In Ukraine, violence is the tool of choice against journalists

23 Jul 19 | Media Freedom, Monitoring and Advocating Coverage, News and features, Ukraine

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”108001″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]

The majority of violations in Ukraine catalogued by Index on Censorship’s Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom project from 1 February to 30 June 2019 were categorised as physical assaults, attacks to property or blocked access. Most frequently, these actions were taken by agents of the state — whether law enforcement or other governmental structures.

The Monitoring and Advocacy for Media Freedom project has recorded 16 incidents in which journalists have been subjected to physical assaults, and 17 incidents in which journalists has their equipment and property damaged since February 2019, 4 of which are in both categories. The project’s numbers are corroborated by the National Union of Ukrainian Journalists (NSJU), which recorded 36 incidents targeting journalists since 1 January 2019, including physical assaults and attacks on property, as part of their Index of Physical Safety of Ukrainian Journalists.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-times” color=”black” background_style=”rounded” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship’s Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom project documents, analyses, and publicises threats, limitations and violations related to media freedom in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine, in order to identify possible opportunities for advancing media freedom in these countries. These limitations, threats and violations, affect journalists as they do their jobs, so the project’s staff advocate for greater press freedom in these countries and raise international awareness.

The project builds on Index on Censorship’s 4.5 years monitoring media freedom in 43 European countries, as part of Mapping Media Freedom platform.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Vadim Komarov murdered” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The 20 June death of journalist and blogger Vadim Komarov is a severe and frightening example of the violence that Ukrainian journalists encounter in their work. Komarov was attacked with a hammer in the centre of Cherkasy on 4 May. His is the first recorded death of a journalist in Ukraine since the murder of Pavel Sheremet, whose car was blown up in 2016.  

Komarov was struck in the head several times by an unidentified individual, in broad daylight, near the town’s busy central market. The assailant then fled. Komarov was found unconscious and bloodied by passers by, who called emergency services. According to the doctors who treated him, Komarov had suffered a grievous open head injury, and slipped into a coma shortly after surgery. He never regained consciousness.  

Sergey Tomilenko wrote on Facebook that Komarov’s family and colleagues “don’t feel like there’s (the) necessary attention to this case.” The cause of the murder, said Tomilenko, was Komarov’s journalistic work. “The murder of Vadim Komarov is a crime against all journalists in general,” he wrote. Tomilenko called for solidarity among journalists, because “this topic is important for the survival of a journalist as a profession in Ukraine.”

The police were investigating Komarov’s attack as an “assassination attempt” prior to his death.

Komarov was known for his investigations of corruption among Cherkasy city authorities and the region’s prison system. The journalist had been assaulted in the past: on 7 September 2016, an unknown gunman shot at Komarov in Cherkasy, but the bullet missed him and hit a wall. 

The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Harlem Désir, expressed his deep sorrow following Komarov’s death. “I am deeply shocked by the death of Vadim Komarov, who was brutally attacked last month in Cherkasy and suffered from serious head injuries,” Désir said. “I reiterate my call to the Ukrainian authorities to complete the investigation in a vigorous and swift manner. It is regrettable that about one-and-a-half months after the attack, law enforcement has not yet identified the perpetrators nor reported any progress on the investigation. Violence and attacks against journalists are unacceptable and must stop. Impunity would be a victory for those who wanted to silence Komarov and to intimidate the press. All OSCE participating states should take effective and resolute actions to prevent and end impunity for such crimes.” [/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Aliya Zamchynska” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]On 20 June, Aliya Zamchynska, a correspondent for online news outlet Dumskaya, was assaulted and threatened by Yury Reznikov, Dumskaya.net reported. Reznikov is the owner of a cable car next Otrada beach in Odessa.

According to Ukrayinska Pravda, local deputies, civil activists and journalists gathered at Otrada beach to remove an illegal fence restricting public access to the beach. The video recorded by Dumskaya shows Reznikov confronting the group armed with a machine gun and threatening them. “I’m not ready to kill for private property, but I’m ready to shoot [you] in the legs,” Reznikov told them. During the episode Reznikov pushed Zamchynska, who fell to the ground and was injured as a result.

Deputy Olexander Sheremet managed to disarm Reznikov, and the police were called to the scene. They discovered that the gun had been loaded.

