The price of protection

The price of source protection — a key tenet of a free, open press — is now approximately £43,000.

That is the cost Ian Paisley Junior will have to shoulder after being fined in Belfast High Court on 30 June for failing to disclose the identity of a source.

The source in question was a prison officer who Paisley Junior alleges told him that files relating to the 1997 murder of loyalist leader Billy Wright in the Maze prison had been destroyed.

At present, a public investigation, the Billy Wright Inquiry, is seeking all documentation and source material that may be related to the controversial killing inside a supposed top security prison.

From the outset Paisley Junior told the inquiry that he could not betray the source of his information and would rather go to prison than hand over the officer’s name.

The son of the Rev Ian Paisley lost his case on Tuesday and as a result was fined £5,000. The extra £38,000 is the legal costs he must pay for both the Crown’s and his own defence.

Although it has received less publicity than the case of Sunday Tribune journalist Suzanne Breen a fortnight ago, the Paisley Junior case is important for all of those who think the flow of information from anonymous sources is important in a free society. Breen won her battle to not hand over material related to interviews she conducted with the Real IRA on the grounds that her life could have been put in danger. Paisley Junior, while not under any physical threat, saw it as a matter of honour that he would keep his word and protect the identity of someone in the prison service whose exposure could have had serious consequences for his or her career.

The controversy also raises an important point about the role of public inquiries and the danger of them turning into inquisitors. Several journalists have come under pressure from inquiries such as the Bloody Sunday tribunal to reveal sources that preferred to remain anonymous. The argument from these reporters is essentially the same one as Paisley Junior mounted regarding the Bill Wright Inquiry — that to reveal the identities of sources is a betrayal of them and the slippery slope towards scaring off whistleblowers coming forward with information the public has a right to know.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Italian journalists speak out against wiretapping law

On 13 June, a draft law limiting journalists’ ability to provide the public with vital information was passed in the lower house of the Italian parliament and now awaits the senate’s approval. Unions representing lawyers, journalists and editors have all expressed their firm opposition, organising a series of events, including a conference last week and another planned for tomorrow in Rome, and promoting a petition to stop the law, which has 260,000 signatories –– and counting.

In recent years, the Italian press has published transcripts of private conversations obtained through wiretapping. Some of these transcripts were relevant to ongoing trials; others were not. Both exposed left and right-wing politicians alike to public anger and sometimes embarrassment. To gain popular support, the government is arguing that the exceptionally high number of tapped phone lines (estimated to be around 300,000) justifies their plan to fast-track the law through parliament. Two years ago, the Prodi government unsuccessfully tried to pass a similar law.

Among the restrictions outlined in the draft is a provision making it illegal for journalists and editors to publish information about a trial (on wiretaps or anything else) until the preliminary investigations are over, even if these documents are already in the public domain. Punishment can be up to 30 days in jail, plus a €10, 000 fine for journalists and €465,000 fine for editors. “This implies censorship of news that could be very relevant to most citizens. For example, under the new law, the press would not have been able to report on the Parmalat scandal for many years,” said Franco Siddi, general secretary of the Italian Press Federation (FNSI). Similar concerns were expressed by both the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) and the International Press Institute (IPI).

In addition, the new law will make it illegal to publish extracts from wiretaps not relevant to trials. For journalists, this could lead to the maximum sentence of three years in prison.

Under the new law, prosecutors will only be allowed to wiretap individuals for a maximum of 30 days. They can do so only if they have strong criminal evidence, and only when the maximum punishment for the alleged crime exceeds five years in prison. These evidence requirements are less strict when the alleged crime involves organised crime or terrorism. “Theoretically we can still perform investigations on criminal organisations such as the Mafia, but the five-year limit implies that we will not be allowed to wire-tap for typical Mafia crimes such as extortion,” said Giuseppe Cascini, secretary of the supreme court.

