GELLER: Social Media Censorship Panel at CPAC James Damore …

Yes, were back at CPAC, and, as always, with a panel that addresses one of the most urgent issues of the day:

Suppression of Conservative Views on Social Media: A First Amendment Issue

Major social media platforms such as Google, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube have created the new town square, having become the primary portals through which Americans receive news today. On these platform, the Left has a monopoly. The social media giants are moving actively to erase and hide any viewpoint or person that does not conform to the progressive values for which they stand.

This has resulted in massive losses of readership and revenue for conservative sites, and endangers the very freedom of our Republic by allowing only one point of view to be aired. The social media corporations today hold more power over the public discourse than any totalitarian regime ever held. They do not just target voices with whom they disagree, but they make sure that those voices are unable to sustain themselves.

This panel will discuss the magnitude of this phenomenon, and discuss ways that the power of these Leftist social media outlets can be limited, such that voices that dissent from the hard-Left agenda can again be freely heard.

February 23, 2018, 3:00 pm Chesapeake B-C

Panelists will include:

James Damore, Google whistleblower

Harmeet K. Dhillon, renowned free speech attorney

Dan Gainor, Vice President for Business and Culture, Media Research Center

Pamela Geller, Editor and Publisher, Geller Report, President, American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and author of Fatwa: Hunted in America

Jim Hoft, Editor-in-Chief, Gateway Pundit

James OKeefe, Project Veritas

Marlene Jaeckel, Tech entrepreneur

America, the worlds first government based on individual rights and personal liberty, should be on the forefront of the defense of freedom of speech across the world, the light among nations, the shining city on a hill. Instead, social media giants, run by uniformly leftwing corporate managers, have become the new totalitarians. This evokes the worst totalitarian regimes in the history of the world. Never in modern history has such immense power been in the hands of so few.

Panelist James OKeefe added: Social media giants in Silicon Valley have quickly become the worlds most powerful media gatekeepers, even more powerful than the mainstream media.We exposed Twitter forsilencing and shadow banning people they do not agree with, and propagated their preferred views for political and financial purposes.

Panelist Dan Gainor said: Tech/social media companies are vastly more powerful than their old media predecessors in print and TV ever were. Weve already seen some of the dangers of what happens when that power is abused. This isnt just a panel discussion about what might happen. This is a wake-up call for the entire conservative movement.

Another panelist, Jim Hoft, observed: 2016 was the first election where conservatives fled the liberal mainstream media. After decades of smears and abuse they found the truth in conservative media online. Today there are forces working to make sure this does not happen again. Its time to stand up before its too late.

This groundbreaking panel discussion follows on the heels of Cant We Talk About This? The Islamic Jihad Against Free Speech, our shocking new film detailing the concerted effort by international organizations to compel the U.S. and other Western countries to curtail the freedom of speech and criminalize criticism of Islam.

This issue the suppression of the freedom of speech on social media affects all of us on the right. In fact, it is the most critical issue of the day: if we are stripped of the means to communicate with one another, its all over. It was free people speaking freely on social media, outside of the reach of the media establishment, that got Donald Trump elected President of the United States. When the left lost the election, they lost their mind.

We must not allow the left to strip us of the weapons we used to win that victory. Thats what well be fighting for at CPAC.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of The Geller Report and author of the bestselling book, FATWA: Hunted in America, as well asThe Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administrations War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on TwitterorFacebook.

Read the original:

GELLER: Social Media Censorship Panel at CPAC James Damore ...

Censorship in Turkey – Wikipedia

Censorship in Turkey is regulated by domestic and international legislation, the latter (in theory) taking precedence over domestic law, according to Article 90 of the Constitution of Turkey (so amended in 2004).[1]

Despite legal provisions, media freedom in Turkey has steadily deteriorated from 2010 onwards, with a precipitous decline following the attempted coup in July 2016.[2][3] President Tayyip Erdoan has arrested hundreds of journalists, closed or taken over dozens of media outlets, and prevented journalists and their families from traveling. By some accounts, Turkey currently accounts for one-third of all journalists imprisoned around the world.[4]

Since 2013, Freedom House ranks Turkey as "Not Free".[2] Reporters Without Borders ranked Turkey at the 149th place out of over 180 countries, between Mexico and DR Congo, with a score of 44.16.[5] In the third quarter of 2015, the independent Turkish press agency Bianet recorded a strengthening of attacks on the opposition media during the AKP interim government.[6] Bianet's final 2015 monitoring report confirmed this trend and underlined that once regained majority after the AKP interim government period, the Turkish government further intensified its pressure on the country's media.[7]

According to Freedom House,

The government enacted new laws that expanded both the states power to block websites and the surveillance capability of the National Intelligence Organization (MT). Journalists faced unprecedented legal obstacles as the courts restricted reporting on corruption and national security issues. The authorities also continued to aggressively use the penal code, criminal defamation laws, and the antiterrorism law to crack down on journalists and media outlets. Verbal attacks on journalists by senior politiciansincluding Recep Tayyip Erdoan, the incumbent prime minister who was elected president in Augustwere often followed by harassment and even death threats against the targeted journalists on social media. Meanwhile, the government continued to use the financial and other leverage it holds over media owners to influence coverage of politically sensitive issues. Several dozen journalists, including prominent columnists, lost their jobs as a result of such pressure during the year, and those who remained had to operate in a climate of increasing self-censorship and media polarization.[2]

In 2012 and 2013 the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) ranked Turkey as the worst journalist jailer in the world (ahead of Iran and China), with 49 journalists sitting in jail in 2012 and 40 in 2013.[8][9] Twitter's 2014 Transparency Report showed that Turkey filed over five times more content removal requests to Twitter than any other country in the second half of 2014, with requests rising another 150% in 2015.[10][11]

During its 12-year rule, the ruling AKP party has gradually expanded its control over media.[12] Today, numerous newspapers, TV channels and internet portals dubbed as Yanda Medya ("Partisan Media") or Havuz Medyas ("Pool Media") continue their heavy pro-government propaganda.[13] Several media groups receive preferential treatment in exchange for AKP-friendly editorial policies.[14] Some of these media organizations were acquired by AKP-friendly businesses through questionable funds and processes.[15] Media not friendly to AKP, on the other hand, are threatened with intimidation, inspections and fines.[16] These media group owners face similar threats to their other businesses.[17] An increasing number of columnists have been fired for criticizing the AKP leadership.[18][19][20][21]

Regional censorship predates the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. On 15 February 1857, the Ottoman Empire issued law governing printing houses ("Basmahane Nizamnamesi"); books first had to be shown to the governor, who forwarded them to commission for education ("Maarif Meclisi") and the police. If no objection was made, the Sultanate would then inspect them. Without censure from the Sultan books could not be legally issued.[22] On 24 July 1908, at the beginning of the Second Constitutional Era, censorship was lifted; however, newspapers publishing stories that were deemed a danger to interior or exterior State security were closed.[22] Between 1909 and 1913 four journalists were killedHasan Fehmi, Ahmet Samim, Zeki Bey, and Hasan Tahsin (Silah).[23]

Following the Turkish War of Independence, the Sheikh Said rebellion was used as pretext for implementing martial law ("Takrir-i Skun Yasas") on March 4, 1925; newspapers, including Tevhid-i Efkar, Sebl Reat, Aydnlk, Resimli Ay, and Vatan, were closed and several journalists arrested and tried at the Independence Courts.[22]

During World War II (19391945) many newspapers were ordered shut, including the dailies Cumhuriyet (5 times, for 5 months and 9 days), Tan (7 times, for 2 months and 13 days), and Vatan (9 times, for 7 months and 24 days).[22]

When the Democratic Party under Adnan Menderes came to power in 1950, censorship entered a new phase. The Press Law changed, sentences and fines were increased. Several newspapers were ordered shut, including the dailies Ulus (unlimited ban), Hrriyet, Tercman, and Hergn (two weeks each). In April 1960, a so-called investigation commission ("Tahkikat Komisyonu") was established by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. It was given the power to confiscate publications, close papers and printing houses. Anyone not following the decisions of the commission were subject to imprisonment, between one and three years.[22]

Freedom of speech was heavily restricted after the 1980 military coup headed by General Kenan Evren. During the 1980s and 1990s, broaching the topics of secularism, minority rights (in particular the Kurdish issue), and the role of the military in politics risked reprisal.[24][24]

Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law (Law 3713), slightly amended in 1995 and later repealed,[25] imposed three-year prison sentences for "separatist propaganda." Despite its name, the Anti-Terror Law punished many non-violent offences.[24] Pacifists have been imprisoned under Article 8. For example, publisher Fatih Tas was prosecuted in 2002 under Article 8 at Istanbul State Security Court for translating and publishing writings by Noam Chomsky, summarizing the history of human rights violations in southeast Turkey; he was acquitted, however, in February 2002.[24] Prominent female publisher Ayse Nur Zarakolu, who was described by The New York Times as "[o]ne of the most relentless challengers to Turkey's press laws", was imprisoned under Article 8 four times.[26][27]

Since 2011, the AKP government has increased restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and internet use,[28] and television content,[29] as well as the right to free assembly.[30] It has also developed links with media groups, and used administrative and legal measures (including, in one case, a $2.5 billion tax fine) against critical media groups and critical journalists: "over the last decade the AKP has built an informal, powerful, coalition of party-affiliated businessmen and media outlets whose livelihoods depend on the political order that Erdogan is constructing. Those who resist do so at their own risk."[31] Since his time as prime minister through to his presidency Erdogan has sought to control the press, forbidding coverage, restricting internet use and stepping up repression on journalists and media outlets.[32]

Foreign media noted that, particularly in the early days (31 May 2 June 2013) of the Gezi Park protests, the events attracted relatively little mainstream media coverage in Turkey, due to either government pressure on media groups' business interests or simply ideological sympathy by media outlets.[33][34] The BBC noted that while some outlets are aligned with the AKP or are personally close to Erdoan, "most mainstream media outlets such as TV news channels HaberTurk and NTV, and the major centrist daily Milliyet are loath to irritate the government because their owners' business interests at times rely on government support. All of these have tended to steer clear of covering the demonstrations."[34] Ulusal Kanal and Halk TV provided extensive live coverage from Gezi park.[35]

Turkeys Journalists Union estimated that at least "72 journalists had been fired or forced to take leave or had resigned in the past six weeks since the start of the unrest" in late May 2013 due to pressure from the AKP government. Kemal Kilicdaroglu, head of the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (CHP) party, said 64 journalists have been imprisoned and We are now facing a new period where the media is controlled by the government and the police and where most media bosses take orders from political authorities. The government says most of the imprisoned journalists have been detained for serious crimes, like membership in an armed terrorist group, that are not related to journalism.[36][37]

Bianet's periodical reports on freedom of the press in Turkey published in October 2015 recorded a strengthening of attacks on the opposition media during the AKP interim government in the third quarter of 2015. Bianet recorded the censorship of 101 websites, 40 Twitter accounts, 178 news; attacks against 21 journalists, three media organs, and one printing house; civil pursuits against 28 journalists; and the six-fold increase of arrests of media representatives, with 24 journalists and 9 distributors imprisoned.[38] The increased criminalisation of the media follows the freezing of the Kurdish peace process and the failure of AKP to obtain an outright majority at the June 2015 election and to achieve the presidentialisation of the political system. Several journalists and editors are tried for being allegedly members of unlawful organisations, linked to either Kurds or the Glen movement, others for alleged insults to religion and to the President. In 2015 Cumhuriyet daily and Doan Holding were investigated for "terror", "espionage" and "insult". On the date of Bianet's publication, 61 people, of whom 37 journalists, were convict, defendant or suspect for having insulted or personally attacked the then-PM, now-President Recep Tayyip Erdoan. The European Court of Human Rights condemned Turkey for violation of the freedom of expression in the Abdurrahman Dilipak case (Sledgehammer investigation),[39][40] and the Turkish Constitutional Court upheld the violation of the freedom of expression of five persons, including a journalist. RTK could not yet choose its President; it still warned companies five times and fined them six times. The Supreme Electoral Council ordered 65 channels twice to stop broadcasting the results of the June 2015 election before the end of the publishing ban.

Attack to media freedom went far beyond the AKP interim government period. The January 2016 updated Bianet's report confirmed this alarming trend, underlining that the whole 2014 figure of arrested journalists increased in 2015, reaching the number of 31 journalists arrested (22 in 2014) [41] Once regained the majority on November 1, 2015 elections, the Turkish government intensified the pressure on the country's media, for example by banning some TV channels, in particular those linked to the Fethullah Glen movement, from digital platforms and by seizing control of their broadcasting. In November 2015, Can Dndar, Cumhuriyet's editor in chief and its Ankara representative Erdem Gl were arrested on charges of belonging to a terror organisation, espionage and for having allegedly disclosed confidential information. Investigation against the two journalists were launched after the newspaper documented the transfer of weapons from Turkey to Syria in trucks of the National Intelligence Organization previously involved in the MT trucks scandal. Dndar and Gl were released in February 2016 when the Supreme Court decided that their detention was undue.[42] In July 2016, in the occasion of the launch of the campaign "I'm a journalist", Mehmet Koksal, project officer of the European Federation of Journalists declared that "Turkey has the largest number of journalists in jail out of all the countries in the Council of Europe.[43]

The situation further deteriorated as consequence of the 2016 Turkish coup d'tat attempt of 15 July 2016 and the subsequent government reaction, leading to an increase of attacks targeting the media in Turkey. Mustafa Cambaz, a photojournalist working for the daily Yeni Safak was killed during the coup. Turkish soldiers attempting to overthrow the government took control of several newsrooms, including the Ankara-based headquarter of the state broadcaster TRT. They also forced a TV channel's anchor to read a statement at gunpoint while the member of the editorial board were held hostage and threatened. Also, soldiers seized the offices in Istanbul of Doan Media Center which hosted several media outles, including Hurriyet daily newspaper and the private TV station CNN Trk, holding journalists and other professionals hostage for many hours during the night. During the coup's night, in the streets of Istanbul, a photojournalist working for Hurriyet and the Associated Press was assaulted by civilians that were demonstrating against the coup.[44] In the following days, after the government regained power, the state regulatory authority named Information Technologies and Communications Authority shut down 20 independent online news portals. On July 19, the Turkish Radio and Television Supreme Council decided to revoke the licence of 24 TV channels and radio stations for being allegedly connected to the Glen community, without providing much details on this decision. Also, following the decision of declaring the state of emergency for three months taken on 21 July,[45] a series of limitation to freedom of expression and freedom of the media have been imposed. The measures within the regime of emergency include the possibility to ban printing, copying, publishing and distributing newspapers, magazines, books and leaflets.[46]

An editorial criticizing press censorship published May 22, 2015[47] and inclusion of Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as one of a rising class of "soft" dictators in an op-ed published in May 2015 in The New York Times[48] resulted in a strong reaction by Erdogan.[49] In an interview Dndar gave in July 2016, before the coup attempt and the government reaction, the journalist stated that "Turkey is going through its darkest period, journalism-wise. In has never been an easy country for journalists, but I think today it has reached its lowest point and is experiencing unprecedented repression".[50]

The Constitution of Turkey, at art. 28, states that the press is free and shall not be censored. Expressions of non-violent opinion are safeguarded by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ratified by Turkey in 1954, and various provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed by Turkey in 2000.[24] Many Turkish citizens convicted under the laws mentioned below have applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and won their cases.[24]

Yet, Constitutional and international guarantees are undermined by restrictive provisions in the Criminal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, and anti-terrorism laws, effectively leaving prosecutors and judges with ample discretion to repress ordinary journalistic activities.[2] The 2017 Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights' report on freedom of expression and media freedom in Turkey reiterated that censorship problems stem mainly from the Turkish Criminal Code and the Turkish Anti- Terrorism Law No. 3713.[51][52][53] Prosecutors continued to bring a number of cases for terrorism or membership of an armed organization mainly based on certain statements of the accused, as coinciding with the aims of such organization.[52]

Beside the Article 301, amended in 2008, and Article 312, more than 300 provisions constrained freedom of expression, religion, and association, according to the Turkish Human Rights Association (2002).[24] Article No. 299 of the Turkish Criminal Code provides for criminal defamation of the Head of the State. which is being increasingly enforced. 18 persons were in prison for this offence as of June 2016.[52][53] Article No. 295 of the Criminal Code is increasingly being enforced as well, imposing a press silence (Yayn Yasa) on topics of relevant public interest such as terrorist attacks and bloody blasts.[54] The silence can be imposed on TVs, print media, radios as well as to Internet content, hosting and service providers. Violating this norm can lead up to three years of detention.[55]

