Committee: United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF)
Topic B: Censorship and the Legal Capacity of the Media
In 2009, the world witnessed a media driven protest nobody thought to be possible. The Iranian people were protesting in the streets, standing up to the autocratic ruling class, with their Green Revolution. True, the protests failed to overthrow the clerical regime. However, they demonstrated the potential of social networking and internet media to spread news, organize, and disrupt authoritarian regimes. The Iranian government’s ability to hold on to power perhaps indicated a limit to the power of social media. Yet, as 2011 came along, the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia sparked a wave of Middle East revolutions the region has never seen before. Dictators such as Mubarak in Egypt, Saleh in Yemen, Asad in Syria, Ben Ali in Tunisia, and Gaddhafi in Libya all came under enormous pressure through popular movements spurred on by social media. In particular, the overthrow of Mubarak indicated the insecurity of dictators all around the world, as Mubarak was a US supported dictator who had held power for over thirty years. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton affirmed “The internet and the new electronic media are really the town square of the 21st century, a place for people to communicate with each other within a society freely and openly and to communicate across borders.” (Defending Press Freedom in the 21st century) The last few years poses the question: are we seeing an end to outright authoritarian rule? The question is obviously premature, as billions of people still live without basic freedom and human rights. The freeing power of social media and improved communication technology has forced authoritarian governments to tightly restrict internet and television access. Activists, online bloggers, and news reporters have been intimidated, incarcerated, and in rare instances physically harmed or killed by authoritarian regimes desperate to limit the power of media.
Now more than ever, the debate on media censorship is vitally important. The United Nations and many Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) are committed to the continued open access of all people to media and the freedom of the press. A free and independent media is thought to be a pre-requisite for any sustainable democratic society. While problems concerning freedom of the press are primarily in authoritarian states, developed democratic states still have room for improvement. There are a wide variety of threats to freedom of the press: suppression of journalists (either through exclusion, intimidation, or physical harm), internet and television restrictions, and extensive propaganda networks.
According to the Center for International Media Assistance, media suppression is becoming more severe. Already in 2011, sixteen journalists have been killed. Over the last twenty years, 545 journalists have been killed in action, indicating a substantial danger to international new media. If reporters are not secure, the world will not get appropriate news coverage. The sexual assault of Lara Logan, a CBS reporter, further highlights the need for reporter protection. (Press Freedom in the 21st Century) This year alone in the Middle East, 450 journalists have been assaulted, and at the end of last year, there were 145 journalists in prison, and there are more than 4,000 journalists in the last several years who've had lawsuits brought against them by governments who don't like the fact that they're telling the truth.
Furthermore, authoritarian regimes are taking more sophisticated and oppressive measures to limit media. Governments are shutting down all sorts of independent media, only using state run operations for news. The usage of state run media is not a novel idea; in fact, it has been used for centuries. Nazi Germany, Pravda in Communist Russia, and more recently, Communist China, all used state-run media to control the message people receive. China is the current model for centralized control of the media, which rarely criticizes Chinese ruling authority and silences any instances of activism. Recently, Beijing’s grasp on public dissent tightened after overseas Chinese websites spread calls for protests across China after the wave of revolutions in the Middle East. (Media memorializing) Although the Chinese and Middle Eastern states have very little in common, they do share a fear of a free and independent media challenging authoritarian rule. Restriction to internet access has become a popular tool of suppression, as seen in Iran during the 2009 protests, Egypt in 2011, and very commonly in China. Again, China serves as the prime example of internet suppression, as it greatly restricts access to websites that even allude to democracy and freedom. (Media memorializing) Social media sites like Twitter and Facebook have been given substantial credit for organizing citizens against oppressive regimes, particularly with the recent wave of revolutions in the Middle East. The sites represent an empowerment of the individual, and the communication technologies allow individuals to form associations to challenge authority.
Censorship is not only in authoritarian regimes, but in democratic states and institutions as well. Media censorship takes a different form in the United States, largely based on debates of morality and political correctness. In this case, freedom of expression is questioned as having, at least in some cases, a detrimental effect on society as a whole. For instance, Congress has debated whether exposure to violent or overly sexual images can affect children. The Federal Communications Committee (FCC) handles all issues of censorship in the United States media, hoping to deter offensive or derogatory actions and images. Yet, censorship in the United States is not always in the name of morality, but in some cases is posed under the guise of national security. Even states that are considered to have media freedom still have some violations. For instance, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a memo to high ranking military personnel about restricting media contacts to the military. (Reporter without borders: United States) In the wake of the Wikileak scandal, Secretary Gates declared, “Leaking of classified information is against the law, cannot be tolerated and will, when proven, lead to the prosecution of those found to be engaged in such activity” and even leaking “sensitive” material that is not classified can still be met with sanctions. The idea of keeping classified material secret is understandable; however, the description of material as “sensitive” is too ambigious and open to a lack of accountability. The United States does not oppress or intimidate reporters, but they will practise exclusion. For instance, four reporters were barred from covering trials at the US military base in Guantanamo Bay. (Reporters without borders: United States) The issue of national security versus freedom of the press is a delicate one; however, it is clear that there needs to be at least a certain level of transparency between the media and Pentagon.
