In its 23 years of service, Netflix has removed only nine pieces of content due to government censorship.

In a new report titledEnvironmental Social Governance, the streaming giant revealed that over the years it has received takedown requests from the governments of New Zealand, Vietnam, Germany, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia. The first ever takedown notice came from New Zealand in 2015, but Singapore is by far the most active.

[Read: How to opt out of Netflixs autoplay previews]

Here are the nine titles Netflix removed over the years:

For what its worth, Netflix aims to make as much content as possible available on its platform, but it says itll ultimately comply with removal notices if a country has forbidden the distribution of certain titles.

This is the first time Netflix has revealed the list of titles that have been removed following government pressure, but the company intends to continue disclosing such information in the future. Beginning next year, we will report these takedowns annually, the company writes in the report.

via Axios

Read next: Every c-suite leader needs to be a Chief Empathy Officer

See the original post:

Here are the 9 titles Netflix purged due to government censorship - The Next Web

Social media company Parler has slammed Twitters decision to suspend Project Veritas founder James OKeefe, saying that the move amounts to political censorship and election interference.

Twitter suspendedOKeefes account last month shortly after Project Veritas released undercover footage showing Bernie Sanders staffers praising Stalins gulags and promising that cities will burn if President Donald Trump is re-elected.

Parler CEO John Matze said in a statement to Breitbart News that Twitters decision represents an attack on investigative journalism.

Investigative journalism requires information to be released that would not normally make it to the public eye. This is a form of transparency. By going out of your way to stonewall transparency you are killing real journalism and when you only do it to protect politicians with your favored ideology, it looks biased and it is political censorship. This is election interference, he said.

Additionally I would like to stress that people need to make a stand against social publications and join Parler because this election interference by Twitter is going to get much worse before it gets better and Parler is the only answer.

Parler launched in 2018 as a competitor to Twitter and has attracted conservatives concerned about censorship from Silicon Valley giants.

Twitter has claimed that it lockedOKeefes account because of privacy violations after OKeefe posted a publicly available FEC paystub of the Sanders staffer who praised violence and gulags.

OKeefe told Breitbart News earlier this month that the information we published was a screenshot from a U.S Government website, certainly not private. But even if it was private, the information did meet the threshold of overriding public interest.

See the rest here:

Parler: Twitter Suspending James OKeefe Is Political Censorship and Election Interference - Breitbart

The coronavirus is the greatest crisis to have faced President Xi Jinping since he took power in 2012.

Since the outbreak began in the central city of Wuhan last December, it has killed 565 people and infected more than 28,200. All but two of the deaths were in mainland China. It has forced the government to lock down cities with a population exceeding 60 million and is likely to cut GDP growth this year by at least 0.5 percentage points.

Who is responsible for this catastrophe? Beijing cannot blame it on the United States and the hostile foreign forces it holds responsible for eight months of protest in Hong Kong and helping Tsai Ying-wen to win a second presidential term in Taiwan. No the guilty parties are within China.A bitter war is being waged on the Chinese internet over this issue.

Many believe the government is guilty of a cover-up after the first patient in Wuhan experienced the symptoms of the disease on December 1. On the social platform Douban, many people have written reviews of the television series Chernobyl, about the Soviet nuclear disaster in April 1986. The Soviet government delayed news of the catastrophe and did not report faithfully what had happened. In any era, any country, its the same. Cover everything up, wrote one blogger. That is socialism.

On December 30, Li Wenliang (pictured), a Wuhan doctor, informed fellow doctors in an online chat group that seven patients from a local seafood market had been diagnosed with a SARS-like illness and were quarantined in his hospital. Contaminated animals in the market are the most likely source of the virus.

Li and seven other doctors were visited by city police; they accused them of rumour-mongering and warned them not to discuss the disease in public. Li himself was tested positive for the virus on February 1 and died in the early hours of February 7.

His death caused an outpouring of grief and anger on social media. Wuhan government owes Dr Li Wenliang an apology, said one. We want freedom of speech, said another. Tens of thousands read the comments before the censors deleted them.

If any of us here is fortunate enough to speak up for the public in the future, please make sure you remember tonights anger, said another comment.

Lis death is the most tragic result of a cover-up. On January 2, hospitals in Wuhan accepted 27 patients who had direct exposure to the seafood market. By January 18, the number of infected patients in Wuhan had risen to 62; that day the city government arranged a public banquet with 40,000 families making and sharing food. By then doctors had told the city government that the virus could be spread from human to human.

But it was only on January 22 that the city was quarantined and severe measures put in place. In the weeks before, five million people had left Wuhan to travel all over China and around the world. It is they who have carried the disease across the globe.

Chinese are asking why it took seven weeks from the first case to the public announcement and imposition of drastic measures. The answer is Chinas highly centralised reporting system. The Wuhan government is likely to have reported details of the disease to Beijing; but it could not announce anything or take strong measures without approval.

Was it only Xi himself who could make such a major decision? Did the Prime Minister and Minister of Health have to wait for him?

Many of the bloggers direct their anger at Wuhan Mayor Zhou Xianwang and Hubei governor Wang Xiaodong. During an interview that Zhou gave to state television, one commentor wrote in a live stream: Stop talking. We just want to know when you will resign.

To avoid the censors, bloggers must be ingenious. Some refer to Xi Jinping as Trump. Others describe the police and police stations with characters that are incorrect but have the same sound as the correct ones. This works because most of the censoring is done by computers, which cannot detect wordplay.

In the early days of the crisis, control of the Internet was eased, allowing criticism of the local government. Then this week President Xi said that the government needed to step up propaganda and strengthen online media control to maintain social stability. Many WeChat accounts have been shut down. State news media runs positive stories about how China is defeating the virus and about health workers in the front line.

This epidemic is devastating and figures at the very top of government are implicated in the appalling response. The Chernobyl catastrophe was so horrific that it helped to speed the collapse of the Soviet Union. The question now is what the consequences will be for the Chinese government of this terrible, growing crisis that it has handled so incompetently.

Follow this link:

Censorship, lies and death: China's government under fire - TheArticle

On February 3, the National Institute of Design in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, unexpectedly cancelled its convocation ceremony that was scheduled to be held on February 7.

This sparked speculation that the institute had cancelled the ceremony under pressure from the Modi government because it had invited dancer and performer Mallika Sarabhai as the chief guest. Sarabhai has remained a vociferous critic of Prime Minister Narendra Modi since his tenure as chief minister of Gujarat.

In an interview with Scroll.in, Sarabhai said the institute did not offer any explanation for the cancellation. She said she knew how much pressure institutes were under. But she saw a silver lining in the ongoing protests against the Citizenship Act in India: Suddenly, hundreds and thousands of people otherwise silent who never thought of themselves as activists, who never thought of themselves as defenders of the nation are out there. That is a huge silver lining.

The 65-year-old dancer continues to run Darpana Academy of Performing Arts in Ahmedabad that was set up in 1949 by her parents Mrinalini Sarabhai, a classical dancer and Vikram Sarabhai, a scientist who initiated space research in India.

Excerpts from the interview:

How long ago did NID invite you as their guest and when did they inform you that the event was cancelled?They invited me three or four months ago. On Monday [February 3], I got the same letter as everyone else [informing them that the convocation was cancelled].

Did the institute give an explanation as to why the event was cancelled?No.

How do you view the institutes decision on cancelling the convocation because of unforeseen circumstances?I know how much pressure institutions are under. It is on the board to take a decision on whether they want to give in to that pressure or not. We also know what happens to people who do not give into pressure. I might have taken a different decision had I been the chairI dont know.

It is also not an individual thing, right? There are so many things that one needs toI am not condoning or approving, I am just saying that it is a difficult time.

What had you planned to speak about in your address to students at the convocation?I am actually contemplating making public what I was going to say in the next few hours. I was going to talk about how the world has gone wrong because human beings think we are the centre of the universe, and the universe and everything on it is for our good and for our greed. That has got us to the state we are in where the world is falling apart and animal species are being destroyed and languages are being destroyed and diversity is disappearing.

If there is one thing that is the soul of India, it is our diversityit is our culture that means 900 languages, 3,000 ways of weaving, 500 ways of placing embroidery, colours, the fact that dal is not the same from one village to the nextthat is the only thing that makes us unique.