“It is a serious blow to everybody’s security and a great help for a lot of criminals,” said Giancarlo Caselli, head prosecutor in Turin. “If this law was already effective the arrests made [of activists allegedly trying to rebuild the Red Brigades] would not have been carried out,” said Olga D’antona, MP and widow of Massimo d’Antona, killed in the 1990s by the new Red Brigades.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Channel 4 cuts transmission of Michael Jackson gag

Viewers of Channel 4’s topical comedy programme, the TNT show, saw the last segment of the programme unexpectedly cut last night.

The channel cut to a station ident, with text reading “this programme will continue in sound only”. However, no sound was forthcoming, apart from an apology for the lack of transmission from a continuity announcer. Index on Censorship has discovered that the show was cut short because of a joke about Michael Jackson, whose death had been reported on the Internet only minutes before the broadcast began.

The joke apparently concerned rumours that Jackson used stand-ins for public appearances. The hosts, comics Holly Walsh and Jack Whitehall, then claimed to have the real Jackson in the studio, and proceeded to interview an impersonator with an Essex accent.

A Channel 4 spokeswoman told Index: “In last night’s broadcast of The TNT Show, a topical late night entertainment series, a sketch, that had been recorded two days earlier, covered a news story about Michael Jackson and his rumoured stand-ins. In light of the breaking news of his death, C4 felt it was appropriate not to broadcast the sketch and advised viewers of the cut in transmission.”

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Strategic communications: a force for good?

The best and the brightest of the men and women tasked to spread the word in favour of military-humanitarian missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and other well-known western policy disaster areas gathered in London this week.

Scores of senior spokespersons, convened by the UK media development consultancy Albany Associates, met to discuss “Strategic Communications in Countries Emerging from Violent Conflict” and hear from the maestros of the trade — Blair-era spinmeister Alastair Campbell and Kosovo war NATO spokesman Jamie Shea among them.

The uniquely British system of self-censorship known as Chatham House Rules precludes the public linking of name to publicly stated opinion. But I am sure the veteran Sunday Times Afghanistan correspondent Christina Lamb, one of this week’s speakers, will forgive me for crediting her with the view that strategic communications is no more than spin for warfare.

My own view, from experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, is that at its worst it is little more than putting a little lipstick on a pig of a combat mission. The honourable purpose of this week’s conference is to establish if it can be more than that.

According to Albany Associates, strategic communications covers: “Integrated communications; public diplomacy; crisis communications; core narrative development; communications audits; media relations”.

To its most famous British exponent, strategic communications is not about spinning favourable coverage, or getting good press coverage, or manipulating the public agenda. Instead it is about giving policymakers and implementers the space they need to move from A to B.

Which is why, he said, policymakers should take the opportunity to fully incorporate communications into policy development and implementation from the outset.

As was very neatly illustrated by another speaker, on a chart tracking speed of response and effect of PR statements, al Qaida can often leave western officials behind in the dust while they verify reports of atrocities.

The pressure on western spokesmen to fill the void between local allegation and international rebuttal can tempt them into hasty, inaccurate or misleading statements. Without the online evidence produced by citizens in Afghanistan, for example, the true scale of recent civilian deaths during bungled US military air attacks would never have been revealed.

The threat to the moral integrity of strategic communications is that it exists side by side by with an ongoing effort by the US military to break down the traditional barriers between propaganda, strategic disinformation and traditional public diplomacy, the all-purpose phrase used in Washington for everything from student exchanges to US sponsored ballet company tours.

It also shares space with PR companies that believe that the techniques applied to defend the reputations of car manufacturers who make SUVs with duff brakes can be applied as easily in defence of nations that make wars with duff claims to legitimacy.

Or as one suit claimed, their familiarity with commercial brand management opened their eyes to “deconstructing” a “brand” like al Qaida and “understanding” its attractiveness. If you can build up a brand, he noted, you can bring it down. The US military call it Information Operations — central to the global counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy inspired by Iraq-Afghanistan commanding US army general David Petraeus.

