User:Mayrik/Editnotice

Armenia and Freedom of Speech

The entry is meant to be an anthropological study on freedom of speech in Armenia. As such it aims to help understand it by presenting institutions and policy of the authorities as well as how they are locally understood or misunderstood. It's also a record of an era which already passed away with the introduction and bloom of the Internet. Number of Armenian Internet users reached in 2010 1,5 million, 47.1 % of the population. It's 86 % growth.

Introduction
Reporters without Borders – an international watchdog organization has released Press Freedom Index 2010. According to the index Armenia has advanced and is running 101st among 178 countries. Experts say that during the year all 4 neighbors of Armenia have stepped backwards in the freedom of speech sphere while Armenia has advanced. Nevertheless together with Moldova (75) and Georgia (99), Armenia was qualified as "country with some problems". Is there really censorship in Armenia? If so in a shape rather not similar to the European one. The system which regiment the freedom of speech has one main "drawback" – it does not exist. There is monitoring of contents desirable by the decision-makers, but it's not institutionalized as the system collapsed with the Soviet Union. What is more, in common with all Caucasus nations, people in Armenia prefer to be guided by the opinion of relatives and are generally mistrustful of the written word, a sentiment which dates back to the times of Soviet propaganda. This is a combination which Westerners tend to find quite puzzling. The nation with it's own, original alphabet and love for written word as well as permanent desire to learn does not read newspapers. The quality of democracy depends on the quality of the information it provides. The role of the news media is central to the modern democratic process. It tells what matters and who matters. For people who spot the disagreement between news provided by manipulated journalists and the reality, the only right choice is to ignore them completly. Or become and Internet activist.

Historical Background and Soviet Times/Censorship
The hidden truth about the Armenian Genocide, slaughtering over 1 million of Armenians during the World War I it's the heart of the matter. This great lie, decrepit concealment by Soviet government organizes all other truths and had shaped collective memory of the nation. Another historical example of depatuing from the truth is conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and Soviet attempts to conceal the seriousness of it. Paradoxically it did not stop the flow of info but pushed people to seek alternative sources instead.

Radio Liberty
Radio Liberty (with twin Radio Free Europe) is the same broadcaster that since 1949 transmits “free info” in local languages all round the former Soviet Union (in Armenia till now) area of influence. Financed initially by CIA then officially passed under the US Congress, they got the State Department as first referee. Considering Radio Liberty as “free” has always been hard because of its declared anti-communist stream, but even less a propaganda apparatus: those radios has explicitly been used by CIA as a info gathering point with large autonomy rewarding the broadcasting contents.

Law/Media Legislation
The 1991 Law on the Press and Mass Media based on the ICCRP, conforms to many recognized European standards. Article 24 of the constitution declares: "Everyone is entitled to assert his or her opinion. No one shall be forced to retract or change his or her opinion. Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, including the freedom to seek, receive and disseminate information and ideas through any medium of information, regardless of state borders". The acceptance of Armenia into the Council of Europe (in 2001) should help providing structure and oversight in protecting freedom of speech. Armenia has joined the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; European Convention of Human Rights (with all it's protocols) and UE's Berne Convention. Article 6 of Armenian press law points penalty of publishing several contents such as appeals to war, religious rancour, violence. Self-censorship is common in reporting on such issues as conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, national security or bribery.

Cases/Trials against Journalists, Examples of violating the law
Violence against journalists is a problem. In June 2000 Vahang Gnukasian suffered incarceration and was beaten at the Interior Ministry, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Attacks on journalists increased in both frequency and cruelty in 2009. Nikola Pashinyan, an editor in chief of the leading oppositional newspaper “Haykakan Zhamanak”, was sent to prison after he criticized the Armenian police. Nikola Pashinyan took an active part in riots which took place after the presidential elections in March 2008. He was sentenced for 7 years of prison on a charge of beating a policeman. In 2009 he was granted amnesty and the state reduced sentence from 7 to 3,5 years. The protest for his liberation took place on the Republic Square in Yerevan on November 26th, 2010. Manifestant signed and sent a protest letter to OSCE. 

The case of independent TV A1+ The case of GALA TV
The Freedom On the World report claims: "The authorities use informal pressure to maintain control over broadcast outlets. State-run Armenian Public Television is the only station with nationwide coverage, and the owners of most private channels have close government ties. The independent television company A1+ continued to be denied a license in 2009 despite a 2008 ruling in its favor by the European Court of Human Rights". Eventually A1+ moved to Internet http://www.a1plus.am/en.

The independent GALA TV from Gyumri pays high price for being adamant: it faces tax controls and pays fines. . What protects it from removing from the face of Earth is probably a misterious homeostasis of oligarch's interests.

“It’s clear that keeping a critic off the air is more important to this government than its international legal obligations,” said Giorgi Gogia, the HRW’s South Caucasus researcher.  Amnesty International reported that independent media outlets were often harassed. What is interesting, the authorities generally do not interfere with internet access, but the connection is getting slower whenever something (eg. post-elections violence in 2008) is going on in Yerevan.

Conclusions
The danger for Armenian free media are: complex and contradicting legislation together with poor implementation, puzzling cases of "libel" or "insulting a government representative"; low quality of professional performance (due to high emigration level of young professionalists); economic dependence; lack of financial sustainability, self-censorship, pressure and violence on journalists. Hopes: developing Internet and inevitable and systematic growth of its influence on public opinion. It's worth to remember that censorship never gives up and probably for some more years Armenia will need a support of international organizations. Paraphrasing Paul Levinson, text's electronic emancipation is increasing number of readers. Western politically mindedness started with the invention of print. At that time John Milton claimed: "Everyone has to have right to speak up his own voice and the society has a right to change its old, ulcerous skin"... Seems like Armenia is reaching the crucial point and it's ready to change the skin.