View previous stories
	Record number of journalists jailed in 2017 by RSF, Committee to Protect Journalists, agencies   For the second year in a row, the number of journalists imprisoned for their work hit a historical high, as the U.S. and other Western powers failed to pressure the world’s worst jailers--Turkey, China, and Egypt--into improving the bleak climate for press freedom. A CPJ special report by Elana Beiser.   The number of journalists imprisoned worldwide hit another new record in 2017, and for the second consecutive year more than half of those jailed for their work are behind bars in Turkey, China, and Egypt. The pattern reflects a dismal failure by the international community to address a global crisis in freedom of the press.   Far from isolating repressive countries for their authoritarian behavior, the United States, in particular, has cozied up to strongmen such as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Chinese President Xi Jinping. At the same time, President Donald Trump’s nationalistic rhetoric, fixation on Islamic extremism, and insistence on labeling critical media “fake news” serves to reinforce the framework of accusations and legal charges that allow such leaders to preside over the jailing of journalists.   Globally, nearly three-quarters of journalists are jailed on anti-state charges, many under broad and vague terror laws, while the number imprisoned on a charge of “false news,” though modest, rose to a record 21.   In its annual prison census, CPJ found 262 journalists behind bars around the world in relation to their work, a new record after a historical high of 259 last year. The worst three jailers are responsible for jailing 134--or 51 percent--of the total. CPJ has been conducting an annual survey of journalists in jail since the early 1990s.   Despite releasing some journalists in 2017, Turkey remains the world’s worst jailer for the second consecutive year, with 73 journalists behind bars, compared with 81 last year. Dozens more still face trial, and fresh arrests take place regularly. In several other cases in Turkey, CPJ was unable to establish a link to journalism. Other press freedom groups using a different methodology have higher numbers. Every journalist CPJ found jailed for their work in Turkey is under investigation for, or charged with, anti-state crimes, as was true of last year’s census.   The crackdown on the Turkish press that began in early 2016 and accelerated after a failed coup attempt that July--which the government blamed on an alleged terrorist organization led by exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen--continued apace in 2017. Authorities accused some journalists of terrorist activity based solely on their alleged use of a messaging app, Bylock, or bank accounts at allegedly Gulenist institutions.   Because Erdogan’s ruling AKP party was until recent years aligned with Gulen’s movement, the crackdown sometimes led to patently absurd circumstances. For example, prominent journalist Ahmet Sik was acquitted of terrorism charges in April after a six-year trial in which the defendants said they were victims of police and judicial officials linked to Gulen. Sik remained in jail, however, on fresh terror charges for allegedly being linked to Gülen, and many of the police officers, prosecutors, and judges who brought the original case found themselves accused of terror activity. Sik pointed out the contradiction in a lengthy statement to the court in July, saying, “In Turkey, some members of the judiciary have become the gravediggers of justice.”   Other cases blatantly demonstrated Turkish authorities’ brutal censorship tactics. On March 31, an Istanbul court ordered the release pending trial of at least 19 journalists jailed in the aftermath of the coup attempt, but the prosecutor appealed and the journalists were re-arrested before they left the jail. The judges who ordered their release were suspended.   Erdogan’s government appeared to pay little price for its repressive tactics. In April, he narrowly won a referendum--amid procedural objections by the opposition that went unheeded--that will abolish the country’s parliamentary system and grant him sweeping powers. On the international stage, German officials including Chancellor Angela Merkel have repeatedly called for the release of Turkish-German journalist Deniz Yucel, who works for the German newspaper Die Welt and who has been held without charge since February 14. But the NATO allies are bound by Turkey’s role in harboring Syrian refugees and other cooperation agreements. Trump, meanwhile, hosted Erdogan at the White House in May and more recently praised him as a friend.   Also enjoying global standing is President Xi. In China, the number of journalists behind bars rose to 41 from 38 a year earlier. On a visit to Beijing in November, Trump made no public reference to human rights, despite an ongoing crackdown that has led to the arrests of Chinese journalists, activists, and lawyers.   With tensions high between the U.S. and China’s neighbor North Korea, and Trump keen to renegotiate the trade balance with Beijing, “Trump seemed to signal a reversal of roles: the United States may now need China’s help more than the other way around,” The New York Times wrote.   