26 Nov 20 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115664″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship has launched an interactive tool aimed at helping journalists to understand whether the legal threats or actions they are facing could be considered a Slapp action. The assessment is based on the journalist’s answer to 13 questions about their case.
“Some journalists who are facing vexatious legal threats or actions might be wary about sharing details about the case beyond their immediate circle, including with media freedom organisations, for fear it might aggravate their legal situation,” said senior policy research and advocacy officer Jessica Ní Mhainín, who has been leading Index’s Slapps work.
“This tool helps journalists to quickly and easily understand whether the threats or action they are facing might be considered a Slapp while remaining completely anonymous.”
“We hope that this tool will empower journalists to make an informed decision about what action they want to take if they are advised that they are likely to be facing a Slapp,” Ní Mhainín said. “If they are facing a potential Slapp, we would advise them to seek support. Ultimately, the best way to defeat a Slapp is to make it backfire – to refuse to be silenced.”
The launch of the tool is part of the wider #StopSlapps campaign.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_btn title=”Launch the Slapps tool” color=”danger” size=”lg” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fam-i-facing-a-slapps-lawsuit%2F”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
18 Nov 20 | News and features, Turkey
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115574″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]On 11 September, the peaceful silence of the early morning in Sürik, a tiny, unassuming village located in the barren yet beautiful mountains of Van, an eastern and mostly Kurdish populated province in Turkey, was broken by the sound of a violent explosion. The blast was so powerful that the earth shook; the adobe houses of the village rattled.
The Turkish military had been conducting operations in the region since early September, and clashes between soldiers and militants of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), an armed group which has been fighting for Kurdish independence for more than four decades, had been more frequent than usual. The villagers saw military helicopters circling the usually serene skies above Çatak.
By the time the sun had melted the previous night’s fragile frost, one of the choppers had landed in an area behind the village. They took off a while later, taking two of the villagers with them.
The two men, Osman Şiban, 50, and Server Turgut, 63, reappeared two days later, in the ward of a military hospital in Van. While these are nowhere near rare occurrences in the Turkish southeast, the country would have never heard about the horrific torture the two men went through if it wasn’t for a news report published on the day of their reappearance by Cemil Uğur, a Van-based journalist with the Mezopotamya News Agency (MA). The report claimed they were beaten and pushed off a helicopter.
The Van governor’s office denied the allegations of torture, saying the two villagers, captured as part of an operation in the region named Yıldırım-10 Norduz (after an indigenous mountain goat), ignored commands to stop.
In the following days, other reporters—Adnan Bilen, the Van bureau chief of MA, Şehriban Abi from the feminist Kurdish news agency JinNews and freelancer Nazan Sala—all known for reporting on human rights violations in Turkey’s Kurdish regions, followed the story, filling in the details, talking to the families and witnesses, gathering documents from forensic invesetigations and prosecutors.
An interview with Siban from his hospital bed by Uğur on 17 September featured a photo of Şiban, whose bloody eyes (top) left little to the imagination about the horrors the two men must have had undergone, whom the journalist talked with in his hospital bed.
On 30 September, Turgut died after days in intensive care.
Less than a week after Turgut’s death, the homes of the journalists reporting on the case were raided and, a few days later, they were arrested on charges of “membership of a terrorist organisation”.
Journalists punished for reporting the news
More details of the unspeakable torture the two men had gone through came out on 2 November, when independent lawmaker Ahmet Şik, who travelled to the region in late October, revealed the details of his investigation at a press conference in parliament.
The two men were beaten on the chopper, later, pushed off — presumably after it landed – and then beaten to near-death by 150 gendarmerie soldiers in scenes in a “state-sanctioned lynching.”
Şık’s report also detailed other ways in which the state attempted to cover up the torture of the two villagers in addition to arresting the people who reported on the case. He later told the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA),whose lawyers represent three of the imprisoned Van reporters, that the journalists, who the authorities assert were detained on the basis of an investigation launched prior to the Van incident, were clearly being punished for their reporting on the ordeal of the two villagers.
A ‘grave danger’ for all journalists
Lawyer Veysel Ok, co-director of the MLSA, notes that this punishment for reporting the news has the power to have serious repercussions for other journalists in Turkey, where 86 journalists are in prison.
He points to several alarming developments regarding the investigation into the journalists, saying, “In the journalists’ arrest order, the court accused these journalists of ‘reporting on social incidents against the state but in favour of the terrorist organisation PKK/KCK’ in order to incite agitation, and ‘making news in a continuous way, with variety and in high numbers.’”
