Tag Archives: hate speech

May 9, 2017 · 1:01 pm

Final global report on source protection by @julieposetti released by UNESCO

The final report of the three year global project by Fairfax Media and University of Wollongong colleague Julie Posetti (@julieposetti) comparing international approaches to protecting sources has been released by UNESCO.

As I foreshadowed earlier, the impressive study tracks, assesses and compares protective legal frameworks like shield laws over the 2007-2015 period, and recommends new measures for protection of journalists and their sources.

The report acknowledges the enormous benefits to journalism harnessed from the Internet and Web 2.0 communications, but homes in on the challenges of the privacy and safety of journalistic sources. Mass surveillance, data retention and expanded national security laws all stand to erode the integrity of the journalist-whistleblower relationship.

The publication is available here.

The Posetti study draws on surveys and long form interviews involving nearly 200 international experts from the fields of law, journalism, digital communications and civil society organisations.

Academics from Australia (Posetti and UoW colleague Marcus O’Donnell), Brazil and China contributed, along with 11 research assistants from a range of countries.

I was honored to serve on the eight-member international advisory panel.

The report’s key recommendations for nations were:

Legislate for source protection;
Review national laws on surveillance, anti-terrorism, data retention, and access to telecommunications records;
Co-operate with journalists’ and media freedom organisations to produce guidelines for prosecutors and police officers, and training materials for judges on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources;
Develop guidelines for public authorities and private service providers concerning the protection of the confidentiality of journalists’ sources in the context of the interception; or disclosure of computer data and traffic data of computer networks; and
Apply source protection regimes and defined exceptions in a gender-sensitive way.

Its main recommendations for journalists were:

Engage with digital issues impacting on source confidentiality protection, and actively campaign for laws and rules that provide adequate protection;
Explain to the public what is at stake in the protection of source confidentiality, especially in the digital age;
Ensure that sources are aware of the digital era threats to confidentiality;
Consider altering practices – including ‘going back to analogue methods’ when required (recognising this may not always be possible due to international or gender dynamics) – in order to offer a degree of protection to their confidential sources;
Help audiences become more secure in their own communications, for example explaining how encryption works, and why it is important not to have communications security compromised;
Consider providing technical advice and training to sources to ensure secure communications, with the assistance of NGOs and representative organisations;
In the case of media leaders, ensure that they also respect their journalists’ ethical commitment (and in some cases legal obligation) to source confidentiality; and
In the case of media owners, ensure that their journalists, and freelancers who contribute investigative reports, have access to the appropriate tools and training needed to ensure that they are able to offer the most secure channels of digital communication possible to their sources.

Related:

Julie Posetti’s commentaries on the report in The Conversation and The Age.
My piece from 2015 in The Conversation : How surveillance is wrecking journalist-source confidentiality

© Mark Pearson 2017

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

Leave a comment

Filed under national security, terrorism

Tagged as anti-terror laws, COAG, confidentiality, contempt, counter-terror, courts, Fourth Estate, hate speech, impunity, Internet intermediaries, journalism law, media freedom, media law, national security, natsec, Posetti, press freedom, shield laws, sources, surveillance, terrorism, UNESCO, watchdog

April 27, 2016 · 6:10 pm

Stay Out Of Jail 101: Phone a spy before breaking a national security scoop

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

You have information that police and intelligence agencies are about to launch Australia’s biggest counter-terror operation. Or perhaps they already have.

ASIO headquarters, Canberra. Photo: Maps

The story could be the biggest scoop of your journalistic career.

Your news instinct might be to rush to publication or broadcast without giving government agencies the chance to shut your story down and without risking the news being leaked to your competitors.

But if your story meets the definition of a “special intelligence operation” under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) Act 1979 then you could face up to five years in jail for ‘unauthorised’ disclosure of information, and up to 10 years if the disclosure ‘endangers the health or safety’ of anyone or will ‘prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation’.

Amendments partially exempting ‘outsiders’ (journalists) were proposed in 2016, but grave concerns remained over the impacts on journalists for ‘reckless’ disclosure that might endanger safety and jeopardise an operation and the implications for their sources.

So what might be “reckless” disclosure?

For that, we look to Section 5.4 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, which reads:

5.4 Recklessness

(2) A person is reckless with respect to a result if:

(a) he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the result will occur; and

(b) having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.

When it comes to reckless disclosure, the Australian Law Reform Commission has stated:

“If the offence was framed to cover reckless disclosure, the prosecution would be required to prove that the accused was aware of a substantial risk that disclosure would occur as the result of the accused’s conduct and, having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it was unjustifiable to take the risk.”

So, whether you view it under the existing Section 35P, or under the proposed reforms the Turnbull Government has agreed to enact, there is a strong argument that the only way to ensure you will not be charged with reckless disclosure is to first phone ASIO.

And that’s exactly the advice I was given when I phoned the ASIO media section and asked an (obviously) anonymous media liaison officer about the spy agency’s policy in dealing with journalists’ queries about whether the breaking news event they were trying to cover was in fact a “special intelligence operation”.

He said ASIO tried to strike a balance between what was appropriate to report and what was inappropriate.

He explained that soon after s35P had been passed in 2014 there had been a number of inquiries from journalists and that his office was not sure whether they were legitimate concerns about whether operations were SIOs or whether it was just “journalists being smart about the new laws”.

