|11 September 2001: The Aftermath. Consequences on Freedom of Information|
by Jean-Paul Marthoz
August 05, 2002 -
For journalists, the murder of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan at the start of the year has certainly been the most brutal instance of the consequences of 11 September for freedom of expression. That murder, together with the earlier killing of no fewer than eight journalists in lawless Afghanistan, gives some indication of the dangers that lie in wait for journalism and threaten freedom of expression; threats posed directly by the bands of killers, but arising also, and more perniciously, from certain governments' notions of press freedom. Daniel Pearl was not, as President Musharaf of Pakistan was to declare a few weeks later, "being over-intrusive". He was doing his job, and doing it very well. Like Marc Brunereau, Johanne Sutton, Pierre Billaud, Volker Handloik, Azizullah Haidari, Harry Burton, Julio Fuentes, Maria Grazia Cutuli and Ulf Stromberg, he was where he ought to have been: on the spot, to witness and to explain. His murder trial, which began in Karachi on 5 April, affords another example of the restrictions imposed on journalists: the Pakistani authorities have refused "on security grounds" to let the press attend the proceedings.
These murders remind us that States, or at least their official representatives, are not the only authors of attacks on press freedom, or even necessarily the worst culprits. Among those who "prey" on freedom, we increasingly find unofficial agencies, fundamentalist groups, paramilitary gangs, freewheeling secret services and organized crime. In this twilight war against terrorism, State repression occurs alongside individual crime; and on occasion the two mingle inextricably. In this, 11 September was not a sharp divide: in the course of the last ten years, the majority of murdered journalists have been killed by "private" groups: the Basque separatists of ETA, armed Islamic groups in Algeria, guerrilleros of the far Left and paramilitaries of the far Right in Colombia, and rebel raiders in Sierra Leone.
War has never been good for freedom of expression. Before even truth, the first casualty of war is, in fact, this freedom: the freedom to investigate and report, the freedom to publish criticisms and revelations. Yet war can also bring more freedom: the press enjoys greater freedom in Kabultoday than under the Taliban, and is freer now in Belgrade than before the fall of Milosevic. The shock waves of world events do not all move the same way, nor do they have the same effects in all places. Hostilities can gag the media, or remove a gag. In Saudi Arabia, the shock of 11 September might even explain the faint stirrings noticed these last few months in a press that has always toed the regime's line until now. "The effects of 11 September on the world system", notes Critique Internationale, "cannot be reduced to a logical and unambiguous summary; in fact they are opening up as many opportunities as they are imposing constraints". (1)
Even though the atrocity of 11 September has shaken the news-gathering world to the core and made drastic changes to the circumstances surrounding the exercise of journalism, it still does not really constitute a complete break in terms of freedom of expression. Attacks on press independence in Zimbabwe, restrictions imposed on press coverage of the violence in the Middle East, curtailment of press freedom in Morocco or Uzbekistan: none of these began only on 12 September; and some of the laws and regulations enacted after the terrorists flew into the twin towers had already been in the pipeline long before, such as the French Prevention of Terrorism Act [the "Everyday Security Act"], the bill for which was first brought before the National Assembly on 14 March 2001.
Nor should we deceive ourselves, in our assessment of the consequences of 11 September, over our apparent unanimity. True, we all protest against the murder of journalists, or their imprisonment, or the outrageous amounts they are fined: but this does not mean we share the same definitions of what it should or should not be permissible to say. The balance of contending rights such as freedom of expression, non-discriminatory treatment and the security of the nation or the citizen is not only a thorny issue between the State and journalists; it is also a matter on which journalists themselves are divided: and this debate began well before 11 September.
