The Arab Free Press Forum, which I'm attending in Beirut, opened today with a discussion of "soft" censorship and the judicial stranglehold on the media.

The prevalence of soft censorship in Arab countries is not a sign that regimes are becoming more civilised, we were told, and in many ways it is more dangerous than "hard" censorship.
Soft censorship includes judicial harassment, either through repressive laws or mis-application of the law by judges, together with various forms of economic harassment.

Although economic censorship is not often discussed, Aboubakr Jamai, co-founder of the now-defunct Journal Hebdomadaire, described it as the Number One problem for independent publishers in Morocco: "When someone refuses to advertise with you, what can you do?"

After Le Journal had been banned a couple of times in 2000, some of its advertisers decided not to return - among the a Spanish telecom company. The fact that it had previously been one of the paper's biggest advertisers, suggested the reasons behind its decision were political rather than commercial - though the company was probably also thinking about the cost to its business if it offended the Moroccan government by continuing to advertise.

In situations like that, Jamai said, "the only weapon we have is transparency - to let people know what's going on".
Another economic tactic which seems to be particularly favoured by the Moroccan authorities, is to flood the market with pro-government publications which soak up the advertising (though not necessarily readers).

One possible solution, Jamai suggested, is for independent papers to shame the others by their circulation properly audited, in the hope that advertisers will realise they are throwing money away in the pro-government publications. Speaking from the floor, a Lebanese journalist doubted this would work, pointing out that in Lebanon even audited circulation figures are often fabricated.

Much of the discussion about judicial harassment centred on Yemen where a court set up specially to try journalists has issued 145 in the space of a year - unlike the anti-corruption court which, despite rampant corruption in Yemen, has yet to issue its first judgment. 

As might be expected, there was much grumbling about Arab media laws. In Jordan, "every three years the law is changed, and every three years the law is worse," said Nidal Mansour of the Jordanian Centre for Defending Freedom of Journalists. But it's not just the media laws: other laws can be used to harass journalists too. In Tunisia, the offence of "disrupting traffic" has even been used against them.

The other problem with this is that when cases come to court there is often no prospect of a fair trial. "In Tunisia, no judge can issue an independent judgment, especially if it's related to freedom of expression," one speaker said. Only about 20% of Tunisian judges are regarded as having a measure of independence.

No easy solutions emerged from the discussion. One speaker said it was vital to have observers attending court cases, while another said it was important to report judicial rulings so as to "expose the mediocrity of their legal reasoning".

More generally, it was suggested that Arab journalists would do better looking for support from civil society in the west rather than western governments, who are often reluctant to apply pressure.

Another speaker urged journalists to "make repression as costly as possible for the authorities", though without stooping to their level - "your own ethical behaviour is vital".

Coinciding with the forum, the Ifex Tunisia Monitoring Group has issued a report which I may write about later.