06 Mar 19 | Campaigns -- Featured, Digital Freedom, Digital Freedom Statements, Statements, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”103235″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]The Rt Hon Jeremy Wright QC MP
Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
100 Parliament Street
London SW1A 2BQ
6 March 2019
Re: Online Harms White Paper
Dear Secretary of State,
We write to you as civil society organisations who work to promote human rights, both offline and online. As such, we are taking a keen interest in the government’s focus on tackling unlawful and harmful online content, particularly since the publication of the Internet Safety Strategy Green Paper in 2017. In October 2018, we published a joint statement noting that any proposals are likely to have a significant impact on the enjoyment and exercise of human rights online, particularly freedom of expression. We have also met with your officials from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, as well as from the Home Office, to raise our thoughts and concerns. With the publication of the Online Harms White Paper imminent, we wanted to write to you personally. A number of our organisations wrote to you about this last summer, and your office kindly offered to meet us. We would be very keen to meet in person, if that offer is still open.
While we recognise and support the government’s legitimate desire to tackle unlawful and harmful content online, the proposals that have been mooted publicly by government ministers in recent months – including a new duty of care on social media platforms, a new regulatory body, and even the fining and banning of social media platforms as a sanction – have reinforced our initial concerns over the serious risks to freedom of expression online that could stem from the government’s proposals. These risks could put the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations to respect and promote the right to freedom of expression and information as set out in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, amongst other international treaties.
Social media platforms are a key means for tens of millions of individuals in the United Kingdom to search for, receive, share and impart information, ideas and opinions. The scope of the right to freedom of expression includes speech which may be offensive, shocking or disturbing. There is a real risk that the currently mooted proposals may lead to disproportionate amounts of speech being curtailed, undermining the right to freedom of expression.
Given this risk, we believe that it is essential for human rights requirements and considerations to be at the heart of the policymaking process. We urge the government to take a ‘human rights by design’ approach towards all legislation, regulation and other measures ultimately proposed. In particular, we make the following specific recommendations:
- First, the government must set out a clear evidence base in relation to any proposals put forward in the Online Harms White Paper. The wide range of different harms which the government is seeking to tackle in this policy process require different, tailored responses. Measures proposed must be underpinned by strong evidence, both of the likely scale of the harm and the measures’ likely effectiveness. The evidence which formed the base of the Internet Safety Strategy Green Paper was highly variable in its quality. Any legislative or regulatory measures proposed in the White Paper should be supported by clear and unambiguous evidence of their need and effectiveness.
- Second, we urge the government to fully to consider non-legislative measures before opting for regulation in this field. Other potentially highly effective options such as increasing public awareness and digital literacy, a curriculum and resource focus on digital skills in schools, promoting “safety by design” amongst tech product designers and developers, and supporting existing initiatives being undertaken, should be set out in the Online Harms White Paper.
- Third, greater transparency on the part of social media platforms and others involved in the moderation and removal of online content should be the starting point when it comes to any regulation being considered. Transparency should not simply focus on the raw number of pieces of content flagged and removed; it should instead more holistically require platforms to provide user-accessible information about the policies they have in place to respond to unlawful and harmful content, how those policies are implemented, reviewed and updated to respond to evolving situations and norms, and what company or industry-wide steps they have or are planning to improve these processes.
- Fourth, we strongly caution against proposals which attach liability to platforms for third party content, such as a binding Code of Practice, a new ‘duty of care’ or a new regulatory body. While well-meaning, proposals such as these contain serious risks, such as requiring or incentivising wide-sweeping removal of lawful and innocuous content. The imposition of time limits for removal, heavy sanctions for non-compliance or incentives to use automated content moderation processes only heighten this risk, as has been evidenced by the approach taken in Germany via its Network Enforcement Act (or NetzDG), where there is evidence of the over-removal of lawful content.(1)
- Fifth, we expect any legislative or regulatory proposals to contain explicit and unambiguous language on the importance of freedom of expression. It is vital that any legislative or regulatory scheme which seeks to limit speech explicitly references the human right to free expression so that this infuses how the scheme is implemented and enforced in practice. Such language should be set out both any legislation ultimately proposed, as well as any secondary legislation or regulatory guidance ultimately developed.
