Figueredo refused to comply with a June 23 police summons, reviewed by CPJ. On that same day she received three private number phone calls warning her that a police investigation had been opened against her and Correa for “dangerousness,” the journalists told CPJ. On June 16, a local police officer parked outside the journalists’ home told them that they weren’t allowed to leave in an incident witnessed by others in the neighborhood.

“The Cuban government must halt its harassment of journalists Yunia Figueredo and Frank Correa, and allow them to continue their work with the community media outlet, Amanecer Habanero,” said CPJ U.S., Canada and Caribbean Program Coordinator Katherine Jacobsen. “Reporters should not be threatened into silence with legal orders.” 

Cuba’s private media companies have come under increased scrutiny from a new communication law banning all unapproved, non-state media and prohibiting them from receiving international funding and foreign training.

Amanecer Habanero is a member of the Cuban Institute for Freedom of Expression and the Press (ICLEP), a network of six community media outlets, which has strongly condemned the actions of Cuban authorities against Figueredo, who became director of the outlet earlier this year.

In a statement, ICLEP said Figueredo has been the victim of an escalating campaign of intimidation by Cuban law enforcement, including verbal threats by state security agents; permanent police surveillance without a court order; restriction of her freedom of movement; psychological intimidation against her family; and police summonses without legal basis in connection with her work denouncing government.

Cuba’s private media companies have come under increased threat from a new communication law banning all unapproved, non-state media and prohibiting them from receiving international funding and foreign training.

Cuban authorities did not immediately reply to CPJ’s emailed request for comment.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Encampment protest at the University of California, San Diego (May 5, 2024).  Photo by Gary Fields.

Over the course of the last sixteen months, the public sphere has witnessed an assault on rights to free expression and freedom of assembly unlike anything since the Communist witch hunts and Lavender Scare of Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s.  Not only are government officials at all levels participating in this suppression of basic rights associated with the First Amendment.  University Administrators are imposing censorship directives against students and faculty who have been speaking out against a genocidal onslaught perpetrated by the State of Israel against the Palestinians of Gaza that has been enabled and supported by the U.S. Government.  The source of this military carnage, and the politics of censorship being woven around this assault by Government and university officials, derives from the pervasive influence of Israel and its ideology of Zionism on American politics and cultural life.

What is less understood in this appalling campaign is how Israeli influence, which was formerly restricted to support for the Jewish State in the sphere of American foreign policy, is now recasting domestic politics in the U.S., primarily around First Amendment Rights and the right to assembly.  Paradoxically, where Zionist influence is remaking U.S. domestic politics most profoundly is on American University campuses.  The complicity of University Administrators in this project of censorship is more than disturbing.  These Officials have turned what are supposed to be spaces for the free and open exchange of ideas into surveilled and policed camps of fear and paranoia.  How did this occur?

Since 1967, the U.S. has aligned its foreign policy with that of Israel and its primary goal of suppressing Palestinian rights by means of a brutal apartheid regime and an occupation army.  At that time, what the U.S. saw in Israel was a partner in a common cause linked to the Cold War.  For the U.S., Israel represented a powerful regional proxy capable not only of thwarting Palestinian self-determination, but disciplining those Arab regimes in the region that were aligned with the Soviet Union and supportive of the Palestinian struggle.^[1]  From 1967 to present day, the U.S. has supported its ally with a vast arsenal of military hardware making it the single largest recipient of American military assistance and one the most powerful militaries in the world.  At the same time, the State of Israel helped create a vast apparatus of political support in the U.S. for the Jewish State, anchored by the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

For decades, this lobbying network, which casts its influence over all levels of American life, has successfully bribed and bought almost every single politician in the U.S. Congress and the Executive Branch to do Israel’s bidding.  The result is that there has been virtually no debate in the chambers of the American Government about Israel and its policies, despite the distasteful brutality of its decades-long rule over the Palestinians that the International Court of Justice has declared to be an illegal military occupation.

During the last 16 months, the U.S. single handedly ensured that Israel’s incessant bombardment of Gaza would continue without interruption by sending it weekly shipments of armaments that Israel could in no way produce on its own.  All this ordinance was exported illegally to Israel in violation of America’s own laws about the use of such weaponry with the help of lies about the matter by Antony Blinken.  While all of this is truly sordid, a new element has come into the picture that has played an integral role in what is now playing out on college campuses.

On April 24^th of last year, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu broadcast a speech that was recorded in English specifically for an American audience.^[2]  In it, he assailed the protests on U.S. college campuses against the genocidal assault of his military, stating that “antisemitic mobs have taken over leading universities.”  In his tirade, Netanyahu also emphasized the one card that Israel plays whenever it is criticized for its human rights abuses and violations of international law.  Netanyahu likened the protests on campuses to Nazi pogroms in German Universities in the 1930s while labelling protestors as antisemitic bigots and demanded that University officials punish these protestors.  “It has to be stopped,” he intoned.

In this way, the state of Israel, with its perch as a dominant influence in U.S. foreign policy, was now demanding an equally influential voice in American domestic politics involving rights to free expression and rights of assembly.  Although aimed at University officials, Netanyahu’s comments, were also a signal to the various branches of the Israel Lobby to target those university institutions that seemingly failed to stem what he charged were the antisemitic mobs on college campuses.

Some universities such as Columbia in New York, had already heeded the call to defend Israel at all costs.  In November 2023, five months before students even set up a protest encampment at the University, the Administration at Columbia preemptively banned its chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine, and Jewish Voice for Peace.  On April 17, 2024, seven months into Israel’s murderous genocide, protestors at Columbia established the Encampment that would inspire a national and even global protest movement.  Less than one week later, dozens of encampments emerged around the country.^[3]  It was at this moment that Netanyahu made his demands to University Administrators with his overt reference to antisemitism and his unmistakable directive to shut down the encampments and discipline those students and faculty involved in these antisemitic Nazi pogroms.  The message certainly reached Israel’s chief genocide enabler, Joseph Biden.  On May 2024, Biden weighed in on the Encampment protests saying “order must prevail” and went on to echo the same kind of rhetoric about antisemitism as his Israeli counterpart.  “There should be no place in any campus, no place in America, for antisemitism or threats of violence against Jewish students” he instructed his American audience. ^[4] One by one, University campuses were violently cleared of these protests in May, 2024 soon after the speeches of Netanyahu and Biden – including my own campus of UCSD where the Chancellor called in 3 police forces on May 6^th to shut down the Encampment and arrest protestors.

What enabled University Administrators to justify these crackdowns while defending their actions was the effort of a consortium of 31 countries known as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) to recast the historical definition of antisemitism.   In 2016, the IHRA crafted a definition of antisemitism with seven separate clarifications of its meaning that dealt specifically with Israel.  Numerous organizations spearheaded by Human Rights Watch criticized this definition because it essentially equates criticism of a State (Israel) with the way antisemitism has traditionally been understood which is animus toward Jews and the Jewish people.^[5]

In the U.S., federal agencies now use the IHRA definition of antisemitism to assess compliance with Title VI of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act against discrimination.  What this means for universities is that they can be held accountable for failing to correct violations of Title VI that prohibits discrimination, in this case discrimination against Jews.  The problem is that with the IHRA definition, the meaning of antisemitism has been extended to include criticism of the State of Israel and its policies thereby making an exception of Israel as being above critique.

Administrators thus justified their abrogation of free speech and rights to assembly by decrying Encampment protests as violations of Title VI that protects minority groups from discrimination but in this case, the protection was reserved not for Jews but for Israel.  In this way, University Administrators turned a venerable Civil Rights Era law on its head.  They claimed that the protests against a State committing genocide in Gaza with American support, were bigoted, antisemitic acts, and that campuses had become unsafe for Jewish students and Jewish faculty.  This fictional discourse of antisemitic bigotry against Jews has spread throughout the community of University Administrators and has assumed the form of newly designed restrictions on speech and protest accompanied by firings, suspensions, and the establishment on campuses of a climate of surveillance and fear.

         This massive campaign on college campuses against freedom of expression and rights to assembly has now come into contact with an equally ominous force – the anti-immigrant assault now underway by the current Administration.  This convergence of anti-immigrant and anti-Palestinian vitriol has evolved swiftly with recent events.

Last week, in a bizarre paradox, the U.S. Government announced that it was withholding $400 million from Columbia University for its supposedly hostile antisemitic climate toward Jewish students and faculty.  Despite the University’s brutal crackdown on protestors against the Israeli genocide against the people of Gaza, and despite Columbia’s ongoing crackdown on anti-Israel protest of any kind, such censorship of protest against Israel was apparently not good enough for the Administration and the Zionist networks of lobbyists and donors who dictate policy to both government and universities. ^[6]

One week ago, ICE agents apprehended one of these Columbia protestors, Mahmoud Khalil in what is reminiscent of the illegal renditions under George W. Bush’s war on terror and spirited him to some unnamed prison location in Louisiana.   Columbia officials offered no comment on its own involvement in this appalling violation of the constitutional rights of one of its own students.  Trump himself has weighed in on this shameful apprehension with a boastful missive on his Truth Social page in which he gloats: “Following my previously signed Executive Orders, ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student on the campus of Columbia University. This is the first arrest of many to come. We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, antisemitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it.”  Indeed, this is no idle threat.

Commensurate with the kidnapping of Mahmoud Khalil, the Department of Education issued a list of 60 University campuses suspected of harboring antisemitic activity.  “Too many universities have tolerated widespread antisemitic harassment and the illegal encampments that paralyzed campus life last year, driving Jewish life and religious expression underground,” said Craig Trainor, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights for the Department of Education.  Trainor used the occasion to accuse the Biden Administration of “doing little to hold those institutions accountable.”  The truth of the matter, however, is vastly different.  It is the Biden Administration, following the lead of Netanyahu and the State of Israel, that essentially rolled out the red carpet for precisely this kind of lawless suppression of free speech and freedom of assembly to take place. ^[7]

As one of the Universities targeted by the Administration with being a repository of anti-Jewish hate, and as a campus located in San Diego on the border at one of the most critical immigration flashpoints, my own campus of UCSD now finds itself in a perilous predicament.  Students at UCSD established a large and spirited Encampment near the Main Library of the University.  This Encampment was brutally attacked by three different police units on May 6, 2024 and was one of the most noteworthy where both students and faculty were arrested.^[8]

Police confront Encampment protestors at the University of California, San Diego.  Photo by Gary Fields.