Many of the repressive provisions found in the Press Law, the Political Parties Law, the Trade Union Law, the Law on Associations, and other legislation were imposed by the military junta after its coup in 1980. As to the Internet, the relevant Law is Law No. 5651 of 2007.[56]

According to the Council of Europe Commissioner and to the Venice Commission for Democracy through Law, the decrees issued under the state of emergency since July 2016, conferred an almost limitless discretionay power to the Turkish executive to apply sweeping misure against NGOs, the media and the public sector.[52][57][58] Specifically, many NGOs were closed, the media organizations seized or shut down and public sector employees as well as journalists and media workers arrested or intimidated.[52]

Article 301 is a provision in the Turkish penal code that, since 2005 made it a punishable offense to insult Turkishness or various official Turkish institutions. Charges were brought in more than 60 cases, some of which were high-profile.[59]

The article was amended in 2008, including changing "Turkishness" into "the Turkish nation", reducing maximum prison terms to 2 years, and making it obligatory to get the approval of the Minister of Justice before filing a case.[60][61] Changes were deemed "largely cosmetic" by Freedom House,[2] although the number of prosecutions dropped. Although only few persons were convicted, trials under Art. 301 are seen by human rights watchdogs as a punitive measure in themselves, as time-consuming and expensive, thus exerting a chilling effect on free speech.[2]

Article 312 of the criminal code imposes three-year prison sentences for incitement to commit an offence and incitement to religious or racial hatred. In 1999 the mayor of Istanbul and current president Recep Tayyip Erdogan was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment under Article 312 for reading a few lines from a poem that had been authorized by the Ministry of Education for use in schools, and consequently had to resign.[24] In 2000 the chairman of the Human Rights Association, Akin Birdal, was imprisoned under Article 312 for a speech in which he called for "peace and understanding" between Kurds and Turks,[24] and thereafter forced to resign, as the Law on Associations forbids persons who breach this and several other laws from serving as association officials.[24] On February 6, 2002, a "mini-democracy package" was voted by Parliament, altering wording of Art. 312. Under the revised text, incitement can only be punished if it presents "a possible threat to public order."[24] The package also reduced the prison sentences for Article 159 of the criminal code from a maximum of six years to three years. None of the other laws had been amended or repealed as of 2002.[24]

Defamation and libel remain criminal charges in Turkey (Article 125 of the Penal Code). They often result in fines and jail terms. Bianet counted 10 journalists convicted of defamation, blasphemy or incitement to hatred in 2014.[2]

Article 216 of the Penal Code, banning incitement of hatred and violence on grounds of ethnicity, class or religion (with penalties of up to 3 years), is also used against journalists and media workers.[2]

Article 314 of the Penal Code is often invoked against journalists, particularly Kurds and leftists, due to its broad definition of terrorism and of membership in an armed organisation. It carries a minimum sentence of 7,5 years. According to the OSCE, most of 22 jailed journalsts as of June 2014 had been charged or condemned based on Art. 314.

Article 81 of the Political Parties Law (imposed by the military junta in 1982) forbids parties from using any language other than Turkish in their written material or at any formal or public meetings. This law is strictly enforced.[24][bettersourceneeded] Kurdish deputy Leyla Zana was jailed in 1994, ostensibly for membership to the PKK.

In 1991, laws outlawing communist (Articles 141 and 142 of the criminal code) and Islamic fundamentalist ideas (Article 163 of the criminal code) were repealed.[24] This package of legal changes substantially freed up expression of leftist thought, but simultaneously created a new offence of "separatist propaganda" under Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law.[24] Prosecutors also began to use Article 312 of the criminal code (on religious or racial hatred) in place of Article 163.[24]

The 1991 antiterrorism law (the Law on the Fight against Terrorism) has been invoked to charge and imprison journalists for activities that Human Rights Watch define as nonviolent political association and speech. The European Court of Human Rights has in multiple occasions found the law to amount to censorship and breach of freedom of expression.[2]

Constitutional amendments adopted in October 2001 removed mention of "language forbidden by law" from legal provisions concerning free expression. Thereafter, university students began a campaign for optional courses in Kurdish to be put on the university curriculum, triggering more than 1,000 detentions throughout Turkey during December and January 2002.[24] Actions have also been taken against the Laz minority.[24] According to the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey only recognizes the language rights of the Jewish, Greek and Armenian minorities.[24] The government ignores Article 39(4) of the Treaty of Lausanne, which states that: "[n]o restrictions shall be imposed on the free use by any Turkish national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, religion, in the press or in publications of any kind or at public meetings."[24][bettersourceneeded] Pressured by the EU, Turkey has promised to review the Broadcasting Law.[24]

Other legal changes in August 2002 allowed for the teaching of languages, including Kurdish.[68] However, limitations on Kurdish broadcasting continue to be strong: according to the EU Commission (2006), "time restrictions apply, with the exception of films and music programmes.[bettersourceneeded] All broadcasts, except songs, must be subtitled or translated in Turkish, which makes live broadcasts technically cumbersome. Educational programmes teaching the Kurdish language are not allowed. The Turkish Public Television (TRT) has continued broadcasting in five languages including Kurdish. However, the duration and scope of TRT's national broadcasts in five languages is very limited. No private broadcaster at national level has applied for broadcasting in languages other than Turkish since the enactment of the 2004 legislation."[69][bettersourceneeded] TRT broadcasts in Kurdish (as well as in Arab and Circassian dialect) are symbolic,[70][bettersourceneeded] compared to satellite broadcasts by channels such as controversial Roj TV, based in Denmark.

In 2003 Turkey adopted a freedom of information law. Yet, state secrets that may harm national security, economic interests, state investigations, or intelligence activity, or that violate the private life of the individual, are exempt from requests. This has made accessing official information particularly difficult.[2]

Amendments in 2013 (the Fourth Judicial Reform package), spurred by the EU accession process and a renewed Kurdish peace process, amended several laws. Antiterrorism regulations were tweaked so that publication of statements of illegal groups would only be a crime if the statement included coercion, violence, or genuine threats. Yet, the reform was deemed as not reaching international human rights standards, since it did not touch upon problematic norms such as the Articles 125, 301 and 314 of the Penal Code.[2] In 2014 a Fifth Judicial Reform package was passed, which among others reduced the maximum period pretrial detention from 10 to 5 years. Consequently, several journalists were released from jail, pending trial.[2]

New laws in 2014 were nevertheless detrimental to freedom of speech.[2]

Turkey is one of the Council of Europe member states with the greatest number of ECHR-recognised violations of rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. Of these, several concern Article 10 of the Convention, on freedom of expression.

The physical safety of journalists in Turkey is at risk.

Several journalists died in the 1990s at the height of the Turkey-PKK conflict. Soon after the pro-Kurdish press had started to publish the first daily newspaper by the name of "zgr Gndem" (Free Agenda) killings of Kurdish journalists started. Hardly any of them has been clarified or resulted in sanctions for the assailants. "Murder by unknown assailants" (tr: faili mehul) is the term used in Turkish to indicate that the perpetrators were not identified because of them being protected by the State and cases of disappearance. The list of names of distributors of zgr Gndem and its successors that were killed (while the perpetrators mostly remained unknown) includes 18 names.[80] Among the 33 journalists that were killed between 1990 and 1995 most were working for the so-called Kurdish Free Press.

The killings of journalists in Turkey since 1995 are more or less individual cases. Most prominent among the victims is Hrant Dink, killed in 2007, but the death of Metin Gktepe also raised great concern, since police officers beat him to death. The death of Metin Alata in 2010 is also a source of disagreement - while the autopsy claimed it was suicide, his family and colleagues demanded an investigation. He had formerly received death threats and had been violently assaulted.[81] Since 2014, several Syrian journalists who were working from Turkey and reporting on the rise of Daesh have been assassinated.

