Photo: Emma McIntyre (Getty Images)

Actor Idris Elba spoke with Radio Times about his thoughts regarding media censorship. In the interview with the magazine (released Tuesday), he says he believes television programs and films that are censored or flagged for jokes deemed inappropriate or offensive should come with a warning label, not be removed from their distribution platforms.

Im very much a believer in freedom of speech, Elba notes, but the thing about freedom of speech is that its not suitable for everybody. Thats why we have a rating system. We tell you that this particular content is rated U, PG, 15, 18.

Elbas comments come after several shows pulled episodes involving characters wearing blackface from streaming platforms, including Scrubs, 30 Rock, and Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia. HBOMax also found itself in the censorship conversation by removing Gone With The Wind from its platform over the films racist depictions of Black characters. It was restored to the streaming service in late-June with a new disclaimer about the films complicated legacy.

While Elba says that its fair enough that those who are in charge of these programs are pulling offensive episodes from being viewed, the 5-time Emmy-nominated actor says that its important that people are aware that this content, however inappropriate, is freedom of speech.

G/O Media may get a commission

To mock the truth, you have to know the truth, he continues. But to censor racist themes within a show, to pull itwait a second, I think viewers should know that people made shows like this...I think, moving forward, people should know that freedom of speech is accepted, but the audience should know what theyre getting into. I dont believe in censorship. I believe that we should be allowed to say what we want to say. Because, after all, were storymakers.

The rest is here:

Idris Elba Voices Opinion On Censorship In Media - The Root

The task that appears most urgent today is the destruction of the authoritarian right. Not because the authoritarian right is more malicious than the authoritarian left, but because it holds power across the west. Liberal-minded people making an informed calculation must surely decide to avoid distractions and concentrate their fire on the enemy that matters. Or so a seductive argument goes.

If you are an American voter, your sole priority should be the removal of Donald Trump. If you are British, you must concentrate on building a viable opposition to a Conservative party whose neglect and stupidity have wrecked the economy and killed tens of thousands. The slogan no enemies to the left is never more appealing than when it can be dressed in language that appeals to those who pose as tough-minded.

But it wont wash, and not just because the motives of those who scour the web to find evidence of the sins of others are those of the inquisitor and stool pigeon. In the world of practical politics, refusing to confront leftish authoritarianism leaves you with two options. You will either lose and deserve to lose, for you should have known that every time the far left has taken on the authoritarian right in the west it has lost. Or, and this may be worse, you will win and repent your failure to check that your new bosses were worthy of your trust.

According to the supposedly tough-minded view, signing a letter to Harpers protesting at the stifling of debate can only weaken our side. A defence of the signatories should begin by noting that they were telling the truth when they complained that writers, artists, and journalists fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement. Note the precision. The signatories were not saying it is wrong for people to lay into others: freedom of speech is the freedom to criticise or it is nothing. Their point was that many live in fear of campaigns to destroy them if they dont mouth the right opinions.

Im surprised such a statement of the obvious could be controversial. No honest observer can deny that the dominant factions in the modern progressive movement reject freedom of speech. They punish opinions they disagree with when they have power; and the more power they have, the more they will punish. You may think the censorship justified, but to deny its existence is absurd. Tellingly, few bother to deny it now. Occasionally, you can see them raise the exhausted excuse from the grave that only the state can censor. On this reading, Islamists killing cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, or CEOs firing whistleblowers, are not censoring because they are not civil servants. More popular in the past week has been the claim that writers with the reach of Margaret Atwood, Noam Chomsky, JK Rowling and Salman Rushdie cannot take a moral stand because no one can suppress their thought even though their critics give every impression of wanting to do just that.

Panic at the fear of denunciation and bad faith posing as rectitude can be found across the west

Leave aside their belief that ad hominem and ad feminam attacks can refute an argument, and consider that the worst of the old elite directed its attention to silencing the marginalised because it knew that their voice was often the only weapon the latter possessed. Then look around. Now as then, people without access to lawyers and influential friends suffer the most.

To take an example of that encapsulates the cowardice of our times: the Washington Post, a newspaper I admire and have written for, went to enormous lengths to destroy the life of one Sue Schafer, a middle-aged woman who made a mistake. She turned up to a Halloween party at the home of one of its cartoonists in blackface. She did not mean to insult African Americans but had come dressed as a ghoul in the guise of a conservative morning show host who had defended whites blacking up. The joke didnt work, as several guests forcefully told her. Because the words Washington Post and blackface could be said in the same sentence, and because several guests looked as if they might go public two years later, the paper gave 3,000 words to the story the amount of space normally reserved for a terrorist attack or declaration of war. Her employer, a government contractor, fired her. Everyones back was covered except Schafers and, frankly, she was a woman of no importance.

Panic at the fear of denunciation and bad faith posing as rectitude can be found across the west. A comparison with the right shows how deep the decay has reached. Conservatives know there are thoughts they cannot whisper Brexit is a mistake comparable to Munich and Suez, anti-black and anti-Muslim racism are tangible evils, poverty makes a nonsense of equality of opportunity. Likewise on the liberal left, the canny careerist takes care to avoid being caught on the wrong side of arguments about trans and womens rights, leftwing antisemitism, and bigotry in ethnic minorities. The canniest decide the best course is to say nothing at all.

The British ought to know the dangers of thinking there are no enemies to the left. Because Labour members failed to confront the crankery and racism of the Corbyn movement, they drove millions into Boris Johnsons clammy embrace. I doubt the same will happen in the US. Joe Biden has his faults, but he is no ones idea of a commissar. That is not to say there wont be a heavy price to pay. The nationalist right is determined to police opinion. In Hungary and Poland, the media are becoming its propaganda organs. Trump incites hatred of reporters who tell the truth about his administration. Johnson threatens the independence of the BBC and Channel 4. Yet they can pose as the champions of free expression because the loudest strain in progressivism has embraced censorship. The practical danger in giving up on freedom of speech is that the day will come when you find you are lost for words just when you need them most.

Nick Cohen is an Observer columnist

Read the original post:

The spectre of censorship and intolerance stalks todays left - The Guardian

In an open letter published in Harpers Magazine, 152 writers, including JK Rowling and Margaret Atwood, claim that a climate of censoriousness is pervading liberal culture, the latest contribution to an ongoing debate about freedom of speech online.

As we grapple with this issue in a society where social media allows us all to share extreme views, the Victorian writers offer a precedent for thinking differently about language and how we use it to get our point across. How limits of acceptability and literary censorship, for the Victorians, inspired creative ways of writing that foregrounded sensitivity and demanded thoughtfulness.

There are very few cases of books being banned in the Victorian era. But books were censored or refused because of moral prudishness, and publishers often objected to attacks on the upper classes - their book-buying audience. Writer and poet Thomas Hardys first novel, The Poor Man and the Lady, was never published because the publisher Alexander Macmillan felt that his portrayal of the upper classes was wholly dark not a ray of light visible to relieve the darkness.

However, more common than publishers turning down books was the refusal of circulating libraries to distribute them. These institutions were an integral part of literary consumerism during the Victorian period as the main means of distributing books.

Most influential of these was Charles Mudies Select Library, established in 1842. Mudies library was select because he would only circulate books that were suitable for middle-class parents to read aloud to their daughters without causing embarrassment.

This shaped how publishers commissioned and what writers could get away with. Victorian literary censorship, while limiting, managed to inspire writers to develop more creative and progressive ways to get their points across.

George Eliots publisher, John Blackwood, criticised her work for showing people as they really were rather than giving an idealistic picture. He was particularly uncomfortable when Eliot focused on the difficulties of working-class life.

In Mr Gilfils Love Story(1857), Eliots description of the orphan girl, Caterina, being subjected to soap-and-water raised Blackwoods censorious hackles:

I do not recollect of any passage that moved my critical censorship unless it might be the allusion to dirt in common with your heroine.

As well as dirt, alcohol consumption was also seen as an unwanted reminder of working class problems. Again in Mr Gifils Love Story, Eliot describes how the eponymous clergyman enjoys an occasional sip of gin-and-water.

However, knowing Blackwoods views and anticipating she may cause offence galvanised Eliot to state her case directly to the reader within the text itself. She qualifies her unromantic depiction of Mr Gilfil with an address to her lady readers:

Here I am aware that I have run the risk of alienating all my refined lady readers, and utterly annihilating any curiosity they may have felt to know the details of Mr Gilfils love-story let me assure you that Mr Gilfils potations of gin-and-water were quite moderate. His nose was not rubicund; on the contrary, his white hair hung around a pale and venerable face. He drank it chiefly, I believe, because it was cheap; and here I find myself alighting on another of the Vicars weaknesses, which, if I cared to paint a flattering portrait rather than a faithful one, I might have chosen to suppress.

