Tag Archives: Freedom of Access to Information

75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “The common standard of achievement for all people and all nations”

Leave a Reply

This year on the 10 of December we commemorate the Human rights day that will also be accompanied by a High-Level hybrid event on the 11-12 of December. Please see below for more information on this event.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year, a landmark document that established a common standard for human rights around the world. Following World War II, which was characterized by terrible atrocities and extreme suffering for humanity, the UDHR emerged. The urgent need to create a global framework for protecting human dignity and preventing future violations led to its formation.

Over these 75 years, the Declaration’s main goals have been to instill justice, equality, and fundamental freedoms in society. It is a cornerstone of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, serving as a worldwide model for regional, national, and local laws and regulations.

A variety of human rights allude to the work of libraries: Article 12 refers to the right to privacy; Article 26 marks the right to education; Article 27 states that everyone has the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community; and of course, the heart’s mission of libraries is reflected in Article 19, which refers to the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

In addition to providing access to information, libraries and librarians play a vital role in promoting and protecting human rights worldwide by building awareness, empowering individuals and communities, developing diverse collections, programs, and services, promoting inclusion, and advocating for policy change.

IFLA has promoted human rights through a variety of means, placing the principles of freedom of access to information and freedom of expression at the heart of its values alongside wider human rights.

In 1997, IFLA’s decision to establish the Committee on Free Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) strengthened the Federation’s commitment to actively promote and defend human rights in relation to information access. This decision encouraged the profession to engage pro-actively with human rights, which was a radical expansion of the profession’s self-concept.

As expressed in the Glasgow Declaration on Libraries, Information Services, and Intellectual Freedom, IFLA proclaims the fundamental right of human beings both to access and to express information without restriction.

As we commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Human Rights Declaration, it is crucial to continually defend against ongoing challenges to freedom of expression and freedom of access to information. It is also a useful opportunity to remember their relevance in today’s post-pandemic world, with challenges such as armed conflicts, attacks on press freedom, disinformation, hate speech, censorship, and discrimination.

This decade has been called “The Decade of Action to deliver the Global Goals,” which calls for accelerating sustainable solutions to all the world’s biggest challenges through global action and building on the progress achieved in the last 75 years. This decade will be the most critical for our generation. This call for action involves all sectors; today, more than ever, the work, ethics, and professionalism of librarians are needed to tackle the global challenges. Upholding and promoting human rights requires ongoing work.

In 2023, the UN Human Rights Office will be organizing a High-level Event on 11 and 12 December to mark the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The event is the culmination of Human Rights 75 – a year-long initiative by the Office to reaffirm the values of the Universal Declaration and recommit to human rights as the pathway to address the challenges of today and the future.

The event allows for hybrid participation and it is a good opportunity for people in the library field to reaffirm the important role that libraries play in this process.

Click here to access the event and registration page.

This post was written by Jonathan Hernández, Chair of the Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression Advisory Committee for the 2023-2025 period.

World Press Freedom Day 2022 – freedom of expression under (digital) siege

Leave a Reply

Particularly in times of crisis, reliable and verified information is urgently needed – and is itself in need of safeguarding. World Press Freedom Day 2022 highlights the evolution and acceleration of challenges to media freedom, independence, pluralism, and safety of journalists in a digital world. How do these relate to libraries’ own experiences as information professionals – and what lessons can we learn from these, to work together towards a stronger and freer media landscape?

A call to action in a time of need

The theme of this year’s World Press Freedom Day is journalism under digital siege. The aim is to draw attention to the evolution, and acceleration, of challenges to journalism in today’s digital and hyperconnected information environment: the viability of digital business models; surveillance (both large-scale and targeted); data collection; access to information; and the need for more transparency.

An accompanying message by the Director-General of UNESCO also reflects on the approaching 1-year anniversary of the Windhoek+30 Declaration, which further elaborates on the role of information as a public good. Online platform transparency principles, an emphasis on media and information literacy, research into new sustainable business models are among the activities UNESCO has been spearheading to help deliver on the Declaration’s ambitions.

Vitally, the note closes with a call for all stakeholders – from Member States to civil society to technology companies and beyond – to play their part in building a new journalism and media configuration, one that simultaneously tackles the risks and seizes the opportunities of digital.

This call, of course, comes at a crucial time. The latest UNESCO World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development report highlights that, over the past five years, around 85% of the world’s population saw a decline in press freedom in places where they live. In the 2022 World Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders also noted a marked two-fold polarisation – within and between countries – as an effect of a chaotic and globalised information space.

Echoing experiences in journalism and librarianship: lessons learned and moving forward

To chart the path towards a revitalised and fairer media landscape, it’s worth looking at some of the key trends and lessons learned set out in the latest flagship report, and see how they are echoed in different media in information sectors – including, of course, the library field.

Threats to freedom of expression and the safety of journalists: this remains a top priority. Violence, crimes and threats against journalists are a most egregious example – and, as the report points out, awareness of threats to their digital safety and (online) hostility, including gender-based violence, is growing in recent years. Such violence can stifle or silence voices, reducing the variety of ideas and works available to library users, impoverishing the information environment.

In addition to the ‘private’ censorship enforced by individuals or groups, a related key element lies in the broader policy environment. The report notes that more than 50 laws and regulations introduced around the world since 2016 contain vague language or heavy penalties which impact freedom of expression and of media online. These regulations can range from targeting cybercrime to ‘rumors’ or ‘fake news’.

In the library field, a parallel could be pointed out to a chilling impact of a threat of possible legal action for reading material or curation choices. It is a threat which, as the New York times reported, even if entirely lacking a basis for a criminal investigation, can have a chilling effect and encourage self-censorship.

