The website Tabnak reports that Khamenei’s “fatwa” on the illegality of using antifiltering tools in Iran was itself blocked in the country, some 30 hours after it was published on Iranian websites. The ruling was seemingly filtered because it contained the word “antifiltering,” which triggered the country’s censorship system to automatically block it.

The misfire prompted the conservative website to write, “The filtering of a [religious] order is so ugly for the executive [branch] that it can bring into question the whole philosophy of filtering.”

Tabnak has close ties to Mohsen Rezai, the current secretary-general of the Expediency Council and former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

Khamenei, who has the final say in all state matters in the Islamic republic, issued the ruling after being asked about inaccessible websites by the semiofficial Mehr news agency.

Mehr wrote to Khamenei’s office to say that some Iranians, because of their jobs — including journalists — need to visit blocked websites for news and information that is “usually not available on authorized websites.” Mehr then asked what the religious ruling would be in such cases.

In his response, Khameni wrote: “In general, the use of antifiltering software is subject to the laws and regulations of the Islamic republic, and it is not permissible to violate the law.”

In October, Iranian Telecommunications Minister Reza Taghipour said the use of antifiltering tools and virtual private networks (VPN) is a crime.

Iran has one of the toughest online censorship policies in the world. Many Iranians, including regime supporters, use proxies and antifiltering software to access blocked websites, including sites deemed immoral or against Iran’s national interests. Among the tens of thousands of blocked pages are news and opposition websites.

Khamenei’s ruling could create a dilemma for those among his hard-line supporters who browse blocked websites.

However, the fact that his ruling on filtering was itself filtered means that, absurdly, his followers must use antifiltering software to read his view on the illegality of antifiltering software.

Just another day in the Islamic republic.

–Golnaz Esfandiari

Published May 2, 2012

NEW YORK
Shutting out international media and imposing dictatorial controls on domestic coverage, the Horn of Africa nation of Eritrea has emerged as the world’s most censored country, the Committee to Protect Journalists has found in its newly updated analysis of press restrictions around the globe. Following closely on CPJ’s 10 Most Censored Countries list are North Korea, Syria, and Iran—three nations where vast restrictions on information have enormous implications for geopolitical and nuclear stability.

No foreign reporters are granted access to Eritrea, and all domestic media are controlled by the government. Ministry of Information officials direct every detail of coverage: “Every time [a journalist] had to write a story, they arrange for interview subjects and tell you specific angles you have to write on,” an exiled Eritrean journalist told CPJ, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “We usually wrote lots about the president so that he’s always in the limelight.” So when President Isaias Afewerki dropped out of public view for a time last month, his citizens and the international community were left with only rumors about his well-being.

North Korea, which topped CPJ’s previous list of most censored countries, published in 2006, remains an extraordinarily secretive place with nearly all domestic news content supplied by the official Korean Central News Agency. As North Korea moved down a notch, to second on this year’s list, some tiny cracks have emerged: The Associated Press this year opened a bureau in the capital, Pyongyang, and a Japanese editor is working with a handful of volunteers to document daily life in North Korea and smuggle out the recordings. But issues with vast worldwide implications—including North Korea’s long-standing bid to build nuclear weapons and its new political power structure—remain hidden beneath severe censorship.

Censorship has intensified significantly In Syria and Iran in response to political unrest. Syria moved from ninth on CPJ’s 2006 list to third in this analysis; Iran, unranked in 2006, shot up to number four on CPJ’s new list. By barring international media from entering and reporting freely and by attacking its own citizen journalists, Syria has sought to impose a news media blackout on a year-long military crackdown that has roiled the international community. Iran has mixed high-technology techniques such as Web blocking with brute-force tactics such as mass imprisonment of journalists to control the flow of information and obfuscate details of its own nuclear program.

“The censorship of the media existed far before the revolution, but it has increased since because [President Bashar] al-Assad wants to convey a particular picture to the outside world that the regime is fighting off terrorists who are causing the unrest,” Eiad Shurbaji, a Syrian journalist who fled the country in January for fear of his life, told CPJ.” Another tenet of Syria’s propaganda was that minorities would be at risk without the regime, he said. “Media censorship played a huge role in keeping Assad in power.”