To highlight the gravity of the possible consequences, “these journalists are all Kurdish and have been working in the region, and specifically in Van, for a very long time.”
“Their reporting has always shed light on human rights violations against Kurdish citizens in the region,” Ok said.
The arrest warrant also accuses the journalists of “criticising and harming the reputation of the anti-terrorism effort of the Republic of Turkey”. Another accusation is “identifying oneself as a journalist and making news reports for a fee without being a press card holder”.
“So the court is arguing that the four reporters are not ‘real’ journalists on the grounds that they don’t have an official press card issued by the president’s office,” Ok said. “There is not a single line in the Turkish legislation that stipulates that one needs a press card to be a journalist. Press card accreditation is necessary only for following government officials’ activities and the practice has been, as of late, to only issue them to those journalists who work for the pro-government media, so this press card mention in the warrant can have far-reaching consequences for any journalist in Turkey.”
The justifications put forth by the court are “unacceptable,” the lawyer added.
“The judiciary aims to create a chilling effect on all journalists, like the Sword of Damocles,” he said. “That’s why we find this case extremely important, care about it deeply and demand solidarity from fellow journalists, and everyone who cares about freedom of speech and not just in Turkey but all around the world.”
Ok also noted another worrying problem about the case; that the prosecutor who is conducting the investigation against the Van journalists is the same one that conducts the investigation on the lynching of the two villagers.
“The arrest decision is a very alarming one for journalism,” he said. “This is why our organisation has taken on this case. We will take this unlawful arrest first to the Constitutional Court and then to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).”
Ok said he was in Van on 27 October where he visited the four journalists in prison and noted that although they seem to be in good spirits, they also demand solidarity and support from the outside world against the injustice they are suffering for doing their jobs.
“Van is a far-off city, in the easternmost part of the country,” Ok said. “It is important that this case is not forgotten because it is not in Istanbul. These journalists have written news reports that should win an award. We will be in Van at the time of the first hearing to support these journalists and their journalism. They deserve the support of their colleagues and rights groups everywhere for bringing out the truth.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”55″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
02 Nov 20 | Belarus, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115442″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Harassment, round-ups, arrests and imprisonment have become routine for journalists working in Belarus in the nearly three months since the presidential elections on 9 August. Add to that a lack of internet access and it becomes clear that those covering the protests in the country since Alexander Lukashenko won a widely contested fifth term as president have been working in incredibly difficult conditions.
According to data from the Belarusian Association of Journalists, from 9 August to 1 November, Belarusian and foreign journalists were arrested more than 310 times just for doing their job. Of these, in more than 150 cases they spent three or more hours in police stations. In 60 cases, journalists reported that they were subject to violence in the process of their work, during and after detention, including some cases of torture.
Despite the fact that under Belarusian law journalists have a number of rights, they are not being protected from abuse, but are subject to purposeful actions by the police and special forces. When arrested, most journalists were wearing press vests,had badges and press cards.
There are no investigations into the arbitrary detention of journalists. There is not a single criminal case initiated over journalists` complaints about the violent actions of the police. Examinations of the facts in these cases by he Investigative Committee – the unified system of state law enforcement agencies are being unduly prolonged again and again without any sufficient grounds.
Thus, impunity for harassment of journalists has become normal for post-election Belarus. What is more, their professional activities relating to the coverage of protest rallies have become grounds for judicial prosecution. From the day of election to 1 November, about 60 journalists covering election-related protests were charged with alleged participation in an unsanctioned demonstration under Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences. Approximately a half of them were sentenced to jail terms from three to fifteen days and the others were fined.
Foreign journalists have also been subject to special sanctions. At least 50 foreign journalists were banned from entering Belarus after the election. According to an official statement from the State Border Committee on 18 August, , 17 foreign media workers were denied entry in Belarus “due to the lack of accreditation to carry out journalistic activities in the territory of our country.” Journalists from at least 19 foreign media outlets have been deprived of their accreditations. All who were foreign nationals have been deported from Belarus. On 2 October, the Foreign Ministry revoked all the previously issued accreditations for foreign journalists due to the adoption of a new regulation for accreditation. Thus, all of them were outlawed until they had obtained new accreditation.
On 1 November, a protest march took place from Minsk to Kurapaty, where victims of Stalin’s repressions were executed and buried. On this one day, seven journalists working there were arrested, two of them were beaten up, and four were left in jail pending trial.