Yet after years of hearing claims that strategic communications is more than just dull state propaganda, its promises to deliver everything from working drains in Mazar e Sharif to the defeat of global terrorism, it seems to have failed to deliver everything except the reinforcement of citizen journalism as a direct challenge to its workings.

Its acolytes argue that the problem is that we are just doing it wrong. Even they argue that good strategic communications cannot salvage bad policy. And it is hard not to be tempted by its siren song of simplicity; all you need is an objective, a strategy and tactics. Start with that and stick with it through hell and high water.

A speaker recalled a diplomatic conversation with former president Bill Clinton about Russian nuclear missile counts on the day the catastrophic Starr Report was published. Later he asked him how he managed to carry on?

Clinton told him. He had an objective (not to leave power in shame); a strategy (to do the job that only he as president could do); and tactics (to make sure people knew he was doing that job). And, said the speaker, visibly impressed, it worked.

Tempting indeed. You can survive a Lewinsky affair or a war started in the face of public resistance of a million or more voters, armed with no more than strategic communication’s 15 key rules of engagement.

But maybe free expression rights campaigners could put the same techniques to honourable use in pursuit of their own objectives. Albany Associates have deployed everything from street theatre to children’s clown shows in their work embedding communication in stabilisation and reconstruction programmes in Sudan.

The power of radio in post-conflict societies to advocate for peaceful dialogue and health and education rights for marginalised communities is well documented. The biggest challenge to rights advocacy groups today is to move beyond traditional statements of protest to direct engagement with opponents through new communications strategies, including those being discussed today in London.

Well I did say it was a siren song…

Rohan Jayasekera is Associate Editor at Index on Censorship. You can follow his tweets from the Strategic Communications in Countries Emerging from Violent Conflict Conference on #stratcomms. Details of the 24/25 June Albany Associates and Post Conflict People conference on http://bit.ly/iWZuc

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Still doing deals

The charge sheet is long and yet the dock is empty. One of the most extraordinary aspects of Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war has been the ability of those responsible to evade any form of reckoning. For that they have many people to thank, including incurious journalists and pliant judges. But most of all, Tony Blair is in debt to his New Labour friends for their efforts to get him off the hook — recent days, Peter Mandelson and Gordon Brown.

At each step of the way, Blair and his allies have outmanoeuvred their opponents. The death of Dr David Kelly in 2003 provided ministers, and particularly Alastair Campbell, with some of their worst moments. The emails, the hubris and the deceit would have done for many a world leader. Instead, thanks to some artful bullying by Campbell and the brilliant recommendation by Mandelson (drawing on his experience as Northern Ireland Secretary) to appoint Lord Hutton, it was the BBC and not the government that took the flak.

That was that, declared a smiling Blair. The government had been exonerated. A year later, faced with the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the prime minister then called upon Lord Butler of Brockwell. He made sure the terms of reference were as narrow as possible. Unlike the theatrical testimony before Hutton, Butler’s team met in private. As the only journalist called to appear before them, I took a close interest in the way they carried out their investigation. Their manner was Establishment-polite, but their questioning was refreshingly direct. One of the most impressive members of the team was a certain Sir John Chilcot. They asked me to elaborate on a number of revelations in my book, Blair’s Wars. They then asked me straight out if I believed Blair had lied. I replied that I did not suspect he had gone out of his way to tell falsehoods, but that, knowing the intelligence did not stack up to justify war, he willed the facts to fit. I considered my answer to be quite clever at the time. I now wish I had been a little less clever and a lot smarter.

Butler’s conclusions were coruscating but couched in mandarin-speak. Of the so-called dodgy dossier, he said it went to the outer limits of the intelligence available. He recorded surprise that, in spite of the ‘generally negative’ results of the UN inspectors, the quality of British intelligence was not reassessed. We found out only afterwards that Downing Street had prevailed on Butler to water down the most important passages.