Financial viability continues to be a pressing concern in the news media field, only growing in urgency. The ways this plays out in commercial media – e.g. advertisement or subscription-based revenue models – are well-documented of course.

However, it is not aways the case that alternative funding sources are necessarily better. Indeed, the report offers valuable insights into the viability considerations around two other models of journalism – public broadcasting and community-based media.

For public service media, vulnerability in the face of political pressure (including through their financing) remains an important concern. In some parts of the world, public broadcasting enjoys relatively high trust among audiences, but it may in some cases struggle to reach more diverse demographics.

The situation for community media viability also seems to be mixed; as increasing polarisation can raise concerns around licensing and financial fragility, as well as a possibility of capture by private, economic or religious interests.

In light of these financial concerns, many journalists feel less secure in their jobs today, as employment figures in this field see a substantial decline. There are similar concerns in the library field in some parts of the world, of course, especially in light of austerity measures – also prompting a discussion about the possible impacts on access to trustworthy information and the health of a democratic public dialogue without the support that librarians can provide for it.

Finally, it is of course worth revisiting the discussion on trustworthy information as a public good. On the supply side, the report makes a note of both algorithmic curation and the saturation of the information field with a multitude of competing content producers.

On the demand side, there are nonetheless factors which can limit the public’s access to vital journalism, news media, and information at large – from internet shutdowns and takedown requests to the costs of digital subscriptions, internet connectivity and access devices, which can be prohibitive for some users. This continues to raise concerns about unequal access to information, and a cause for action.

At the same time, some data – e.g. the Edelman Trust Barometer and the Reuters Institute Digital News Report – suggests that trust in different sources of information, while varying per source (e.g. with traditional media enjoying more user confidence than social media), is overall quite fragile, and sees a long-term negative trend over the past few years.

All these are familiar concerns and consideration for libraries, of course. Whether it is providing no-cost access to computers and the internet, championing media literacy, or speaking out against opaque search algorithms and curation practices of third-party providers – boosting both supply and demand for information as a public good lies at the heart of the profession.

Together for access to information and freedom of expression

Naturally, it is important to also mark and celebrate progress where we see it. The report notes, for example, that in less than 20 years the number of countries with access to information (ATI) laws has tripled. This progress can be attributed to both public sector commitments and civil society initiatives, showing what can be achieved with dedicated efforts and collaboration.

As we mark this year’s Press Freedom Day, librarians of course feel a lot of empathy towards our journalist colleagues working to make vital and high-quality information available to all. Here, librarians are both allies who can help raise awareness about the value of free press and the challenges it faces – and a synergetic partner whose core function is to make information and knowledge accessible to all.

At the same time, we see more conversations about the possible ways to democratise and reinvent the way news media is produced and distributed – especially at the local level. Some of these discussions focus on innovative business models, others – on ways to build an inclusive ecosystem and a thriving civic journalistic infrastructure.

These discussion reference libraries – as information hubs (especially for the most vulnerable community members), verifiers of community information, and one of the community infrastructures offering an alternative to the commercial media system. We look forward to seeing these exploratory dialogues continue, and to work together to realise the promise of information as a public good!

International Archives Day: together for transparency, accountability and access to information

Leave a Reply

9 June marks International Archives Day – falling in the middle of a week dedicated to celebrating and highlighting the work of the archive and record management sectors. We warmly congratulate our colleagues across many types of institutions – from national to community archives, and of course libraries carrying out archival activities. We stand in solidarity with them to continue building societies where preserving and ensuring access to information powers fundamental rights, wellbeing and development!

One of the key themes for this year’s celebrations is empowering accountability and transparency – how archives help people protect their rights and hold governments accountable through access to information.

This offers a good opportunity to reflect on where the global dialogue on transparency and accountability stands today – and how together libraries and archives can support and help drive progress.

The push for transparency in challenging times

The pandemic has, without a doubt, raised urgent questions about transparency and access to information, with many stakeholders highlighting the key role of universal access to government and public interest information. In particular at a time that governments are making decisions on an emergency basis, it helps ensure that people are well-informed about the situation, uphold accountability and build sustainable policies.

Transparency International, for example, pointed out that freedom of information rights gain additional urgency as pandemic responses impact people’s right to movement and assembly. The latter can also mean that opportunities for participatory democratic processes – and for media and civil society organisations to travel, gather and publish public interest information – are also severely reduced.

These discussions helped identify good practices and principles – e.g. proactive disclosure, building a robust digital infrastructure – which can help ensure that people’s fundamental right to information is upheld during this time of crisis.

Thinking to the future, the possibility for citizens to hold governments to account for the decisions and actions they have taken during the pandemic will depend on the possibility to access, rapidly and easily, relevant documentation.

As Freedom in the World 2021 Policy Recommendations highlight,

[…] Freedom House surveyed democracy and human rights experts working in over 100 countries, asking how democratic governments can help support democracy and human rights during the pandemic. Providing the public with access to fact-based information was a top response.

Powering a culture of transparency, accountability and access to information

In their work to support openness and transparency, archives, libraries, and information professionals have already identified many areas where their help can have a strong impact.

These include, for example, helping build accessible and user-friendly platforms for people to access public information, raising awareness about the public’s rights to information, offering engagement opportunities and helping their communities build up the skills needed to effectively use and leverage this information.

Such questions have been high on the agenda for IFLA over the past months. Principles and good practice examples have been outlined in IFLA’s recent Statement on Libraries and Open and Good Governance, our input to the UN Human Rights Office on Fostering Access to Information Held by Public Entities, and a briefing on libraries and open government.

The encouraging news is that libraries around the world continue to explore new and different ways to support these principles. For example, in the Netherlands, “digital government information points” are set up in more and more public libraries – with around 200 points set up since the initiative was launched in 2019!

