16 Nov 12 | Uncategorized
Index has signed a petition opposing the British government’s move to replace GCSEs with the English Baccalaureate, excluding creative subjects from the core qualification at 16.
Many leading figures in the arts have voiced their dismay at this short-sightedness, pointing out the successes of the arts in the UK in both social and economic terms. We want to add our voice because the arts are central to the free exchange of ideas. Relevant, robust arts and culture are vital to a healthy, participatory democracy.
Access to the arts is important. Arts education in schools allows all young people to learn skills to express themselves and so be able to participate directly in shaping their world. By downgrading the arts, the government is showing indifference to their value as a means to explore diversity and enlarge sympathies.
Index will be writing a submission to the open consultation on Reforming Key Stage 4 qualifications, which closes on 10 December.
18 Oct 12 | Uncategorized
If passed, the UK’s draft Communications Data Bill — also known as the “Snooper’s Charter” — will make room for the blanket storage of information on British citizen’s emails, text messages and internet activity. Companies would have to collect data they don’t currently retain, and the Home Secretary would have the power to request communications equipment manufacturers install hardware to make spying easier.
With these concerns in mind Index hosted a panel on the bill today chaired by trustee John Kampfner, who was joined by Index CEO Kirsty Hughes, Demos’s Jamie Bartlett, Emma Ascroft of Yahoo and Ian Brown from Oxford University.
There was consensus over the bill’s red flags, particularly its broad language and wide extension of surveillance powers to anyone who provides telecommunications operating systems. This would include social networks and domain name registries.
For Yahoo’s Emma Ascroft, it was unclear what consideration the UK’s Home Office had given to jurisdiction boundaries. The broad nature of the bill means the UK would be the first country to extend its jurisdiction, creating a reserve power to “require UK providers to retain data that they could not obtain directly.” The Home Office has acknowledged, Ascroft said, that the UK would be the first country to extend its jurisdiction in this way, but added there will be a “tension” where UK citizens’ data is available to foreign law enforcement authorities. This would, she warned, lead to a “complex patchwork of overlapping laws”.
Of equal concern was them chilling effect the bill could have if passed, as Index CEO Kirsty Hughes described:
It risks undermining anonymity, particularly whistleblowing, if user data can be tracked and comprehensively collected.
But despite conceding no other democracies had gone as far as the UK proposes to go, Jamie Bartlett felt the bill didn’t go far enough. Emphatic that he was “in favour of regulated, transparent and clear powers of surveillance”, he said there were far greater problems posed by the ability of the government to access open source social media content, which is currently not covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). Writing for Index today, Bartlett said:
This type of widespread, mass social media monitoring needs to regulated, limited, and put on a legal footing.
Yet the fact that the bill is not subject to judicial oversight, combined with the prospect of a backstop power, worried some. For Oxford University’s Ian Brown, the latter went to “the heart of proportionality”, which Index and other rights groups have flagged as one of the bill’s greatest flaws.
“The Home Office has to come out of its comfort zone,” Ascroft concluded, pointing to internal conflict over the bill. “The Foreign Office, justice department, culture department, they all have anxieties.”
While she predicted the bill would be amended, Hughes suggested there was a risk this would not go far enough. “We need the UK’s voice out there defending digital freedom,” she said.
The joint committee on the bill is due to report on 30 November.
Written evidence to the draft bill has been collated here
Index’s own submission is available here
15 Oct 12 | Uncategorized
Cross-posted at Bright Blue
The political hue of a government by no means tells you where it will stand on defending freedom of expression when the chips are down. The signals from Cameron and his team so far are mixed but by the end of 2012, judgements good or bad are likely to start rolling in. A whole mixture of issues, laws, domestic statements and foreign policy stances add up to a picture of whether a government is promoting, defending or limiting freedom of expression – free speech, a free press, freedom to receive and share information online and off. So why is autumn 2012 likely to be so critical in telling us if the government is standing up for one of our most fundamental rights in a democracy?
Three particular issues are on the agenda this autumn, crucial to whether the UK can stand proud in the world as a democracy where free speech thrives: the defamation reform bill, the communications data bill, and the report from the Leveson Inquiry. The rough state of play on these goes as follows: defamation report bill — very welcome but some critical gaps need plugging at committee stage this month; communications data bill — very unwelcome, risks the UK being the pariah of the democratic world in digital surveillance; government response to the Leveson Inquiry — all to play for. If all of these go in the right direction, there will be reason for celebration and plaudits for Cameron indeed. If the three go in different directions, the government may well end up looking confused on freedom of expression. If they go in the wrong direction, criticism is likely to come in from around the world.