What mattered was the press conference that accompanied the launch. Butler had the prime minister’s fate in his fingers. He decided beforehand that he would not give an opinion as to whether Blair should resign. Remarkably, nobody thought of asking him. Instead Butler said he did not hold any single individual responsible for the failures in intelligence. Within seconds, the Downing Street spin operation went into overdrive, thanking the eminent privy councillors for their work, insisting that their recommendations would be given all due weight, but celebrating the fact that they had been let off the hook once again. Butler would later regret his timidity.
Read More »

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Iran: more reporters held

The author is an Iranian who wishes to remain anonymous

The crackdown on the post-election protests in Iran has had several dimensions. The most visible aspect is the overwhelming security presence on the streets of Tehran and other cities, and the actual physical attacks on the protestors, which have led to several dozen deaths and many injuries so far. The least visible aspect is the media war and the state’s unceasing efforts to monopolise the sources of information. Somewhere between these two very visible and not-so-visible aspects falls the campaign of arrests and detentions. Although the Iranian authorities are increasingly accusing Britain and other western countries of being behind the protests, they have not been shy about arresting many reformist activists and journalists in Iran as well. The legal authority behind the arrests is Saeed Mortazavi, Tehran’s chief prosecutor. In a previous incarnation, Mortazavi was the press court judge when many reformists papers were banned after the brief press “spring” that followed Mohammad Khatami’s election as president in 1997. So Mortazavi’s battle against reformist activists and journalists is long-standing.
 
The arrest of Mohammad Ghouchani, editor-in-chief of newspaper Etemaad Melli (National Confidence), published by reformist presidential candidate Mehdi Karrubi’s party, is fairly typical and is described on this page of the newspaper: Ghouchani is the young smiling face on the left-hand side of the page. The column underneath, headlined “Editor-in-chief’s arrest” describes his arrest as follows:

“Mohammad Ghouchani, editor in chief of Etemaad Melli, was arrested at two o’clock in the morning on Saturday. No reasons for his arrest were given to him or his wife, Maryam Baghi [daughter of human rights activist Emadeddin Baghi]. At two o’clock on Saturday morning, about six security personnel went to his house and said that they had a warrant for his arrest. The security personnel took Mohammad Ghouchani from his home to the Etemaad Melli newspaper office and filmed him alongside his computer and his personnel effects, and then took him away.”

Maryam Baghi told Etemaad Melli: “Our efforts to find out what Ghouchani is being charged with did not lead anywhere. They only said that the reason for his arrest was the recent events. Of course, ‘recent events’ is not a charge and, if they detain someone, they should explain what he is being charged with…”

A recent editorial by Ghouchani is also re-produced in the column underneath his picture and the account of his arrest. In the editorial, Ghouchani said that nowadays, it is easy to become a journalist in Iran, but it is difficult to die a journalist (because newspapers are banned so often that no one can remain a journalist for very long). Ghouchani has been the editor-in-chief of several now-banned papers.

Read RSF’s list of jailed Iranian journalists and bloggers here

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Power from the people

The Life and Death of Democracy, by John Keane, Simon & Schuster, £30

Democracy: 1,000 Years in Pursuit of British Liberty, by Peter Kellner, Mainstream, £25

The other day, as I was waiting to meet someone in the House of Commons, an old-school MP accosted me. “Isn’t it terrible, all that’s going on?” His implication was that the expenses scandal had unjustly dragged this venerable institution into the mud. “No, it isn’t,” I replied. “It’s marvellous.” Horrified, he skulked away. I am not in the habit of making sweeping utterances such as these. Perhaps it was more than a dozen years of disdain for the Westminster village that had been reined in, and could now be unleashed as I no longer considered myself part of the club.

That club, which contains MPs, peers, political journalists, advisers, lobbyists and other assorted hangers-on in London SW1, had until recently operated under a strict but unspoken code of conduct. Criticise MPs and parties as much you like but do not call into question the magnificence and munificence of parliament. We may dodge and weave a bit; we may wage illegal wars from time to time, we may not be very adept at scrutinising our executive, but when it comes to those perfidious foreigners, what a great story we have to tell.