The present war is also, consequently, a test of the universality, the "globalization", of journalism; of the media's capacity not only to handle global information, but also to think about the principles and values underlying their mission to inform. The controversy over the "encounter between civilizations", exacerbated by different interpretations of the terrorist outrage, raises crucial questions about freedom of expression, its responsibilities, its prospects and its limitations. What is blasphemy in one place is freedom in another; what is racism here is free speech there. Censorship may also be exercised in the cause of morality and respect for others …
On the defensive
These introductory remarks and caveats do not, however, drain our central theme of its content: since 11 September, press freedom has not been quite the same. What we need to know is whether the curtailments of these liberties are going to be temporary or herald the end of a historic cycle which began with the upsurge of freedom as the Berlin Wall crumbled, and was confirmed on African soil in the Windhoek Declaration. As the Canadian writer and thinker Michael Ignatieff observed in a New York Times article, (2) the atrocity has put the human rights movement on the defensive, a victim of the priority now accorded to "national security".
The hardening of American attitudes is certainly the most symptomatic of the restrictions affecting freedom of expression after 11 September; and steps taken by the United States, simply because of that country's power, inevitably have consequences for the rest of the world. Policies adopted by the Pentagon for theatres of military operations directly influence the special correspondents of all countries; and the measures taken for surveillance of the alleged activities by terrorist groups on the Internet, that global medium par excellence, affect all Internet users directly.
The United States, which in the name of the First Amendment to the Constitution had made the defence of free expression one of the cornerstones of its diplomacy and a foundation of its policy of assisting the media in former Communist countries, has done a brisk about-turn. This change of mood and policy is illustrated in its attitude to the Qatar TV station Al-Jezeerah. That station, praised until then as a model of free expression in the Arab world, suddenly became one that had to be muzzled as soon as, against the backdrop of the war against terrorism, it did not confine itself to relaying the American line, but gave air time to Bin Laden.
The understanding extended by the United States to authoritarian governments known for suppression of free speech is another negative consequence of the fight against terrorism, recalling the unholy alliances and selective expressions of indignation of Cold War days. The welcome Washington gave this March to President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan clearly demonstrated this new indulgence towards allied dictators.(3)
This is a challenge for all the democratic countries which have in recent years spoken in favour of press freedom and supported independent journalists who were being harassed by authoritarian regimes. There is a danger that the fight against terrorism may relegate press freedom to the background, when actually it is one of our best bulwarks against violence and hatred. "The international community", observed Ann Cooper, Executive Director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, "must continue to make it costly for those countries that do imprison journalists. But there are signs that the political cost has declined somewhat since the war on terror was declared; the crackdowns that left 11 in prison in Eritrea and 17 in Nepal, for example, were carried out swiftly and with little international outcry." (4)
Access to information
In the United States itself, this change of attitude has led to a questioning of traditional principles concerning information, and in particular of the "right to know". (5) Thus a number of individual American states, the Departments of Transport and Energy, and federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the national archives administration, have (sometimes temporarily) withdrawn information from their sites which they judged too sensitive, such as the location of power stations or measures for the prevention of industrial accidents in chemical factories. Moreover, in October, the United States Attorney General, John Ashcroft, sent a circular to federal agencies requiring them to exercise extreme caution in their handling of requests made under the Freedom of Information Act. (6)
Nevertheless, it has been on the battlefields of Afghanistan that press restrictions have most got in the way of journalists' work. "The rules for war reporting laid down by the Pentagon have never been so strict", exclaimed the respected Columbia (New York) University Journalism Review. (7) On 28 September, on the eve of its Afghanistan campaign, the Pentagon set out the guidelines for coverage of military operations before the bureau chiefs of the Washington press corps. As during the Gulf War, the United States Department of Defense announced that it would be taking it upon itself to organizepools of journalists authorized to accompany the operations, and that the journalists' "copy" would be purged of any information regarded as sensitive. The Pentagon spokesperson also gave a warning that the kind of operation envisaged for Afghanistan - use of special forces - would necessarily complicate news-gathering, not least by making it harder for war correspondents to accompany United States forces.