- Sixth, in recognition of the UK’s commitment to the multistakeholder model of internet governance, we stress the importance for all relevant stakeholders, including civil society, to be fully engaged throughout the Online Harm White Paper’s consultation period, and able to participate in the design and implementation of any measures which are finally adopted.
We appreciate your consideration of these points and look forward to continuing our engagement with your department as the Online Harms White Paper is published and throughout the policy process.
Yours sincerely,[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Charles Bradley
Executive Director
Global Partners Digital[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Jodie Ginsberg
Chief Executive
Index on Censorship[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Jim Killock
Executive Director
Open Rights Group[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]
1. See, for example, Scott, M. and Delcker, J., “Free speech vs. censorship in Germany”, Politico, 14 January 2018, available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-hate-speech-netzdg-facebook-youtube-google-twitter-free-speech, and Kinstler, L., “Germany’s Attempt to Fix Facebook Is Backfiring”, The Atlantic, 18 May 2018, available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/germany-facebook-afd/560435/.[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1551880941891-44b3d529-2ac3-9″ taxonomies=”16927, 4883″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
18 Feb 19 | Campaigns -- Featured, Digital Freedom, Digital Freedom Statements, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Index on Censorship welcomes a report by the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee into disinformation and fake news that calls for greater transparency on social media companies’ decision making processes, on who posts political advertising and on use of personal data. However, we remain concerned about attempts by government to establish systems that would regulate “harmful” content online given there remains no agreed definition of harm in this context beyond those which are already illegal.
Despite a number of reports, including the government’s Internet Safety Strategy green paper, that have examined the issue over the past year, none have yet been able to come up with a definition of harmful content that goes beyond definitions of speech and expression that are already illegal. DCMS recognises this in its report when it quotes the Secretary of State Jeremy Wright discussing “the difficulties surrounding the definition.” Despite acknowledging this, the report’s authors nevertheless expect “technical experts” to be able to set out “what constitutes harmful content” that will be overseen by an independent regulator.
International experience shows that in practice it is extremely difficult to define harmful content in such a way that would target only “bad speech”. Last year, for example, activists in Vietnam wrote an open letter to Facebook complaining that Facebook’s system of automatically pulling content if enough people complained could “silence human rights activists and citizen journalists in Vietnam”, while Facebook has shut down the livestreams of people in the United States using the platform as a tool to document their experiences of police violence.
“It is vital that any new system created for regulating social media protects freedom of expression, rather than introducing new restrictions on speech by the back door,” said Index on Censorship chief executive Jodie Ginsberg. “We already have laws to deal with harassment, incitement to violence, and incitement to hatred. Even well-intentioned laws meant to tackle hateful views online often end up hurting the minority groups they are meant to protect, stifle public debate, and limit the public’s ability to hold the powerful to account.”
The select committee report provides the example of Germany as a country that has legislated against harmful content on tech platforms. However, it fails to mention the German Network Reinforcement Act was legislating on content that was already considered illegal, nor the widespread criticism of the law that included the UN rapporteur on freedom of expression and groups such as Human Rights Watch. It also cites the fact that one in six of Facebook’s moderators now works in Germany as “practical evidence that legislation can work.”
“The existence of more moderators is not evidence that the laws work,” said Ginsberg. “Evidence would be if more harmful content had been removed and if lawful speech flourished. Given that there is no effective mechanism for challenging decisions made by operators, it is impossible to tell how much lawful content is being removed in Germany. But the fact that Russia, Singapore and the Philippines have all cited the German law as a positive example of ways to restrict content online should give us pause.”
Index has reported on various examples of the German law being applied incorrectly, including the removal of a tweet of journalist Martin Eimermacher criticising the double standards of tabloid newspaper Bild Zeitung and the blocking of the Twitter account of German satirical magazine Titanic. The Association of German Journalists (DJV) has said the Twitter move amounted to censorship, adding it had warned of this danger when the German law was drawn up.
Index is also concerned about the continued calls for tools to distinguish between “quality journalism” and unreliable sources, most recently in the Cairncross Review. While we recognise that the ability to do this as individuals and through education is key to democracy, we are worried that a reliance on a labelling system could create false positives, and mean that smaller or newer journalism outfits would find themselves rejected by the system.
