Student journalists in India are defying censorship and amplifying the voices of marginalized communities. They use social media as a platform to discuss topics that are often hidden or ignored by national media [63e076e9]. These student journalists serve as a lifeline for the country's journalism industry, filling the gaps left by professional journalists. While they heavily rely on digital media, many are also branching out into print media to reach a wider audience. Their goal is to ensure that marginalized voices are heard on mainstream platforms. However, they face harassment and legal abuse from the government and academic institutions. Public recognition and support from established media organizations are crucial for their sustainability [63e076e9].
In India, journalists' digital security is in danger due to the lack of guidelines and legal gaps. The New Delhi police recently seized around 250 electronic devices, including phones, hard disks, and laptops, from the homes of over 90 journalists. These journalists were not provided with the hash values of their devices, which are necessary to determine if the contents have been tampered with [ac35faf5]. Free speech activists and cyberlaw experts are calling for due process and an update to the laws governing search and seizure by law enforcement agencies. Journalists focusing on critical assessment of public interest topics such as authoritarianism, crony capitalism, and human rights violations of minorities are particularly targeted. The rise in targeting journalists by the government is seen as an attempt to control the narrative and suppress anti-government voices. Journalists are demanding appropriate protection of their systems and adherence to legal procedures by law enforcement agencies. Digital evidence guidelines should include a process to track the chain of custody, prevent tampering, and ensure devices are not retained longer than necessary. Cloning specific data and providing hash values to device owners is crucial to ensure fair criminal investigations and trials. The law should also specify what kinds of evidence can be sought without a warrant [ac35faf5].
In the United States, a bill has been introduced in Wisconsin to protect the rights of student journalists. Inspired by an Illinois law, the bill aims to grant public-school journalists in grades 6-12 and student journalists at universities and technical colleges the right to exercise freedom of speech and of the press in school-sponsored media. It would also allow student journalists to determine the content of school-sponsored media and prohibit school officials from censoring materials. The bill further ensures that student journalists and their advisors cannot be disciplined for acting in accordance with the bill and provides an appeal process for students. This legislation is part of a broader movement in response to a Supreme Court decision on censorship of student media. While some argue that giving press freedom to middle and high school students might be problematic, supporters believe that the legislation will work if students follow responsible standards. The bill is seen as crucial in protecting the rights of student journalists and has the potential to impact many people [d0c58e4d].
In Australia, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has signaled new anti-doxxing laws that will criminalize the disclosure of personal information for malicious intent. The federal government plans to draft laws that capture any publication for malicious purposes of someone's private or personal information without their consent. The doxxing crackdown will occur through civil and criminal laws, with a maximum penalty of jail time. Exemptions for public interest journalism will be included, but the scope is unclear. The government's plans to criminalize doxxing have received broad support, including from the National Women's Safety Alliance. Privacy law experts and criminal law academics have raised concerns about the definition of personal information and the necessity of new criminal offenses for doxxing [b54004ae].
In Indiana, the state's highest legal office has filed to dismiss a challenge from a group of media entities to Indiana's 'buffer zone' law, which creates a 25-foot zone around law enforcement officers during certain activities. The plaintiffs argue that the law limits their ability to hold law enforcement accountable and violates the First Amendment. However, the state argues that the plaintiffs have not been directly affected by the law and have not self-censored as a result. The state also claims that the law is being enforced evenhandedly and with deference to those recording law enforcement. The filing states that individual law enforcement agencies may adopt certain procedures when interpreting and implementing the law, which weakens the plaintiffs' facial challenge. The media entities involved in the challenge include the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Indiana Broadcasters Association, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Indy Star [ed2c8a00].
In New Jersey, a bill sponsored by State Sen. Paul Sarlo aims to weaken the state's Open Public Records Act (OPRA), making it more difficult for journalists and citizens to access government communications and information. The bill would require the use of an official OPRA request form, add hurdles to obtaining records, and exempt email logs and call logs from public access. It also establishes a Police Record Access Improvement Task Force to investigate public access to police records. The ACLU of New Jersey has criticized the bill, stating that the state deserves better. The bill is set to be reviewed by the New Jersey Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. The bill's provisions have been described as bringing darkness instead of sunshine into the public discourse by a lawyer. The New Jersey Foundation for Open Government has expressed concerns about the lack of stakeholder involvement in the bill's development. The bill's privacy provisions have also been criticized for potentially allowing abuse and expanding exceptions to access based on personal information. The bill is seen as a threat to transparency and the ability of journalists to do their jobs [d6d4f29d].