To "boilerplate" its arrangements, the Pentagon also bought (16 October) the exclusive rights to images from the Ikonos satellite turned on Afghanistan; one of the purposes was to prevent the major media companies from "spying" on its military operations. The information made public at Donald Rumsfeld's briefings at the Pentagon, or Ari Fleischer'sat the White House, were likewise designed with a view to keeping everything under control. "Contradictions, obfuscating formulations and corrections made only under duress have given the feeling that the information was strongly filtered when not downright distorted", was Le Monde's comment. (8)
As a result, the initial phases of the war in Afghanistan were conducted with next to no published pictures, except from the territories controlled by the Northern Alliance. Kept away by the United States army, the press was also generally shut out from the zones under Taliban control. Only a few journalists were authorized to cross the Taliban's lines (heavily escorted) to observe the "collateral damage" (civilian losses) attributed to the American bombing.
Presented as a favourite instrument of terrorism, the Internet found itself a particular target of the anti-terrorist campaigners. The United States security services were authorized to use Carnivore (a surveillance system installed on the main computers of United States-based ISPs) without requiring a warrant. (9) Libération reported: "The FBI will from now on be able to connect this snooping-machine to an ISP's network and vacuum up all an Internet user's e-mails and every trace of Web surfing." (10) In a report published in October 2001, Reporters sans frontières said the FBI had demanded from those in charge of Hotmail - and got - every detail of any account whose e-mail address included the word "Allah". "All the major ISPs", RSF went on, "would appear to have followed Hotmail's example and be fully collaborating with the United States security services". (11) RSF also noted (January 2002) that the FBI had got hold of an application known as Magic Lantern that could be remotely operated to communicate to the authorities the whole contents of a target computer.
Some United States corporations have taken measures on their own initiative which, in the name of security, effectively limit freedom of expression and the free flow of information. For instance, Anonymizer.com will not now take subscribers from countries suspected of harbouring terrorists. (12) The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been keeping a list of sites closed by ISPs on United States Government instructions(such as iraradio.com), and of sites that have been closed in part, or "cleansed", by their owners, either because they contained information regarded as sensitive (an example is the website of the Project on Government Secrecy, run by the Federation of American Scientists), or because they published articles too hostile to the United States President at a time of appeals to national unity (examples: the Barbra Streisand site, and that of Planned Parenthood). (13)
There is also a quite real danger that technologies for encryption of electronic transmission of information may be outlawed. Such a ban might appear sensible as part of the fight against terrorism, but the danger is that it may be applied to the communications of perfectly legitimate organizations (such as the press, or human rights groups) which need confidentiality if they are to carry out their mission.
What 11 September in fact did was accelerate developments already begun by the repercussions in the United States of the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. As early as 5 September, before the atrocity, 500 Internet sites, many of them related to the Arab or Muslim worlds, had become impossible to access after government intervention in a Texan company, InfoComp. (14) Many governments, moreover, had been taking steps to curb the Net since before the atrocity. In China, more than 60 regulations were issued from 1995 onwards to control Internet content; in many Middle East countries, governments insisted that servers must be capable of tracing surfers and establishing the identity of sites consulted. Under pressure from some governments, certain servers refuse access to websites which "compromise state security or national morale"; this includes sites of organizations for the defence of human rights. In June 1999, at a particularly acute moment of the Kashmir crisis, India banned access to the website of the Pakistani daily Dawn.
The period following 11 September, and the campaign launched by the United States, have been marked, in a number of countries, by urgent reinforcement of anti-terrorist laws, regulations and measures of implementation. The report published in March this year by the Coalition Information Centre lists with satisfaction the measures taken by coalition member countries, but it is hard to see which of these initiatives truly and legitimately contribute to the safety of citizens, and which are undue limitations on free expression.