This is not the first time that Reznikov and his family attacked journalists and activists. In 2012, his daughter assaulted activist Zoya Melnik in front of her child. In 2014, Reznikov pushed a cameraman for Pervyi Gorodskoi TV channel into a swimming pool with his camera. [/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Maria Gural and Volodymyr Tsyganov” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]On 13 June, two reporters from online news site Stop Corruption, Maria Gural and Volodymyr Tsyganov, were assaulted in Priluki, Chernihiv region. The attacker was identified as Olexander Chaly. Chaly is deputy head of politician Boris Prikhodko’s election campaign for Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada, the Institute of Mass Information reported. 

According to Stop Corruption, the journalists were trying to access an open event where Prikhodko was meeting with members of the public. The crew were investigating alleged voter bribery and wanted to question the politician. 

Olexander Chaly first tried to snatch a microphone from Gural, and then began to assault her. Tsyganov tried to protect Gural and was assaulted as well. As a result of the beating, Gural received a concussion, and Tsyganov ended up with scratches and light injuries. The police arrested Chaly and charged him with “threat or violence against a journalist.” [/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Vadym Makaryuk” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]

On 7 June, Vadym Makaryuk was physically assaulted during a mass brawl at Barabashovo market in Kharkiv by unknown individuals, Channel 24 reported. Makatyuk is a TV operator for Channel 24 and Visti.News,

A group of unidentified people assaulted the cameraperson as he filmed the altercation at the market. They sprayed tear gas in his eyes, smashed his face, broke his camera and took away his memory card. The clash was between the right-wing National Corps (who are Donbass war veterans) and the merchants of Barabashovo. According to the market administration, their conflict was due to a property dispute.

The journalist was taken to an intensive care unit in a local hospital, where doctors diagnosed a hemorrhagic stroke as a result of a cerebral haemorrhage sustained after the beating. 

The police opened a criminal investigation into whether the incident constituted “threats or violence against a journalist”, “obstruction of journalists’ legal activities”, and “robbery”. A court in Kharkiv refused to detain a man involved in the brutal beating, saying that round-the-clock house arrest was sufficient punishment, Interfax-Ukraine reported. The court also sentenced  Kozlyuk, a 26-year-old unemployed Kharkiv resident involved in the assault, to one month and 28 days under house arrest. Immediately after the hearing, the suspect’s lawyer said that he would appeal the decision. The prosecutor’s office also announced their intention to appeal.[/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Natalia Polishchuk, Maria Petruchyk and Vyacheslav Moroshko” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]On 9 May, customs officers at the Yagodyn border crossing with Poland assaulted Natalia Polishchuk, Maria Petruchyk and Vyacheslav Moroshko, journalists working for Avers TV.

The three journalists were investigating a large shipment of amber, which was alleged to have been smuggled to Poland through the Yagodyn customs station. The reporting crew entered a restaurant where customs agents were attending a party and began asking questions about corruption and the amber smuggling. According to Avers, the officers who were present behaved aggressively and assaulted the journalists. They bruised one journalist’s finger and broke the crew’s camera, 1+1 TV channel reported. 

“Two men approached me, they started tugging at me, tore my jacket, hit the cameraperson, hit the camera,” Polishchuk said. Petruchyk reported, “He (my attacker) wrestled my phone out of my hand, used brute force, my hand is damaged, he tore my journalist’s ID off me.” The officers also forcibly took the journalists’ driver’s licenses, car documents  and bank cards. A customs officer told one of the journalists he would “bury her”. The journalists managed to film a part of the incident.

The police have opened criminal proceedings on three articles. “It’s about interfering with the professional activities of journalists, robbery and causing intentional light bodily injuries,” Viktor Homol, spokesperson for the National Police in the Volyn region, said. The case is now being investigated by the State Bureau of Investigations.[/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Kateryna Kaplyuk and Borys Trotsenko” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]On 6 March, journalist Kateryna Kaplyuk and cameraperson Borys Trotsenko from the investigative TV project Schemes were assaulted in Chabany, a suburb of Kyiv. Schemes’s editor Natalie Sedletska reported the assault on her Facebook page. Sedletska wrote that the journalists had gone to Chabany village council to get information for an investigation on the illegal transfer of public land to private ownership. 

The pair were filming at the council’s office, trying to interview the council secretary, when they were assaulted. Their attackers were two deputies of Chabany’s village head, Volodimir Chuprina and Yuri Bondar, as well as Valery Prisyazhny, the head of the public organisation Rozvitok Kyevshiny. In their attempt to prevent journalists from filming, these men injured Trotsenko and broke his camera. 