He said ASIO’s normal policy was to decline to comment when a media inquiry related to an individual or an operational matter, and that blanket ban made it hard to confirm or deny whether a particular operation was an SIO.

I later sent these specific questions to the officer at media@asio.gov.au:

What steps should journalists take to ascertain whether their story (e.g., terror arrest, investigation, etc) relates to an SIO (special intelligence operation)?
How do you respond to journalists’ inquiries about SIOs when ASIO’s normal practice is not to comment on matters related to individuals or operations?
How many journalists’ inquiries as to whether an operation is an SIO have you had since the legislation was enacted?
How many such inquiries have you had this year?
What steps do you take to prevent/warn journalists about reporting the details of an SIO?
What steps do you take to prevent/warn journalists about revealing the ID of an ASIO officer?
How many instances of either (journalists giving SIO details or naming an officer) have you dealt with, and how have you handled them?

In a reply email, he referred me to ASIO’s responses to questions posed by the acting Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Roger Gyles QC when he was conducting his inquiry into the legislation, publicly released in February 2016.

That submission confirmed the approach the media officer had outlined, stating:

“Media inquiries received by ASIO are managed in accordance with standard operating procedures. To perform its statutory functions, ASIO must employ a conservative approach to media engagement with respect to operational matters. ASIO does not confirm details relating to individuals, investigations or operations as a matter of course. This includes inquiries in relation to special intelligence operations or other operationally sensitive information.

If journalists contact ASIO Media regarding an operational matter they intend to report on, ASIO advises the relevant line-area within the Organisation before responding to the journalist. When ASIO has concerns about the sensitivities around the subject being reported on, ASIO does not provide a public comment, but may decide to speak with the journalist on a confidential basis to provide context on that sensitivity. In this instance, the journalist may be contacted by the Director-General or a Deputy Director-General to explain how Australia’s national security would be prejudiced if the subject was reported on publicly.

All media inquiries, and responses, are logged and retained for accountability and future reference.”

It continued:

“In practice, if a journalist approached ASIO for comment on information they believed to be operationally sensitive, and which ASIO knew to be related to a special intelligence operation, ASIO would consider speaking with the journalist on a confidential basis to explain the sensitivities of the information. A number of considerations would go to determining whether to inform the journalist of the existence of a special intelligence operation, including whether a person might be harmed should the existence of a special intelligence operation be revealed. If, after receiving a confidential briefing by ASIO, the journalist still intended to publish the information, ASIO would advise the journalist that to do so may breach 35P. It would then be for the journalist to decide whether or not to proceed with publishing the information.”

So there you have it, the national spy agency recommends the Ghostbusters approach to journalists wanting to avoid a decade in jail for reckless disclosure of a special intelligence agency: “Who you gonna call? ASIO.”

And we might never know how many journalists have already been tapped on the shoulder and ‘advised’ not to publish.

—

Related: See my piece from June 22 2015 in The Conversation : How surveillance is wrecking journalist-source confidentiality

© Mark Pearson 2016

Leave a comment

Filed under national security, terrorism

Tagged as anti-terror laws, confidentiality, contempt, counter-terror, courts, Fourth Estate, hate speech, journalism law, media freedom, media law, national security, natsec, press freedom, shield laws, sources, surveillance, terrorism, watchdog

February 15, 2016 · 12:38 pm

The main national security laws affecting journalists and sources

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

[with research assistance from Virginia Leighton-Jackson]

Among more than 50 national security laws and amendments passed in Australia since 9/11, these four stand out as presenting the greatest threat to journalists …

ASIOActScreenshot

ASIO Act 1979

Section 25A focuses on ASIO powers and access to computer networks, with one warrant now covering an entire computer network using third party computers to access target systems.

Section 34 gives ASIO powers to seek ‘questioning’ warrants and ‘questioning and detention’ warrants (detention for up to seven days) with five years’ jail possible for any revelation of the existence of the warrant itself or of any operation related to the warrant for up to two years after the warrant has expired. There are no public interest or media exemptions to the requirement, although disclosures of operational information by anyone other than the subject of a warrant or their lawyer requires the discloser to have shown ‘recklessness’ (s. 34ZS (3)).

Section 35P provides for up to five years in jail for ‘unauthorised’ disclosure of information related to a ‘special intelligence operation’ – and up to 10 years if the disclosure ‘endangers the health or safety’ of anyone or will ‘prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation’. Amendments partially exempting ‘outsiders’ (journalists) were proposed in 2016, but grave concerns remained over the impacts on journalists for ‘reckless’ disclosure that might endanger safety and jeopardise an operation and the implications for their sources.

Section 92 provides for 10 years’ imprisonment for anyone who identifies an ASIO officer or affiliate (or anyone connected with them) other than any who have been identified in Parliament (such as the director-general). Former ASIO employees and affiliates can be identified if they have consented in writing or have generally made that fact be known.

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Section 3ZQT makes it an offence to disclose the fact that someone has been given notice by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to produce documents related to a serious terrorism offence. Journalists could face up to two years in prison for doing so.

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979

After amendments in 2015, the Act requires telecommunications providers to retain customers’ phone and computer metadata for two years so they can be accessed by criminal law enforcement agencies (State and Commonwealth) on the issue of a warrant. Information required to be stored includes: subscriber/ account information, the source and destination of a communication, the date, time and duration of a communication or connection to a service. A ‘journalist information warrant’ scheme was designed to prohibit the disclosure of journalists’ confidential sources without special precautions. These require approval of the Minister, who may act on the advice of a ‘public interest advocate’, though the processes are secret and disclosure of the details of any warrant for telecommunications data can incur imprisonment for two years.

