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.

Journalists from the state broadcaster RTK will meet members of the mission. Photo: Arianselmani From 24 to 25 March 2026, partner organisations of the Council of Europe Platform on the Safety of Journalists and other organisations will conduct a two-day fact-finding mission to Prishtina, Kosovo. The purpose of the mission is to assess the challenges to media freedom in the country and to discuss the possible solutions with media stakeholders and authorities. During the mission, the delegation will address political pressure on the media; the safety of journalists; journalists’ working conditions; legislation, including the media law and proposed amendments; the public broadcaster and the Independent Media Commission; journalists’ access to public information; legal threats, including abusive lawsuits (SLAPPs) and proposals to re-criminalise defamation; and the transposition and application of the European anti-SLAPP Directive, the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), and the Digital Services Act (DSA). Prime Minister Albin Kurti has confirmed a meeting with the delegation. The delegation will also meet editors and journalists, members of the parliamentary media committee, judicial authorities, police representatives, regulatory bodies, and representatives of the public broadcaster. Following the two-day mission, the partners will present their initial findings at a press conference in Prishtina on 25 March 2026 and will subsequently publish a report on media freedom alongside a set of recommendations. The report will be shared with relevant national and international organisations. A similar fact-finding mission to Kosovo was organised by the Platform in 2022. The mission is supported by the Association of Journalists of Kosovo. Participating organisations European Centre for Press and Media Freedom ⁠European Federation of Journalists ⁠Reporters Without Borders ⁠International Press Institute ⁠Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa ⁠Association of European Journalists ⁠Index on Censorship READ MORE

0

From 24 to 25 March 2026, partner organisations of the Council of Europe Platform on the Safety of Journalists and…

The Russian messenger app MAX has been castigated for its aggressive gathering of metadata and wide-ranging requests for permissions. Photo: Imago/Bode/Alamy The fifth year of Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine grinds on, with its unvarying backdrop of devastated Ukrainian cities and extensive casualties among the non-combatant population. Meanwhile the Russian authorities exploit the war as justification for constantly tightening the screws of their repressive policies at home. In the last few years, criminal prosecutions for speaking out have become common, everyday occurrences. The definitions of “extremism” have become increasingly vague, and the pressure applied to the independent media and civil society initiatives has become systemic. Alongside these developments, another, less visible, but equally significant process has been gathering momentum: the restructuring of the digital environment in such a way as to induce people to modify their own behaviour themselves – frequently without even realising. Six months ago a law came into force in Russia making it an offence punishable by law to search for extremist materials online. This law, which was widely publicised in the media, functions as a “bogeyman”. That is, the security men’s little lamp won’t light up if you have entered “Navalny” in Google, but if they confiscate your computer and discover a search query like that in it, you can be charged with a crime. In the news, however, they don’t tell you about fine details like that. In the news they simply say that those who search for extremist materials online will be punished and that is what remains imprinted on people’s minds – that googling anything against the authorities is prohibited. For a long time, the Russian state’s approach to control of the internet was overt and unsubtle: ban a site, block a platform, restrict access. This didn’t work well. It annoyed people, provoked resistance and rapidly spawned solutions that bypassed restrictions. But in the fifth year of a war which, in regions under attack by drones, is accompanied by constant interruptions to mobile internet services, a solution has been found. Whitelisting. The implications of the whitelist model are simple: stable access is only assured to services approved in advance by the state. All the rest can operate, but with outages or restrictions, and without any guarantees. At the same time, Roscomnadzor (the Federal Supervisory Agency for Information and Communications Technologies) has decided to block calls via WhatsApp and Telegram – and this affects everybody. WhatsApp is the most popular messenger app in Russia, with 96 million users. People, especially the older generation, like it because it is simple. It’s good for everyday and family use, for off-the-cuff calling. Telegram is good for other things: it’s a connection to a field of information, news, politics and alternative points of view. They tried to block it as early as 2018, but when it became clear that direct prohibitions don’t work, the strategy changed. They no longer block apps completely but simply render them inconvenient. And to replace them they offer the “national messenger app” MAX. Celebrities who are loyal to the authorities advertise it on TV and urban billboards. “Great reception even in the car park,” a pro-government female rapper declares as she posts a MAX advertising video in stories, while the other apps beside it can no longer provide any access at all. MAX is rapidly becoming the compulsory communications channel in schools and nursery schools, universities and colleges, state and municipal institutions, as well as in “house chats” for residents of apartment blocks, facilitated by the management companies. Its introduction is only rarely achieved by means of public command: in most instances it is a case of word-of-mouth instructions and surreptitious pressure – from warnings about “unpleasantness” to threats of disciplinary reprimands or dismissal. MAX is whitelisted by definition. It is stable in situations where other applications are “temporarily unavailable”. MAX has to be preinstalled on all the mobile devices offered for sale in the country. But MAX is not attempting to become everyone’s “favourite” all at once. It is enough for it to become compulsory. There is no attempt to persuade people – they are simply transferred under the pretext of “convenience”. MAX’s most crucial characteristic is its profound integration with the platform Gosuslugi (State Services). This is an individual’s digital profile: passport, taxes, fines, medical record, welfare payments. MAX can be used to confirm a person’s identity or age, and it can be used as a digital document – for instance when purchasing alcohol. This changes the very nature of the messenger app. It ceases to be a space for networking and socialising and becomes part of an ID system. MAX’s very interface suggests that it is the Russian equivalent of the Chinese app WeChat. The Russian authorities are looking to China more and more nowadays – not as a model that can be copied point for point, but as proof that control can be built into everyday reality. The Chinese system doesn’t work by means of incessant prohibitions, but by virtue of people’s habituation to limits. They know in advance what the boundaries are and they act within them. And Russia’s digital policy is gradually leading people in the same direction. However, WeChat was never designated a “national messenger app”, and people were not herded into it by the threat of being sacked: it defeated the competition on its own terms – thanks to its convenience, ecosystem of services and the early effect of scale. Initially it was simply a messenger app, then a payment instrument, and then a portal to municipal amenities, the media, taxis and state services. The process of habituation was organic, and the infrastructure of control was only constructed around already familiar elements. MAX was immediately castigated for its aggressive gathering of metadata and wide-ranging requests for permissions – access to contacts, photos, call history, screen – and the absence of end-to-end encryption (E2EE) by default: this means that all messages are saved on servers in readable form, creating the risk of their being accessed by third parties or state agencies. But it is not the technical details that are most important. The most important thing is the effect: the individual becomes accustomed to the idea that risk, not privacy, is the norm. That it is safer not to discuss anything superfluous. That it is simpler not to ask questions. In this way a new model of social behaviour is taking shape. Despite the official declarations, MAX has not become massively popular by choice. People use it because they need to. Because otherwise it’s impossible to manage. This is a fundamental difference from messenger apps that have become integrated into life in an organic fashion. And this is the point at which the most disturbing question of all arises. The war might come to an end, but will the blocking of the mobile internet also end? An infrastructure of social control is rarely temporary. When public money has been invested in it, when it has been built into schools, state institutions and people’s everday activities, it starts living a life of its own. New justifications for it will always be found: security, stability, new threats. Not coercion, but habituation. When social interaction becomes cautious, there is no longer any need for constant intervention by the censor. Censorship is already built into daily life. In this sense, what is happening now resembles ever more closely Michel Foucault’s theory of the Panopticon – an “open prison” in which control is effected, not by means of constant surveillance, but by the possibility of surveillance. Individuals do not need to know that they are being observed at this moment. It is sufficient for them to be uncertain whether they are. In this system the walls become invisible and discipline becomes internal. A digital infrastructure organised.around whitelists, identification and unstable means of communication reproduces precisely the same logic:  individuals start behaving cautiously, not because they are being punished, but because it’s simply safer that way. It is also important to note that this behaviour does not remain within the ambit of the application. It is inevitably extrapolated to life offline – to conversations in public spaces, to spontaneous discussion, to the way in which people speak out loud. When communication in digital space becomes cautious and functional, the same model is gradually carried over into ordinary life. The open prison has no need of bars or guards: it inculcates the habit of self-limitation. And that is precisely why such systems remain stable long after the formal reason for their appearance disappears. READ MORE