At the same time, with the ongoing threats of deporting immigrants, alongside the boastful swagger of Donald Trump on the ICE abduction of Mahmoud Khalil from Columbia, UCSD is poised at the epicenter of a disturbing convergence of anti-Palestinian and anti-immigrant vitriol.  With its credentials as an Encampment against Israeli genocide and with a strategic location on the Mexican border, my campus may very well witness visits from ICE agents targeting not just DACA students and the like, but those who have protested Israel’s genocide in Gaza.  Indeed, University Administrators throughout the country, including at UCSD, have played a duplicitous role in the calamity now unfolding on campuses with the ICE arrest of this student at Columbia by shamefully discarding the idea of the university as a space of open discussion and debate about issues of the day.  What is to be Done?

It may seem counterintuitive, but the ongoing crackdown on pro-Palestinian protest and the chilling campaign against freedom of speech and assembly, alongside what is now an intensified assault against immigrant rights, is creating a new set of imperatives for protest.  It may very well be time once again to test the water with protests directed both at the protection of immigrant rights, against Israeli genocide, and against the curtailment of our basic rights of free expression and assembly.  The situation at Columbia with the abduction of Mahmoud Khalil, and the likelihood of more of these assaults on our rights makes such protest more critical than ever.

Notes.

^[1]  https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/11/15/343218/

^[2]  https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-likens-us-campus-encampments-by-antisemitic-mobs-to-1930s-nazi-germany/

^[3]  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68906215

^[4]  Steve Holland, “Biden Breaks Silence on College Protest over Gaza Conflict, Reuters,” (May 2, 2024); https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-breaks-silence-college-protests-over-gaza-conflict-2024-05-02/

^[5]  https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/04/04/human-rights-and-other-civil-society-groups-urge-united-nations-respect-human

^[6]  https://theintercept.com/2025/03/08/columbia-trump-funding-gaza-israel/

^[7] Noura Erakat, “The Boomerang Comes Back:  How the U.S.-backed War on Palestine is Expanding Authoritarianism at Home,” Boston Review (February 5, 2025);  https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-boomerang-comes-back/

^[8]  https://www.axios.com/2024/04/27/palestinian-college-protest-arrest-encampment

The post Genocide, Antisemitism and Freedom of Expression:  The Failure of Our Universities appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Gary Fields.

The Commonwealth Heads of Government adopted the Commonwealth Principles on Freedom of Expression and the Role of the Media in Good Governance at their summit meeting in Apia, Samoa, last week.

These Principles highlight the importance of freedom of expression and media freedom to democracy.  They state that Commonwealth governments “should consider repealing or amending laws which unduly restrict the right to freedom of expression”.

The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and the Commonwealth Journalists Association called on states to take practical and effective steps to end arbitrary and excessive restrictions on free expression. The Commonwealth as a whole must audit progress and engage with civil society to ensure that these Principles are implemented in reality.

• READ MORE: RSF tackles Taiwan’s media freedom ‘Achilles heel’, boosts Asia Pacific monitoring action
• Two of the US’s biggest newspapers have refused to endorse a presidential candidate. This is how democracy dies
• Commonwealth takes historic step towards protecting free speech
• Other CHOGM reports

Freedom of expression is not just a right in itself — it is the foundation that allows us to exercise and defend all other human rights, and is safeguarded under international law.

However, as we know all too well, this right is under threat.

According to UNESCO, in Commonwealth countries alone, 178 journalists were killed between 2006 and 2020. Furthermore, the impunity rate for the killings of journalists during that same time is 96 percent — which is notably higher than the global impunity rate of 87 percent.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has documented 547 journalists imprisoned globally as of the end of 2023, with legal harassment often used as a tool to stifle dissent and investigative reporting.

Restrictive, colonial-era laws
Many Commonwealth countries still maintain restrictive, colonial-era laws that curtail free expression, suppress diverse voices, and inhibit the transparency that is essential for democracy.

In the Commonwealth:

• 41 countries continue to criminalise defamation; 48 countries still retain laws related to sedition; and
• 37 still have blasphemy or blasphemy-like laws.

These details are set out in a soon to be released report by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) and the Commonwealth Journalists Association (CJA), with other Commonwealth partners, entitled Who Controls the Narrative? Legal Restrictions on Freedom of Expression in the Commonwealth.

“These laws, often enforced through criminal sanctions, have a chilling effect on activists, journalists, iand others who fear retaliation for speaking truth to power”, said William Horsley of the Commonwealth Journalists Association.

“This has led to an alarming rise in self-censorship and a decline in the independent and dissenting voices that are vital for holding governments accountable.”

Civil society response
The Principles were first put forward by a group of civil society organisations in response to  a general deterioration in legal protections and the working environment for journalists.

The CJA convened other civil society organisations, including the CHRI, Commonwealth Lawyers Association and the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, before Commonwealth member states reviewed and adopted the Principles in the form which was adopted by heads of government at the 2024 CHOGM.

States are “urged to take concrete and meaningful steps to implement them within their domestic frameworks, as set out in the CHOGM Samoa Communiqué“.

The joint report Who Controls the Narrative? Legal Restrictions on Freedom of Expression in the Commonwealth reveals the increasing use of criminal law provisions, including those related to defamation, sedition, blasphemy, and national security, to restrict freedom of expression and media freedom within the Commonwealth.

The report is the product of extensive collaboration between Commonwealth partners, legal experts, academics, human rights advocates, and media professionals, and provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal frameworks governing freedom of expression and outlines clear pathways for reform.

In addition to analysing legal restrictions on free speech in Commonwealth states, the report puts forward actionable recommendations for reform.

These include regional and national-level proposals, as well as broader Commonwealth-wide recommendations aimed at strengthening legal frameworks, promoting judicial independence, encouraging media pluralism, and enhancing international accountability mechanisms.

#Commonwealth Heads of Government (#CHOGM2024) adopted the Commonwealth Principles on Freedom of Expression and the Role of the Media in Good Governance at their summit meeting in Apia, #Samoa.
https://t.co/HP9Lr1Aire

— Oliver T. Mhuriro (@Oliver_Mhuriro) October 27, 2024

Reforms essential
These reforms are essential for establishing an environment where free expression can thrive, allowing individuals to speak without fear of reprisal.

“While many member states share a colonial legal legacy that includes repressive laws still in effect today, they also share a commitment to democratic governance and the rule of law as set out in the Commonwealth Charter,” said Sneh Aurora, director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.

“The Commonwealth has the potential to lead by example in promoting freedom of expression through legal reform, ensuring that criminal laws are not misused to silence dissent.

“The Principles provide an important opportunity for Commonwealth governments to bring their national laws in line with international human rights laws.”

Republished with permission from Talamua Online.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Shalhevet school head David Block (Boiling Point, 6/2/24): “If our community can’t handle something, I do have to consider that.”

The staff of the Boiling Point don’t consider themselves student journalists. They consider themselves journalists.

The official paper of Shalhevet, a prestigious orthodox Jewish day school in Los Angeles, is not a mere extra-curricular activity for the college-bound, but a living record of the larger community. And so the fact that the school is censoring the paper’s coverage of pro-Palestine viewpoints is an illustration of the nation’s current crisis of free speech and the free press as Israel’s slaughter in Gaza rages on.

The Boiling Point (6/2/24) reported that the school administration had censored an article about Muslim perspectives on Gaza because it quoted a teenager who “said Israel was committing genocide and that she did not believe Hamas had committed atrocities.” The paper said:

Head of school Rabbi David Block told faculty advisor Mrs. Joelle Keene to take down the story from all Boiling Point postings later that day.

It was the first time the administration had ordered the paper to remove an active story. The story is also not published in today’s print edition.

“Shalhevet’s principal ordered that the entire paper be taken out of circulation in what advisor Joelle Keene said was a striking change of pace,” the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (6/11/24) reported. She told the wire service, “There have been difficult stories and difficult moments and conflicts and that sort of thing. We’ve always been able to work them out.”

Justifications for censorship

The administration’s justification for the censorship was twofold. The first reason for the censorship was that the pro-Palestine viewpoints were simply too hurtful for a community that was still in shock over the October 7 attacks against Israel by Hamas.

This is, to be quite blunt, demeaning to the students and the community. I was not much older than these students during the 9/11 attacks, but I spent that day and days after that at my student newspaper, the Michigan Daily. While our reporters piled into a car to drive to New York City, I joined my fellow editorial board members—Jews, Arabs and many others—in navigating a future of war, attacks on civil liberties and anti-Islamic hate.

And today, student journalists are no less important in this historical moment where students are standing up against the genocide in Gaza (USA Today, 5/2/24; AP, 5/2/24).

The Boiling Point is hardly pro-Hamas. As one of its editors, Tali Liebenthal, said in response to this point, it was indeed painful for the community to hear anti-Israel opinions, but “I don’t think that the Boiling Point has any responsibility to shield our readers from that pain.” The Shalhevet students, in the tradition of Jewish inquiry, do certainly appear able to explore the tough and difficult subjects of their moment.

But there’s a second, more banal reason for the censorship. Block told the Boiling Point, “My feeling is that this article would both give people the wrong impression about Shalhevet.” He added:

It would have very serious implications for whether they’re going to consider sending the next generation of people who should be Shalhevet students to Shalhevet.

