24 Apr 2007 | Comment
Liberian information minister Laurence Bropleh continues to make a stalwart but surprising defence of his government’s targeting of the Monrovia Independent newspaper for publishing an obscene photograph of another cabinet minister.
Disgraced Minister of Presidential Affairs Willis Knuckles tendered his resignation on 25 February after a picture of him in a sex act with two young girls surfaced on the internet. Accepting it, President Ellen Sirleaf-Johnson said his behaviour “while not illegal, is improper and inappropriate for a public servant.”
But when the Independent newspaper in Monrovia reprinted a copy of the obscene picture in its coverage of Knuckles’s resignation two days later, the government snapped. It revoked the newspaper’s license for a year, ordered its offices closed and sent officers of the country’s National Security Agency round to Monrovia’s print houses to warn them off printing the paper.
Bropleh did not name the Independent during his comments to an April 20-21 conference on post-conflict press freedoms organised by International Media Support (IMS) and sponsored by the Danish committee of UNESCO. Instead he reserved his ire for Liberian media rights groups which had supported the paper against the ban.
In fact the Press Council of Liberia had been as critical of the Independent for republishing the photograph as Bropleh had been, and suspended the membership of the paper and editor Sam Dean for three months. Nevertheless, concerned along with others about the security services’ involvement, they still supported The Independent’s petition to Liberia’s Supreme Court for a lifting of the ban.
Sadly there were no representatives of the Liberian media rights community at the Copenhagen conference and thus able to put the minister straight.
But sat on a conference panel with Bropleh on Saturday to debate the issue of access to information in post-conflict societies, Index on Censorship did try. We defended the media rights groups’ right to protest the way the state acted against the Independent, regardless of any question about the paper’s taste and judgment.
Perhaps, this correspondent suggested, the publication of the photo was a criminal matter – possibly even a civil one – “more appropriately dealt with by a detective constable from Monrovia High Street police station than the security services.”
Bropleh reasserted that it was the NSA’s jurisdiction. The Media Foundation for West Africa reported in February that publication of the pictures could be a breach of Section 18.1 of Liberia’s Penal Code, which ‘prohibits the dissemination of obscene materials without minimizing the risk of exposure to children under sixteen,’ citing a senior police official.
In fact the rest of the Liberian government has since distanced itself from the use of NSA officers to enforce the closure. Another government spokesman, Gabriel Williams, has told the Monrovia Inquirer that “such an act will not be repeated,” as he said, Liberia ‘subscribes to the rule of law, democratic governance and free press.’
‘The government has acknowledged that it did not follow due process,’ commented the US Committee to Protect Journalists on the case. ‘We urge the Supreme Court to rescind the ban against the paper.’
Bropleh is a minister of a Liberian church as well as a minister in the Liberian government. Apart from demonstrating his possible unsuitability for at least one of those jobs, what does any of this matter?
Actually, quite a lot.
Liberia is bracing itself for the withdrawal of a multinational peacekeeping force, the largest committed to Africa in United Nations history, and in place since the end of the country’s civil war four years ago.
This month the Johnson-Sirleaf government announced plans to create a new paramilitary security force, tasked to tackle riots and other threats to national stability, independently of the country’s existing national police.
Given the way the National Security Agency besieged The Independent after its Willis Knuckles’ resignation coverage, in a manner that the Press Union described as ‘akin to intimidation,’ media rights groups are right to be concerned about how the new so-called ‘Quick Reaction Unit’ will react the next time a government minister is offended – or is caught being offensive – by the country’s press.
3 Jan 2024 | China, News and features, Taiwan
As Taiwan gears up for the presidential and legislative election on 13 January, the Chinese government is also ramping up its efforts to interfere. From sponsored trips to China for local leaders, economic coercion, fake opinion polls, and disinformation campaigns, some analysts say the wide-ranging tactics that Beijing has unleashed will have an impact on the election’s outcome.
In recent weeks, Taiwanese authorities have launched investigations into several cases of individuals attempting to sway voters by inviting local borough chiefs and village leaders on group tours to China. These trips are partially sponsored by local Chinese authorities.
During the trips, participants were allegedly encouraged by officials from China’s propaganda department to vote for political parties and candidates favoured by Beijing. At least one man has been indicted while several others are facing ongoing investigations.
Apart from sponsored trips, Beijing also rolled out coercive economic measures to pressure Taiwan, suspending tariff relief on imports of 12 Taiwanese petrochemical products, and blaming it on the trade barriers enacted by Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party.
“Since 2023 is a major year of cross-strait exchange for China, Chinese authorities have devoted a lot of resources to facilitate influence campaigns against Taiwan,” Puma Shen, chairperson of Taipei-based research group Doublethink Lab, told Index on Censorship. “They want to make sure that Taiwanese people feel threatened but also are not too afraid of the influence campaigns from China.”