They help people with many different questions – accessing e-government services, understanding legal terminology in official letters, referring people to NGos or government agencies that can best address their queries, and more.

In the USA, Indiana University Libraries received the U.S. Government Publishing Office’s 2020 “Library of the Year” title for the creative ways to connect people with government information. For example, their “Government Info Alerts” initiative offers people biweekly updates on new publications and development – tailored to their areas of interest on the basis of a short survey.

These examples reiterate that building a culture of transparency, accountability and access to information calls for multifaceted solutions on both supply (how information is offered) and demand (how people are encouraged and enabled to use it) sides.

Both archives and libraries are well placed to meet this need – ensuring long-term preservation of records, building user-friendly solutions for digital access, removing access restrictions, balancing the rights to access information with the rights to privacy, and more.

Of course, collaboration and exchange of good practices are a key ingredient to achieving these goals! This is well-reflected in another key point of the 2021 International Archive Day discussion – networking and collaboration.

So we want to once again congratulate our colleagues – and look forward to continuing working together to help power transparency, accountability and access to information!

COVID-19, libraries and human rights: Notes from Italy

Leave a Reply

As most people know, Italy was the first European country to be affected by the pandemic with significant consequences (up to October 15, 2020, 382,602 recorded cases and 36,372 deaths). Already in February 2020, the first ‘red zones’ were set up to try to stop the spread of the contagion. At the governmental and regional levels, between 30 January and 11 March 2020, several government decree-laws were issued that severely restricted people’s daily lives, affecting individual and collective rights: the obligation to stay at home (except for carrying out essential needs such as shopping – only food), the interruption of cultural and social sports activities, closure of schools and universities and numerous production activities, suspension of a large part of health care services, the prohibition to visit the sick and the elderly.

For the public, from the perspective of human rights at large, the most striking limitation was related to mobility, with the prohibition on moving more than 200m away from one’s home to take a walk. Another severe limitation concerns participation in democratic life, with the impossibility of holding meetings, assemblies, public demonstrations, debates, and participating as citizens in the proceedings of town councils. As regards to the freedom of information, it is essential to point out that a reason considered to be valid for leaving one’s home was to go to the newsstand to buy the newspaper or magazine, a necessity considered on a par with buying food or going to the pharmacy.

Libraries were officially closed from 9 March 9 to 30 April, but several libraries already imposed substantial restrictions in services or closed from February 23, and many only reopened towards the end of May or later. At the time of writing (October 2020), some libraries are still closed.

In response, the National Public Libraries Committee of the Italian Library Association launched a participatory process in the spring, involving librarians from different regions of Italy, to start a public debate on the future of library services from the perspective of their current experiences [1].

Library online events: helping deliver on the rights to information, culture and education

Libraries’ responses to the pandemic varied. For example, university libraries operated according to rules set out by their host institutions (related to the interruption of lessons in attendance, teaching activities, and remotely held exams). Public libraries tried to restore lending services as soon as they could. In contrast, events, guided tours, reading groups, activities with schools were canceled. It has been calculated that in the Emilia-Romagna Region alone (about 1,500 libraries), more than 2,000 events in libraries and archives were canceled during the lockdown period [2].

However, many libraries worked to make up for the closures with home loans and by organising online events focused on “distance reading.” Many activities were dedicated to children and young people, to support and supplement school activities, or to support children staying at home. Libraries organised hundreds of events to help deliver on the rights enshrined in the “Rights of the Child” Convention – their right to information, special needs, education, rest, leisure, and play.

One example is the readings for children at the Municipal Library of Cisterna di Latina. Other activities were organised for adult target audiences – for example, a contemporary poetry reading at the Library “Il Mulino di Vione” in Basiglio (Milan)[3].

Digital content and resources: adapting to circumstances and responding to demand

For the society at large, the rapid shift to digital in education, work, and leisure saw some evidence of a forced “digital training” of the population in Italy. Evidence of increased readiness to use the internet for daily tasks can be seen, also, in the development of e-commerce during the lockdown. There, for example, it is estimated that by the end of 2020, there will have been a 26% increase in e-commerce revenue. In parallel, people shared music made from home in #iorestoacasa.

Libraries have worked to extend their digital offer to keep pace with these changes. A great deal of work has been done on digitizing the collections of museums and historical libraries, with numerous art exhibitions and museum collections turned into digital guided tours. As cultural institutions were closed and leisure travel was forbidden as well, these actions were particularly effective in order to guarantee the right to education, and participation in cultural life.

Libraries have also been engaged in promoting digital resources, particularly the MediaLibraryOnLine (MLOL) platform, which already existed but was underused until now. Of particular interest are the growth figures of this newsstand service platform.

USE (Jan. 1 – Sept.1) Growth in 2019 compared to 2018 Growth in 2020 compared to 2019
Reading sessions + 25,32 % + 97,45 %
Titles + 9,66 % + 0,11 %
Users + 18,91 % +82,32 %

 

Table 1 – MediaLibraryOnLine (MLOL) Increase of Sessions and users (courtesy Giulio Blasi – Horizon Unlimited)

 

Even with the “official” reopening of the libraries, it remains complicated to consult materials, and practically impossible to read newspapers in libraries. As a result, this push to use digital resources should be encouraged so as to avoid the reduction in the possibilities of access to information in a country like Italy.

This is important, given that the right to information is a relatively recent social right, as set out in Constitutional Court resolution no. 420 of December 7, 1994, which enshrines the necessity “to guarantee the utmost pluralism of information channels to satisfy, through multiple diverse voices, people’s right to information”.