Block is placing prospective parents’ sensitivities before truth and debate. He’s worried that families will see a quote in the paper they disagree with, decide the school is a Hamas hot house, and send their child for an education elsewhere. The suggestion is that the school’s enrollment numbers are more important, not just than freedom of the press, but than a central aspect of Jewishness: the pursuit of knowledge.

Would Block block articles exploring why ultra-religious Jews like Satmars (Shtetl, 11/22/23) and Neturei Karta (Haaretz, 3/27/24) oppose Zionism for theological reasons? We should hope a school for Jewish scholarship would be wise to value discussions of deep ideas over fear of offending potential enrollees.

Perverting ideals of openness

Intercept (6/3/24): “After the editors [of the Columbia Law Review] declined a board of directors request to take down the articles, the board pulled the plug on the entire website.”

The Boiling Point affair is indicative of a larger problem with a censorship that exploits the term “antisemitism” and a sensitivity to Jewish suffering to silence anything remotely critical of Israel’s far-right government. Raz Segal, a Jewish Israeli scholar of genocide, had his position as director at the Center of Genocide and Holocaust students at the University of Minnesota rescinded (MPR, 6/11/24) because he wrote that Israel’s intentions for its campaign in Gaza were genocidal (Jewish Currents, 10/13/23). The board of directors of the Columbia Law Review briefly took down the journal’s website in response to an article (5/24) published about the Nakba, the expulsion of Palestinians—after the piece had already been spiked by the Harvard Law Review (Intercept, 6/3/24).  The chair of the Jewish studies department at Dartmouth College was violently arrested during an anti-genocide protest (Jerusalem Post, 5/3/24).

The 92nd Street Y, a kind of secular Jewish temple of arts and culture in New York City, encountered massive staff resignations (NPR, 10/24/23) after it canceled a talk by Pulitzer Prize–winning author Viet Thanh Nguyen because he had signed a letter calling for a ceasefire in Gaza (London Review of Books, 10/18/23). The author of the American Jewish Committee’s definition of antisemitism admits that his work is being used to crush free speech (Guardian, 12/13/19; Chronicle of Higher Education, 3/27/24).

These are prominent institutions that are meant to be pillars of openness and discourse in a free society, yet that are perverting themselves in order not to offend donors, government officials and sycophantic newspaper columnists. And the victims of this kind of censorship are Jews and non-Jews alike.

From the highest universities down to high schools like Shalhevet, administrators are cloaking their worlds in darkness. The journalists at the Boiling Point are part of a resistance keeping free speech and expression alive in the United States.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Ari Paul.

Valle left Cuba for the United States on Wednesday, June 5, after serving nearly three years in prison, according to local press freedom group the Cuban Institute for Freedom of Expression and the Press (ICLEP), and the Miami Herald. 

Valle was sentenced to five years in prison in July 2022 for contempt and sharing “enemy propaganda” in connection with a video posted on his YouTube channel, Delibera, of pro-democracy leaflets thrown from a building in the capital, Havana. 

ICLEP reported that Valle Roca arrived in the United States on humanitarian parole, and that his release from prison was on the condition that he leave Cuba. 

“Although we welcome Lázaro Yuri Valle Roca’s prison release, it is disconcerting that the Cuban government has forced Valle into exile rather than allowing him to do his job,” said CPJ U.S., Canada and Caribbean Program Coordinator Katherine Jacobsen. “The Cuban government should allow journalists to work freely, without fear of imprisonment or forced exile.” 

ICLEP general manager, Normando Hernández confirmed in a text message to CPJ that Valle had safely landed in Miami with his wife on Wednesday.

“After almost three years of unjust imprisonment, Yuri is finally free,” Hernández wrote on the ICLEP’s website. 

Valle’s expulsion of Valle Roca is the latest example of a crackdown by Cuban authorities on independent media that began following street protests in July 2021 which began in response to longstanding frustrations with the government and restrictions on rights and scarcity of food and medicines. As a result of the government crackdown, journalists, activists and other civil society members were either jailed or forced to leave the island.

Cuban law prohibits the establishment of independent media organizations outside the country’s socialist state system. Journalism is not one of the legally permitted professions under Cuba’s 2021 legalization of private business activity. Cuba’s updated ‘Social Communication Law,’ approved by Cuba’s National Assembly on May 26, 2023, prohibits the dissemination of information that aims to “subvert the constitutional order and destabilize the socialist State of law and social justice.”

Valle had been held in pretrial detention since June 15, 2021, when he was arrested after police summoned him to allegedly close a 2020 contempt investigation. In June 2022, prosecutors requested a six-year sentence in his case.

Valle has suffered from multiple health conditions during his detention, including complications related to his previous hunger strike, according to CPJ research.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

The post A Global Crackdown on Freedom of Expression appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Kate Horgan.

We look at how university administrators have responded to Palestine solidarity protests by students with Frederick Lawrence, former president of Brandeis University and now the CEO of the Phi Beta Kappa Society and a lecturer at Georgetown Law School. Brandeis was founded in 1948 by the American Jewish community in the wake of the Holocaust and named after the first Jewish Supreme Court justice, the celebrated free speech advocate Louis Brandeis. Lawrence says the nationwide university crackdown on student protesters is a worrying violation of the principles of academic freedom. “Provoking people, challenging people, asking difficult questions, making people uncomfortable, that’s part of the price of living in a democracy,” he says. He also notes that what constitutes a threat to campus safety should be narrowly defined. “You are not entitled to be intellectually safe. You are entitled to be physically safe.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

On January 23, the Russian general prosecutor’s office outlawed Article 19 by designating it an undesirable organization, according to the register of “undesirable” organizations published by the Russian Ministry of Justice and a Thursday statement by Article 19.

The Ministry of Justice added Article 19 to its register on February 8, and local media reported about the designation on February 12.

Organizations that receive the undesirable classification are banned from operating in Russia, and anyone who participates in them or works to organize their activities faces up to six years in prison and administrative fines. The designation also makes it a crime to distribute the outlet’s content or donate to it from inside or outside Russia.

“CPJ stands with Article 19 and condemns its designation as an ‘undesirable organization’—a decision which only underscores how much Russian authorities fear being held to account for their repeated and long-standing violations of press freedom,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “Authorities should immediately repeal the legislation on undesirable organizations instead of using it to stifle information they deem uncomfortable.”

Founded in 1987, Article 19 defends freedom of speech and information around the world. It is named after Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”

“The new designation for Article 19 means that any Russian who dares to hold a relationship with us, through partnership or programme work, or access materials we produce through media and the internet, is considered a threat to national security,” the organization said in its statement.

Since 2021, Russian authorities have labeled dozens of media organizations “undesirable,” including exiled broadcaster Dozhd TV (TV Rain), independent news outlets Meduza, Novaya Gazeta Europe, as well as investigative outlets iStories, The Insider, Bellingcat, and Proekt.

CPJ emailed the Russian Ministry of Justice for comment but did not receive a response.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

I had a separate studio space in L.A., which was kind of cool and different because I’ve always worked out of my house. There’s always been obstacles. When I was out there, the obstacle was having to share the space and schedule my time around another person. There was something that was nice about having a separate space as a destination, one that made me say, “I’m going here to work on music.” It focused me in a way that was new and different.

Since we got our house here in Richmond and I’ve been able to get a home studio set up again and it’s been great. So, you know, I make some coffee and go out to the little backhouse that I’ve set up as my studio. It’s nice being back in that way of working. It’s definitely different. Now my real struggle is finding the right times to work on things. That’s definitely changed now that my son Calder is back in school.

Are you being very intentional with your time? Some artists treat their work like any other job, sitting down every day at the same time, in the same place, “clocking in.” Is that something you do?

I’m not so strict about it. I’m not scheduling out “this is when I work on this” or “this is when I work on that.” But the nature of being, at least in this moment, a self-managed artist means that the studio is my studio, it’s my creative space, but it’s also my office. I might have a series of emails I need to answer, I might have some tour prep I need to do, or I’ve got to get a bunch of stems together or reprogram synth sounds for the shows we have coming up. Or it’ll be a lull, one where I don’t have any busy-body work to do, and I can just open up a new Ableton session and see what happens.

So, it’s nice. There’s this whole spectrum of all things Wild Nothing. This is just my space to do it all. It was interesting when I was trying to finish this record because that was the focus of my attention. I would have to go clock-in: I have all these vocals to record, I need to get it to the mixer in a week.

Do you find those kinds of deadlines helpful?

Yeah, absolutely. I don’t find them helpful at first. I start every project with no deadlines, just giving myself total freedom and taking as much time as I need to find the thing that ties these songs together. For a very long time, I’m just throwing everything against the wall, writing songs, starting little ideas.

The beginning—for most people and it’s definitely true for me—is the most experimental phase. I’m trying different kinds of music and seeing what sticks. I’ll eventually find myself with four or five songs that tell me what the rest of the project will be. Then, from there, deadlines become very helpful. Because otherwise I’ll tinker forever.

And the nice thing about setting your own deadlines is you can cheat—it’s fine. But I still need them.

Just the idea that they’re there, even if you know they can be broken, is helpful.

Yeah, it pushes you to finish things. That’s so often the hardest part in any creative endeavor: just getting to the place where you feel like you can say it’s done. Because the nature of creativity is that something can be done whenever you say it’s done. You can keep working on something indefinitely. That’s what those deadlines are for, just to say: this is where it is now. If I feel mostly happy with it, I can call it a day.

Speaking of the record: I wouldn’t call it a concept record, but parenthood comes up a lot throughout these songs. Your son even appears on the closing track. Whether it’s in your songwriting or even in the space you’re making or the time you have, how has becoming a father shifted things?

On a practical level, it’s shifted my sense of time and my sense of scheduling and my sense of organization around creativity and creating. But on a larger level, what impacted this record in particular was the really abrupt lifestyle shift…the perspective shift on what’s important to me, both as a person and someone who makes things. More specifically…I don’t know, I think it brought about a new optimism and a new acceptance of earnestness.

