03 Mar 23 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
President of the French Republic Emmanuel Macron at the European Parliament in 2022. Photo: France Diplomatie
Threats to free speech and freedom of expression can come from a range of different places. Most often it is the despotic tyrants who use fear and violence to crush dissent but sometimes, it comes from the unintended consequences of those trying to control something new.
With advancements in AI, online advertising and digital news outlets, those with both the power and responsibility to regulate the internet are grappling with complex new challenges at a time when more and more people want to protect their online rights.
We’ve seen this happen in the UK as the Online Safety Bill slowly grinds through Westminster and lawmakers try to find new ways of protecting both users and free speech.
But it’s not just the UK which is struggling to find that balance: there is another piece of proposed regulation in Europe that is rapidly becoming a potential threat to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Since 2016, post the Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump, there has been much discussion about proposals to regulate political advertising online. Seven years later, the European Union is finally taking its first steps into this tangled web and trying to come up with rules which will seek to regulate exactly how political advertising can work inside the union.
As it is currently drafted, Europe’s political ads regulation could have a huge chilling effect both for Europeans and for those who rely on the EU’s protection of expression. We would all agree that scrutiny of, and transparency in, political campaigning is a cornerstone of a thriving and functioning democracy. To be able to hold political parties and their leaders to account for what they say and do is integral to democratic societies.
Paid-for political advertising is nothing new. It has been a part of traditional campaigning across Europe for years. From newspapers to billboards, political actors have always paid to get their message across to the electorate.
But the EU is proposing to go much further than regulate just paid political online advertising, their draft regulation could include any content that could be deemed to advance a political view.
This sweeping definition would include unpaid content, created by citizens or grassroots campaigners, regardless of whether someone has paid for the content to be placed.
Online content including YouTube videos and tweets from members of the public could suddenly become subject to strict rules on what they can and cannot say, with legal consequences for platforms if content deemed to be political is not removed within a tight 48-hour window.
Imagine the silencing of online public commentary during the French Presidential debates or the Irish Dail elections if platforms are suddenly required to regulate every comment offered by every pundit, every journalist or every citizen. Such a broad definition would likely lead to the zealous over-removal of any content deemed political for fear of penalty, opening the door for manipulation by tyrants, bad-faith actors and political opponents looking to limit freedom of speech online.
Even analysis about a political party’s electoral fortunes might be caught in the net and that is before we even know what the Commission plans for citizen journalism or those who run third-party campaigns against extremists.
What is more, citizens and campaigners in countries where freedom of speech is not afforded the same protections as in the EU often rely on European media outlets for access to real news. If news commentary and debate in the run-up to elections is undermined then this poses a direct threat to Europe’s role as a human rights leader. Suddenly, voices of democracy based in Europe would be silent and all as a consequence of the EU trying to protect the integrity of their own democracy.
Allowing people to express their political views is a fundamental component of freedom of expression. Not only that, restricting online content in this way goes much further than any offline restriction on freedom of speech. Much like the Digital Services Act that we campaigned on in 2021, the unintended consequences of trying to regulate our digital world appears to affect our real-world freedoms.
Index’s position then, as it is now, is clear: what is legal to say offline should be the benchmark for what is legal to say online. Content created online to promote a legitimate political ideology, viewpoint or authorised candidacy should be afforded the same freedom of speech protection that it would enjoy offline.
We should all be more cautious about believing what we read on the internet – just as we should approach our daily newspaper reports with a healthy dose of scepticism. But, if politicians and political actors have a message they wish to promote, they should be free to do so, however much we might disagree with their view. If campaigners want to support or oppose what they see and hear online, we should welcome the discourse and accept that in a vibrant democratic society there will be differences.
Ultimately, the people who will properly regulate political advertising are the voters themselves. If they think they are being conned or hoodwinked, they will show that at the ballot box.
By all means, let’s ensure that the rules governing online adverts are the same as the rules governing offline campaigning. Let’s bring in the transparency and the openness that ensures a level playing field and a fair fight for politics offline but let’s not imperil political advertising or push out the marginal voices who so often rely on digital ads to be heard.
The EU must reconsider their online political ads regulation and use it as a chance to embed transparency, not eliminate debate.
At the end of the day, voters will have the final word but before then, they have a right to hear what is being said.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also wish to read” category_id=”41669″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
10 Jun 22 | Belarus, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Opinion, Philippines, Russia, Ruth's blog, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States
This week has been awful.
The news has been devastating and all consuming. But that feels like it’s becoming the norm.
In Belarus, our friends remain under attack – Andrei and Irina’s trial began on Monday. We have no idea of the outcome.
In Brazil, Dom Phillips and his colleague Bruno Araújo Pereira remain missing – but with reports of fresh blood being found, our hearts break for their loved ones.
In Ukraine, we see daily the death and destruction caused by the Russian invasion, up to 200 Ukrainian soldiers killed a day. And the reports of cholera in Mariupol are beyond my comprehension in the twenty-first century.