I think we have gone wrong when we are trying to catch up with what we think are our superiors because we have an inferiority complex. For instance, if you look at traditional building technologies, every school is teaching how to build with cement and concrete when we know that cement and concrete uses so much water in the making of it and then falls apart in two to three years. And if you go into traditional building then you have forts that lasted 500 years.

Why is it that when we have answers to the kind of crisis we are in just now, why is it that we are still copying people we think are our superiors. And this kind of muscular patriarchy and capitalism is what is wrong. I want students to be actually able to change their worldview from this lackey of the West to what we should really celebrate is where we can lead the world.

The terms have to be ours because we have things that should be shared with the world. We have the recycling culture and tradition that the world needs to follow and not that we need to follow the world. And that the diminishing of difference into only one thing that is right is killing the very essence of India.

Are you aware of the mock convocation that NID students held?Yes, absolutely. I wish they called me. I would have loved to have gone...that is the spirit.

How far back does your familys association with the institute go?It goes back to its birth, to its very idea. My aunt and uncle Gira and Gautam Sarabhai were the ones who brought in [American designers] Charles and Ray Eames and founded it.

I have worked on and off with NID. We have had a lot of students coming and working at Darpana, studying dance, studying mudras, doing projects. I have been on their governing council.

You have been an active voice of dissent in the protests against the amended Citizenship Act and proposed nationwide National Register of Citizens in Gujarat. How do you view the current political situation regarding the ongoing protests?For the first time in many years, I feel such a glimmer of hope that the young people are really taking on what is of absolute essential value to India, which is non-violent protest. More and more people are coming into this without a single leaderthe women that have come out of it. For me, working in womens empowerment, I think that this is amazing and thank god for breaking the silence and finally finding your own speech and your voices and the sisterhood.

Our Constitution and our flag have become genuine symbols of our good rather than something that you stand up and salute every few months.

What role do you think women have played during these protests?Very primary. They are at the absolute centre. It is something that we are seeing for the first time. I have heard that during the freedom struggle there were a lot of women involved but I do not think women were leading it.

But certainly, in all my years of activism, I have never seen women as the force of the protestsThe sisterhood that has come out is breaking through [the lines of] caste, community and religion, and their men who keep them at home.

At the Jaipur Literature Festival, protestors were detained by police. At the India Art Fair, a Shaheen Bagh-inspired exhibition was disrupted. How do you view such incidents as a performer and dancer?When I first did Sitas Daughters in 1990, I told Sitas story from her perspective, I had right-wing Hindus trying to burn the theatre down in Pune. That was 1990. Two years ago, Professor [Shivaji] Panikkar at MS University [Maharaja Sayajirao University in Baroda] had to resign and leave the city because of [something like] this.

How do you think cultural spaces have been affected by this?I think that while censorship is on at its fullest and most brutal, the fact that every kind of artist is using the art, poetry, painting, cartooning, songs is amazing. That is the true role of culture.

The bigger the festival, the more they feel scared. It is done to frighten people into silence into not protesting. What is a literature festival if literature is not dissent and debate?

Some observers say that these are the biggest protests since the Emergency in the 1970s...This is the first time. Nirbhaya was one sort of thing, the anti-corruption [movement] was one sort, but this is about the soul of India.

This is about who we are. It is otherwise a very distant concept for those people looking at their rozi roti everyday but suddenly it is not a distant concept.

Suddenly, the Constitution is what makes us us. And suddenly, hundreds and thousands of people otherwise silent who never thought of themselves as activists, who never thought of themselves as defenders of the nation are out there. That is a huge silver lining. And I think it will turn into a silver cloud, not just a lining.

What are you currently working on?I have just done a major tour a few months ago of a new piece that my colleague Yadavan Chandran and I created with a Pakistani British singer Samia Malik and the show is called Colours of Her Heart. It was looking at five individual personal stories of the five performers to try and build a post #MeToo dialogue between men and women, men and men and women and women. And it had tremendous success.

We did 10 cities in America and people from the audience would come and hold our hands and say that they had never spoken about this. There were men who came and said thank you for giving us the opportunity and we have felt so frustrated, so frightened and so guilty because no one gives us a chance to say that there are men who are different, who would like to defend you, and there are men who think that what we are doing is wrong, there are men who think that entitlement is all-pervasive and needs to be changed.

We have finished the building of our theatre which was necessitated by the Riverfront Sabarmati project cutting off our state from the rest of us, a process that took three and a half years. We have created a very beautiful gallery that we have dedicated to my mother and because we were trying to get the theatre up and running we have not had time to do what we wanted to do which is for the first three months create an exhibition celebrating her many facets people do not know at all. That is one thing I am very actively working on.

For years, people have been telling me to write a book about the experiments I have done with health, food, nutrition and exercise because I am constantly asked how I look the way I do. So I am writing. I have never worked on a book before.

See the article here:

A glimmer of hope: Mallika Sarabhai on the cancelled NID event, CAA protests, censorship and more - Scroll.in

Anyone who has ever published or has sought to publish something has had the experience of being at the mercy of an editor. Essentially, it is the editors responsibility to make certain that there are given structural consistencies. The material must be grammatically correct, punctually right, and substantially consistent with the publishing organizations stated mission. This is the editors job!

With it all, it is a necessity that there be a collaborationbetween the author and the editor.Editors destroy the art of the author if they become blinded by thelenses of their individual political, moral, or emotional biases. If they are, then they become no differentthan some banana republic tyrant. Andbelieve me, some editors are plainly and simply tyrants!

In this instance, Thomas Carlyle observed, Great is journalism. Is not every able editor a ruler of the world,being the persuader of it? (1837).Indeed, a ruler of the world, and clearly such a ruler would beconcerned with the preservation of the status quo refracted through thefocus of her/his perceptive. That editorialprocess is blatant censorship!

Adding to this process, H.G. Wells stated, No passion in the world is equal to the passionto alter someone elses draft. Theoperative word is alter, and in this instance, it implies that an editorhas a predisposed position which the editor seeks to proffer, regardless of thequality of the authors work. Again,this is censorship.

As a case in point let us suppose an author holdsposition x and the editor holds position y.We can assume that x and y are diametrically opposed. Just how the editor exercises editorialprocesses will reveal the intent of the editor.The question remains: what is the editors position? Bend the authorsx to look more like the editors y?Or to present the authors x as it stands?

Essentially, what IS the editors responsibility? And that is just the question every editor must self-impose and exercise. When it comes to novels and even some poetry, it is fair that the editor suggests amendments which further refine what the author seems to intend more so with novels than with poetry. But when an editor wields a form of judgment framed by the personal views of the editor, then such a process falls monumentally short of true editorial commission.

In an allegorical observation, Elbert Hubbard in 1847 declared, Aneditoris someone who separates the wheat from the chaff and then prints the chaff. In 1964, Adlai Stevenson re-quoted this same observation. It holds weighty implications when closely examined and harkens to Matthew 13:24-30, which deals with the wheat being separated from the chaff. In my perspective, this is the best analogy for an editor to face up to editorial responsibility.

Having published articles, poems, and a textbook, in every instance my work was at the mercy of an editors view. Some were good, some bad, but all of them held the sword which could have eviscerated my entire submitted piece. There are expectations an author has from the work of an editor. Even with all the structural functions an editor must exercise, in the final analysis, an editor must be objective! Of all the duties an editor must exhibit, objectivity must be at the forefront! If that is not the case, then editorship becomes censorship.

Go here to read the rest:

Penny Thoughts: Editing and Censorship | - West Alabama Watchman

Feb 1st 2020

MOSCOW

ANASTASIA PATLAY thought something was amiss when she checked the young mans ID. He seemed a couple of years below the strict 18+ requirement for this performance of Out of the Closet, a play adapted from interviews with gay men and their families. That restriction was not the choice of Ms Patlay, the director, but a demand of Russian federal law, which since 2013 has banned the promotion of non-traditional sexual relationships to minors. A photocopy of his passport, which Ms Patlay snapped on her phone, suggested he had recently turned 19. Perhaps she was being paranoid, but Teatr.doc, which specialises in verbatim dramas assembled from real-life documents and transcriptsand has long been described as Russias most controversial theatre companyhad already had enough trouble from the authorities.