There are still moments on this record that try not to take themselves too seriously, that try to have a sense of humor and dip into playful cynicism, but for the most part my tendencies have shifted towards openness. I think it’s also made me come to terms with a lot of the insecurities I’ve had throughout the course of my adult and creative life. Viewing that through the lens of bringing a person into the world has just made me want things to be good for him.

It’s funny, I was very surprised at how much I started thinking about death. Okay, this is going to sound very bleak, but truly: bringing a new life into the world, having a child, it really put things into perspective for me. Suddenly my life seemed a lot shorter and I was like, “Oh, shit. I need to be grateful for this time and how I use it.”

I also just got out of therapy, by the way, so if my answers are getting overly-existential that might be why. [laughs]

How old is Calder now?

He’s three and a half.

Has he listened to much of your music? Does he have an understanding of you as a musician?

He does and it’s really cool. It’s really fun because it’s totally out-of-context. We’ve showed him videos of me playing live, which is something he hasn’t really fully comprehended. He thinks it’s cool but doesn’t quite understand it.

But it’s more so that I was playing these songs around the house, listening to mixes and stuff, and he was around. He knows the song he’s on. He calls it “The Calder Song.” He’ll say, “I wanna listen to ‘Calder Song’!” There’s another song on the record called “Dial Tone” that, for whatever reason, he calls “Daddy’s Song.” He’ll always be requesting to hear these songs, but it’s also funny, too, because he’s a three year old and has no filter. There are some songs I’ll play him and he’ll say, “I don’t like this song. I want to listen to ‘Calder Song.’” Fair enough.

You’ve got time capsules for him he’ll be able to plug into whenever. That’s a luxury a lot of parents don’t necessarily have.

I’ve always thought of my records as time capsules in some sense—not so much for other people, though that may be the case, but really for me. I cannot disassociate certain records from certain times in my life, what I was going through emotionally or where I was geographically. That’s already been a gift to me.

So I do think about that. Who knows how long it will take for him to even have an interest in digging into that stuff. But it is an interesting position to be in as a parent; to have all these things I’ve made exist in a very public way. He will have access to them, regardless of whether or not I choose to show them to him.

You produced Hold on your own. You also produced Molly Burch’s latest record, Daydreamer. The definition of a producer can vary depending on who defines it. What’s it mean to you?

I’ll take the case with Molly’s record first, because I think that’s more of a cut-and-dry situation. I feel like my role with that record as a producer was in the traditional sense. She had a bunch of songs written but they were very bare-bones: her, a piano, and a drum machine. Super-duper blank slate in terms of how she wanted them to sound. That was very fun for me to work on because I was given these blank canvases where the melodies were in place, the choruses were in place, and the bones were so good. So it was really just my job to create new arrangements.

I spent a lot of time working on her record by myself. We started working on it remotely, so I was taking the demos she sent me, stripping them of everything, and then rebuilding them from the ground floor. Then I’d start sending her ideas back, getting a sense of what she liked, what she didn’t like. Eventually we went into a studio and recorded it all as we hoped it would be. In that sense, my role as a producer was building the arrangements. But it was also a taste thing, deciding how to best dress these songs.

The same is true of my own record. I self-produced it because I recorded a large portion of it entirely by myself. When I did go in and bring in some players, I did work with an engineer—this guy Adrian Olsen, an engineer in Richmond who’s incredibly talented in his own right as a producer, mixer, and engineer—to help execute the sounds I had in my head.

I do think people have different definitions of what a music producer is. It runs from a Rick Rubin sitting-in-the-room, like, “This is dope.” [laughs] He does more than that, I’m sure. Let me not publicly roast Rick Rubin.

And then there are people I’ve worked with in the past who handle every aspect of the record: engineering, mixing, just someone who’s incredibly technically minded and making decisions every step of the way. And I don’t consider myself a mixer, for what it’s worth.

When you work in that context with Molly—or like you did on a few of the tracks from Japanese Breakfast’s Jubilee—are you consciously trying to plug into another artist’s vision? Or are you bringing your own style and voice to their project?

For me, it’s a little of both. When I do work with other people, I’m trying to be conscious of what their vision is, what it is they’re hoping to accomplish, and what sounds they want to use to convey their ideas.

But I’m also equally aware that if they’ve gotten in touch with me, there’s something innate about what I do that must be appealing to them. So I still try and work within my wheelhouse to get them to wherever it is they’re looking to go.

With something like “Be Sweet” that was a song we wrote without any intention of either one of us using it. As we started building it, we started having a lot of fun with it. Eventually, Michelle was like, “I want to use this. I want this to be a Japanese Breakfast song.” And now I listen to that song and hear a lot of myself in it, which is fun and rewarding.

More than in the past, Hold sounds like you’re looking to rise to the sonic maximalism of some of your influences. I’m wondering if you’re seeing that final product early on in your process. Do you ever sit down and say, “I’m going to try and write a Peter Gabriel song”? Or is just that exploratory phase and then eventually you get to the same realm?

I think I do both. I have a handful of tricks I’ll reach for when I have writer’s block or want to start something new. Sometimes I just get lucky and I can old school chase the muse. Those moments are few and far between, but they’re really wonderful when they happen.

A lot of times I have to set some boundaries for the task to start something new. Sometimes it starts by being very frank and deliberate—almost creating a challenge for myself, like: “I want to write this kind of song.” Or I’ll have a song I’m obsessed with and try to dissect what it is I like about that song. Then I’ll start by emulating it with the understanding that, because it’s me, I won’t really be able to do it as well as I might hope. Which is a good thing. I think a lot of successful things start with trying to rip something off and then you go off on tangents because you can’t help it.

All of those methods got put to use on Hold. There are some songs that started with very direct influences and other ones that were born out of feeling, which would allow me to start writing even if I didn’t have a super-specific reference point.

A parameter or a limitation or a challenge can be helpful because it takes some of the pressure off. It’s just a lark, I’m just playing around.

Yeah, and it feels weird because I think sometimes—and I would imagine maybe other people feel this way, too, sometimes—as a creative person you can almost feel guilty when an idea isn’t just born out of the ether. When you have to work for it or make an exercise out of it. Sometimes your gut is saying it’s a lesser expression. But I don’t think that that’s true. As someone who is now a career artist—which is weird to think, because I don’t feel that way, I don’t feel that old, I don’t feel like I’ve been making music for that long, but I kind of have—that becomes part of it. The process of writing music is as much part of the expression as anything else. Giving myself writing exercises is more fun than trying to chase the muse.

At this point, is there a distinct voice you aim for with Wild Nothing? Or is Wild Nothing, creatively speaking, synonymous with Jack Tatum?

I think it’s grown more synonymous with me as a person. There are still creative tendencies, musically, that I haven’t allowed myself to explore within the confines of Wild Nothing. But I think, largely speaking, Wild Nothing feels like an honest representation of my taste and what I want to do as a songwriter.

I do struggle with it sometimes, honestly. I’ve always filtered my music through the lens of eighties production techniques that I like. Sometimes you become a bit limited by what you put out in the world and sometimes I worry people see me for doing this one thing or framing my music in a certain way when the truth is that it’s very much a choice. I’m thinking of how to talk about it without coming across as being defensive about something I have no real need to be defensive about.

This record to me feels like a real-deal expression of where I’m at, even more so than some of my earlier stuff, honestly. Lyrically and emotionally, there was a lot of stuff early on that was very forthcoming and very earnest, but musically speaking that was the period of my life where I was the most focused on trying to do something else, trying to be something else, trying very hard to do a certain kind of thing. Whereas now I’m very okay with bouncing around a little bit and following a whim.

This content originally appeared on The Creative Independent and was authored by Kevin M. Kearney.

The state of civic space in Indonesia has been rated as “obstructed” in the latest CIVICUS Monitor report.

The civic space watchdog said that ongoing concerns include the arrest, harassment and criminalisation of human rights defenders and journalists as well as physical and digital attacks, the use of defamation laws to silence online dissent and excessive use of force by the police during protests, especially in the Papuan region.

In July 2023, the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Alice Wairimu Nderitu, expressed concerns regarding the human rights situation in the West Papua region in her opening remarks during the 22nd Meeting of the 53rd Regular Session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

• READ MORE: West Papuan, Indonesian youth protest over ‘illegal’ 1962 Rome Agreement
• The CIVICUS Monitor report
• Other West Papua reports

She highlighted the harassment, arbitrary arrest and detention of Papuans, which had led to the appropriation of customary land in West Papua.

She encouraged the Indonesian government to ensure humanitarian assistance and engage in “a genuine inclusive dialogue”.

In August 2023, human rights organisations called on Indonesia to make serious commitments as the country sought membership in the UN Human Rights Council for the period 2024 to 2026.

Among the calls were to ratify international human rights instruments, especially the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED), to provide details of steps it will take to implement all of the supported recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and to fully cooperate with the Special Procedures of the Council.

Call to respect free expression
The groups also called on the government to ensure the respect, protection and promotion of the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, for clear commitments to ensure a safe and enabling environment for all human rights defenders, to find a sustainable solution for the human rights crisis in Papua and to end impunity.

In recent months, protests by communities have been met with arbitrary arrests and excessive force from the police.

The arbitrary arrests, harassment and criminalisation of Papuan activists continue, while an LGBT conference was cancelled due to harassment and threats.

Human rights defenders continue to face defamation charges, there have been harassment and threats against journalists, while a TikTok communicator was jailed for two years over a pork video.

Ongoing targeting of Papuan activists
Arbitrary arrests, harassment and criminalisation of Papuan activists continue to be documented.

According to the Human Rights Monitor, on 5 July 2023, four armed plainclothes police officers arrested Viktor Makamuke, a 52-year-old activist of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), a pro-independence movement.

He was subsequently detained at the Sorong Selatan District Police Station where officers allegedly coerced and threatened Makamuke to pledge allegiance to the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI).

