21 May 18 | Digital Freedom, European Union, Germany, News and features, Russia, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”85524″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]For around six decades after WWII ideas, laws and institutions supporting free expression spread across borders globally. Ever more people were liberated from stifling censorship and repression. But in the past decade that development has reversed.
On April 12 Russian lawmakers in the State Duma completed the first reading of a new draft law on social media. Among other things the law requires social media platforms to remove illegal content within 24 hours or risk hefty fines. Sound familiar? If you think you’ve heard this story before it’s because the original draft was what Reporters Without Borders call a “copy-paste” version of the much criticized German Social Network law that went into effect earlier this year. But we can trace the origins back further.
In 2016 the EU-Commission and a number of big tech-firms including Facebook, Twitter and Google, agreed on a Code of Conduct under which these firms commit to removing illegal hate speech within 24 hours. In other words what happens in Brussels doesn’t stay in Brussels. It may spread to Berlin and end up in Moscow, transformed from a voluntary instrument aimed at defending Western democracies to a draconian law used to shore up a regime committed to disrupting Western democracies.
US President Donald Trump’s crusade against “fake news” may also have had serious consequences for press freedom. Because of the First Amendment’s robust protection of free expression Trump is largely powerless to weaponise his war against the “fake news media” and “enemies of the people” that most others refer to as “independent media”.
Yet many other citizens of the world cannot rely on the same degree of legal protection from thin-skinned political leaders eager to filter news and information. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has documented the highest ever number of journalists imprisoned for false news worldwide. And while 21 such cases may not sound catastrophic the message these arrests and convictions send is alarming. And soon more may follow. In April Malaysia criminalised the spread of “news, information, data and reports which is or are wholly or partly false”, with up to six years in prison. Already a Danish citizen has been convicted to one month’s imprisonment for a harmless YouTube video, and presidential candidate Mahathir Mohammed is also being investigated. Kenya is going down the same path with a draconian bill criminalising “false” or “fictitious” information. And while Robert Mueller is investigating whether Trump has been unduly influenced by Russian President Putin, it seems that Putin may well have been influenced by Trump. The above mentioned Russian draft social media law also includes an obligation to delete any “unverified publicly significant information presented as reliable information.” Taken into account the amount of pro-Kremlin propaganda espoused by Russian media such as RT and Sputnik, one can be certain that the definition of “unverified” will align closely with the interests of Putin and his cronies.
But even democracies have fallen for the temptation to define truth. France’s celebrated president Macron has promised to present a bill targeting false information by “to allow rapid blocking of the dissemination of fake news”. While the French initiative may be targeted at election periods it still does not accord well with a joint declaration issued by independent experts from international and regional organisations covering the UN, Europe, the Americans and Africa which stressed that “ general prohibitions on the dissemination of information based on vague and ambiguous ideas, including ‘false news’ or ‘non-objective information’, are incompatible with international standards for restrictions on freedom of expression”.
However, illiberal measures also travel from East to West. In 2012 Russia adopted a law requiring NGOs receiving funds from abroad and involved in “political activities” – a nebulous and all-encompassing term – to register as “foreign agents”. The law is a thinly veiled attempt to delegitimise civil society organisations that may shed critical light on the policies of Putin’s regime. It has affected everything from human rights groups, LGBT-activists and environmental organisations, who must choose between being branded as something akin to enemies of the state or abandon their work in Russia. As such it has strong appeal to other politicians who don’t appreciate a vibrant civil society with its inherent ecosystem of dissent and potential for social and political mobilisation.
One such politician is Victor Orban, prime minister of Hungary’s increasingly illiberal government. In 2017 Orban’s government did its own copy paste job adopting a law requiring NGOs receiving funds from abroad to register as “foreign supported”. A move which should be seen in the light of Orban’s obsession with eliminating the influence of anything or anyone remotely associated with the Hungarian-American philanthropist George Soros whose Open Society Foundation funds organisations promoting liberal and progressive values.
The cross-fertilisation of censorship between regime types and continents is part of the explanation why press freedom has been in retreat for more than a decade. In its recent 2018 World Press Freedom Index Reporters Without Borders identified “growing animosity towards journalists. Hostility towards the media, openly encouraged by political leaders, and the efforts of authoritarian regimes to export their vision of journalism pose a threat to democracies”. This is something borne out by the litany of of media freedom violations reported to Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom, which monitors 43 countries. In just the last four years, MMF has logged over 4,200 incidents — a staggering array of curbs on the press that range from physical assault to online threats and murders that have engulfed journalists.