Here, literary censorship enriches Eliots writing. Eliots refusal to suppress her work becomes part of the story and reinforces her agenda to portray Mr Gilfil as he really is, a vicar who mixes gin with water because he is poor.

As well as inspiring narrative additions, censorship was also powerful because of what was left out of a text.

One of Hardys most loved books, Tess of the DUrbervilles, highlights the crimes of sexual harassment in the workplace and of rape. Because Hardy had to be careful about the way that he presented the sexual abuse of Tess, his descriptions were very subtle. This is how he portrays the scene where Tess is sexually assaulted by her employer, Alec DUrberville:

The obscurity was now so great that he could see absolutely nothing but a pale nebulousness at his feet, which represented the white muslin figure he had left upon the dead leaves. Everything else was blackness alike. DUrberville stooped; and heard a gentle regular breathing. He knelt, and bent lower, till her breath warmed his face, and in a moment his cheek was in contact with hers. She was sleeping soundly, and upon her eyelashes there lingered tears.

The influence of censorship meant that Hardy could not describe this scene in graphic detail. Instead, his depiction is more sensitive and thoughtful. Hardy does not dehumanise Tess by depicting her as a sexual object to entertain the reader.

By focusing on Tesss gentle regular breathing and the poignant image of her tear-stained eyelashes, Hardy avoids gratuitous depictions of violence while at the same time making us painfully aware of the injustice she has suffered. This makes his portrayal of Tess more powerful and poignant. It can be argued that this was achieved because of the limits placed on his writing, not in spite of them.

In these instances, we can see how literary censorship influenced writers to tread more carefully upon difficult territory. It made them think about whether including violence or socially controversial depictions were necessary or gratuitous to their narratives.

For Hardy and Eliot, censorship and its limits inspired creativity, sensitivity and thoughtfulness. These examples can provide food for thought in the debate today about free speech and censorship. As Hardy and Eliot wrestled with as they wrote, can things be said differently and, in some cases, do they need to be said at all?

View post:

How literary censorship inspired creativity in Victorian writers - The Conversation UK

Welcome to The Queue your daily distraction of curated video content sourced from across the web.

Its ultimately a programmers job to manage and interpret art. And some pieces of art require more management and interpretation than others. Which brings us to Gone With the Wind. Its one of the most enduringly popular films of all time. But its derogatory slave stereotypes and romantic view of the Antebellum South are uncomfortable. For some, even painful. But to edit or deny access on the basis of that discomfort whitewashes what the film represents as a historical and cultural document.

HBO Maxs removal of Gone With the Wind in June was not an attempt to re-write history. Quite the opposite. Time Warner removed the film with the intention of returning it to its library with added historical context. That context took the shape of a supplementary video recording of a panel discussion moderated by author and historian Donald Bogle and an introductory video, which now plays before the movie starts. The film itself is unaltered because in Time Warners words: To do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed.

In the intro, linked below, Turner Classic Movies host and film scholar Jacqueline Stewart sets the stage for Gone With the Wind.Stewart describes the films cultural significance and controversies, advocating for the importance of preserving Old Hollywood films for viewing and discussion.

You can watch What to Know When Watching Gone With the Wind here:

This clip comes courtesy of the fine folks at Turner Classic Movies. TCM is a two-time Peabody award-winning network and trusted source for all things Golden Age. You can follow them on their YouTube account here.

See the article here:

Gone With the Wind and the Difference Between Censorship and Context - Film School Rejects

Progressive intellectuals Try to Stop the Censorship Monster They Created (EFE).

Spanish In an open letter, 153 prominent academics, writers, and intellectuals, mostly from the left, called for an end to the radicalization of censorship promoted by activists for social justice causes. They warn that the freedom to write, to express an opinion, is in danger.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted, the letter states, warning of an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.

We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other, it continues. As writers, we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk-taking, and even mistakes, the letter adds.

Black Lives Matter has succeeded in creating a climate of intersectionality. The founders of the movement converge trans-feminism and racial justice. Intersectional movements have achieved everything from removing books to firing writers, and they have also conducted massive cancellation campaigns.

And it is not limited to the mockery of right-wing figures who question the collectivist ideology and identity politics; it also affects progressives, leftists, and even feminists.

For example, J. K. Rowling, the author of Harry Potter, has been accused of transphobia for saying that people who menstruate used to be called women.

In 2020, saying something so obvious and biologically demonstrable is tantamount to a hate crime and the outright accusation of transphobia. Reducing femininity to biology is seen as an attack on transsexual, transvestite, and transgender people who identify as women.

The need for a message of self-criticism from progressive intellectuals is exposed by the fact that one of the signatories of the letter has already had to apologize. Trans activist Jennifer Finney Boylan highlighted the presence of socialist intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and feminists Gloria Steinem and Margaret Atwood. But she regretted that she was not aware of the presence of other signatories. Among them is the transphobic J. K. Rowling.

I did not know who else had signed that letter. I thought I was endorsing a well meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming. I did know Chomsky, Steinem, and Atwood were in, and I thought, good company.

The consequences are mine to bear. I am so sorry.

Jennifer Finney Boylan (@JennyBoylan) July 7, 2020

A video by John Stossel for the libertarian platform Reason TV explained the extent of cancel culture and the restrictions on debate by far-left activists.

Campaigns by activists calling for the dismissal of professionals, censorship as the norm, and even the mass removal of books can be described as internet mobs.

Leftists incapable of living by neutral principles. The digital mob led by NYT columnist Paul Krugman arrived at the Univ of Chicago pressuring to remove Professor Harald Uhlig as editor of Journal of Political Economy, after criticizing Black Lives Matter https://t.co/x8GkbjdVk4

Fernando Amandi Sr. (@FernandoAmandi) June 12, 2020

His crime? He said that the Black Lives Matter campaign was making a mistake by joining the campaign to defund the police.

There was nothing racist or discriminatory in how he said it, says Reason magazines senior editor, Robby Soave, who is covering the recent protests. But because he has some different views from the protesters, he must be a racist, he says.

Soave points out that the most worrisome aspect of these activists actions is that they advocate an ideology where different opinions are assumed to be dangerous to the extent that they justify censorship as an act of self-defense.

They even highlight how professionals have been fired because of the actions of their relatives, such as the case of a footballer who was fired because of what his wife said something against Black Lives Matter on Instagram.

Therefore, more than a hundred intellectuals, particularly writers, joined the call. Most of them are left-wing, progressives, including Mexican historian Enrique Krauze.

But they dont have the backing of their co-conspirators. The New York Times published an article titled Artists and Writers Warn of an Intolerant Climate. The reaction was quick. The NYT article compiled criticism of the authors, including accusations that they are afraid of losing their relevance.

The letter makes it very clear that it does not seek to delegitimize the actions of Black Lives Matter or any civil protest. They simply fear the persecutory nature it has taken.

Being progressives, the letters signatories warn how the radicalization of the left benefits the right, particularly the U.S. president.

The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, they exclaim. And they invite their co-conspirators to avoid letting their resistance become its own kind of dogma or coercion, which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting.

The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides, they say.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty, the letter adds.

The letter issued by these intellectuals takes us back to the poem by Niemller, a religious Lutheran persecuted by Nazism in its final stage. The letter highlights how he remained silent when others were being persecuted and stresses the importance of calling out ideological persecution before it knocks on your door.

Otherwise, your own story will end like the poem: When they came for me, it was already too late.

Follow this link:

Progressive intellectuals Try to Stop Censorship Monster They Created - PanAm Post

Thank you to Billy Bragg (Cancel culture doesnt stifle debate, but it does challenge the old order, 10 July) for a thought-provoking article and for drawing attention to the statue of George Orwell outside the BBC in London. Mr Bragg says that the quotation on the wall next to the statue If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear is a demand for licence, not a defence of liberty, and argues that liberty must be tempered by equality and accountability.

There is no doubt that very many tweet-friendly quotations are taken from Orwells works and used out of context by people from all parts of the political spectrum. However, the statue quotation remains a powerful statement against censorship. The essay it is taken from was titled The Freedom of the Press. As Mr Bragg says, it was written as a preface to Animal Farm. In fact, it was not used at the time and was only published long after Orwells death, in 1972.

Orwell argued for equality and democracy (accountability was not a term much used at the time) to go hand in hand with the liberty he defended. We are delighted that Orwell is the English writer that Mr Bragg admires the most and that he continues to engage in the reasoned debate for which Orwell is renowned.Quentin KoppChair, The Orwell Society

Re Nesrine Maliks piece (The cancel culture war is really about old elites losing power in the social media age, 13 July), what is at issue here is not the right of people to attack the opinions of others on social media, but the tendency to overreaction when someone expresses an opinion that is at variance with that of self-defining justice warriors.