In 2014, journalists suffered obstruction, tear gas injuries, and physical assault by the police in several instances: while covering the February protests against internet censorship, the May Day demonstrations, as well as the Gezi Park protests anniversaries (when CNN correspondent Ivan Watson was shortly detained and roughed up). Turkish security forces fired tear gas at journalists reporting from the border close to the Syrian town of Kobane in October.[2]

Despite the 2004 Press Law foresees only fines, other restrictive laws have led to several journalists and writers being put behind bars. According to a report published by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), at least seven journalists remained in prison by the end of 2014. The independent Turkish press agency Bianet counted 22 journalists and 10 publishers in jail - most of them Kurds, charged with association with an illegal organisation.[2]

In 2016, Turkey became the biggest jail for journalists. As to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) rank, Turkey was the first country ever to jail 81 journalists, editors and media practitioners in one year.[82]

According to a CPJ report, Turkish authorities are engaging in widespread criminal prosecution and jailing of journalists, and are applying other forms of severe pressure to promote self-censorship in the press. The CPJ has found highly repressive laws, particularly in the penal code and anti-terror law; a criminal procedure code that greatly favors the state; and a harsh anti-press tone set at the highest levels of government. Turkeys press freedom situation has reached a crisis point.[83] This reports mentions 3 types of journalists targeted:

Kemalist and / or nationalist journalists were arrested on charges referring to the Ergenekon case and several left-wing and Kurdish journalists were arrested on charges of engaging in propaganda for the PKK listed as a terrorist organization. In short, writing an article or making a speech can still lead to a court case and a long prison sentence for membership or leadership of a terrorist organisation. Together with possible pressure on the press by state officials and possible firing of critical journalists, this situation can lead to a widespread self-censorship.[84]

In November 2013, three journalists were sentenced to life in prison as senior members of the illegal MarxistLeninist Communist Party - among them the founder of zgr Radio, Fsun Erdoan. They had been arrested in 2006 and held until 2014, when they were released following legal reforms on pre-trial detention terms. An appeal is still pending.[2]

In February 2017, German-Turkish journalist Deniz Ycel was jailed in Istanbul.[85][86][87]

On April 10, 2017, the Italian journalist Gabriele Del Grande was arrested in Hatay and jailed in Mugla.[88] He was in Turkey in order to write a book on the war in Syria. He went on hunger strike on April 18, 2017.[88]

Defamation and libel remain criminal charges in Turkey. They often result in fines and jail terms. Bianet counted 10 journalists convicted of defamation, blasphemy or incitement to hatred in 2014.[2]

Courts' activities on media-related cases, particularly those concerning the corruption scandals surrounding Erdoan and his close circle, have cast doubts on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary in Turkey. The Turkish Journalists' Association and the Turkish Journalists' Union counted 60 new journalists under prosecution for this single issue in 2013, for a total number of over 100 lawsuits.[2]

Particularly since 2013, the President Erdoan and other governmental officials have resorted to hostile public rhetoric against independent journalists and media outlets, which is then echoed in the pro-governmental press and TV, accusing foreign media and interest groups of conspiring to bring down his government.[2]

Tukish authorities have been reported as denying access to events and information to journalists for political reasons.[2]

Since 2011, the AKP government has increased restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and internet use,[28] and television content,[29] as well as the right to free assembly.[30] It has also developed links with media groups, and used administrative and legal measures (including, in one case, a billion tax fine) against critical media groups and critical journalists: "over the last decade the AKP has built an informal, powerful, coalition of party-affiliated businessmen and media outlets whose livelihoods depend on the political order that Erdogan is constructing. Those who resist do so at their own risk."[31]

These behaviours became particularly prominent in 2013 in the context of the Turkish media coverage of the 2013 protests in Turkey. The BBC noted that while some outlets are aligned with the AKP or are personally close to Erdogan, "most mainstream media outlets - such as TV news channels HaberTurk and NTV, and the major centrist daily Milliyet - are loth to irritate the government because their owners' business interests at times rely on government support. All of these have tended to steer clear of covering the demonstrations."[34] Few channels provided live coverage one that did was Halk TV.[35] Several private media outlets were reported as engaging in self-censorship due to political pressures. The 2014 local and presidential elections exposed the extent of biased coverage by progovernment media.[2]

The state-run Anadolu Agency and the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT) have also been criticized by media outlets and opposition parties, for acting more and more like a mouthpiece for the ruling AKP, a stance in stark violation of their requirement as public institutions to report and serve the public in an objective way.[95]

In 2014 the TRT, the state broadcaster, as well as the state-owned Anadolu Agency, were subject to stricter controls. Even RTK warned TRT for disproportionate coverage of the AKP; the Supreme Board of Elections fined the public broadcaster for not reporting at all on presidential candidates other than Erdoan, between August 6 and 8. The Council of Europe observers reported concern about the unfair media advantage for the incumbent ruling party.[2]

During its 12-year rule, the ruling AKP has gradually expanded its control over media.[12] Today, numerous newspapers, TV channels and internet portals also dubbed as Yanda Medya ("Partisan Media") or Havuz Medyas ("Pool Media") continue their heavy pro-government propaganda.[13] Several media groups receive preferential treatment in exchange for AKP-friendly editorial policies.[14] Some of these media organizations were acquired by AKP-friendly businesses through questionable funds and processes.[15]

Leaked telephone calls between high ranking AKP officials and businessmen indicate that government officials collected money from businessmen in order to create a "pool media" that will support AKP government at any cost.[96][97] Arbitrary tax penalties are assessed to force newspapers into bankruptcyafter which they emerge, owned by friends of the president. According to a recent investigation by Bloomberg,[98] Erdogan forced a sale of the once independent daily Sabah to a consortium of businessmen led by his son-in-law.[99]

Leading pro-AKP newspapers are Yeni afak, Akit, Sabah, Star, Takvim, Akam, Trkiye, Milli Gazete, Gne, and Milat, among others. Leading pro-AKP TV channels are Kanal 7, 24, lke TV, TRT, ATV, TGRT, Sky Turk 360, TV Net, NTV, TV8, Beyaz TV, Kanaltrk, and Kanal A. Leading pro-government internet portals are Haber 7, Habervaktim and En Son Haber. Leading pro-AKP news agencies are state owned Anadolu Agency and hlas News Agency.

Major media outlets in Turkey belong to certain group of influential businessman or holdings. In nearly all cases, these holding companies earn only a small fraction of their revenue from their media outlets, with the bulk of profits coming from other interests, such as construction, mining, finance, or energy.[100] Therefore, media groups usually practice self-censorship to protect their wider business interests.

Media not friendly to the AKP are threatened with intimidation, inspections and fines.[16] These media group owners face similar threats to their other businesses.[17] An increasing number of columnists have been fired for criticizing the AKP leadership.[18][19][20][21]

In addition to the censorship practiced by pro-government media such as Sabah, Yeni afak, and Star, the majority of other newspapers, such as Szc, Zaman, Milliyet, and Radikal have been reported as practicing self-censorship to protect their business interests and using the market share (65% of the total newspapers sold daily in Turkey as opposed to pro-government media[101]) to avoid retaliatory action by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government of Recep Tayyip Erdoan.[102]

During the period before the Turkish local elections of 2014, a number of phone calls between prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoan and media executives were leaked to the internet.[103] Most of the recordings were between Edoan and Habertrk newspaper & TV channel executive Fatih Sara. In those recordings, it can be heard that Erdoan was calling Fatih Sara when he was unhappy about a news item published in the newspaper or broadcast on TV. He was demanding Fatih Sara to be careful next time or censor any particular topics he is not happy about.[104] At another leaked call, Erdoan gets very upset and angry over a news published at Milliyet newspaper and reacts harshly to Erdoan Demirren, owner of the newspaper. Later, it can be heard that Demirren is reduced to tears.[105] During a call between Erdoan and editor-in-chief of Star daily Mustafa Karaaliolu, Erdoan lashes out at Karaaliolu for allowing Mehmet Altan to continue writing such critical opinions about a speech the prime minister had delivered recently. In the second conversation, Erdoan is heard grilling Karaaliolu over his insistence on keeping Hidayet efkatli Tuksal, a female columnist in the paper despite her critical expressions about him.[106] Later, both Altan and Tuksal got fired from Star newspaper. Erdoan acknowledged that he called media executives.[107]

In 2014, direct pressures from the executive and the Presidency have led to the dismissal of media workers for their critical articles. Bianet records over 339 journalists and media workers being laid off or forced to quit in the year - several of them due to political pressures.[2]

Trksat is the sole communications satellite operator in Turkey. There have been allegations that TV channels critical of the AKP party and President Erdoan have been removed from Trksat's infrastructure, and that Trksat's executive board is dominated by pro-Erdoan figures.