The visit came shortly after Xi tightened his grip on power at the Communist Party Congress, where his name was written into the Constitution and no successor was identified. According to news reports, analysts don’t expect improvement in human rights.   Meanwhile, Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo died of liver cancer in July in a Chinese hospital, after receiving medical parole from prison a month earlier, casting doubt on whether he received proper care in custody. China refused Liu’s request to go overseas for treatment once he was released.   The writer Yang Tongyan died in November under similar circumstances, shortly after release on medical parole with a serious brain tumor. Jailed in precarious health is Huang Qi, who has kidney disease and his lawyer told CPJ that authorities had halted his special diet and medical treatment.   More than half of the journalists imprisoned in Egypt, where the number in jail fell to 20 from 25 last year, are also in poor health. Among them is photographer Mahmoud Abou Zeid, known as Shawkan, who was arrested covering a violent dispersal of protesters by Egyptian security forces and has been in pretrial detention for more than four years. He and his 738 co-accused are charged with possessing weapons, illegal assembly, attempted murder, and murder, according to CPJ research.   Shawkan is anemic and needs blood transfusions, but has been denied hospital care, according to his family. Of the 20 journalists in Egyptian jails, 12 have not been convicted or sentenced for any crime.   The prolonged imprisonment of Egyptian journalists comes as President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi battles deadly extremism and high unemployment in the country, and as Cairo and Washington cooperate closely on security. Soon after el-Sisi met Trump at the White House in April, his government passed a draconian anti-terrorism law that furthered its crackdown on the press by, among other things, enabling authorities to put journalists acquitted of terrorism-related charges on a terror watch list that restricts their financial and other rights, according to news reports.   In Egypt and China, like Turkey, by far the most common type of charge against journalists is anti-state. Globally, 194 journalists, or 74 percent, are imprisoned on anti-state charges. Worldwide, CPJ has found that governments use broad and vaguely worded terror laws to intimidate critical journalists into silence. Legal provisions often conflate coverage of terrorist activity with condoning it.   Thirty-five journalists worldwide were jailed without any publicly disclosed charge. Lack of due process in some countries results in such a dearth of information that it’s nearly impossible for CPJ to determine what landed a journalist in jail, whether they have any health problems, and sometimes even whether they are alive.   In places such as Eritrea and Syria, journalists who were last known to be in government custody have not been seen or heard from in years. All seven journalists in Syrian government jails have been there for at least four years, amid unconfirmed rumors of torture or execution. CPJ continues to list the journalists on the census to hold the government accountable for their whereabouts and well-being.   A change of government, however, may lead CPJ to reclassify a journalist’s status. In Gambia, where long-serving leader Yahya Jammeh was ousted in December 2016, the government of President Adama Barrow has expressed interest in determining what happened to reporter Chief Ebrima Manneh, who was arrested in 2006 but had not been seen since at least 2008. Jammeh and officials in his government made vague and contradictory statements about the journalist’s status over the years. In keeping with the family’s expectations, CPJ this year moved Manneh off the imprisoned census and on to its list of journalists killed in relation to their work.   Other findings from CPJ’s prison census include:   Ninety-seven percent of jailed journalists are local. Of the total imprisoned worldwide, 22—or 8 percent—are female journalists. Freelancers account for 75 cases--or 29 percent. Politics is by far the most dangerous beat, covered by 87 percent of those jailed. Many journalists cover more than one beat.   Countries appearing on the census for the first time in at least 12 months are Algeria, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Iraq, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan, Republic of Congo, Somalia, Uganda, and Ukraine.   The prison census accounts only for journalists in government custody and does not include those who have disappeared or are held captive by non-state groups, such as several Yemeni journalists CPJ believes to be held by the Ansar Allah movement, known as the Houthis. These cases are classified as “missing” or “abducted.”   CPJ defines journalists as people who cover the news or comment on public affairs in media, including print, photographs, radio, television, and online. In its annual prison census, CPJ includes only those journalists who it has confirmed have been imprisoned in relation to their work.   CPJ believes that journalists should not be imprisoned for doing their jobs. In the past year, CPJ advocacy contributed to the early release of at least 67 imprisoned journalists worldwide.   