0

The fifth year of Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine grinds on, with its unvarying backdrop of devastated Ukrainian cities and…

The Al Quds march in London in 2018. Photo: City Bloke/Alamy Earlier this week the UK government approved a request from the Metropolitan Police to ban the al-Quds Day march. The Met requested the ban due to safety concerns. They also said the march’s organisers were “supportive of the Iranian regime”. We have issue here, not with any of these suggestions, but rather with the idea that they are grounds enough for an outright ban, which can easily then be used against others later. Al-Quds Day – named after the Arabic word for Jerusalem – was first held in Iran shortly after the 1979 Revolution. It was created by the then leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to show Iran’s solidarity with Palestinians and to emphasise Jerusalem’s importance to Muslims. Events for the day, which is now held worldwide, typically on the last Friday of Ramadan, are often accompanied by venomous anti-Zionist and anti-Israel sentiment. The London march – which has taken place for many years now – is organised by the UK al-Quds Committee, which comprises several organisations, with the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) playing a central role. The organisers insist the event is peaceful. In the past, however, the Met say there have been “arrests for supporting terrorist organisations and antisemitic hate crimes”. Whether the march would be more violent than other protests is impossible to say. What is certainly true, however, is the connection to Iran. Some of those involved do not hide their admiration for the Iranian regime. The IHRC recently described Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the former leader of Iran killed in an Israeli/US airstrike two weeks ago, as a leader who “resisted oppression and stood on the right side of history”. This about someone who presided over the brutal massacre of tens of thousands of protesting Iranian citizens this year alone. Yet it is not illegal in this country to express support for the Iranian government. It may be deeply distasteful, but distasteful and illegal are not the same thing. Levels of violence are also difficult to predict and all protests inevitably carry risks. At the march organised by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson in September 2025, 26 police officers were injured while policing a demonstration that brought 150,000 people onto the streets of central London. Twenty-four people were arrested. It was likely clear in advance that there would be some violence, but the march still went ahead. Ultimately, we have laws in place to criminalise violence and to legislate against incitement and hate speech. These laws aren’t suspended during protests and they should be used and are used. This is the first time a march has been banned in London since 2012, and a static protest will take place instead. The Metropolitan Police have been keen to emphasise that the decision was not taken lightly: the Commissioner Mark Rowley says that he recognises the importance of the right to protest and freedom of speech. We can only hope this ban is as unique as he and the government say. Unfortunately, the broader atmosphere provides little reassurance. Successive laws in the UK have chipped away at the right to protest. And now we have more and more instances of the “heckler’s veto”, a situation in which any group can shut down an event simply by citing a threat of disorder. A film about the far right was cancelled at the Southbank Centre in 2024, for example, because of fears of violence from extremists; Maccabi football fans were banned from an Aston Villa game citing safety (it later transpired the evidence was manipulated). It’s a slippery slope here, where banning one event on safety grounds creates a precedent to ban more. It’s useful to look to history here for other examples. Perhaps no better is Skokie. In 1977, the National Socialist Party of America – a group of self-styled Nazis – planned a march through Skokie, a town near Chicago. Skokie was home to around 40,500 Jews, many of them Holocaust survivors. When the town denied the group a permit, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stepped in. One of their lawyers, a Jewish man named David Goldberger, chose to represent the Nazis on free speech grounds. The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which ruled in ACLU’s favour. The march was permitted. In the end, it was a pathetic affair. The Nazis moved their demonstration from Skokie to Chicago. Around 20 members turned up for a rally that lasted barely 10 minutes. They were met by roughly 2,000 counter-protesters. With hindsight, most agree it was the right decision to allow the march. The Nazis were allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights, but they failed to persuade anyone of their message. Nor were they granted the underdog status they might have exploited to attract sympathy and support. At the time though, ACLU’s position was deeply unpopular. Many were outraged that the principle of free speech was being evoked in the name of Nazism. ACLU lost members. It was not an easy case to fight. Today we find ourselves in a similar predicament. Across the political spectrum and across the world, people are marching – some for causes that align closely with universal human rights and others that do not. In some instances, the causes being championed are in fact in direct opposition to freedom of expression. More worrying still, illiberal causes are increasingly being cloaked in the language of human rights and social justice. Some protest movements borrow the vocabulary of tolerance while aligning themselves with groups or regimes that have little regard for it. A report released this month even exposed several UK charities as having links to the Iranian regime. Some protests don’t even hide the language of hate and instead seek to justify it in the name of an otherwise worthy cause. We must be clear-eyed about the nature of certain protests. But we can still argue that they should be allowed to go ahead. As with Skokie, it is often better to allow people their moment in the open – where their views can be scrutinised and challenged, and policed when they do cross a legal threshold – than pre-emptively stopping them altogether. READ MORE