The nature of the regimes which have joined the coalition (formally or informally), gives an initial clue. Some authoritarian governments have indeed made good use of the example set by the United States and reinforced their instruments of repression, not least for justifying and intensifying their harassment of ethnic, political or religious minorities that can be depicted as terrorists. This is what the French review Critique Internationale has called the "windfall effect". (15) In particular, such opportunist reactions have affected the Uighur minority in the Xinjiang region of China and Muslim dissidents in Uzbekistan. In India, the government pushed through an anti-terrorist bill at the end of March 2002 (the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, POTO) which had been described the previous October by the former Editor of The Times of India as "an encroachment on the freedom of the press in an unprecedented manner". (16) In Zimbabwe, the Information Minister, seeking to justify repression against independent journalists, referred directly to the measures taken in the West. "If the most celebrated democracies in the world won't allow their national interests to be tampered with, we will not allow it, too", exclaimed Jonathan Moyo. RSF was concerned to note (20 March 2002) that the parliament of Uganda had adopted a new anti-terrorist law punishing with up to 10 years' imprisonment the publication of "information liable to promote terrorism". As for the regimes which had already been waging a tough fight against Islamic extremist groups, involving curtailment of free expression, these hastened to claim their vindication, with praise on occasion from leaders of democratic countries, as when the former Italian Foreign Minister, Renato Ruggiero, declared: "Tunisia's example in the fight against extremism and terrorism could be followed to advantage within the framework of the international struggle to deal with this scourge". (17)
Democracies on edge
Certain democracies have not been slow to follow suit: many countries traditionally attached to the protection of freedom of expression have also adopted measures that threaten it or gnaw at its edges. In the United States, hundreds of foreigners have been arrested and held incognito without due process, and special military courts have been proposed under terms which nullify freedom of information by denying or restricting the right of the press to know the charges against those arrested or to attend the proceedings.
In the European Union, organizations for the defence of freedom of expression have also become concerned at the measures envisaged, warning particularly against the definition of terrorism proposed by the European Commission on 19 September, as throwing the doors open to a dangerously vague interpretation that could prejudice legitimate forms of freedom of opinion. (18) They have also had strong reservations about the draft treaty on computer crime which is currently before the Council of Europe. (19)
In France, the Parliament's enactment (October 2001) of the Everyday SecurityBill was vigorously denounced by libertarian Internet-users: the Act embodies the principle that ISPs must retain users' connection data (their digital traces) for periods of up to a year, and restricts the use of encryption, which is regarded as the only effective means of ensuring the confidentiality of Internet communications. (20)
The Canberra Government had already raised the hackles of associations for the defence of refugees' rights by using the terrorist menace to justify incarcerating Afghan refugees. Journalists, too, have felt targeted by government measures: the alarm was sounded by Fred Hilmer, Chairman of the major press group Fairfax, in a speech at Sydney University, accusing the Howard Government of being "a growing threat to freedom of the press" with its changes to legislation and its refusal to allow access to the refugee detention camps. (21) This senior media figure took particular issue with the amendment to the criminal law on espionage and similar offences, which prescribes criminal penalties for divulging, or receiving, official information. "If it makes it a crime to reveal or receive any information without authorization," Fred Hilmer observed, "then this law, by restricting coverage of the doings of government, directly hinders and prevents the public discussion of current issues, and strikes right at the heart of the work of a free press in a democracy."
The introduction of a Prevention of Terrorism Bill (C-36) in the federal Parliament has aroused vigorous resentment among journalists. Though its most dangerous provisions have been abandoned, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression pointed out (26 February 2002) that it still contained clauses that were death to certain freedoms, restricting access to information, aggravating the exposure to criminal charges of journalists who published (even non-confidential) information which the Government regarded as damaging, and threatening to criminalize some forms of peaceful expression. (22)
Some governments, however, have not thought it necessary to legislate or amend their legislation on the press, either because they decided they should "keep a sense of proportion" or because they already had a sufficient legislative arsenal to deal with the terrorist threat. The Belgian group of the Interparliamentary Union declared (6 February) that no draft or Bill with any possible impact on the media (including the Internet) had been laid before, debated in or adopted by the Belgian Parliament following 11 September 2001. Similar reports came in from Cyprus, Albania, Ireland, Latvia, Malawi, Norway, Sweden, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Spain, Japan, United Arab Emirates, Korea, Solomon Islands, Ecuador, Cape Verde, Guinea and Hungary.