About Index on Censorship
Index on Censorship is a UK-based nonprofit that campaigns against censorship and promotes free expression worldwide. Founded in 1972, Index has published some of the world’s leading writers and artists in its award-winning quarterly magazine, including Nadine Gordimer, Mario Vargas Llosa, Samuel Beckett and Kurt Vonnegut. Index promotes debate, monitors threats to free speech and supports individuals through its annual awards and fellowship programme.
Contact: [email protected][/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1550487607611-2c41f248-b775-10″ taxonomies=”6534″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
05 Feb 19 | Artistic Freedom, Artistic Freedom Statements, Campaigns -- Featured, Press Releases, Statements, Uganda
More than 130 musicians, writers and artists, together with many British and Ugandan members of parliament, have signed a petition calling on Uganda to drop plans for regulations that include vetting songs, videos and film scripts prior to their release. Musicians, producers, promoters, filmmakers and all other artists would also have to register with the government and obtain a licence that can be revoked for a range of violations.
Index on Censorship is deeply concerned by these proposals, which are likely to be used to stifle criticism of the government.
“Around the world from Cuba to Indonesia and Uganda, artists are being pressured by governments seeking to control their art and their message. These misplaced efforts are an intolerable intrusion into artistic freedom and must not be enacted,” Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index said.
Signatories to the letter include U2’s Bono and Adam Clayton, author Wole Soyinka, and Razorlight’s Johnny Borrell.
Full text of the letter follows:
Uganda’s government is proposing regulations that include vetting new songs, videos and film scripts, prior to their release. Musicians, producers, promoters, filmmakers and all other artists will also have to register with the government and obtain a licence that can be revoked for a range of violations.
We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned by these proposals, which are likely to be used to stifle criticism of the government.
We, the undersigned, vehemently oppose the draconian legislation currently being prepared by the Ugandan government that will curtail the freedom of expression in the creative arts of all musicians, producers and filmmakers in the country.
The planned legislation includes:
- All Ugandan artists and filmmakers required to register and obtain a licence, revokable for any perceived infraction.
- Artists required to submit lyrics for songs and scripts for film and stage performances to authorities to be vetted.
- Content deemed to contain offensive language, to be lewd or to copy someone else’s work will be censured.
- Musicians will also have to seek government permission to perform outside Uganda.
Contained in a 14 page draft Bill that bypasses Parliament and will come before Cabinet alone in March to be passed into law, any artist, producer or promoter who is considered to be in breach of its guidelines shall have his/her certificate revoked.
This proposed legislation is in direct contravention of Clause 29 1a b of the Ugandan
Constitution which states:
- Protection of freedom of conscience, expression, movement, religion,
assembly and association.
(1) Every person shall have the right to—
(a) Freedom of speech and expression which shall include freedom of the media;
(b) Freedom of thought, conscience and belief which shall include academic
freedom in institutions of learning;
Furthermore, in accordance with Clause 40 (2)
(2) Every person in Uganda has the right to practise his or her profession and to
carry on any lawful occupation, trade or business.
As a Member State of the African Union, the Republic of Uganda has ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Article 9 of the Charter provides:
- Every individual shall have the right to receive information.
- Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law.
We therefore call upon the Ugandan government to end this grievous and blatant
violation of the constitutional rights of Ugandan artists and producers, and to honour
its international obligations as laid down in the various international human rights
conventions to which Uganda is a signatory and for Uganda to uphold freedom of speech.
Background
- Although freedom of expression is protected under the Uganda constitution, it is coming under increasing threat in the country.
- In 2018, authorities arrested popular musician and opposition member of parliament, Robert Kyagulanyi, better known as Bobi Wine. He was badly beaten in military custody. Musicians, writers and social activists including Chris Martin, Angelique Kidjo, U2’s The Edge, Damon Albarn and Wole Soyinka, signed a petition calling for his release, which ultimately succeeded.
- Since July 1, Ugandans have had to pay a tax of 200 shillings, about 5 US cents, for every day they use services including Facebook, Twitter, Skype and WhatsApp.
- The government said it wanted to regulate online gossip, or idle talk but critics fear this meant it wanted to censor opponents.