Alarmingly Europe – the heartland of global democracy – has seen the worst regional setbacks in RSF’s index. This development shows that sacrificing free speech to guard against creeping authoritarianism is more likely to embolden than to defeat the enemies of the open society.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”100463″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” img_link_target=”_blank” link=”http://www.freespeechhistory.com”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
A podcast on the history of free speech.
Why have kings, emperors, and governments killed and imprisoned people to shut them up? And why have countless people risked death and imprisonment to express their beliefs? Jacob Mchangama guides you through the history of free speech from the trial of Socrates to the Great Firewall.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1526895517975-5ae07ad7-7137-1″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
18 Dec 17 | Belgium, France, Mapping Media Freedom, Media Freedom, News and features, Turkey
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”81193″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Commercial pressures on the media? Anti-establishment critics have a ready-made answer: of course, journalists are hostage to the whims of corporate owners, advertisers and sponsors. Of course, they cannot independently cover issues which these powers consider “inconvenient”. Actually such suspicion is widely shared: In France, according to the 2017 La Croix barometer on media credibility, 58% of public opinion consider that journalists “are not really able to resist pressures from financial interests”.
The issue is not new. In 1944 when he founded the French “newspaper of record”, Le Monde, Hubert Beuve-Méry fought to guarantee its independence from political parties but also from what he called “the wall of money”. “Freedom of the press belongs to the one who owns one”, New Yorker media critic A.J. Liebling famously said. However, “while media academics have long looked at the question of commercial pressure, ownership (…) in shaping coverage”, writes Anya Schiffrin in a 2017 CIMA report on “captured media” press freedom groups’ focus had been mostly on the governments’ responsibilities and on criminal non-state actors.
In June 2016 Reporters Without Boarders made a splash with its report on oligarchs in the media. Proprietors’ interventions may have indeed a very negative impact on journalism’s proclaimed commitment to report the news without fear or favour. Pressures are particularly acute when the media are owned by conglomerates who dabble in other economic sectors. In France, for instance, a military aircraft manufacturer (Dassault), the luxury industry leader (LVMH), telecoms giants (SFR, Free), a powerful public works and telecoms company (Bouygues) directly own key media companies.
Ownership provides a powerful lever to influence media contents. Cases of direct intervention or of journalists’ self-censorship are not exceptional, even if they are often difficult to prove. In France, Vincent Bolloré, owner, among others, of TV channel Canal+, has been regularly accused of using his powers to determine content. It led the French Senate’s culture commission to invite him to a hearing in June 2016, but he firmly denied all allegations of censorship.
In other European countries, the landscape is much clearer. In Turkey, during the June 2013 Gezi Park events, major TV stations failed to report police repression live. They chose instead to broadcast animal documentaries, for which they were rewarded with the nickname of “penguin media”. In fact, they turned into “proxy censors” for Erdogan’s government who had the power to determine their economic fate by rewarding them -or not- with public works contracts or financial favors. The worst of the worst flourishes in some former communist eastern European countries where major media outlets have been snatched by oligarchs allied with political parties or even, allegedly, with criminal organisations.
Big companies may be ruthless. Advertising budgets can be cut when a media covers “inconvenient news”. In November 2017, according to satirical weekly Le Canard enchainé, Bernard Arnault, the boss of LVMH (luxury products, owner of Le Parisien and Les Echos), canceled his advertising budget in Le Monde until the end of the year after his name appeared in the Paradise Papers global investigation, which named people who had offshore accounts in tax havens. LVMH denied it was cutting all advertising in the paper, adding that it was currently “reflecting on its advertisement policy in classical media”.
The unraveling of the legacy media’s business model has increased their vulnerability to outside pressures. Advertising money is shrinking, therefore increasing the temptation to dismantle what was presented as an impassable wall between “church and state”. Differences between advertising and the news are also being diluted into ambiguous advertorials, sponsored content and “native advertising”.