Opinions that are lawfully expressed may well deserve robust criticism; what they do not deserve is for the person expressing them to be no-platformed, hounded out of a position of influence or traduced as some sort of fascist. Years ago, that sort of behaviour was confined to the wilder fringes of the Socialist Workers party. Now it seems to be all too common among people who should know better. Roger Fisken Ashampstead, Berkshire

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

Read the original:

Cancel culture, George Orwell and reasoned debate - The Guardian

Los Angeles, July 14 (IANS) Actor Idris Elba doesnt believe in censorship of racist old sitcoms, and says viewers should know that people made such shows.

The actor opened up about diversity in television and the need for change in an interview with Radio Times, reports dailymail.co.uk.

Im very much a believer in freedom of speech. Instead, there should be a ratings system warning viewers that a film or show has outdated, insulting viewpoints, he said.

Without referring to any specific programme, Elba said: To mock the truth, you have to know the truth. But to censor racist themes within a show, to pull it I think viewers should know that people made shows like this. Commissioners and archive-holders pulling things they think are exceptionally tone-deaf at this time fair enough and good for you.

But I think, moving forward, people should know that freedom of speech is accepted, but the audience should know what theyre getting into. I dont believe in censorship. I believe that we should be allowed to say what we want to say. Because, after all, were story-makers, he added.

The actor feels boosting diversity needs a change in attitude.

Money helps, he said, adding: Its a shift in attitude, in perspective, in tolerance. And you cant put an amount on that.

His comments come after many classic sitcoms including Little Britain and Fawlty Towers were removed from streaming services including Netflix. The shows were criticised because of the use of blackface make-up in some sketches.

IANS

sug/vnc

Read the original post:

Idris Elba: Dont believe in censorship - Newsd.in

Gay stories, excessive romance, unscientific fantasy, and narratives that glorify the pre-Communist republican era are reportedly among 20 genres of fiction to be banned or subject to further censorship in China, according to what appears to be new measures emanating from Chinese authorities.

Photos of what appears to be a new directive issued by the National Radio and Television Administration have been widely circulated on Chinese social media platforms Weibo and WeChat over the past few days. However, social media posts containing similar photos from last year are also to be found on the internet. The date and authenticity of the new directives cannot be independently verified.

The directives appear to provide clear instructions on what can and cannot be shown in 20 genres of TV and web drama show. Youth drama, for example, should avoid puppy love, crime, and violence. Romantic dramas should avoid intimacy, but be bold about clashes and conflicts. Fantasy stories will be subject to particular attention and must be told from a scientific perspective.

Time travel stories must be explained with scientific theories and characters involved must be positive and cannot change the course of history. Gay stories are banned and should be replaced with friendship among characters of the same sex.

Dramas that glorify the republican government or warlords in the republican era are to be strictly censored. And crime thrillers will be subject to censorship by the police department. Plots must not reveal how the crimes are solved, though analysis of criminal psychology is allowed. Criminals must be punished. Police cannot be portrayed negatively.

Social media posts containing these pictures have sparked heated discussions online in China. Puppy love, violence and crime in youth dramas have already been banned, but does it mean they do not exist in reality?, one post on WeChat questioned. If the directives are real, then there are no stories left to tell in Chinas film and television.

See the original post here:

Chinese TV Regulators Appear to Increase Story Supervision - Variety

British universities have been accused of censorship for agreeing to complywith Chinese internet censorship to offer remote courses to international students.

The courses are offered throughsoftware that allows Chinese students who would normally study in the UK to continue their studies remotely.

However, the software has to comply with strict Chinese internet firewalls. This means students are limited to only course material that has been approved by Beijing.

The software is developed by JISC, a digital learning not-for-profit. The pilot programme involves Kings College London, Queen Mary, York University and Southampton University.

JISCs software, which has been built with Chinese technology giant Alibaba, provides course materials to students in China. A spokesperson said traffic has to travel through three international gateways and will only provide access to learning materials that are part of the curriculum specified by the UK institution.

These are placed on an allow list of course materials. The spokesperson added none of these links have been blocked.

A Universities UK spokesperson said academic freedom was of utmost importance adding it was not aware of any alteration to course content to comply with local laws.

The BBC first reported universities would by complying with Chinese internet rules.

China sceptics warned Britains universities could be conducting self-censorship by only allowing access to certain course approved materials to comply with local internet law.

Original post:

UK universities accused of censorship by complying with China - Telegraph.co.uk

Amid claims of social media platforms stifling free speech, a new challenger called Parler is drawing attention for its anti-censorship stance.

Last week, Harpers Magazine published an open letter signed by 150 academics, writers and activists concerning perceived threats to the future of free speech.

The letter, signed by Noam Chomsky, Francis Fukuyama, Gloria Steinem and J.K. Rowling, among others, reads:

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.

Debates surroundings free speech and censorship have taken centre stage in recent months. In May, Twitter started adding fact-check labels to tweets from Donald Trump.

More recently, Reddit permanently removed its largest community of Trump supporters.

In this climate, Parler presents itself as a non-biased, free speech driven alternative to Twitter. Heres what you should know about the US-based startup.

Read more: Is cancel culture silencing open debate? There are risks to shutting down opinions we disagree with

Parler reports more than 1.5 million users and is growing in popularity, especially as Twitter and other social media giants crackdown on misinformation and violent content.

Parler is very similar to Twitter in appearance and function, albeit clunkier. Like Twitter, Parler users can follow others and engage with public figures, news sources and other users.

Public posts are called parleys rather than tweets and can contain up to 1,000 characters.

Users can search for hashtags, make comments, echo posts (similar to a retweet) and vote (similar to a like) on posts. Theres also a direct private messaging feature, just like Twitter.

Given this likeness, what actually is unique about Parler?

Parlers main selling point is its claim it embraces freedom of speech and has minimal moderation. If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler, founder John Matze explains.

This branding effort capitalises on allegations competitors such as Twitter and Facebook unfairly censor content and discriminate against right-wing political speech.

While other platforms often employ fact checkers, or third-party editorial boards, Parler claims to moderate content based on American Federal Communications Commission guidelines and Supreme Court rulings.

So if someone shared demonstrably false information on Parler, Matze said it would be up to other users to fact-check them organically.

And although Parler is still dwarfed by Twitter (330 million users) and Facebook (2.6 billion users) the platforms anti-censorship stance continues to attract users turned off by the regulations of larger social media platforms.

When Twitter recently hid tweets from Trump for glorifying violence, this partly prompted the Trump campaign to consider moving to a platform such as Parler.

Matze also claims Parler protects users privacy by not tracking or sharing their data.

Companies such as Twitter and Facebook have denied they are silencing conservative voices, pointing to blanket policies against hate speech and content inciting violence.

Parlers free speech has resulted in various American Republicans, including Senator Ted Cruz, promoting the platform.

Many conservative influencers such as Katie Hopkins, Lara Loomer and Alex Jones have sought refuge on Parler after being banned from other platforms.

Although it brands itself as a bipartisan safe space, Parler is mostly used by right-wing media, politicians and commentators.

Moreover, a closer look at its user agreement suggests it moderates content the same way as any platform, maybe even more.

The company states:

Parler may remove any content and terminate your access to the Services at any time and for any reason or no reason.

Parlers community guidelines prohibit a range of content including spam, terrorism, unsolicited ads, defamation, blackmail, bribery and criminal behaviour.

Although there are no explicit rules against hate speech, there are policies against fighting words and threats of harm. This includes a threat of or advocating for violation against an individual or group.

There are rules against content that is obscene, sexual or lacks serious literary, artistic, political and scientific value. For example, visuals of genitalia, female nipples, or faecal matter are barred from Parler.

Meanwhile, Twitter allows consensually produced adult content if its marked as sensitive. It also has no policy against the visual display of excrement.

As a private company, Parler can remove whatever content it wants. Some users have already been banned for breaking rules.

Whats more, in spite of claims it does not share user data, Parlers privacy policy states data collected can be used for advertising and marketing.

Read more: Friday essay: Twitter and the way of the hashtag

Given its limited user base, Parler has yet to become the open town square it aspires to be.

The platform is in its infancy and its user base is much less representative than larger social media platforms.

Despite Matze saying left-leaning users tied to the Black Lives Matter movement were joining Parler to challenge conservatives, Parler lacks the diverse audience needed for any real debate.

Matze also said he doesnt want Parler to be an echo chamber for conservative voices. In fact, he is offering a US$20,000 progressive bounty for an openly liberal pundit with 50,000 followers on Twitter or Facebook to join.