Her hunch was vindicated; the spectator was a plant sent by a far-right group. Shortly after the show began, he and his friend walked out to rendezvous with a dozen more agitators. Together they accused the theatre staff of illegally exposing children to gay propaganda. (The passport had been doctored; in reality, the youngster was 15.) Then they invaded the auditorium, stopping the play and shouting homophobic slurs. Police were called and a fight broke out; Teatr.doc complained about the invasion, the saboteurs that a minor had been admitted.

No charges were brought, but that sting last August turned out to be the start of a protracted ordeal for the Moscow-based company at the hands of ultraconservatives. Despite all the official pressure that Teatr.doc had suffered, this campaign was (and is) a new and different problem. It encapsulates the dual challenge of artistic censorship in Russiawhich, as Vladimir Putins rule has progressed, has come to be enforced by freelance outfits as well as the state, and as much for supposedly moral reasons as over political dissent.

Teatr.doc was founded in 2002 by Elena Gremina and Mikhail Ugarov, husband-and-wife playwrights who were inspired by verbatim drama workshops in Russia led by the Royal Court theatre of London. Its shows elicited strong responses from the start, not only because of the contentsubjects included homelessness, immigration and HIVbut also their style and everyday language. Productions that drew particular ire (and acclaim) included September.doc, in which actors read comments made in internet chat rooms following the Beslan school siege of 2004, and One Hour Eighteen Minutes, a reference to the time doctors were denied access to Sergei Magnitsky, a whistle-blowing lawyer, before he died in police custody. They went after things that ail the society, says John Freedman, a critic and translator of Russian drama, and they did it in a way that was quite direct.

Despite its quality, Teatr.doc only ever played in small venues. It has been obliged to find a new one three times in the past six years after leases were terminated, supposedly because of noise and safety complaints. Bomb scares have been reported at several performances, shutting them down, but no explosives have been found. Instead, police have exploited the scares to check audience members documents.

It might seem odd for the authorities to expend so much effort on niggling an experimental troupe. But as well as being a salutary demonstration of power, such treatment nudges the Kremlins opponents to rally round artists who can be caricatured as libertine extremists. Some alternative targetspop stars, sayhave higher profiles, but also followings too big to alienate. Teatr.doc is not the only cutting-edge company to have faced official harassment. Kirill Serebrennikov, director of the Gogol Centre theatre in Moscow, spent almost 20 months under house arrest as part of an ongoing embezzlement case.

In 2018 both of Teatr.docs founders died, leaving the company to be run by Ms Greminas son, Alexander Rodionov; many wondered if it would carry on. It did, but the intimidation continuedonly in a new form. A month after the sting on Out of the Closet, protesters threw foul-smelling chemicals through the window during a performance of War is Close, a play about the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Again, no charges were brought. Instead, at the end of last year authorities launched an investigation of Teatr.doc following a complaint from an activist group called the National-Conservative Movement. It accused the theatre of disseminating LGBT propaganda, justifying terrorism in War is Close, and promoting drug use in another production. Staff were questioned; the theatre handed over the scripts of the plays for review.

Last month police said they would not bring criminal charges, in what Ms Patlay called a victory for common sense. But her adversaries have not gone away.

In this parallel censorship drive, far-right agitators have taken aim at several other shows and exhibitions. Side by Side, an LGBT film festival, has been picketed, as have art shows with religious themes. In 2015 the director of a Siberian opera house was forced out after his staging of Wagners Tannhuser was deemed sacrilegious by Orthodox Christians. Such independent provocateurs are scarier than the authorities, says Ms Patlay, because they are unpredictable and they are new. She thinks they have been emboldened by the increasingly reactionary rhetoric of Russias politicians. And they appear to operate with the states tacit consent. The lack of punishment for them and the inaction from policeit sends a signal that we are not defended.

On the contrary, says Valentina Bobrova, the National-Conservative Movements founder. Outfits like hers may further the Kremlins bid to stoke a culture war between conservatives and those it portrays as radicals, but she insists the movement is privately funded and has no links with the authorities. She says she never had much hope that her complaint would close the companyand that it is not the likes of her but liberal voices that hold too much sway in modern Russia. Teatr.doc is an enemy of our country that is working from within, she says. We cannot stay quiet and we decided to act. She was behind the disruption of Out of the Closet, too. Her members are looking out for other signs of anti-Russian activity.

Ms Patlay worries about the effect of all this on the audience, who might conclude that you have to be particularly brave to go to the theatre. And we dont have the right to ask spectators to be brave. As to whether Teatr.doc has managed to change Russian society, she is illusionless. I dont think the percentage of decent people has increased, she accepts. But those people who are still here, who havent emigrated, perhaps it is a support of some kind. At the very least, she says, the company has shown it is possible to talk openly about things that others would rather hush up.

This article appeared in the Books and arts section of the print edition under the headline "The many ways to censor cutting-edge art in Russia"

Original post:

The many ways to censor cutting-edge art in Russia - The Economist

From time to time we hear that a totalitarian government has locked down Internet access for a part or all of their country. Normally, that is about all we hear about the situation. In the case of India, not normally thought of as a Totalitarian government, we have a unique opportunity to look at what they are censoring as they began to relax the total lockout of Internet services that was put into place in Jammu and Kashmir.

The lift of total censorship began on January 14th, when Internet Service Providers were ordered to install firewalls that would only allow access to 153 government-approved websites. As was pointed out by The Wire, No Mainstream News in List of 153 Whitelisted Websites Under Kashmirs First Govt Firewall. TheWire.in noted that Conspicuously absent from the list that includes Gmail, Netflix, Zomato, Oyo Rooms and Paytm are news and social media websites.

The order from the Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Department to the ISPs stated that the Internet shutdown was because there have been number of reports of the use of internet in cross border terrorism/terror activities, incitement, rumour-mongering, etc. as also misuse of pre-paid mobile connections by anti-national elements.

I would invite others to make relevant observations in the comments sections, or in your own publications linking back to this page. The list is intended to be a faithful representation of the new order, which can be found on the JK Home Office website as Home-05(TSTS) of 2020.

While the order has been commonly described as containing 300 URLs, there are a handful of duplicates, where a URL was included both with a trailing slash and without the slash. It should also be noted that there are a very large number of websites included by Top Level Domain, due to the inclusion of the TLDs: Ac.in (most academic institutions in India will be included here), Gov.in (most government offices and services in India will be included here), and Nic.in (most network infrastructure services from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology is included here.)

It is curious how it was decided which websites to include and not to include. For example, why include Adidas and Reebok, but not Nike? Im sure the programmers are thrilled to see that Github and StackOverflow are included! What other observations strike you as interesting? Please comment or Tweet about them!

*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from CyberCrime & Doing Time authored by Gary Warner, UAB. Read the original post at: http://garwarner.blogspot.com/2020/01/how-does-government-censor-internet.html

Continued here:

How does a government censor the Internet? A rare peek from Jammu and Kashmir - Security Boulevard

The State Department has withdrawn an NPR correspondent's press corps attendance as a form of ... [+] retaliation.

The U.S. Department of State has blocked NPRs diplomatic correspondent, Michelle Kelemen, from covering Secretary of State Mike Pompeos trip to Europe and Central Asia, including Ukraine. This follows Pompeos reportedly cursing and yelling at NPR correspondent Mary Louise Kelly after she questioned him about Ukraine and his treatment towards former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

NPR has asked the State Department for its reasoning behind blocking press credentials to Kelemen. As of 3:27 pm on January 24th, 2020, Kelemen had been scheduled to attend and had received information from the State Department about hotels for the trip. Kellys interview with Pompeo was aired on NPR that day at 5:06 pm. On January 25, 2020, Pompeo released an official statement criticizing Kelly, including wording that she was shameful, and that she had lied to him. On January 26, 2020, Kelemen was informed that she was no longer welcome on the trip.

President Trump publicly stated support of Pompeos treatment of Kelly during a press conference. He said, That was very impressive. That reporter couldnt have done too good a job on you yesterday. I think you did a good job on her, actually.

Why should all of this be very concerning to you, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum? It is a blatant show of vengeance towards the press behavior which should be beneath the State Department. In addition, this censorship has been condoned by the White House. When the free press is blocked from participating in official government activity, it is a slippery slope towards full censorship of any journalist that criticizes the federal government.