Such pressures however are not automatic. “Suffering pressures does not mean ceding to them”, says Hervé Béroud, director general of leading all-news TV channel BFMTV. Due to the way journalism actually works, the freedom to report, even against the owners’ interests, cannot be systematically crushed. In fact, as a former editor in chief of Belgian newspapers and magazines I was confronted with radically different forms of “advice” from my successive owners. While some were very protective of editorial independence others were blunter and ready to compromise with advertisers’ “wishes”. The existence of journalists’ societies, co-owners of the so-called “ethical capital” of the paper, provided some protection, but much was left to individual wrestling between the editor and the proprietor.
At the end, this issue comes down to defining who “owns freedom of information”. In 1993 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that “the owner of the right is the citizen, who also has the related right to demand that the information supplied by journalists be conveyed truthfully, in the case of news, and honestly, in the case of opinions, without outside interference by either the public authorities or the private sector”. A far cry from A.J. Liebling’s sentence…[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Survey: How free is our press?” use_theme_fonts=”yes” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2017%2F12%2Fsurvey-free-press%2F|title:Take%20our%20survey||”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-pencil-square-o” color=”black” background_style=”rounded” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
This survey aims to take a snapshot of how financial pressures are affecting news reporting. The openMedia project will use this information to analyse how money shapes what gets reported – and what doesn’t – and to advocate for better protections and freedoms for journalists who have important stories to tell.
More information[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.
Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook) and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1513691969537-ee852610-8cb0-8″ taxonomies=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
07 Aug 17 | Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Statements, Turkey, Turkey Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Loup Bureau is being held by Turkish authorities
Index on Censorship urges Turkish authorities to immediately release French journalist Loup Bureau and drop all charges against him.
Freelance journalist Loup Bureau was arrested in Şırnak on charges of terrorism-related activities.
“Turkish authorities have been using terrorism charges to restrict access to information and silence journalists,” Index on Censorship’s head of advocacy Melody Patry said. “By arresting journalists simply for doing their job, Turkey violates the fundamental right to seek, receive and impart information. The charges against Loup Bureau are groundless and we call for his immediate and unconditional release.”
Euronews reported that the journalist was first detained on 26 July at Habur, where he was crossing into Turkey from Iraq.
After five days in police custody, he was charged and taken to a prison in the town of Şırnak on 1 August.
Turkey is the world’s top jailer of journalists, with over 100 currently in prison. The crackdown on media freedom intensified in the aftermath of the coup attempt last July 2016 and under the state of emergency that followed.
The arrest of Bureau takes place just two months after another French journalist, Mathieu Depardon, was deported from Turkey one month after his arrest in Gaziantep. The European Federation of Journalists reports that Deniz Yücel, Turkish correspondent for the German newspaper Die Welt is still behind bars as of February and French national Olivier Bertrand was deported in November 2016 while he was working on a report focused on the post-coup situation in Turkey.[/vc_column_text][vc_separator][vc_custom_heading text=”Media freedom is under threat worldwide. Journalists are threatened, jailed and even killed simply for doing their job.” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fcampaigns%2Fpress-regulation%2F|||”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship monitors media freedom in Turkey and 41 other European area nations.
As of 7/8/2017 there were 500 verified violations of press freedom associated with Turkey in the Mapping Media Freedom database.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship campaigns against laws that stifle journalists’ work. We also publish an award-winning magazine featuring work by and about censored journalists. Support our work today.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1502110018823-3f3d8c6f-bee4-8″ taxonomies=”55″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Jun 17 | Digital Freedom, Mapping Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Protesters in St. Petersburg demonstrated against corruption in Russia (Photo: Andrey Kalikh)
Over the last seven days protests, lawsuits, and self-proclaimed governments have stopped journalists from doing their jobs in countries covered by Index on Censorship’s project Mapping Media Freedom.
Project Manager Hannah Machlin explains why incidents in Russia and Albania are particularly alarming.
“It’s appalling that around 1500 individuals were arrested — including journalists — at the anti-corruption rallies across Russia on Monday,” Machlin said.
Despite showing their press credentials, five journalists were detained including Index’s Mapping Media Freedom correspondent, Andrey Kalikh.
Machlin said, “Our previous reports and our monitoring of wave of anti-corruption rallies indicate that the trend of arresting journalists for doing their job will not abate.”