0

Earlier this week the UK government approved a request from the Metropolitan Police to ban the al-Quds Day march. The…

Rescuers at Minab school. Photo by: Mehr News Agency, CC BY 4.0 What actually happened when the Minab school in Iran was bombed matters. For a few moments last week I thought the Italian novelist Elena Ferrante had died. She hadn’t. It was fake news, spread on X. Before her death was debunked, thousands had engaged with the “news”. Stories like this (and there have been plenty of other faux celebrity deaths) do so well because of our inherent cognitive bias. We see them, we get very emotional – Ferrante is a beloved author – and in that moment we short-circuit critical thinking and head straight to a response – outrage, upset, even schadenfreude. It’s a similar story with Iran. Israel, the USA, the Iranian regime – all elicit strong emotions, which partly explains why the responses to what happened at the Minab school bombing have been so tense and contradictory. Major public figures, from politicians to comedians, have amplified their version of what they think happened. It’s prompted the New York Times and others to try and decipher, in this incredibly challenging media landscape, just what exactly did take place. Because facts matter. Few would publicly disagree with this principle and yet cognitive bias today is extending to how people approach fact-checkers. For some they’re censorious liberals, intent on silencing right-wing voices. For others they’re essential soldiers fighting for democracy, and indeed free speech, in the age of Russian troll machines. Index has always sought to identify issues with handling mis- and disinformation – false flags and stories that change as new evidence emerges. Ultimately we believe that with advances to artificial intelligence and ample examples of online deception, we need a lot more people investigating, highlighting and contextualising where our information comes from. The Trump administration isn’t with us. Since Donald Trump’s return to power, not only respected journalists and media outlets, but mis- and disinformation researchers have been in his firing line. These researchers have battled federal funding cuts, a surge in abuse, even death threats. In December five people were denied visas to the USA, accused of being part of the “global censorship-industrial complex”. More could fall prey. Plans are afoot for non-citizens working in the space to have their visas revoked or denied and face detention and deportation. The researchers are fighting back. This week the Knight First Amendment Institute and Protect Democracy filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR), challenging the constitutionality of the new immigration policy. The claimants argue that it violates their First Amendment rights and is intended to chill independent research about social media and other internet platforms. “This policy is meant to censor researchers into silence and keep the public in the dark, and that’s exactly what it’s doing,” said Brandi Geurkink, executive director at CITR. We agree. A viral post suggesting Ferrante is dead doesn’t matter hugely. Information on how the war is being conducted in Iran does. Experts who can spot the red flags and contextualise the information we receive aren’t free-speech enemies and branding them as such is a less than subtle way to silence them. READ MORE

0

What actually happened when the Minab school in Iran was bombed matters. For a few moments last week I thought…