CPJ’s list is a snapshot of those incarcerated on December 1, 2017. Journalists remain on CPJ’s list until the organization determines with reasonable certainty that they have been released or have died in custody. http://bit.ly/2BYV0TM http://rsf.org/en/reports/rsf-round-these-figures-are-alarming   * Elana Beiser is editorial director of the Committee to Protect Journalists.   Apr. 2018   Journalists and emergency responders arriving to help injured targeted in terror attack. (UN News)   According to reports, at least 14 civilians were killed and over 30 injured in two attacks that took place in a heavily populated neighbourhood in central Kabul. The second attack was timed 30 minutes later to target journalists arriving on the scene and emergency services personnel seeking to provide aid to victims of the first attack.   “The deliberate targeting of journalists in the attack highlights once again the risks media professionals face in carrying out their essential work,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres. “Those responsible for such crimes must be swiftly brought to justice,” he added.   In a third attack, at least 11 children were killed in a suicide bombing that reportedly targeted a military convoy in Kandahar province.   “These attacks cause untold human suffering to Afghan families,” Tadamichi Yamamoto, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan and the head of the UN Assistance Mission in the country (UNAMA), said. He also condemned the attacks in Kabul, coming just ahead of World Press Freedom Day, as a “direct assault on freedom of expression.”   Mr. Yamamoto also reiterated the protections accorded to civilians under international humanitarian law and called on all parties to uphold their obligations, “at all times”.   “Yesterday’s attack, like all such attacks on journalists, is an attack on Afghanistan’s free press and the public’s right to know,” said the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, who called on the Government to bring the perpetrators to justice.   “These attacks serve to remind those who glibly demonize the press that journalists serve a crucial function in societies: the illumination of all matters of public interest,” Mr. Kaye said. “The legacy of those killed is their reminder that serving the public’s right to know, can be dangerous and deserves all of our respect and support.”   Nine journalists killed in Kabul suicide attack. (International Federation of Journalists)   The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) joined the Afghanistan Independent Journalists Association (AIJA) in strongly condemning the killing of nine journalists in the targeted attack; and demanded urgent action from the Afghan government to punish those responsible.   The two suicide attacks hit central Kabul, on 30th April. The first bomb was detonated by an assailant on a motorcycle and the second was detonated 20 minutes later among those who had come to rescue those targeted in the first attack, including a group of journalists.   Agence France-Presse (AFP) chief photographer in Kabul Shah Marai, Tolo News cameraman Yar Mohammad Tokhi, Radio Azadi correspondents Abadullah Hananzai, Moharram Durrani and Sabawoon Kakar, 1TV reporter Ghazi Rasooli and cameraman Nowroz Ali Rajabi, Mashal TV reporter Salim Talash and cameraman Ali Salimi were killed in the second blast when a suicide bomber disguised as a journalist detonated himself among the journalists who had gathered to cover the first attack.   At least 29 people were killed and dozens of others –including two journalists – were injured in the twin suicide blasts that took place in Shashdarak area. The Islamic State (ISIS) terrorist group has claimed responsibility for the attack.   Anthony Bellanger, IFJ General Secretary, said: “This is a terrible day for journalists all over the world as we have lost at least seven of our colleagues in a targeted suicide bombing. The journalists were on duty to report about the earlier attack, simply informing the public. The IFJ strongly condemns the killing.   Apr. 2018   Afghan Media Condemns Attack on its Journalists. (Tolo News)   The Afghanistan Federation of Journalists (AFJ) and the country’s media has issued a joint statement condemning Monday’s explosions – stating the terrorist attack was a war crime.   “This terrorist attack is a war crime and an organized attack on the Afghan media,” the statement read. “Despite today''s attack and other threats against journalists, the Afghan media is committed to providing information.   “In a joint letter, the Afghan media has called on the International Court of Justice and the UN Security Council to investigate the incident.   “The media, which has lost colleagues and has colleagues that are wounded, is committed to supporting the families of those killed and wounded in the incident. We ask government to help the families of the victims.   April 30 will be remembered as the deadliest day in Afghan media history and the industry will mark the day in future in honor of its fallen colleagues.   http://bit.ly/2HLniZh http://bit.ly/2rit5Kz http://bit.ly/2IcAzcH http://bit.ly/2JHoyZR   http://rsf.org/en/news/mexican-authorities-failed-protect-journalist-murdered-today http://rsf.org/en/mexico http://www.dw.com/en/mexico-journalist-murdered-in-seaside-town-near-cancun/a-44812220 http://cpj.org/reports/2017/05/no-excuse-mexico-impunity-journalist-murder.php http://cpj.org/reports/2017/10/impunity-index-getting-away-with-murder-killed-justice.php http://cpj.org/news/ Visit the related web page
