Copyright: Zselosz in Flickr. Some rights reserved

Sándor Orbán, the director of the South East European Network for Professionalisation of Media, reports for Index on Censorship on the raft of new laws passed by the ruling Fidesz party and the threat to democracy and media freedom.

The new constitution put an end to liberal democracy in Hungary. It was pushed through the parliament without any public discussion by a populist prime minister, who used his party’s super-majority to rush the legislation, passed in only few weeks last spring.

Hundreds of controversial new laws — including the ones on media — have been passed since the Hungarian Civic Union, Fidesz, came to power in 2010. Their election has led to the elimination of many of the checks and balances in the democratic system.

See the full post on Index at this link.

See Journalism.co.uk’s full coverage of Hungary’s controversial media law reform at this link.

• Index on Censorship: Conservatives pledge support to libel reform campaign
• Leaked US military video boosts donations to Wikileaks
• Journalism in Africa: New media laws force journalists to pay ‘registration fees’
• Press Gazette: Libel reform and FOI on LibCon agenda
• Media release: NUJ wants Scottish government inquiry into future of media

Two years ago today 30 journalists and two support workers were killed in the Philippines in the “Maguindanao Massacre”, and what Index on Censorship has described as the “single deadliest event for the media”.

Today, 23 November, also marked the inaugural International Day to End Impunity; last year a Global Day of Action was held to mark the first anniversary of the massacre.

Index on Censorship, Article 19, the Committee to Protect Journalists and English PEN have joined forces with several freedom of expression pressure groups around the world to call for demanding justice for journalists’ murdered in the line of duty.

In a post, Index on Censorship said:

In the past 10 years, more than 500 journalists have been killed. In nine out of 10 cases, the murderers have gone free. Many others targeted for exercising their right to freedom of expression — artists, writers, musicians, activists — join their ranks.

On this day two years ago the single deadliest event for the media took place when 30 journalists and two support workers were brutally killed in Ampatuan, Maguindanao province, The Philippines. The journalists were part of a convoy accompanying supporters of a local politician filing candidacy papers for provincial governor. In total the “Maguindanao Massacre” as it has come to be known, claimed 58 victims. Not one of more than a hundred individuals suspected of involvement in the atrocity has been convicted yet.

We join those in the Philippines not only in honouring their slain colleagues, friends and family members, but demanding justice for them and hundreds more in Russia, Belarus, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Mexico, Colombia, Iraq and Somalia and other countries where killings of journalists and free expression activists have repeatedly gone unpunished. Above all we demand an end to the cycle violence and impunity.

• Index: Take action to end impunity
• AIUK: 100 days since ‘bloodiest ever slaughter of journalists’
• Maguindanao massacre anniversary: tracking the Global Day of Action
• CPJ: Maguindanao death toll worst for press in recent history
• Index on Censorship names John Kampfner as chief exec

This coming 23 November will be the second anniversary of the 2009 Maguindanao Massacre in the Phillippines, in which 34 journalists were murdered during election related violence in the country.

Last year, on the first anniversary, there was a “global day of action” to commemorate the killings.

This year, the second anniversary will also be the inaugural Day to End Impunity, organised by the International Freedom of Expression Exchange.

Index on Censorship is marking the event by revealing on each of the 23 days of November leading up to it the story of a journalist, writer or free expression advocate who was killed in the line of duty and whose case remains unsolved.

Read the first nine:

1 November: Mohammad Ismail
2 November: José Bladimir Antuna Garcían
3 November: Abdul Razzak Johra
4 November: Laurent Bisset
5 November: Carlos Alberto Guajardo Romero
6 November: Wadallah Sarhan
7 November: Ahmed Hussein al-Maliki
8 November: Francisco Castro Menco
9 November: Dilip Mohapatra

Visit Index’s Take Action to End Impunity site at this link.