From the moment I returned after being a foreign correspondent in the mid 1990s and entered the world of men in strange clothes and old habits, I was dispirited by the state of our politics. Thus it was with some anticipation that I delved into two erudite works on the history of democracy one covering the world, the other the UK. John Keane’s global anthology is a gargantuan feat of erudition. He moves deftly from ancient Greece (not the great citadel it is held up to be, apparently), to Machiavelli, to America’s founding fathers, who, the author argues, were originally wary of introducing representative democracy. Keane quotes one delegate from New Haven, Connecticut, opposing “election by the people” because they lack information and are “constantly liable to be misled”.

The author is at his most persuasive in knocking down easy assumptions. He points out that consultative assemblies flourished in the Islamic world from the beginning of the 13th century until the demise of the Ottoman empire. These assemblies, called meshwerets, were highly effective. He states that, contrary to “some old-fashioned, devoutly British, accounts”, which assume British birthright for parliamentary democracy, the venue for the first working parliament was actually northern Spain. He tells the compelling story of King Alfonso IX, a man whose fits of epilepsy earned him the nickname “the dribbler”, and who came up against the determined opposition of the local nobility. He sought to go over their heads, to convene a larger group of “good men”. And so “it was in the walled, former Roman town of Leon, in March 1188 — a full generation before King John’s Magna Carta of 1215 — that Alfonso IX convened the first ever cortes, as contemporaries soon christened it.”

Keane’s particular contribution to the debate is to emphasise the global, rather than the narrowly Anglo-Saxon, roots of democracy. His grasp of the present and his prescriptions for the future are less sure-footed. He reminds us that “democracy is not the timeless fulfilment of our political destiny. It is not a way of doing politics that has always been with us, or that will be our companion for the rest of our history.” He coins the term “monitory democracy”, suggesting that political engagement and emancipation are now expressed far more widely than through elected chambers, through the Internet, direct action, NGOs, the media and other bodies. He argues that political liberties and economic prosperity have little in common, but he develops neither this thought nor the many other questions that the past two decades of globalised capitalism have thrown up. Just why have so many people around the world willingly given up certain liberties in return for the promise of prosperity or security?

Peter Kellner’s account is specifically British. As a long-time surveyor of the political scene, he has an uncanny ability to convey the complexities of politics to a wide audience. His book is more of a compendium of historical moments, in which speeches or documents highlighting the successes of, or perils facing, democracy, are listed. The study is compiled chronologically, stretching from Athelstan the Glorious (c. 930) to Paul Dacre (the editor of the Daily Mail, 1998). Students of politics may quibble over some of the choices made from particular years or eras, but Kellner’s selection is invariably apposite, charting the great debates from the emancipation of slaves, to the Corn Laws, to the Irish independence movement, and closer to home, from Roy Jenkins’s proposals on electoral reform to Margaret Thatcher’s myopic Bruges speech.

Yet underlying Kellner’s account is an idealised assumption that we should be proud of our institutions. “The evolution of liberty in Britain has been appallingly slow,” he writes. “But once basic principles have been established, they have tended to stay established.” Perhaps the very fact that Britain has faced so few ructions has instilled in us a complacency that has dulled our sense of the inadequacies of our political system.

That system is now rightly the object of public derision. Yet I fear that derision could lead to a further weakening of our representative democracy, discouraging people from standing for parliament, leading to a new crop of MPs even less talented than the present group. Pride of place in Kellner’s anthology should surely go to Oliver Cromwell and his speech on 19 April 1653 dissolving the rump parliament.

“Ye sordid prostitutes,” he begins. “Have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.”

As I write, in the week after the European election results, I marvel at the protector’s prescience.

This article was originally published in the Guardian

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Iran in images

Exclusive photographs of the week’s events in Tehran (click to enlarge)

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Iran: bloggers have the edge in cyberspace

ahmadinejad_bloggerAlthough, in some ways, the street protests that followed the disputed re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president resemble the protests in 1978-79 that toppled the Shah, there is one very significant difference: the role of the Internet. Since many of the Iranian protestors are young and well-educated, they are finding it very easy to use the Internet to good advantage.