BBC World Service, Aldwych. Photo by: Newscast Online/Alamy Could there be a more urgent need for an independent source of news and information with international reach and a historic track record of support for political dissidents and exiles from authoritarian regimes? If the BBC World Service didn’t exist, this would be a very good time to invent it. So it is excellent news that Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has announced an increase in funding of £33m over the next three years. The settlement was said to be a priority for outgoing Director-General, Tim Davie, but MPs and campaign groups had warned of uncertainty as the deadline of the end of the financial year approached. At the end of February, Index coordinated a letter from nine free expression and journalism organisations calling on Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper to make the funding available and ensure a sustainable funding model for the future. Now the BBC is calling on the government to take back full responsibility for funding the service, as it did until 2014. The news of the funding settlement comes less than two months after the BBC announced the launch of an emergency radio programme for Iran in response to the internet blackout. In a move reminiscent of the work of Radio Free Europe and the World Service during the Cold War, BBC News Persian has been made available on mediumwave and shortwave to provide a half-hour programme broadcast every evening to Iran. Funding for the programme had been found from existing sources. But when Fiona Crack, Interim Global Director of BBC News announced the launch of the service in January, before the start of the current conflict, she made it clear that the cash could only be guaranteed until the end of March. In making the announcement, the foreign secretary paid tribute to the work of the World Service in Iran: “In a world of rising disinformation, the BBC World Service provides hundreds of millions with journalism they can trust and rely on. We are seeing in real time how the BBC Persian service is playing a crucial role in ensuring impartial, accurate news is reaching the Iranian people.” The BBC has developed a strong recent tradition of emergency radio news services launched in response to conflicts and disasters. In February, the BBC launched a news service for Ukraine following the Russian invasion. Emergency radio broadcasts were setup for Gaza and Sudan in 2023 and in Syria after the fall of Assad. In In April 2025, a BBC News Burmese satellite channel provided news in the aftermath of Myanmar earthquake. A report from the Public Accounts Committee warned of the wider consequences of cuts to the World Service. Speaking earlier this month. Conservative chair of the PAC, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said: ” It risks opening the door to propaganda from hostile states filling the void it leaves behind. At a time of heightened geopolitical tensions, the UK cannot afford to lose such a crucial soft power instrument.” Those who have worked at the World Service understand the importance of this element of the BBC’s output and the unique culture it engenders. Writing in The Times this week, columnist Libby Purves remembered her time as a young producer at the World Service HQ at Bush House in the 1970s. She told the story of taking an Angolan friend to lunch who explained how much the World Service had meant during her country’s civil war, “but when I pointed out one of its newsreaders eating lasagne at the next table she dared not be introduced lest emotion overwhelm her”. I had a similar experience with a Ghanian friend in the early 90s, who insisted on having our photo taken together outside Bush House when he discovered I worked at the World Service. I was in a very lowly position in the organisation, but told me I should feel privileged. And he was right. I was working at BBC English at the time, which specialised in teaching English as a foreign language, and represented the very essence of soft power. At the time, Managing Director John Tusa had a vision for the World Service in the post-Cold War era, which included a “Marshall Plan for the Mind” to promote British commercial and cultural interests in the post-Communist world. As the son of a Czech exile Tusa understood how vital the World Service was. Born in Zlín, in former Czechoslovakia, he and his family fled to Britain in 1939 to escape the Nazis. We need that vision now. READ MORE

0

Could there be a more urgent need for an independent source of news and information with international reach and a…