A bomb can be as effective in censorship as a decree or a blue pencil. The war in Afghanistan has renewed serious issues concerning combatants' right to target the media. Although the bombardment of Serbian Radio and Television during the Kosovo war had been strenuously condemned by most organizations for the defence of free expression, the story was the same in Afghanistan, with the destruction of the Kabul office of Al-Jezeerah, accused of being used by the terrorist Al-Qaeda network.Fernando Castello, (23) former Director of the agency EFE and international President of RSF (Reporters Sans Frontières), wrote "The United States has made Afghan journalists into military targets, with their selective bombing of radio and television facilities (including the premises of the Qatar television station Al-Jezeerah) and of press buildings in Kabul and other towns, just as NATO previously did in Kosovo". The Israeli army followed this example in December and January, when it bombarded the premises of Voice of Palestine and destroyed the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation building. Ann Cooper of the CPJ has issued a timely reminder that "international humanitarian law prohibits deliberate attacks on civilian facilities unless they are used for military purposes".
There is a more general, and very disturbing, tendency for the armed forces of countries which claim to be concerned with defending press freedom to target journalists without hesitation, as demonstrated by incidents in Afghanistan (24) and, above all, in the Palestinian territories occupied by the Israeli army.
Propaganda is another form of censorship. Muddying information streams, putting obstacles in the way of the long march towards the truth, it has been in the thick of every conflict, and the war against terrorism could be no exception. The United States set up a highly official apparatus for overall communication between Washington, London and Islamabad so as to exercise the greatest possible control in a particularly multifaceted transnational media environment. The New York Times revealed, however (19 February 2002), that after 11 September the Pentagon had, much more secretly and with the advice of a private PR agency, created a Bureau of Strategic Influence for the purpose of planting (true or false) information favourable to United States interests in the international press. Although this Bureau was abolished after indignant protests (from the media and from American Government officials), the affair shows that the work of journalists in time of war crosses some dangerous minefields.
Such propaganda pollutes journalism, and therefore constitutes a real restriction on freedom of expression by making it hard to get at the truth: it is all the more pernicious in that it allows rumours to start and to spread. The memory of how past wars have been manipulated (Kosovo or the Gulf), fosters this atmosphere of doubt in which the daftest theories can thrive, such as the one denying that there had ever been an attack on the Pentagon, or the one accusing CNN of recycling video footage from the Gulf War.
In periods of crisis and great insecurity, governments find in patriotism a weighty argument for demanding prudence, or even a conniving silence, on the part of the media: this is a natural and widespread phenomenon. A study made at the end of 2001 on the way the French press had handled terrorist atrocities in France (the RER outrage, the assassination of Claude Erignac, Préfet ofCorsica) concluded: "it seems the media find it impossible to say anything about terrorism that is truly independent of the dominant patterns of interpretation laid down by the political authorities". (25) This reaction is particularly strong in the firstdays following any outrage: at such times, the press takes on a role going beyond its mission to inform, providing psychological therapy for public opinion in its state of shock.
But the appeal to patriotism may be utterly perverted, as in the case of Zimbabwe, where the authorities used the fight against terrorism as a pretext for muzzling the independent press. In the United States, too: here the Government, approved by a majority of public opinion, required journalists to "choose their side" and not undermine the effectiveness of the fight against terrorism. Pointing to the example of Zimbabwe, where a pro-government journalist had proclaimed "Negativity is not news", Joseph Lelyveld, former CEO of The New York Times, mused: "I find this a particularly opportune example, at a time when the idea that 'negative news is no news' is gaining ground in the United States. Our Government has ordered us not to print or publish Bin Laden's crazy harangues for fear his medieval vision justifying the massacreof innocent civilians may stir up new supporters. It has promulgated a system of military tribunals which, according to the Vice-President, would have the power to try and even to execute some of these people [foreigners under arrest - Ed.] without any provision for recourse to the constitutionally established courts, still less any access for journalists". (26)
In most societies, whether democratic or authoritarian, self-censorship is still the ruler's most effective weapon. The fear of displeasing majority opinion, of rubbing the public up the wrong way, has influenced many in the media where coverage of the fight against terrorism and the war in Afghanistan is concerned. The profit motive that dominates their world further intensifies the temptation to conform.