Index has been campaigning for three years (with its partners English Pen and Sense about Science) for a reform of England’s libel laws for the last three years. And it was a huge step forward to have the defamation reform bill in the Queen’s speech this May – the bill is likely to complete its path through parliament by the end of the year. In its current form, there is much that is positive — major steps have been taken to tackle libel tourism, so that nationals of other countries no longer use the English courts on the excuse of a small even negligible extent of publication in the UK, just to benefit from the complainant-bias in the existing law. But some of the most notorious cases of libel in recent years — such as those of Simon Singh or Ben Goldacre, both dragged expensively and at length through the courts (even though ultimately cleared) for debating and challenging scientific and medical practices – could still occur. The defamation bill crucially needs a proper public interest defence to be added at committee stage — so that open, reasonable debate can take place without the chill of possible expensive libel suits. Without it, a major opportunity to bring English libel law firmly into the 21st century will have been missed.
The Comms Data Bill – aptly labelled a ‘snooper’s charter’ by the press – has no saving graces. The Bill would lead to collection and filtering of data across the entire British population – emails, mobile and landline calls, websites visited, the list goes on. Monitoring and surveillance of this kind impacts directly both on the right to privacy and on the right to freedom of expression. No other democracy is proposing such an extensive approach to data collection – and it is the kind of approach that would normally be associated with regimes such as Iran and China, who will certainly be watching whether the Bill goes through with interest. If it does, it will be very difficult for Cameron or Hague to tell Iran, China, Russia and others that they must allow and respect internet freedoms when they will no longer be doing so at home. The report stage of the Bill is expected to conclude in November – the committee has an opportunity then to call for the withdrawal of the Bill, and the government should do so.
Then there is Leveson — expected to report in mid-November. It is too soon to say exactly what Lord Leveson will propose, or how Cameron will respond. But many are speculating that Leveson will recommend introducing a so-called ‘light’ form of statutory regulation of the press — through a statute that would go to parliament determining what an ‘independent’ regulator should look like. If so, this would be the thin end of the wedge — introducing government control over how the press can behave — a development which would risk taking the UK in the direction of Hungary with its increased state intervention in the media. Tougher, more effective independent regulation of the British press is surely the direction of travel. But if Leveson goes down the statutory route, Cameron needs to stand up for the basic principles of press freedom — journalists cannot hold government (and opposition) to account if government in the end determines how the press is controlled.
Three crucial choices face the government in the next two months — by December, we hope Index will be applauding Cameron on all three fronts. If not, it will be a sad moment for freedom of expression in the UK.
Kirsty Hughes is Chief Executive of Index on Censorship
Read more:
Libel reform: why it’s time for politicians to deliver on promises
Join 60,000 others calling for change in England’s libel laws. Sign the petition here
10 Oct 12 | Uncategorized
I spent the morning at the Crown Prosecution Service’s offices in London, taking part in a round table discussion on guidelines for prosecuting offences committed on social media and emphasising recent prosecutions impact on free speech.
The consultations, chaired by DPP Keir Starmer — the most senior prosecutor in England and Wales — are taking place in a week when social media prosecutions are very much in the news. On Monday, Matthew Woods was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison for unpleasant, distasteful remarks on Facebook about missing Welsh schoolgirl April Jones. On Tuesday, Azhar Ahmed was given community service and a £300 fine for suggesting — again on Facebook — that British soldiers should burn in hell.
Index condemned these prosecutions and that of Paul Chambers, whose quip that he would blow Doncaster’s Robin Hood airport “sky high” landed him in deep trouble before the Lord Chief Justice ruled that his joke should be taken as just that.
It’s clear to many that there is a problem with the law and social media, in particular the use of Section 127 of the Communications Act, which states that a person is guilty of an offence if she “sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.”
At the meeting today, the DPP seemed to share Index’s unease with the use of this law, pointing out that its genealogy dates back to the 1930s, and laws to protect telophone operators from abuse.
This was certainly encouraging to hear. But Starmer was keen to point out that prosecutors can only work within the existing laws — it is up to others to change the law.
What was not so encouraging was his view of the Lord Chief Justice’s opinion offered in the Twitter Joke Appeal.
In his ruling (par 28), Baron Judge commented that “Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it…” should not be interfered with by the Communications Act
Many of us had hoped that this ruling would set a precedent, or at least provide guidance for police and prosecutors in future cases. But when I raised this with the DPP today, he suggested that he did not feel that the Lord Chief Justice had any intention of that principle being extended beyond the specifics of the Twitter Joke Trial.
To me this seems odd, as it is clearly a comment on the broad purpose of the Communications Act.
This point can be stressed when the CPS launches its public consultation in November.
On a slightly more positive note, the DPP was willing to entertain the idea that “not intended to be taken seriously” could be seen as a mitigating factor in decisions on whether to prosecute.
There were some other notable aspects in the meeting.
As Dan Sabbagh has reported and I can confirm, the DPP seems very keen on greater involvement/responsibilty for Internet Service Providers in policing content. But given the broad nature of the term “service provider”, this could prove difficult to pin down (as a representative of the Internet Service Providers’ Association pointed out).
The DPP also was keen to look into the distinction between a “victim” and an “offended bystander”, in cases where endless retweets and media attention can suddenly escalate a mere tweet into a national news story.
It’s hugely important for anyone who uses the web but especially those with a Facebook or Twitter account that the CPS gets this right. The future of free speech is at stake.
Padraig Reidy is News Editor at Index on Censorship