Media outlets are being targeted too with access to independent sources of information deliberately restricted by the government. In late August, the Ministry of Information ruled to block more than 70 news websites and websites of civil society organisations. After the election, state-owned printing houses refused to print some influential independent newspapers – Narodnaya Volya, Komsomolskaya Pravda in Belarus, Svobodnye Novosti Plus, and Belgazeta – on flimsy or no grounds at all. . When two of the newspapers printed their issues abroad, the state post service Belposhta and monopolist newsstand chain Belsayuzdruk made it impossible for them to distribute them.
Despite this, the media continue to do their job: blocked websites disseminate information through “mirrors”, Telegram channels and social networks; print newspapers are distributed by volunteers; journalists support each other.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You might also like to read” category_id=”172″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
30 Oct 20 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Donald Trump taking questions at a press conference on Covid-19. Credit: WikiCommons
By this time next week, we will hopefully (subject to the courts, likely delays and the impact of Covid) know who the future leader of the USA will be. In an election that feels like it has been raging from the moment that Donald J Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States, it will be a relief when it is finally over.
But we need to look beyond the campaign hype and explore the longer term impact of the relationship between the White House and the media, which has become a little fraught to say the least.
According to the US Press Freedom Tracker, Trump has undermined and attacked the media a total of 2434 times since he was confirmed as the Republican candidate in 2016. Indeed within just days of taking office, he took the opportunity to label journalists “the enemy of the American People” in words that many saw as echoing those of Stalin and the Nazis, as the great granddaughter of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev wrote in Index on Censorship magazine at the time.
For a country built on the premise of a free press and with free speech enshrined in law it’s an appalling indictment of the current state of acceptable political discourse in the USA.
The First Amendment is one of the most revered and easily understood of all the additions to the US Constitution. At its heart is the idea that each and every US citizen has an inalienable right to their own freedom of speech and assembly. But it also confers the absolute protection for the press to report freely and as they see fit. It reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Of course when the Founding Fathers drafted this no one could have envisaged the role of social media and how, a president with a gripe, could use it to undermine the press and deliberately seek to use his power to target journalists who report on his activities in a way he does not agree with.
Ahead of the final presidential debate, Trump took to Twitter to denounce the moderator and renowned journalist Kristen Welker as “terrible & unfair, just like most of the Fake News reporters”.
Trump said to Jeff Mason, the highly respected Reuters journalist, on a visit to Arizona, “Let me tell you something: Joe Biden is a criminal, and he’s been a criminal for a long time. … And you’re a criminal, and the media, for not reporting it.”
Trump has declared that on 3 November “We’re not just running against Joe Biden. We’re running against the left-wing media…”
Trump is, of course, entitled to use his freedom of speech to criticise the press. But he has taken this a step beyond normal criticism of the media. From early in to his administration news organisations whose editorial line might not be favourable towards Trump have been barred from press briefings. And these interferences in normal due process have only accelerated, especially during the current pandemic, as our Covid media tracker highlights.
A malevolence has seeped into presidential communications that seeks to undermine and delegitimise reporters who produce editorial content that does not fit the White House narrative. And as we head to the election, it seems that the Trump administration increasingly wants to take aim at the First Amendment and double down on their attacks on the free press.
This month, in an unprecedented move, the head of the US Agency for Global Media (a Trump appointment) has scrapped the ‘firewall’ that protected the editorial freedoms of Voice of America and other broadcasting agencies that receive public funding. The repeal memo claimed that the firewall was in conflict with the agency’s purpose to promote the interests of American overseas. Michael Pack, the CEO of the IS Agency, claimed that the agency “do not function as a traditional news or media agency and were never intended to do so.” He added: “For example, the Networks are to articulate the American perspective while countering international views that undermine American values and freedom, or that might aid our enemies’ messaging.”
The Agency for Global Media runs Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia. Both are intended to provide independent news to audiences in countries where media freedoms are curtailed and yet now they may be used to produce nothing more than partisan propaganda for whoever wins the White House next week.
And as Index reported earlier this week, plans to change the I visa terms for foreign journalists operating in the USA have been suggested. If passed, these plans would represent a serious setback to media freedom.
None of this is even vaguely in keeping with the spirit of the First Amendment. It does little to support and promote the USA’s place in the world. Instead it undermines global free speech and as such shouldn’t be ignored by the wider global family.
On Tuesday we will hopefully find out what the USA’s long term priorities are. Be assured that we will be shining a light on whoever wins if they fail to protect our global freedom of speech and if they fail to promote and protect the media.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You might also like to read” category_id=”41669″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