 

Enrica Manenti (Italy) – IFLA FAIFE Network

October 28, 2020

 

 

 

[1] See <https://www.aib.it/struttura/commissioni-e-gruppi/cnbp/> (last checked October,28 2020)

[2] See Turricchia, R., L’impatto del Covid-19 sulle biblioteche dell’Emilia-Romagna, AIB Notizie, 6 agosto 2020 <http://aibnotizie.aib.it/limpatto-del-covid-19-sulle-biblioteche-dellemilia-romagna/> (last checked October, 18 2020)

[3] For evaluating first effects of lockdown on libraries see AIB Studi , vol. 60, Jan./Apr. , 2020, < https://aibstudi.aib.it/issue/view/1167/> (last checked October, 18 2020) and the on-line window on National Italian Libraries’ Day – BiblioPride < https://www.aib.it/attivita/bibliopride/bibliopride2020/>

World Press Freedom Day: Libraries Supporting Intellectual Freedom during the Pandemic and Beyond

Leave a Reply

May 3rd marks the annual World Press Freedom Day, and this year’s dedicated campaign launched by UNESCO focuses on the theme “journalism without fear or favour”. This day puts the spotlight on challenges to press freedom and independence, safety of journalists, and gender equality in media. For libraries, these issues are of course deeply connected to their core mission and values of access to information and intellectual freedom.

Where does news media stand in 2020?

On World Press Freedom Day 2020, journalism and news media are facing new and remerging challenges, even as the COVID-19 pandemic continues. A recent statement by the Council of Europe, for example, highlights that some legislative initiatives against disinformation can have significant and disproportionate impacts on press freedom and people’s right to receive information. The International Press Institute points out the different challenges that have emerged or intensified: from increasing restrictions on ‘fake’ news, to limits on journalists’ access to information, financial or accreditation challenges, and more.

On a larger scale, the newly released 2020 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RWB) highlights the key pressures that impact the future of free, independent and diverse journalism. These include: geopolitical and economic crises, the evolution of digital informational ecosystems where journalism and advertising, political, economic and editorial materials coexist and compete, and hostility and mistrust towards journalists.

The good news is that the overall global indicator does register a small overall improvement of press freedom in the world since last year. That being said, the RWB report emphasises that the coming decade will have a profound impact on the future of freedom of information and media.

What is the role of libraries?

Naturally, there is a significant degree of affinity between journalistic and library values – as a 2019 Nieman Foundation Report points out, both fundamentally work to inform and empower communities. This can work as a powerful starting point for collaboration – so can libraries help address some of the key challenges the RWB report outlined?

The economic crisis: hybrid models and partnerships

One of the big impacts of the economic crisis in news media is arguably the financial sustainability challenges that local news faces. One possible solution to this challenge that is being discussed over the last few years is providing support to local newsrooms, for example by providing space in such public facilities as libraries or post offices – or even libraries delivering local news directly.

While this is still an emerging idea, libraries and local news organisations continue to explore ways to cooperate. Some collaborations are a continuous arrangement – like a grassroots local online news organisation NOWCastSA housed inside the San Antonio’s Central Library in the United States. As a Nieman report points out, this partnership also allowed them to team up and carry out joint events, and to highlight some of the library’s programming in NOWCastSA’s reporting.

Some initiatives have even evolved to adapt to the difficult COVID situation. For example, in New York, an independent news outlet THE CITY launched a joint project with the Brooklyn Public Library called “The Open Newsroom”. Already in 2019, they had started hosted public meetings in library branches to identify key neighbourhood concerns and see how the local news can be more collaborative and better serve the needs of the community. Now, in the face of the pandemic, the plans for a second round of meetings have been adjusted, and the public meetings will be organised filly online, allowing the project to continue!

Tackling the crisis of trust and technology

If a lack of trust and confidence in news and media – especially in the hyper-dense online environment – is one of the pressing challenges to journalism, media literacy can definitely be an important part of the solution.

A draft Council of Europe study on “Supporting Quality Journalism through Media and Information Literacy” identified five main models of MIL activities; and libraries and community media play a key role in the “training model”. Reports drawing on Swedish and Finnish approaches to MIL, for example, also show how libraries can be actively engaged in delivering MIL training to their communities.

Partnerships in the area are also common: for example, NewsGuard – a company developing “nutritional labels” for popular news sites to mark how correct the information is – has a partnership program for libraries in Europe and the US.

Advocacy: together for Intellectual Freedom

Naturally, libraries and library institutions are often actively engaged in promoting and standing up for Intellectual Freedom. The Canadian Federation of Library Association, the Canadian Urban Libraries Council, and several library associations, for example, recently celebrated the Freedom to Read week, a campaign focusing on promoting freedom of expression, freedom to read and report the news. Such library initiatives clearly show the significant overlap between libraries’ Intellectual Freedom values and the freedom of press.

Drawing on library expertise – news media digitisation and preservation

Even though perhaps less relevant for current day-to-day journalism but rather for historic records, libraries can also help preserve the news that has been published. News archiving and preservation in the digital age can be a challenge: a recent Columbia Journalism Review report, for instance, points out that many news agencies they had interviewed don’t see the value in preserving their output, or do not have established preservation policies and practices.

This is also a prospective area for collaboration. The University of Missouri Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute and University Libraries, for example, have received a grant for a joint project to explore ways to preserve today’s digital news. They plan to set up visits with US and European news agencies to see how their policies, equipment and operations impact their preservation processes.

Another example is a web archive launched by several Ivy Plus Libraries Confederation librarians, aimed at preserving some specific areas of at-risk online news web content. These are a few examples of how libraries can help make sure the valuable work of journalists is preserved.

Similarly, libraries have been clear in underlining that applications of the principle of the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ should respect press freedom. In a recent joint statement with the International Council on Archives, IFLA stressed also that broader privacy legislation should not lead to the deletion of news articles in collections, and so their non-availability for future generations.