Kaplyuk and Trotsenko called an ambulance. After a medical check-up at a hospital, Trotsenko was diagnosed with a concussion. The journalists filed a complaint with the police, who launched a criminal investigation. [/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Lack of “political will“ puts journalists at risk” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]Despite the existence of legislation that aims to protect journalists, the NSJU said that Ukraine is notorious for impunity when crimes against journalists are committed.

Speaking at a conference held by the International Federation of Journalists in October 2018, Sergey Tomilenko, the head of NSJU, said that crimes against journalists had become the norm in Ukraine. He said that every four days there were acts of violence against journalists in the country, from brutal beatings to broken equipment.

In 2017-2018 NSJU recorded 175 physical violations against journalists in Ukraine, including minor acts of aggression and destruction of property. 

Artyom Shevchenko, the spokesperson for the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior, reported on 1 March that in 2018, the police opened 258 criminal investigations on interfering with journalistic activity. In January 2019 alone, there were an additional 21 investigations. At the same time, however, only 26 out of the 258 cases related to crimes against media workers were passed on to the court. 

“The lack of political will of the country’s leadership to really protect media workers leads to the fact that the attacks are not properly investigated, and those cases which still reach the court do not end with heavy punishment for the attackers”, head of NSJU Sergey Tomilenko told Index on Censorship’s project Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom. “Until recently, journalists, particularly investigative journalists, were viewed by officials as threats, and not as an important element of protecting democracy in the country.” Until recently, there has also been a political culture that legitimised humiliating journalists and the media, he added. 

Tomilenko said that the NSJU has noticed that ordinary Ukrainians now feel emboldened to physically assault journalists. This is likely due to the toxic attitude toward the press created by government officials, he says. “Over the past year, we have witnessed an active uprising by the authorities–primarily representatives of the President, Petro Poroshenko, and parliamentarians of the political forces close to him–deliberate hostility towards certain journalists and the media, and calls to attack the so-called ‘pro-Russian’ media. This has resulted in the blocking of individual TV channels, the physical attacks on journalists during live broadcasts, parliamentary appeals to stop the broadcasting of individual media, and attempts to adopt draconian laws against the media.”

Tomilenko said that he was hopeful that the hostility toward journalists would abate in the future. “The victory of the new President, Volodymyr Zelensky, who does not use the rhetoric of hostility towards journalists and declares his support of freedom of speech and real political competition in the country, gives (me) hope that the Ukrainian authorities will not be at the forefront of those who reject the rights of journalists and the media.”

The National Union of Journalists of Ukraine has been calling for regular and transparent public reports by law enforcement agencies on the progress of investigations of crimes against journalists. Such reports could be used as a key tool in battling impunity. In addition, the NSJU is recommending special parliamentary hearings on journalists’ physical security and freedom of speech. 

“This initiative, which we proposed in July 2017 on the 1st anniversary of the assassination of Pavel Sheremet, is particularly relevant today — when a new murder took place in Ukraine — that of regional journalist Vadim Komarov”, Tomilenko said.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Press Freedom Violations in Ukraine” font_container=”tag:h2|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]

Number and types of incidents recorded between 1 February and 30 June 2019

[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner css=”.vc_custom_1558428123542{background-color: #f4f4f4 !important;}”][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

1

Death/Killing

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

16

Physical Assault/Injury

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

2

Arrest/Detention/Interrogation

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

2

Criminal Charges/Fines/Sentences

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

6

Intimidation

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

8

Blocked Access

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner css=”.vc_custom_1558428157046{background-color: #f4f4f4 !important;}”][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

17

Attack to Property

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

2

Subpoena/Court Order/Lawsuits

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

1

Legal Measures/Legislation

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

1

Offine Harassment

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

1

Online Harassment

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

1

DDoS/Hacking/Doxing

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner css=”.vc_custom_1558428169374{background-color: #f4f4f4 !important;}”][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

0

Censorship

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

42

Total

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][vc_column_text]

Source of the incidents recorded between 1 February and 30 June 2019

[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner css=”.vc_custom_1558428178637{background-color: #f4f4f4 !important;}”][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

0

Employer/Publisher/Colleague(s)

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

7

Police/State Security

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

2

Private Security

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

3

Court/Judicial

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

10

Government official(s)/State Agency/Political Party

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

0

Corporation

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner css=”.vc_custom_1558428186205{background-color: #f4f4f4 !important;}”][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

11

Known private individual(s)

