Past Event: New World (Dis)Order – What do Turkey, Russia and Brazil tell us about freedom?

19 Jul 13 | Brazil, Campaigns, India, Russia, Volume 42.02 Summer 2013

Index, in partnership with the European Council on Foreign Relations, held a debate launching the latest issue of Index on Censorship magazine looking at the recent protests in Turkey, Russia and Brazil and what they tell us about public attitudes to freedom and rights.

The discussion explored the difficulties in protecting freedom of speech when political and social power is shifting across the globe. Panelists included Index CEO Kirsty Hughes, ECFR Senior Policy Fellow Anthony Dworkin, Keith Best, CEO of Freedom From Torture, and Turkish journalist and writer Ece Temelkuran.

Temelkuran, who has been a vocal critic of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, spoke about the decline in media freedom and credibility since the start of anti-government protests in the country:

 

 

Dworkin, meanwhile, spoke about anti-government protests, and how they play into the shift in power on the global stage, and also reflect a loss of faith in the democratic process:

 

 

 

Index CEO Kirsty Hughes argued that democracies must work hard to protect free speech, especially when we’ve moved towards a multipolar world:

 

 

 

 

Keith Best, from Freedom from Torture, argued that the undermined authority of western powers has also meant a rise in impunity for torture:

 

The panel also discussed the role of technology in shifting the balance of power globally, after an audience member asked whether or not “bottom up politics are weakening the institutions of the state.”:

 

 

 

 

 

 

For a range of in-depth reports and articles on journalism, freedom of speech, censorship and arts check out the latest issue of the magazine here. Be sure to follow @IndexEvents for more updates on our exciting events and discussions 

18 July New World (Dis)Order: What do Turkey, Russia and Brazil tell us about freedom and rights?

21 Jun 13 | Events

Date: 18 July, 6:30-8pm at ECFR

Venue: European Council on Foreign Relations, London

Tickets: Free, but space is limited. Email [email protected] if you’d like to attend.

Index, in partnership with the European Council on Foreign Relations, is holding a timely debate on the shifting world order and its impact on rights and freedoms. The event will also launch the latest issue of Index on Censorship magazine, including a special report on the multipolar world.

The balance of economic, political and social power is shifting across the world; in this debate we will ask how this might affect individuals’ rights and freedoms. In the last two months we have seen protests across the world as citizens challenge their governments. Meanwhile news of US internet companies being tapped by the NSA continue to hit the headlines. Discussions of who is tapping whom continue to be uncovered. From nations to companies, who has the power now?

The expert panelists include:  Index CEO Kirsty Hughes, ECFR Senior Policy Fellow Anthony Dworkin, and Turkish journalist and writer Ece Temelkuran.

ecfr log      Index_logo_for_email_signatures

State surveillance ‘like pointing at a pixel with a hotdog’

11 Jun 13 | Digital Freedom

(Photo: Andrei Aliaksandru/Index on Censorship)

(Photo: Andrei Aliaksandru/Index on Censorship)

Against a backdrop of ongoing revelations around the US Prism programme, mass surveillance dominated the discussion at the Index on Censorship event Caught in the web: How free are we online? Brian Pellot reports

Index on Censorship brought together a panel of experts at King’s Place in London last night. Investigative journalist Heather Brooke, author and digital rights activist Cory Doctorow, media lawyer Paul Tweed, Index CEO Kirsty Hughes and chair David Aaronovitch discussed the threats to freedom of expression online.

Brooke, warned that as we increase our online expression, we “create a handy one-stop shop for snooping officials”. She also cautioned that concentrated power in secretive states is a far greater danger to humanity than unbridled free speech.

(Brooke, author of The Revolution will be Digitised, kindly joined the panel at the last minute, replacing Guardian data editor James Ball, who is currently in the US covering the developing Prism scandal)

Doctorow, co-founder of the hugely influential Boing Boing blog, said while he was pessimistic about the “Orwellian control” that digital technologies provide governments, he remains optimistic that such technologies can enable us to cooperate, coordinate and collaborate in unprecedented ways to seek positive social change.