• Two-year anniversary of massacre of 30 journalists in Philippines
• Index on Censorship: Russian journalist defeats libel claim
• Foreign Policy: One year on, Oleg Kashin is still waiting for justice
• BBC and CPJ: Mexican journalist, wife and son shot dead
• Maguindanao massacre anniversary: tracking the Global Day of Action

I think (although this post may lead to me being quickly proved wrong) that I have been pretty careful and accurate in my reporting of various different injunction stories of late. This is largely thanks to my former colleague and media law blogger Judith Townend, whose exasperation with the media bandying around the term “superinjunction” I have seen first hand.

Not everybody has been cautious, and the term superinjunction seems to have been applied left, right and centre to celebrity injunctions. The fact that Ryan Giggs never obtained a superinjunction, and that there have only been two new superinjunctions in the past year — one lasting seven days and the other overturned on appeal – are two of ten lessons taken away from the whole affair by Kingston University journalism lecturer Brian Cathcart, who writes today on Index on Censorship.

The other eight include these gems:

There appear to be 75,000 British Twitter users who are ready, with the right tabloid encouragement, to participate in the “naming and shaming” (or pillorying) of adulterers.

When it suits them, the tabloids also blithely set aside their usual view that online social networking is an evil invention that causes crime, suicide, binge drinking, obesity, terrorism and cancer.

See his full list on Index on Censorship at this link.

• BBC: Take That star Howard Donald’s superinjunction lifted
• Index on Censorship names John Kampfner as chief exec
• Index: Due process, prejudice and the press in case of Chris Jefferies
• Index on Censorship: Simon Singh wins leave to appeal in BCA libel case
• Free Speech blog: What the UK government’s cuts mean for British journalism?

The UK media has come in for a fair amount of criticism over the past few days for its coverage of Chris Jefferies, who was arrested on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates but later released without charge.

In a post for Index on Censorship, published yesterday, Kingston University journalism professor Brian Cathcart analyses the deficiencies of England’s contempt of court laws that allow news organisations to go unpunished for what he calls the “monstering” of suspects.

Sometimes, as in the case of Jefferies, the attorney general publicly draws editors’ attention to the Contempt of Court Act of 1981, but it never makes any difference. They know and he knows that that law, supposedly intended to protect juries from improper influence, contains a loophole big enough to render it meaningless.

To convict a paper of contempt in such a case the Crown would have to prove there had been a “substantial” risk of “serious” prejudice. This, successive attorneys general have decided, is both unmeasurable and unprovable, which means it is also unenforceable. It follows that reporting of suspects around the time of arrest is unfettered.

Full post on Index on Censorship at this link.

Related content elsewhere

David Banksy: Molecular chemistry, contempt of court and the reporting of the Joanna Yeates case

Inforrm blog: Media responsibility and Chris Jefferies

Timothy J. Moore: The lost honour of Chris Jefferies

• Brian Cathcart: Sun and Mirror contempt case may make editors think twice
• Greenslade: Six newspapers sued for libel by Christopher Jefferies
• Jo Yeates’ landlord: media responsible for ‘extraordinary tissue of fabrications’
• Steven Morris: How I tweeted the Vincent Tabak trial
• Reporting restrictions: who can access them?

At the end of last week, news broke that think-tank MigrationWatch had threatened political commentator Sally Bercow with libel action following comments she made on Sky News in August about a Daily Express story on migration.

Her comments reportedly included reference to what she perceived as the oversimplification of arguments made in the article, which included statistics from MigrationWatch, adding that the story was “fairly dangerous propaganda”, based on case documents posted by author Richard Wilson on his blog.

According to a release from the Libel Reform Campaign, Bercow, who is the wife of House of Commons speaker John Bercow, received a letter from MigrationWatch’s chairman Sir Andrew Green’s solicitors demanding an apology and legal costs as a result of her comments.

Yesterday lawyer David Allen Green announced on his ‘Jack of Kent’ blog that he had been instructed to act in Bercow’s defence to any libel action. Discussing the context of the case he said the current state of free expression is “depressing”.

But our ‘banning’ culture in respect of free expression is not inevitable and can be reversed; there is no good reason why the first reaction of so many people to unwelcome statements is to get the law involved, and then there is no good reason for so many police officers, judges, and officials to allow them to do so.

