ORG’s investigation into the Prevent duty has uncovered shocking widespread data sharing due to finding a poorly redacted FOI, as revealed in The Observer today.
“We hope this information will help the thousands of affected people to exercise their data protection rights and get their data removed from the myriad of government databases where it is held... Harms could continue for the rest of a referred child’s life.”
'Students can make provocative remarks if they do not break law, watchdog says'
We hope that the free speech tsar will condemn the Prevent duty, which obliges and encourages teachers and lecturers to report young people to the authorities for what they say.
At the end of November, Belarus intensified its crackdown on dissent with over 100 simultaneous armed raids on opposition activists' homes across the country.
The recent raids were part of a criminal investigation into the Coordination Council for the Transfer of Power (CCTP).
Artists at Risk (AR) condemns the deplorable acts of oppression by the Lukaschenko government and stands in solidarity with the people of Belarus.
#FreedomOfExpression#FreeSpeech: "Around the globe, freedom of expression (or free speech) varies wildly in definition, scope, and level of access. The impact of the digital age on perceptions and censorship of speech has been felt across the political spectrum on a worldwide scale. In the debate over what counts as free expression and how it should work in practice, we often lose sight of how different forms of censorship—of hate speech, for example—can have a negative impact on different communities, and especially marginalized or vulnerable ones.
Speaking Freely brings forth interviews with human rights workers, free expression advocates, and activists from a variety of disciplines and affiliations. The common thread in these interviews is that curtailing free expression, via public or private censorship, can harm our ability to fully and authentically participate in an open society."
"All three journalists have two things in common: they are respected investigative reporters working in Britain, and they are victims of what campaigners describe as abusive lawsuits designed to shut down their stories."
Interesting article on the impact of legal campaigns that aim to silence critical voices (published by The Guardian):
Prevent isn't about unlawful ideas, but lawful ideas that are judged to be extreme. Instead of being addressed by a teacher familiar with the student, they become a matter for external authorities, including counter-terrorism police.
A referral "could be shared between multiple databases – possibly indefinitely. That’s a heavy charge on someone in their formative years who is simply attempting to process the calamitous world around them.”
This grab bag of half-baked fantasy solutions to misunderstood (or misrepresented) problems has received Royal Assent, including powers to break #encryption in messaging apps and censor content before it's even posted.
Scrutiny over how Ofcom implements the law and how the government exercises its powers is critical now that the threats to #privacy and #freedomofexpression have become law.
Meta's algorithm labelling people as terrorists highlights how even seemingly straightforward automated systems can make mistakes, that invariably exacerbate racism and discrimination.
This is going to be an even bigger problem when the Online Safety Bill is implemented and tech companies are obliged to identify illegal content and prevent it from being posted.
Over-moderation will seriously harm freedom of expression.
today we at @fattoquotidiano run a in-depth interview with British political cartoonist, #SteveBell, just sacked by the #Guardian for his cartoon on #Netanyahu.
He worked for #Guardian for the last 42 years (English):
traditionally universities and art have always offered an opportunity for debate, freedom of expression,but now the times they are changing. #SteveBell, just sacked by #Guardian, tells us why he's so concerned about #FreedomOfExpression
(English)
Suella Braverman’s letter to the police on the harassment of Jewish people in the UK following Hamas' attack on Israel raises issues for freedom of expression.
We're concerned about the consequences of such a letter when the Online Safety Bill becomes law:
The #OnlineSafetyBill compels tech firms to prevent users from encountering 'illegal' content.
A broad directive like Braverman's letter could lead to content featuring a Palestinian flag being removed, with a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
'Illegal content to be removed from platforms under the Online Safety Bill includes a range of terrorism offences in Schedule 5, which can be easily widened.
Offences that are regarded as 'priorities' for content to be removed include:
🔴 publishing image of uniform of a proscribed organisation
🔴 arranging a meeting supportive of a proscribed organisation
🔴 expressing an opinion/belief supportive of a proscribed organisation
1/4 📰 @edri and 77 civil society and journalists' associations are calling on @Europarl_EN to ensure that journalists are completely protected from #spyware in the European #MediaFreedom Act #EMFA.
2/5 🤔 Why a total ban on #spyware against journalists?
🚨 It endangers journalism, #FreedomOfExpression & EU's democratic values
👁️ Violates our #RightToPrivacy by accessing all communications, photos & online behaviour
🚫 No legal safeguard can prevent governments from abusing it
Russell Brand has said that YouTube’s decision to demonetise him is in the ‘context of the Online Safety Bill’.
While ORG has concerns about the Bill’s powers for censorship and surveillance, it’s misleading to blame a Bill that's not yet received Royal Assent for this decision.
The Online Safety Bill grants extra protections for legacy media outlets as a ‘recognised news publisher’, like a fast-track complaints procedure if their journalistic content gets censored.
But you, the ordinary user, won’t have the right of complaint or power to appeal wrongful censorship.
So we should be very worried about the Online Safety Bill and the impact it will have on our freedom of expression.
But we shouldn’t confuse it with the chair of a non-governmental Parliamentary committee writing to a company and asking them to demonetise a particular person.