Notwithstanding the sad deaths, beatings and attacks on student dormitories that have occurred since the controversial election on 12 June, the battle between the protestors and the state on the Internet is more like an episode of Tom and Jerry than a life-and-death struggle. And Jerry, the mouse, seems to be very much smarter than Tom, the cat. When the Revolutionary Guard issued a statement warning Iranian bloggers not to post material that would be “harmful to security”, Iranian bloggers picked out the spelling mistakes in the statement and invited the Guards to try to “hack” offending sites, with the underlying assumption that the Revolutionary Guard wouldn’t be able to hack its way out of a paper bag.

The protestors are also using the Internet to warn each other about the dangers on the street. This post shows “mug shots” of two dozen “government plainclothes men who have beaten the people” and warns protestors to steer clear of them. This post (now removed) noted: “These motorcyles require special licences, if you don’t know who the killers are pay attention to their motorbikes.”

This blogger explains how to identify the different security forces by their uniforms. One blogger posted a photo (now deleted) showing security personnel smashing a car windshield, an act later blamed on “hooligans” (what state media calls the protestors). Another blogger warns protestors to switch off their phones if they are in an area that is being raided by security forces, because they can be identified as having been in the area if their mobile phones are switched on.

The Internet has also become a way of boosting morale. When six of Iran’s national football team members where seen to be wearing green wristbands (in support for Mir Hossein Mousavi) during a World Cup qualifier in South Korea, it caused great joy among bloggers, who expressed pride in the “brave lads” and said that they must give them a great welcome at Tehran airport when they returned home. They bloggers also noted that the green wristbands were off in the second half of the match and noted that “supreme leader decrees” were enforced as far away as South Korea.

Of course, there is also a great deal of rumour-mongering on the Internet, as well as warnings that some bits of information may be “plants” or “traps” by the authorities. But all in all, the protestors definitely have the edge in cyberspace.

The author is an Iranian, who wishes to remain anonymous

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Suzanne Breen: decision has “major implications”

Suzanne Breen has won her right to withhold material from a police investigation in Northern Ireland after the court agreed with her that such action would be put her in the terrorist firing line.

Breen argued that not only was the hand over of such information a breach of journalistic confidentiality but it would also put her life in danger.

Today in Belfast’s Laganside Court the recorder, Mr Tom Burgess, concluded that the risk to her was “not just real and immediate” but also “continuing”.

Her legal team described his ruling as a landmark judgement in terms of press freedom in particular the protection of sources.

Joe Rice, a Belfast lawyer who has defended several reporters under similar pressure in Northern Ireland to disclose sources by the state and a number of public inquiries, said the significance of the judgment could not be underestimated.

Journalists operating in Northern Ireland are relieved that Suzanne Breen has won her case. The decision has major implications for other reporters here.

This not only includes correspondents who are under pressure from the state, principally the PSNI, but also from the range of public inquiries into a number of past crimes in the Troubles.

For instance, at least three correspondents have been subjected to the attempts by Blood Sunday Inquiry and the Billy Wright Inquiry to get them to hand over confidential material. When they refused, the legal teams acting for the inquiries have gone to court to force the journalists’ hand. At best, the reporters reluctant to reveal sources and confidential material to the inquiries face contempt of court charges.

The outcome of today’s case may have implications for them as well. And in addition for Ian Paisley Junior, the son of the Rev Ian Paisley, who is facing sanctions over his determination to protect sources. Paisley Junior will not disclose who leaked him details about the security regime inside the Maze prison at the time when Billy Wright, a loyalist killer, was murdered in the H-Blocks in December 1997. The DUP Assembly member, it should be remembered, is also trying to uphold the right of source protection and his case is as vital as the Breen case in terms of defending the free flow of information in a democracy. He goes to court on Monday week to find if his refusal to hand over sources and information to the Billy Wright Inquiry will either land him in jail or result in him paying a heavy fine.

Read the full judgment here

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png