This is by far not the first time that Trumps administration has engaged in retaliatory behavior towards a reporter and his or her media organization. In November 2018, the White House suspended the press pass of CNN reporter Jim Acosta. This was not a one-time block; his hard pass was revoked, which meant he was not even allowed on the White House grounds. He was not informed about his pass being revoked until he arrived at the White House one hour prior to filming a segment.

In May 2019, the Columbia Journalism Review reported that the White House had revoked the press passes of a significant chunk of the Washington press corps because they didnt meet a new standard. This new standard required that journalists had to be in the White House for at least 90 days out of a period of 180 days. This is an impossibly high standard to reach, created by design. All seven of The Washington Post White House correspondents didnt qualify for a pass under this new rule. The White House then decided who qualified for an exception to this rule. Dana Milbank, a journalist for The Washington Post who held a White House press pass for 21 years, received an email that his press pass had been revoked. He was also denied an exception.

No one should be surprised by this censorship from the White House. In November 2018, President Trump threatened to revoke press passes of other reporters. He singled out journalist April Ryan of American Urban Networks, saying, Shes very nasty, and she shouldnt be. Ryan tweeted in response, I love this country and have the most respect for the Office of the President. I will continue to ask the questions that affect America, all of America. Ryan was named Journalist of the Year by the National Association of Black Journalists, and has covered the White House since 1997.

We need to be mindful of the impact that press censorship by the White House and State Department has on some of the publics perception of the free press. After an article regarding Kellys interview of Pompeo, this contributor received an email stating, The press and their water carriers are scum. No 1st Amendment rights will be harmed if the press is destroyed... When the President of the United States endorses censorship of the press that questions him, refers to legitimate news organizations and reporters as fake news, supports the State Departments censorship of a reporter with no just cause, and tweets a GIF of himself beating someone with a superimposed CNN logo on his head with the hashtag #FraudNewsCNN, our response should be one of alarm. When members of the free press are not allowed to report freely, every citizens right to express an opinion is at stake.

Continued here:

Pompeo And Trump: Censure Of The Press As A Form Of Retaliation - Forbes

Zindagi Tamasha has become controversial despite the fact that the film has not yet been released, and except the censor board, no one has seen it in full. However, its trailer has brewed a storm and calls have been made to ban the film.

Sarmad Khoosat, one of our most creative directors, has been running from pillar-to-post to make sense of his films treatment. He has even written to the prime minister, to explain the reality of the situation. Obviously, there was no satisfactory response which only added to his fears; that his effort and time will have been wasted, as the film would not be screened publically, according to schedule.

This is yet another example of shrinking space and the narrowing of avenues where and through which ideas can be expressed, aired and then become subjects of debate. There is a vast difference between a debate and a controversy; a debate is an invitation to join in stretching the canvas upon which ideas can be explored; while controversy is the first step towards inciting violence. It is a death knell to the freedoms that we cherish so much in contemporary times.

Really, this is the issue. Decisions are being made in areas where they are not supposed to be made. The forum which determines the acceptability of a film for public display, is the censor board. Due to the devolution of powers to provinces, there is one small and ineffective board at the centre, while each province has its own.

As the central board and two provincial boards had cleared the film for public viewing, far-right parties such as the Tehrik-i-Labbaik Pakistan, took the matter to the streets and alleged that the film contained blasphemous material. The threat of mob violence and country-wide protests was given. Voices are raised for the film to be banned and not screened; in fear of a violent backlash. The only threat that matters in Pakistan, is of mob violence and resultantly the prevalence of mob justice. Unfortunately, this is becoming the new-normal that no-one can deny; institutions are made ineffective, as they are not allowed to function, under threat of mob rule. Decisions taken by relevant forums too, are under the ominous shadow of street power at times.

Khoosat is a highly creative person, who deserves credit for standing up for his work and what he wants to achieve, let us all stand by his side. Such censorial steps will deter other filmmakers who may not be made from material as resilient as Khoosat.

It is making the current system ineffective, powerless and emasculating the civil structure, so that it either fails to make decisions, or does so under duress. For a number of decades, our society has been characterised by fear ruling us, rather than reason or logic.

After bright spots of hope, the same pall of darkness spreads, with greater intensity and desire to kill all freedoms, especially the freedom to hold and express ones opinion fearlessly. Such hope is perceived as a dangerous sign, which is reason enough to snuff it out by demonising it either in the name of religion, patriotism or corruption.

It appears now that the matter is being referred to the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII). May I ask; what is the film about religion or human beings? The proper study of mankind is man; all art is about human beings because it revolves round us. Has the CII taken over or is seen as a substitution for the Censor Board? Is the next step the knocking at the doors of the Organisation of Islamic operation, for the fear of it being detrimental to the common image of the Ummah? This may as well be invoked

Initially, technical objections were raised; that the censor board was not in full attendance when the film was approved, hence it was not certified by all members. However, this is how it is supposed to be, as it is the quorum that is supposed to rule and not all members. It was only that rules and regulations were being followed and no violation or bulldozing of the general opinion took place.

There is a negative and general tendency, where if the final outcome is not favourable, than rules and laws pertaining to the matter are changed, or there is an inclination to find faults with the current rules and laws. There is greater urge to have it approved or disapproved by a higher tier, even if it does not fall within its purview. This general tendency is apparent in bureaucracy, judiciary and government hierarchies which has actually resulted in a heavy centralization of authority. Everything ends up being decided at the top, and lower tiers are made to abdicate their powers.

Films are hardly made in this country and there has been a great effort at reviving the film industry, the few films that are made, are seen as signs of that revival. But such hypersensitive measures which do not allow authorised bodies to function, can never be conducive in creating an environment where art can exist, let alone thrive. It will take a sinister turn and end up being an underground activity. What is needed most is an environment which nourishes various art forms, alongside an essential factor a space where one can breathe freely.

Khoosat is a highly creative person, who deserves credit for standing up for his work and what he wants to achieve, let us all stand by his side. Such censorial steps will deter other filmmakers who may not be made from material as resilient as Khoosat, and move abroad to more favourable climes to express themselves for we have seen so many do exactly that.

Excerpt from:

Circus of censorship - The News on Sunday

A new study published by Comparitech.com, a site that compares privacy tools, ranks countries on how much they exercise internet censorship. The study says North Korea takes the crown, while China is on the second spot followed by Russia, Iran, andTurkmenistan.

The website has taken a total of 10 factors into account:

[Read:Internet partially restored in Kashmir after 165 days social media still blocked ]

North Korea scores a whopping 10 out of 10 on this scored card with China scoring 9. Russia, Turkmenistan, and Iran scored 7 in this survey. Internet censorship is a huge issue across the world as more and more countries are trying to stifle or control online content one way or another.

Governments are also recognizing that more and more users are using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to overcome the countrys internet restriction to access content or post on social media sites.

Unfortunately, the study doesnt include internet shutdowns, which is a major problem in countries like India with relatively lighter internet restrictions. However, legislators are trying to fight authority and minimize internet blocks. Recently, the countrys apex court ruled that the internet is a part of the basic right of freedom of speech.

You can check the study here and you can check out the full spreadsheet with data from all countries here.

Read next: Filipino billionaire denies endorsing Bitcoin 'scam'

Read this article:

Study: North Korea, China, and Russia top internet censorship charts - The Next Web

The closure in Sudan earlier this month of four media outlets believed to have been connected to former ruler Omar al-Bashir's government has attracted international criticism following a period of praise regarding improvements that had been made over the freedom of the press.

The decision to close the Al-Sudani and Al-Ray Al-Am newspapers, as well as the satellite channels of Ashrooq and Teeba, over alleged corruption and financing by the National Congress Party (NCP), Bashir's former ruling party, has also caused controversy within the country.

Sudan seizes assets of Omar al-Bashir's former ruling party

The four media outlets were closed on 8 January as part of a broader effort to dismantle the NCP and all its affiliated entities.

In November, the country's transitional authorities announced a law to dissolve the NCP, which also allowed for the party's assets to be seized.

The committee that ordered the closure of the media outlets said the aim was to examine their bank accounts and establish whether they were still being financed by members of the former government.

Other institutions affected included the Holy Quran society, which was closed down over similar allegations, and the International University of Africa, based in Khartoum, which was ordered to be audited.