Clearly, the platform has a long way to go before it bursts its conservative bubble.

Read more: Don't (just) blame echo chambers. Conspiracy theorists actively seek out their online communities

Read more from the original source:

Parler: the Twitter 'alternative' isn't the free speech haven it claims to be - The Conversation AU

BANGKOK In Conflicted Visions Again, six artists are gathered to give one message: urging the viewers to question the state of freedom in Thailand.

The exhibition, held at WTF Gallery and Caf, is a tour on issues considered by many to be sensitive in Thai society issues that the media is often discouraged from asking bold questions about from censorship of discussions about the Royal Family to the mysterious disappearances of anti-monarchy activists.

Inside the gallery, there is a TV showing nothing except an English text saying, program will resume shortly, the same words used in real life to black out foreign news broadcasts that may touch on the monarchy.

I think its strange. It makes me feel that they want to hide the truth, artist Manit Sriwanichpoom said. It makes issues about the monarchy sound scary.

Another installation, called Thailands New Normal, questioned the balance of public safety and civil liberties during the coronavirus pandemic, an era that the government and its regime of revered doctors can impose any policy on the public without any debates.

Do you want health or freedom seems to be the choice given to the public by the authorities, without anything in the middle, said Prakit Kobkjwattana, the artist responsible for the piece.

I think this new normal thing is a coup, Prakit said. Do I really have to really choose?

Abduction and murders of anti-monarchy activists who fled overseas is discussed at Iconoclastor Stickers & Military Track Down, by Pisitakun Kuantalaeng.

Images of political dissidents who disappeared in neighboring countries of Laos and Cambodia are represented as colorful stickers at the exhibit. It seems to imply someone out there is making a collection of those individuals.

The latest victim in the string of unexplained disappearance was Wanchalearm Satsaksit, seen smiling in his yellow sticker here. The bespectacled activist was kidnapped on June 4 in front of his residence in Phnom Penh, where he had lived in exile since 2014.

Although the tone of the exhibition may slant toward anti-government activism, curator Somrak Sila said the artists were picked from different political factions. Somrak said she did it once just before the May 2014 coup, and she succeeded again.

She lamented that Thailands political division over the past decade means many artists have refused to participate in productive and civil debate, not to mention holding a joint art exhibit. The gallery wants to show its time to move beyond colors and sides.

It no longer works for them to mud sling one another. The approach should be changed, Somrak said. If we do not unite, we cant fight the powers that be.

Conflicted Visions Again exhibition runs until August 23. It opens everyday except Monday from 4pm to 10pm at WTF Gallery and Caf, Sukhumvit 51. Call 02-662-6246 for details.

Read more:

Art Exhibit Hits Back at Censorship, Abductions of Dissidents - Khaosod English

Disney has recently surprised fans by posting a cup without censorship wonder the film X-Men: Days of Future Past on its streaming service popular, Disney +.

The film, although not on the same level as the average of its image of Quentin Tarantino or Martin Scorsese, there are a number of things that are not particularly adapted to the eyes and ears of children. It is, for example, a scene in which the actor of Wolverine from Hugh Jackman shows part of her naked body, as well as at least a use-case for the pump-F.

If this court was transmitted to another streaming service, it would hardly be news. However, because Disney is proud of its identity, of the family of the brand, this decision has surprised many people. One of them was the actor of Deadpool Ryan Reynolds who, commenting on one of the posts Instagram of Jackman, has expressed the hope that their own movies in the vulgar Merc with a Mouth would be the next step.

Of course, the two Dead Pool and Deadpool 2 are more graphic, violent, and sometimes obscene that even the entries in the most obscure of the X Men it remains to be seen if the desire of Reynolds will be granted.

Click to enlarge

In terms of Disney, they seem to be permanently out of your comfort zone recently, especially due to the strict censorship that has been imposed in the past. When the company has acquired the film Splashfor example , it hired a team of artists CGI to cover the buttocks of a character with his hair. In the same way, Disney has leaked a couple of pumps F log Hamilton.

The study has also censored many productions, the leaders who have made changes to the animation films of the golden age Aladdin, The Lion king and The Little Mermaid.

Do you think X-Men: Days of Future Past it is worth to censor to begin with? Let us know in the comments section below.

The abbey of Sept-Fons, Cocoa 100% pure without added sugar, Organic

The organic Cocoa in the laboratory of the Abbey of Sept Fons . 100% pure cocoa without added sugar, is certified Organic (AB label ) and is naturally rich in magnesium , a trace element often a deficit in the daily diet. What could be more relaxing

5,10

Zkumultimedia The wings of honneamise movie blu-ray collector uncensored

Blu-Ray Zkumultimedia The wings of honneamise movie blu-ray collector uncensored

41,87

Zkumultimedia The wings of honneamise movie dvd uncensored

DVD Zkumultimedia The wings of honneamise movie dvd uncensored

31,72

Link:

Disney + has just added a version without the censorship of a Marvel movie, well liked- JAPANFM - D1SoftballNews.com

Cape Town - Another explosive report has thrown UCT into turmoil amid claims of censorship, bullying and threats by the vice-chancellor, Mamokgethi Phakeng, and her executive to muzzle the university Ombud Zetu Makamandela-Mguqulwa.

According to the report, UCT is a campus tormented by fear, with 663 individuals coming forward with complaints about issues related to the university, while 37 related to the alleged abusive conduct of the vice-chancellor (VC) where people felt bullied, silenced, undermined, rebuked and/or treated unfairly.

Makamandela-Mguqulwa told the Sunday Independent that the Office of the Ombud was established in 2010 to provide a safe space where people could air concerns and discuss ways of addressing them. While she has found university leadership receptive to the work, which has had a transformative impact on campus, the mood has changed, and she feels let down by the university council under chairperson Sipho Pityana, which had not acted on the report since March 14.

I report to the council, not the vice-chancellor, but she went to court in her personal capacity to try and stop me from releasing my report to them, said Makamandela-Mguqulwa.

She said the report, which she put up on the ombuds website to ensure transparency, highlights issues around governance by the vice-chancellor up to the council and the roles they play.

If my report is anything to go by, they have failed me. It was working well in the past, well in a sense there have always been some disagreements, but we found ways to resolve them internally during the leadership of former vice-chancellor Dr Max Price, who retired two years ago, without having to attract external interest.

As ombud, I was appointed to highlight what was not working. The office is meant to unearth critical issues and I was led to understand that my work would involve scrutinising even the highest at university.

She said her office operates according to the principles of the International Ombudsman Association, of which she is Africa chairperson.

My role was to shine a light to what does not work, which is what Im paid for. I find it ironic, going back and forth about the report, earlier this year I was invited to Mexico to talk about the senate and the need to report and what to report, yet the council did not act on the report, she said.

This is her second-last report as ombud at UCT before her term ends in December, and Makamandela-Mguqulwa, who has been asked by Minister of Higher Education Blade Nzimande to assist other institutions set up similar offices, said it is not a good news report for the period July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019.

Two weeks ago, Phakeng took to Twitter to celebrate two years as vice-chancellor.

But the report lifts the lid on a repressive atmosphere on campus in which different views or criticism are not tolerated, including resentment towards the once receptive atmosphere directed towards the ombud.

The scrutiny and feedback no longer seemed welcome, at least from the highest office at UCT.

In this reporting period, it seemed I was not to be trusted. Instead, my office seems to be seen by the VC herself as supporting transgressions and advocating for wrongdoing, she said.

Makamandela-Mguqulwa said a number of work-related complaints reached her office about professional interactions with the VC where people felt bullied, silenced, undermined, rebuked and/or treated unfairly.

Their pain was visible. Some affected bystanders came to express fear and told me how they were impacted by different incidents.

She said according to a quote, UCT Values states: To refrain from speech or conduct that demeans or humiliates others but many of the UCT-based visitors told her that this was not their experience with Phakeng.

They reported that she used words that were experienced as combative and violent - such as fighting in a ring and that she, as the VC, would ultimately win while the other is destined to lose. Knowing this was unfolding, I became increasingly concerned about a number of things, including the bullying policy that the university has not yet finalised, and the myriad UCT communications that speak about UCT being a community, the report said.

Of concern, she said was an occurrence that took place late 2019 and outside this reporting period, but which reflects the executives seeming aim to silence, erase my office or change its mandate.

Drawing from the Terms of Reference of the office, the job description and how the work should be done, I explained my role at UCT. It became apparent the executive did not understand the role of the ombud, that they had not been reading the reports, or they wanted to recreate the role in a manner that did not interfere with academic decisions. I am the first to respect the autonomy of academics to do their work, but when personal motivations lead to unfair processes and outcomes, people complain, and I have to respond.