A stack of books frequently banned. Photo by: OnTheRun/Alamy In November 2025, a school library in Greater Manchester underwent a purge. Inspired by the headteacher’s dislike of one particular title, books were pulled off the shelves, in a case unlike any previously seen in the UK. Within weeks, more than 130 books had been targeted – nearly 200 if each issue of the numerous graphic novels is counted. The books included a graphic novel of George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four, young adult books like Dean Atta’s Black Flamingo and Alice Oseman’s chart-topping Heartstopper graphic novel series. Black Flamingo has since been reinstated, but the fate of many books on the list is unclear. The school leadership pointed the finger at the librarian. She was threatened with disciplinary action, labeled as a safeguarding risk and at one point she was under risk of police involvement. She resigned from her job under severe stress. The librarian, who we have called Emily, spoke to Index in an exclusive interview, and Index has seen extensive documents to support her claims. Emily described this period as the worst in her life. She is too scared to use her real name, or allow the school to be named. She fears that the school will try to take legal action against her and does not want to become a public figure, where she worries she may be targeted. Considering the abuse levelled at librarians in the USA for defending their collections, she may have a point. It began with Laura Bates’ nonfiction title Men Who Hate Women, which is a book about the growing network of incels and misogynists. Emily had ordered the book for older students as a result of safeguarding training on incel culture. The school goes up to year 11, and the library has a special section for students who are about to leave school – this is where the book was housed. Emily included Men Who Hate Women on a slide deck of recommended reading (which she says she checked with her line manager). The headteacher saw the slides, and demanded the book be removed from the library, due to the exposure of misogynistic beliefs. Ironically, Emily says no students had actually checked out Men Who Hate Women. “I was disappointed and upset, but it was just one book,” Emily told Index. She complied, and moved it to the staff library, which isn’t accessible to students. The headteacher was not only of the opinion that the book was too disturbing for young people, but that it could be disturbing for adults too. The school launched an investigation. Emily says she was at her desk when she was asked to step outside by the designated safeguarding lead (DSL). The head of HR was also waiting. Emily says she was taken into a meeting. Emily is autistic, and she described how she “always assumes that surely people will see the common sense in things”. During the discussion with HR and the safeguarding lead she defended the importance of books like Little Bang by Kelly McCaughrain, shortlisted for the Carnegie Medal (a prize for writing for children), which deals with teen pregnancy and abortion in Northern Ireland. “I went home that night feeling very uncomfortable and kind of knowing in the pit of my stomach that things were about to get very bad, but I had no idea quite how bad,” Emily said. The next morning when she arrived at school, her “librarian senses were tingling”. She knew something was wrong. She knew the placement of the books in the library and could see gaps where they had once been. Books had been pulled from the shelves. “There were comic books missing, graphic novels,” Emily said. She was soon told that the library would be closing as a temporary safeguarding measure. “We have the exact same group of children who come in every single day, and a lot of them are LGBTQ+, a lot of them are neurodivergent, and they come into the library because it’s their safe place,” Emily said. That safe place had been removed. Emily says she was asked to conduct an audit of the books in the library. There were three criteria for removal: books that were not written for children, books with themes that could be upsetting to children and books that could be inappropriate or constitute a safeguarding risk. No definition of “inappropriate” was provided, Emily said. “I ended up removing biographies of World War II airmen, literally less than a week after Remembrance Day, because they weren’t children’s books,” she said. Many classics fell under one or more of these criteria. “God helped me, I cooperated because I thought ‘I’m already in a lot of trouble here,’” she said, explaining how she thought there would be the opportunity for discussion about the books. There were plenty of books she was compelled to remove that had already been in the library before Emily joined in 2023, including Heartstopper. “It took me all day to take about 15 to 20 books off the shelves, and it was killing me,” she remembers. And then things got worse. The designated safeguarding lead had reported her to the local authority as a safeguarding risk due to introducing books into the school library which were allegedly inappropriate for a school setting. There would be an investigation, and there was also a case for gross misconduct. “I was absolutely gobsmacked. When I’m shocked, I kind of shut down. So, I stopped speaking, but I remember I was stamping books or something, and I just kept on doing that because I couldn’t believe what I was hearing,” Emily said. Emily signed off sick due to stress. In the meantime, she spoke to the School Library Association (SLA), the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) and their School Libraries Group (SLG), to get their support behind the scenes. The SLG were utterly shocked and said it is completely unprecedented. When they tried to talk to the school, they got no response. Caroline Roche, chair of the SLG told Index that they had no doubts about Emily’s claims, and had seen the supporting evidence. Librarians all make different decisions about which books to stock, she said, and this should never be grounds for a safeguarding complaint. When it comes to books in school libraries “there aren’t any noes’”. What the school should have done, she said, is to have a discussion with Emily about specific books and should have a library policy in place. “This is over the top. It’s ruined her career.” When Emily contacted her union, which has helped her through the process, her local representative told her that their place of work was on lockdown due to threats from the far right. The full list of books which the school deemed might be inappropriate was shared with Emily. The spreadsheet contains almost 200 titles. It is called the “final List of alleged books with inappropriate content” (a copy of which is pasted below). It is unclear what has happened to the majority of these books now, and whether or not they have been returned to the library. One report from the school states: “It appears that several books have been removed based on assumptions about potential themes or their classification as adult texts by the DSL.” Some of the books were ordered by people other than Emily, and she says her line manager signed off on all purchases – the school claimed that was for budgetary reasons only. Emily couldn’t help but laugh when the first book she saw on the list was Twilight by Stephenie Meyer. The reason given on the spreadsheet was “mature romantic themes, sexual tension, and violence involving vampires and werewolves.” She realised how ridiculous the whole situation was, if