(…) Sally Bercow could have just quietly apologised, perhaps with the pre-prepared humble apology which was attached to the threatening letter. But she chose not to do so. She has chosen instead to make a stand for her right as a political commentator to respond to news stories in the way she did. She wants to show how threats like this to political commentators – and also journalists – support the need for libel reform.

The case has also been highlighted by the Libel Reform Campaign as what they claim is “proof” of the need for defamation law reform. A new defamation bill is already expected to be drafted in 2011 by the government. Jo Glanville, editor of the Index on Censorship added:

MigrationWatch should not be using our libel laws to silence criticism of their approach over immigration. Sally Bercow now faces the same ordeal as Simon Singh with potentially bankrupting costs, years of her life wasted in Court, all for expressing an opinion. It really presses home just how important the coalition’s pledge of a libel reform bill is.

MigrationWatch had no further comment to make at this time.

• Journalism.co.uk backs Libel Reform Campaign
• William Bennett on libel reform: ‘The real crux of the problem is not the law but the excessive costs of deploying it’
• Index on Censorship: Conservatives pledge support to libel reform campaign
• Simon Singh goes to Court of Appeal
• Jack of Kent: Could Lester’s libel reform bill fail to launch?

Index on Censorship is to host a debate on the internet and free speech at the Free Word Centre in London, tonight [12 May] at 6.30 pm.

It will feature:

• Richard Allan, director of policy EU, Facebook

• Anthony House, European policy and communications manager, Google

• Gus Hosein, policy director, Privacy International

If like Journalism.co.uk, you’ve been increasingly alarmed by social network tactics that threaten journalists’ safety and confidentiality, you might like to submit a question to be asked at the event, at this link: ‘Put your questions to Facebook and Google – We ask is the internet safe for free speech?’

Background:

• #snprivacy: Journalists’ privacy plea to social networks
• How social networks are using your email address book data – and what it means for journalists

• #snprivacy: Journalists’ privacy plea to social networks
• Max Clifford and Phil Hall to appear before privacy committee
• TechCrunch: Google Realtime Search adds Facebook
• Will Google use email contact lists to build a new social network?
• CNET: Facebook and Google still not ready to connect friends

As reported on our main site, Simon Singh has successfully appealed the initial ruling on meaning of his Guardian article about the British Chiropractic Association, in the Royal Courts of Justice today. The new ruling determines that Singh can defend his writing as “fair comment” – rather than having to justify it as fact.

Via Index on Censorship, we’ve got the judgement in full (albeit a little wonky). We’ve embedded it on Scribd – see below:

Singh Judgement 1 April 2010 – Court of Appeal

• Simon Singh update: senior judge baffled by ‘artificiality’ of case
• #Singhbca: What will the British Chiropractic Association do next?
• Simon Singh goes to Court of Appeal
• Index on Censorship: Simon Singh wins leave to appeal in BCA libel case
• #SinghBCA: BCA speaks – why the ‘time is right’ to drop libel case against Simon Singh

Journalism.co.uk has pledged its support to the Libel Reform Campaign, run by Index on Censorship, Sense About Science and English PEN to overhaul current legislation, bringing in a new bill that caps libel case fees for lawyers and addresses the impact of online publishing on libel.

Freedom to criticise and question, in strong terms and without malice, is the cornerstone of argument and debate, whether in scholarly journals, on websites, in newspapers or elsewhere. Our current libel laws inhibit debate and stifle free expression. They discourage writers from tackling important subjects and thereby deny us the right to read about them.

Our pledge:

As a small, online publisher, we are acutely aware of the ‘chilling effect’ that current libel legislation and the excessive cost of libel trials in the UK can have on freedom of expression and journalism. We support the Libel Reform Campaign and the changes it proposes, which advocate journalists’ right to criticise and question those in power and positions of influence.

The petition can be signed at this link.