Negative remarks from the VC about my office concern me. I wonder how these views might impact the universitys capacity to deliver on fair outcomes where her office is involved as well as potential watering down of my effectiveness and the gains of the office over the years, she said.

The task of the ombud is to be a resource for dispute resolution, to protect the interests and rights of the members of the university community from injustices and inefficiencies, delays and complication or unfair application of the rules, interpersonal conflicts and help explain university policies, where appropriate.

In a statement on Sunday morning, the university said the Ombud's report and the issues raised are receiving the attention of the UCT Council.

"This matter was handled by the previous Council, whose term ended on 30 June 2020. The newly constituted Council will be meeting this weekend and will continue the work of the previous Council, including dealing with this matter.

"The matter is a confidential one and it is therefore not appropriate for confidential matters to be discussed outside of the Council processes in the public space. The executive of UCT deeply respect the confidentiality of this process and will also not comment.

"The UCT Council will apply its mind on the matter and will do so holding the interest of the institution and those that work in it at the centre of all of its deliberations," the statement said.

The report is available at here.

Sunday Independent

Excerpt from:

Claims of censorship and bullying at UCT as another explosive report surfaces - IOL

The crackdown on alleged hate speech is intensifying as social media platforms either expand their policies or step up enforcement of their terms of service.

Reddit banned over 2,000 subreddits as part of a focus on what it deemed hate speech, including The_Donald as well as the subreddit for the leftist podcast Chapo Trap House. Twitch temporarily banned President Trump. Facebook booted a boogaloo group (part of a loose affiliation of anti-government forces that vie for a second civil war), citing its promotion of violence. And YouTube banned a group of far-right content creators, including white nationalists such as David Duke.

The actions seem spurred by a variety of factors, including rising internal pressure from tech employees, the protests around the police killing of George Floyd, Twitter enforcing its terms of service against President Trump and growing advertiser boycotts. The moves ratchet up the volume on a longstanding debate and raise important questions about free speech in the modern internet era, including what constitutes hate speech, whether platforms are obligated to allow hateful content and, most of all, who should get to make decisions about the nature of content.

I defend the companies power and right to make these business decisions, as I defend the right of individuals and organizations to pressure them to do so, said Nadine Strossen, a law professor at New York University and the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in an email.

But she is convinced any speech restrictions that go beyond whats consistent with the U.S. Constitutions First Amendment and International Human Rights principles will be at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive.

A double-edged sword

The application of social media company standards may not mitigate the potential harms of the speech at issue, according to Strossen. The standards for describing the targeted speech are overly vague and broad, meaning they give full power of discretion to those that enforce them, she said. Giving individuals that power means theyll enforce them in accordance with their personal views and may mean that speech by minority views and voices is disproportionately censored, she said.

This has been the case previously when platforms such as Instagram flagged body positive imagery as inappropriate. Facebook reportedly trained its moderators to take down curses, slurs and calls for violenceagainst protected categories such as white males, but allow attacks on subsets such as black children or female drivers. Facebooks formulaic approach to what qualified as a protected category is what allowed some vulnerable subsets to fall through the cracks.

Ironically, many of the very same civil rights/human rights groups that are now clamoring for more restrictions by the platforms have consistently complained that the existing hate speech standards have disproportionately silenced Black Lives Matter activists, Pipeline protesters, and other social justice advocates, said Strossen. Why do they think this would change in the future?

Amy James, co-founder of the Open Index Protocol (OIP), which is like a decentralized patent filing system protecting content thats created on it, organizing it and making sure creators get paid,said the bans were horrifying for a number of reasons.

Even if you disagree with information, censoring it doesnt destroy it, it just allows it to spread without counterpoints, said James in an email. But on the positive side, it highlights the profound censorship.. on Web 2.0, and the more widespread [the] awareness about it, the better.

James added she absolutely sees more bans in the future, largely because the internet isnt a real-life public place where First Amendment protections apply.

On the web, we primarily communicate using platforms that belong to private companies, so they can and should have a right to filter content however they want based on financial criteria, community standards, etc, said James.

Thats a key part of this debate. By entering into these platforms, you give them the right to moderate and regulate your speech largely as they see fit, with little to no recourse. Its ironic the people most adamant about the government not intervening in private businesses lose sight of that when it comes to social media.

Look no further than Trump, who has stridently dismantled business regulations but signed an Executive Order calling for reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields social media companies from liability for content they publish.

Is there a way forward?

Rather than going after legislative fixes for Section 230, James said solutions offered by blockchain and the decentralized Web 3.0 provide a better path. In practice, that looks like supporting cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, and open-source web browsers like Brave. She also points to platforms building with OIP Streambed Media, a tamper-proof media index, or Al Bawaba, the Middle Easts and North Africas largest independent news platform, which is building integrations with OIP as good options to help encourage and build Web 3.0, which would not allow for centralized censorship.

There are censorship-free platforms available now like Gab and 4chan but the trade-off with these platforms is some audiences may not go to them because of their content. One person taking a stand alone has almost no effect, she said.

Gab and 8chan (4chans rowdier offspring) also face consistent threats to their ability to function, as domain name providers such as GoDaddy and payment processing companies such as PayPal and Stripe have previously booted Gab off their services. Such methods go beyond just a ban, and fundamentally affect such websites ability to continue.

These platforms are based on the commitment they wont censor you when they absolutely still could, based on their centralized nature.

Strossen envisions a market in which there are a number of viable alternatives with diverse content moderation standards to choose from. Ideally, this would result in maximally empowered end users to make their own informed choices. She points to Parler, which is branded as a free speech platform, as one recent example of where conservatives have flocked, but even its content moderation standards are as hopelessly vague and over broad as all the other platforms, she said.

Now, as Parlers user base has crossed one million, CEO John Matze is also grappling with the limits of speech.

As soon as the press started picking up, we had a ton of violations, Matze told Fortune. We had a queue of over 7,000 violations, and we only had three people to police the entire site.

The Santa Clara principles are another framework for moderation deductions. They were spearheaded by the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation and others, and laid out minimum requirements for companies disclosing information about moderation. This includes publishing the numbers of posts removed and accounts permanently or temporarily suspended, giving notice to each user whose content is taken down or account is suspended about the reason for the removal or suspension, and offering a meaningful opportunity for timely appeal of any content removal or account suspension.

Strossen said no one is going to be completely satisfied with any standards no matter how theyre phrased or enforced because of the subjectivity of the issues at hand.

One persons hate speech is someone elses cherished speech, one persons fake news is someone elses treasured truth and one persons extremist speech is someone elses freedom-fighting speech, said Strossen.

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

Read this article:

Social Media Bans 'Highlight the Profound Censorship on Web 2.0' - CoinDesk - CoinDesk

A look at some of the events over the past 30 days that have made history in Kentucky. Louisville Courier Journal

Famed Kentucky writer Wendell Berry has joined a lawsuit attempting to stop the University of Kentucky from removing a longtime controversial mural on campus depicting slavery.

The suit, filed electronically Monday,seeks to stop UK President Eli Capilouto from removing a 1934 fresco in Memorial Hall, arguing that the rare piece of art is publicly owned and exists to"promote education, the arts, and governmental purposes."

Removing the fresco, the lawsuit argues, can't be done safely.

"The completed OHanlon Mural is an actual part of the building itself," the lawsuit states. "The plaster is an inherent part of the lobby walls on which it is painted. The completed Mural leaves a brilliant, nearly indestructible glass-like surface.

"The fresco cannot be removed without removing the entire wall itself. Any attempt to remove the wall with the OHanlon Mural puts the physical integrity of this unique work of public art at risk of shattering and being destroyed."

Wendell Berry at home in 2006.(Photo: Courier Journal file photo)

The suit, which names the university and Capilouto, also calls for protection of the response mural named "Witness."

Along with the lawsuit, theNational Coalition Against Censorship wrote aletter to Capilouto on July 1, arguing that the removal of a controversial mural on campuswould invalidate the work of aBlack artist's response.

"This is the first instance we are aware of in which the removal of a mural by a white artist will have the simultaneous effect of silencing the work of a Black artist," the letter stated.

Background: A timeline of the controversies surrounding UK's Memorial Hall mural

UK spokesman Jay Blanton said in a statement that "Our respect for Wendell Berry is deep and abiding. His contributions to our state and literature are profound. Moving art, however, is not erasing history. It is, rather, creating context to further dialogue as well as space for healing."

Ann Rice OHanlon paintedthe original 1934 fresco for the Public Works of Art Project, part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal,in the foyer of Memorial Hall.

It depicts slavery in Americaand has long been the subject of campus protests and discussions between the student body andUK administration.