they were pulling a book that she’d read aged 12. She held out hope it was a misunderstanding. There were many LGBTQ+ books on the list too, ones that were written for children and young adults. One of the books brought into particular focus was Queerly Autistic: The Ultimate Guide For LGBTQIA+ Teens On The Spectrum by Erin Ekins. The book has a recommended reading age of 12-18. “As an autistic child, you are very vulnerable to certain predatory behaviours that you may not understand, and that was one of the reasons why I thought it was so important to have this book,” Emily said. “They were making out like I was teaching children how to perform sex acts by having this book in the library.” Reni Edo-Lodge’s Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race was on the list too, with the reason for removal: “race, discrimination”. The school also paid close attention to the graphic novel The Crow by James O’Barr, which Emily bought after talking about it with some Year 11s (15-16 year olds), who were interested in Goth subculture and keen to read it. She kept the book near her desk, away from younger readers, as a safeguarding measure. When students borrowed the book, she gave them content warnings, as she did for all books with challenging themes. “There are some scenes in it that are graphic, because a woman is raped and killed. That’s the basis of the story. There’s rape in The Handmaid’s Tale, and Tess of the d’Urbervilles and An Inspector Calls and all kinds of books that we had in the library,” she added. The SLG were given the list by Emily and added comments, before sending it back to the school as part of Emily’s argument that the books were not inappropriate. Next to The Crow the SLG wrote: “One of the best-selling independent black-and-white graphic novels of all time.” Some of the other reasons for removal given include racism and political themes for Michelle Obama’s autobiography Becoming and “romantic drama about enduring love and memory loss” for The Notebook by Nicholas Sparks. Other reasons for removal include political intrigue, espionage and even betrayal. Terry Pratchett’s Soul Music was removed for: “Adult audience content – may include sexual material, violence, abuse, substance misuse, or psychologically distressing themes.” The SLG said none of this is true. In one of the documents seen by Index, the school admits that the categorisations of the books were written using AI, writing: “Although the categorisation was generated using AI, I consider this classification to be broadly accurate.” Louis Coiffait-Gunn, CEO of CILIP, told Index that he was deeply concerned about a few school leaders using these methods to work out what is acceptable or not, citing the sinister use of AI, “rather than relying on a trained professional whose entire career is about working out what are the right books for different children and making sure that they’re provided.” He described how every child in this school is entitled under the UN Charter of Human Rights to access information appropriate for their age, as long as it’s not illegal, and that what has happened in Emily’s case sets a worrying precedent. “You’ve only got to look over at America and to think about who our next prime minister might be to see the risks for our children,” he said. Emily decided to resign, which also halted the disciplinary action. “I’ve done that job for over a decade, and it was my dream job, and I was brilliant at it,” Emily said. The Local Authority meeting about the safeguarding complaint went ahead after Emily’s resignation. The LADO meeting as it is known focused solely on the allegations of “introducing inappropriate material into the school library”. The meeting was originally scheduled for December 2025, but was cancelled at the last minute, because the Greater Manchester Police had been invited and they didn’t show. It was later agreed the police weren’t actually needed. When the LADO made their decision in January 2026, they substantiated the allegation, believing that Emily had not caused direct harm but that she had failed to follow safeguarding procedures. Emily had to put in a subject access request to find out why. In the hearing, the senior vice-principal outlined how the allegation was raised “after discovering multiple books in the school library containing inappropriate content. These books had been loaned to children and did not align with the school’s curriculum”. There was no mention of the vast quantity of books removed, with only a few titles focused on. “The fact it’s gone through safeguarding means Emily will never be able to work in a school again,” Roche from the SLG said. During their investigations, the school referred to their statutory obligations under the government’s Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance documents and said that materials in the school should align to them. There is in fact no statutory guidance for school libraries because there is no obligation in law to have either a school library or a school librarian. Following Index’s investigation into school library censorship in 2024, many librarians and supporting bodies have spoken to Index about the confusion this causes, with support for librarians and their books left to the whim of their schools’ senior teams. “We need the Department for Education to think about how to make the most of school librarians,” Coiffait-Gunn said. “Why is it that prisoners and general citizens are entitled to prison and public libraries, but our children are not entitled to school libraries?” Mass book removals like this are more common in the USA, where conservative right-wing lobbying groups like Moms for Liberty are well organised and put pressure on schools. There is also coordination with political groups. Roche said threats of safeguarding accusations being levelled at librarians for stocking books will mean “we will be too scared to support our vulnerable teenagers. Too scared to stock certain books”. When Emily first started at the school, books like Heartstopper and Black Flamingo were in the library, but there wasn’t much in the way of an LGBTQ+ offering. On an open evening, she put those two books on a table. She says a parent complained to the school that he “didn’t want his son exposed to gender bending”. “The school defended me and defended those books and their right to be in there, and then two years later, completely forgot about it and changed their mind and said they’re inappropriate,” she said. Index believes this story is of huge public interest. It is an unprecedented attack on the freedom to read and intellectual freedom, where important safeguarding measures have been misused to threaten and target a school librarian. This librarian is no longer able to do her job. Without this story being surfaced and changes being made, the risk is that it will happen again. This Greater Manchester school’s library was decimated and the young people who seek answers in books have been terribly let down. Without proper library policies and the reassurance they will be supported, school librarians will no doubt hear about cases like Emily’s and self-censor through fear. Meanwhile young people will not find fulfilling safe spaces in their schools and look for information elsewhere – most likely, on the unregulated internet. Index approached the school for comment and they have not responded. This is the list of books described by the school as the “final List of alleged books with inappropriate content” 1 She Gets the Girl Rachael Lippincott & Alyson Derrick 