Some of the listed supporters:

• Index on Censorship: Conservatives pledge support to libel reform campaign
• Press Gazette: Libel reform and FOI on LibCon agenda
• Jack of Kent: Could Lester’s libel reform bill fail to launch?
• William Bennett on libel reform: ‘The real crux of the problem is not the law but the excessive costs of deploying it’
• Shadow justice minister says libel reform issue would be a ‘priority’ for a Tory government

The Libel Reform campaign, a coalition of Sense About Science, Index on Censorship and English PEN, yesterday said it had one major political party left to get on side: the Conservatives.

But following justice minister Jack Straw’s pledge of Labour support in parliament yesterday, Henry Bellingham, the Conservative shadow justice minister, said that if his party formed the next government they would give the issue priority – with a draft Bill by the end of 2010, according to the latest email update from the campaign.

“He indicated that the Law Commission would be asked to report urgently on necessary. The commitment to legislation from Bellingham is a major milestone,” the campaign’s organisers reported today.

Left: Jack Straw speaking to campaigners in Parliament yesterday (English PEN on Flickr).

Disclaimer: Journalism.co.uk has pledged its support to the Libel Reform campaign.

• Index on Censorship: Conservatives pledge support to libel reform campaign
• Press Gazette: Libel reform and FOI on LibCon agenda
• Journalism.co.uk backs Libel Reform Campaign
• William Bennett on libel reform: ‘The real crux of the problem is not the law but the excessive costs of deploying it’
• Evan Harris MP: ‘Missing ingredient’ in Jack Straw’s libel reform support

Al Jazeera English’s Listening Post has an excellent film about the new Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI) proposal, which, if successful, could make Iceland an investigative journalism haven.

• Read more about IMMI here: http://immi.is/?l=en: “The goal of the IMMI proposal is to task the government with finding ways to strengthen freedom of expression around world and in Iceland, as well as providing strong protections for sources and whistleblowers. To this end the legal environment should be explored in such a way that the goals can be defined, and changes to law or new law proposals can be prepared. The legal environments of other countries should be considered, with the purpose of assembling the best laws to make Iceland a leader of freedoms of expression and information.”

• Wikileaks.org, which helped draft the law, also has more information here (its site currently has restricted content, as it prepares for relaunch and seeks more funds).

In the Listening Post film, which also features Index on Censorship news editor Padraig Reidy, Wikileaks’ editor Julian Assange explains IMMI’s limits as well as its potential: “It’s important to remember that the IMMI appears to be a good bullet, but it’s not a magic bullet, so there will be many cases where there is brutal suppression of the press that IMMI doesn’t have substantial effect on.”

IMMI’s proponents hope new legislation will help change tough libel laws around the world, with a “ripple effect” in the EU and beyond.

• BBC News: Wikileaks and Icelandic MPs propose ‘haven’ for investigative journalism
• WikiLeaks proposal for ‘new media haven’ passed by Icelandic parliament
• AFP: WikiLeaks registers business in Iceland
• Nieman Journalism Lab: Iceland’s journalism haven proposal passes first stage
• True/Slant: How WikiLeaks protects itself

The UK Court of Appeal’s decision to release material detailing the torture of Binyam Mohamed in secret jails is “undoubtedly an embarrassment for David Miliband, the Foreign Office and the government,” says Index on Censorship news editor, Padraig Reidy.

The redacted evidence, itself a mere seven paragraphs, revealed reports that Mohamed, who has never been charged with any terror offence, was shackled during interrogation, subjected to sleep deprivation and suffered severe mental stress.

Full post at this link…

• Keep calm the NUJ says, with its new anti-stress campaign
• Shortlist announced for Mind Journalist of the Year 2010
• Editors Weblog: Same ethical dilemma, two different responses
• CPJ: 141 attacks on journalists and news facilities in Egypt since 30 Jan
• ‘I knew they’d never get the lid back on’: Tom Watson talks to the Guardian about phone hacking

As noted here earlier this week, blogger Joseph Weissman has been reported to the police for ‘harassment’, after maintaining a website dedicated to scrutinising a Church of England vicar.

Rev Stephen Sizer, of the parish of Virginia Water, lodged a complaint about the site and its author was visited by the West Yorkshire police. The police report states that officers “had a word”, and as a result Weissman “voluntarily removed the blog concerned”.

