FAQ

FAQ

In a single case, the artwork, the creator or the presenter might be targeted alone or in combination, using a range of methods by different agents. A single work may be targeted for multiple reasons. The data below combines all methods used across the multi-step challenge chain, by different agents unless specified. 

Theme x accusation: Based on analysis of available publicity material or statements by the creator or presenter, each case was assigned several themes by the researcher. The reasons the works were targeted were based on public statements cited where available. A single case may be challenged by different agents for different reasons and the statistics here combine the reasons given at each challenge step.

Our aim is to cover the whole region. We started with 6 countries in the pilot but the plan is to progressively increase until we have researchers in each of the xx countries. As we increase our knowledge, networks and capacity, we are adding new countries progressively, beginning with Myanmar in 2025, followed by Singapore and Laos in 2026 and 2028. Brunei, Timor Leste and xxx will be added after.

Yes, we didn’t expect to be documenting cases about gym socks when we started either. We take a broad approach

Video game designers, fashion designer etc

  • UNESCO statistics
  • Creative Industries
  • Culture as a whole way of life 

We include  audiences and communities right to cultural life – Williams: “a whole way of life…material, intellectual, spiritual”

Why so broad : Cultural life in Unesco and Williams: “a whole way of life…material, intellectual, spiritual”  

Setting the research parameters/ inclusion criteria challenges of documenting arts and culture practice – too broad and the data becomes meaningless, too narrow and we miss out on emerging patterns.

Forms include a wide range of artistic practice and creative industries such as video games, design, online content and other forms of cultural and creative expressions. 

See above. But also, we do have some checkboxes xxx that the content must meet in order to be included. Is there an element of creativity in it?   Is the targeting based on the gender of the maker? Or something about the content of the work as it relates to social mores? Does the targeting stem from a social value?

These may not result in actual censorship, but are methods used to instill fear and constrain free expression. Tracked over the research period, these are useful data points to measure public and state attitudes towards free expression in each country.

  • Temperature, not forest fire
  • We’re interested in the place that arts and culture occupy
  • Who tartets them and for what reasons using what methods
  • The end product may be that the artists is able to weather the story and not give in  but for us, the attempt to xxx is telling  and important fact
  • Proof – cases where there are public attacks, gate keeping etc – then in xx years, becomes legalized
  • CROWD theory
  • Governmentality
  • State and citizen – feedback loop

The Rabat Plan of Action sets out a high threshold for limitations on ‘incitement’, putting forward six criteria to determine where expression creates such a danger of harm to justify prohibitions on expression:

  1. the social and political context where the expression occurred;
  2. the identity of the speaker, e.g. his or her status and influence over their audience;
  3. the intent of the speaker;
  4. the content and form of the expression;
  5. the extent of the expression; and
  6. the likelihood and imminence of violence, discrimination or hostility occurring as a direct consequence of the expression.

Even where this threshold is met, any sanctions should be determined on the basis of necessity and proportionality, and criminal responses only used as a last resort. At the same time, any legislative action must be taken in conjunction with comprehensive anti-discrimination laws.

Whenever restrictions are allowed through law, these amendments, bills etc., all have to pass the three-part test and meet the following criteria in demonstrating that the law is 

  • Legal 
  • Proportional
  • Necessity

1: A restriction must be in accordance with a law. This includes primary legislation, as well as regulations and other legally binding documents adopted pursuant to primary legislation.

It is not enough simply to have a law; the law must also meet certain standards of clarity and accessibility. If restrictions are unduly vague, or otherwise grant excessively discretionary powers of application to the authorities, they fail to meet the main purpose of this part of the test.

2: A restriction must be proportional: what does this mean – that a state must instigate the least restrictive method over a person’s human right to achieve the legitimate aim of the right. I have found the following a useful explanation.

3: A restriction should be necessary for the rights or reputations of others, the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or moral and proportionate against the benefits of the restriction.

Rights based approach – covered by national constitution, international human right conventions which all the countries are signatories to

  • Also, artists – have a special place in our society – artists were at the forefront of the nationalist movements, women’s right, fighting dictators and oppression
  • There is a realm of the imagination – mirror or hammer – make our society better

Farida Shaeed’s report sets some of the principles above:

“There is no intention to propose a definition of art, or to suggest that additional rights should be recognized for artists.

  • not limited to facts/realities covered by journalists or activists, who deal with “facts”
  • Freedom to push other narratives – because narrative is enabled by power
  • “The crucial task of implementation of universal human rights norms is to prevent the arbitrary privileging of certain perspectives on account of their traditional authority, institutional or economic power, or demographic supremacy in society” Shaeed.
  • should not be reduced to carrying a specific message or information – it can be pretty pictures or messages we don’t like
  • Artists should be allowed to explore issues which are deemed to be immoral without being accused of promoting these.
  • Public sources
  • Is an artwork or event removed, altered? Have resources or opportunities been withdrawn? Has the potential audience been restricted?
  • Has the artist/ creator/presenter been detained, questioned, harassed, pressured, attacked, doxed, accused xxx? Have they lost income? Are they likely to lose opportunities in the future or be otherwise stigmatized?
  • Has a member of the public had their choice or access to arts and culture been restricted, disadvantaged, prevented?

Contact us. After verifying the case, we can include it in our database but set it to private access so it won’t be publicly visible.

  • Public sources
  • Networks of contacts – interviews, email correspondence. In some cases, to protect the identity of the target, the case is included in our DB but access is restricted – no public.
  • There are limitations to how comprehensive our data collection is.
  • Public cases – but may not have access to regional cases or cases in different languages. We rely on publicly available information. We try to follow up with the starting artists but this is not always fruitful – artists are afraid, do not know their rights and don’t frame their experience as a violation of their rights. Or we can’t contact them.
  • Further, there are many cases that do not make the news. We do our best to get to all below the line cases – our researchers are in the country, and have arts or culture background so have networks. But silos exist