2 Heartstopper vol 4 & 5 Alice Oseman 3 The Black Flamingo Dean Atta 4 The Art of Being Normal Lisa Williamson 5 The Song of Achilles Madeline Miller 6 The Outrage William Hussey 7 Inferno Dan Brown 8 The Lost Symbol Dan Brown 9 Angels and Demons Dan Brown 10 The Da Vinci Code Dan Brown 11 Deception Point Dan Brown 12 The Bourne Imperative Eric Van Lustbader & Robert Ludlum 13 The Bourne Retribution Eric Van Lustbader & Robert Ludlum 14 The Bourne Identity Robert Ludlum 15 Five Survive Holly Jackson 16 Bad Bones Graham Marks 17 Dark Winter Andy McNab 18 We Were Liars E. Lockhart 19 Twilight Stephenie Meyer 20 Till Death Busayo Matuluko 21 Needy Little Things Channelle Desamours 22 If You Find Me Emily Murdoch 23 Nobody’s Girl Sarra Manning 24 Dark Inside Jeyn Roberts 25 Dune: The Graphic Novel Frank Herbert & Brian Herbert 26 Soul Music Terry Pratchett 27 American Gods Neil Gaiman 28 Good Omens Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman 29 The Time Traveler’s Wife Audrey Niffenegger 30 Girl, Woman, Other Bernardine Evaristo 31 1984 Graphic Novel Matyáš Namai & George Orwell 32 White Teeth Zadie Smith 33 Batman: Year One Frank Miller 34 Little Bang Kelly McCaughrain 35 One Sarah Crossan 36 I Have No Secrets Penny Joelson 37 The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian Sherman Alexie 38 Underworld Cathy MacPhail 39 All Better Now Neal Shusterman 40 What’s the T? Juno Dawson 41 Men Who Hate Women: the extremism no-one is talking about Laura Bates 42 Feminists Don’t Wear Pink (And Other Lies): Amazing Women on What the F-Word Means to Them Scarlett Curtis 43 Rebel Bodies Sarah Graham 44 Can We Ever Kill? Robert Crawford 45 Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race Reni Eddo-Lodge 46 The Trans Guide to Mental Health and Wellbeing Dr Katy Lees 47 We Should All Be Feminists Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie 48 The Book of Non-Binary Joy Ben Pechey 49 The Good Ally Nova Reid 50 Becoming Michelle Obama 51 Taking Up Space Chelsea Kwakye & Ore Ogunbiyi 52 Queerly Autistic Erin Ekins 53 The Woman in Me Britney Spears 54 Backstory David Mitchell 55 Second Innings Andrew Flintoff 56 Freddie Mercury: The Definitive Biography Lesley-Ann Jones 57 Madly, Deeply Alan Rickman 58 Friends, Lovers and the Big Terrible Thing Matthew Perry 59 War and Peace: My Story Ricky Hatton 60 If I Did It O. J. Simpson 61 Through My Eyes Cheryl Cole 62 Does the Noise in My Head Bother You? Steven Tyler 63 Will Will Smith & Mark Manson 64 Pageboy Elliot Page 65 Red, White & Royal Blue Casey McQuiston 66 Little Fires Everywhere Celeste Ng 67 It Ends With Us Colleen Hoover 68 It Starts With Us Colleen Hoover 69 Hopeless Colleen Hoover 70 Heart Bones Colleen Hoover 71 Reminders of Him Colleen Hoover 72 Call Me By Your Name André Aciman 73 Interview With a Vampire Anne Rice 74 Memoirs of a Geisha Arthur Golden 75 If It Bleeds Stephen King 76 The Witch’s Trinity Erika Mailman 77 He Said/She Said Erin Kelly 78 The Lost Bookshop Evie Woods 79 A Dance with Dragons: Part 2 After the Feast George R. R. Martin 80 A Storm of Swords: Part 1 Steel and Snow George R. R. Martin 81 A Storm of Swords: Part 2 Blood and Gold George R. R. Martin 82 A Clash of Kings George R. R. Martin 83 A Dance with Dragons George R. R. Martin 84 A Storm of Swords George R. R. Martin 85 A Game of Thrones George R. R. Martin 86 A Poetry Book for Sad, Messed-Up Teenagers Gracie Adams 87 We Sold Our Souls Grady Hendrix 88 The Casual Vacancy J. K. Rowling 89 The Crow James O’Barr 90 When the World Tips Over Jandy Nelson 91 I’m Glad My Mom Died Jennette McCurdy 92 Sing You Home Jodi Picoult 93 Handle with Care Jodi Picoult 94 One Day in December Josie Silver 95 Game Over Adele Parks 96 Tell Me Something Adele Parks 97 Love Lies Adele Parks 98 Conjure Women Afia Atakora 99 The Silent Patient Alex Michaelides 100  Stalker Lisa Stone 101 The Cottage Lisa Stone 102 Things We Left Behind Lucy Score 103 The Holiday Swap Maggie Knox 104 Stone Mattress Margaret Atwood 105 Madame Frankenstein Megan Levens & Jamie S. Rich 106 Cleat Cute Meryl Wilsner 107 Why Not Me? Mindy Kaling 108 I’m Not Scared Niccolò Ammaniti 109 The Notebook Nicholas Sparks 110 Great Goddesses Nikita Gill 111 Coffin Road Peter May 112 Morganville Vampires (series) Rachel Caine 113 I Am Legend Richard Matheson 114 The 48 Laws of Power Robert Greene 115 Alchemised SenLinYu 116 Pride and Prejudice and Zombies Seth Grahame-Smith & Jane Austen 117 Not a Happy Family Shari Lapena 118 The Witness Simon Kernick 119 Driving Forwards Sophie L. Morgan 120 Looking for Adventure Steve Backshall 121 The Girl Who Played with Fire Stieg Larsson 122 Bored Gay Werewolf Tony Santorella 123 Detransition, Baby Torrey Peters 124 Black Butler Vol. 1 Yana Toboso 125 Black Butler Vol. 2 Yana Toboso 126 Black Butler Vol. 3 Yana Toboso 127 Boruto Vol. 3 Ukyō Kodachi & Mikio Ikemoto 128 Chainsaw Man series Tatsuki Fujimoto 129 Death Note Vol. 1 Tsugumi Ohba & Takeshi Obata 130 Death Note Vol. 10 Tsugumi Ohba & Takeshi Obata 131 Death Note Vol. 11 Tsugumi Ohba & Takeshi Obata 132 Death Note Vol. 12 Tsugumi Ohba & Takeshi Obata 133 Death Note Vol. 13 Tsugumi Ohba & Takeshi Obata 134 Death Note Vol. 3 Tsugumi Ohba & Takeshi Obata 135 Death Note Vol. 4 Tsugumi Ohba & Takeshi Obata 136 Death Note Vol. 5 Tsugumi Ohba & Takeshi Obata 137 Death Note Vol. 7 Tsugumi Ohba & Takeshi Obata 138 Death Note Vol. 8 Tsugumi Ohba & Takeshi Obata 139 Death Note Vol. 9 Tsugumi Ohba & Takeshi Obata 140 Demon Slayer (Manga) series Koyoharu Gotouge 141 Demon Slayer Vol. 10 Koyoharu Gotouge 142 Demon Slayer Vol. 11 Koyoharu Gotouge 143 Demon Slayer Vol. 12 Koyoharu Gotouge 144 Demon Slayer Vol. 13 Koyoharu Gotouge 145 Demon Slayer Vol. 14 Koyoharu Gotouge 146 Demon Slayer Vol. 15 Koyoharu Gotouge 147 Demon Slayer Vol. 16 Koyoharu Gotouge 148 Demon Slayer Vol. 2 Koyoharu Gotouge 149 Demon Slayer Vol. 22 Koyoharu Gotouge 150 Demon Slayer Vol. 23 Koyoharu Gotouge 151 Demon Slayer Vol. 3 Koyoharu Gotouge 152 Demon Slayer Vol. 4 Koyoharu Gotouge 153 Demon Slayer Vol. 5 Koyoharu Gotouge 154 Demon Slayer Vol. 6 Koyoharu Gotouge 155 Demon Slayer Vol. 7 Koyoharu Gotouge 156 Fairy Tail Vol. 1 Hiro Mashima 157 Fairy Tail Vol. 10 Hiro Mashima 158 Fairy Tail Vol. 11 Hiro Mashima 159 Fairy Tail Vol. 2 Hiro Mashima 160 Fairy Tail Vol. 3 Hiro Mashima 161 Fairy Tail Vol. 4 Hiro Mashima 162 Fairy Tail Vol. 5 Hiro Mashima 163 Fairy Tail Vol. 6 Hiro Mashima 164 Fairy Tail Vol. 7 Hiro Mashima 165 Fairy Tail Vol. 8 Hiro Mashima 166 Fairy Tail Vol. 9 Hiro Mashima 167 Given (manga) series Natsuki Kizu 168 Jujutsu Kaisen Vol. 1 Gege Akutami 169 Jujutsu Kaisen Vol. 2 Gege Akutami 170 Jujutsu Kaisen Vol. 3 Gege Akutami 171 Jujutsu Kaisen Vol. 5 Gege Akutami 172 Jujutsu Kaisen Vol. 6 Gege Akutami 173 Jujutsu Kaisen Vol. 7 Gege Akutami 174 Jujutsu Kaisen Vol. 8 Gege Akutami 175 Lenore: Noogies Roman Dirge 176 Lenore: Pink Bellies Roman Dirge 177 Lenore: Purple Nurples Roman Dirge 178 Lenore: Swirlies Roman Dirge 179 Lenore: Wedgies Roman Dirge 180 The Cat with a Really Big Head  Roman Dirge 181 One-Punch Man Vol. 10 ONE & Yusuke Murata 182 One-Punch Man Vol. 3 ONE & Yusuke Murata 183 Tokyo Ghoul: Re Vol. 7 Sui Ishida 184 Tokyo Ghoul Vol. 6 Sui Ishida 185 Tokyo Ghoul: Vol. 1 Sui Ishida 186 Tokyo Ghoul: Vol. 10 Sui Ishida 187 Tokyo Ghoul: Vol. 14 Sui Ishida 188 Tokyo Ghoul: Vol. 16 Sui Ishida 189 Tokyo Ghoul: Vol. 4 Sui Ishida 190 Tokyo Ghoul: Vol. 5 Sui Ishida 191 Tokyo Ghoul: Vol. 6 Sui Ishida 192 Tokyo Ghoul: Vol. 8 Sui Ishida 193 Tokyo Ghoul: Vol. 9 Sui Ishida   READ MORE