The most recent example of China’s influence campaign is an investigation into alleged lip-sync by popular Taiwanese rock band Mayday, a practice that is banned for live musicians in China. A Taiwanese security agency internal memo claims the investigation is Beijing’s attempt to pressure the rock band into publicly supporting the position that Taiwan is a part of China.
Shen from Doublethink Lab said Taiwanese people who have huge financial stakes in China, such as artists and businessmen, often become targets of China’s influence campaign. “Even though they are earning money in China, they are more like victims,” he said.
Multi-pronged cognitive warfare
In addition to economic coercion and influencing local politicians, some experts say China has also launched multi-pronged cognitive warfare against Taiwan ahead of the election, amplifying narratives criticising the ruling party through state media outlets and initiating disinformation campaigns on social media platforms, including TikTok, YouTube and Facebook.
Over the last few months, China’s state-run media outlets have repeated the narrative that the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is pushing Taiwan to the brink of war with its efforts to pursue “Taiwan independence”. The narrative resonates with criticisms against the DPP by opposition candidates in Taiwan, who have repeatedly accused DPP’s presidential candidate, Lai Ching-te, of being “the golden child of Taiwan independence.”
There are also signs that Chinese state media and online troll groups are amplifying narratives aimed at damaging the image and credibility of the Taiwanese government, including controversial domestic issues such as the de-sinicization of Taiwan’s curriculum and scepticism toward the Taiwanese government’s deepened relations with the USA.
According to Taiwan AI Labs, online troll groups have mirrored narratives promoted by Chinese state media, including the People’s Daily, Haiwainet, Xinhua News Agency, Global Times, and China Central Television (CCTV). While there is no direct evidence to prove that China is behind all online troll groups, Taiwan AI Labs said their behaviours fit the criteria of autocratic countries’ interference in democratic elections.
“Since the online troll groups promote narratives about Taiwanese domestic issues and U.S. President Joe Biden and there is a high similarity between the narratives they promote and the narratives preferred by Chinese state media, we can conclude that it fits the methods that autocratic countries use to interfere in democratic elections,” Ethan Tu, the founder of Taiwan AI Labs, said.
Compared to China’s efforts to interfere in previous Taiwan elections, it is becoming harder to determine whether disinformation targeting the upcoming Taiwanese election originates from China or not.
“This time around, it’s very difficult to determine whether the disinformation originates from China or is created by actors within Taiwan,” Chiaoning Su, an associate professor in communication, journalism, and public relations at Oakland University, told Index on Censorship.
In her view, China has built up a better understanding of public opinion in Taiwan and they realise that for efforts of election interference to work, the narratives they amplify need to match the trend in Taiwan’s public opinion.
“The way that China is amplifying social economic issues such as the controversy of lack of eggs or the debate about reducing the amount of ancient Chinese literature in the curriculum shows that their efforts to initiate disinformation campaign are becoming more localised and harder to trace,” Su said.
Shen from Doublethink Lab said one of the main goals of China’s disinformation campaign is to denigrate democracy. “They want to show the Taiwanese public that Taiwan’s democracy is a mess and that while the DPP claims to protect democracy and freedom, in the end, it is not democratic and free at all,” he told Index on Censorship.
Since Taiwan is a democracy that values freedom of speech, Shen thinks Taiwanese authorities need to deal with the threats that come with China’s election interference through ways that will safeguard Taiwanese people’s freedom of expression, by specifically identifying remarks which originate from sources external to Taiwan.
“Otherwise, they will fall into China’s trap,” he said.
3 Nov 2023 | Israel, News and features, Opinion, Palestine, Ruth's blog, United States
It seems every week there is a news story of another academic, a group of students or a vice chancellor detailing threats to academic freedom. Heartbreakingly this has become an even more common occurrence since the Hamas pogrom in Israel on 7 October and the subsequent war in Gaza.
Only this week the UKRI, a UK government body which distributes research funding, has suspended its diversity advisory panel, after a leading member of the British Government publicly criticised members of the panel for their social media comments regarding Hamas and Israel. This led to the resignation of several academics from posts at the UKRI.
And at Cornell University in the US, a student is currently facing charges for threatening to kill Jewish students via a range of graphic social media posts, resulting in his persecution and enhanced security measures now in place for Jewish staff and members on campus.
These are two of the more extreme examples of the impact of the current crisis on academic institutions.