In Russia, the crackdown against dissidents continues unabated – with limited coverage. 160 people are currently defending criminal cases for anti-war statements and this week a close associate of Alexei Navalny was tried in absentia and placed on the international wanted list.
In the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos Jr has been elected as the next President and made his first visit to the US as President-Elect – seemingly the legacy of his parents no longer an electoral or diplomatic issue.
In Hong Kong, six brave democracy protesters were arrested for the temerity of marking the anniversary of Tiananmen Square.
In the US – the inquiry into the Capitol Riot is officially underway – highlighting just how fragile our collective democracy is and how desperately we need to cherish and protect it.
And that’s before I even touch on what is happening in the UK, the ongoing political crises, and the ideologically incoherent approach to freedom of expression protections.
And in too many countries this is now framed through the prism of a cost-of-living crisis as a scale that we haven’t seen for a generation.
My only comfort is that we know what is happening. In a digital age it is very difficult for any leader, however repressive, to completely silence dissent about their domestic actions. The joy of a free press in democratic countries is that it enables us to be informed and to demand more and better – from our own leaders and from those that claim a global role. It enables us to analyse the scale of the threat and to try and prioritise our efforts in assisting those brave enough to stand against tyranny.
Index exists to provide a platform for the persecuted. We work every day with those who refuse to be silenced. The least we can do is listen to them and then join their fight.
07 May 21 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116736″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Platform or publisher?
Free speech versus hate speech?
Personal responsibility versus corporate responsibility?
What is social media for and who is responsible for what?
This week Donald Trump, the former American President, once again made international headlines. This time not for something he had said that day – but rather on whether he has the right to have a public platform on social media, and Facebook in particular.
Many of us undoubtedly have a significant problem with many of the tweets that the former President posted during his tenure. My personal politics are well known, and no one would be surprised for a second that I found Trump to be abhorrent. He does have the right however, as a citizen in a free society to be offensive and abusive (although not to incite violence – which I believe he did).
But the question at hand isn’t actually about his free speech or whether he has the right to be on social media or not. Rather the question is – what is social media? Is it a publisher of content that is legally responsible for the words and deeds of their users or is it a platform which facilitates debate (and in too many cases hate)?
Social media is a core part of many of our lives. At times of crisis, both personal and national, it can be a blessing, letting you know friends and family are safe. At its best it can and should inspire thoughtful debate and challenge the status-quo. But at its worst it can bring out the very worst in every one of us. It can incite hate, racism, misogyny, harassment, bullying and violence. It can radicalise. But is can also entertain and inform. In other words, social media and its impact is as complex as the people who use it.
Given how we all use it, it is easy to consider social media a free public space, one that we all have access to without restriction. But social media companies are exactly that – private companies – who get to decide who uses their services and how they get to use them. That doesn’t make them inherently bad, but it does mean that they have their own rationale for operation. It also means we don’t have either an intrinsic right to use or and complete free speech on them – unless they allow it.
In the months ahead I’m going to be speaking a lot about the Online Safety Bill, the legislation progressing through the British parliament regarding our online access and future regulation. There is clearly a cultural problem on social media – it can all too often be a grim place to spend time; we need to recognise that and help fix it. But not at the cost of protections for free speech, our right to debate and engage.
There needs to be space to be offended – while at the same time protecting people from hate and violence. We also need to remember that personal responsibility is relevant in this debate and no one acts with impunity.
So the challenge for all of us – is helping to make social media a better place while protecting our core rights – a balance that we must find.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”41669″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
14 Jan 21 | News and features, Politics and Society, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Biden and Obama/The White House/WikiCommons
On top of being the only US president impeached twice, Donald Trump leaves a legacy of attacks on the very foundations of free speech and specifically on journalists and the media.
President-elect Joe Biden has offered people hope of returning to normal politics, rather than another term of a president with a severe distaste for free speech. But are notions of a saviour cometh and confirmed on Inauguration Day on 20 January misguided?
Biden has an extensive record in politics from which he can be judged, as well as eight years in high office as vice president under Barack Obama that could give an indication of how he plans to proceed. But the picture that emerges is not one that identifies Biden clearly as a champion of free spech or otherwise.
Going back to the start of Biden’s career as a senator, the signals were already mixed on issues of free speech. In 1989, Index reported on then Senate Judiciary Committee chair Biden introducing a bill to make it illegal to desecrate a flag. Nan Levinson reported at the time: “Biden’s bill and a similar one introduced in the House are intended to sidestep free speech issues by outlawing actions without mentioning motivation, the part of flag desecration that the Court determined is protected by the First Amendment.” But in his favour, some 13 years later Biden helped propose the creation of a “Radio Free Afghanistan”.
In more recent years, there is the way in which the Obama Administration handled whistleblowers. Biden can set an early example with the case of Julian Assange by pardoning him. The question is, will he?