A week earlier, Makamuke and his friend had reportedly posted a photo in support of ULMWP full membership in the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) — an intergovernmental organisation composed of the four Melanesian states.

Shortly after the arrest, the police published a statement claiming that Makamuke was the commander of the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) — an armed group — in the Bomberai Region.

The Human Rights Monitor reported that members of the Yahukimo District police arbitrarily arrested six activists belonging to the West Papua National Committee (KNPB) in the town of Dekai, Yahukimo Regency, on 6 July 2023.

KNPB is a movement promoting the right to self-determination through peaceful action and is one of the most frequently targeted groups in West Papua.

The activists organised and carried out a collective cleaning activity in Dekai. The police repeatedly approached them claiming that the activists needed official permission for their activity.

Six KNPB activists arrested
Subsequently, police officers arrested the six KNPB activists without a warrant or justifying the arrest. All activists were released after being interrogated for an hour.

On 8 August 2023, three students were found guilty of treason and subsequently given a 10-month prison sentence by the Jayapura District Court.

Yoseph Ernesto Matuan, Devio Tekege and Ambrosius Fransiskus Elopere were charged with treason due to their involvement in an event held at the Jayapura University of Science and Technology (USTJ) in November 2022, where they waved the Morning Star flag, a banned symbol of Papuan independence.

Their action was in protest against a planned peace dialogue proposed by the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM).

According to Amnesty International Indonesia, between 2019 and 2022 there have been at least 61 cases involving 111 individuals in Papua who were charged with treason.

At least 37 supporters of the West Papua National Committee (KNPB) were arrested in relation to peaceful demonstrations to commemorate the 1962 New York Agreement in the towns Sentani, Jayapura Regency and Dekai, Yahukimo Regency, on 14 and 15 August 2023.

Allegations of police ill-treatment
There were also allegations of ill-treatment by the police.

On 2 September 2023, police officers detained Agus Kossay, Chairman of the West Papua National Coalition (KNPB); Benny Murip, KNPB Secretary in Jayapura; Ruben Wakla, member of the KNPB in the Yahukimo Regency; and Ferry Yelipele.

The four activists were subsequently detained and interrogated at the Jayapura District Police Station in Doyo Baru. Wakla and Yelipele were released on 3rd September 2023 without charge.

Police officers reportedly charged Kossay and Murip under Article 160 and Article 170 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP) for “incitement”.

• The full CIVICUS Monitor report on Indonesia

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Sent via email

Madam Prime Minister Hasina,

We, the 19 undersigned press freedom and human rights organizations, write to seek your administration’s urgent intervention to immediately end the harassment and intimidation of journalist Adhora Yeasmean, who faces an investigation under the Digital Security Act (DSA) for her April 29 video report for RTV on the alleged crimes of the religious organization Rajarbagh Darbar Sharif. The authorities should immediately drop their investigation into Yeasmean.

We have also received disturbing reports that Rajarbagh Darbar Sharif members have conducted unlawful surveillance of Yeasmean since mid-July, continually following her and threatening to file additional complaints against her and her family members in retaliation for her reporting. The authorities must swiftly investigate these threats, hold the perpetrators accountable, and ensure her physical and psychological safety and security.

We also call on the Government of Bangladesh to dismiss the DSA investigation into the journalist’s interviewee and co-accused, Akramul Ahsan Kanchan, who has been targeted in this case for claiming in Yeasmean’s report that Shakerul Kabir, one of Rajarbagh Darbar Sharif’s leaders, took possession of the properties of locals based on false promises of financial gain.

Legal retaliation against a source in journalistic reporting is an act of intimidation that inhibits the functioning of a free press. Journalism is not a crime, and the media should be free and empowered to cover local and national developments in Bangladesh without fear of reprisal by subjects of reporting or the authorities. This is particularly relevant in the run-up to the January 2024 national election.

Further, while we welcome the government’s recent decision to repeal the DSA, the draft of the law’s replacement, the Cyber Security Act, retains several repressive sections previously used to stifle independent journalism and human rights, including freedom of expression, privacy, and liberty in Bangladesh.

We urge your administration to consult with and incorporate feedback from civil society organizations, journalists, and other stakeholders to ensure that the new legislation aligns with international human rights standards, upholds the rights to freedom of expression and media freedom as guaranteed under the Constitution of Bangladesh, and does not place journalists and human rights defenders at constant risk of criminalization for their work. The authorities should immediately drop all DSA charges against those targeted under the law solely for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression and release those held on these charges.

Your administration can start by addressing the wrongful accusations against Yeasmean. On May 13, the Chittagong Cyber Tribunal registered Kabir’s complaint accusing Yeasmean and Kanchan of violating three sections of the DSA, and the police were ordered to investigate. In violation of her right to due process, it took nearly two months for Yeasmean to learn about the case, since Dhaka’s Tejgaon Police Station called her only on July 8, by which time the investigation had already been transferred to the Noakhali Criminal Investigation Department, about 173 kilometers (107 miles) from her home.

In May, Kanchan was convicted and imprisoned in a separate “fraud” case, which his lawyer Shishir Manir claims is an act of retaliation for alleging to the media that Rajarbagh Darbar Sharif had engaged in “land grabbing,” and for organizing collective legal action against the organization in 2021, leading to three court-ordered government probes. One of these probes found Pir Dillur Rahman, Rajarbagh Darbar Sharif’s head, and his followers had lodged 49 “fictitious” criminal complaints, including those of human trafficking, violence against women, and attempt to murder, against Kanchan due to a property dispute. We call for an independent and transparent commission of inquiry to thoroughly and impartially investigate the circumstances surrounding Kanchan’s detention and to release the findings to the public.

We urge the Government of Bangladesh to swiftly follow procedure to dismiss the DSA case against Yeasmean and Kanchan by submitting a final report to the cyber tribunal and ensuring that they, like others targeted under the law solely for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression, are not subjected to further retaliation.

Signed:

Amnesty International

ARTICLE 19 South Asia

Asian Human Rights Commission

Bangladeshi Journalists in International Media

Capital Punishment Justice Project

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

Coalition For Women In Journalism (CFWIJ)

Committee to Protect Journalists

Forum for Freedom of Expression, Bangladesh

Free Press Unlimited

IFEX

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)

International Women’s Media Foundation

PEN America

PEN Bangladesh

PEN International

Reporters Without Borders

Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights

____

CC: Mr. Asaduzzaman Khan
Minister of Home Affairs
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
minister@mha.gov.bd

CC: Mr. Anisul Huq
Minister of Law, Justice, and Parliament
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
secretary@lawjusticediv.gov.bd

CC: Mr. Md. Faridul Haque Khan
Minister of Religious Affairs
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
moragovbd@gmail.com

CC: Mr. A.K. Abdul Momen
Minister of Foreign Affairs
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
fm@mofa.gov.bd

CC: Mr. Kamal Uddin Ahmed
Chairperson of National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
info@nhrc.org.bd

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

“Today’s judgment is a massive victory for media freedom in South Africa and an important vindication of a journalist’s ethical duty to protect confidential sources in the public interest,” said Angela Quintal, CPJ’s Africa program coordinator. “Deputy Judge President Roland Sutherland’s judgment reaffirms that the country’s courts will not condone pre-publication censorship without appropriate notice and that investigative journalists have the right to hold and use leaked information in the public interest.”

Quintal has been an amaBhungane board member since October 2013.

A judge granted the original injunction against amaBhungane on June 1—following a secret application by the Moti Group, the subject of the outlet’s coverage—and the action was widely condemned as a threat to media freedom in the country. The injunction ordered the outlet to return leaked documents and refrain from publishing further articles based on them.

On June 3, amaBhungane launched an urgent application in the Johannesburg High Court to overturn the order, in which the parties agreed that the investigative outlet would not destroy or alter the documentation until the matter could be heard in open court. 

AmaBhungane sought another urgent application seeking to overthrow the original order last week; the judgment in its favor was delivered Monday, July 3.

Sutherland called the Moti Group’s application an “abuse of the court process,” according to multiple news reports and a joint statement by the South African National Editors’ Forum, the Campaign for Free Expression, and Media Monitoring Africa, three local press freedom organizations who joined amaBhungane in its legal case. The judge ordered the Moti Group to pay amaBhungane’s and the three organizations’ legal costs.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

Split deity, Haida carving. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

Montana’s Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte became the latest to sign several new anti-transgender laws, including one that will prevent gender-affirming medical care for minors.

One thing these new laws do not take into account is that the 12 federally recognized tribes in Montana have historically recognized multiple gender identities, including transgender identities. Most Indigenous peoples recognize multiple gender identities that are believed to be the result of supernatural intervention.

In this regard, Montana state Rep. Donavon Hawk, a Democrat from Butte who is Crow and Lakota, said, “It surprises me that this country is only a couple hundred years old, and we are not able to function with LGBTQ people in our communities.” Indigenous communities have incorporated LGBTQ+ peoples within their societies for centuries.

As an Indigenous scholar who studies the history and religion of Indigenous peoples, I am troubled by how these new anti-transgender laws might affect religious expression and the rights of Indigenous communities, not just in Montana but across the nation.

Indigenous ideas about gender

Indigenous peoples have been in North America for at least 30,000 years. As their societies developed over time, hundreds of different ethnicities, languages, religious practices, gender expressions and identities emerged.

Transgender individuals, an umbrella term for individuals whose gender identity is not linked to the sex they were assigned at birth, have existed throughout history, including within Indigenous communities.

I learned from my maternal grandparents about Blackfeet religion and history. The Blackfeet acknowledged and accepted individual gender expression and identity because it was granted by the divine. Personal gender identity was rarely questioned, because it was tantamount to questioning the divine.

I first learned about Blackfeet ideas about transgender individuals as a young person from hearing oral history stories about famous Blackfeet religious leaders, warriors and adventurers who were transgender. They were viewed as having a direct connection to the divine. People often sought out these individuals for blessings, prayer or spiritual guidance.

