, it lead to the intimidation and persecution of a theatrical play whereby homosexuality was used as a narrative technique.
Migrants, asylum seekers, Roma: the most vulnerable
Human rights abuses against immigrants, asylum seekers and other minorities in Greece have escalated dramatically. The approach of the Greek government — together with the racist attacks organized by Golden Dawn — suggests a police-regime with almost no respect to human life.
Under stricter requirements of acquiring citizenship and with an inadequate asylum system, immigrants and refugees are “trapped” in a country with substandard detention conditions at camps and prisons. Despite reported improvements at the appeal level of the asylum procedures, Greece has made very little progress in establishing a fair and humane system.
Police mistreatment and xenophobic behaviuor from the authorities is a key factor in depriving immigrants and refugees of basic human rights. Allegations of torture and ill-treatment have been largely reported and condemned by international courts and human rights organizations.
Although the anti-racism bill, which is under discussion in Parliament, holds provisions/sanctions for hate speech and incitement to violence, it does not address problems regarding the reporting of racist incidents and the prosecution of racist violence.
Last, but not least, the fundamental right to education for all citizens is not yet granted. The country has been found discriminating against Roma children by segregating them in separate schools.
Women and children
The harsh economic conditions imposed upon Greek population seem to affect women and children more than others.
Even though the number of complaints from women is consistently low, both at a national and European level, documented domestic violence has increased by 47% in recent months. Verbal abuse, economic blackmail and sexual humiliation are among the most common types of violence against women.
Unemployment and precarious employment affect women more than any other social group. There are documented cases of work discrimination during pregnancy and maternity.
Unfortunately, marginalization of Greek women does not stop there. The unprecedented shocking story of 31 women, forcibly tested for HIV and prosecuted for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm, is strong evidence of a police-state that shows no respect to medical confidentiality and above all human dignity. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have accused Greece of violating human rights in the case.
The state of children in Greece is in no better position, in fact it is in a critical status. Almost 600.000 are living below the poverty line, while half of them lack the basic nutritional needs. Things are far worse, when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers: both women and children have been victims of xenophobic violence.
This article was originally published at indexoncensorship.org
31 Dec 13 | News and features, Politics and Society
Journalists are known for uncovering the truth. What is less known is how these journalists gather these facts, often risking their jobs, and sometimes their lives, to discover information others are attempting to keep hidden from the world.
The Taksim Gezi Park Protest
The Gezi Park protest in Turkey made international news when, in May 2013, a sit-in at the park protesting plans to develop the area sparked violent clashes with police. What didn’t grab the attention of media workers worldwide was that at least 59 of their fellow journalists were fired or forced to quit over their reporting of the events.
The Turkish press have been long-time sufferers of the need to self-censor in an environment where the press is ultimately run by a handful of wealthy individuals. The Gezi Park protests saw a surge in the controlling influence of the Turkish media as 22 journalists were fired and a further 37 forced to quit due to their determination to cover the clashes for a national and international audience, as was their duty as journalists.
Turkey came in at 154th in the Reporters Without Borders Freedom of the Press Index 2013, a drop of six places from 2012.
Journalists imprisoned
2013 was the first year a detailed survey was carried out by Reporters Without Borders which looked into how many journalists had been imprisoned for their work; the result was shocking. One hundred and seventy eight journalists were spending time in jail for their actions, along with 14 media assistants. Perhaps more worrying was the statistic that 166 netizens had been imprisoned, those who actively supply the world with content often without being paid whilst gaining access to places that many ‘official’ journalists are banned from.
China handed out the most prison sentences during 2013 with 30 media personal serving time behind bars. Closely behind was Eritrea with 28 journalists imprisoned, Turkey with 27, and Iran and Syria handing out 20 sentences each.
Press freedom in Afghanistan
Murder, injuries, threats, beatings, closure of media organisations, and the dismissal for liking a Facebook post have all accounted towards the 62 cases of violence against the media and journalists working in Afghanistan over the past eight months. The Afghanistan Journalists Center, which collected the data from January to August 2013, has claimed that government officials and security forces, the Taliban, and illegal armed groups are behind the majority of attacks.
Of particular concern is the growing threat to female journalists who have been forced to quit their jobs after threats to their families.
According to the Afghanistan Media Law; every person has the right to freedom of thought and speech, which includes the right to seek, obtain and disseminate information and views within the limit of law without any interference, restriction and threat by the government or officials- a law Afghanistan does not appear to be upholding.
Exiled journalists
Some journalists are taking a risk every day that they go to work. They may not be killed for their reporting but that does not stop them facing imprisonment, violence, and harassment. Between June 2008 and May 2013 the CPJ found that 456 journalists were forced into exile as a means of protecting their families and themselves due to their determination to uncover the truth.
The top countries from which journalists fled included Somalia, Ethiopia and Sri Lanka with Iran topping the table having forced a total of 82 journalists into exile. Although a majority of these journalists claim sanctuary in countries like Sweden, the U.S and Kenya, only 7% of those exiled since 2008 have been able to return home.
Impunity
Murder is a crime for which those involved should be punished. Yet in the case of the killing of journalists nine out of 10 killers go free. Put another way, in only five percent of cases for the murder of a journalist does the defendant receive a sentence of full justice. The most likely reason to kill a journalist is to silence them from speaking the truth to others.
IFEX, global freedom of expression network behind the International Day to End Impunity campaign said: “When someone acts with impunity, it means that their actions have no consequences. Intimidation, threats, attacks and murders go unpunished. In the past 10 years, more than 500 journalists have been killed. Murder is the ultimate form of censorship, and media are undoubtedly on the frontlines of free expression.”