0

In November 2025, a school library in Greater Manchester underwent a purge. Inspired by the headteacher’s dislike of one particular…

Independent journalists and media in Serbia are facing increasing attacks. Photo: Konrad Zelazowski/Alamy Against the backdrop of ongoing challenges to media pluralism and increasing attacks and pressure on independent journalists – particularly in the wake of nationwide protests following the Novi Sad tragedy on 1 November 2024 – as highlighted by the recently launched 2025 Europe Press Freedom report of the CoE Platform partners, and the 2025  MFRR Monitoring Report, the mission will assess the current media freedom and safety of journalists’ situation in the country. The visit follows-up on a solidarity mission of media freedom groups in April 2025 to discuss possible measures to improve the safety of journalists. The delegation aims to meet with journalists, public officials, as well as representatives of civil society, international organisations, and foreign representations in Belgrade.  Key topics on the agenda include violence against journalists during protests, SLAPPs, impunity for the killing of journalists, media capture, the independence of the media regulator and public service media, investigations into spyware cases, and digital threats against journalists.  The partners will share their initial findings at a press conference on 27 March 2026 at 14:00, at the memorial of murdered journalist Slavko Ćuruvija (Svetogorska 35, Belgrade).  The delegation will include representatives from the following organisations: ARTICLE 19 Europe, Association of European Journalists (AEJ), Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), European Broadcasting Union, European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), European Federation of Journalists (EFJ),  Index on Censorship, International Press Institute (IPI), Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT), and Reporters Without Borders (RSF).  Srbija: Misija za slobodu medija ispitaće dugotrajne izazove i zalagati se za reforme U periodu od 26. do 27. marta 2026. godine, partnerske organizacije u okviru Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) i Platforme Saveta Evrope za zaštitu novinarstva i bezbednost novinara sprovešće misiju u Srbiji. U kontekstu stalnih izazova po medijski pluralizam i sve učestalijih napada i pritisaka na nezavisne novinare – naročito nakon masovnih protesta širom zemlje posle tragedije u Novom Sadu 1. novembra 2024. godine – kako je istaknuto u nedavno objavljenom Izveštaju o slobodi medija u Evropi za 2025. godinu partnera Platforme Saveta Evrope, kao i u MFRR Monitoring izveštaju za 2025. godinu, misija će proceniti trenutno stanje slobode medija i bezbednosti novinara u zemlji. Poseta predstavlja nastavak misije solidarnosti organizacija za slobodu medija iz aprila 2025. godine, tokom koje su razmatrane moguće mere za unapređenje bezbednosti novinara. Delegacija ima za cilj da se sastane sa novinarima, javnim zvaničnicima, kao i predstavnicima civilnog društva, međunarodnih organizacija i stranih predstavništava u Beogradu. Ključne teme na dnevnom redu uključuju nasilje nad novinarima tokom protesta, SLAPP tužbe, nekažnjivost za ubistva novinara, zarobljavanje medija, nezavisnost regulatora i javnih medijskih servisa, istrage o slučajevima špijunskog softvera, kao i digitalne pretnje novinarima. Partneri će podeliti svoje početne nalaze na konferenciji za novinare 27. marta 2026. godine u 14:00 časova, kod spomen-obeležja ubijenom novinaru Slavku Ćuruviji (Svetogorska 35, Beograd). Delegaciju će činiti predstavnici sledećih organizacija: ARTICLE 19 Evropa, Udruženje evropskih novinara (AEJ), Komitet za zaštitu novinara (CPJ), Evropska radiodifuzna unija, Evropski centar za slobodu štampe i medija (ECPMF), Evropska federacija novinara (EFJ), Indeks o cenzuri, Međunarodni institut za štampu (IPI), Opservatorija za Balkan, Kavkaz i Transevropu (OBCT) i Reporteri bez granica (RSF). READ MORE

0

Against the backdrop of ongoing challenges to media pluralism and increasing attacks and pressure on independent journalists – particularly in…

Load More