National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth) (‘NSI’)

National security has long been cited as one of the exceptions to the principle of open justice, but new laws give judges and magistrates more reason to close a court in a terrorism trial. The NSI Act allows for evidence to be suppressed in court hearings if it contains disclosures prejudicial to national security. Part 3 of the Act allows prosecutors and courts to use national security information in criminal proceedings while preventing the broader disclosure of such information, sometimes even to the defendant. Section 29 gives courts the power to decide whether to close the court for such matters.

Other laws to consider when covering a national security story:

Discrimination and vilification laws

Laws apply at state, territory and Commonwealth levels prohibiting racial and religious discrimination and the vilification of people because of their race, religion, or other factors. They vary in their scope and application, with debate over whether the law against offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin in Section 18C the Racial Discrimination Act (Clth) would apply to discriminatory media coverage of Muslims. All media codes of practice and ethical codes counsel against discriminatory or vilifying coverage. Social media comment moderation presents special challenges.

Defamation

If you are about to publish something damaging to someone’s reputation, ensure you work carefully within one of the main defences – truth (evidence to prove both the facts and their defamatory meaning), honest opinion / fair comment (based on true provable facts on a matter of legitimate public interest), or fair report (a fair and accurate report of a court case, parliament or another protected public occasion or document).

Contempt of court

The sub judice period (limiting prejudicial coverage about a suspect) starts from the moment someone has been arrested or charged. From that instant you should take legal advice before publishing anything other than what has been stated in open court, with special care to avoid any material giving an assumption of guilt (or even innocence), visual identification of the accused if their identification might be at issue, witness accounts, character background, confessions or prior charges or convictions. You can also face contempt charges over refusing to reveal a source or provide your data or notes when ordered to do so, thus techniques for source protection are paramount.

Suppression orders

Courts have special powers to issue suppression orders in national security cases. These might prohibit identification of certain people, restrict coverage of certain parts of a hearing, or even ban coverage of the total proceedings. Reporters and bloggers have been fined and jailed for breaching such suppression orders.

Sources:

Australian Human Rights Commission 2008, A Human Rights Guide to Australia’s Counter-Terrorism Laws, AHRC, Sydney, <www.humanrights.gov.au/human-rights-guide-australias-counter-terrorism-laws>.

Evershed, N., Safi, M., 19.10.2015, “All of Australia’s National Security Changes since 9/11 in a Timeline”, The Guardian Australia, available: http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/19/all-of-australias-national-security-changes-since-911-in-a-timeline

—

Related: See my piece from June 22 2015 in The Conversation : How surveillance is wrecking journalist-source confidentiality

© Mark Pearson 2016

Leave a comment

Filed under national security, terrorism

February 2, 2016 · 1:09 pm

Journalist Peter Greste explains why it is important to cover Islam ethically

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

Australian journalist Peter Greste – released last year after 400 days in an Egyptian jail – has outlined why it is so important for journalists to be fair and accurate in their coverage of Islam and Muslim communities.

I interviewed Greste for our Reporting Islam project on the eve of him receiving an Honorary Doctorate from Griffith University for his service to journalism and delivering the annual Griffith Lecture at the Queensland Conservatorium in Brisbane last December.

Greste started reporting on the Islamic world in 1995 as Kabul correspondent for the BBC.

“I think it is absolutely vital that journalists anywhere understand as much as they can about Muslims and the Islamic world largely because when we talk about that world we speak about it as if it is in the singular when in fact it isn’t,” Greste said.

“It’s an incredibly complex, multifaceted group of individuals, of sects, of smaller schools of thought.

“The greatest danger is that we conflate everything into one.

“We’ve got to be very careful to understand the subtleties and nuances of the Islamic world and make sure we avoid that same mistake.”

The interview will appear as part of a set of research-based resources colleague Associate Professor Jacqui Ewart and I are developing with our team as part of our Commonwealth-funded Reporting Islam project.

The project is national in its ambit, funded under a competitive grants scheme, facilitated by the Attorney General’s Department and managed by the Queensland Police Service who have contracted us to undertake the work as independent researchers.
Stage 1 of the project was conducted over the 2014-2015 financial year involving a review of the literature on news media coverage of Islam and Muslim people, case studies of media reportage across media types at national and community levels, interviews with experts in the field, distillation of international studies to develop a schema for assessing reportage against world best practice in the area, and a compilation of a report on these findings with recommendations for the development of a suite of resources and training programs.

We are now in Stage 2 of the project (2015-2016) which requires the development and trial of a suite of research-based training and education resources for Australian media practitioners and students to encourage more mindful reporting of Muslims and the Islamic faith.

Credits:

Camera: Ashil Ranpara, Griffith University School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science

Production: Henry Cook, Griffith Learning Futures

—

Related: See my piece from June 22 2015 in The Conversation : How surveillance is wrecking journalist-source confidentiality; and on journlaw.com from November 13, 2014 titled: International studies point to best practice for reporting Islam and stories involving Muslims.