Taha Othman, a member of the sovereign council legal committee, said the Ministry of Religious Affairs would now manage the Holy Quran society.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) all condemned the decision to close the media outlets.

Reporters Without Borders condemns the new Sudanese governments sudden closure of four media outlets that supported the former regime and asks it to show concern for the fate of their more than 200 journalists," RSF said in a press release.

"Instead of closing media outlets, the authorities should make sure the Sudanese media comply with a code of ethics.

Sudan is ranked 175th out of 180 countries in RSFs 2019 World Press Freedom Index.

In a statement on its official website, the IFJ said: In a new move to curb press freedom, the Sudanese government announced the seizure of four independent media houses, including two newspapers and TV-channels.

"Their offices have been occupied by security forces and all employees have been ordered to leave

The CPJ called on Sudanese authorities to revise the decision.

Sudanese authorities should end the suspension of these newspapers and TV stations and ensure that press freedom does not become collateral damage during a sensitive moment, it said.

All four media outlets and the Holy Quran society have denied receiving money from the NCP.

Wagdi Salih, spokesman for theAnti-Corruption Committee, which has been tasked with dismantling the NCP and its affiliated entities, defending the decision to close down the media outlets.

Salih accused them of receiving illegal finance, money laundering and looting public funds, among other financial crimes.

'Its a big joke that the supporters of the old regime are now crying for the freedom of press and expression that they oppressed everyday through the 30 years of their ruling'

-Wagdi Salih, Anti-Corruption Committee

He told Middle East Eye that the decision to close the outlets had nothing to do with the freedom of the press or freedom of expression in the country.

We are tracking the illegal ownership of these institutions, not their editorial policies or what they wrote, Salih stressed.

Its a big joke that the supporters of the old regime are now crying for the freedom of press and expression that they oppressed everyday through the 30 years of their ruling.

Salih said the committee had hard evidence and information they had received from the security organs and other institutions concerned proving that the outlets had basically been established and financed by the former ruling party.

Our aim and mandate asis to return the looted money to the nation because its one of the main demands of the revolution so we wont abandon our task...We will press on to dismantle all institutions that looted the money of the Sudanese people, regardless of them working in the media or any other area.

In a news conference last week, Rashid Saeed, the undersecretary of the Sudanese ministry of information, said that Ashrooq had been established by money paid following an order from Bashir.

He also said that the transitional government had suspended the media outlets under the law authorising authorities to seize the assets and funds of the former regime, and not because of their editorial line.

They spent millions of euros to establish this channel with public money, also for the Teeba channel, the former president himself has admitted in front of the court that he paid for them from public money, said Saeed.

For example, for the Holy Quran society, we found that it owns a gold mining site, this is clear corruption that we would never tolerate."

Inside Sudan, journalists and pro-democracy protesters were split over the closure, with some supporting the transitional government's committee tasked with the dismantling of the former ruling party, while others opposed the action, arguing the decision went against the message of the revolution.

Diya Aldin Bilal, the chief editor of Al-Sudani, one of the newspapers that was closed down, accused the transitional government of silencing the voices of journalists and any opposition, adding that they are practising the same attitude of the old regime.

Sudan opens Darfur crimes probe against former Bashir officials

Addressing a news conference in Khartoum earlier this month, Bilal denied any links with or the financing of his newspaper with the old regime.

We have nothing to do with the old regime's money or political positions, but the current government is practicing the same oppression against the media, he said.

Unfortunately, the Sudanese politicians are changing their views according to their political position and the government of the Forces ofFreedom and Change has changed its slogans and the principles that they claimed that they had come to defend when they came to the power.

However, Khalid Fathi, the secretary general of the Sudanese Journalist Network, welcomed the decision, saying its aim was to fight corruption and to control the assets of NCP, and had nothing to do with freedom of expression.

We have to take these outlets case by case, as for example with Teeba the authorities have received complaints from Nigeria and Ethiopia that this channel is broadcasting hate discourse in local languages in these countries," he told MEE.

"For Ashrooq and Al-Ray Al-Am it is known that they have been financed by the former ruling party, the controversy is now about the ownership of Al-Sudani, and that can be easily checked by the general auditor.

This moveis for fighting corruption and is actually supporting transparency and the rule of law.

"But the committee dismantling the old regime's institutions is supposed to be cautious and needs to double check the information it receives, especially about the media houses, because this issue is sensitive and can be linked to freedom of expression.

Sudanese political analyst Magdi el-Gizouli, a scholar at the Rift Valley Institute (RVI) think tank, believes that the transitional government should be focusing on more pressing threats to democracy in Sudan, rather than the banning of newspapers.

The real threats to democracy in Sudan are not the newspapers, but the security organs, the army leaders and the militias, they are all now on the top of the government following the compromise made between the civilians and the military, he said.

The reformation of the security sector is the priority, not the media.

I wonder how the new rulers, who were freedom fighters resisting the former regime, are now trusting the security organs which were part of the old regime, and receive their reports regarding the assets and investments of the former ruling party from them.

See the article here:

Cries of censorship in Sudan as media outlets linked to old regime closed - Middle East Eye

More than six months after an exhibition organized as part of the Aichi Triennale in Japan was shuttered following political and violent threats, the Taipei Museum of Contemporary Art in Taiwan announced that it would host the show in its studio space in the spring.

Following the opening of the exhibition After Freedom of Expression?, which focused on the history of censorship in Japan, in August, the Aichi Prefectural Museum of Art in Nagoya received numerous death threats by phone, email, and over fax over its inclusion of a comfort woman statuea monument that commemorates Korean women who were forced into sexual slavery by Japanese troops during World War IItitled Statue of Peace.

While the organizers of the exhibition cited the safety of museum staff and visitors as the reason for the closure, the participating artists and others opposed to the decision condemned the move as censorshipthe topic of comfort women remains a sensitive issue for Japan. Many expressed concern over the number of local lawmakers, including Nagoya Mayor Takashi Kawamura, who spoke out against the exhibition. The Cultural Affairs Agency, which previously pledged to provide 78 million yen in financial support to the triennial, later declared that it would not pay.

The controversy prompted more than a dozen artists, including Tania Bruguera, Pia Camil, Minouk Lim, Pedro Reyes, and Javier Tellez, to sign a letter addressed to the shows organizers, which read: We consider it an ethical obligation to stand by the exhibiting artists voices and their work being exhibited. Freedom of expression is an unalienable right that needs to be defended independently of any context.

While artistic director Daisuke Tsuda publicly apologized to the artists whose works were in the exhibition and for the strong sense of indignation and disappointment felt by the artists who ultimately withdrew works from the triennial in protest, he also defended the action and said that the exhibition drew threats beyond our expectations.

A government-appointed review board led by Toshio Yamanashi, director of the National Museum of Art, in Osaka later found that the closure and removal of the sculpture by Kim Seo-kyung and Kim Eun-sung was justified. It concluded that Tsuda deviated from the concept of the show by incorporating several new works when it apparently was only supposed to feature pieces that had previously been censored by the state. It also stated that Tsuda failed to effectively communicate with curators, administrators, and others involved in the festival, which was held from August 1 to October 14.

While the exhibition briefly reopened in October, it was only on view for a few days and visitors had to enter a lottery in order to see it.

Here is the original post:

Aichi Triennale Exhibition Will Be Restaged in Taiwan Following Censorship Controversy - Artforum

Social media platforms have the obligation to permit equal access to all perspectives. And, people, as well as companies, should be free to air out their views regarding a particular matter.

The Internet is an ideal platform for sharing and exchanging ideas. People and organizations use social media platforms for various things such as debate forums, disseminating values, and social media censorship among other things.

Censor political speech

As the presidential elections approach, there are frequent and urgent calls for government regulations which proscribe social media platforms from censoring political speech. The majority of these calls presume that government regulations will not encroach on the First Amendments rights of the platforms as they are only platforms and not publishers.

However, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, private social media platforms can systematize the speech on their platforms as they have similar First Amendment rights to private publishers. Hence, any government regulation which prohibits the authority of a platform to censor speech will indeed lead to viewpoint censorship thereby violating the First Amendment rights of the platform.

Usual government regulations

The censorship powers of social media platforms are not beyond the reach of government regulations. The government should consider adopting due process regulations which necessitate that platforms implement clear rules regarding the speech that they ought not to allow on the platform and protect against the arbitrary execution of these rules on users. In comparison to regulations which forbid platforms censoring authority, due process regulations can withstand First Amendment challenges because they do not inhibit platforms from controlling the viewpoints that people express on these platforms.