- During the presidential election in 2016, officials blocked access to Facebook and Twitter
- On Thursday January 31 a statement was made by Jeremy Hunt MP, the UK’s Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: “”We are aware of the proposed regulations to the Ugandan music and entertainment industry that are currently being consulted on and are yet to be approved by the Cabinet. The UK’s position is that such regulations must not be used as a means of censorship. The UK supports freedom of expression as a fundamental human right and, alongside freedom of the media, maintains that it is an essential quality of any functioning democracy. We continue to raise any concerns around civic and political issues directly with the Ugandan government.”
ABTEX – Producer, Uganda
ADAM CLAYTON – Musician, U2
ALEX SOBEL – Member of Parliament, United Kingdom
AMY TAN – Novelist, Screenwriter
ANDY HEINTZ – Freelance journalist and author, USA
ANISH KAPOOR – Artist, United Kingdom
ANN ADEKE – Member of Parliament, Uganda
ANNU PALAKUNNATHU MATTHEW – Artist, USA and India
ASUMAN BASALIRWA – Member of Parliament, Uganda
AYELET WALDMAN – Writer
BELINDA ATIM – Uganda Sustainable Development Initiative
BILL SHIPSEY – Founder, Art for Amnesty
BONO – Musician, U2
BRIAN ENO – Artist, Musician and Producer
BRUCE ANDERSON – Journalist Editor/Publisher
CLAUDIO CAMBON – Artist/Translator, France
CRISPIN BLUNT – Member of Parliament and former Chair of Foreign Affairs Select Committee, United Kingdom
DAN MAGIC – Producer, Uganda
DANIEL HANDLER – Writer, Musician aka Lemony Snicket
DAVID FLOWER – Director, Sasa Music
DAVID HARE – Playwright
DAVID SANCHEZ – Saxophonist and Grammy Winner
DEBORAH BRUGUERA – Activist, Italy
DELE SOSIMI – Musician – The Afrobeat Orchestra
DOCTOR HILDERMAN – Artist, Uganda
DR VINCENT MAGOMBE – Journalist and Broadcaster
DR PAUL WILLIAMS – Member of Parliament, United Kingdom
EDDIE HATITYE – Director, Music In Africa
EDDY KENZO – Artist, Uganda
EDWARD SIMON – Musician and Composer, Venezuela
EFE OMOROGBE – Director Hypertek, Nigeria
ERIAS LUKWAGO – Lord Mayor of Kampala Uganda
ELYSE PIGNOLET – Visual Artist, USA
ERIC HARLAND – Musician
FEMI ANIKULAPO KUTI – Musician, Nigeria
FEMI FALANA – Human Rights Lawyer, Nigeria
FRANCIS ZAAKE – Member of Parliament, Uganda
FRANK RYNNE – Senior Lecturer British Studies, UCP, France
GARY LUCAS – Musician
GERALD KARUHANGA – Member of Parliament, Uganda
GINNY SUSS – Manager, Producer
HELEN EPSTEIN – Professor of Journalism Bard College
HENRY LOUIS GATES – Director of the Hutchins Center at Harvard University
HUGH CORNWELL – Musician
IAIN NEWTON – Marketing Consultant
INNOCENT (2BABA) IDIBIA – Artist, Nigeria
IRENE NAMATOVU – Artist, Uganda
IRENE NTALE – Artist, Uganda
JANE CORNWELL – Journalist
JEFFREY KOENIG – Partner, Serling Rooks Hunter McKoy Worob & Averill LLP
JESSE RIBOT – American University School of International Service
JIM GOLDBERG – Photographer, Professor Emeritus at California College of the Arts
JODIE GINSBERG – CEO, Index on Censorship
JOEL SSENYONYI – Journalist, Uganda
JON FAWCETT – Cultural Events Producer
JON SACK – Artist
JOHN AJAH – CEO, Spinlet
JOHN CARRUTHERS – Music Executive
JOHN GROGAN – Member of Parliament, United Kingdom
JONATHAN LETHEM – Novelist
JONATHAN MOSCONE – Theater Director