This self-censorship has taken two forms: the "privatization of censorship", where the management of an organ has set limits to the freedom of its journalists, and the "internalizing of censorship" where journalists themselves consciously or unconsciously restrict their own free will, and stick as closely as possible to the official line or the feelings of public opinion.
Some instances: the Washington Post's media critic, Howard Kurtz, revealed on 30 October thatWalter Isaacson, President of CNN, had circulated an internal memo suggesting the editorial staff should "balance" their coverage of American bombing in Afghanistan by recalling the atrocity of 11 September and its civilian victims. Two journalists have been fired, one from the Texas City Sun and the other from the Daily Courier, for criticizing President Bush. Such direct measures have, however, been exceptional; and another writer has even suffered for an excess of martial zeal: Ann Coulter had her column withdrawn from National Review Online after she had written that the United States ought to "invade [the terrorists'] countries, kill their bosses and convert them to Christianity".
The fact that the second Intifada is going on at the same time, and the connections that have inevitably been established between the troubles in the Middle East and the terrorist attacks, have considerably added to the pressure on journalists, both in democracies where editors have been lobbied by pro-Israelis and pro-Palestinians, and in the authoritarian countries of that region, where governments have taken every opportunity to exercise tighter control of their media, here requiring "activism", and there applying the muzzle.
The extent of government restrictions, and the amount of media self-censorship, are not things that should be exaggerated or caricatured. Media professionals' courage and sense of vocation have not in every instance caved in before patriotic intimidation or police intrusiveness. In the country directly targeted by the atrocity, the serious press very quickly re-established the necessary distance for critical appraisal of the steps taken by the United States Government, in particular those, such as the military courts or the incarceration of foreigners without due process, which involved restrictions on press access to courts and hearings. Journalists' associations, likewise, have been very quick to protest against the rules imposed by the Pentagon for the battlefields of Afghanistan. On 13 October a score of professional organizations, including the well-respected Society of Professional Journalists, published a joint communiqué maintaining that "increasing restrictions by the United States Government that limit news gathering … pose dangers to American democracy and prevent citizens from obtaining the information they need".
The previous day, The New York Times had published an editorial clearly setting out the rights and duties of the press and criticizing the White House's request to the television networks to censor Bin Laden's messages. "All Americans understand that, in wartime, certain information must be protected … The security of American troops and the confidentiality of the means of espionage must not be compromised by the sudden publication of sensitive and classified information … much other information, however, which the government would prefer to suppress in order to avoid debate, belongs in the public domain. This principle is at the heart of the American system of government. And it is in the interest of the Administration to respect it; for a democracy, if it is to build and sustain a consensus in wartime, needs an informed citizenry".
A test for journalism
This "war against terrorism"is a test for journalism; a test of its claim to guarantee free, accurate and plural information-gathering which allows citizens to choose and helps those who govern to avoid mistakes; and a test, also, of its capacity to demonstrate that human rights ingeneral and freedom in particular are the most effective weapons in the fight against terrorism and for the protection of our societies.
We should always mistrust appearances; whatever the revisionist historians of wartime journalism may assert to the contrary, freedom of the press and freedom of expression are an advantage, not a handicap, in emergencies. Lies and self-censorship, as the history of the Viet Nam and Algerian wars have eloquently proved, are most often poor counsellors, and contributeto the national disasters they claim to prevent. Indeed, as with a ship's captain, a democracy's press freedom ought not to be judged when the sea is calm, but right in the middle of the storm, when the familiar guides to navigation disappear and panic is setting in.
The responsibility of American journalists, particularly, is at stake. "We know", says the Committee to Protect Journalists, (27) "that we are going through periods of extraordinary peril, and that there are responsible people who can find heavyweight arguments for the measures that have been taken. But let us go back to the fundamental subject of the journalist's duty. It is our duty to try to find out what is really going on, and to take our publication and information decisions in complete independence, asserting that to publish and inform is our raison d'être in a free society. It is our duty to provide the means of revealing what has been improperly held back in the name of national security."