In October 2015 a video recording emerged of a 2 February 2015 conversation between Mustafa Varank, advisor to President Erdoan and board member of Trksat, and some journalists in which Varank states that he had urged Trksat to drop certain TV channels because "they are airing reports that harm the government's prestige". Later that year the TV channels Irmak TV, Bugn TV, and Kanaltrk, known for their critical stance against the government, were notified by Trksat that their contracts would not be renewed as of November 2015, and were told to remove their platforms from Trksat's infrastructure.[135]

Trksat dropped TV channels critical of the government from its platform in November 2015. The broadcasting of TV stationsincluding Samanyolu TV, Mehtap TV, S Haber and Radio Cihanthat are critical of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government were halted by Trksat because of a legal obligation to the order of a prosecutor's office, based on the suspicion that the channels support a terrorist organization. Among the TV and radio stations removed were Samanyolu Europe, Ebru TV, Mehtap TV, Samanyolu Haber, Irmak TV, Yumurcak TV, Dnya TV, MC TV, Samanyolu Africa, Tuna Shopping TV, Bur FM, Samanyolu Haber Radio, Mehtap Radio and Radio Cihan.[136]

The critical Bugn and Kanaltrk TV channels, which were seized by a government-initiated move in October 2015, were also dropped from Trksat in November 2015. Later on 1 March 2016 these two seized channels closed due to financial reasons by government trustees.[137]

In March 2016 the two TV channels from other wings of the politics were also removed from Trksat, namely, Turkish Nationalist Benguturk and Kurdish Nationalist IMC TV.[138]

On September 25, 2017, Turkey decided to remove broadcaster Rudaw Media Network (Rudaw), which is affiliated to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in northern Iraq, from its satellite broadcasting on the same day voting took place on an independence referendum in the KRG.[139]

Censorship of sensitive topics in Turkey happens both online and offline. Kurdish issues, the Armenian genocide, as well as subjects controversial for Islam or the Turkish state are often censored. Enforcement remains arbitrary and unpredictable.[2] Also, defamation of the Head of the State is a crime provision increasingly used for censoring critical voices in Turkey.[53]

In the 2016 Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index, Turkey is ranked in the 151st place out of 178 countries.[140] The situation for free expression has always been troubled in Turkey.[141][142] The situation dramatically deteriorated after the 2013 Gezi protests,[143] reaching its peak after the July 15, 2016 coup attempt. From that moment on, a state of emergency is in force,[144] tens of thousand of journalists, academics, public officials and intellectuals have been arrested or charged, mainly with terrorist charges, sometimes following some statement or writing of them.[140]

The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights' report on freedom of expression and media freedom in Turkey, after his 2016 visits to Turkey, noted that the violations to freedom of expression in Turkey have created a distinct chilling effect, manifesting in self- censorship both among the remaining media and among ordinary citizens.[52] In addition, the Commissioner wrote that the main obstacle to an improvement of the situation of freedom of expression and media freedom in Turkey is the lack of political will both to acknowledge and to address such problems.[52]

In 2017, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights noted that with regard to judicial harassment restricting freedom of expression the main issues consist in:[52]

As to January 18, 2017, more than 150 media outlets were closed and their assets liquidated by governmental decrees.[57][58][131] Under emergency decree No. 687 of February 9, 2017, Turkeys Saving Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF) will be authorized to sell companies seized by the state through the appointment of trustees.[132][133] Also, through the use of emergency decrees- such as Nos. 668 (July 27, 2016), 675 (October 29, 2016) and 677 (November 22, 2016), 178 media organizations were closed down being charged of having terrorist affiliations. As to November 2016, Twenty-four of these shut-down media organizations were radio stations, twenty- eight televisions, eighty newspapers.[134]

In 2014, Turkish regulators issued several reporting bans on public interest issues.[2]

In 2012, as part of the Third Reform Package, all previous bans on publications were cancelled unless renewed by court - which happened for most leftist and Kurdish publications.[2]

Academics are also affected by governments censorship. In this regard, the case of the Academics for Peace is particularly relevant:[65] on January 14, 2016, 27 academics were detained for interrogations after having signed a petition with more than other 1.000 people asking for Peace in the South- East of the country, where there are ongoing violent clashes between the Turkish Army and the PKK.[66] The academics accused the government of breaching international law. An investigation started upon those academics under charges of terrorism propaganda, incitement to hatred and enmity and for insulting the State under Article No. 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code.[67]

In television broadcasts, scenes displaying nudity, consumption of alcohol, smoking, drug usage and violence are commonly censored by blurring out respective areas.[145] TV channels also practice self-censorship of subtitles in order to avoid heavy fines from the Radio and Television Supreme Council (Radyo ve Televizyon st Kurulu,RTK). For example, CNBC-e channel usually translates the word gay as marginal.[146]

State agency RTK continues to impose a large number of closure orders on TV and radio stations on the grounds that they have made separatist broadcasts.[24]

Turkey's Internet censorship regime shifted from "moderate" to "severe" in late 2016 following a series of social media shutdowns, regional Internet blackouts and restrictions on VPN and Tor circumvention tools documented by independent digital rights watchdog Turkey Blocks.[172][173] Months earlier, human rights research group Freedom House had already downgraded its outlook of internet freedom in the country to "Not Free," noting in its report that the assessment was made before further restrictions following the abortive military coup in July.[174]

With regard to Internet censorship, in the 2017 Report on media freedom and freedom of expression in Turkey, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe found out:[52]

In earlier years, the Turkish government implemented legal and institutional reforms driven by the countrys ambitions to become a European Union member state. At the same time Turkey demonstrated its high sensitivity to defamation and other "inappropriate" online content, resulting in the closure of a number of local and international Web sites. All Internet traffic passes through Turk Telecoms infrastructure, allowing centralized control over online content and facilitating the implementation of shutdown decisions.[175][176]

In December 2010 the OpenNet Initiative, a non-partisan organization based in Canada and the United States that investigates, analyzes, and exposes Internet filtering and surveillance practices, classified Internet censorship in Turkey as selective (third lowest of four classifications) in the political, social, and Internet tools areas and found no evidence of censorship in the conflict/security area.[177] However, also in 2010, Reporters Without Borders added Turkey to its list of 16 countries "under surveillance" (the less serious of two Internet censorship lists that it maintains), saying:

The year 2010 was marked by the widely covered deblocking of the video-sharing website YouTube which, unfortunately, did not equate to a lifting of online censorship in Turkey. In a country where taboo topics abound, several thousand websites are still inaccessible and legal proceedings against online journalists persist.[178]

In July 2010 the Alternative Informatics Association organized one of the first and largest street protests against Internet censorship in Istanbul. A second protest took place in May 2011 with demonstrations in 30 cities in Turkey.[179]

In its Freedom on the Net 2016 report, Freedom House gave Turkey a "freedom on the net status" of "not free" saying that:[180]

The Freedom on the Net 2015 report, tracked that over 60,000 websites remain blocked in Turkey, and that TIB blocked 22,645 websites without prior court order only in 2014. Twitter was blocked for two weeks and YouTube for two months in 2014.[2][181] On March 21, 2014, Twitter access for Turkish users was blocked for two weeks in the run-up to local elections to prevent a stream of leaked wiretapped recordings of senior officials that had appeared on the site, prompting Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to declare he would "root out" the network.[182]

In the 11th biannual transparency report published on September 19, 2017, Twitter said that Turkey was the first among countries where about 90 percent of removal requests came from.[183] Also, Turkey has submitted the highest volume of removal requests to Twitter on 2014,[184] 2015[185][186] and 2016.[185]

During the 201617 purges, the secure instant messaging app ByLock was accused by the Turkish government of being used primarily by members of the Glen movement, which it classifies as a terrorist organization, during the failed coup. The government launched investigations of over 23,000 citizens for connections to Glen, based solely on evidence that they had downloaded or used ByLock. Some of these investigations resulted in arrests and detainment. However, in December 2017, the government announced that it would investigate 11,480 phone numbers had been falsely accused of ties to ByLock and Glen, after finding that the accusations were induced by unrelated apps embedding a web beacon pointing to the ByLock website from within. An arrest warrant was also issued against the developer of one of these apps.[187][188]

Internet Law No. 5651 was enacted in 2007 Turkey with the declared objective of protecting families and minors.[56][189] The way for its enactment was paved after the ban imposed on Youtube.com in 2007, because of a video insulting the Turkish Republics funder Kemal Atatrk.[189] Since then, such law was enforced in a restrictive manner, often causing episodes of censorship against common citizens, journalists and media outlets.[190] For this reason, experts consider Law No. 5651 particularly controversial.[191]

On 5 February 2014 the Turkish Parliament adopted a controversial bill amending the Internet regulation in Turkey. It allows the telecommunications authority (TIB) to block any website within 4 hours without first seeking a court ruling, and requires Internet providers to store all data on web users' activities for two years and make it available to the authorities upon request.[192] After the July 15, 2016 coup attempt, TIBS power were transferred to the Technology and Communications Authority (Bilgi Teknolojileri ve Iletisim Kurumu BTK), which previously oversaw the TIBs operations.[193]

Internet Law No. 5651 prohibits:

Web sites are also blocked for the following reasons:

Since the 2015 amendments, national security is also a basis for broad access bans.[194]

Decisions to block a website can be appealed, but usually only after a site has been blocked. Nevertheless, due to the public profile of the major websites banned and the lack of juridical, technical, or ethical arguments to justify the censorship, the blocked sites are often available using proxies or by changing DNS servers.