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

0

Another Media Outlet

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

0

Criminal Organisation

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

14

Unknown

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”35195″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Podcast: Judged with Xinran, Stefano Pozzebon and Steven Levitsky

24 Jun 19 | China, News and features, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, Volume 48.02 Summer 2019, Volume 48.02 Summer 2019 Extras

In the Index on Censorship summer 2019 podcast, we focus on how governments use power to undermine justice and freedom. Lewis Jennings and Rachael Jolley discuss the latest issue of the magazine, revealing their top picks and debating what rating they would be under China’s social credit rating system. Guests include best-selling Chinese author Xinran, who delves into surveillance in China; Italian journalist Stefano Pozzebon, who reveals the dangers of being a foreign journalist in Venezuela; and Steve Levitsky, the co-author of The New York Times best-seller How Democracies Die, discusses political polarisation in the US.

Print copies of the magazine are available on Amazon, or you can take out a digital subscription via Exact Editions. Copies are also available at the BFI, the Serpetine Gallery and MagCulture (all London), News from Nowhere (Liverpool). Red Lion Books (Colchester) and Home (Manchester). Each magazine sale helps Index on Censorship continue its fight for free expression worldwide.

The Summer 2019 podcast can also be found on iTunes.

Legislative restrictions, bomb threats and vandalism are just some of the issues Russian journalists have faced this year

22 May 19 | Media Freedom, News and features, Russia

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Key trends:

  • The targeting of newsrooms comes amid growing hostility towards journalists within the general public, and the enactment of new legislation by the government supposedly targeting “fake news” and propaganda. In addition, the lack of accountability for crimes against journalists and news outlets contributes to an overall atmosphere of impunity.
  • New legislation is making it difficult to publish material that contradicts the official version of events.
  • Russians have been facing an unprecedented spate of bomb threats. The media has not been immune.

This report looks at 116 incidents that Index on Censorship’s Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom project classified as threats, limitations or violations of press freedom in Russia between 1 February 2019 and 30 April 2019: 43 in February, 43 in March and 30 in April. The total number of reports collected by project correspondents represents a slight increase over the same period last year, during which 101 incidents were recorded.

In  2018, physical assaults, legislative measures, fines, intimidation and loss of employment were the most pressing obstacles to press freedom as reported by Mapping Media Freedom. So far in  2019, we have seen a rise in the number of fines, intimidation and physical violence against journalists, with an addition of lawsuits and legal measures, blocked access, and detention of media workers.

Index on Censorship’s Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom project documents, analyses, and publicises threats, limitations and violations related to media freedom in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine, in order to identify  possible opportunities for advancing media freedom in these countries. The project collects, analyses and publicises limitations, threats and violations that affect journalists as they do their job, and advocates for greater press freedom in these countries and raises alerts at the international level.

The project builds on Index on Censorship’s 4.5 years monitoring media freedom in 43 European countries, as part of Mapping Media Freedom platform.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Targeting of newsrooms” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_single_image image=”106949″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]

The targeting of newsrooms comes amid a growing hostility toward journalists within the general public, and the enactment of new legislation that purportedly targets  “fake news” and propaganda. In addition, the lack of accountability for crimes against journalists and news outlets contributes to an overall atmosphere of impunity.

“You’re going to die, small fry”

At 8.30am on 1 April 2019, the Yekaterinburg regional office of Kommersant, a national daily newspaper in Russia, was found to have been vandalised. The newspaper primarily focuses on political and business affairs. Sergey Plakhotin, the general director of the regional office, said that the cleaner had arrived to find the door to the office open. Plakhotin’s office, the chief editor’s office and the senior accountant’s office had all been vandalised; computers were on the floor and hard drives were missing. On his desk, Plakhotin found a note: “you’re going to die small fry”. Plakhotin believes that the door was opened with a key.

Within hours, police detained an unemployed 46-year old local man, who has been charged with  “intentional damage to property”, which is punishable by up to five years in jail.

According to law enforcement, the suspect pleaded guilty, saying that he had committed the vandalism while under the influence of alcohol. He also told police that he had “personal motives” that were not in connection with Kommersant’s journalistic work. The individual was released but was barred from traveling.  

However, Kommersant journalists didn’t rule out a possibility that the attack could be a retaliation for their award-winning new book Gang Catchers: The Meeting Point, which details the fight against organised crime in Yekaterinburg. Platokhin told Echo Moskvy radio that he wasn’t convinced about the connection to criminal syndicates, as the newsroom didn’t have any ongoing conflicts, and cited the time of year, namely vesennye obostreniye (“spring fever”) was likely to blame.