Do they have the right to censor?

The First Amendment provides exemplary protection which inhibits the government from limiting your right to manifest your viewpoint(s). Apart from controlling government regulations, it also protects against various types of censorship, for example, forms of compelled speech and speech restrictions set in grants conditions. So, platforms have the right to censor.

Due process regulations are different

Despite the ability of the First Amendment to limit government censorship, the government can still address the dangers of biased platforms. Due process regulations are different as they do require platforms to modify their message, hence their ability to withstand First Amendment difficulties. Furthermore, due process regulations address most of the concerns that people raise. And, these regulations enable users to know the rules earlier so that they can develop content that complies with these rules.

Kinds of censorship

As aforementioned, there are various kinds of censorship that the First Amendment protects against. Coming up with an essay on a political topic can be challenging. But, with professional assistance from Essay Kitchen, drafting an outstanding and impeccable article will not be an issue.

What can we do?

Social media platforms have the obligation to permit equal access to all perspectives. And, people, as well as companies, should be free to air out their views regarding a particular matter. Furthermore, the First Amendment protects against the intervention of the government in limiting your ability to express your thoughts and opinions. Hence, people should say no to government regulations that censor social media. The government should not control what people say and how they say it.

In conclusion, there should be no restrictions on how people choose to express their views and share their ideas. The First Amendment aids in limiting government censorship and people should embrace it.

Read the original:

Censorship On and By Social Media Platforms - Legal Reader

In 2019, deliberate internet censorship cost African economies a collective USD 2.16 Bn. The shutdowns, mostly orchestrated by governments, have been on for many years.

Though such restrictions have been going on for many years, last year was the worst year in terms of amount of money foregone. So, for 2020, what should African businesses and individuals expect?

Internet shutdowns are becoming a trend in Africa. Period. The Global Cost of Internet Shutdowns in 2019 report finds that most internet shutdowns occur in response to protests or civil unrest surrounding elections.

Usually, these web and social media blackouts occur when governments want to restrict the spread of information and maintain their power grip. This does not not only toy with citizens freedom of expression, but also with their right to information.

The first major internet shutdown in Africa for last year is proof that the reports findings are correct. In Zimbabwe, the administration of Emmerson Mnangagwa executed a web blackout to quell protests arising from the ridiculous hike in fuel prices. It marked the first time for such to happen in the Southern African nation, which made Zimbabweans clamor for the return of their former leader Robert Mugabe.

A similar event occurred in Sudan, where the government shutdown the internet for weeks. The intention was to smother the protests against the generals who seized power after Omar al-Bashir was ousted by military forces in April.

These series of disturbing events occurred after Sudan-wide demonstrations against his rule. After shutting down the internet to curb malpractice during national exams in June 2019, Ethiopia went on to sustain the blackout due to failed military coup attempts.

The examples are endless, but the trend is certain. Whats more, the report by Top10VPN says that there is little to suggest that internet shutdowns will stop in 2020. This comes in spite of their negative impact on the global economy, human rights and the democratic processes.

Simon Migliano, Head of Research at Top10VPN, told WeeTracker that internet shutdowns have become a popular strategy across Africa during times of political unrest. This seems to be undeterred by condemnation by the United Nations and human rights organizations around the world.

Given that the rate of internet shutdowns has been increasing over the last three years, we have every reason to expect that there will be more in Africa this year, particularly in regions like Ethiopia and Sudan where elections are on the horizon, he said.

Simons predictions are not implausible, because truly, there are a couple of elections to be held in Africa this year. Also, some of these polls are being held in countries where internet censorship has occurred in the past. These include Chad, Mauritius, Ethiopia, Somalia, Tanzania, Egypt and Liberia.

Peaceful and fair elections are encouraged across the continent, but theres a likeliness that internet censorship will occur in these countries. Togo is likely to join the crop, as it prepares to hold the first African presidential election of the year on February 22nd. Factors that will make for an internet censorship in the West African country are numerous.

The current president, Faure Gnassingb, has been in power since 2005, after the death of his father. His regime is to be extended as hes to be the only candidate on the ballot. Faures father seized control of the small country in 1967. Protests upon protests have registered displeasure over the seemingly dynastic rule of the Gnassingbs.

The internet may ultimately not shutdown in Togo, but the other promising crop of countries on the continent make us beg to differ. The nations aforementioned are known for civil unrest, long-ruling presidents and military shakedowns. Take Sudan for instance, where their last internet censorship led and resulted in to military open-fire on the nations citizens.

African businesses are actually better off expecting internet censorship this year and put things in place to enable them cope. Businesses that only exist online or on social media wont be able to operate at all during a shutdown.

According to Simon, those that have physical locations or provide services should be aware of alternative ways to communicate with suppliers, employees and existing or future customers.

On the signs of an internet shutdown, Simon said that any election or authority-related protest or form of unrest can be seen as a precursor to an internet shutdown. The reality is that unless a business operates completely offline, an internet shutdown will undoubtedly have some negative impact on their ability to successfully function, he says.

All businesses can really do is ensure that they have a means of staying connected and, where possible, find alternative methods of carrying out activities that would usually be done online.

A 2017 report by CIPESA on internet censorship revealed that the impact of being dumped offline is not a binary issue. The survey titled Calculating The Economic Impact Of Internet Disruptions In Sub-Saharan Africa, said that even after internet access is restored, the impact of a cut-off continues to resonate.

Economic losses caused by an internet disruption persist far beyond the days on which the shutdown occurs, because network disruptions unsettle supply chains and have systemic effects that harm efficiency throughout the economy, the report noted.

Internet disruptions, however short-lived, undermine economic growth, disrupt the delivery of critical services, erode business confidence, and raise a countrys risk profile.

Theres not exactly many options available when a business is disrupted by internet censorship. Simon explains: For many people, its just the old-fashioned way: telephone or fax! If an affected business is close to a region where internet remains available, then its a case of travelling there to conduct the most urgent matters via laptop and mobile internet before returning home. Of course, thats not an option for many. This is why internet shutdowns are so damaging.

Featured Image: New York Times

See the rest here:

Internet Censorship In Africa Is A Trend In Africa - What To Expect In 2020 - WeeTracker Media

In 1939, the notorious German-born spy Julius Silber vanished.

The double agent, known as the spy who was never caught, had passed secrets to Germany during World War I while embedded in a British censorship bureau. Then he humiliated Britains MI5 by outing himself in his 1932 autobiography, The Invisible Weapons. The Nazis rewarded his service by annulling his citizenship because he was Jewish, something Silber had kept under wraps.

Silber himself had no direct descendants, but he has distant relatives. I am one of them.

With enemies on both sides of the Channel, Silber crossed the Atlantic at the end of 1933 and became a U.S. citizen the following year. He traveled back and forth to Europe from 1934 until at least 1937, writing articles on European politics for American newspapers. On Jan. 17, 1939, the week before he turned 60, Silber was scheduled to address a womens group in Rockville Centre, Long Island. Then he disappeared. No more lecture announcements in newspaper archives. No more citations on ships manifests. No listing in the Social Security Death Index.

Biographer Ronald Seth believed Silber died of failing health in Germany in 1939, but I was suspicious. The Germans kept good records, and there were none.

My search for answers led me to London this past fall, where I met with Katie Figulla, the great-granddaughter of Silbers older sister, Malafka Silber Asch, and Figullas mother, Lesley.

Katie had found me through Ancestry.com and reached out, looking for information about her great-grandmother and her own Jewish roots.

Did you know about [Malafkas] infamous brother, Julius Silber, who spied for Germany during WWI, working undercover in England? I asked her by email before our meeting.

No I did not! Katie replied.

When we met in my hotel lobby in London, Katie shouted Cousin! as she and her mother came over to hug me. Her mother carried an envelope with copies of family photos, including one of Uncle Jules, a distinguished-looking man with a goatee, and another of Malafka, who died at Theresienstadt in 1943 at age 75, a month after she was deported from Berlin.

She was murdered, Lesley Figulla said.