Indeed, anthropologists and historians have studied Blackfeet gender expression and learned that the Blackfeet recognized multiple gender identities, including what is defined today in Western societies as transgender.

Two-Spirit and the divine

The modern-day term that many Indigenous peoples in North America have begun to use as an umbrella term to describe the multiple gender identities within Indigenous communities is Two-Spirit. That includes transgender people.

In many Indigenous communities, as the Indian Health Service notes, Two-Spirit identity is believed to come from the divine in visions or dreams and Two-Spirit people often “filled special religious roles as healers, shamans and ceremonial leaders.”

Even though the term Two-Spirit does not encompass the wide variety of gender identities across Indigenous communities, many people embrace its use as a way to revitalize Indigenous traditions.

Sadly, transphobia does exist within contemporary Native American communities. And anti-transgender violence is part of the life experience of Two-Spirit people. Some scholars argue this is because of the long history of colonialism and cultural genocide that forced the Western-defined gender binary and patriarchy on Indigenous communities.

The laws might hurt Indigenous rights

Montana’s recent legislative session passed several anti-transgender laws, including one that allows health care providers to refuse patients based on conscience, prohibits drag story hours and defines biological sex as only male or female, in addition to preventing gender-affirming medical care for minors.

Worried about how this last law will affect Montana’s children, the Montana Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that “taking away this care will, without a doubt, harm kids.”

Montana is not alone in its efforts to introduce and pass anti-transgender legislation. The nationwide civil rights group Human Rights Campaign states that in 2023 alone, more than 450 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced in state legislatures.

Investigative journalist Nora Mabie wrote in an article in May 2023 that Indigenous peoples and Native American tribes were being left out of this decision-making process as a result of racism, discrimination and partisanship in the Montana Legislature.

By ignoring the long Indigenous histories of integrating multiple gender identities consecrated by the divine, legislatures are bound to cause both individual suffering and the diminishing of Indigenous peoples’ rights to practice their own religions.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Rosalyn R. LaPier.

The post National Security State Propaganda, the Fourth Estate’s Deadly Follies, and Why We Need a Truly Independent Press in Support of Human Rights and Freedom of Expression as we Celebrate Press Freedom Day appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Project Censored.

Twitter CEO Elon Musk, a self-proclaimed free speech absolutist, suspended a number of journalists from the social media platform on Thursday in what the ACLU condemned as "an attack on free expression" that should be reversed.

Musk justified his decision by claiming those suspended—including Drew Harwell of The Washington Post, Micah Lee of The Intercept, Ryan Mac of The New York Times, and Matt Binder of Mashable—shared real-time details about his location, an accusation stemming from the journalists' reporting on a Twitter account that tracked the movements of the billionaire's private jet.

That account and the person behind it, a college student, have been suspended and Musk says he intends to take legal action, even though the flight information was based on publicly available data.

"Criticizing me all day long is totally fine," Musk tweeted late Thursday, "but doxxing my real-time location and endangering my family is not."

Following the suspensions of journalists, which were carried out without notice or immediate explanation, the Post reported that "none of the tweets from suspended reporters" that it reviewed "revealed the location of Musk or his family."

Musk later insisted that even so much as sharing a link to the flight-tracking account in the course of reporting amounts to a violation of Twitter's newly amended policy against sharing a person's "live location information."

As Musk faced backlash from press freedom and civil liberties groups over the decision, he posted a poll on Twitter asking users when he should unsuspend the journalists' accounts. When a plurality of respondents said the accounts should be restored "now," Musk tweeted: "Sorry, too many options. Will redo poll."

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told NPR that "Musk suspending journalists' accounts is petty and vindictive and absolutely disgraceful—and especially so because Musk has styled himself, however absurdly, as a champion of free speech."

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a watchdog group that defends press freedom worldwide, said in a statement that it is "concerned about news reports that journalists who have covered recent developments involving Twitter and its owner, Elon Musk, have had their accounts on the platform suspended."

"If confirmed as retaliation for their work, this would be a serious violation of journalists' right to report the news without fear of reprisal," the group added.

Musk's move also drew attention and criticism from lawmakers.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who has faced death threats and other forms of harassment, tweeted that she understands "feeling unsafe, but descending into abuse of power [and] erratically banning journalists only increases the intensity around you."

"You're a public figure. An extremely controversial and powerful one," Ocasio-Cortez wrote. "Take a beat and lay off the proto-fascism. Maybe try putting down your phone."

Edward Snowden, who exposed mass surveillance by the powerful U.S. National Security Agency and is now living in Russia under threat of imprisonment in his home country, weighed in on the suspensions Friday morning, writing that he is "significantly more sympathetic to Elon Musk's concern about crazy people showing up at the door than the average person because, well, look at my life, but c'mon, man."

"You're a public figure in a position of power in a world where even normal people are constantly tracked," Snowden added.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Twitter CEO Elon Musk, a self-proclaimed free speech absolutist, suspended a number of journalists from the social media platform on Thursday in what the ACLU condemned as "an attack on free expression" that should be reversed.

Musk justified his decision by claiming those suspended—including Drew Harwell of The Washington Post, Micah Lee of The Intercept, Ryan Mac of The New York Times, and Matt Binder of Mashable—shared real-time details about his location, an accusation stemming from the journalists' reporting on a Twitter account that tracked the movements of the billionaire's private jet.

That account and the person behind it, a college student, have been suspended and Musk says he intends to take legal action, even though the flight information was based on publicly available data.

"Criticizing me all day long is totally fine," Musk tweeted late Thursday, "but doxxing my real-time location and endangering my family is not."

Following the suspensions of journalists, which were carried out without notice or immediate explanation, the Post reported that "none of the tweets from suspended reporters" that it reviewed "revealed the location of Musk or his family."

Musk later insisted that even so much as sharing a link to the flight-tracking account in the course of reporting amounts to a violation of Twitter's newly amended policy against sharing a person's "live location information."

As Musk faced backlash from press freedom and civil liberties groups over the decision, he posted a poll on Twitter asking users when he should unsuspend the journalists' accounts. When a plurality of respondents said the accounts should be restored "now," Musk tweeted: "Sorry, too many options. Will redo poll."

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told NPR that "Musk suspending journalists' accounts is petty and vindictive and absolutely disgraceful—and especially so because Musk has styled himself, however absurdly, as a champion of free speech."

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a watchdog group that defends press freedom worldwide, said in a statement that it is "concerned about news reports that journalists who have covered recent developments involving Twitter and its owner, Elon Musk, have had their accounts on the platform suspended."

"If confirmed as retaliation for their work, this would be a serious violation of journalists' right to report the news without fear of reprisal," the group added.

Musk's move also drew attention and criticism from lawmakers.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who has faced death threats and other forms of harassment, tweeted that she understands "feeling unsafe, but descending into abuse of power [and] erratically banning journalists only increases the intensity around you."

"You're a public figure. An extremely controversial and powerful one," Ocasio-Cortez wrote. "Take a beat and lay off the proto-fascism. Maybe try putting down your phone."

Edward Snowden, who exposed mass surveillance by the powerful U.S. National Security Agency and is now living in Russia under threat of imprisonment in his home country, weighed in on the suspensions Friday morning, writing that he is "significantly more sympathetic to Elon Musk's concern about crazy people showing up at the door than the average person because, well, look at my life, but c'mon, man."

"You're a public figure in a position of power in a world where even normal people are constantly tracked," Snowden added.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Twitter CEO Elon Musk, a self-proclaimed free speech absolutist, suspended a number of journalists from the social media platform on Thursday in what the ACLU condemned as "an attack on free expression" that should be reversed.

Musk justified his decision by claiming those suspended—including Drew Harwell of The Washington Post, Micah Lee of The Intercept, Ryan Mac of The New York Times, and Matt Binder of Mashable—shared real-time details about his location, an accusation stemming from the journalists' reporting on a Twitter account that tracked the movements of the billionaire's private jet.

That account and the person behind it, a college student, have been suspended and Musk says he intends to take legal action, even though the flight information was based on publicly available data.

"Criticizing me all day long is totally fine," Musk tweeted late Thursday, "but doxxing my real-time location and endangering my family is not."

Following the suspensions of journalists, which were carried out without notice or immediate explanation, the Post reported that "none of the tweets from suspended reporters" that it reviewed "revealed the location of Musk or his family."

Musk later insisted that even so much as sharing a link to the flight-tracking account in the course of reporting amounts to a violation of Twitter's newly amended policy against sharing a person's "live location information."

As Musk faced backlash from press freedom and civil liberties groups over the decision, he posted a poll on Twitter asking users when he should unsuspend the journalists' accounts. When a plurality of respondents said the accounts should be restored "now," Musk tweeted: "Sorry, too many options. Will redo poll."

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told NPR that "Musk suspending journalists' accounts is petty and vindictive and absolutely disgraceful—and especially so because Musk has styled himself, however absurdly, as a champion of free speech."

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a watchdog group that defends press freedom worldwide, said in a statement that it is "concerned about news reports that journalists who have covered recent developments involving Twitter and its owner, Elon Musk, have had their accounts on the platform suspended."

"If confirmed as retaliation for their work, this would be a serious violation of journalists' right to report the news without fear of reprisal," the group added.

Musk's move also drew attention and criticism from lawmakers.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who has faced death threats and other forms of harassment, tweeted that she understands "feeling unsafe, but descending into abuse of power [and] erratically banning journalists only increases the intensity around you."

"You're a public figure. An extremely controversial and powerful one," Ocasio-Cortez wrote. "Take a beat and lay off the proto-fascism. Maybe try putting down your phone."

Edward Snowden, who exposed mass surveillance by the powerful U.S. National Security Agency and is now living in Russia under threat of imprisonment in his home country, weighed in on the suspensions Friday morning, writing that he is "significantly more sympathetic to Elon Musk's concern about crazy people showing up at the door than the average person because, well, look at my life, but c'mon, man."