© Mark Pearson 2016

Leave a comment

Filed under national security, terrorism

Tagged as anti-terror laws, confidentiality, contempt, counter-terror, courts, Fourth Estate, hate speech, impunity, Internet intermediaries, journalism law, Martin Chulov, media freedom, media law, national security, natsec, Posetti, press freedom, shield laws, sources, surveillance, terrorism, The Guardian, UNESCO, watchdog

December 4, 2015 · 7:10 pm

Freed journalist Peter Greste gets honorary doctorate then calls for free speech in the age of terror

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

The Australian journalist jailed for 400 days in Egypt called for greater freedom for the media during the war on terror after being awarded an honorary doctorate by Griffith University tonight (December 4).

Journalist Peter Greste receives his honorary doctorate at Griffith University

Greste received an Honorary Doctorate from Griffith University for his service to journalism before delivering the annual Griffith Lecture at the Queensland Conservatorium in South Bank Brisbane.

His arrest with Al Jazeera colleagues, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed, by Egyptian authorities on false terrorism charges, triggered international demands for their release from 2013 to 2015.

“If I’d known it was this easy to get a doctorate I would have been arrested years ago,” he joked. “It’s a great honour to receive this award. I take it as a mark of recognition, not just for what we went through but also for what it represents…for those 400 days of prison.’

“We fought hard for our own freedom, but I think it’s important that people also see the bigger picture of due process and freedom of speech.

“I’m being recognised more for the things we came to represent, than anything that I’ve done.”

He argued large parts of the media had given up on their public responsibility to keep the public informed with fair and accurate reporting. The war on terror was a battle of ideas and journalists were active participants.

The media should be properly be part of a functioning democracy in its role as the fourth estate, checking the functioning on the other arms of government.

“In the war of terror we seem to be losing sight of that key idea,” he said. “Governments the world over are using that ‘t’ word to clamp down on those freedoms.”

He gave recent examples from other countries of journalists being arrested on trumped-up terror charges just as he and his two colleagues had been in Egypt.

Australians should not feel smug because of legislation introduced in recent years targeting those disclosing special intelligence operations, the Foreign Fighters Bill and metadata retention laws.

These restricted the reporting on important events, the main story of the era about international terrorism, and seriously damaged the confidentiality of journalists’ sources.

“It makes confidential whistleblowing almost impossible without risking a prison term,” he said.

“Each has an effect on journalists being able to do the job the public demands of us.”

However, he criticised news media organisations and journalists for not being proactive enough in fighting the introduction of such laws.

“We the media have become increasingly slack in challenging and questioning governments,” he said.

He said journalists should not accept the rhetoric of governments engaged in the war on terror. Rather, questioning that misuse of language would be “one of the most patriotic things to do”.

“Panicked and hyped up language” played into the hands of Islamic State, he said.

“We the media have a responsibility to uphold our end of the bargain as well.”

He said the #FreeAJStaff hashtag calling for the release of him and his colleagues attracted billions of supporters and indicated a high level of public belief that journalism was fundamental to democracy.

During his 400-day detention in an Egyptian prison he studied international relations with Griffith University.

Greste turned 50 this week. He grew up in Brisbane and has reported on political events all over the world. As a correspondent, between 1991 and 1995, he reported from many locations including London, Bosnia and South Africa where he worked with Reuters, CNN, WTN and the BBC.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he returned to Afghanistan to cover the war there. In 2011, he received a prestigious Peabody Award for his BBC documentary Somalia: Land of Anarchy. In December 2013, his employer Al Jazeera sent him from his base in Nairobi to Cairo to cover the bureau for three weeks. It was then he was arrested.

In June 2014, after more than six months in Cairo’s infamous Tora Prison, a court found Greste and his colleagues guilty and sentenced them to seven years imprisonment.

Peter Greste with his Griffith lecturers Dr Dan Halvorson and Professor Andrew O’Neill. Photo: Michael Cranfield

He said presenting the Griffith Lecture on December 4 was a way of validating what he and his colleagues went through retrospectively. “It’s a way of applying meaning to what we went through. Those 400 days weren’t wasted.

“I learned a lot about myself in prison but that time has also given me the credibility to talk about those issues around press freedom. I feel a responsibility to talk about these issues, partly because so many of my friends, so many journalists, fought so hard for me, that’s why people backed us.”

While his colleagues Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed were pardoned by the Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in September, Mr Greste still carries a criminal conviction and an outstanding prison sentence which his legal team is fighting.

—

Related: See my piece from June 22 2015 in The Conversation : How surveillance is wrecking journalist-source confidentiality

© Mark Pearson 2015

2 Comments

Filed under national security, terrorism

November 30, 2015 · 8:59 am

Dangerous journalism – new threats to journalism in the Middle East: @MartinChulov #jeraa2015

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

Almost every nation in the Middle East has the surveillance capability rivaling that of the Five Eyes group of countries, Guardian Middle East correspondent Martin Chulov (@MartinChulov) told the Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia 40^th anniversary conference in Bathurst today (November 30).

The Guardian's Martin Chulov addressing #jeraa15

The Guardian‘s Martin Chulov addressing #jeraa2015

“The digital dragnet is very much a tool of persecution,” he said.

He explained how the Internet and social media in the region had shifted from communication forms of change and liberation to tools of suppression.

“Regimes simply ended up doing social media better than the young activists in the region,” he said.

This presented enormous risks to journalists and their sources.

He said journalists now faced risks they had not previously when they were viewed as non-combatants.

“We can no longer afford to be naïve,” he said.

“I’ve often found myself being in a situation where you don’t have the access of your organisation and are relying on your wits.