Like Woody Allens Zelig, Julius Silber changed his identity when it suited him and began calling himself Jules, J. C. Silber or Jules Crawford Silber. The name Crawford may have come from a British biscuit tin, not from his Jewish parents. Born in 1879 in Breslau, Germany (now Wroclaw, Poland), Silber left home as a teenager. He arrived in South Africa in 1896 with plans to study medicine, but the Boer War disrupted his studies. Skilled at languages, he learned to speak English even better than my native tongue, he wrote, and became thoroughly conversant with the language of the Boers as well as with that of the Zulus.

As an interpreter for the British in South Africa, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and in India, he emulated the mannerisms of British colonialists. He hunted and hiked, enjoyed club life and smoked fine tobacco. Did the Brits know he was Jewish? Unlikely.

In 1903, Silber left South Africa and settled in New York, where he succeeded in making a comfortable fortune, according to his autobiography. One thing he left out was his engagement to Ida Richardson Hood, a curator at New Yorks American Museum of Natural History and the daughter of a Confederate general. Silber jilted Ida, according to her nephew, James Bagg.

Nobody in my family ever mentioned anything about Jules having been Jewish, so it either was unknown or was considered unimportant, Bagg wrote in an email. But his devotion to his native Germany was all the stranger in light of his background.

That devotion took root in 1914, when war broke out. Although Silber had created a new life in New York, he was overcome by twinges of patriotism for his fatherland. Taking advantage of his knowledge of British customs, he decided to help Germany by serving as a double agent in England. However, without a passport, the German-born Silber couldnt sail from New York. Instead, he traveled to Montreal, where he boarded a cargo ship bound for England. Masquerading as a French Canadian, he embedded himself in the British postal services censorship bureau in London and later in Liverpool.

With no training as a spy, Silber developed an ingenious technique for passing military secrets to the Germans. Using an already stamped window envelope addressed and mailed to himself, he would open the envelope, write an innocuous-seeming letter, address it to a person on the British suspect list and enclose microfilm with strategic information. Then he would reseal the envelope and mark it Passed by the Censor.

Silbers envelope escapades were never discovered, although he had several narrow escapes. Required to register for the draft, he used his medical knowledge to fabricate a heart ailment and avoid conscription.

After the war, without a passport and suffering from a heart disease which grew rapidly worse, Silber wrote that he was unable to leave England. Then by a stroke of luck, Belgium sought to increase tourism by issuing weekend passes to British visitors who had no passports. In May 1925, Silber boarded a ferry to Ostend and took a train to the Dutch border. After receiving a passport at the German Legation in The Hague, he was on his way to Berlin. At last I was at home, he wrote at the end of his autobiography.

But he wasnt home for long. In December 1933, after Hitler came into power, Silber sailed for New York. Six years later, he disappeared.

With no resolution on the fate of Cousin Julius, I put his story on a back burner until I received Katies email last year. Not only was she unaware of Julius, but she did not know that her great-grandmother Malafka had died in the camps. Katies 85-year-old father, Frederick Figulla, hadnt shared this information with his daughter until she told him what I had uncovered.

Malafkas only daughter, Kthe Asch, left Germany for England in 1938 in order to marry her fianc, Hugo Henry Figulla, with whom she shared a young son. The Nuremberg laws prohibited marriage between Jews and non-Jews, and Hugo Henry was not Jewish. They had left 3-year-old Frederick in the care of family friends, expecting to return soon, but the war, sadly, resulted in a long separation from their son.

Frederick didnt recall meeting Uncle Julius, but he knew of his espionage activities. When Katie and her mother asked about Silbers disappearance in 1939, Frederick was adamant.

Julius did not disappear, he told them.

So, I asked, what happened?

He committed suicide, Katie said. He killed himself in 1939. In Lisbon.

Lisbon? I shouted. Coincidentally, we happened to be flying there the next day. Maybe I can find some answers. It would be a satisfying ending to a story that began when an L.A. second cousin I found, Amy-Hannah Broersma, first put me onto Silbers bizarre story five years ago.

Good luck! said the concierge of my hotel, who provided me with historical background. During World War II, when Portugal was a neutral country, Lisbon swarmed with spies on both sides. Finding a record of Silbers arrival would be next to impossible. Finding a record of his death? I could try. She directed me to Lisbons civil records bureau.

Arriving, I interrupted a clerk to ask for information.

Take a number, she said. After an hours wait, I left. Later I learned the bureau had no wartime records, and I emailed the city archives.

Im still waiting for a response, and the elusive spy continues to haunt me. But in the process, my world and my family have grown.

Go here to see the original:

The spy who fell off my family tree and nearly got away - The Jewish News of Northern California

Citizen censors focus on smut, misleading ads and political gossip

THE INTERNET is the spiritual home of hundreds of millions of Chinese people. So Chinas leader, Xi Jinping, described it in 2016. He said he expected citizens to help keep the place tidy. Many have taken up the challenge. In December netizens reported 12.2m pieces of inappropriate content to the authoritiesfour times as many as in the same month of 2015. The surge does not indicate that the internet in China is becoming more unruly. Rather, censorship is becoming more bottom-up.

Officials have been mobilising people to join the fight in this drawn-out war, as a magazine editor called it in a speech in September to Shanghais first group of city-appointed volunteer censors. Internet governance requires that every netizen take part, an official told the gathering. It was arranged by the citys cyber-administration during its first propaganda month promoting citizen censorship. The 140 people there swore to report any online disorder.

Some netizens, it seems, are as enthusiastic about the task as online scolds in the West are about denouncing heresy on Twitter. Rongbin Han of the University of Georgia says this suggests that the popular image of a shadowy state versus a resistant citizenry is oversimplified. Oversight of cyberspace has become highly decentralised. Private internet firms have long played a big role in censoring content they and their users produce. Increasingly, ordinary citizens are joining in.

Officials want them to look out for harmful content relating to several broad categories. The partys priorities are, in order: political, terrorist and pornographic. Of the material reported by the public, data released by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), the central governments internet watchdog, suggest that most is either political or pornographic. In March 2017, pornography was the biggest category of citizen-flagged content (47%). Politics came second (27%). Official figures from June that year show the order reversed, with political content comprising 42% and smut 38%.

No examples are given of offensive items. But officials define the political type very broadly, as including anything deemed to threaten Chinas national security or interests such as political rumour. No tittle-tattle about Mr Xi and his colleagues, in other words.

Since June 2017 the CAC has stopped providing a breakdown of reported content by type in its monthly reports. But some provincial governments still do. In Tibet, for instance, 45% of content reported to the regional cyber-administration in December was political and only 19% pornographic. An additional 16% of it involved Tibet-related conventions. This term is not defined but probably covers material challenging the partys way of running Tibetan affairs. Local officials say that preventing the spread of counter-propaganda from the Dalai Lama is a priority.

Why do citizens play along? Some people are genuinely worried about vulgarity, pseudoscience and the peddling of unsafe products. An official survey last year of more than 200,000 netizens found that dishonest advertising, rumour and pornography were the most frequently encountered types of problematic content. But some netizens are simply anxious to impress. In 2015 the Communist Youth League began requiring each university to organise a group of volunteer censors. Would-be members of the league, or the party, have an incentive to sign up. Weibo, a Twitter-like service, has a team of 2,000 volunteer supervisors (in addition to its army of in-house censors). They can earn rewards for reporting harmful material. In October they found 3.8m examples.

The partys efforts may be working. In 2019 Freedom House, an American think-tank, lowered Chinas internet-freedom score to 10% free, down from 15% when Mr Xi took power in 2012. Controls keep tightening. Information-technology rules, which took effect on December 1st, oblige new subscribers to mobile-phone services not only to prove their identities, as has long been required, but also to have their faces scanned. That, presumably, will make it easier for police to catch the people who post the bad stuff online.

This article appeared in the China section of the print edition under the headline "Some people in China help the party police the internet"

Go here to see the original:

Some people in China help the party police the internet - The Economist

Nepals parliament must amend the Information Technology Bill (IT Bill) to bring into line with international standards and ensure that the law is not used to criminalize the peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of expression, Amnesty International said today.

Provoking widespread criticism from Nepals civil society, the proposed IT Bill would empower the government to arbitrarily censor content online, including on social media, and punish offenders with up to five years imprisonment and a fine of 1.5 million Nepali rupees (approximately 13,000 USD).