On September 2017, Turkeys Supreme Court has ruled that having ByLock, mobile messaging application, installed on phone is enough evidence to convict a suspect as a member of FET.[195]

Original post:

Censorship in Turkey - Wikipedia

10+ Years of Activists Silenced: Internet Intermediaries’ Long History of Censorship – EFF

Recent decisions by technology companies, especially upstream infrastructure technology companies, to drop neo-Nazis as customers have captured public attentionand for good reason. The content being blocked is vile and horrific, there is growing concern about hate groups across the country, and the nation is focused on issues of racism and protest.

But this is a dangerous moment for Internet expression and the power of private platforms that host much of the speech on the Internet. People cheering for companies who have censored content in recent weeks may soon find the same tactic used against causes they love. We must be careful about what we are asking these companies to do and carefully review the processes they use to do it. A look at previous examples that EFF has handled in the past 10+ years can help demonstrate why we are so concerned.

This isnt just a slippery slope fear about potential future harm. Complaints to various kinds of intermediaries have been occurring for over a decade. Its clear that Internet technology companiesespecially those further upstream like domain name registrars are simply not equipped or competent to distinguish between good complaints and bad in the U.S. much less around the world. They also have no strong mechanisms for allowing due process or correcting mistakes. Instead they merely react to where the pressure is greatest or where their business interests lie.

Here are just a few cases EFF has handled or helped from the last decade where complaints went upstream to website hosts and DNS providers, impacting activist groups specifically. And this is not to mention the many times direct user platforms like Facebook and Twitter have censored content from artists, activists, and others.

Youll notice that complainers in these cases are powerful corporations. Thats not a coincidence. Large companies have the time, money, and scary lawyers to pressure intermediaries to do their biddingsomething smaller communities rarely have.

The story gets much more frightening when governments enter the conversation. All of the major technology companies publish transparency reports documenting the many efforts made by governments around the world to require the companies to take down their customers speech.[1]

China ties the domain name system to tracking systems and censorship. Russia-backed groups flag Ukrainian speech, Chinese groups flag Tibetan speech, Israeli groups flag Palestinian speech, just to name a few. Every state has some reason to try to bend the core intermediaries to their agenda, which is why EFF along with a number of international organizations created the Manila Principlesto set out the basic rules for intermediaries to follow when responding to these governmental pressures. Those concerned about the position of the current U.S. government with regard to Black Lives Matter, Antifa groups, and similar left-leaning communities should take note: efforts to urge the current U.S. government to treat them as hate groups have already begun.

Will the Internet remain a place where small, marginalized voices get heard? For every tech CEO now worried about neo-Nazis there are hundreds of decisions made to silence voices that are made outside of public scrutiny with no transparency into decision-making or easy ways to get mistakes corrected. We understand the impulse to cheer any decisions to stand up against horrific speech, but if we embrace upstream intermediary censorship, it may very well come back to haunt us.

See the original post here:

10+ Years of Activists Silenced: Internet Intermediaries' Long History of Censorship - EFF

Tech Companies and Censorship: Where Should We Draw The Line? – Inc.com

This has been a tough week.

Starting with the terrible event that occurred last weekend in Charlottesville, VA, where clashes between neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups erupted into fights and violence and led to death of one protester.

Throughout the week, the event continued to gain steam when President Trump commented about the incident, then made a second comment, then held an unprecedented press conference that even members of his own party condemned.

As prominent CEOs's of the President's manufacturing council began to drop out, several tech companies began or intensified their crack down on hate speech and banning of alt-right and neo-Nazi websites. According to PBS News, here are just a few big names and their actions:

Cloudflare, a company that provides security services to internet companies to protect them from hackers, also joined the movement by also dropping The Daily Stormer from its network services. The move was a bit of a surprise, because Matthew Prince, co-founder and CEO of Cloudflare, has long been an advocate of free speech saying that "a website is speech, it is not a bomb,"

Cloudfire took the action, however, because management determined that the The Daily Stormer was harassing individuals who were reporting their site as abusive. Prince was also clear that he and the company found the content on the site "abhorrent and vile" and in a company memo stated that "the tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology ... we could not remain neutral after these claims of secret support by Cloudflare."

While these actions by tech companies seen by most as the proper and moral thing to do, some have rightfully questioned the ability of businesses in general to have such a significant influence on the fundamental right of free speech online -- censoring or even removing it altogether.

Prince goes on to say that entrepreneurs -- and society at large -- need to ask ourselves who should be responsible for policing and regulating online content. "I sit in a very privileged position," said Prince, "I see about 10 percent of all online traffic, and I can make a decision whether they can be online anymore. And I'm not sure I am the one who should be making that kind of decision."

The the question for all of us is who should be?

We are all affording the freedom of speech and expression -- a very unique, precious and delicate gift. We have also been afforded, through the sacrifice of many generations, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

When these two rights intersect and conflict, we need a moral standard -- not the constitution -- to moderate.

Of course, the question then becomes who gets to decide the moral standard?

Luckily, we have a democratic system in place that allows the country's citizens to select representatives who serve as the law makers that mold this standard. Is our system flawed -- absolutely -- but as Winston Churchill astutely recognized, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

When it comes to tech companies -- or any company for that matter -- they have an obligation to follow the law -- and that is about it. As Prince contends, the right policy is for content providers to be "content neutral." The community can be policed by its users in the form reporting reprehensible content, and companies have the obligations to engage experts and authorities in law enforcement to determine what should be removed.

Of course, if some companies wish to write and maintain an internal set of codes and as long as those codes do not infringe upon or otherwise break a law, a company has every right to do so. Customers who disagree can exercise their freedom of speech to voice their opinion or simply "protest with their wallets."

This debate will surely not end anytime soon, and by all indications, it is just getting started.

What do you think? Should censorship be under the management of companies, or should content be continued to be given freedoms under the right to free speech? Please share your (constructive and civil) comments below.

More:

Tech Companies and Censorship: Where Should We Draw The Line? - Inc.com

Cambridge University Press battles censorship in China – The Economist

YnO*0&5^(GAgPbLrXx 5z}!)YMB|63|'mTYE7.m[5xZy+z>IQ?or>A9rtVFy[6&f~+qOT(zcFH< (95ka]jLc( {]=6ksph[P%KLS]Ady_C8RH8 "tY);xLSwe??|}^XQ19u3"07A8c7um~| )#.2yfJDX,^ #g%qJjdDiG&)]zMAS.bwhRqff]x%8gB>W'jg0p0=X++a1(!ngwkU5-;U_u[_u+UPO"eQz}z |Jo_=+mG?.|S=^OjKkp!&CYyHF;%wV8L5N>0Z)bYva v6D<*, #@=)/Rqeyz(_wTst@ cJ8$ACTipg=k=z3u%o|SKwym-"kTdzb#(ilh')n)may;@Ann ,Ui2Ib'k1 V&My|rTk4aiQ ")?LBe|6 &N=w]E@bI#Lq> ZDr_GC#:VDq0iE*4Zg9`$ixH4T8! RBD}N h2*!C0!U+R xX :2B)F*"@(6$'iyHTS&:MxZd~JX8 1$IN5Q4=euwfGIJcY@,Bw(lbERPHf@I yrPDk!5I Tm2Vay31)il$M P$4%>D1a$2*@(bFX8L4-$sS< (.O565q!J b@)'JpO%gi"X>,`!P,c&WSH:9`Vq5i2O7 x6B&art7xhrdeVBkKm5k8<Ggi2xz9r+QTfJxW+N7FGuOm#~n[Ly>bz{/#^aark<= &k#X3Xd6eI;v)Oe={?B3?T42zl3{V0#o[5g39N%B/a|~6*6OS!;p[*fh}Xn=``mCPY?bPf-sz?<_?/nsBn_ {2N '/|dG+D 8c W2i*K,8hM&L} WISb5b R%FO!ib,8eo nU=Sm '+Y>nVi-L QnaB6L2BI!Ub aP&8 hl^:iNRo w7@IhyLQ1=]WMCy:iNw~,RVreyy;{g}sgwjU?];%yfAD-eWS^YU{W}S_>fj -FZ.U-}S;dKVl//|zRZYl.7M]k 6{gCwM0hb]_!Q-_kudw1x-n-{Hj>]=T_ysWiFhZD`#'{ <#:>xkV2Q#"}d$!cLsz!qtoRMxMEhJTS^:i n%QcJ1"[|S>Xd{{gfoOFci)M3OToo)h>{&PiGm-ERRjnf>e#_S.=x[n-.,3Naqi#wb0kW8=1'>wwiq4pS#Yn+iXr%U&~=E;B}8N;UUY?}QtzbUkaWKZmP8c?1wqn1I|_n1W*->Wt69P61. !f}x[1"{LabtqM=ja@K`IU_$Wk&[IXc"Pd_;S %sWYQ7/(Ijai<9L9C u|c+< :kP*}Kd <:vtUJiCGA%6%S$-N-8W9m{M-*b&nYLAmfhil?:ilTd](F!SM'C=]&= w]yJ;)l@3xV(v: Q-1o^u`rDa4Q5Nov$|RQ2b7?Uy"^=X*]: <;VERd!RCzqLaqkbq6I4d.Jsc]Pd2T67D?Y1bj4oUTn$b[SU6I%OH,DULrqU jaum7b>Mj Inu 6~ Xzw)4u28G/sW QE?L [1UBl(6aBEMfpYE ^S$~_"y@n6]$,9K%.?V9*4vJVa(Jwd3=UQ#h!V6u#$CvnG' i;+%aQ0!h[(G:j_j>P)RrG dFDl ^c06'S4 un*ks"uS;[`VML{Ps*!q SHKQh&J:z|:^py8~]YF,%/cc#N}rD4-oR LeTKyL@~An E@f7ANTWXCLee5j>Dox#Cf i*6YH -:^_11d0C]Omys=@CB<|(rr)lj4f(aj}2~]w.wnrnqrnq2na2nanyrq_n&1yN|;m4qCR*+06"akI43ALzny;kl.>$^g

Read more:

Cambridge University Press battles censorship in China - The Economist

At Beijing book fair, publishers admit self-censorship – Yahoo News

Beijing (AFP) - Just days after the world's oldest publisher briefly caved in to Chinese censorship demands, international publishing houses are courting importers at a Beijing book fair, with some admitting they keep sensitive topics off their pages.

The censorship controversy that hit Cambridge University Press (CUP) sent a chill along the stands staffed by publishers from nearly 90 countries at the Beijing International Book Fair, which opened on Wednesday.

But some acknowledged their companies have already resorted to self-censorship to ensure that their books do not offend and are published in China.

CUP had given similar arguments when it initially complied with a Chinese import agency's demand to block articles from its China Quarterly journal, before reversing course on Monday after coming under fire from the academic community.

Terry Phillips, business development director of British-based Innova Press, was candid about it as he prepared to meet a Chinese counterpart at the fair's section for overseas publishers.

"We frequently exercise self-censorship to adapt to different markets. Every country has different sets of requirements about what they consider appropriate for education materials," Phillips told AFP.

"But as authors, I think we also have a responsibility to find ways to teach good citizenship and human rights," he said.

John Lowe, managing director of Mosaic8, an Asian educational publishing specialist based in Tokyo, said the authorities govern the distribution of the International Standard Book Number (ISBN) that companies need for their books to be sold in China.

"So it is in publishers' interest to not publish something that would anger authorities," Lowe said.

"You don't mention the three 'Ts': Tiananmen, Tibet and Taiwan. But it's usually fine to discuss human rights issues generally," Lowe said.

- CUP quiet -

The 300 articles that were temporarily removed from China Quarterly's website in China included texts on the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, the status of Tibet, the self-ruled island of Taiwan and the Chinese democracy movement.

CUP had said last Friday that it wanted "to ensure that other academic and educational materials we publish remain available to researchers and educators in this market".

In an about-face, the publisher announced on Monday that it was restoring access to the articles after international academics criticised CUP for succumbing to Chinese pressure and launched a petition demanding that it reverse course.

But the US-based Association for Asian Studies revealed this week that CUP had received a request from China's General Administration of Press and Publications to remove 100 articles from another publication, the Journal of Asian Studies.

Cambridge University officials said they would discuss the censorship issue with the importer at the book fair, which runs until Sunday, after expressing concern about "the recent increase in requests of this nature".

Rita Yan, a CUP coordinator at the publisher's booth, told AFP that the censorship issue "wasn't affecting our activities at the book fair."

Yan declined to comment further and said CUP's managing director of academic publishing was unable to speak with the press because she was occupied with meetings.

- Censorship: 'A selling point' -

Other publishers participating in the fair said the uproar has created an atmosphere of anxiety about censorship.

"Currently, we don't have any problems, but in the future, we don't know," said Ding Yueting, a marketer for Wiley, an educational publisher and research service based in New Jersey.

A representative of a large American publishing house, who requested anonymity because she was not authorised to speak to the press, said: "We're nervous about whether there will be increased censorship requests from Chinese agencies in the future."

But a representative of another major American publisher, who also requested anonymity, said that a factor influencing self-censorship decisions is that there would be "no point" in producing books that will likely get banned.

"It would be embarrassing to go through the trouble of translating a book from English to Chinese, and then being unable to publish in China," he said.

"On the other hand, books that are censored in China often sell better abroad," he said.

"It's usually a major selling point."

Read more here:

At Beijing book fair, publishers admit self-censorship - Yahoo News

Delingpole: Thomas Wictor Is the Latest Victim of Google Censorship – Breitbart News

YouTube has suspended his account allegedly because he violated their terms of use; but really, he suspects, for the crime of being a Trump supporter who speaks unpalatable truths about leftist evils.

If youre unfamiliar with Thomas Wictor, youre missing a treat. Hes a Venezuelan-born recluse with a rich and varied past who, besides being the worlds greatest (and only) expert on World War I flamethrowers, also happens to produce some of the most fascinating Twitter threads and social media video commentary you will ever see on subjects ranging from Antifa to Pallywood to whats really going on in Syria and Iraq.

Some of his output is so kooky and recondite that, quite possibly, it strays into the realm of conspiracy theory.

But with Wictor you can never be quite sure because his exposition is so thorough and well-documented.

One of his specialties is forensic video analysis. This is how I first came across him, a few years back, when I wrote my first Breitbart News story based on his research. It concerned the four Palestinian boys supposedly blown up on a beach by Israeli artillery during the last Gaza conflict but really, or so Wictor claimed, murdered by Hamas who then exploited the dead children for propaganda purposes.

More recently he has attracted a big following on Twitter thanks to his epic threads which examine the truth behind various news stories, especially ones relating either to the Middle East or Antifas domestic terrorism.

This, he believes, is what got him into trouble with the lefts political correctness sentinels.

He told me:

I was able to prove at least three attempted murders by Antifa at Berkeley on April 15, 2017. In the video above [now deleted by YouTube], the Antifa member used a Fairbairn-Sykes fighting knife.

The Fairbairn-Sykes is a double-edged stabbing weapon. It produces deep wounds that bleed heavily, making it hard to save the victim. It was only incompetence on the part of Antifa and sheer luck that the free-speech supporter didnt die. The Antifa member stabbed four times. Thats attempted murder in the first degree.

The reason I came to the attention of Google was that Donald Trump Jr retweeted me. After that, my YouTube account came under almost daily assault until it was terminated.

On Twitter, I support Jews, Shia Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Christians, blacks, whites I see no religion or color. My blog posts were all technical.

The last detail is important because, according to Googles explanations as to why his YouTube account was first closed temporarily then permanently, his videos had inappropriate content.

Eventually, Wictors account was killed with death-by-faceless-bureaucracy. (Ive included the full private thread of Wictors communication with me because its soclassically Thomas Wictor)

This is the internets loss and reflects ill on both YouTube and Google.