Machlin said the situation in Albania is also worrying because “a judge, who is in a position of influence, is now attempting to silence journalists who were investigating criminal investigations into him and his family.” She explained, “investigative reporters are consistently targeted when uncovering corruption of state officials and we must call on government institutions to allow journalists to freely report.”
Russia: Five journalists detained including one Mapping Media Freedom correspondent
12 June, 2017 – An anti-corruption rallies proved to be a dangerous place for journalists on 12 June. The rallies were called by opposition figure Alexei Nalvalny in a long-term attempt to overthrow Vladimir Putin.
At a rally in Moscow, reporter Ignacio Ortega for a Spanish news agency, EFE, in Moscow was arrested while reporting on the event. After identifying himself with his press card at the station, he was released.
Photographer David Frenkel, contributor to Kommersant and Mediazona, and Ksenia Morozova, a journalist for Sobaka.ru a local website, were both detained despite showing their press cards while covering the anti-corruption rally in St. Petersburg. Frenkel was soon released but Morozova was held overnight before a trial for “public order disturbance.”
Reporter Andrey Poznaykov of Echo of Moscow radio station went to a café for a break where he was detained by policemen even after showing his press card. In his blog, he said he was detained for covering the anti-corruption rally in Moscow. Poznaykov was released shortly after being taken to a police van.
Mapping Media Freedom correspondent, Andrey Kaikh, was detained at an anti-corruption rally in St. Petersburg. From a police bus he wrote he was amongst 40 others at a peaceful demonstration. So far, about 300 protesters have been detained in St. Petersburg. Kaikh was fined 150 Euros and released him at the end of the day on 13 June.
Albania: Four journalists and two media outlets sued by judge for reporting
9 June, 2017 – A court of appeals judge in Tirana sued four journalists and two media outlets for their coverage of his criminal investigations and his family’s declared assets. Judge Gjin Gjoni says the reporting causing reputational damage and pain.
The charges were filed against Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) along with their journalist Besar Likmeta and Aleksandra Bogdani and Shqiptarja newspaper, along with their journalists Adriatic Doci and Elton Qyno.
The judge and his wife are asking for 7 million Lek (54, 000 EUR) in compensation from Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, BIRN in Tirana and two of their journalists; They are asking for 4 million Lek (30,000 EUR) from Shqiptarja newspaper and two from their journalists.
BIRN Albania, Adriatik Doci and the Union of Albanian Journalists have all spoken out about the lawsuit.
Ukraine: Journalist disappears in self-proclaimed DPR territory
2 June, 2017 – Ukrainian blogger and writer Stanyslav Aseev disappeared in territory controlled by the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic. Aseev was reportedly detained by militants of the self-proclaimed DPR.
Aseev uses the alias Stanislav Vasin and contributes to a number of news outlets including Radio Liberty Donbas Realities project, Ukrayinska Pravda, Ukrainian week, Dzerkalo Tyzhnya. He also runs a prominent blog via Facebook.
Radio Liberty Donbass realities project editor-in-chief Tetyana Jakubowicz said their contact with Aseev had been lost on 2 June. That day Aseev’s latest report from territories held by separatists for Radio Liberty.
The journalist’s mother said his flat was broken into and noticed several of his belongings were missing including his laptop.
Fiona Frazer, the Head of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, said that the mission was searching for Aseev, Radio Liberty reported.
“We are trying to understand exactly what was happening to him. We are still trying to gain access there to understand where he is “, Frazer said. She added that, as in other cases, “when militants detain people, responsibility for this is placed on those who control the territory”.
France: Labour minister files complaint over Libération article
9 June, 2017 – New French labour minister Muriel Pénicaud filed a complaint against an unknown person for theft, breach of professional confidentiality and possession of confidential information following the publication of an article in the Libération newspaper about the government’s labour reform projects, Libération reported.
“They were mad with anger,” a source at the Labour Ministry told Libération, about the reaction to the story. “They reacted with such violence that they terrorised all of the affected department.”
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Mapping Media Freedom
Click on the bubbles to view reports or double-click to zoom in on specific regions. The full site can be accessed at https://mappingmediafreedom.org/[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content_no_spaces” content_placement=”middle”][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”91122″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2017/05/stand-up-for-satire/”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