(1) Jean-François Bayart, Béatrice Hibou, Sadri Khiari, "Après le 11 septembre, Effets d'aubaine" [After 11 September, Windfall Effects], Critique Internationale, January 2002, p.11.
(2) "Is the Human Rignts Era Ending ?", The New York Times, 5 February 2002.
(3) Jackson Diehl, "U.S. agin supports unsavoury dictators", The Washington Post, published in the International Herald Tribune, 20 Marsh 2002.
(4) See Attacks on the Press in 2001, Introduction, p.xii.
(5) The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Homefront Confidential, How the War on Terrorism Affects Access to Information and the Public's Right to Know, Washington, March 2002, 34 pages.
(6) See www.ombwatch.org.
(7) N. Hickey, "Access Denied", Columbia Journalism Review, January 2002.
(8) P. Jarreau, "Relations entre le Pentagone et la presse se dégradent" [Relations worsen between the Pentagon and the press], Le Monde, 10 November 2001, p. 6.
(9) B. Grévisse, "Guerres et Faits" [Wars and Facts], Médiatiques, Autumn 2001, p. 6.
(10) Florent Latrive, "La Toile en liberté très surveillée" [The Web: freedom under very close surveillance], Libération, 2 November 2001.
(11) RSF, "Entre tentation patriotique et autocensure : les médias américains dans la tourment de l'après-11 septembre" [Temptations of patriotism and self-censorship: the American media in turmoil after 11 September], October 2001, Paris.
(12) International Herald Tribune, summary by the European Journalism Centre, 3 April 2002.
(13) See Chilling Effects of Anti-Terrorism -
"National Security" Toll on Freedom of Expression.
(14) B. Whitaker, "Muslim websites targeted by Justice", The Guardian, No. 568, 20 to 26 September 2001.
(15) Jean-François Bayart, Béatrice Hibou et Sadri Khiari, "Effets d'aubaine, Les régimes autoritaires libérés des conditionnalités" [It's an ill wind …: authoritarian regimes freed from constraints], Critique Internationale, Presses des Sciences Po, CERI, Paris, January 2002, pp. 7-11.
(16) Tehelka.com, Anti-terrorism ordinance: muzzling the media, New Delhi, 29 October 2001.
(17) Quoted in Critique Internationale, op. cit., p.7.
(18) Human Rights Watch, European Union: Security Proposals Threaten Human Rights, 6 November 2001. See also Brian Hayes, EU anti-terrorism action plan: legislative measures in justice and home affairs policy, Statewatch, London.
(19) On this, read Index on Censorship, "Bug them all and let Echelon sort them out", 8 November 2001.
(20) Laure Noualhat, La Toile alternative en ordre de bataille [Thealternative Web in battle order], Libération, 29 January 2002.
(21) Annabel Crabb, "Media chief takes aim at Howard", The Age, 28 February 2002.
(22) CJFE, Not a Balancing Act, Security and Free Expression, a submission to the draft NGO Human Rights Consultations 2002, 26 February 2002.
(23) Fernando Castello, "Depredadores de la libertad de prensa" [Robbers of Press Freedom], El Pais, 23 November 2001.
(24) "Un envoyé special du Washington Posten Afghanistan mis en joue par des soldats américains" [A Washington Post special correspondent in Afghanistan targeted by American soldiers], RSF, 12 February 2002.
(25) Isabelle Garcin-Marrou, Terrorisme, Médias et Démocratie [Terrorism, Media and Democracy], Presses Universitaires de Lyon, Collection Passerelles, 2001, p. 135.
(26) CPJ, International Press Freedom Awards 2001, Joseph Lelyveld's Acceptance Remarks, 6 December 2001.
(27) CPJ, as above.
Jean-Paul Marthoz is Director of Human Rights Watch Europe Office.
Texts published in 'Points of View' may not reflect UNESCO's position.