The IT Bill is one of three proposed pieces of legislation that use vague and overbroad clauses to unduly restrict the right to freedom of expression. The bills have been proposed against the backdrop of intensifying attacks on free expression in the country.

Nepal was once envied by people across the region for its openness towards critical views and opinions. That reputation is now at risk as the government continues to crack down on what people say, write and even sing. The IT Bill and all other legislation must be amended and brought into line with international law and standards to guarantee peoples right to freedom of expression, said Biraj Patnaik, South Asia Director at Amnesty International.

In 2019, laws like the Electronic Transactions Act 2006 were used to arbitrarily detain journalists for publishing stories which criticized the government or others who posted critical comments online. In April, journalist Arjun Giri was charged under the Act for reporting on financial fraud. In June, comedian Pranesh Gautam was arrested for posting a satirical film review on YouTube. In October, musical artists Durgesh Thapa and Samir Ghishing popularly known as VTEN, were arrested for the content of their songs.

Nepal was once envied by people across the region for its openness towards critical views and opinions. That reputation is now at risk as the government continues to crack down on what people say, write and even sing

Several provisions in the IT Bill do not meet international human rights law and standards. For example, section 94 of the bill vaguely criminalizes people who post content on social media if it is deemed to be against national unity, self-respect, national interest, relationship between federal units.

Other provisions of the IT Bill, which are open to very wide interpretation, could also be abused to stifle critical opinions, satire, public dialogue, and public commentary. For example, the bill prohibits teasing, deceiving, demotivating, and demeaning.

Section 88 of the bill also restricts the publishing of such content through use of any electronic medium, which could include news sites, blogs and even emails.

Section 115 of the bill envisions an Information Technology Court in each of the seven provinces around the country, with the mandate to deal with all issues under the bill, including criminal liability. As the bill authorizes the government to appoint the members of the court bypassing judicial council, this poses serious concerns on the influence of the executive over these courts, the independence of the judiciary and fair trails guarantee in such courts.

Under international human rights law, states are permitted to limit the right to freedom of expression, but these limitations must be set forth in law in a precise manner, and be necessary and proportionate to a legitimate aim, as stipulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Nepal is a party.

If passed in its current form, the provisions in the IT Bill further risk creating a chilling effect, and will ultimately give rise to censorship and self-censorship online where people will no longer be able to share their feelings or debate ideas freely and without fear of repression, said Biraj Patnaik.

In 2019, the government of Nepal proposed a series of bills in parliament with provisions criminalizing acts that should be protected under the right to freedom of expression, and give the authorities excessive powers to impose harsh sentences for vaguely worded offences.

In February 2019, the Information Technology Bill was proposed in the house of representatives.

In May 2019, the government registered the Media Council Bill in the upper house of parliament with provisions that would muzzle freedom of expression through printed and online media. Under Section 18, the Council will have the power to impose fines of up to one million rupees (approximately 9,000 USD) if a journalist is found guilty of libel or defamation, which is also punishable under the criminal code. According to international human rights standards, defamation should be treated as a matter for civil litigation, not criminal.

The Mass Communication Bill, also drafted in 2019, includes provision of even harsher sentencing and fines to journalists with up to 15 years of imprisonment if found guilty of publishing or broadcasting contents deemed to be against sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity, as per section 59 of the draft bill.

Continued here:

Nepal: Information Technology Bill threatens freedom of expression - Amnesty International

Niki Walia, who entertained in TV shows Astitva Ek Prem Kahani and Dil Sambhal Jaa Zara, is now exploring the web world. After being part of Puncchbeat, Niki is now part of Nakuul Mehta and Anya Singh starrer web series Never Kiss Your Best Friend on ZEE5.

In conversation with IWMBuzz.com, Niki spoke about her new series, co-star Nakuul Mehta and more.

How was your experience working for Never Kiss Your Best Friend?

It has been an awesome experience to work with such legendary actors. This entire shoot was more like a big fat party rather than working, we were working for grueling long hours but it was just awesome. Captain of the ship Arif, hats off to him, a special mention to him, he is such a young lad but he is so amazing. I have loved the production Niraj, Sarita, Yukti, Naina everybody. It was a treat, this entire shoot was a treat.

Tell us about your bond with co-star Nakuul Mehta?

Nakuul and I have known each other socially and weve met at Sanjay Kapoors house for dinner along with his wife Jankee. I think both of them are an absolutely adorable couple. Nakuul, in particular, is not just a dedicated actor but he is also someone who believes a lot in self-growth and is so involved with personal growth. He reads he travels, he explores, hes into theatre, and he makes sure the atmosphere on the set is perfect. He is a breath of fresh air in todays generation of actors and I genuinely believe that he is an all-rounder. Its a very rare quality that you get in people today that come to work and arent cribbing, complaining or bitching or forever finding fault with either the production department or the direction department.

In this new generation of actors, he is the first guy I have come across after a very long time who also believes in the same things. Our work ethics are very similar. He is ever so courteous, a thorough gentleman, he is adorable, I just love Nakuul and Jankee. I am so happy I met Nakuul it was amazing working together.

What is your take on the digital medium which is flourishing nowadays?

Web gives one more room to experiment. The roles are more interesting and diverse rather than the linear that exists on television.

Do you think the web needs censorship?

I believe there should be an element of censorship as some of it is bordering on pornography and its unnecessary in the stories.

Any other projects you are working on?

After Never Kiss Your Best Friend, I also have How To Kill Your Husband, Guilty, Tuesdays and Fridays, as well as Puncch Beat Season 2 and 3 coming up. And there a few others but its too early to talk about them right now.

Which is your preferred medium to work?

I am not choosing work according to medium but rather what excites and challenges me.

Any final message

I would want the audience to binge-watch Never Kiss Your Best Friend on ZEE5 as it is an amazing series.

Go here to see the original:

Web needs an element of censorship as some of it is bordering on pornography: Niki Walia - IWMBuzz

When Facebook and Google want to strike ad deals in Vietnam, salespeople in Singapore get on a plane and fly to major cities like Ho Chi Minh City. They rent out rooms in five-star hotels for meetings with small retailers looking to sell around the world or big brands wanting to reach Vietnamese consumers. Vietnam is the most important market in Southeast Asia for both Google and Facebook, but neither company has any full-time employees stationed there.

Thats because Vietnam is governed by an authoritarian communist regime that imposes strict censorship of online content such as social-media posts and user-generated videos critical of the government. While Facebook and Google comply with the governments requests for removing or restricting content, people stationed in the country would be vulnerable to pressure for information about the identity of users posting content, said people familiar with both businesses. According to these people, the companies worry that staffers could be arrested or the offices raided, and even route advertising fees through subsidiaries in Ireland and Singapore to avoid Vietnams banking system.

Originally posted here:

Facebook and Google Balance Booming Business with Censorship Pressure in Vietnam - The Information

Several thousand people gathered in central Budapest on Monday to protest the planned measures, according to the Index.hu news website. Speakers at the demonstration included the capitals recently-elected opposition mayor.

I was an actor already in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, when the communist regime ruled, Judit Pogany said in a video post by famous actors and directors. I never thought that after 30 years of democracy Id start feeling the way I did back then.

Orban has mostly won turf wars to extend his influence over education, scientific research, and parts of the legal system. Hes now fighting a European Union probe over the erosion of the rule-of-law during his nearly decade in power.

The latest battle over culture comes after Orban suffered a setback in Octobers municipal election, when his party won overall but lost control of four out of the five largest cities, including Budapest.

Following the ballot, he moved to squeeze the opposition mayors control over the capitals budget and submitted a draft law that seeks to broaden the role of the Constitutional Court, which is stacked with his appointees.

His lawmakers are also expected to back a proposals to restrict the rights of independent lawmakers, including his most outspoken critics. All the measures are expected to win approval, given the ruling Fidesz partys supermajority in the legislature.

As the EU has largely failed to derail Orbans centralization of power over the past 10 years, its unlikely that will change, according to Eurasia, a political-risk consultancy.

Ultimately, Orbans willingness to negotiate with the EU, partially backtracking on some issues while constantly moving forward with smaller steps seems to have worked for him, Naz Masraff, director for Europe at Eurasia, said in a research note. He will likely continue to use this winning formula.

View post:

Orban targets theaters, prompting protest against censorship - The Boston Globe