“We have to be very careful in calculating when to push forward and when to go back.”

Chulov said propaganda issued by Middle Eastern states was also a major risk to truth-telling about the region.

“There are far too many journalists in the region – even veteran correspondents – whose work is no more than dogma,” he said.

“I’ve lost count of the number of young reporters who have told me how disillusioned they have become with journalists who were once their heroes.

“Conflict reporting is not simply about muddying the waters. We should never be afraid of fact, no matter where it may lead us.”

Source protection had become a major issue. He said one of his sources was a senior figure in Islamic State.

“There has been no digital communication at all. We have to beware of street cameras and any digital communication at all.

“Every time I do go to see him I have to wonder whether it is going to be the last time for him and potentially the last time for me.

“Of course shrouding ourselves in secrecy does nothing to dispel the notion we are not spies in the first place.

“I’m on the bad boy list but I haven’t been hit so far. But I do try to ensure not everything I try to transmit is not secure.” This avoids a detectable regime.

Journalists also faced attacks on their reputations.

“If truth be told, it sometimes works,” he said.

“All of us who have covered the region for a living have regularly woken up to Twitter feeds full of bile.”

—

Related: See my piece from June 22 2015 in The Conversation : How surveillance is wrecking journalist-source confidentiality

© Mark Pearson 2015

Leave a comment

Filed under national security, terrorism

November 5, 2015 · 1:11 pm

UNESCO study by @julieposetti uses research to shed light on source protection in the surveillance era

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

UNESCO’s flagship publication World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development was launched in Paris, London and New York this week, as part of events marking the International Day to End Impunity For Crimes Against Journalists.

It features an important chapter highlighting 13 key recommendations from a global study on the protection of journalism sources in the digital age – ably chaired and written by University of Wollongong journalism educator Julie Posetti during her World Editors Forum/WAN-IFRA Research Fellowship in 2014-2015.

As the World Trends publication explains, the ‘Protecting Journalism Sources in the Digital Age’ study draws on research covering 121 UNESCO Member States, updating an earlier study of these countries by the NGO Privacy International in 2007.

The chapter shows how legal frameworks that support protection of journalistic sources, at international, regional and national levels, have come under substantial strain since then.

“They are increasingly at risk of erosion, restriction and compromise,” the report notes.

“This is a trend that signifies a direct challenge to the established universal human rights of freedom of expression and privacy, and one that constitutes a particular threat to the sustainability of investigative journalism.

“A recommendation for consideration from this research is the proposal of an 11-point research tool for assessing the effectiveness of legal source protection frameworks in the digital age.”

Recommendations and findings from Protecting Sources of Journalism in the Digital Age https://t.co/sD8xjGQM5H @NewspaperWorld @julieposetti

— media.eu (@MediaEu) November 2, 2015

The Posetti study draws on surveys and long form interviews involving nearly 200 international experts from the fields of law, journalism, digital communications and civil society organisations.

Academics from Australia (Posetti and UoW colleague Marcus O’Donnell), Brazil and China contributed to the study, along with 11 research assistants from a range of countries.

I was honoured to serve on the eight-member international advisory panel. Other advisory panellists were: Julie Reid, Media Studies Senior Lecturer, Department of Communication Science, UNISA (University of South Africa); Lillian Nalwoga, President, Internet Society’s Uganda Chapter; Policy Officer, Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA); Dan Gillmor, Director of the Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication; Prisca Orsonneau, Lawyer at the Paris Bar, specializing in Media Law and Human Rights; Chair, Reporters Without Borders Legal Committee; Gayathry Venkiteswaran, Executive Director, Southeast Asian Press Alliance; Mario Calabresi, Editor-in-Chief, La Stampa; and Mishi Choudhary, Legal Director, Software Freedom Law Centre and SFLC.in.

Julie Posetti advises the full study will be published by UNESCO early next year but meanwhile she has blogged about the chapter in the World Trends Report here: http://blog.wan-ifra.org/node/16301. However, she has supplied these 13 recommendations and findings:

1. 84 UNESCO Member States out of 121 studied (69 per cent) for this report demonstrated noteworthy developments, mainly with negative impact, concerning journalistic source protection between 2007 and mid-2015
2. The issue of source protection has come to intersect with the issues of mass surveillance, targeted surveillance, data retention, the spill-over effects of anti- terrorism/national security legislation, and the role of third party internet companies known as ‘intermediaries’
3. Legal and regulatory protections for journalists’ sources are increasingly at risk of erosion, restriction and compromise
4. Without substantial strengthening of legal protections and limitations on surveillance and data retention, investigative journalism that relies on confidential sources will be difficult to sustain in the digital era, and reporting in many other cases will encounter inhibitions on the part of potential sources
5. Transparency and accountability regarding both mass and targeted surveillance, and data retention, are critically important if confidential sources are to be able to continue to confidently make contact with journalists
6. Individual states face a need to introduce or update source protection laws
7. It is recommended to define ‘acts of journalism’, as distinct from the role of ‘journalist’, in determining who can benefit from source protection laws
8. To optimise benefits, source protection laws should be strengthened in tandem with legal protections extended to whistle-blowers, who constitute a significant set of confidential journalistic sources
9. Source protection laws need to cover journalistic processes and communications with confidential sources – including telephone calls, social media, and emails – along with published journalism that depends on confidential sources
10. Journalists are increasingly adapting their practice in an effort to partially shield their sources from exposure, but threats to anonymity and encryption undermine these adaptations
11. The financial cost of the digital era source protection threat is very significant (in terms of digital security tools, training, and legal advice), as is its impact on the production and scope of investigative journalism based on confidential sources
12. There is a need to educate journalists and civil society actors in digital safety
13. Journalists, and others who rely on confidential sources to report in the public interest, may need to train their sources in secure methods of contact and information-sharing

