Global Free Speech

Global Free Speech covers international stories and trends affecting the right to speak, publish, and share ideas across borders. From government crackdowns to grassroots movements, this category highlights the global fight for free expression in diverse political and cultural landscapes.

The studios of B-92 in Belgrade. Photo: EC – Audiovisual Service / Raymond Maxwell In 1989, Serbia was in a state of turbulence. The region was on the brink of the Yugoslav wars – the decade-long conflict prompted by the collapse of Yugoslavia, of which Serbia was one of six constituent republics. Slobodan Milošević, populist president of Serbia who gained power by capitalising on rising ethno-nationalist tensions, had recently come into office. Central communist control was weakening, dissent had been stifled and free media was at a premium. These were the conditions under which Veran Matić, together with several other student journalists from Belgrade University, founded the radio station B92. Matić had been involved in independent youth media since 1984, and the station was born from his desire to combine journalism with other forms of civic activism. He proposed that the founding document of the station should be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – a principle, he told Index, that has guided him since his early life. “I grew up in a village, mostly with my grandparents. They taught me the values of honesty, justice, and many of the ethical principles rooted in religious teachings,” Matić said. “My interests have always extended beyond journalism alone.” Blending rock music with current affairs programmes and phone-ins, B92 quickly gained popularity as a rare outlet for Western news and information in Yugoslavia. However, Serbia was becoming increasingly authoritarian under Milošević; the station’s preference for truth-telling was at odds with the regime, and B92 became a prime target for suppression. Years later, Matić found out that he had been surveilled from the very beginning of his career. “The Yugoslav State Security Service had already begun monitoring and wiretapping me,” he explained. “I was aware that I was being followed, but I had no idea that my telephone conversations had been systematically intercepted for years.” Matić soon became editor-in-chief of B92. During anti-government demonstrations in Belgrade in March 1991, police stormed the newsroom and threatened staff members and foreign correspondents in the newsroom, forcing the station off the air. “Tanks had already begun appearing on the streets, and the police threatened violence against our staff,” Matić said. “We finally suspended broadcasting, but we refused to air the official state news agency’s reports. The following day we resumed broadcasting without permission because the student protests had begun.” The next time the state tried to shut B92 down, in 1996, the station was ready. Staff outmanoeuvred the authorities by transmitting their signal over the internet to the BBC in London, which relayed it by satellite back to local radio stations across Serbia for broadcast. This was one of the first examples of using the internet to circumvent censorship in broadcasting. Matić contended that the most dangerous period for B92 staff was during the NATO bombing campaign in 1999 – a large-scale air campaign to destroy Yugoslav infrastructure and to stop the repressive activities of the Milošević government. In and amongst the turbulence and warfare, Radio B92 was once again banned. But this time, Matić was arrested. “I was taken to a detention cell inside the largest police headquarters in Belgrade,” he said. “Through a tiny window I could see the night sky, waiting for the bombers to arrive. For the first time in my life, I felt completely powerless.” Matić and his colleagues were buoyed, though, by an international campaign of solidarity in support of independent media in Serbia. They responded with innovation, driven by their belief that the authorities were “not stronger than the ideas.” “We responded by installing transmitters in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as a clandestine transmitter in Belgrade,” Matić told Index. “We switched it on on 5 October 2000, when nearly half a million people gathered peacefully in Belgrade to bring down Slobodan Milošević’s dictatorship.” In the years that followed, Matić continued to build his career in journalism. He helped to establish the Commission for the Investigation of Murders of Journalists in 2013, and currently chairs the Permanent Working Group for the Safety of Journalists and the Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM). He is also head of the B92 foundation, a non-profit launched by the media house which brings together companies, foundations and civil society organisations to promote philanthropy and humanitarian aid. Even though the Milošević era is long gone, Matić continues to face adversity and censorship while reporting in Serbia. Just last month, he was attacked while filming a public gathering in front of the National Assembly, when someone forcibly took his phone despite Matić introducing himself as a journalist. Matić is keen to stress that this was not an isolated incident. “What happened that day cannot be understood simply as an incident in which I was prevented from filming,” he said. “It was the culmination of a much longer process of public targeting and the creation of an atmosphere in which violence against me has effectively been legitimised.” Veran Matić in 2011, the year he was given police protection. Photo: Portal Vlade APV / CC BY 3.0 Between 2011 and 2016 he was under 24-hour police protection, both in Serbia and while travelling abroad. More recently, current President Aleksandar Vučić publicly disparaged Matić during a TV appearance, suggesting that people convicted of crimes as a result of Matić’s investigative journalism had been wronged. At the same time, a pro-government media organisation ran what Matić described as a lengthy propaganda piece on him. “After the broadcast, the threats intensified,” he said. “I have repeatedly been verbally abused and physically confronted in public. Members of my family have also been threatened. “The most frightening aspect is not only the hostility itself, but the growing conviction that there is little institutional protection available.” Matić is not the only journalist in Serbia being targeted in this way. According to the official records of the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office, only 12 out of 271 recorded cases of threats and attacks against journalists over the past two and a half years have resulted in final court judgments. Independent media is vital in holding those in power to account and being part of it will never be an easy profession. Matić identified several economic, legal, and security issues facing such outlets, including the threat of SLAPPs together with smear campaigns, harassment on social media and intimidating surveillance tactics. “The consequence is that many journalists go to work every day knowing they are exposed targets,” said Matić. “It has become a struggle for personal safety, for the survival of independent journalism, and ultimately for Serbia’s democratic future.” The B92 foundation has provided support to journalists outside of Serbia in recent years, including correspondents in Ukraine and Gaza. Through his experiences, Matić understands the importance of press freedom globally – and the cost that can come with it. “In many ways, my entire professional life has unfolded under pressure, threats and various forms of state repression,” he reflected. “If we want citizens to continue knowing what is really happening in our country, we must ensure that the journalists uncovering those truths are able to continue their work safely. “That, more than anything else, is what keeps me going.” READ MORE