“Justifying Terrorism”

On 13 February 2019, police in Pskov raided the office of the local weekly newspaper, Pskovskaya Gubernia. Police confiscated a hard drive containing the next issue of the paper and, as a result, editors were forced to delay publication.

Editor-in-chief, Denis Kamalyagin, said that the raid was most likely a response to  the newspaper’s support of journalist and previous contributor, Svetlana Prokopyeva. Prokopyeva is currently under investigation for allegedly “justifying terrorism” (a criminal offense in Russia) on her radio show. In October 2018, she discussed the causes of an explosion in the Federal Security Services office in Arkhangelsk.

Grani

On 25 March 2019, the opposition news outlet Grani was targeted. The glass doors of their office in Novocheboksarsk were smashed. The vandal has not been found and a motive has not been established. Random and seemingly baseless attacks create tension in newsrooms and feed the overarching atmosphere of hostility toward journalists in the country.

On 26 March 2019, a office block in Perm, which houses five different media outlets owned by holding company Mestnoye Vremya, had its electricity supply cut. Sources close to the owner of the facility, who is also head of the local branch of the ruling political party United Russia, said that he disliked a programme that had criticised his work that had aired on the Echo Moskvy affiliate owned by Mestnoye Vremya. However, the “official” account  held that the electricity cut was related to rent arrears. Mestnoye Vremya partially paid the debt in April to avoid immediate eviction. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Restrictive laws” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_single_image image=”106950″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]

New legislation is making it difficult to publish material that contradicts the official version of events.

On 18 March 2019 Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a set of controversial bills that criminalises spreading “fake news” and bans online shows of “disrespect” against the government, its officials, society, and state symbols.   

Fake news

Federal law from 18.03.2019 № 30-FZ on revision of the Federal law on information, information technologies and protection of information

For publishing “fake information of public value” private individuals could now face fines ranging from 30,000 ($462) to 100,000 rubles ($1,538), government officials – from 60,000 ($923) to 200,000 ($3,077) rubles, judicial entities – from 200,000 to 500,000 rubles ($7,695). Last-minute editions to the bill allowed registered mass media to promptly delete any material that was found to be “fake news” to avoid fines.

Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson, pointed to harsh regulations toward fake news being enacted around the world, including Europe, in justification of why the legislation was introduced and signed by the president. He was referring to the laws compelling social media companies to remove hate speech and other illegal content in France and Germany. In April 2019, the UK government released a white paper that proposed a regulatory framework to address “online harms”, including disinformation.

Prior to Putin’s approval of the law, Mikhail Fedotov, chairman of the Russian Human Rights Council, asked Putin to send the legislation back for revisions and stated the use of the term “fake news” implied that the state possessed the knowledge of “absolute truth”, whereas truth is always relative.

Journalists also criticised the legislation. “It looks like in its current form the law is aimed at protecting the elites rather than protecting society. It becomes an instrument of pressure on the media”, RBC editorial board co-manager Elizaveta Golikova told Vedomosti newspaper. Golikova added that the lack of definition for “fake news” meant that it was inevitable that meaningful information and important news would be removed from the web.

On his radio programme on 16 March, Alexey Venediktov, editor-in-chief of Echo Moskvy, addressed the issue:  “The main catch with these laws […] is that the decision will be made by one person – the prosecutor. It’s an extrajudicial decision… which will start ruining business for those who do it. It’s a zone for lawlessness and corruption. Because if I’d like to shut down our competitors at Mayak radio, I’d just pay a bribe. And the prosecutor will shut them down. And then they’ll struggle for two years to reopen”.

Disrespect of the government

The second new restrictive law bans online shows of “disrespect” against the government, its officials, society, and state symbols. To qualify as disrespectful an article, comment or post “…must not only show obvious disrespect and be made in an inappropriate form, but also insult human dignity and public morality” according to the law. The publication of such material could lead to snowballing fines: 30,000 -100,000 rubles for the first offense, up to 200,000 rubles or 15 days detention for the second, and after that 300,000 rubles ($4,615) fine or arrest.

This law was used for the first time on 2 April 2019. The general prosecutor’s office supposedly gave directions to the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media, also known as Roskomnadzor, to force five Yaroslavl-based media outlets remove articles on graffiti that allegedly insulted President Putin. The graffiti (“Putin pidor”) suggested in an explicit form that Russian president was gay. Roskomnadzor called it preventive work.