"You're a public figure in a position of power in a world where even normal people are constantly tracked," Snowden added.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Twitter CEO Elon Musk, a self-proclaimed free speech absolutist, suspended a number of journalists from the social media platform on Thursday in what the ACLU condemned as "an attack on free expression" that should be reversed.

Musk justified his decision by claiming those suspended—including Drew Harwell of The Washington Post, Micah Lee of The Intercept, Ryan Mac of The New York Times, and Matt Binder of Mashable—shared real-time details about his location, an accusation stemming from the journalists' reporting on a Twitter account that tracked the movements of the billionaire's private jet.

That account and the person behind it, a college student, have been suspended and Musk says he intends to take legal action, even though the flight information was based on publicly available data.

"Criticizing me all day long is totally fine," Musk tweeted late Thursday, "but doxxing my real-time location and endangering my family is not."

Following the suspensions of journalists, which were carried out without notice or immediate explanation, the Post reported that "none of the tweets from suspended reporters" that it reviewed "revealed the location of Musk or his family."

Musk later insisted that even so much as sharing a link to the flight-tracking account in the course of reporting amounts to a violation of Twitter's newly amended policy against sharing a person's "live location information."

As Musk faced backlash from press freedom and civil liberties groups over the decision, he posted a poll on Twitter asking users when he should unsuspend the journalists' accounts. When a plurality of respondents said the accounts should be restored "now," Musk tweeted: "Sorry, too many options. Will redo poll."

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told NPR that "Musk suspending journalists' accounts is petty and vindictive and absolutely disgraceful—and especially so because Musk has styled himself, however absurdly, as a champion of free speech."

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a watchdog group that defends press freedom worldwide, said in a statement that it is "concerned about news reports that journalists who have covered recent developments involving Twitter and its owner, Elon Musk, have had their accounts on the platform suspended."

"If confirmed as retaliation for their work, this would be a serious violation of journalists' right to report the news without fear of reprisal," the group added.

Musk's move also drew attention and criticism from lawmakers.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who has faced death threats and other forms of harassment, tweeted that she understands "feeling unsafe, but descending into abuse of power [and] erratically banning journalists only increases the intensity around you."

"You're a public figure. An extremely controversial and powerful one," Ocasio-Cortez wrote. "Take a beat and lay off the proto-fascism. Maybe try putting down your phone."

Edward Snowden, who exposed mass surveillance by the powerful U.S. National Security Agency and is now living in Russia under threat of imprisonment in his home country, weighed in on the suspensions Friday morning, writing that he is "significantly more sympathetic to Elon Musk's concern about crazy people showing up at the door than the average person because, well, look at my life, but c'mon, man."

"You're a public figure in a position of power in a world where even normal people are constantly tracked," Snowden added.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

The EARN IT Act of 2022 aims to hold tech companies responsible for the online spread of child pornography. As Mathew Ingram reported for the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), the Act would establish a national commission to develop “best practices for the elimination of child sex-abuse material (CSAM).” Under the act, “online platforms hosting such material would lose the protection of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives electronic service providers immunity from prosecution for most of the content that is posted by their users,” the CJR reported.

The EARN IT Act could significantly impact freedom of expression on the internet far beyond its stated aim of policing child pornography. The CJR report quoted Riana Pfefferkorn, a research fellow at the Stanford Internet Observatory, who wrote that the act will result in companies “overzealously censoring lots of perfectly legal user speech just in case anything that could potentially be deemed CSAM might be lurking in there.” The human rights organization Article 19 warned that the EARN IT Act would encourage platforms to engage in “overbroad censorship of online speech,” targeting especially content created by “diverse communities, including LGBTQ individuals, whose posts are disproportionately labeled as sexually explicit.”

The proposed Act would actually “undermine the fight against child predation online,” Kir Nuthi reported for Slate in February 2022. Noting the “delicate constitutional balance that allows online platforms to voluntarily search for illicit and illegal material and report it to authorities without violating the Fourth Amendment,” Nuthi wrote that the EARN IT Act could “end up giving criminals a way to challenge their convictions for child sexual abuse material.” Nuthi added that, of course, it is “already a criminal offense to produce or distribute child sexual abuse content.”

Because encryption is a potential red flag for CSAM content, the CJR reported, the EARN IT Act will likely pressure platforms to stop offering end-to-end encryption. In 2020, Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society had characterized the then-current version of the EARN IT Act as a means to “ban end-to-end encryption without actually banning it.” The revised version of the legislation has “doubled-down” on anti-encryption, according to Stanford’s Riana Pfefferkorn. But strong encryption is vital to many online users, especially members of marginalized communities. According to a 2020 analysis by the ACLU’s Kate Ruane, “Strong encryption can be vital to many in the LGBTQ community who rely on the internet to access a support network, seek resources to combat discrimination and abuse, and find doctors and treatment to assist with transition, HIV prevention, and other health concerns.” Ruane noted that encryption also provides crucial safeguards for domestic violence victims, protest organizers, and journalists protecting confidential sources.

Since early 2022, the EARN IT Act has received limited coverage from major corporate newspapers such as the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. A February 2022 editorial in the Washington Post reported on the bill’s “dangerous tradeoffs,” noting that concerns raised by privacy and speech advocates—including threats to end-to-end encryption and legitimate free expression—“have some merit.” A February 2022 report in the Wall Street Journal noted opposition to the EARN IT Act by “a coalition comprising more than 60 privacy and human-rights groups” but emphasized a positive consensus between Republican and Democratic lawmakers, including Leslie Graham (R-SC) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

Mathew Ingram, “A Resurrected Bill Troubles Digital Rights Advocates and Journalists,” Columbia Journalism Review, February 17, 2022.

Kir Nuthi, “The EARN IT Act Would Give Criminal Defendants a Get-out-of-Jail-Free Card,” Slate, February 11, 2022.

Student Researcher: Lily Callow (Saint Michael’s College)

Faculty Evaluator: Rob Williams (Saint Michael’s College)

The post #15 EARN IT Act Threatens Online Freedom of Expression Under Guise of Policing Child Pornography appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Project Censored.

“In fact, the arrests and imprisonment of those who use the right to freedom of expression to voice their opinions are at their peak,” the report said. From the beginning of 2021 to May 31 this year, VNHRN said at least 48 people were arrested and detained, and 72 were given heavy sentences.

“Most of them were convicted for allegedly using the media to express their opinions and aspirations other than the ruling party’s. To our knowledge, Vietnamese authorities currently imprison at least 290 political and religious prisoners with multi-year sentences,” the report said.

Along with restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and information, VNHRN’s president Nguyen Ba Tung told RFA the government is ignoring many more basic human rights, describing the 2019 labor law as an empty promise and also criticizing the government's track record on religion.

“Regarding the right to religious freedom, the government has increased its control and manipulation of religious organizations and eliminated non-registered religious groups," he said, adding that the government has promoted political dogma over religious faith.

"We raised the issue of children being indoctrinated in schools as well as in organizations like Uncle Ho's Good Children - an issue that has not been raised in any international report on the issue of children's rights.”

Nguyen said that no international research agency has talked about the discrimination faced by non-party members no matter how well they had served the country in the past.

“Someone raised the fact that military officers must be party members, which violates the basic rights of people in the political sphere and even as a citizen in defending one's homeland," he said.

VNHRN’s report covers last year and the first few months of 2022. It was put together with help from several activists in Vietnam. The study focuses on the areas outlined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Conventions on Human Rights that Vietnam has committed to observing. Those rights are: liberty, security of person, a fair trial by an independent, impartial tribunal; the right to participate in national political life, freedom of expression and information, freedom of religion and worship; the right to work and enjoy the fruits of that labor, equal treatment and non-discrimination, and well-being.

VNHRN said the aim of the report is to alert the world about what it called “the alarming human rights situation in Vietnam today.” The report also offers the Vietnamese government what VNHRN called “concrete and feasible recommendations for the Vietnamese government to terminate its repeated violations throughout the years.”

VNHRN said that until Vietnam improved its human rights record members of the United Nations General Assembly should vote against Vietnam’s membership of its Human Rights Council.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Vietnamese.

On May 25, Armenia’s parliament approved the amendments to the country’s mass media law, according to news reports and an entry on the parliamentary website. Previously, only media outlets could revoke their journalists’ accreditation with state agencies, although amendments last December allowed agencies to deny accreditation.

According to media reports, local press freedom advocates fear that authorities could use the amendments to bar critical journalists from covering parliamentary sessions and other government events. The amendments will take effect when signed by the country’s president, according to Ashot Melikyan, head of the local press advocacy group Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression, who spoke with CPJ by telephone.

“The recent amendments to journalist accreditation regulations are the latest example of Armenia’s departure from international standards in media legislation. Given the country’s highly polarized politics and potential for selective application, these amendments are concerning,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “We urge President Khachaturyan to refrain from ratifying the amendments and call on authorities to work with local press freedom organizations to reform recent restrictive media laws.”

Under the new regulations, state bodies will be able to terminate journalists’ accreditation if they violate the body’s accreditation regulations or “rules of procedure” for a second time within a year after receiving a written warning for a previous violation.

The bill’s authors, two deputies with Armenia’s ruling Civil Contract party, have denied that the amendments restrict freedom of the press, stating in parliament that only the accreditation of a specific journalist can be revoked, not media outlets as a whole. They added that outlets would be able to replace any journalist whose accreditation was terminated and argued in parliament and in an explanatory note accompanying the bill that the change was necessitated by “numerous cases” of journalists threatening and insulting parliamentary deputies and “obstructing the activities of both deputies and other journalists.”

Melikyan told CPJ that while a small number of journalists have been guilty of inappropriate behavior, it was wrong to enact laws on this basis, as authorities could use the law as an “instrument of pressure” against the journalistic community. “Today, government organs might object to journalists’ behavior. Later it could be how journalists cover their work,” Melikyan said.

