Index relies entirely on the support of donors and readers to do its work.
Help us keep amplifying censored voices today.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship rejects many of the suggestions made in a report into intimidation of UK public officials by a committee tasked with examining standards in public life.
The report recommends — among other things — creating legislation to make social media companies liable for illegal content and increasing the use of automation to remove content that is not only illegal but “intimidatory.”
“Like many such reports, the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life makes the mistake of lumping together illegal content, intimidatory content — which the committee itself admits is hard to define — and abusive content,” said Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of Index on Censorship.
“While some content outlined in the report — such as threats of rape — can clearly be defined as harassing or intimidatory in nature, deciding whether content is illegal or not largely depends on understanding the context — and that is something that neither ‘automated techniques’ nor speedy removals can address.
“We are deeply worried by the growing trend in which democratic governments devolve responsibility for making decisions that should be made by the police or the judiciary to unaccountable private bodies to censor speech. [/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-times-circle” color=”black” background_style=”rounded” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In addition to a number of recommendations for social media companies to take action, the committee’s report also recommends that press regulators should extend their codes of conduct to include “intimidatory behaviour”.
“This report uses language that would not be out of place in any dictator’s handbook,” said Ginsberg. “The idea that the press should include in their code of conduct an element that addresses whether content could ‘unduly undermine public trust in the political system’ sounds like a gift to any politician wanting to challenge reports with which they disagree. Rather than enhance democracy and freedoms, as this report claims to want to do, this risks damaging it further.”
Index welcomes the fact that the committee deemed new criminal offences specific to social media unnecessary, but cautions that devolving power to social media companies to police content could have significant risks in scooping up legitimate as well as illegal content because of the sheer volume of material being posted online every second.
Index would also strongly caution against any engagement with other governments at the international level on “what constitutes hate crime and intimidation online” that could result in a race to the bottom that adds further global restrictions on speech.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/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:1513167851048-354a7311-4d5b-3″ taxonomies=”16928″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Index on Censorship condemns the brutal murder of Bangladeshi blogger Ananta Bijoy Das — the third such attack since February. AFP reported that attackers wearing masks hacked atheist blogger Das to death with machetes. The murder follows that of fellow atheist Avijit Roy, a blogger who advocated secularism, and who was hacked to death by a knife-wielding mob in Dhaka as he walked back from a book fair in February. Weeks later atheist writer Washiqur Rahman was stabbed to death in the capital.
Index CEO Jodie Ginsberg said: “Our sympathies are with the family of Ananta Bijoy Das. Like Avijit Roy and Washiqur Rahman, he was targeted simply for expressing his own beliefs. We are appalled by these deaths and call on Bangladesh and the international community to do more to protect such writers.”
The injunction banning distribution and publication of ADAMbol, a popular opposition magazine in Kazakhstan, is a clear violation of freedom of press and free expression.
The magazine has been accused of engaging in “extremist war propaganda” by Almaty City’s Department for Internal Policies. Some activists believe the magazine has been targeted over its coverage of Ukraine’s Maidan protests. In addition to ordering the closure of the magazine, the injunction from Almaty district court on 20 November also demands the confiscation of all printed copies of the magazine.
Cracking down on media is a well known tactic for authorities to silence dissent and stifle debate — and one Kazakhstan has made good use of in recent times. Since late 2013, over 30 media outlets have been closed in the country, over various administrative code violations or allegations of extremism.
Index calls on Kazakhstan’s authorities to end the assault on the media and respect their citizens’ right to free expression.
The UK Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has announced plans to increase the maximum prison sentence for online abuse, or trolling, to two years. Laws already exist for dealing with harassment and threats of violence, and the Crown Prosecution Service last year issued clear and strict guidelines on what kind of online speech constituted a crime. Calls for tougher sentencing are unlikely to act as a deterrent to trolls and could have a far more insidious effect — encouraging more arrests and prosecution for free speech that is neither threatening nor harassment, but which simply offends.