All these and other areas show the connection between libraries and journalism – and their shared values. World Press Freedom Day is the opportunity for us to celebrate intellectual freedom, freedom of expression and access to information – and see what can be done to uphold these.

Intellectual Freedom in Turkey

Leave a Reply

Over the last few months, FAIFE marked the 20th anniversary of the IFLA Statement on Intellectual Freedom with a series of blogs outlining the debates on intellectual freedom in different countries. Today, Ahmet A. Sabancı – a freelance writer, journalist and social critic who focuses on issues surrounding freedom of expression, journalism and the internet – shares an essay about the threats to freedom of information that exist in Turkey.

The essay is based on a presentation he gave during the 2019 World Library and Information Congress session “20 Years of the IFLA Intellectual Freedom Statement: Constancy and Change”. You can find a recording of the session on the website of WLIC 2019.

 

The Many Faces of the Freedom of Information Threats in Turkey

Ahmet A. Sabancı – ahmet@ahmetasabanci.com

In recent years, the state of freedom of information in Turkey has become a well known and discussed topic all around the world. Government censorship and control over media becoming more ruthless every passing day, the situation in Turkey has become an example for many. Especially with the rise of similar developments in different parts of the world, understanding how it works in the countries where the situation is already a concern becomes more important.

To understand and analyze the current freedom of information situation in Turkey, I propose a three-layer explanation of the threats against this freedom. These three layers will both help us to understand the levels of the threats and how one type of threat intensifies another.

  1. Government Censorship and Control

Internet Censorship

Law 5651, the infamous law that regulates the Internet in Turkey, has been used actively to censor the Internet in Turkey. With the latest update in 2014, this law gives the government an unlimited power to censor the Internet and surveil Turkish internet users.

According to latest research, there are 245,825 websites blocked in Turkey. This number has increased even since. Some of the well-known websites blocked are Wikipedia; Imgur, an image sharing platform; Pastebin, a text file sharing platform for coders; and Tor Project, a tool for people to use the Internet anonymously. As well, many VPN services have been blocked in Turkey in recent years. This leaves many people without safe options to circumvent the censorship.

The list of censored websites also includes many political websites and news platforms. The most famous one is sendika.org, which is a labor-focused left-wing news site. The courts have ordered access to this site be blocked 63 times: the owners are now using the domain sendika63.org. There are many political news sites or alternative media projects that experience similar situations.

The Turkish government also sends take-down requests to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. Turkey is usually at the top of their quarterly take down request lists. For example, Turkey sent 5014 removal requests, specifying 9155 accounts between July-December 2018. This puts Turkey on top of the list of countries that ask for content removal. In the same period, Russia comes after Turkey with 3344 requests for 3391 accounts. For comparison, during the same time period Germany sent only 42 requests with 44 accounts specified, and Canada sent 6 requests with 9 accounts specified.

There is also a new regulation that gives the governmental body that regulates television and radio new powers over Internet-based dissemination platforms such as Netflix and YouTube. Currently, Turkish television is heavily controlled and censored, and subjecting these platforms to similar controls might cause most of them to leave the country.

Censorship of Books and Journalism

The Turkish government uses Presidential decrees for censorship. Since the 2016 coup attempt, more than 30 book publishers and 100 news outlets have been shut down and all of their books have been collected. This has resulted in the removal of more than 135,000 books from Turkish libraries.

Journalism is also under heavy pressure in Turkey. Any journalist who writes news articles critical of the government risks arrest and imprisonment. The most-used excuses for the suppression of journalism are alleged links to terrorism or the revealing of government secrets. Right now, Turkey is the number-one jailer of journalists in the entire world. There are in addition ongoing incidents of violence against journalists, which usually comes from random groups because of what journalists have said or written.

  1. Media Ownership and Economic Control

One of the most important threats in Turkey to freedom of information is the concentration of media ownership. Most of the mainstream media, including book publishers and distributors, are owned by a small group of conglomerates which have close ties with the government. The current media ownership situation and its effects in Turkey can be read about in detail on the Media Ownership Monitor Turkey website.

This ownership relationship results in censorship, limiting readers’ access to only information produced by politically approved groups. This forces many minority or opposition groups to search for alternative means of disseminating information. It seriously limits their reach to the general public. The other current censorship mechanisms sit atop this limitation.

Already controlling mainstream media and information distribution through ownership, the government also uses other means of economic pressure over the opposition media, such as reducing advertising revenue. Many corporations buy advertising only from media organizations that are unofficially “approved.” The government also uses official announcements and press releases, distributed through Basın İlan Kurumu, which is an important revenue for print media, only to newspapers that are politically close to the government.

  1. Self-Censorship and Other Pressures on Intellectual Workers

These two layers of control have created an atmosphere in Turkey that results in self-censorship and an avoidance of “dangerous topics,” a widespread phenomenon. Self-censorship occurs in many ways. This can be publishers avoiding some content, libraries or bookstores not distributing books about “dangerous topics” or people afraid of talking about such issues. One of the main reasons for this situation is the legal pressure, mentioned as the first layer of censorship in this blogpost.

There is also the social pressure side of this, which can easily be manifested as people “doxing” (unauthorized online disseminating of identifying or personal information about someone) writers and journalists or reporting them to the police because of their work; or reporting teachers because of the books that they have recommended. This kind of pressure also forces many people to self-censor.

This social pressure is perceived by everyone. Whether they’re sharing something on a social media platform or talking with a group of friends, people feel the need to self-censor. This pressure even blocks the spread of information between small groups of people.

Can Libraries Help?

Unfortunately, the current situation of libraries is not good in Turkey either. Limited library budgets and shortage of library personnel leaves many libraries in a bad shape. There is also a serious lack of libraries in general across Turkey. In addition to these economic pressures, there is political pressure that affects librarians, inasmuch as a librarian might be demoted because of their support for an opposition candidate. Filling librarian positions with unqualified workers also weakens libraries.