Police in the United States are increasingly using social media monitoring as a new form of undercover assignment, according to a report from the Harvard Kennedy School. This practice involves reviewing public social media profiles and creating accounts under invented identities to monitor social media accounts. Proponents argue that this form of monitoring is less intrusive and uses fewer resources than other forms of surveillance. However, scholars and affected communities have raised concerns about the scope of monitoring, civil liberties, constitutionality, and discriminatory targeting. The creation of false accounts also violates user agreements of major social media platforms. The report discusses how law enforcement agencies use social media, strategies to uncover law enforcement surveillance, and the need for guardrails in public policy and private companies. The speakers in the report include Rachel Levinson-Waldman, an Ian Axford Fellow in Public Policy, and Josh Raisler Cohn, a public defender. The discussion is moderated by Katy Naples-Mitchell, Program Director of the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management [2af6250c].
360Civic, a company based in Orange, California, has warned about the weaponization of privacy in the wake of politically charged division and escalating credible threats. The easy online access to personal data has left public figures and private citizens vulnerable. The company has released a white paper titled 'The Weaponization of Privacy: Why It Will Get Worse, and How You Can Stop It,' which explores the current state of online privacy and how it is being compromised. The white paper highlights the identification and harassment of public servants and private citizens. 360Civic offers proactive privacy protection measures through its IronWall360 service, which scans the internet daily for members' identifying information and proactively removes it. Members also receive guidance on protecting their identity online through solutions like NordVPN. The company emphasizes the growing vulnerability of private information and advocates for a safe and private internet. They work to remove personal information from websites that violate privacy restrictions. The white paper provides insights into the weaponization of privacy and offers strategies to combat this issue [5700a219].
According to an article by Prof. John Fabian Witt in Reason, the origins of modern free speech law were marked by grave concerns about the relationship between free communication and self-government. The commonly held belief that modern free speech law arose from a moment of pragmatic optimism is challenged. The article highlights the views of Walter Lippmann and Roger Baldwin, two key participants in the formation of the free speech tradition in America. Lippmann and Baldwin recognized the distortion and manipulation of public opinion through powerful interests and propaganda campaigns. While Lippmann turned to neutral expertise in the administrative state, Baldwin believed that the labor movement offered a better ecosystem for the formation of opinion on collective questions. The article concludes by noting that the current crisis of lies and propaganda in the public sphere is exacerbated by the decay or decline of key mediating institutions like the administrative state and the labor movement [60e23fd2].
The public debate surrounding Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, has focused primarily on Human Rights Act and Criminal Code reforms. The Human Rights Act changes include the return of Section 13 on hate speech, which was repealed by the Harper government after criticisms that it unduly chilled freedom of expression. Distinguished University Professor and Professor of Law at the University of Windsor, Richard Moon, joins the podcast to discuss the history of Section 13 and its latest iteration in Bill C-63. Professor Moon's report on Section 13 is the leading source on its history and application. The podcast can be accessed on YouTube and is embedded below. Subscribe to the podcast via [link] [b6915535].
Justice Minister Arif Virani states that the Liberal government's online hate speech bill, Bill C-63, will not target insults, offensive remarks, or off-colour jokes. The bill is designed to filter out frivolous and bad faith complaints, while focusing on complaints that promote detestation and vilification. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal will have the power to award costs against those abusing the process. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will not be the final arbiter on online hate complaints, as Canadians found to have violated the bill can demand a judicial review. Bill C-63 also revises the maximum sentence for inciting genocide to life imprisonment. Critics, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Margaret Atwood, have raised concerns about the bill's impact on free speech [3bba0b6b].
Nearly three-quarters of women journalists have experienced online violence or abuse connected with their work, according to a joint UNESCO/ICFJ study in 2022 [6807d00b]. The threats faced by women journalists online are increasing, and the toxic environment is facilitated by big companies who fail to take responsibility. Online attacks include insults, sexist and sexual comments, physical threats, and death threats to journalists and their families. The attacks are becoming increasingly sophisticated, including blocking accounts, hacking, publishing private photos, and creating 'deep fakes'. Violent threats tend to increase when combined with discrimination based on skin color, religion, or sexual orientation. The consequences of cyberbullying can be far-reaching, with some journalists being dissuaded from covering sensitive topics or leaving the industry altogether. Media rights campaigners warn that cyberbullying poses a new threat to press freedom [6807d00b].