![2[1].jpg](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/5abadf_f310244424a443b29215dadb17bba49b~mv2.jpg/v1/crop/x_5,y_0,w_1069,h_1080/fill/w_101,h_102,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/2%5B1%5D.jpg)
By Leila Shannon
In August, the world was watching as protests erupted across Belarus following President Lukashenko’s claim of a landslide victory in the presidential elections, which independent bodies have shown to be falsified. These protests brought Belarus’ repressive policies surrounding the freedom of the press and citizens’ access to information into the spotlight. The repression of the media has been fundamental to Lukashenko’s presidency, with the regime now adapting to inhibit all forms of new media as well as traditional media.
How does the state limit freedom of the press?
The government owns all broadcast media and virtually all print media, providing an unchallenged pro-state view through these platforms. Belarusians rely on these platforms for information, insofar as a Spring 2020 report by EU Neighbours showed that 90% of the population use television as a source of information, reaching significantly more people than social media. Where non-state media is allowed to operate, it is subject to many restrictions and laws. Belarus’ Media Law requires journalists to go through a process of ‘accreditation’ to cover many large events taking place in Belarus, including protests and events organised by political parties. Without accreditation, a journalist can be arrested and incur large fines for covering these events.
Along with such restrictive laws, the government finds ways to detain critical journalists and opposition figures, charging them with crimes such as attending unsanctioned protests and spreading extremist materials. An example of this was seen in 2017, when two journalists from a Polish satellite television channel aimed at Belarus were detained twice whilst on their way to cover a protest, once for a traffic violation and later when accused of car theft and bank robbery. Unsurprisingly, such intimidation leads to self-censorship among journalists and online sources, with 57% of Belarusian bloggers participating in a recent study saying that they formulate their criticism of the government carefully.
2018 amendments to the Media Law allowed online media to register with the state. Despite registration being voluntary, it is a requirement to be able to report on certain issues. Thus, all online news and information sources (including bloggers) risk having their content blocked or being prosecuted for reporting without the correct accreditation. This marks yet another step towards the Belarusian government’s control of the media, as the registration requirements are unachievable for many online media entities. Such criminalisation has forced many people who produce online content to either act illegally or restrict their content. In 2019, 44 journalists were fined for not having the necessary accreditation.
How did the government control information available during the protests?
State-owned entities control connections with Internet Service Providers outside of Belarus and have near total control of the ICT sector within the country. The power that the government is willing to exercise over internet access was reiterated during the 2020 protests. Human Rights Watch reported on the widespread internet disruptions on the day of and the days following recent presidential elections. The journalist Tanya Lokshina reported that citizens were unaware of the president’s claim to a landslide victory due to the poor Internet connection. She also reported that many leading international news websites were blocked, along with Google Play and the Apple Store, making it even more difficult to download VPNs. The state-run Internet service providers, however, blamed cyberattacks for the internet problems. Unfortunately, these timely connection issues follow a pattern, with similar internet outages also occurring when the election was announced in May 2020.
The recent protests have also seen the detention of countless journalists, many of whom have been charged with “participation in an unauthorized mass event” and arrested whilst wearing press badges. From the 9th of August 2020 until the end of the month, 159 repressions against journalists in Belarus were recorded by the Belarusian Association of Journalists. These included the deportation of foreign journalists, detentions and beatings. Also recorded are incidences of journalists being forced to destroy flashcards or delete images.
Traditional media has also been under attack since the start of the protests. Government-controlled printing houses have refused to print all editions of several influential independent publications since late August, and these newspapers have been in circulation through alternative means. However, the state is intent on limiting their influence, as seen on the 13th of November when all copies of that day’s issue of ‘Nardonaya Volya’ were confiscated by riot police entering the editorial office without any explanation. Here we see a perfect example of how the traditional mechanisms used to limit the freedom of the press and availability of information remain prevalent in the government’s mission to limit knowledge at times of insecurity.
Protests are ongoing in Belarus, with protesters meeting in their masses every Sunday. These protests are met with further detentions of both journalists and civilians and a violent response from security forces, who have expressed their willingness to fire on protesters. The events of recent months highlight the censorship used by an undemocratic state which attempts to appear democratic through falsified elections. What is particularly worrying is the willingness and speed with which the government has extended their traditional censorship laws to the internet and social media in recent years, further limiting public access to information. Events in Belarus act as a reminder of the power a repressive state can wield against the freedom of the press and access to information through the imposition of censorship, intimidation, and the control of the internet.
Comments