Although the current situation seems bleak, librarians can help the public to fight back against the threats to the freedom of information. Promoting libraries and hosting events to help people to learn how to find more diverse information sources or how to navigate online when there are many untrusted sources can be an important mission for libraries. In these conditions finding, fact-checking and organizing information is vital for every person. Librarians can help people to learn how to do it.

In Conclusion

Freedom of information and intellectual freedoms in general are in a dire condition in Turkey. This is caused by different actors using diverse tools and tactics to restrict the information that the public can access. A fight against these pressures on the legal front continues, but its effects are unfortunately limited.

Because of this pressure, many people prefer to use the Internet for accessing information, but the Turkish people face new problems on that front. Internet censorship, blocking of access to privacy and anonymity tools and many people lacking Internet literacy leave people in a disadvantageous situation.

It is hard to say how and when this situation in Turkey is going to change, especially because we are seeing similar trends gaining traction elsewhere the world. Many people in Turkey just accept the situation and adjust their lives to it, instead of fighting back. Because we are living in a time in which we must struggle to defend the freedom to access information (and even information itself), the work of organizations such as IFLA becomes much more important and vital. Without our intellectual freedoms, we put everything we humans have created in danger.

Ahmet A. Sabancı is a freelance writer and journalist and a social critic who focuses on issues around internet, freedom of expression and information and technology. He’s also working to improve the situation of journalism in Turkey in the platform called NewsLabTurkey, of which he’s one of the co-founders and its Newsletter Editor.

Intellectual Freedom in Croatia

Leave a Reply

In 2019, FAIFE is marking the 20th anniversary of the Statement on Intellectual Freedom. Over the last few months, we have covered a series of contributions from FAIFE committee members highlighting various perspectives on intellectual freedom in different countries. Today, Davorka Pšenica – a Library Advisor at the Department of Croatian National Bibliography of the National and University Library in Zagreb – is presenting a perspective from Croatia.

1) What do you and your colleagues understand by ‘intellectual freedom’ in Croatia?

Intellectual freedom in the Republic of Croatia means the right to freedom of thought and expression, the freedom to promote ideas and beliefs, and the right of an individual to be informed.

The Constitution of the Republic of Croatia regulates the right to freedom of expression by the provision of Article 38 which reads: “Freedom of thought and expression shall be guaranteed. Freedom of expression shall particularly encompass freedom of the press and other media, freedom of speech and public opinion, and free establishment of all institutions of public communication. Censorship shall be forbidden. Journalists shall have the right to freedom of reporting and access to information. The right to access to information held by any public authority shall be guaranteed. Restrictions on the right to access to information must be proportionate to the nature of the need for such restriction in each individual case and necessary in a free and democratic society, as stipulate by law. The right to correction is guaranteed to anyone who constitutionally and legally established rights have been violated by public communication.”

2) How important an issue is it for libraries, and for the general population, in your country?

One of basic tasks of libraries in Croatia is to ensure free access to information to all citizens –this fundamental role is stated in all the main documents of the Croatian Library Association (CLA). It also underpins the activities of the CLA Committee for Free Access to Information and Freedom of Speech that for 20 years has organized roundtables on free access to information on International Human Rights Day.

At these roundtables, topics related to problems of free access to information, freedom of the media, freedom of speech and censorship, copyright, intellectual freedom and education, and transparency and openness of the organizational and socio-political system in Croatia have all been discussed at all levels.

It is important to highlight the efforts and involvement of the library community in a multi-year process of adopting the first Law on the Right of Access to Information in Croatia. The law was created due to encouragement of the academic community and civil society; its acceptance was preceded by a long-term public campaign led by a coalition of 17 non-governmental organizations, with the participation of the Croatian Library Association. The law has undergone a number of amendments and harmonization with relevant acts of the European Union and has been in force since 9 August 2015.

3) What have been the biggest questions and controversies in recent years?

In Croatia there is a problem of harmonization between, on the one hand, legal regulations concerning free access to information, freedom of the media and speech and regulations concerning free access to the internet, copyright protection, and on the other, a market-based, neoliberal economy that gives priority to capital and large companies. The neoliberal economy can, by introducing collection and citizens’ control systems, impair to a great extent free access to knowledge and information.

4) What do you think are the biggest challenges for intellectual freedom in the coming years?

The greatest challenges are those in the area of intellectual freedom protection, i.e. those relating to free access, accessibility and openness of information. More specifically, the business sector is not legally obliged to provide information to the public, that is, private companies and organizations are not subject to any legal obligation. Moreover, international institutions, such as the World Bank and other financial organizations, have their own rulebooks on providing information about their work.

The regulation of the right of access to information depends on individual national laws. For example, Freedom of Press Act of 1766 in the Kingdom of Sweden is regarded as the first law on the right of access to information. Acts introducing an obligation on public authorities to make their information available to the public mainly only date from the second half of the 20th century. The United Nations has encouraged drafting of the mentioned Acts on the grounds that the right to seek, receive and impart information also implies an obligation of states to allow access to information in their possession.

In Croatia the Right to Free Access to Information Act is a key anti-corruption tool requiring authorities, administration and the public sector to be responsible and report about their work to citizens, i.e. to report how they work, how much and what they spend public money for, how they make decisions, and who participates in this process.

This is how citizens and especially media and associations, as guardians of democracy and promoters of public interest, can hold the government and administration and make them remember they are here for citizens and for the public interest. Progress has been achieved at the level of the state administration, as the result, among other things, of bigger capacities to prepare, publish and provide information to the user. According to analyses, 60 to 80% of statutory information in Croatia is published, depending on the state institution.