Rev Sizer is a well-known, published critic of the State of Israel and of “Christian Zionism”. There are legal, religious and political aspects to the story; and related posts are being summarised and collated at Modernity Blog.

This is the short police statement given to Index on Censorship:

As a result of a report of harassment, which was referred to us by Surrey Police, two officers from West Yorkshire Police visited the author of the blog concerned. The feelings of the complainant were relayed to the author who voluntarily removed the blog. No formal action was taken.

Harassment is defined in English Law by the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act :

Harassment of a person includes causing the person alarm or distress; and a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

In a case of ‘harassment via Facebook’ two years ago, Michael Hurst was brought to trial for allegedly contacting his ex-girlfriend Sophie Sladden online, but he was cleared by Magistrates in Birmingham after the prosecution failed to prove the charge.

The definition of harassment above is deliberately wide-ranging, as it was introduced with the main aim of facilitating action in cases of domestic harassment. Is this law being used appropriately?

For the media and for bloggers, a harassment complaint in circumstances where there has been no documented physical threat or alleged ‘stalking’ incident is worrying.

The police have approached the Weissman’s university and spoken to the head of ICT.

Weissman deleted his website without any formal charges being brought, an action which a professional journalist may not have taken without at least obtaining legal advice. As non-professional and independent reporters develop a more significant place in the media, how do we ensure that their position is not compromised, and what responsibilities should they take on in return?

And, finally, is this an acceptable application of the 1997 Harassment Act?

• dot.Rory: ‘When blogging meets policing’
• NUJ speaks out against Met Police ‘heavy-handedness’ at Greek Embassy Protests
• NUJ Release: Journalists thank the people of West Yorkshire
• BBC News controller defends interview with wheelchair-using protester Jody McIntyre
• MEN journalists respond to news of arrested photographer

Index on Censorship’s 10th Freedom of Expression Awards are still open for nominations.

There are three categories: ‘Journalism’, ‘New Media’ and ‘Law and Campaigning’, honouring the ‘individuals who are leading the fight against censorship in all corners of the world’.

JOURNALISM AWARD: Recognising investigative journalism of dogged determination across a range of media including print, online, radio and television, taking into consideration impact, originality and revelation.

NEW MEDIA AWARD: Recognising innovation and original use of new technology to circumvent censorship, fostering debate, argument or dissent.

LAW AND CAMPAIGN AWARD: Recognising lawyers or campaigners who have fought repression, or have struggled to challenge political climates and perceptions. Special attention is given to people using or establishing legal precedents to fight injustice.

The nominations must be submitted at this link by 18 December.

The award winners will be announced in March 2010.

• Journalism.co.uk backs Libel Reform Campaign
• Shadow justice minister says libel reform issue would be a ‘priority’ for a Tory government
• Media Release: Nominees announced for Concentra Award 2009
• BBC’s Nick Robinson admits he toed government line on Iraq too strongly
• #ge2010 Who do you think were the journalism winners?

The Sunday Times yesterday reported that Jack Straw is to ‘draw up proposals’ for ‘wholesale reform’ of British libel laws.

“The justice secretary says the large legal fees involved in defamation cases in English courts are jeopardising freedom of speech, potentially curbing vital debate by scientists, academics and journalists.

“The huge payouts awarded to individuals who successfully claim their reputation has been damaged has made London the libel capital of the world”

According to the Sunday Times, Straw was ‘impressed’ by the Index on Censorship / English PEN’s year-long inquiry into the state of British libel.

“The proposed changes are still under discussion, but Straw is keen to begin the process, which could involve a new libel bill, as soon as possible.”

Full story at this link…

• Telegraph: Cap lawyers’ success fees in libel cases at 10 per cent, says Jack Straw
• Video: Simon Singh on libel tourism and the ‘chilling effect’ on science journalism
• Index on Censorship: Conservatives pledge support to libel reform campaign
• Shadow justice minister says libel reform issue would be a ‘priority’ for a Tory government
• Press Gazette: Libel reform and FOI on LibCon agenda