CPJ’s 10 Most Censored Countries, released to mark World Press Freedom Day, May 3, also includes, in order: Equatorial Guinea, where all media is controlled, directly or indirectly, by President Teodoro Obiang; Uzbekistan, where there is no independent press and journalists contributing to foreign outlets are subject to harassment and prosecution; Burma, where a series of reforms have not extended to rigid censorship laws; Saudi Arabia, which, like other Middle Eastern countries, has tightened restrictions in response to political unrest; Cuba, where the Communist Party controls all domestic media; and Belarus, where the most recent of many crackdowns by Aleksandr Lukashenko has sent the remnants of independent media underground.

In making its selections, CPJ closely considered six other countries that are heavily censored: Azerbaijan, Ethiopia, China, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam. By exporting censorship techniques, China plays a particularly harmful role worldwide.

Among the list of 10 most censored, Saudi Arabia is a new entry. Cuba dropped from seventh in 2006 to ninth this year as authorities recently released more than 20 imprisoned journalists and a vibrant (though persecuted) community of independent bloggers has emerged. Burma has moved from second on CPJ’s previous list to seventh on this analysis because it, too, released a number of imprisoned journalists and informally loosened, at least temporarily, restrictions on reporting for locals and foreigners alike.

Burma’s military-backed government allowed foreign journalists into the country to cover a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in December and a landmark by-election in April. “But between those two events, with limited exceptions, the government ignored visa requests from major international news organizations, making it impossible for them to visit the country unless they did so undercover as tourists. Also, visas to cover the April 1 election were valid for five days only, after which all officially approved foreign reporters had to leave en masse,” one Southeast Asia-based reporter for an international news outlet told CPJ. He spoke on condition of anonymity, in order not to jeopardize his ability to report from the country. As for local reporters in Burma, he said, “they are able to report on small domestic protests or rallies and photograph policemen without getting in trouble. They are also often posting articles directly to Facebook and other websites without clearing them with censors,” but they remain wary of the risks entailed in critical journalism.

The 10 most restricted countries employ a wide range of censorship techniques, from the sophisticated blocking of websites and satellite broadcasts by Iran to the oppressive regulatory systems of Saudi Arabia and Belarus; from the dominance of state media in North Korea and Cuba to the crude tactics of imprisonment and violence in Eritrea, Uzbekistan, and Syria.

One trait they have in common is some form of authoritarian rule. Their leaders are in power by dint of monarchy, family dynasty, coup d’état, rigged election, or some combination thereof. In Eritrea, President Isaias Afewerki was elected by the National Assembly in 1993, but has since managed to hold off elections and the implementation of a constitution, largely by imprisoning critics and obliterating the private press.

Indeed, disputed legitimacy of leadership is at the heart of censorship and media crackdowns in many places. Syria has long been a tightly controlled country, but last year, when regular demonstrations began to call for the ouster of Assad, foreign correspondents were restricted and locals who reported on the uprisings were arrested; the dangerous task of reporting on Assad’s brutal military response was left to courageous citizen journalists and foreign reporters who sneaked into the country. Iran became vastly more repressive after the disputed 2009 election returned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power. Tehran—which once withheld subsidies and issued short prison sentences to keep critical journalists quiet—now closes news outlets, expels foreign media, imprisons dozens on lengthy terms, and seizes property. Saudi authorities—growing wary as regional uprisings ousted leaders in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya—added further restrictions in 2011 to the country’s media law, imposed new regulations on Web publications, and banned at least three columnists who had written about the region’s political unrest.

Lagging economic development is another notable trend among heavily censored nations. Of the 10 most censored countries, all but two have per capita income around half, or well below half, of global per capita income, according to World Bank figures for 2010, the most recent available. The two exceptions are Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea, where oil revenues lead to much higher per capita income than the global level. But both of those countries are beset by vast economic inequities between leaders and citizens.

To determine this list, CPJ staff judged all countries according to 15 benchmarks. They included blocking of websites; restrictions on electronic recording and dissemination; the absence of privately owned or independent media; restrictions on journalist movements; license requirements to conduct journalism; security service monitoring of journalists; jamming of foreign broadcasts; blocking of foreign correspondents. All of the countries on the list met at least 10 benchmarks.

For this list, CPJ considered only countries where restrictions are imposed directly by the state. In Somalia and vast sections of Mexico, journalists practice extensive self-censorship in the face of extralegal violence.