	Protect Net Neutrality and Internet Freedom by Free Press, World Wide Web Foundation, agencies USA   Dec. 14, 2017   Republican FFC proposal to end net neutrality protections passes with a 3-2 vote.   The nonpartisan First Amendment advocacy group Free Press vowed to take the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to court after the Republican-controlled panel moved to gut net neutrality protections that prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from charging for and discriminating against content, in a 3-2 vote along party lines.   The ACLU released a statement calling the "misguided" decision "a radical departure that risks erosion of the biggest free speech platform the world has ever known."   "Today''s loss means that telecommunications companies will start intruding more on how people use the internet. Internet service providers will become much more aggressive in their efforts to make money off their role as online gatekeepers," said Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst for the group.   Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also denounced the ruling: ''Once again, the Trump administration has sided with big money and against the interests of the American people. The FCC''s vote to end net neutrality is an egregious attack on our democracy. With this decision the internet and its free exchange of information as we have come to know it will cease to exist. The end of net neutrality protections means that the internet will be for sale to the highest bidder, instead of everyone having the same access regardless of whether they are rich or poor, a big corporation or small business, a multimedia conglomerate or a small online publication. At a time when our democratic institutions are already in peril, we must do everything we can to stop this decision from taking effect''.   The two Democratic commissioners on the panel, Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel, issued powerful dissents ahead of the vote, with Clyburn noting, "The fight to save net neutrality does not end today. This agency does not have, the final word."   In addition to Free Press''s plan to sue the FCC, the group urged supporters to push Congress to nullify the plan using the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows representatives and senators to review new regulations and overrule them by passing a joint resolution.   Forty senators have voiced opposition to the net neutrality rollback, while a handful of Republican representatives have said they disagree with Pai''s plan. But the loudest opposition so far has come from the public and groups like Free Press and Fight for the Future.   "Why are we witnessing such an unprecedented groundswell of public support" for net neutrality, asked Clyburn in her dissent. "Because the public can plainly see a soon-to-be-toothless FCC is handing the keys to the Internet to a handful of multi-billion dollar corporations."   With the vote, Internet Service Providers will no longer be prohibited from blocking or slowing down certain websites and content, and will be able to charge fees to web companies that can afford to pay them for access to an internet "fast lane," leaving smaller sites struggling to reach audiences.   Despite comments from millions of Americans who spoke out in favor of the protections, Pai did not mention the widespread opposition to net neutrality in his order to repeal the rules.   21 Nov. 2017   The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plans to give Internet providers power to choose the internet sites customers see and use. (Washington Post, agencies)   The Federal Communications Commission took aim at a signature Obama-era regulation this week, unveiling a plan that would give Internet providers broad powers to determine what websites and online services their customers see and use.   Under the agency’s proposal, providers of high-speed Internet services, such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, would be able to block websites they do not like and charge Web companies for speedier delivery of their content.   The FCC’s effort would roll back its net neutrality regulation which was passed in 2015 and attempted to make sure all Web content, whether from big or small companies, would be treated equally by Internet providers.   Ajit Pai, who was nominated to head the FCC by Trump in January, has said undoing the net neutrality rules was one of his top priorities.   Pai’s remarks were cheered by conservatives as well as cable, broadband and wireless companies, which provide most of the Internet service to American homes, smartphones and other devices.   Pai’s announcement set off a firestorm of criticism from Internet companies and activists who vowed to hold demonstrations ahead of the FCC''s vote.   The Free Press Action Fund and other net neutrality activist groups said they would organize protests outside Verizon stores and accused Pai of doing the company’s bidding. Pai served as an associate general counsel at Verizon for two years beginning in 2001.   