JONATHAN PATTINSON – Co-Founder Reluctantly Brave
JOHNNY BORRELL – Singer, Razorlight
JOJO MEYER – Musician
KADIALY KOUYATE – Musician, Senegal
KALUNDI SERUMAGA – Former Director – Uganda National Cultural Centre/National Theatre
KASIANO WADRI – Member of Parliament, Uganda
KEITH RICHARDS OBE – Writer
KEMIYONDO COUTINHO – Filmmaker, Uganda
KENNETH OLUMUYIWA THARP CBE – Director The Africa Centre
KING SAHA – Artist, Uganda
KWEKU MANDELA – Filmmaker
LAUREN ROTH DE WOLF – Music Manager Orchestra of Syrian Musicians
LEMI GHARIOKWU – Visual Artist, Nigeria
LEO ABRAHAMS – Producer, Musician, Composer
LES CLAYPOOL – Musician, Primus
LINDA HANN – MD Linda Hann Consulting Group
LUCIE MASSEY – Creative Producer
LUCY DURAN – Professor of Music at SOAS University of London
LYNDALL STEIN – Activist/Campaigner, United Kingdom
MARC RIBOT – Musician
MARCUS DRAVS – Producer
MAREK FUCHS – MD Sauti Sol Entertainment, Kenya
MARGARET ATWOOD – Author
MARK LEVINE – Professor of History UC Irvine – Grammy winning artist
MARY GLINDON – Member of Parliament, United Kingdom
MATT PENMAN – Musician, New Zealand
MARTIN GOLDSCHMIDT – Chairman, Cooking Vinyl Group
MEDARD SSEGONA – Member of Parliament, Uganda
MICHAEL CHABON – Writer
MICHAEL LEUFFEN – NTS Host, Carhartt WIP Music Rep
MICHAEL UWEDEMEDIMO – Director, CMAP and Research Fellow King’s College London
MILTON ALLIMADI – Publisher, The Black Star News
MORGAN MARGOLIS – President, Knitting Factory Entertainment, USA
MOUSTAPHA DIOP – Musician, Senegal MusikBi CEO
MR EAZI – Musician, Producer, Nigeria
MUWANGA KIVUMBI – Member of Parliament, Uganda
NAOMI WEBB – Executive Director, Good Chance Theatre, United Kingdom
NICK GOLD – Owner, World Circuit Records
NUBIAN LI – Artist, Uganda
OHAL GRIETZER – Composer
OBED CALVAIRE – Musician
OMOYELE SOWORE – Founder Sahara Reporters and Nigerian Presidential Candidate
PATRICK GRADY – Member of Parliament, United Kingdom
PAUL MAHEKE – Artist, United Kingdom
PAUL MWIRU – Member of Parliament, Uganda
PETER GABRIEL – Musician
RACHEL SPENCE – Arts Writer and Poet, United Kingdom
RASHEED ARAEEN – Artist, United Kingdom
RAYMOND MUJUNI – Journalist, Uganda
RHETT MILLER – Musician, Writer
RILIWAN SALAM – Artist Manager
ROBERT MAILER ANDERSON – Writer and Producer
ROBIN DENSELOW – Journalist, United Kingdom
ROBIN EUBANKS – Trombonist, Composer, Educator
ROBIN RIMBAUD – Musician
RUTH DANIEL – CEO, In Place of War
SAMIRA BIN SHARIFU – DJ
SANDOW BIRK – Visual Artist, USA
SANDRA IZSADORE – Author, Artist, Activist, USA
SEAN JONES – Musician, Composer, Bandleader, Educator
SEBASTIAN ROCHFORD – Musician, Pola Bear
SEUN ANIKULAPO KUTI – Musician, Composer
SHAHIDUL ALAM – Photojournalist and Activist, Bangladesh
SIDNEY SULE – B.A.H.D Guys Entertainment Management, Nigeria
SIMON WOLF – Senior Associate, Amsterdam & Partners LLP
SRIRAK PLIPAT – Executive Director, Freemuse
STEPHEN BUDD – OneFest / Stephen Budd Music Ltd
SOFIA KARIM – Architect and Artist
STEPHEN HENDEL – Kalakuta Sunrise LLC
STEVE JONES – Musician and Producer
SUZANNE NOSSEL – CEO, PEN America
TANIA BRUGUERA – Artist and Activist, Cuba
TOM CAIRNES – Co-Founder Freetown Music Festival
WOLE SOYINKA – Nobel Laureate, Nigeria
YENI ANIKULAPO KUTI – Co-Executor of the Fela Anikulapo Kuti Estate
ZENA WHITE – MD, Knitting Factory and Partisan Records