Other examples can be seen in Europe and the United Nations. In the United Kingdom, Lord Alan Sugar was ordered to remove a Tweet from his Twitter page. The Tweet indicated Sugar’s belief that a highly politicized case surrounding a Tory politician would result in a lenient ruling. The government believed the comment could potentially influence a juror, therefore must be removed. Many worry that this case is a sign of future Twitter and other social media censorship by governments. Turkey, a country that has been trying to joing the European Union (EU) for decades, has been very restrictive with media censorship. The country is controlled by the conservative Justice and Democratic Party, which plans to require all Turkish computer users to choose among four internet filters: family, children, domestic, and standard. Internet service providers are being ordered to ban a list of keywords, including the Arabic words for skirt, sister-in-law, and animals. Also, Turkish authorities can imprison journalists for up to three years before trial, with one journalist receiving a sentence of 166 years. This overly repressive meaure is meant to force the Turkish media into self-censoring. (The Nation) It can be said that Turkey’s “democracy” is slipping into more of an autocracy, with media supression as a key indicator. Additionally, the United Nations Council on Human Rights has espoused a belief in censorship in order to not offend people’s religious sensibilities. Pakistan, on behalf of Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), submitted a resolution condeming the “defamation of religions,” which was subsequently passed by the Council on Human Rights.(Resolution on Blashphemy) The resolution cites the 2007 depiction of Muhhamed in a Danish newspaper that incited Islamic violence. Reporters without Borders believes, “This is a dangerous process that needs to be stopped. Respect for freedom of expression is as fundamental as respect for religious freedom. One cannot exist without the other.” (Resolution on blasphemy)
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) play an extremely important role in bringing media suppression to the spotlight. In particular, Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House are the two most prominent. Both organizations create an index measuring the amount of media freedom countries have. Freedom House is an American organization created in New York City in 1941. Originally, Freedom House battled the spread of Nazism and then Communism around the world. By the 1970’s, Freedom House became concerned with the erosion of freedom in many parts of the developing world. It has a general scope towards freedom; the Freedom House Index measures numerous indicators of freedom, such as religion, economics, and media. Since 1980, Freedom House has been at the forefront of monitoring threats to media independence. (Freedom House: A history) According to Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press Index, after two decades of progress, press freedom is now in decline in almost every part of the world. Only 17 percent of the world's citizens live enjoy a free press. (Freedom House Press Freedom Index) States are divided into three categories: free, partially free, and not free.
Freedom House has the United States rated 20th in the world in press freedom, with the Scandanavian countries coming in the first three spots. Some criticize Freedom House for having an overly pro-American stance, at times unwilling to call out some of America’s transgressions. Reporters without Borders, on the other hand, is an international organization that is entirely devoted to the protection of reporters and freedom of the media. Reporters without Borders is present in all five continents through its national branches (in Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland), its offices in London, New York and Washington, and the more than 140 correspondents it has in other countries. (Freedom of Press) Like Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders keeps a Press Freedom Index measuring, as its name implies, press freedom. To compile this index, Reporters without Borders prepared a questionnaire with 43 criteria that assess the state of press freedom in each country. It includes every kind of violation directly affecting journalists (such as murders, imprisonment, physical attacks and threats) and news media (censorship, confiscation of newspaper issues, searches and harassment). And it includes the degree of impunity enjoyed by those responsible for these press freedom violations. (Freedom of Press) The measurement also includes factors such as self-censorship due to fear or financial distress. They have a more specific grading scale, as countries can have good situations, satisfactory situations, noticeable problems, difficult situations, and very serious situations. Reporters without Borders is significantly more critical of the media in western countries, with most of western Europe and North America considered as having a satisfactory situation instead of a good one.
The United Nations is in opposition to the restriction of information and communication technologies, in particular in the developing world. The General Assembly recognizes “the gap in the information and communication technologies between the developed and the developing countries has continued to widen and that vast segments of the population in developing countries are not benefiting from the present information and technology revolution.” (A/RES/58/101 A-B) Along with the obvious political benefits from increased access to the internet and other communication technologies, the General Assembly believes “developments in the information and communication technology revolution open vast new opportunities for economic growth and social development and can play an important role in the eradication of poverty in developing countries.” (A/RES/58/101 A-B) The United Nations stands against authoritarian regimes using media censorship, in particular the restriction of internet and telecommunication access, and intimidation of journalists and other media outlets.
In today’s highly globalized world, media censorship is becoming a near impossibility. Recent political developments in the under-developed world lend credence to the idea of the erosion of authoritarian power through media openness. However, measures taken to limit these developments are often extreme, as Authoritarian governments can restrict internet access, intimidate and imprison reporters and online bloggers, and other repressive measures. Media censorship in the developed world differs from authoritarian states.
Questions
What is the utility of a free media in the protection of democracy? How does social media fit into this subject?
What should be done about the authoritarian backlash against social movements stemming from social media? Should the United Nations take a more proactive role in protecting journalists and activists?
What argument can authoritarian states make for media censorship?
How does media censorship differ between the developed, democratic world versus under-developed authoritarian states? Is there a distinction to be made?
Works Cited
Reporters without Borders. “Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2010: How the index was compiled.” October 20, 2010. Paris
Reporters without Borders. “World Report: United States.” http://en.rsf.org/report-united-states,176.html
Freedom House. “Freedom of the Press.” http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16
”Defending Press Freedom in the 21st Century" as Part of World Press Freedom Day. (2011, May). State Department Documents
Reporters without Borders. “Human Rights Council Resolution on Blasphemy.” March 29, 2010. http://en.rsf.org/human-rights-council-resolution-on-29-03-2010,36856.html
Pollak, Richard. “In Turkey, Media Censorship is Rampant and the Internet isn’t Free.” The Nation. May 24, 2011
Thierer, Adam. “Censoring Violence in the Media.” Cato Institute. www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11487
Freedom House. “Freedom House: A history.” http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=249
General Assembly Resolution 58/101 A-B. www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-58-101
“Media memorializing Sichuan earthquake censored.” www.cpj.org/2011/05/media-memorializing-sichuan-earthquake-harassed-ce.php