Yaroslavl website Yarkub received an email demanding that they delete the article about the grafiti by midnight. Yarkub’s editor-in-chief later received a phone call from Roskomnadzor’s regional department. Yarkub saw the situation as an act of censorship. Another email from Roskomnadzor clarified that the article had to be deleted due to the new law about “disrespecting authorities” that came into force on 29 March, TJournal website reported.

Olga Prokhorova, the editor of another Yaroslavl-based media outlet, 76.ru, received five calls from Roskomnadzor with requests to delete a similar article about the graffiti. She was told by the officials that they were pressured “from far above” to prosecute media that published articles on the subject. However, the general prosecutor’s office denied any involvement, Interfax reported.

TJournal named five outlets that ended up deleting materials covering the graffiti: Echo Moskvy Yaroslavl, Yaroslavskiy Region, PRO Gorod, Pervyi Yaroslavskiy and Moskovskiy Komsomolets in Yaroslavl.

Another bill, approved by the Russian Duma in the first out of three readings on 2 April, includes potential fines for “unsanctioned” distribution of foreign press. Since 2017 foreign press distributors in Russia have had to seek official permission from state media regulator Roskomnadzor. The new bill classifies a violation of the law as an administrative offence, introduces fines of up to 30,000 rubles ($462) and decrees that the printed material will be seized.

It is not yet clear whether the bill would only address mass distribution or could be used to punish individuals who order a foreign magazine from abroad or bring one into the country on their return. The bill is reminiscent of the Soviet censoring mechanism, where most foreign press and literature was banned, and the limited quantities entering the country ended up in restricted sections of Russian state libraries – for official use only.

Reaction

The Russian president’s Human Rights Council published a resolution in which it called the laws “an obviously disproportionate restriction of freedom of speech and opinion”, and stated they “form a ground for arbitrary persecution of citizens and organizations”.

OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Désir said in a statement: “These laws allow for broader restrictions and the censorship of online journalism and online speech. The definitions of allegedly offensive content are vaguely worded and will impact freedom of expression”.

Despite the criticism and concerns about threats to freedom of speech raised by journalists, activists and the Human Rights Council, both laws passed. When asked about the laws, the Kremlin spokesperson said neither could be classified as “censorship.” [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Bomb threats” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_single_image image=”106951″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]In early February, the staff of the news outlet Gazeta.ru became victims of the “telephone terrorism” they had been covering. An anonymous, and ultimately a hoax, bomb threat forced the evacuation of the news outlet’s offices. Staff were unable to update the website or prepare articles for publication. Gazeta’s journalists said that the targeting of their organisation was tied into a national trend: in early 2019, more than 2 million people were forced to flee anonymous threats of explosives planted in shopping malls, railway stations and offices.

On 15 February 2019, Russkoye Radio, one of the biggest radio networks in Russia , and Zvezda TV  were both forced to evacuate their offices . Staffers had to wait for bomb sniffing dogs and police to give them the all-clear before they could return to work. On that same day over 5,000 people at 10 different Moscow-based businesses were forced to leave their offices because of threats.

In mid-March state broadcaster VGTRK was the target. Twenty employees working in a film studio had to leave the premises because of an anonymous bomb threat received by email.

In none of the cases were any traces of explosives discovered, and the callers were not identified. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Terrorism charges” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_single_image image=”106954″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Svetlana Prokopieva, a Pskov bureau reporter for Echo Moskvy, was detained — and the radio station fined  — on charges related to justifying terrorism in her show. During one of the programs she discussed the causes of an explosion in the Federal Security Services office in Arkhangelsk in October 2018.

Omsk journalist Viktor Korb fled Russia on 25 February 2019, becoming one of the dozens of journalists who have left Russia for  fear of being prosecuted or because of threats to their lives. He was charged with “propaganda of terrorism” after publishing the last word of a blogger jailed for “calls to terrorism”, put under travel ban, and is now on the wanted list.

On 27 April 2019, armed police officers broke into an apartment in Makhachkala belonging to the parents of Alexandr Gorbunov, who was earlier named by RBC news outlet as author of a popular anonymous Telegram channel called Stalingulag. The channel is  known for outspoken, often slangy criticism of the authorities. According to the channel, Gorbunov’s mother was interrogated for six hours.