And as angry as they make me, as heartbroken as I am about current events, I have to consider them through the prism of my job – defending freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is a very broad concept and there are as many definitions as there are forms of expression. But taking the two examples above at hand, academic freedom and freedom of speech are different things. What people debate and discuss in the lecture hall, in a seminar room or on the pages of an academic tome must always be protected. But academics are not afforded special protections outside of the confines of their intellectual endeavours. That’s not a matter of academic freedom, it’s one of freedom of expression and should be considered separately.
At the same time, the events in Cornell equate to hate speech and are not and should not be protected. Hate speech and incitement are against the law and should be dealt with accordingly. And every community, every student should have the right to feel safe on campus – not in fear of their lives. No one should be scared of walking onto their university campus whatever is happening in a war thousands of miles away.
This is all at a time when university campuses are increasingly considered to be the frontline in the ongoing battle to protect free speech.
Earlier this year, the UK saw the passage of The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.
In the current context, this seems to have muddied the waters between academic freedom and freedom of speech on campus. The new law places an onus on universities, colleges and Students’ Unions to not only protect free speech but to actively promote it. But what does this mean when applied to the views of students and academics who are promoting views outside of their academic specialisms?
The very name of the Act it suggests that those on campus have complete freedom of speech without limitation. They do not; no one does. But as academics they must have complete freedom to teach and challenge without fear or favour (within the confines of the law).
Universities are meant to be seats of academic exploration, cathedrals of learning. They provide a forum for discussion and debate in which new ideas and minority opinions can be considered. The purpose is to expose students to the breadth of views and ideas that exist in their particular discipline and ideally challenge their worldview – allowing them to argue back. On campus, in the classroom – not on a social media platform.
It is always difficult to know what impact these debates and issues are having on campus. How safe academics feel to push the boundaries of their areas of specialism and how secure students feel to question and debate on campus – to ask the unpalatable question, to challenge the status quo. But in the midst of the current gloom and misery I am choosing to take a little bit of hope from a recently published survey.
The National Student Survey from the Office of Students would suggest that this endemic attack on free speech is not as pervasive as we sometimes believe it to be. They asked students from colleges and universities in England how free they felt to express their “ideas, opinions, and beliefs” and 86% said that they felt “free” or “very free”. Only 3% of the 300,000 respondents said that they felt they were ‘not free at all.”
On the face of it, this is good news. We should welcome the fact that an overwhelming number of students feel free to speak their mind and share their opinions. Self censorship is a real problem but not one, it seems, that plagues the majority of today’s students.
But we must ask the 3% why they don’t feel free at all to express themselves on campus. is it threats from external forces like the Chinese Communist Party, is it because of their identity or faith, or is it because they themselves hold minority opinions and are fearful of being challenged. Whatever the reason, 9,000 students who participated in this survey feel silenced. We need to know why and we need to find a way to support them.
In the interim I’m going to focus on the positive and celebrate the fact that we start from a position of academic freedom and that the overwhelming majority of students know that they can express themselves on campus without fear or favour.
23 Jun 2021 | News and features, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
- Leading experts brand government’s Online Safety Bill “catastrophic” at press conference today
- Members including David Davis MP, Ruth Smeeth and Gavin Millar QC launch the ‘Legal to Say. Legal to Type.’ campaign to scrutinise and push back against the proposed bill
- The proposed bill as it stands will “likely be challenged in the courts” for breaching right to freedom of speech
- New report warns that the “Duty of Care” model outlined in the Bill will see perfectly legal posts from ordinary people blocked online and turns Ofcom into a free speech “super regulator”
- Anger as the new law does NOT punish the abusers who post harmful content online but instead outsources internet policing to Silicon Valley
London, UK – A coalition of experts including David Davis MP, Index on Censorship chief executive Ruth Smeeth, and Gavin Millar QC savaged the government’s proposed Online Safety Bill today, branding it “catastrophic” for freedom of speech as they launched the ‘Legal to Say. Legal to Type.’ campaign to scrutinise and push back against the bill.
The emergency session was called by the group of leading experts to warn the public that the bill will create two tiers of free speech online: free speech for journalists and politicians, and censorship for ordinary citizens.
A new report from Index On Censorship launched at the conference warns that the bill’s introduction of the “Duty of Care model” which comes from Health and Safety legislation is overly simplistic. The new rule would force tech platforms to delete posts that are legal under laws passed by Parliament but considered “harmful”. The bill does not define what is and is not “harmful”, the group says this will result in many perfectly legal posts from ordinary people being banned online. The bill effectively outsources internet policing from the police, courts and Parliament to Silicon Valley.
Legal expert Gavin Millar QC deems the Duty of Care framework will enable vast amounts of speech online to be deleted – and suggests it will likely be challenged in the courts.