Importantly, World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development contains three other chapters on important media issues:

Countering Online Hate Speech provides a global overview of the dynamics of hate speech online and some of the measures that have been adopted to counteract and mitigate it, highlighting trends in good practices that have emerged at the local and global levels. There is a comprehensive analysis of the international, regional and national normative frameworks developed to address hate speech online, and their repercussions for freedom of expression, and there is emphasis on social and non-regulatory mechanisms that may be considered to help to counter the production, dissemination and impact of hateful messages online.

Fostering Freedom Online: The Role of Internet Intermediaries sheds light on internet intermediaries – the services that mediate online communication and enable various forms of online expression. It shows how they both foster and restrict freedom of expression across a range of jurisdictions, circumstances, technologies and business models. The report states: “According to the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, while states have the primary duty to protect human rights, businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights, and both should play a role in providing remedy to those whose rights have been violated. This chapter applies the ‘protect, respect, and remedy’ framework to the policies and practices of companies representing three intermediary types (internet service providers, search engines, and social networking platforms) across 10 countries. The three case studies highlight challenges and opportunities for different types of intermediaries within the trend of their increasing importance.”

Safety of Journalists examines recent trends in the safety of journalists, presenting UNESCO statistics for 2013 and 2014, and tracking other developments up to August 2015. The report explains: “It follows the framework of the previous UNESCO report World Trends report, including physical safety, impunity, imprisonment of journalists, and a gender dimension of the issues. Additionally, the chapter examines the unprecedented trend of the strengthening of normative international standards, as well as new developments in practical mechanisms, improvement in UN inter-agency cooperation, greater collaboration with the judiciary system and security forces, and research interest in the subject.”

—

Related: See my piece from June 22 2015 in The Conversation : How surveillance is wrecking journalist-source confidentiality

1 Comment

Filed under national security, terrorism

April 2, 2012 · 9:33 am

Anti-social racism in social media is unwise and illegal

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

Two recent cases stand out as examples where racist commentary has landed online writers in legal trouble.

The first was in the UK where a student was jailed for 56 days for Tweeting offensive remarks about a stricken footballer.

Another was in Australia where a Federal Court judge fined the News Limited website PerthNow $12,000 over comments posted by readers to its website featuring racial abuse of four indigenous teenagers who died in a stolen car. It reinforces the Australian law that you are legally responsible for the moderated comments of others on your social media or web sites.

I take up the issue of discriminatory abuse in my new book – Blogging and Tweeting Without Getting Sued: A global guide to the law for anyone writing online.

The chapter is titled ‘The fine line between opinion and bigotry’. Here’s a short excerpt:

—————-

The fine line between opinion and bigotry

Sadly, human beings have found the negative energy to hate each other since time immemorial. Hatred of one form or another explains most of the wars and acts of violence throughout history. While the Internet and social media has allowed us to communicate with countless new friends and form all kinds of new professional and personal relationships, we do not just attract the attention of the ‘like-minded’.

There is a war going on in our pockets and handbags in each and every smartphone and on every home computer connected to the Internet. There are people so possessed with hatred and revenge that they are conducting a cyberwar on the objects of their disdain.

No matter who you are and where you live, there are others who might not know you personally but hate you for the category of human being you are: black, white, Asian, Hispanic, male, female, gay, straight, conservative, liberal, environmentalist, climate change denier, Muslim, Jew, Christian, obese, American, British, Pakistani, teenager, rich, poor, lawyer, politician or used car salesman. (Lucky there’s not a ‘hate’ button on Facebook, hey?)

Sometimes even some fun turns sour. A satirical swipe at redheads on the Simpsons television series prompted a 14-year-old Canadian boy to set up a Facebook ‘Kick a Ginger’ campaign in 2008, rapidly ‘friended’ by more than 5000 fans. As the Telegraph reported, dozens of children posted comments on the page claiming to have attacked redheads, with a 13-year-old girl from Alberta and her sister among the victims of the schoolyard bullies.

Such people judge you based on the labels they apply to you rather than who you really are or your life experiences that inform your views and values. And they are online and angry.

If you also have strong opinions and express them without fear or favour, your challenge is to avoid becoming one of them. Because if you do, the force of the law in most places can be brought down upon you.

Some individuals just cannot back away from a fight in real life or cyberspace. They become so obsessed with their causes or grudges that they launch poisonous online assaults on others that can leave their targets as traumatised as they would have been if they had been assaulted physically. Tragically, some victims have become so despairing and fearful that they have been driven to take their own lives.

In the eyes of the law, such attacks go under a range of names according to their type, scale, and jurisdiction. They include: cyberbullying, cyberstalking, online trolling, malicious online content, using carriage services to menace, harassment, hate speech, vilification, discrimination and even assault. Some are criminal offences where offenders can be fined or jailed and others are civil wrongs where courts can award damages to victims. Some are litigated under actions we have already considered such as defamation, privacy and breach of confidentiality.