Journalists will be able to appeal decisions on denial and termination of accreditation through the courts, he added but said it remains to be seen how both state organs and the courts will apply the law in practice.

Melikyan described the amendments as the latest “link in the chain of regressive media bills” in Armenia. In July and October 2021, the country recriminalized insult and tripled existing fines for insult and defamation, while parliament banned journalists from entering the legislative chamber without advance permission and limited media interviews to a designated area, as CPJ documented.

CPJ emailed the Parliament of Armenia, the Office of the President, and the Office of the Prime Minister for comment but did not receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

On April 1, at approximately 10 a.m., two agents from the Department of State Security, commonly referred to as the political police, stopped Corzo in the street in the Colón municipality in the western Matanzas province, and demanded to know where he was headed and what he was doing, Corzo said in a video statement published by the Cuban Institute for Freedom of Expression and of the Press (ICLEP), a press freedom organization which also publishes and distributes seven community newspapers in Cuba. Corzo is ICLEP’s executive director and was on his way to a reporting assignment, according to Normando Hernández, ICLEP’s general manager, who spoke to CPJ via messaging app.

Corzo refused to answer the agents’ questions and got into a taxi and drove away, when he noticed that two men on motorcycles were following him. As soon as Corzo got out of the car, the two unidentified men dressed as civilians approached Corzo, repeatedly punched and kicked him, and left him lying on the ground, according to an ICLEP report and news reports. The men did not exchange any words with Corzo, nor take any of his possessions, according to the same sources.

“We are appalled by the brutal assault on Cuban journalist Alberto Corzo, which suspiciously occurred just minutes after he refused to provide information to the political police on his way to a reporting assignment,” said Ana Cristina Núñez, CPJ’s Latin America and the Caribbean senior researcher. “Cuban authorities must conduct a transparent and independent investigation into the attack and bring those responsible to justice.”

A driver who was passing by the area saw Corzo lying injured on the street and took him to the Mario Muñoz Monroy Hospital, where staff were not able to do the necessary examinations due to lack of medical materials, Corzo said in the video statement.  

Corzo’s brother transferred the journalist to the Faustino Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a dislocated clavicle and hospitalized to treat his injuries, Corzo said. Corzo was released from the hospital on April 5.

Upon being released, Corzo went to the local police office to file a complaint, but the agent in charge said he could only take a statement, Corzo said in the video. “I accuse the regime, the dictatorship, and the political police of being responsible for the this attack I suffered,” the journalist said.

Cuban authorities have repeatedly targeted ICLEP journalists and outlets with various forms of harassment in retaliation for their independent reporting, including raids, detentions, and other forms of coercion. Corzo has been previously targeted with several intimidation tactics by Cuban authorities, including being arrested and interrogated, as documented by CPJ.

On December 7, 2021, at about 8:30 p.m., two unidentified men with their faces covered broke into the home of Mabel Páez, the director of the community newspaper El Majadero de Artemisa, one of seven ICLEP publications, and attacked her, as documented by CPJ at the time. The identity of the attackers remains unknown and ICLEP is unaware of any action conducted by authorities to investigate this incident, Hernández told CPJ.

“This is the modus operandi that the political police in Cuba are used to, to intimidate those who work for press freedom,” Hernández told CPJ, referring to the Corzo and Páez cases.

CPJ emailed the National Revolutionary Police and the Ministry of the Interior for comment but did not receive a response. 

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

On April 1, at approximately 10 a.m., two agents from the Department of State Security, commonly referred to as the political police, stopped Corzo in the street in the Colón municipality in the western Matanzas province, and demanded to know where he was headed and what he was doing, Corzo said in a video statement published by the Cuban Institute for Freedom of Expression and of the Press (ICLEP), a press freedom organization which also publishes and distributes seven community newspapers in Cuba. Corzo is ICLEP’s executive director and was on his way to a reporting assignment, according to Normando Hernández, ICLEP’s general manager, who spoke to CPJ via messaging app.

Corzo refused to answer the agents’ questions and got into a taxi and drove away, when he noticed that two men on motorcycles were following him. As soon as Corzo got out of the car, the two unidentified men dressed as civilians approached Corzo, repeatedly punched and kicked him, and left him lying on the ground, according to an ICLEP report and news reports. The men did not exchange any words with Corzo, nor take any of his possessions, according to the same sources.

“We are appalled by the brutal assault on Cuban journalist Alberto Corzo, which suspiciously occurred just minutes after he refused to provide information to the political police on his way to a reporting assignment,” said Ana Cristina Núñez, CPJ’s Latin America and the Caribbean senior researcher. “Cuban authorities must conduct a transparent and independent investigation into the attack and bring those responsible to justice.”

A driver who was passing by the area saw Corzo lying injured on the street and took him to the Mario Muñoz Monroy Hospital, where staff were not able to do the necessary examinations due to lack of medical materials, Corzo said in the video statement.  

Corzo’s brother transferred the journalist to the Faustino Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a dislocated clavicle and hospitalized to treat his injuries, Corzo said. Corzo was released from the hospital on April 5.

Upon being released, Corzo went to the local police office to file a complaint, but the agent in charge said he could only take a statement, Corzo said in the video. “I accuse the regime, the dictatorship, and the political police of being responsible for the this attack I suffered,” the journalist said.

Cuban authorities have repeatedly targeted ICLEP journalists and outlets with various forms of harassment in retaliation for their independent reporting, including raids, detentions, and other forms of coercion. Corzo has been previously targeted with several intimidation tactics by Cuban authorities, including being arrested and interrogated, as documented by CPJ.

On December 7, 2021, at about 8:30 p.m., two unidentified men with their faces covered broke into the home of Mabel Páez, the director of the community newspaper El Majadero de Artemisa, one of seven ICLEP publications, and attacked her, as documented by CPJ at the time. The identity of the attackers remains unknown and ICLEP is unaware of any action conducted by authorities to investigate this incident, Hernández told CPJ.

“This is the modus operandi that the political police in Cuba are used to, to intimidate those who work for press freedom,” Hernández told CPJ, referring to the Corzo and Páez cases.

CPJ emailed the National Revolutionary Police and the Ministry of the Interior for comment but did not receive a response. 

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

The EARN IT Act aims to hold tech companies responsible for the online spread of child pornography. As Mathew Ingram reported for the Columbia Journalism Review, the Act would establish a national commission for developing “best practices for the elimination of child sex-abuse material (CSAM).” Under the act, “any online platforms hosting such material would lose the protection of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives electronic service providers immunity from prosecution for most of the content that is posted by their users,” the CJR reported.

Although the EARN IT Act appears to be aimed at protecting youth, the bill could significantly impact freedom of expression on the internet far beyond its stated aim of policing child pornography. The CJR report quoted Riana Pfefferkorn, a research fellow at the Stanford Internet Observatory, who wrote that the act will result in companies “overzealously censoring lots of perfectly legal user speech just in case anything that could potentially be deemed CSAM might be lurking in there.” Article 19, an international organization dedicated to protecting freedom of expression, wrote that the EARN IT Act would encourage platforms to engage in “overbroad censorship of online speech,” targeting in particular content created by “diverse communities, including LGBTQ individuals, whose posts are disproportionately labeled as sexually explicit.”

The proposed Act would actually “undermine the fight against child predation online,” Kir Nuthi reported for Slate in February 2022. Noting the “delicate constitutional balance that allows online platforms to voluntarily search for illicit and illegal material and report it to authorities without violating the Fourth Amendment,” Nuthi reported that the EARN IT Act could actually “end up giving criminals a way to challenge their convictions for child sexual abuse material.” Nuthi added that, of course, it is “already a criminal offense to produce or distribute child sexual abuse content.”

Because encryption is a potential red flag for CSAM content, the Columbia Journalism Review reported, the EARN IT Act will likely pressure platforms to stop offering end-to-end encryption. Back in 2020, Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society characterized the then-current version of the EARN IT Act as the way to “ban end-to-end encryption without actually banning it.” The revised version of the legislation has “doubled-down” on anti-encryption, according to Stanford’s Riana Pfefferkorn. But strong encryption is vital to many online users, including especially members of marginalized communities. According to a 2020 analysis by the ACLU’s Kate Ruane, “Strong encryption can be vital to many in the LGBTQ community who rely on the internet to access a support network, seek resources to combat discrimination and abuse, and find doctors and treatment to assist with transition, HIV prevention, and other health concerns.” Ruane noted that encryption also provides crucial safeguards for domestic violence victims, protest organizers, and journalists protecting confidential sources.

Since the start of 2022, the EARN IT Act has received limited coverage from major corporate newspapers such as the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. A February 2022 editorial in the Post reported on the bill’s “dangerous tradeoffs,” noting that concerns raised by privacy and speech advocates—including threats to end-to-end encryption and legitimate free expression—“have some merit.” A February 2022 report in the Wall Street Journal, noted opposition to the EARN IT Act by “a coalition comprising more than 60 privacy and human-rights groups,” but emphasized consensus between Republican and Democratic lawmakers, including Leslie Graham (R-SC) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Despite the legislation’s implications for online freedom of expression, the New York Times appears not to have covered the revised version of the EARN IT Act, based on searches of the Times website and ProQuest’s U.S. News Dailies database.

Sources:

Mathew Ingram, “A Resurrected Bill Troubles Digital Rights Advocates and Journalists,” Columbia Journalism Review, February 17, 2022.

Kir Nuthi, “The EARN IT Act Would Give Criminal Defendants a Get-out-of-Jail-Free Card,” Slate, February 11, 2022.

Student Researcher: Lily Callow (Saint Michael’s College)

Faculty Evaluator: Rob Williams (Saint Michael’s College)

The post EARN IT Act Threatens Online Freedom of Expression under Guise of Policing Child Pornography appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Vins.