The biggest problems appear in small municipalities, some of which continuously ignore citizens and fail to fulfill their legal obligations. This is a problem for public libraries too, because they depend on local authorities and therefore operate under harsh conditions in terms of limited procurement power, availability of library materials and information in the online environment. As a result of insufficient libraries funding and a lack of clearly expressed libraries policy, there is therefore a limit to the free flow of information flow more broadly.

5) What role do you see libraries playing in relation to intellectual freedom in 10 years’ time?

Librarians in Croatia are aware of the important role of libraries in promoting fundamental human rights such as intellectual freedom, freedom of thought and speech and the right to free access to information, but the state and local government’s support for, and understanding of, library programs and tasks is still insufficient.

That is why it is extremely important for the library community to take a proactive role in the society into the future, in terms of advocacy and lobbying for libraries and library programs as well as activities at all levels. This should include a focus on ensuring adequate funding for the acquisition of materials and equipment, and efforts to balance conditions under which different categories of users can use the library.

Librarians must actively and publicly advocate the defense of intellectual freedom whenever freedom is in danger of being limited or diminished. Intellectual freedom means the right to freedom of thought and expression, based on which the right of an individual to be informed is derived. The librarian must provide users with the information needed for communication about a topic and must actively prevent any attempt to obstruct a transfer of information to users.

 

You can read more about the work of Croatian libraries to promote access to information, intellectual freedom and other human rights in IFLA’s submission to the Universal Periodic Review in Croatia.

Right to Information Recognised in New European Court Rulings

Leave a Reply

Image: Group of scholars studying books. Text: A Right to Information: Finding a Good Balance with the Right to Be ForgottenTwo much anticipated rulings have come from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Both are ‘preliminary rulings’, effectively requests to the Court to offer clarification on what EU law – in this case the ‘right to be forgotten’ doctrine created by the Court in 2014 and placed in legislation in the General Data Protection Regulation of 2016.

As a reminder, the right to be forgotten refers to the right of individuals to ask that particular stories not be included in search results for their name. The idea is to ensure that there is a way of avoiding that search engines automatically give prominence to information that is unduly invasive of privacy.

IFLA has released a statement on the subject, underlining that the right to remove search results risks undermining access to information for internet users. While the IFLA statement notes that in some situations, a right to be forgotten may make sense, it argues strongly that this should be the exception, not the norm, and stresses concern about the impacts of leaving this choice to private actors.

The two cases in question come from France, and its Conseil national de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) – the national digital data protection authority. In the first (C-507/17), the CNIL itself was in dispute with Google about whether, once there had been a decision to award the right to be forgotten, this should only be applied within Europe, or whether Google should be obliged to apply it on all versions of its search engine, around the world.

The second (C-136/17) asked whether the ban on ‘processing’ (doing things with) certain types of personal data, such as that about religious beliefs or politics, should also apply to search engines.

 

The Right to Information

In the first case, the Court decided that there was no obligation to remove relevant links from search engines around the world, rather than just in France or the EU (global delisting). This is an important decision, and one that IFLA itself supported, given our own statement on the subject.

Significantly, the Court explores the question of the costs of global delisting: ‘However, it states that numerous third States do not recognise the right to dereferencing or have a different approach to that right. The Court adds that the right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right, but must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. In addition, the balance between the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, on the one hand, and the freedom of information of internet users, on the other, is likely to vary significantly around the world.’

This definitely a welcome point for libraries, and one that underpins the final decision of the European Court, given its explicit recognition of a right to information of internet users around the world.

In the second case, the Court does note that the bar on processing highly personal information applies also to search engines to the extent that they process it.

However, it also argues that the exceptions to this bar do too – in a case where including a link in search results is essential if a balance is to be found between the rights of individuals and of information seekers, then this can be OK.

Therefore, in cases where the subject of the information has a prominent role in public life, it may well be acceptable to maintain search results, in order to ‘protect[…] the freedom of information of internet users potentially interested in accessing that web page by means of such a search.’

 

But No Resolution Yet

In both cases, the final decision rests with the French courts. The European Court has given guidance on how to take this, but leaves enough margin of appreciation the judges in Paris. As a result, in the case of global delisting, despite all of the arguments to suggest that this is a questionable move, the judgement still says that there’s nothing saying that this cannot still be requested.

Similarly, the judgement on highly personal data suggests that it is for the French judges to determine whether Google has taken sufficient care in working out whether it was necessary to include the relevant links in its search results. As a result, we will not know the final results for a while yet.

Clearly Google itself is a lightning rod. Its size and reputation make it a bogeyman for many. However, it is worth noting that the judgements apply not just to Google, but also to any other company or information service offering search functionality.

As seen in the Le Soir judgement in Belgium in 2016, the idea of the right to be forgotten can also be applied to a service offering search into digitised old newspapers.

Crucially, while Google may be in a position to apply the rules set out, it may be harder for others to do the same. For example, in the judgement on highly sensitive data, the Court argues that a search engine should be able to rearrange results about court judgements in order to ensure that the most recent information comes first.

If the rules around offering search services become more complicated, the risk is that it’s the smaller players who will fall foul of the rules, not Google, reducing the choice of information seeking tools available to users around the world.

 

Intellectual Freedom in Japan

Leave a Reply

FAIFE is marking the 20th anniversary of the IFLA Statement on Intellectual Freedom. As part of this, we had a chat with Yasuyo Inoue, expert advisor to the FAIFE Committee and Professor of Library Science at Dokkyo University, to find out more about intellectual freedom in Japan from her personal perspective.

1) What do you and your colleagues understand by ‘intellectual freedom’ in Japan?