Some are difficult to explain because the motivations are beyond the imagination of ordinary citizens. Australian ‘troll’ Bradley Paul Hampson served 220 days in jail in 2011 for plastering obscene images and comments on Facebook tribute pages dedicated to the memory of two children who had died in tragic circumstances. He had entered the sites to depict one victim with a penis drawn near their mouth and offensive comments including “Woot I’m Dead” and “Had It Coming”.

At about the same time the US Appeals Court in Virginia was dealing with a suit by former high school senior Kara Kowalski who had been suspended for five days for creating a MySpace page called ‘S.A.S.H’. She claimed it stood for ‘Students Against Sluts Herpes’, but the court found it really aimed to ridicule a fellow student named Shay. She had also incurred a social suspension for 90 days, preventing her from cheerleading and from crowning her successor in the school’s ‘Queen of Charm’ review. Kowalski felt aggrieved at the suspension because she claimed it had violated her constitutional speech and due process rights as it had not happened during a school activity but was really ‘private, out of school speech’. But the court disagreed.

“Kowalski’s role in the ‘S.A.S.H.’ webpage, which was used to ridicule and demean a fellow student, was particularly mean-spirited and hateful,” judge Niemeyer wrote. “The webpage called on classmates, in a pack, to target Shay N., knowing that it would be hurtful and damaging to her ability to sit with other students in class at Musselman High School and have a suitable learning experience.” The court agreed with the school and the trial judge that ‘such harassment and bullying is inappropriate and hurtful’ and denied her damages claim. A ‘Queen of Charm’ indeed!

…

Blogging and Tweeting Without Getting Sued: A global guide to the law for anyone writing online is now available in print format in Australia and New Zealand (US release in October) and as an ebook elsewhere via Kindle, Google, Kobo and some other providers. [Order details here.]

[Media: Please contact Allen & Unwin direct for any requests for advance copies for review. Contact publicity@allenandunwin.com or call +61 2 8425 0146]

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as anonymous, blogging, courts, discrimination, Facebook, First Amendment, free speech, hate speech, law, media, Perthnow, racism, social media law, Twitter

August 29, 2011 · 10:58 am

Why I just wrote my last #LinkedIn recommendation

The trendy online reference seems flawed – both professionally and legally.

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

I see it as an important responsibility of my position as a professor to act as a referee for my former students and colleagues when they are job hunting.

I stopped writing formal general references many years ago because the practice seemed to have lost almost all credibility with employers.

Instead, I now agree to be a ‘referee’ and will only write a formal reference when an employer requests one.

But over the past couple of years I have been getting more requests for ‘recommendations’ from my connections on the social-professional network LinkedIn.

Not wanting to offend my former students and colleagues, I have obliged. Until now. I’ve investigated it further and have just written my final LinkedIn recommendation.

There are all the standard HR reasons why such recommendations are not worth a pinch of salt: they are time consuming, too general, and always glowing.

In 2009, Silicon Valley web strategist Jeremiah Owyang described LinkedIn recommendations as ‘puffery’.

“When I see recommendations on LinkedIn, my alarm goes off,” he blogged.

“I know most are not objective.”

LinkedIn responded to his criticisms on their official blog, with Adam Nash highlighting the benefits that can come from recommendations. He claimed the process could be mutually rewarding for the recommender and recommendee.

Perhaps so, but others have explored the employment law issues of the practice.

Employment attorney Shay Zeemer Hable offers a host of reasons why such references are fraught in labor law – with claims of defamation and unfair dismissal heading the list.

“Every discrimination plaintiff seeks to prove his employer is lying about the reason for the firing,” he writes.

“As a result, savvy attorneys will search the Internet for any comment that is inconsistent with the company’s official message about the reason for the termination.

But the area that concerns me most is defamation.

It’s not because of the risk of defaming the person you are recommending. My understanding is that they have to approve your recommendation before posting it, so I can’t imagine someone letting a disparaging comment slip through.

My concern is more with the impact of a glowing LinkedIn recommendation on the defamation defence you need to protect your harsh comments in the real reference you give later.

What happens if you later contradict your original glowing recommendation in your frank verbal or written advice to the employer when they contact you about this person you have recommended?

Australian law provides a strong qualified privilege defence for the negative job reference -restricted to those who have a genuine legal interest in knowing the your truthful opinion about a prospective employee.

But, as the Legal Services Commission of South Australia explains, it requires the ‘publisher’ – he or she who has written the reference – to have acted in good faith and without malice. You also need to believe in the truth of the material you are providing about the individual.

That could be damaged in a major way if the plaintiff can point to your contradictory glowing recommendation on LinkedIn, particularly if it covers the same aspects of their character.

A court would be hard pressed to find you have acted in good faith if you have offered conflicting versions of your opinion about the employee in separate ‘publications’. Exactly when were you giving your honest opinion?

I might be drawing a long bow here – and perhaps some readers can point me to some cases where this has been tested – but for the moment I certainly won’t be writing any more LinkedIn recommendations, and I will be directing my colleagues and students to this blog to read my reasons.

I’d be interested to hear your views.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as blogging, courts, defamation, employment law, free speech, hate speech, HR, job reference, labor law, law, LinkedIn, media, recommendations, social media law

August 23, 2011 · 9:48 am

First Amendment doesn’t have a passport #law #blogging #media #defamation #censorship

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

It might only be 45 words long, but if you are an American journalist, blogger or social media user you can’t pack the First Amendment in your luggage when you travel abroad.