It is one of 42 frescoes amid the15,000 pieces of art commissioned under the Public Works of Art Project, according to the Berry complaint.

The mural inside Memorial Hall on the University of Kentucky campus.(Photo: Mark Cornelison | UK photo)

In 2018, UK commissionedPhiladelphia artist Karyn Olivierto create a new piece of art in Memorial Hall, called "Witness," which was meant to create a dialogue between the two.

"My piece could be consideredcorrective, but for me it's really about providing a space for discourse," Olivier said at the time. The National Coalition Against Censorship's concern is that if O'Hanlon's fresco is removed, Olivier's work will be for naught.

Last month, Capilouto announced he'd remove the mural amid national protests against systemic racism. In a letter to the campus community, he wrote that the university's prior solutions to the mural problem "for many of our students, have been a roadblock to reconciliation, rather than a path toward healing."

The frescowas previously covered in 2015 and later was unveiled with added information for context in 2017.

Neither of these moves stopped a 2019 overnight sit-in in UK's Main Building as students protested the mural and food insecurities among disadvantaged students.

Amid those protests, Olivier wrote an open letter to the campus community, introducing herself as "the black immigrant female gay artist" who took on the "problematic" mural.

Previously: Campus issues that led to UK protest were simmering for a while, students say

More coverage: UK adds artwork next to mural with racial images to deepen the dialogue

"When I first thought of what to do, my initial instinct was 'why not remove the black and brown figures from the mural, leaving only ghost-like shapes?'" she wrote. "However, erasing and (in effect) defacing a work of art is a less powerful gesture than confronting what is there."

More recently, the National Coalition Against Censorship letter to Capilouto includes support from Olivier: "The Universitys decision to remove the OHanlon mural also renders my workWitnessblind and mute," she is quoted as saying in the letter.

"It cannot exist without the past it sought to confront. And it is ironic that the decision to censor the original artwork has, in one fell swoop, censored my installation, too.

The Black Student Advisory Council, whose members have been outspoken against the O'Hanlon mural in the past, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Reach breaking news reporter Sarah Ladd at sladd@courier-journal.com. Follow her on Twitter at@ladd_sarah.Support strong local journalism by subscribing today: courier-journal.com/subscribe.

Read or Share this story: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/education/2020/07/06/wendell-berry-joins-lawsuit-keep-university-kentucky-racist-mural/5384495002/

Originally posted here:

Wendell Berry joins lawsuit to stop University of Kentucky from removing controversial mural - Courier Journal

A few weeks ago, I was shocked to learn that the US government had begun dismantling the Open Technology Fund (OTF), a major funder of open source tools like Signal, Tor, and Tails that allow internet users to circumvent censorship and protect themselves from online spying.

The organizations entire leadership team had been summarily fired by Michael Pack, an ally of Steve Bannon and the new Trump-approved CEO of the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM). The firings were just a small piece of a bigger reconfiguring of the organizations administered by USAGM, which include government-run media networks Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. But as someone who has watched OTF thrive for the past eight years as a member of its Advisory Council, this stood out as an attack against the organization that gave birth to some of our most important anti-censorship and privacy tools.

When I began studying online censorship in 2008, it was not a particularly well-known phenomenon in the United States. Elsewhere in the world, however, was a different story: In places like China, Tunisia, Syria, Vietnam, Iran, and Thailand, a heavily restricted Internet was the norm. Individuals in a number of countries were commonly prohibited from accessing information about human rights, foreign news publications, social media websites, religious content, and information about sexuality and sexual health.

In those days, it wasnt easy to circumvent web blocks. While organizations like Tor had long provided anonymous and uncensored access to the Internet, they did so on shoestring budgets. Basic web proxies were often free but worked poorly, while paid VPNs required a credit cardsomething out of reach for many web users worldwide. Back then it seemed like a divided, Balkanized web was our global shared future.

Then, in January 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech at The Newseum introducing Internet freedom as a core component of 21st century statecraft. Acknowledging information networks as a new nervous system for our planet, Clinton spoke to the need to synchronize our technological progress with our principles, and laid out a plan to fight online censorship, connect more people to global information networks, and find diplomatic solutions to strengthen cyber security.

That plan came with funding, first through the State Departments Department of Democracy, Rights, and Labor (DRL), and later joined by OTF, launched under Radio Free Asia and funded through USAGM (then called the Broadcasting Board of Governors).

That funding, as anyone in the Internet freedom community can attest, has altered the landscape of the Internet for millions upon millions of users around the world by providing support for technology that enables users to leap over firewalls and protect themselves from pervasive government surveillance. It has provided organizations in numerous countries where local funding is impossible and major foundations fail to reach with the necessary support to keep Internet users in their countries safe from harm and able to access important information.

Ill readily admit that I was, and remain, skeptical of the Internet freedom agenda. The State Department agenda seemed heavily focused on countries where the US sought regime changelike Iran, Syria, and China. And I wasnt the only one: Prominent Tunisian activist Sami Ben Gharbia criticized the agenda for its propensity to disincline the US from engaging in action that would endanger the stability of the dictatorial Arab order, while writer Evgeny Morozov challenged the very idea that the Internet could bring about freedom or change.

In those heady, early days it was not uncommon for untested and unvetted toolsat least one of which turned out to be utter snake oilto receive funding, invitations to State Department events, or even awards. In my circles, rumors of Beltway Bandits competing for lucrative Internet freedom contracts abounded.

But OTF, launched in 2012, sought to change all that by putting into place measures that ensured that any technology it funded was open source. Recognizing the mistrust that existed amongst much of the global Internet freedom community, OTF put together an expert advisory council (of which I was a founding member) to review applications for funding, and began to create a sense of community amongst OTF-funded projects through the creation of an annual summit that has, over time, grown to be a diverse, inclusive, and community-led event.

This is what sets OTF apart and, regrettably, what is most at stake if Michael Pack gets his way. Neither Packnor James Miles, his recent appointee to the position of the position of OTF CEOis an expert on Internet freedom, but some powerful players have his ear, among them the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice and the lobbyist Michael Horowitz, another Steve Bannon ally. Both have long worked to get the majority of funding for a particular set of tools backed by the anti-gay religious group Falun Gong that includes China-focused VPNs Ultrasurf and Freegate.

The Lantos Foundation would have you believe that it is that affiliation that has prevented their favored toolswhich include Ultrasurf and Freegatefrom receiving funding from OTF, claiming prejudice against this oppressed religious group. But the fact of the matter is that the people behind the tools have for many years refused to open up their code, and thereby verify the accuracy of their security claims. The battle is, therefore, between closed and open source technology.

Open source technology is critical in the internet freedom space, because it allows anyone to inspect the code and understand how a given program works, or whether its code contains any bugs or backdoors. If bugs are found, they can be reported to the developers, helping them to improve upon the technology.

OTF requires that the tools it funds make their code open and publicly available, allowing it to be used by other developers, who can learn from it or reuse parts of it to build new programs or create applications that run on top of existing ones. Closed source technology, on the other hand, withdraws that knowledge from the publicit is inherently proprietary, unavailable for audit by anyone but hired experts under a non-disclosure agreement.

For OTFs global community, this is a matter of trust and safety. I have attended most of OTFs annual summits and spoken to a number of the developers, researchers, and activists from all over the world. Many of them speak of persecution by the state, of targeted surveillance, and pervasive censorship. They trust open source technology because they understand that using it does not present yet another vulnerability in their lives, the way that an unvetted closed source tool could.

Open source can also be a matter of thrift: OTFs estimated annual budget is $15 millionhardly a dent in what myriad state actors spend each year to go after activists and dissidents. By using open source code, technologists can stretch that budget even farther, creating news tools that run alongside existing ones, or forking existing code for new purposes. It also ensures sustainability: If a projects founders move on, they leave their code behind, allowing another group to pick up the slack and continue the work.

OTFs opponents have failed time and time again to engage with any of these arguments, instead hammering on how their favored tools will ensure that more people can leap over Chinas Great Firewall. That is certainly a noble goal, but what concerns me is that it seems to be their only goal.

While Chinas censorship model is one of the most sophisticated, there is no publicly available instruction or guidance from the developers of tools such as Ultrasurf or Freegate on how users can continue to use this tool despite some enforcement of VPN restrictions in China, as well as VPNs repeatedly being removed from Chinas Apple store. Because these tools are closed source, no one can say whether theyre even safe for Chinese users. Yet, these problems are regularly discussed and new approaches piloted among other open source anti-censorship projects, so that they can learn from each others hard work.