知的自由 means ‘Intellectual freedom’ in Japanese. It includes free expression, free access to information at libraries and free access to information at national/local government offices. It is linked to the same concepts as those discussed in IFLA FAIFE and is essential for libraries in Japan.

2) How important an issue is it for libraries, and for the general population, in Japan?

The Japan Library Association adopted in 1954 its own statement on intellectual freedom in libraries. The Association has furthermore noted the IFLA Statement on Intellectual Freedom at Libraries, given that this concept is a core value for Japanese libraries including public, school and academic libraries.

Generally speaking, people in Japan are often more interested in free expression rather than free access to information in libraries. In Japan people think that libraries are only a place for studying and are mainly for students. It is difficult for many to imagine that libraries – especially public libraries – are public spaces for communication and information flow.

3) What have been the biggest questions and controversies in recent years?

There have been several cases of intellectual freedom being threatened in Japan.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that libraries have the right to decide which books or documents are to be selected and provided. This was related to the case of the Funabashi Library, where a librarian made available more than 100 books with rather right-wing content without following the appropriate method.

In 2013, the manga book titled “Barefoot Gen”, as well as elementary school libraries holding copies of this book were attacked by an extreme-right wing group. The group claimed that the book included excessive violent expression and were not suitable for small children. The group insisted that the book should be removed from the shelves of all school libraries! It later came out that the group wished the book banned, not due to the violence, but because of the main character disliked the Emperor of Japan because of the war and the atomic bombs. Even so, still more and more people are signing petitions to local governments to ban this manga book from the shelves at school libraries.

In January, the copyright law was changed because of the ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), to which Japan is a signatory. The issues of digitisation, notably in order to preserve materials was addressed, with a decision to wait a further 20 years to start the process of digitisation. Though public libraries are an exception, private companies, NGOs and other organisations are facing many challenges. This is a huge issue, in particular for disabled people and to free access to information in general.

Furthermore, the Japanese government has planned to raise the sales tax rate to 10%. Publishers are demanding books and other media commodities should be excepted from this raise. To this the Government answered that if the publishers stop making “harmful books”, they may be ready to act. The publishers insist that this reaction is against free expression.

We have also recently seen several cases of library users’ private information being compromised.

Earlier this year, the police of Tomakomai city searched library users’ reading records without warrant. The library had agreed to show the documents, though the act by the police was illegal.

Also the company CCC has publicly admitted that they provide clients’ private information to authorities. This company manages several public libraries and provides its own card, for which clients can get points every time they buy something or use it as library card.

4) What do you think are the biggest challenges for intellectual freedom in the coming years?

I see the biggest challenges as big data and the protection of private information. This is a huge issue for libraries, and it is important that we get involved. Participating in Internet Governance Forum activities is a great way to do this.

I also see copyright issues and free access to information, especially related to AI as big challenge.

Furthermore, is the lack of full-time professional librarians who are trained in intellectual freedom in libraries an issue, as well as the increase in privatised public libraries.

5) What role do you see libraries playing in relation to intellectual freedom in 10 years’ time?

In Japan, future librarians will be more like social workers and educators who make services for the people facing difficulties to get access to the information they need. There will also be more services for reading-challenged people, seniors and foreigners/immigrants who cannot read Japanese.

 

Going Beyond – Promoting Vulnerable Voices in Libraries

Leave a Reply

IFLA’s Intellectual Freedom Statement turns 20 in 2019. This is the first in a series offering perspectives, and raising questions, about its different provisions. 

 

A recent TechDirt blog highlighted an effort by Cloudfare – one of the biggest companies offering content delivery services on the internet – to protect particular sites and services.

Through its Project Galileo, Cloudfare looks to offer ‘some of the most politically and artistically important work online’ free use of the best available defences against cyberattacks.

It raises two interesting points.

First of all, there is the reality that while any site can be targeted using cyber-weaponry, that some are more vulnerable than others.

Both governments and private groups can use various techniques to stop particular sites from operating. Cloudfare already works to protect voter registration and other electoral sites for example.

Secondly, there is the parallel with debates about whether particular content should be regulated or blocked (as opposed to which content should be protected). In effect, should some sites be treated better (or worse) than others? And how should decisions about this be made?

 

How does this relate to the work of libraries ?

First of all, it is clear that certain books in libraries are more likely to face criticism and requests for removal than others. The problem seems worst for content addressing LGBTQ+ issues, that addressing particular political or religious themes and other books and materials deemed offensive by particular groups.

IFLA’s own Statement on Intellectual Freedom argues that content should be selected on professional grounds, and reflect the diversity of the community. It speaks out against discrimination in general (without distinguishing between positive and negative discrimination).

Meanwhile, the Public Library Manifesto stresses that ‘Collections and services should not be subject to any form of ideological, political or religious censorship, nor commercial pressures’.

While complaints from local politicians and members of the community may require a different sort of response to a cyberattack, the response is still necessary. A number of librarians and library associations have done so, highlighting both the challenges of censorship in general, and celebrating those books which face the most criticism.

 

This leads to the question of how – and whether – libraries should go out of their way to support works which may not prove popular with some.

The spirit of the Statement on Intellectual Freedom, as well as the Public Library Manifesto, certainly goes in the direction of actively providing a diverse range of content, reflecting a diverse range of interests – including the artistically and politically important work targeted by Cloudfare. Many of the types of content frequently subject to challenge are indeed connected with the interests, of certain groups.

But what does this mean for what libraries can and should do to acquire diverse – and sometimes difficult – content, especially given inevitable budget constraints? How does it affect the way libraries promote and display works? How can libraries best defend the choices they make when challenged?

Cloudfare can clearly rely on a panel of experts, but this is not likely to be possible for libraries. What do you think about how libraries can (or should) champion intellectual freedom by supporting vulnerable voices, in the face of opposition and challenges.