The famous 14 word portion protecting free expression in the United States – ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’ – does not travel well when your Web 2.0 material is viewed in foreign lands.

That shouldn’t worry you if you have published within US law and are happy to sit at home in North Dakota or Hawaii tapping away on the device of your choice.

But you should think twice before stepping on an aircraft and touching down in a jurisdiction where there are tougher gags on free expression.

Of course, you don’t have carte blanche at home, either. Even the US draws the line at criminal publications involving prohibited materials like child pornography or engaging in criminal activity such as fraud or terrorism.

But there are many things you can publish on social media or on blogs in America that can trigger lawsuits, harsh fines or jail terms in some countries.

Here are some situations where your First Amendment won’t help out:

Hate speech: A US District Court decision in 2011 reinforced the strong protections for angry and inflammatory words under the First Amendment. Judge Lynn Adelman had to consider the free expression rights of neo-Nazi Bill White who was charged over using a website to advocate violence against the ‘enemies’ of white supremacy, including a juror in the trial of a fellow extremist. Judge Adelman allowed his appeal on the grounds that he had not made a direct call to violence against the juror and that White’s speech had First Amendment protection. Judge Adelman explained that the US Constitution ‘…protects vehement, scathing, and offensive criticism of others, including individuals involved in the criminal justice system, such as Juror Hoffman’. He ruled that even speech advocating law-breaking was protected unless it was directed at inciting immediate lawless action and likely to prompt it. The decision sits with earlier Supreme Court hate speech judgments which have found that all but communications integral to criminal conduct – fighting words, threats and solicitations – have free expression protection in America. This is not the case in most other countries, where such comments can see you fined or jailed under laws of blasphemy, vilification or race hate. Australian historical revisionist Fredrick Toben was jailed in Germany for publishing Holocaust denial material on the Internet. In Nigeria, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Sudan and some Middle Eastern countries offenders can be jailed or even executed for blasphemous statements or actions.
Immunity for comments of others: In the US, s. 230 of the US Communications Decency Act (1996) gives immunity to anyone hosting the comments of third parties. It states clearly: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Internet service providers (ISPs) and bloggers are protected from actions over material published without their knowledge on sites they host. This is not the case in many other countries. Earlier this year an Australian Federal Court found a health company was responsible for Facebook and Twitter comments by fans on its accounts in defiance of a court order that the company not make misleading claims about its allergy treatments. The court ruled that the company should have taken steps to remove the comments as soon as it had become aware of them, as Addisons Lawyers explained. The company and its director were fined $7500 each. In the Middle East, anonymous political comments by a blogger on the website of Bashar Al-Sayegh landed the Kuwaiti journalist in jail for three days in 2007. He was charged with insulting the emir of Kuwait and called upon to explain how he allowed the comments to remain on his site for several hours.
Defamation: Under special US protections, you can get away with false publications about celebrities and other public figures as long as you are not being malicious in your attacks. Again, you need to be wary of less forgiving laws in other places, particularly if the celebrity has a reputation they wish to defend elsewhere – people like British actor Hugh Grant or New Zealand film-maker Peter Jackson. The strong US defence stems from New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), where the Supreme Court invoked the First Amendment to rule that public officials had to meet tough new tests before they could succeed in a defamation action, even if the allegations were false. In the US, plaintiffs need to prove the falsity of the material, while in the UK and its former colonies the burden is on the publisher to prove the truth of libellous material. ‘Public figures’ in the US also have to prove the publication was malicious before they can win their cases. All this means you face much less chance of libel action in the US over your writing on important public matters, but you need to be careful if you are posting scandalous material about private citizens, particularly if you know the allegations are untrue. Rock icon Courtney Love learned this $430,000 lesson earlier this year. In Canada, the UK and Australia the ‘responsible communication’ or ‘qualified privilege’ defence requires the publisher to demonstrate that they made proper inquiries in the lead-up to their defamatory expose of an issue of public concern, even though they were ultimately unable to prove its truth.
Exotic foreign laws: The countries of the world with the highest level of censorship maintain tight control over expression and take firm action against online writers who use the Internet to question their authority. This is when the blogger becomes a ‘dissident’ and any use of new media for political expression – or even the use of certain media at all – can land the offender in jail. Reporters Without Borders has released a list of enemies of free Internet speech (pdf file): Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. They are countries where bloggers, journalists and other ‘dissidents’ have been imprisoned or tortured for daring to write what they think or for encouraging others to do so. Even Thailand, a nation with a relatively free and vibrant media, issues lengthy jail terms under its ‘lese majeste’ laws for any material critical of its royal family. Colorado resident Joe Gordon was detained for 84 days in Thailand this year and faces a charge of translating an unauthorised biography critical of the king.

So, what does it all mean for the average American journalist, blogger or microblogger? Quite simply: think before you publish, and think before you travel.

You won’t be extradited and tried by aliens if you keep within the law of your own country. But you should revise your travel itinerary to avoid countries whose governments or citizens may have been offended by your blogs or postings.

If you have been particularly provocative in your writing and you really must travel then consider your other 54 US state and territory jurisdictions or perhaps pack your bags for a Scandinavian vacation. While they don’t have a First Amendment, those countries usually come in well ahead of the US on the Freedom House and RSF free expression rankings.

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer! My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as anonymous, blogging, courts, defamation, Facebook, First Amendment, free speech, hate speech, law, lese majeste, media, social media law, Twitter