As the space for online free speech continues to shrink, the developers of these tools have apparently done little to nothing to make their technology available to, say, activists in Uganda impacted by the countrys new social media tax. Using these tools, protesters in Hong Kong will be unable to access censored content or safely hide their online identity amid growing surveillance capabilities used to find protesters. Theres also no evidence that Lebanese human rights defenders could make use of these tools to organize safely.

The digital threats that face anyone whose right to existence is under attack are not isolated to one country. Civil society worldwide must work together to overcome well-coordinated, well-resourced digital adversaries, and must trust in the technology that holds their sensitive conversations and identities. This trust can only be earned through open source code.

It is for these reasons that nearly five hundred organizationsand more than a thousand individuals, many of whom are experts in the fieldhave signed a letter calling on Congress to require Internet freedom funds to be awarded through an open, fair, competitive, and evidence-based decision process; to remain fully open-source in perpetuity; to ensure that all technologies supported by government funds receive regular security audits; and to pass the Open Technology Fund Authorization Act.

It is difficult to say what exactly will be lost if Michael Pack is allowed to continue his tyrannical reign, but one thing is for certain: The Internet freedom agenda is going to look a lot more like the Trump agendadangerous and ineffective.

By signing up to the VICE newsletter you agree to receive electronic communications from VICE that may sometimes include advertisements or sponsored content.

Continue reading here:

The Trump Administration Is Attacking Critical Internet Privacy Tools - VICE

(Reuters) - Facebook Inc (FB.O) on Wednesday suspended a network of social media accounts it said were used to spread divisive political messages online by employees of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and two of his sons.

FILE PHOTO: Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro looks on after a meeting at the Ministry of Defense headquarters, amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, in Brasilia, Brazil, May 29 2020. REUTERS/Adriano Machado

The company said that despite efforts to disguise who was behind the activity, it had found links to the staff of two Brazilian lawmakers, as well as the president and his sons, Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro and Senator Flavio Bolsonaro.

Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebooks head of cybersecurity policy, said the accounts were removed for using fake personas and other types of coordinated inauthentic behaviour which violated the companys rules.

He said there was no evidence the politicians themselves had operated the accounts. What we can prove is that employees of those offices are engaged on our platforms in this type of behaviour, he told Reuters ahead of the announcement on the companys blog. (bit.ly/2Cf0dMA)

Facebook said it has also suspended three other networks on Wednesday, including one it attributed to Roger Stone, a longtime friend and adviser of U.S. President Donald Trump.

The Brazilian presidents office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Senator Flavio Bolsonaro said his fathers government was elected with strong popular backing and has thousands of supporters on social media.

As far as we know, they are all free and independent, he said in a statement. Based on Facebooks report, its impossible to evaluate what kind of profile was blocked and whether the platform crossed the line into censorship.

The allegations by Facebook add to a burgeoning political crisis in Brazil, where Bolsonaros sons and supporters have been accused of running a coordinated online campaign to smear the presidents opponents.

The accusations have spurred a congressional inquiry and a separate Supreme Court investigation into so-called fake news attacks on the countrys judiciary, which led to police raids in May on the homes and offices of Bolsonaro allies.

Bolsonaro, who is also under mounting criticism over his handling of the coronavirus outbreak, has said the courts investigation is unconstitutional and risks establishing censorship in Brazil by policing what people can say online.

Facebook has come under increasing pressure in recent weeks to better police how political groups use its platform. Hundreds of advertisers have joined a boycott aimed at forcing the company to block hate speech on its site, and multiple employees walked out last month over CEO Mark Zuckerbergs decision not to challenge inflammatory posts Trump.

Gleicher said his team had identified and suspended more than 80 accounts on Facebook and its photo-sharing site, Instagram, as part of the Brazilian network. The accounts had amassed 1.8 million followers, he said, and some dated back to 2018.

Researchers at the Atlantic Councils Digital Forensic Research Lab, who spent a week analysing the activity identified by Facebook, said they had found five current and former political staffers who registered and operated the accounts.

Some of those accounts posed as fake Brazilians and news outlets to spread hyper-partisan views supporting Bolsonaro and attacking his critics, said researcher Luiza Bandeira. Their targets included opposition lawmakers, former ministers and members of Brazils Supreme Court.

More recently, the accounts also amplified Bolsonaros claims that the risks of the coronavirus pandemic are exaggerated. The disease has killed more than 66,000 people in Brazil and Bolsonaro himself tested positive this week.

We have known for a long time that when people disagree with Bolsonaro they are targeted by this machine that uses online disinformation to mock and discredit them, said Bandeira.

So knowing now that part of these attacks are coming from people directly related to the Bolsonaro family, that explains a lot.

Reporting by Jack Stubbs in London and Joseph Menn in San Francisco; Additional reporting by Anthony Boadle in Brasilia; Editing by Lisa Shumaker

The rest is here:

Facebook suspends disinformation network tied to staff of Brazil's Bolsonaro - Reuters

Following the success among Filipino audiences of the Thai BL (Boys Love) series 2gether, numerous media outlets are starting to create Filipino BL series to please the newfound market. The list of upcoming series includes Darryl Yaps Sakristan, Petersen Vargass Hello, Stranger, Xion Lims #MyDay, and Ivan Andrew Payawal's Gameboys, among others.

I have seen efforts by film producers and writers to veer away from the parloristang bakla narrative, where gays are portrayed as comic relief just starving for the male species. However, when it comes to BL series, how gay characters are depicted there poses another challenge. They are presented as eye candy, with masculine features and fit bodies, charming male leads without a trace of body fat or effeminacy. This poses a problem, as young LGBT viewers could then view themselves as too ugly to be gay, or worse, believe that they do not deserve the same love because of their appearance. (READ: 'Tolerated, but not accepted': Filipino LGBTQ+ speak up vs discrimination)

***

I taught media and communication for a year at a Dominican-run Catholic institution before transferring to the blue Jesuit school. As a partial requirement, I instructed my students from the Dominican school to create a short film about a social or political issue. I stressed the importance of media representation, that it was better for them to create stories on the lives of the least represented.

In 2019, one of the student-made films, Hanggang Dulo, bagged awards in an intra-school student film competition. The film was not perfect. It had its flaws. But I said to my students that what mattered more was that they lent a voice to the least represented in the society. In the film, they shared how young LGBT members cope in relationships where one partner is born with HIV. (READ: What LGBT kids need to hear)

After winning Best Picture, I gave my students the go-signal to publish their film on YouTube. I was usually hesitant to let students post their films on the internet as I wanted to reduce digital footprints and not be held accountable for their works. However, their film was an exception, as I wanted more people not only to watch it, but also spread its message to end the stigma towards people living with HIV/AIDS, and to get tested. As of writing, the video garnered 750,000+ views and more than a thousand comments on YouTube. Not bad for a student-made film.

However, one of my colleagues remarked that the films submitted by my students were hindi pang-hayskul (not suited for high school students). She might have been echoing former MTRCB chair Marissa LaGuardia's classification of homsexuality as an abnormality of nature." She also pointed out how some of my students were even minors. She said that they might be too young to comprehend issues like same-sex relationships, rape, and even death as subjects of films. I understood her concern, because I was still bound to the rules and norms of a Catholic institution. However, I remained firm with my philosophy to be more liberal, while teaching my students to be ethical content producers, and not to be exploitative in their own writings.

***

Communication theorist George Gerbner argues that the more time people spend 'living' in the television world, the more likely they are to believe social reality aligns with reality portrayed on television. Although Gerbners cultivation theory is debunked by most theorists, as most audiences have shifted from getting information on TV to getting it on the internet, content producers of Pinoy BL series still have a responsibility to be more inclusive.

My cis female cousin who is a 'BrightWin,' or a fan of 2gether's main actors, asked me to recommend similar series, and I shared with her one of the Thai series I admired, Diary of Tootsie. My cousin watched a few episodes and was lukewarm towards it. She said that some characters from Diary of Tootsie were not as "visually pleasing" as 2gether's Bright Vachirawit or Win Metawin.

I hope that Pinoy BL series go beyond this hype, serving a greater purpose and injecting pressing social and political realities. Who knows? The next Pinoy BL series might feature a gay character who is plump (or in LGBT lingo, a chub) or an effem person with a disability. Rappler.com

Patrick Ernest C. Celso, 23, is a licensed professional teacher from Makati City. He teaches media and communication at Ateneo de Manila University. He is finishing his graduate degree in Creative Writing and obtained an English Education degree at the University of Santo Tomas.

Original post:

[OPINION] Pinoy BL, censorship, and problematic LGBTQ+ representation - Rappler

Congressional candidate Laura Loomer and non-profit Freedom Watchs lawyer Larry Klayman has submitted a petition for rehearing en banc which seeks a full court review of the dismissal of their Big Tech censorship lawsuit by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The lawsuit accuses Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter of working together to intentionally and willfully suppress politically conservative content, breaching the Sherman Act (an anti-monopoly law, breaching the District of Columbias public accommodation law (which prohibits discrimination in any place of public accommodation), and breaching the First Amendment.