While the bill’s aim of ensuring platforms remove illegal images of child sexual abuse, terrorist material and content which incites racial hatred and violence from screens is welcomed by the group, its members today criticised the government’s bill for actually making it harder for law enforcement to properly hold online abusers accountable. The bill forces platforms to delete valuable evidence before the victims of targeted harassment or threats to kill can see the criminal content and ensure it is reported to the police.
In its current form, the legislation protects trolls, making them feel safer to abuse online because the platforms are punished for hosting the harmful content as opposed to the people who create it. Members of the coalition are demanding the government puts criminals behind bars rather than simply deleting their posts. The group also raises concerns about the bill potentially resulting in an increase in popularity of the ‘dark web’, which the Online Safety Bill does not cover.
The Index on Censorship report criticises the role of Ofcom as the final adjudicator as highly problematic and could lead to the over-censorship of free speech by the Silicon Valley giants as they attempt to avoid huge fines. As the report notes, since the abolition of press licensing in 1695, people in England have been free to publish ideas without direct government interference. By turning Ofcom into a “super regulator” of free speech, the government is imposing a state regulator over the written word for the first time in over 300 years. In place of a formal court process to deal with potentially illegal publication, instead Ofcom will be given new powers in the Online Safety Bill to fine technology companies for allowing content to be posted that is perfectly legal, but thought to be “harmful” by Ofcom. The definition of “harmful” is open to interpretation and the group is concerned this could be used to regulate ideas that people in the UK should be free to express. The fines that Ofcom will be able to levy will be eye-watering, with the potential fines as high as 10% of turnover. The report by Index on Censorship notes there will be a commercial incentive to over-censor, to remove content once deemed as perfectly acceptable, as to defend free speech online could cause significant financial risk.
The group have expressed fears that black and ethnic minority Britons will be censored by Artificial Intelligence that doesn’t understand the nuances of human language – especially when it comes to irony loving Brits. For example a 2019 study by Washington University found that tweets from African-American users were two times more likely to be labeled as offensive than tweets from other users.
Ruth Smeeth, Chief Executive at Index on Censorship states:
“The Government’s bill is catastrophic for freedom of speech. It’s plan to force tech platforms to delete “harmful” content or face big fines will lead to many legal posts being deleted. At Index on Censorship we work with people across the globe who are being censored by oppressive regimes. It might not be the UK Government’s intention but this bill sets a worrying international precedent. Dictators around the world will be taking notes. Also as someone who has experienced online abuse, I am dismayed that the bill would force platforms to delete offending comments. These comments are vital evidence for law enforcement and will make it harder for the authorities to catch people who actually break the law online.”
Rt Hon David Davis MP states:
“The Online Safety Bill is a Censor’s Charter. Lobby groups will be able to push social networks to take down content they view as not politically correct, even though the content is legal. The idea we should force Silicon Valley companies to police Briton’s speech online, seems out of Orwell’s 1984, and is not what our voters expect of us.”
Gavin Millar QC states:
“The bill proposed by the government is likely to lead to perfectly legal speech being removed from the internet and it seems inevitable that this will be challenged in the courts.
The scale of the task given to platforms, and the vagueness of wording in the legislation will force broad “technical” solutions to content moderation – such as overly restrictive algorithms which will make decisions without context, nuance and an understanding of our laws and culture. This could lead to large quantities of content being blocked wrongly.
Judgments that should be reserved for UK prosecutors and the courts will be outsourced to global tech companies.
As someone who has undertaken many free speech missions for international organisations to countries with repressive free speech regimes such as China, Turkey, Azerbaijan there is a real risk that this legislation, if passed, will be used to justify repressive measures aimed at closing down free speech on the internet in these countries.”
Jim Killock, Chief Executive at Open Rights Group states:
“Outsourcing decision making around free speech to Silicon Valley and taking away this responsibility from the UK’s Parliament and Courts would be a huge mistake. The threat of colossal fines or even jail time for Directors will cause tech platforms to overreact, prompting them to remove content that is perfectly legal. Worse still, politicians and journalists are opted out of the law, creating an unhealthy two-tier system online.”
-ENDS-
Notes to Editors
For more information please contact:
[email protected]
Or [email protected] / 07596 177849
About ‘Legal to Say. Legal to Type.’
The ‘Legal to Say. Legal to Type.’ campaign is calling on the government to table amendments and ensure the internet is kept “free, open and secure”. The assembly consists of notable experts including:
- Ruth Smeeth, Chief Executive at Index on Censorship
- Jim Killock, Chief Executive at Open Rights Group
- David Davis MP, Member of Parliament for Haltemprice and Howden
- Gavin Millar QC, Barrister at Matrix Chambers
- Graham Smith, Of Counsel, Bird & Bird LLP
- Penelope Gibbs, Founder and Chief Executive, Transform Justice
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