According to Stalingulag, police wanted Gorbunov on suspicion of “phone terrorism”, related to a series of phone calls with bomb threats that turned out to be fake but caused mass evacuations in Moscow. “How original, before they used to just plant drugs”, the author commented in his Telegram channel, referring to a known tactic of criminal case fabrication against activists.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Press Freedom Violations in Russia” font_container=”tag:h2|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]

Number and types of incidents recorded between 1 February and 30 April 2019

[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner css=”.vc_custom_1558428123542{background-color: #f4f4f4 !important;}”][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

0

Death/Killing

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

11

Physical Assault/Injury

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

18

Arrest/Detention/Interrogation

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

18

Criminal Charges/Fines/Sentences

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

20

Intimidation

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

9

Blocked Access

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner css=”.vc_custom_1558428157046{background-color: #f4f4f4 !important;}”][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

10

Attack to Property

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

12

Subpoena/Court Order/Lawsuits

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

2

Legal Measures/Legislation

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

0

Offine Harassment

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

0

Online Harassment

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

2

DDoS/Hacking/Doxing

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner css=”.vc_custom_1558428169374{background-color: #f4f4f4 !important;}”][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

8

Censorship

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][vc_column_text]

Source of the incidents recorded between 1 February and 30 April 2019

[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner css=”.vc_custom_1558428178637{background-color: #f4f4f4 !important;}”][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

4

Employer/Publisher/Colleague(s)

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

28

Police/State Security

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

7

Private Security

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

19

Court/Judicial

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

23

Government official(s)/State Agency/Political Party

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

3

Corporation

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner css=”.vc_custom_1558428186205{background-color: #f4f4f4 !important;}”][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

12

Known private individual(s)

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

0

Another Media Outlet

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

0

Criminal Organisation

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

13

Unknown

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Is press freedom going to be an issue in the next European election?

18 Apr 19 | Magazine, News and features, Volume 48.01 Spring 2019

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Responding to violations of media freedom in Hungary has become a conundrum for the EU. With populist parties poised for large gains in the next European election, Sally Gimson explores in the spring 2019 issue of Index on Censorship magazine what the EU could do to uphold free speech in member countries” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_column_text]

Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. Credit: EU2017EE Estonian Presidency / Flickr

Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. Credit: EU2017EE Estonian Presidency / Flickr

Dutch MEP Judith Sargentini is enemy number one in the eyes of the Hungarian government. The Green politician incurred that government’s anger when she persuaded the European Parliament to the country losing voting rights.

She accused Hungary, among other democratic failings, of not ensuring a free and uncensored press. But since the vote last September, nothing has happened, except that the Hungarian government launched a campaign against her on state television – and she no longer feels safe to travel there.

“[The government] has been spreading so much hate against me, and if the government is spreading hate, what if there is a lunatic around? I’m not taking the risk,” she said.

“The Hungarian government spent 18 million euros on a publicity campaign against me, after I won the vote – with TV commercials and a full-page advertisement with my face on it.” The other vocal critic of Hungary, Belgian Liberal MEP and former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt, as well as the philanthropist George Soros were targeted in the same campaign.

With the European elections coming up in May 2019, and the possibility of large gains by nationalist, populist parties, the question is what the EU can do to curb freedom of expression violations on its territory.

The problem according to Lutz Kinkel, managing director of the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, is the EU has no specific competences over media freedom. No country can join the EU without guaranteeing freedom of expression as a basic human right under Article 49 of the Lisbon Treaty. Article 7 is triggered when there is “a clear risk” of a member state breaching EU values. Although this can lead to a country’s voting rights being taken away, to get to that point, all the other EU countries have to agree.

As Camino Mortera-Martinez, a senior research fellow at the think-tank Centre for European Reform in Brussels, said: “Article 7 is never going to work because it is so vague. [All the other] member states are never going to argue to punish another one by suspending voting rights.”

Historian Tim Snyder, author of The Road to Unfreedom, a book about how Russia works to spread disinformation within the West, told Index he thought Hungary should have been thrown out of the EU a long time ago. But, with Britain’s exit from the EU, it is difficult to start expelling countries now.

“The tricky thing about the European Union, and this goes not just for eastern Europe but everyone, is that there might be rules for how you get in, but once you are in the rules are a lot less clear,” he said.

[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” size=”xl” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”It’s like joining a sorority with very strict rules for entering, but when you are there you can misbehave and it is covered up by the group” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

Hungary is the most prominent country in Europe to put restrictions on media freedom. Not only is public service media directly under government control, and critical journalists have been fired, but the government has also made sure that private media has either been driven out of business or taken over by a few oligarchs close to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. The only independent media are very small operations, publishing almost exclusively on the internet.