Doctorow questioned the efficacy of overcollection of data, characterised by PRISM, saying that as an intelligence technique is “like pointing at a pixel with a hotdog”.

Belfast-based libel lawyer Tweed said that anonymity online enables speech that constitutes dangerous harassment. He argued that freedom of expression must be protected, but that controls are needed to prevent the undermining of reputation and privacy. He recounted examples from his practice of clients that are harassed and attacked on the web with very little recourse against “internet goliaths”.

“There has to be a button to protect the man on the street”, Tweed said.

Hughes discussed the emerging geopolitics of digital freedom, noting that while EU countries and the US are lobbying for the preservation of a multistakeholder model of internet governance, Russia, China and others are pushing for top-down government control. Some of the greatest threats to online freedom of expression she discussed are censorship in the form of firewalls and filters, laws criminalising offence, the privatisation of censorship and, of course, surveillance.

Aaronovitch fielded questions from audience members who were focused on government surveillance and censorship.

Doctorow claimed that web filters are a blunt and inefficient instrument, giving the example of  Denmark’s secret child abuse filters, which leaks showed had blocked a huge amount of material that was not related to sexual imagery of children.

“Everyone knows web filters don’t work, but once used, removing them would be political suicide,” he said.

Brooke acknowledged that current laws are not keeping pace with technology but does not think new laws are the solution. More important is that “our fundamental values be translated into the digital age”, she said.

“Nothing to hide, nothing to fear is an arrogant statement”, Brooke commented on UK foreign secretary William Hague’s response to questions on PRISM on Sunday.

Hughes elaborated on a statement she made earlier in the day essentially saying that mass surveillance is an invasion of our right to privacy and a direct chill on free speech.

Index on Censorship has released a joint statement with English PEN, Privacy International and Open Rights Group condemning the use of national security to justify mass surveillance.

Let us know your thoughts on the Prism scandal by commenting below

Related:
• Pod Academy coverage of this event

Thirty years of Channel 4

02 Nov 12 | Uncategorized

“Can we say that?” “Can we say that publicly?” Last night’s discussion at the Free Word Centre, marking 30 years of Channel 4, hinged on these questions. For the filmmakers, programmers, board members and legal department at Channel 4, these questions are also at the heart of their day-to-day operations.

Chief Executive David Abraham’s opening words sketched an outline of Channel 4’s  trajectory as “an irritant and a challenger to vested interest”. Without shareholders, state funding or fear of its commercial advertisers’ feelings, its editorial autonomy has brought it the trust of its audiences, Abrahams said.

Channel 4’s legal team, led by Prash Naik, are motivated by a presumption to publish. Line by line, shows are vetted and cleared before airing. “Can we say that?” Can we say that publicly?” It may be a struggle, but the default final answer is, rightly, “yes”.

Following Abraham’s speech, English PEN’s Jo Glanville brought together filmmakers Peter Kosminksy and Brian Woods, and media law silk Adrienne Page QC, to join David Abraham on stage.

The extortionate costs of defending a libel charge causes Adrienne Page to worry that media organisations will run scared from airing controversial material. In Brian Woods’ experience it can take years to find a home for shows addressing subjects like sexual abuse by teachers, or documentaries critiquing Islam. Though Channel 4 sometimes gets it wrong, last night’s discussion showed that the intention to provoke, stimulate and inform is still firmly part of their remit. Shocking and offending some of your audience might even be considered part and parcel of good television making.  The only caveat, as Abraham put, is,  “If you are gong to shock and offend do it for a purpose”.

The trend towards making more content available online, in shorter formats, with high levels of commentary and user interaction around each show, means the challenges to free expression will proliferate. Channel 4 has its own battles to fight in keeping television an essential vehicle for finding and challenging boundaries.

Eve Jackson is events manager at Index