0

In 1989, Serbia was in a state of turbulence. The region was on the brink of the Yugoslav wars –…

Colin Firth accepts the Trustees Award for Sir Salman Rushdie at the 2023 Freedom of Expression Awards Index on Censorship is seeking an organised, creative and proactive Events & Partnerships Manager to lead the delivery of our public events programme, support our membership community and help maintain strong relationships with partners, funders and supporters. This is a practical, outward-facing role for someone who enjoys making things happen. You will work closely with colleagues across the organisation, including the CEO and programme teams, will be highly organised, will be comfortable managing multiple projects and confident working with a wide range of external stakeholders. Key responsibilities – Lead the planning and delivery of Index’s events programme, ensuring events are well organised, impactful and aligned with organisational priorities. – Manage the delivery of our flagship annual Freedom of Expression Awards, including creation of materials (video and text) as part of the event. – Coordinate Index’s involvement in Banned Books Week and other public-facing campaigns and events related to book challenges. – Support the development of new event partnerships and sponsorship opportunities. – Build and maintain positive relationships with key partners, funders, sponsors, supporters and the media. – Coordinate grant reporting and ensure funding requirements and deadlines are met. – Support growth and development of Index’s membership programme, including organising activities and events that help members feel connected to Index’s work. – Represent Index at events, meetings and relevant sector activities. – Build relationships across the arts, media, publishing, human rights and civil society sectors. Person specification Essential: – Experience planning and delivering events or public programmes from concept through to completion. – Strong organisational and project management skills, with the ability to manage multiple priorities. – Experience building and maintaining relationships with external stakeholders. – Excellent written and verbal communication skills. – Ability to manage budgets, timelines and administrative processes. – Strong attention to detail and the ability to deliver high-quality work independently. – Commitment to freedom of expression and Index’s mission. Desirable: – Experience delivering high-profile events involving speakers, partners or sponsors. – Experience with software/tools for slides and video editing assistance. – Experience working in the arts, media, publishing, charity or human rights sectors. – Familiarity with contact/supporter databases. – Experience managing relationships with funders. – Experience coordinating membership, supporter or community engagement programmes. Hours: Full time, contract. Salary: £33,000–£38,000 dependent on experience Location: Remote but with regular travel to London Index is a small and ambitious organisation that values diversity. We are committed to equal opportunities and welcome all applicants regardless of ethnic origin, national origin, gender, gender identity, race, colour, religious beliefs, disability, sexual orientation, age or marital status. To apply please send a cover letter with your CV by Monday 31st August 2026 to [email protected] READ MORE

0

Index on Censorship is seeking an organised, creative and proactive Events & Partnerships Manager to lead the delivery of our…

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Photo: Jay Galvin/CC BY 2.0 It was game, set and match for Bahraini dissidents Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed in their case against the Kingdom of Bahrain this week. The UK’s Supreme Court ruled in their favour, rejecting an appeal from Bahrain, which was claiming sovereign immunity from allegations it used spyware to infiltrate the computers of the pair in the UK back in 2011. We’ve been following the case and it’s hard to downplay this victory both for the men and for the broader ecosystem. The Kingdom had argued that section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978, which creates an exemption to the act in the event of personal injuries and damage to property, was being misinterpreted and unduly broadened in this case. It said that a proper reading of the Act would afford immunity to states in cases where the actors or some of the acts causing personal injury were located outside the UK. But section 5 was enacted long before sophisticated spyware existed. The Supreme Court judges therefore rejected these arguments, stating that: “Modern technology enables acts of surveillance to be carried out in the UK remotely. Even if carried out by foreign state actors located outside the UK, such acts involve an infringement of UK territorial sovereignty.” Leigh Day, the law firm representing Shehabi and Mohammed, said that “the Supreme Court judgment has now settled the scope of section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978. A foreign state cannot rely on state immunity to escape accountability for personal injury caused by acts within the UK, even where other causative acts take place abroad and the state’s agents are not present in this country. The court has recognised that a rigid distinction between the location of an act and its effects is artificial and unprincipled.” Shehabi said afterwards that “this is not just a victory for us, but for everyone targeted by authoritarian states beyond their own borders.” He’s right. We’ve been bleating on about transnational repression for years now because it’s prolific and getting worse. And when a dissident is attacked abroad, spyware is often a feature. This ruling makes clear that states can now be held officially accountable. As Shehabi also said after: “The hardest part of being targeted by alleged state-sponsored hacking is the feeling that nowhere is safe”. The UK arguably becomes a touch safer now. Mohammed said that the “victory changes the balance of power”. He spoke about being tortured by the Bahraini regime since he was a teenager and pursued across borders. “Today, the tables have turned,” he continued. “I am no longer the one being chased. I am chasing justice. I am chasing accountability. The era of abusing victims while hiding behind state immunity is over.” The UK has earned itself a reputation as a hunting ground for authoritarian regimes, and that’s partly because our response to counter it has been woeful. In some instances, police have told victims to keep a lower profile and that their cases are too hard to tackle because the assailants are overseas. So, it’s good to now have legal clarity on the question of proximity. Being abroad doesn’t grant you a get-out-of-jail-free card. READ MORE

0

It was game, set and match for Bahraini dissidents Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed in their case against the Kingdom…

Load More