Snyder told Index: “I think Europeans generally made the mistake of thinking that it doesn’t matter if we have one small country which is going the wrong way [and that] Hungary can’t possibly affect others. But the truth is – because it is easier to build authoritarianism than democracy – one bad example does ripple outwards and Hungary isn’t just Hungary and Orbán isn’t just Orbán; they represent a kind of mode of doing things which other people can look to, and individual leaders can say: ‘That’s possible’.”

This is borne out by Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom project which tracked media freedom in 43 European countries and found patterns that showed countries following Hungary’s example including Poland.

Anita Kőműves is an investigative journalist in Hungary who works for non-profit investigative outlet Átlátszó.hu which won an Index award for digital activism in 2015. She says not only does Brussels do nothing to challenge Hungary’s undermining of the free press but people in the commission are persuaded it is not all that bad.

She said: “Orbán is walking a fine line with Brussels. He knows that he cannot go too far. Whatever happens here, it must be deniable and explainable. Orbán goes to Brussels, or sends one of his henchmen, and he explains everything away. He has bad things written about him every single day in Hungary and nobody is in jail, so everything is fine… everything is not fine. Freedom of speech, the fact that I can write anything I like on the internet and nobody puts me in jail, is not the same as freedom of media when you have a strong media sector which is independent of the government.”

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” size=”xl” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”I think Europeans generally made the mistake of thinking that it doesn’t matter if we have one small country which is going the wrong way” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

The solution for Brussels, she argues, is not Article 7 but for the EU to use European competition law to challenge the monopoly on media ownership the government and government-backed companies have in Hungary.

Kinkel says that this would be a warning to other countries, such as Bulgaria and Romania, which are trying to control the media in similar ways and in the case of Bulgaria giving EU funds only to government-friendly media.

“Governments try to get hold of public service media: this is one step,” he said. “And the other step is to throw out investors and media they don’t like and to give media outlets to oligarchs who are government-friendly and so on and so on, and to start new campaigns against independent investigative journalists.”

In Poland, the European Commission invoked Article 7 because of the government’s threats to the independence of the judiciary. The government so far controls only the state media but, as journalist Bartosz Wieliński , head of foreign news at the Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper, points out, the government used that state media to hound the mayor of Gdańsk, Paweł Adamowicz, for months before he was assassinated in January this year.

Wieliński believes it was only after Britain voted to leave the EU that countries realised they would face little sanction if they chipped away at freedom of expression. Although the EU did not collapse as they expected, the initial disarray gave them an opportunity to test European mechanisms and find them wanting.

Maria Dahle is chief executive of the international Human Rights House Foundation. She believes financial sanctions could be the way to stop countries from crossing the line, as Poland and Hungary have.

“When allocating funding, it should be conditional,” she said. “If [member states] do violate the rule of law, it has to have consequences … and the consequences should be around financial support.”

But Mortera-Martinez warns if the EU starts punishing countries too much financially, it will encourage anti-EU feeling which could be counter-productive, leading to election wins for populist, nationalist parties. The effect of any populist gains in the May elections concerns Kinkel, also: “What is clear is that when the populist faction grows, they have the right to have their people on certain positions on committees and so on. And this will be a problem… especially for press and media freedom,” he said.

Back at the European Parliament, Sargentini is impatient. “It’s about political will, and the EU doesn’t have it at the moment,” she said. “It’s like joining a sorority [with] very strict rules for entering, but when you are there you can misbehave and it’s covered up by the group.”

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Sally Gimson is the deputy editor of Index on Censorship magazine.

Index on Censorship’s spring 2019 issue is entitled Is this all the local news? What happens if local journalism no longer holds power to account?

Look out for the new edition in bookshops, and don’t miss our Index on Censorship podcast, with special guests, on Soundcloud.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Is this all the local news?” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2018%2F12%2Fbirth-marriage-death%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The spring 2019 issue of Index on Censorship magazine asks Is this all the local news? What happens if local journalism no longer holds power to account?

With: Libby Purves, Julie Posetti and Mark Frary[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_single_image image=”105481″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2018/12/birth-marriage-death/”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.

Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.

Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.

SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article has been updated on 18 April 2019 to reflect that the name of organisation Lutz Kinkel works for had been written incorrectly. The article read “European Centre for Press and Media Reform”, when it should have read “European Centre for Press and Media Freedom”.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]