Former Democratic FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who drafted the 2015 net neutrality rules, called the move “tragic”. “The job of the FCC is to represent the consumer,” he said in an interview. “Tragically, this decision is only for the benefit of the largely monopoly services that deliver the Internet to the consumer.”   Relying on the public promises of Internet providers is a departure from current net neutrality rules, which lay out clear bans against selectively blocking or slowing websites, as well as speeding up websites that agree to pay the providers a fee.   FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn says at the most basic level, net neutrality is the principle that "all data and all legal traffic that travels over the internet should be treated equally". "This has been a bipartisan bedrock principle for more than a decade, and its extremely popular among the public."   ''Pai''s plan would do away with net neutrality, it eliminates all prohibitions against blocking and throttling (slowing down) applications by broadband providers, and enables them to engage in paid prioritization and unreasonable discrimination at the point of interconnection. It ignores thousands of consumer complaints and millions of individual comments that ask the FCC to save net neutrality and uphold the principles that all traffic should be created equal."   Nov. 2017   Protect Net Neutrality and Internet Freedom, by Tim Berners-Lee. (World Wide Web Foundation)   How do you use the World Wide Web? People use it for all kinds of different things: to read email, post an update on social media, check in to a work meeting, navigate to a destination, enjoy a favorite song or album. It’s your choice.   When I invented the World Wide Web as an information sharing system in 1989, I aimed to create a neutral space where everyone could create, share, debate, innovate, learn and dream. That’s why I gave my invention away for free, so that anyone, anywhere could access and build on it without permission. My vision was an online space that would give people freedom — and America’s entrepreneurial, optimistic spirit embraced it with enthusiasm.   In the early days, there was a wonderful spirit of empowerment of individuals. I could read any blog I liked, and I could write my own blog with links pointing to my favorite things. Anyone could put their small business online.   Now that vision is threatened. That choice you have to use the Web for whatever you want could be taken away.   Today, one of the greatest threats to the Web in America is the plan by the Federal Communications Commission to roll back America’s open Internet safeguards. Net neutrality is the fundamental principle that all content should be treated equally online. It’s what ensures those millions of local businesses can compete on an equal footing with corporate giants. It’s what stops Internet and cable providers from slowing down services for those who don’t pay a premium, or blocking content that doesn’t boost their own bottom lines.   Why should this matter to you? Most Americans — 87% — use the Internet for everything from accessing information to earning money to watching their favorite shows and movies. About 6 million American students take college courses online. And American entrepreneurs depend on the Web to expand their businesses: By 2018, 92% of small businesses plan to have their own website. Without strong net neutrality safeguards, Internet and cable providers will have the power to control which services you access and how.   This week, I was in Washington telling America’s regulators and lawmakers the story of the Web’s invention, and explaining how dismantling net neutrality will result in fewer choices for consumers. But I need to ask you — the American public — to join me in making sure the United States retains its position as a leader of the free and open Internet.   Please help. If you believe a small group of companies should not control what you can access online, if you want your small business to be given a level online playing field, if you want the freedom to surf the Web freely with the same rights and privileges as others — call your congressional representatives today to urge them to stop the FCC from overturning net neutrality.   Tell members of Congress that American voters deserve the free, open, neutral Internet that we need to support democracy. Let them know that the Web is for everyone, and that we stand together, ready to fight for it.   If you live in the US, call your congressional representative and urge them to protect net neutrality.   * Tim Berners-Lee is the inventor of the World Wide Web and a director of the World Wide Web Foundation, published by USA Today.   http://webfoundation.org/2017/11/protect-net-neutrality-and-internet-freedom-world-wide-web-inventor/ http://wapo.st/2A0FjeP http://nyti.ms/2BzJWMN http://bit.ly/2AoTpcm http://www.freepress.net/ http://www.battleforthenet.com/ http://pioneersfornetneutrality.tumblr.com/ http://billmoyers.com/story/net-neutrality-vote-kill-open-internet/ http://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/ http://www.aclu.org/feature/what-net-neutrality http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality http://bit.ly/2njABUL http://www.commondreams.org/tag/net-neutrality   * Access the Free Press via the link below for the latest news. Visit the related web page
	View more stories