27 Oct 20 | News and features, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115312″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]A proposal by the Department of Homeland Security, USA, to limit visas to journalists has been widely condemned by free speech groups.
The proposed changes will require foreign media and journalists to apply for an eight-month visa with a further maximum extension of another 240 days.
Many foreign journalists working in the USA use the so-called “I” visa, which is vital to upholding scrutiny and media freedom from across the world in one of the world’s leading powers.
Dominic Ponsford, editor-in-chief of media-focused magazine Press Gazette, spoke of his concerns with the changes which he described as “an alarming development” and how they reflect the increasingly difficult situation for journalists in the USA.
“There have been concerns about the treatment of journalists increasing over the last four years,” he told Index. “The latest changes are an alarming development.”
“The I visa is a good scheme, although tricky to get hold of. Once you have it, it provides a lot of security and predictability for journalists.”
Under the current rules, the visa allows for a term of one year, but each holder may reapply for an unlimited amount of time. It is this particular change that Ponsford believes will cause problems for journalists.
“The concern with the time limit is the threat of having it rescinded, meaning journalists will constantly be looking over their shoulder. You may not have it renewed if your journalism is not complimentary to the administration.”
Press freedom in the USA has been under increasing threat during President Donald Trump’s four years in power. The difficult situation has intensified since the killing of George Floyd in May, which caused mass outrage and tensions between citizens and law enforcement.
The US Press Freedom Tracker has logged 219 journalists attacked, 62 equipment damages, 71 journalists arrested and over 10 occasions where equipment was searched or seized in this year alone.
Non-profit organisation the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) campaigns to protect US citizens’ civil liberties enshrined in the constitution and have been deeply critical of the proposed changes.
A spokesperson for the union said: “This proposal is going to hamper the ability of foreign media outlets to report from the United States, by arbitrarily limiting foreign correspondents to a short period of stay.”
Civil liberties are protected by the First Amendment of the constitution. ACLU believes the proposal is a clear attempt by the current administration to “chill reporting that might hold it accountable.”
“There is no legitimate justification for this proposal and no problem that it is solving. It is critically important that people in America have access to information from a wide range of media operating independently of the government.”
“The US government cannot take actions that are intended to chill reporting that might hold it accountable. The administration should abandon this attempt.”
The likelihood of the proposed changes being pushed through is difficult to determine. With the presidential election on 3rd November looming large, there is a chance these proposals will not manifest. However, with the election being set to be very contentious, with controversy already surrounding the mail-in ballot system, nothing right now is certain.
Should the Trump administration secure four more years, these proposals will almost undoubtedly become law, if they do not already do so in the last three months of the current government. Journalists globally will all be the worse of for it.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also like to read” category_id=”5641″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
22 Oct 20 | Free Speech and the Law, News and features, Uncategorized, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Rachel Malehorn, WikiCommons
As Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court advances to the Senate – despite a boycott from Democrats – it is still unclear where she stands on free speech.
Coney Barrett did little to allay fears over her positions on key constitutional issues during her confirmation hearings for the vacant seat on the US Supreme Court.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned the judge on issues including free speech and the First Amendment.
The First Amendment gives five separate protections to citizens. Namely the freedoms of speech, religion, press, protest and redress.
When asked by Republican Senator Ben Sasse what the freedoms protected by the amendment are, Coney Barrett was unable to recall the latter.
The freedom of redress gives citizens of the USA the right to petition or complain to government authorities at the federal, state and local level without fear of reprisals or punishment. It is a vital part of the constitution and very much a contemporary issue.
There has been extra scrutiny on issues around the First Amendment ever since the protests against the killing of George Floyd broke out in May this year.
With the typical rigour of judicial committee hearings, Coney Barrett could be forgiven for what was likely an innocent slip-up. However, the response will have done little to calm the nervousness over her appointment from free speech campaigners and members of the press.
The judge, 48, does not have an extensive record on dealing with with issues of First Amendment freedoms and her position on them has therefore been difficult to interpret.
On whistleblower cases, for example, Coney Barrett has joined different sides of the debate in different cases.
In August this year, Coney Barrett’s court favoured the First Amendment and the right of a public employee to raise alarm. However, in the case of Kelvin Lett, a Chicago investigator who refused to change a police report under direction from his supervisor, Coney Barrett ruled: “Lett may have had a good reason to refuse to amend the report [but this] does not grant him a First Amendment cause of action.”
On other issues, Coney Barrett was repeatedly accused of being “evasive” during the hearings, particularly on more controversial matters; the Democrats have repeatedly alluded to her Catholic faith as a potential problem.
However even before her nomination, she has expressed her belief in the importance of the separation of church and state.
“I think one of the most important responsibilities of a judge is to put their personal preferences and beliefs aside. Our responsibility is to adhere to the rule of law,” she said.
The Trump administration has faced repeated criticism from free speech groups since taking office in 2016. Among the criticisms are the crackdown on Black Lives Matter protests across the country, as well his repeated attacks on press freedoms.
Index, along with other free speech organisations have raised concerns over harms to media freedom in the country and in particular since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.
The US Press Freedom Tracker has logged 219 journalists attacked, 62 equipment damages, 71 journalists arrested and over 10 occasions where equipment was searched or seized in this year alone.
As Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, these issues naturally fell on Coney Barrett to talk at length on during the hearings, but she gave little insight into her stance on media freedom.
Coney Barrett’s addition would give the Supreme Court a 6-3 conservative majority, heightening concern over the consequences of Trump’s potential election victory and the impact on policy should Joe Biden win instead.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
08 Sep 20 | Volume 49.03 Autumn 2020
In our autumn 2020 podcast we speak with Hong Kong-based journalist Oliver Farry, who discusses the crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations in the region, which was once a beacon of free expression. And New York-based journalist Michella Oré tells us why, even if Donald Trump doesn’t win a second presidential term, his stint in The White House has sparked a fire in the USA which will be hard to put out. Also Jemimah Steinfeld and Orna Herr from the Index editorial team discuss their favourite articles from the new magazine.
Print copies of the magazine are available via print subscription or digital subscription through Exact Editions. Each magazine sale helps Index on Censorship continue its fight for free expression worldwide.
18 Jun 20 | Volume 49.02 Summer 2020
The summer 2020 edition of the Index on Censorship podcast looks at just how much of our privacy might we give away – accidentally, on purpose or through force – in the battle against Covid-19.
The podcast also features the world premiere of a lockdown playlet written exclusively for Index on 
Censorship by Katherine Parkinson. Parkinson, best known for her role as Jen Barber in The IT Crowd, also stars as Sarah in the play, alongside actors Harry Peacock and Selina Cadell.
Arturo di Corinto speaks on the podcast about technological terms that have been used more and more in the crisis while Emma Briant discusses around techniques world leaders are using in the run-up to elections to stifle opposition.
Print copies of the magazine are available via print subscription or digital subscription through Exact Editions. Each magazine sale helps Index on Censorship continue its fight for free expression worldwide.