It also argues that Loomer suffered severe financial injury as a result of being banned from these Big Tech platforms and that each and every one of these platforms had participated in a conspiracy to suppress Freedom Watchs content.

The court originally ruled that the District of Columbias accommodation law only applies to physical spaces within the District of Columbia and dismissed the claim.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

In May, Freedom Watch contested the courts interpretation of place of public accommodation and argued that the court should interpret this statute more broadly.

But a three-judge panel dismissed the lawsuit and found under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA) that a public accommodation must operate from a particular place.

The petition for rehearing en banc argues that the district court erred by dismissing the Sherman Act claims, the DCHRA claim, and the First Amendment claims.

It states that the numerous errors in the panels treatment of the DCHRA claims are:

An issue of exceptional importance, as people in modern society have increasingly, and almost entirely at this point, replaced the traditional physical public forum with the internet and social media. This rings particularly true given the current state of events, with COVID-19 severely hampering the ability of individuals to physically gather.

The petition for rehearing en banc argues that the court should adapt and evolve with the changing times and make the common sense ruling that the internet and social media qualifies as a place of public accommodation under the DCHRA and adds that the traditional place of public accommodation is a dying breed.

It also cites several court rulings where websites have qualified as a place of public accommodation, including a ruling by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in Del-Orden v. Bonobos, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209251 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2017) which found that a commercial website itself qualifies as a place of public accommodation.'

On the dismissal of the Sherman Act claims, the petition for rehearing en banc argues that Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter acted against their own economic self-interest in their concerted action to restrain trade and states that they are willing to lose revenue from conservative organizations and individuals like Freedom Watch and those similarly situated to further their leftist agenda and designs to effectively overthrow President Trump and his administration and have installed leftist government in this district and the 50 states.

And on the dismissal of the First Amendment claims, the petition for rehearing en banc argues that the panel failed to address the Supreme Courts recent decision in Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) where the US Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina statute that prohibited sex offenders from accessing social media websites and ruled that the statute violated the First Amendment.

The petition for rehearing also asks that Loomer and Freedom Watchs oral arguments and notes that this request was denied by the three-judge panel.

It concludes that now is an opportunity for the court to recognize and adapt to changing times to ensure that the law keeps up with the reality and adds:

This case is not just about Freedom Watch and Ms. Loomer, but all Americans who desire to exercise their rights of free speech, free from the illegal and anticompetitive practices of giant social media companies, who have restrained trade and who believe and act as if they are above the law.

After filing the petition for rehearing en banc, Loomer wrote:

My legal battle against the Silicon Valley Big Tech Tyrants is Americas battle, which is why my legal team and I are committed to taking this case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary!

Free speech is worth fighting for, at all costs!

Days before filing this petition for a rehearing, Loomer highlighted how influential Facebook has become in election contests and wrote that her ban from the platform means that shes not allowed to create an account for her political campaign and that Political Action Committees (PACs) are also prohibited from running ads that promote her campaign.

Additionally, because Facebook has branded Loomer dangerous, other users are prohibited from mentioning her or attempting to link to her content.

Meanwhile, Loomers opponent, Lois Frankel, has a Facebook page with thousands of followers, has the ability to run ads, and can have her content shared by other Facebook users.

Loomer noted that shes the only federal candidate in the nation banned from advertising on Facebook and accused Facebook of illegal election interference.

Excerpt from:

Laura Loomer and Freedom Watch request full court review of their Big Tech censorship lawsuit - Reclaim The Net

Writing about the protest movement in Hong Kong, I began to notice the absences everywhere I went. A moving patchwork of white, black and grey squares decorated walls and pavements, as more and more protest slogans were erased from the public gaze. Now, with Beijings enactment of national security legislation in Hong Kong, that void has suddenly gaped wider, swallowing words, ideas, open discussion, and even people from public view.

The legislation bans secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces. The first sight of it for Hongkongers was the moment that it came into effect on Tuesday at 11pm, ahead of the annual 1 July protest march, which itself had been declared illegal.

In one fell swoop, the new law pushed through many of the changes most feared by Hongkongers, by giving mainland legal bodies jurisdiction over some cases inside the territory, allowing the mainland security services to establish offices in the territory, permitting rendition to China and implementing national security education in local schools.

By Thursday night, the government had announced that the most popular protest slogan an eight-character Chinese phrase translating as Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of our Times violates the legislation as it connotes Hong Kong independence. This phrase has been chanted at every march by almost every attendee. Since that moment, those Chinese characters began disappearing from social media, replaced by initials (GFHG, SDGM), numbers that serve as Cantonese homophones (3639 0242), symbols or geometric representations of the characters. One protest consisted of eight people standing in the street in two groups of four, each holding up a blank piece of paper. In just a few days, those words have already become unspeakable.

By Saturday, Hong Kongs justice secretary, Teresa Cheng, was warning people not to test the national security law by using the slogan. The previous day a 24-year-old man had been charged with inciting secession because his motorbike was adorned with a flag bearing the motto. He was also accused of terrorist acts for driving his bike into a group of policemen.

There are no sources of authority to provide guidance. There are only warnings

Overnight Hong Kongs reality has become Kafkaesque, even Pythonesque, were it not for the real risk of breaking a law that could carry a sentence of life imprisonment. Even the act of alerting Hongkongers to newly illegal acts has become fraught. The government broadcaster, RTHK, used asterisks in its tweets (variously L******* Hong Kong! and Liberate H*** K***!), while the founder of Hong Kong Free Press, Tom Grundy, said he expected legal and bureaucratic terrorism designed to drain the websites resources.

The surrealism was heightened by the police detention of an overjoyed soccer fan suspected of inciting independence after shouting Long live Liverpool! to celebrate the teams Premier League win. He was later released. Among 370 people arrested on 1 July, at least 10 were detained for violating the new legislation, including three women for possessing offensive materials. Among these, it emerged from police photos, was a sticker emblazoned with the word Conscience causing one netizen to comment that in a country without conscience such a sticker surely amounts to secession. The lack of clarity surrounding the offences, combined with such arbitrary application, has left the population dazed. Libraries have already begun pulling books by certain pro-democracy figures from the shelves for review, signalling a looming assault on freedom of information.

In the decade I spent reporting from China, I found that the laws were often less black and white than Id imagined. In covering sensitive stories, we navigated the ambiguity of the shifting grey zone, guided by interviewees who had often spent decades skating on that political thin ice. This is not possible in Hong Kong, where a gigantic black zone has been imposed overnight on what had been a relatively free society. There is no precedent to draw upon, no experts to consult. The fact that no Hong Kong officials not even the chief executive, Carrie Lam had seen the legislation prior to its imposition means there are no sources of authority to provide guidance. There are only warnings.

This law is global in scope, applying to non-residents outside Hong Kong

Fear is the key to its implementation. That fear is real and its working. In the run-up to the laws enactment, some prominent political groups shut down voluntarily. Nathan Law, the territorys youngest lawmaker, who was elected in 2016 and then disqualified on a technicality, announced that he had left Hong Kong.

The national security law compels internet security providers to comply with the authorities requests for information. Now people I know are erasing themselves from view. Facebook pages and Twitter accounts are disappearing, and my phone, which once buzzed incessantly from notifications from Telegram groups, has fallen silent. Friends are asking to move our communications to more secure platforms. Some are even pleading with their contacts to delete all their WhatsApp conversations.

In this digital era when so much of our identity is online, removing your own archive is not just self-censorship, its an act of self-effacement. But many Hongkongers now fear they have no choice but to cancel themselves as an act of survival. This law is global in scope, applying to non-residents outside Hong Kong. This means that any discussion of Hong Kong politics in classrooms, newspapers or parliaments around the world now involves a corollary discussion of risk, particularly if any participants are inside or from Hong Kong.

I wrote a book about the steps taken by Chinas Communist party to erase the collective memory of the Tiananmen Square killings of 4 June 1989, and its success in muting discussion of the anniversary inside China. I never imagined that the party would try to control public discourse inside freewheeling, vibrant Hong Kong. The extraterritorial nature of this legislation poses an assault on language and freedom of speech that is global in nature. To ignore it risks entrenching those absences worldwide.

Louisa Lim is the author of The Peoples Republic of Amnesia: Tiananmen Revisited and a senior lecturer at the University of Melbourne

See the rest here:

Hongkongers face a Kafkaesque reality as censors outlaw the words of protest - The Guardian