14 Jan 2021 | 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]
13 Nov 2020 | Europe and Central Asia, France, Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115559″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]In the last month, as the world has been preoccupied with the US elections and the ongoing ravages of the global pandemic, the people of France have turned on the news to learn of deadly terror attacks on their soil. Seemingly designed not just to murder and incite fear but as a direct attack on the core values of the French state.
In a Parisian suburb, Samuel Paty was beheaded by an extremist for teaching his students about the principle of free speech. In Nice, three people – Vincent Loques, Simone Barreto Silva and Nadine Devillers – were brutally murdered inside the ultimate sanctuary: a place of worship, the Notre-Dame basilica. Their ‘crime’? Attending church.
As ever in our interconnected world, a terror attack in one country has repercussions across the world and this has never been truer. Our choice of language and vocabulary when discussing such emotive issues can have untold consequences and when you combine the issues of national security, religion, extremism and politics, people rarely look beyond the headlines.
But it is unforgivable for national leaders to exploit the pain and anguish of others to promote their own world view and to shore up their own political standing. And beyond the pandemic that’s what we’ve seen. Rather than acknowledging the pain felt by the people of France and the fear that now lurks in many communities, not least French Muslims who now face a wave of hate for acts that had nothing to do with them, some national leaders are exploiting these horrendous events for their own benefit.
The actions of the presidents of Turkey and Pakistan to sow division and attack the French state have done little more than incite even more hate and anger. I’m choosing not to repeat their claims – as I don’t believe any good comes from dissecting their words – although others have.
There is not nor ever can be any excuse for murdering innocent people. This is all the more true in a democracy, such as France, where people have the legal right to protest, to challenge their politicians in court, to campaign against them and to write daily in national newspapers. We have legal ways to challenge the status-quo – violence is never a legitimate tool of protest and there can be no excuses made for its use.
Index’s raison d’etre is to defend our collective rights to free speech and free expression. That doesn’t mean that we don’t appreciate the tensions that exist between all of our basic human rights as outlined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
There can be a tension for some between the right to free speech and the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These tensions should be considered and discussed in every home, school and institution in every country. There should be a national conversation about how we find a balance as a society, we should use more words and have more debate about the type of world we want to leave in. And we should do all of this without the threat of violence.
We stand with the people of France, as they mourn the loss of Samuel Paty, Vincent Loques, Simone Barreto Silva and Nadine Devillers – may they rest in peace.
And we stand for the values that they represented.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also like to read” category_id=”41669″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
23 Oct 2020 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115302″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Samuel Paty
An educator.
A father.
A martyr.
An inspiration.
Last week Professor Paty was brutally murdered in a Parisian suburb for teaching his students about the basic human right of free speech. A right that is protected by both the French constitution and the European Human Rights Act. A right that we cherish and celebrate.
Our hearts bleed for the pain and sorrow that this tragedy has visited upon his loved ones and the people of France. We stand with them.
Samuel Paty, photo: Ville de Conflans Saint Honorine
No context is or should be required to try and understand this horrendous act. There are no excuses, justifications or mitigations. Professor Paty was doing his job. He was a citizen of the world, educating the next generation about the importance of speech, of language, imagery and art, and their protected place in society. This was a public service undertaken in a public space. He was doing his duty and he was assassinated for it.
As we mourn Samuel’s loss, 14 French citizens are on trial for the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo offices. A further seven people have been arrested related to Samuel’s murder. These people do not represent France. Samuel Paty represents France. These people represent extremists. Samuel Paty represents the mainstream. Those arrested represent hate and fear. Samuel Paty represents hope.
There will be lots or recriminations in the months and years ahead: politicians attempting to exploit people’s fears for their own gain, others trying to excuse or apologise. Neither is acceptable. As a society, it is vital that we come together to celebrate our shared values, in spite of every effort made by some to undermine and attack those values.
In the months ahead Index will continue to report on the Charlie Hebdo case. We will highlight the efforts of French leaders who, in the face of terror, stand tall and use their free speech to protect ours.
And most importantly we will remember.
Samuel Paty, 1973-2020.
He will never be forgotten. We mourn his loss together and we must remember his legacy every time someone tries to undermine or restrict our free speech.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You might also like to read” category_id=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
2 Oct 2020 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”110001″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]There is no right not to be offended.
There is no right to cause harm and incite hate and violence.
These are not contradictory statements. In fact I believe that they are the founding pillars of how we should exercise our basic right to free speech in a democracy, but all too often we collectively seem to forget that.
And we ignore these basic principles at our peril; after all, none of us seek a bland public space. We thrive on debate and challenge, on new thinking and research; it drives social change, ensures progress and most importantly holds decision-makers to account.
Slavery, criminalisation of homosexuality and denying women the vote were also once legal until someone stood up and said no. These people started, at times, incredibly difficult and brave debates, launched inspiring campaigns and took people on a journey which changed hearts and minds and, of course, the law.
We can and should be able to do all of that without crossing a line into hate, without inspiring fear and without descending into violence and threat.
None of this should be controversial in a rational world; unfortunately rationality seems to be a rare commodity at the moment.
The concept of free speech has been a dominant feature in our political discourse over the last year. There has been a lot written about cancel culture, current and impending culture wars and the need to manage, if not shut down all together, debate.
Much of this has been driven by people who seek to raise their own profile at the expense of good and proper debate on serious issues that matter. This isn’t healthy for us as a society and honestly it is stifling our national conversation and leaving a political vacuum for those on the fringe to fill.
The world is facing a public health emergency and a global recession. There are serious injustices happening across the globe, both in democracies and repressive regimes. Yet we are seeing new and empowering political movements emerging demanding real equality, genuine citizenship and action on climate change across the planet.
All of these issues are going to inspire debate as we seek answers to some of the biggest questions our societies have ever faced.
Do we demand an end to globalisation because of the effects of worldwide trade on the environment?
Do we fight for public health measures as the expense of our civil liberties?
In the midst of a global recession is trade with China more important than human rights?
Honestly, in order to find the answers we need to listen to each other and not shut down the debate.
We need to hear from those being persecuted and those being marginalised. We need to listen to those people on the frontline of each issue and most importantly we need to respect each others position and opinion. In short we need to value not just our own right to free expression but other people’s too.
Index was established to be a voice for the persecuted, to provide a platform to those who couldn’t have their work published elsewhere and to shine a spotlight on areas where peoples voices were being silenced. I’m proud of that heritage and as our public space becomes increasingly hostile, I can promise you that Index will fight to ensure that we always have free and open debate[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You might also like to read” category_id=”13527″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