Such an action may have been considered by the Obama administration, but was not pursued. The whistleblower involved in the case, Chelsea Manning, eventually had her sentence commuted by Obama in January 2017.
Assange faces charges under the US Espionage Act, a first for a journalist or publisher. The onus is therefore on Biden to ensure there is no legal precedent stopping a journalist from publishing sensitive information again. Pardoning the WikiLeaks founder would go some way to achieving this.
Rumours of an immediate pardon once Biden takes office have arisen and many believe the election of Biden to be a positive thing for Assange. His lawyer Edward Fitzgerald went as far as telling Associated Press “Much of what we say about the fate which awaits Mr. Assange remains good because it’s about systemic faults in the prisons and his underlying conditions,” he said.
But as yet there has not been any indication either Trump or the president-elect will move to do this and any speculation has shaky foundations. There is a contradiction in that – though Obama may have commuted Manning’s sentence – in 2010, Biden described Assange’s work with former US intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning as “closer to a high-tech terrorist than to the [actions of revealing the] Pentagon Papers.”
“The Obama administration went after other whistleblowers whose cases remain active. Edward Snowden for example. These track records and trends started before President Trump,” said Rebecca Vincent from RSF in an earlier interview with Index.
In fact, eight of the 13 people charged under the Espionage Act since its inception in 1917 were during the eight years of the Obama presidency.
Jeffrey Sterling was convicted and sentenced to three and a half years in prison in 2015 for violations of the Espionage Act. Through correspondence with US journalist James Risen, Sterling brought to light covert plans to frame Iran by providing a flawed design for a component of a nuclear weapon, also known as Operation Merlin.
In an interview with Index, Sterling spoke of the importance of whistleblowers and said: “A vital part of free speech is the ability of citizens to hold those in power accountable by speaking out about wrongdoing and misuse of power.
“Whistleblowers are essential to free speech because their courage exposes what the unfettered power of government would prefer not to be known.
“Without whistleblowers, the wrongdoing and abuses of government will remain hidden to the detriment of the people. Without whistleblowers, free speech can be rendered ineffectual and of no concern to those in power.”
In short, misuse of the Espionage Act stops those working for US intelligence agencies and government offices from speaking out against wrongdoing.
“Targeting whistleblowers with the severe penalties and implications of being prosecuted under the Espionage Act has a chilling effect on anyone who might choose to exercise their free speech by being critical of or exposing the wrongful acts and abuses of government,” Sterling noted. “In my opinion, the Obama presidency did all it could to characterise whistleblowers as anti-patriotic and criminals and offered absolutely no protection.”
“When those who are the subject of a whistleblower’s complaint control the dialogue, there are no whistleblowers, just leakers. The Obama administration set the tone by essentially eliminating the very idea of a whistleblower and instead characterised them as leakers, or criminals.”
The contrast between Obama and Trump’s outward attitudes towards the press, however, is significant. While Trump chose to claim most of the criticism against him as “fake news”, Obama often spoke of the importance of journalism, a free media and free speech, such as after the 2015 attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
At the same time though the 44th president came under repeated fire for his actions towards media freedom and freedom of information in particular. Access to public information during his presidency was limited. The USA’s Freedom of Information Act allows US citizens, like many across the world, to question local and federal authorities. The Obama administration apparently spent a record $36.2 million in legal costs in the final year alone to preserve its right to turn over redacted information.
A lack of transparency and targeting of those revealing information in the public interest does not cast a positive light on Obama’s then right-hand man.
It is perhaps unfair to negatively predict the future of the Biden presidency and its role of free speech solely on the president he served under as second in command. The role of vice president offers no true indication of support of a particular policy; many doubt the power the role has. John Adams once described the role as “the most insignificant Office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived”. It could reasonably be said that whether or not Biden was supportive of Obama’s free speech policy, there would have been little he could have done about it either way.
Yet it is no secret that Obama is a man Biden greatly admires and – while the former Delaware senator did not exercise as much power as some vice presidents – the relationship between the two was famously good. Perhaps a certain level of emulation can be expected.
The Committee to Protect Journalists has put forward a white paper to set out how Biden can go about restoring freedom of speech in the USA. Among their suggestions were calls to “set an example for the world” by ensuring the independence of US government-funded media, appointing a special presidential envoy for press freedom and ensuring previous administrations’ attacks on publishers and whistleblowers were not repeated.
“President Biden should commit to an open and transparent administration that supports Freedom of Information requests, back Justice Department guidelines that protect confidential sources, and pledges never to use the Espionage Act to prosecute journalists or whistleblowers,” they said. “These long-standing concerns of CPJ and the press freedom community were also raised during the Obama administration. “
They said: “President Biden has the opportunity to restore American influence in a critical area.”
“However, this can only be achieved if defence of press freedom is a matter of principle, and not expediency. America must confront its adversaries, but also challenge its friends.”
Adopting such policies would go a long way to allay fears of a Biden presidency that departs from recent ones.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also like to read” category_id=”579″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