Happily, his Twitter threads are still operative and todays is another classic. It concerns a story aboutState Rep. Beth Fukumoto (D-Hawaii) and her claim reported in Huffington Post that she receivedracistcorrespondence from a Trump supporter.

Wictor has strong suspicions that it is a hoax because, using photos of the letter and envelope from the internet, he has subjected the correspondence to forensic analysis.

Read the full thread to find out why he thinks it is fake. Its classic Wictor.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Here is the original post:

Delingpole: Thomas Wictor Is the Latest Victim of Google Censorship - Breitbart News

World’s oldest publisher reverses ‘shameful’ China censorship – CNNMoney

The university press, which describes itself as the oldest publishing house in the world, had admitted to blocking online access in China to academic works on Tiananmen Square, the Cultural Revolution and Tibet.

The University of Cambridge said in a statement on Monday that its academic leadership and the publisher had agreed to reinstate the blocked content "with immediate effect" to "uphold the principle of academic freedom."

The censored academic articles appeared in the highly regarded journal China Quarterly. Its editor, Tim Pringle, said the reversal followed a "justifiably intense reaction from the global academic community and beyond."

"Access to published materials of the highest quality is a core component of scholarly research," he said in a statement on Monday. "It is not the role of respected global publishing houses ... to hinder such access."

The decision to censor the articles drew condemnation from academics around the world.

It represented "a craven, shameful and destructive concession" to the Chinese government's "growing censorship regime," Georgetown University professor James Millward wrote in an open letter published over the weekend.

By Monday, an online petition threatening a boycott of the publisher and its journals had gathered hundreds of signatures.

Related: Facebook finds a way into China

The not-for-profit publisher had defended its action as necessary to ensure that China doesn't block "entire collections of content." It said it would never proactively censor its own content.

But many prominent academics blasted the move.

"Chinese students and scholars reading a censored version of The China Quarterly will encounter only historical facts and scholarly analyses approved by political authorities," Greg Distelhorst of MIT and Jessica Chen Weiss of Cornell wrote in a letter to Cambridge University Press.

"This censored history of China will literally bear the seal of Cambridge University," they said.

The Cambridge press, which has been operating since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I in the 16th century, has run into a challenge faced by other global publishers: obey China's censors or be locked out of its giant market.

Related: Apple's Tim Cook hopes China will ease VPN restrictions

Foreign authors who wish to publish books in China must allow their works to be altered by censors. Top news organizations like The New York Times have had their websites blocked in China for years after publishing articles that upset the ruling Communist Party.

"Western institutions have the freedom to choose," said an English-language opinion article published Sunday by Global Times, a provocative but state-sanctioned Chinese tabloid. "If they don't like the Chinese way, they can stop engaging with us. If they think China's internet market is so important that they can't miss out, they need to respect Chinese law and adapt to the Chinese way."

China's General Administration of Press and Publication, a regulatory body, didn't respond to requests for comment Monday.

Related: Banned! 11 things you won't find in China

Submitting to Beijing's demands was "a misguided, if understandable, economic decision that does harm to the Press' reputation and integrity," said Jonathan Sullivan, director of the China Policy Institute at the University of Nottingham.

"This is not the first time Beijing has leveraged the economic power of the Chinese market for political gains," he wrote in a blog post. "The fear is that it won't be the last time that Western academia is the target."

-- Serena Dong contributed to this report.

CNNMoney (London) First published August 21, 2017: 1:12 PM ET

Excerpt from:

World's oldest publisher reverses 'shameful' China censorship - CNNMoney

In reversal, Cambridge University Press restores articles after China censorship row – Washington Post

BEIJING Cambridge University Press reversed course Monday after facing a major backlash from academics over its decision to bow to Chinese government demands to censor an important academic journal.

The British-based publisher announced Friday it had removed 300 articles and book reviews from a version of the China Quarterly website available in China at the request of the government. But on Monday, it rescinded that decision after outrage from the international academic community.

It said the original move had only been a temporary decision pending discussion withacademic leadership of the University of Cambridge and a scheduled meeting with the Chinese importer in Beijing.

Academic freedom is the overriding principle on which the University of Cambridge is based, it said in a statement. Therefore, while this temporary decision was taken in order to protect short-term access in China to the vast majority of the Presss journal articles, the Universitys academic leadership and the Press have agreed to reinstate the blocked content, with immediate effect, so as to uphold the principle of academic freedom on which the Universitys work is founded.

The articles touched on topics deemed sensitive to the Communist Party, including the crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square in 1989, policies toward Tibetan and Uighur ethnic minorities, Taiwan and the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution.

Tom Pringle, editor of China Quarterly, applauded the decision to reverse course.

Access to published materials of the highest quality is a core component of scholarly research, he said in a statement published online.It is not the role of respected global publishing houses such as CUP to hinder such access. The China Quarterly will continue to publish articles that make it through our rigorous double-blind peer review process, regardless of topic or sensitivity.

The demand to remove the articles came from Chinas General Administration of Press and Publication, which warned that if they were not removed the entire website would be made unavailable in China.

The articles would still have been available on a version of China Quarterly accessible outside China. But academics around the world had accused CUP of selling out and becoming complicit in censoring Chinese academic debate and history.

In an open letter published on Medium.com, James A. Millward, a professor of history at Georgetown University, had called the original decision a craven, shameful and destructive concession to the Peoples Republic of Chinas growing censorship regime.

Millward said the decision to agree to censorship was a clear violation of academic independence inside and outside China.

He added it was akin to the New York Times or the Economist publishing versions of their papers inside China omitting content deemed offensive to the Communist Party.

It is noteworthy that the topics and peoples CUP has so blithely chosen to censor comprise mainly minorities and the politically disadvantaged. Would you censor content about Black Lives Matter, Mexican immigrants or Muslims in your American publication list if Trump asked you to do [so]? he asked.

In another open letter, MIT assistant professor Greg Distelhorst and Cornell associate professor Jessica Chen Weiss had warned: The censored history of China will literally bear the seal of Cambridge University.

In a tweet, James Leibold, an associate professor at Melbournes La Trobe University, whose scholarship about the Xinjiang region was among the censored articles, had called the decision a shameful act.

And a petition circulatedamong academics warning that Cambridge University Press could have faced a boycott if it had continued to acquiesce to the Chinese governments demands.

It is disturbing to academics and universities worldwide that China is attempting to export its censorship on topics that do not fit its preferred narrative, Christopher Balding, an associate professor at Peking University HSBC School of Business in Shenzhen, China, the petitions originator, wrote.

If Cambridge University Press acquiesces to the demands of the Chinese government, we as academics and universities reserve the right to pursue other actions including boycotts of Cambridge University Press and related journals.

The petition requested that only academics and people working in higher education sign, and give their affiliation. It had attracted 635 signatures on Change.org, although it could not be immediately established how many signatories were academics.

Later, Balding welcomed CUP's change of heart, but added: These are issues Western institutions need to rethink. Just assuming there will be continued liberalization is not an accurate assessment.

In an editorial, Chinas state-run Global Times newspaper also cast the issue as a matter of principle and said that if Western institutions can leave if they dont likeit.

Western institutions have the freedom to choose, it wrote. If they don't like the Chinese way, they can stop engaging with us. If they think China's Internet market is so important that they can't miss out, they need to respect Chinese law and adapt to the Chinese way.

It doesn't matter if some articles on the China Quarterly disappear on the Chinese Internet. But it is a matter of principle. Time will tell whose principles cater more to this era, it added.

Experts said China's decision was part of a broader crackdown on free expression in China under President Xi Jinping that has intensified this year as the Communist Party becomes more confident and less inclined to compromise.

In the past, China's system of censorship, nicknamed the Great Firewall of China, has concentrated mainly on Chinese-language material, and has been less preoccupied with blocking English-language material, which is accessed only by a narrow elite. But that may now be changing.

The China Quarterly is very reputable within academic circles, and it does not promote the positive energy that China wants to see, said Qiao Mu, a former professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University who was demoted and ultimately left the university after criticizing the government. Instead, it touches on historical reflection, talks about Cultural Revolution and other errors that China has made in the past. These are things that China does not like and does not want to be discussed.

Qiao said the initial decision might have seemed wisefor the publisher as a company, since China is a huge market. But it would have had a negative effect on already limited academic freedom in China.

For Chinese academics, the effect is mainly psychological, he said. They will think more when doing research and impose stricter self-censorship.

Internet companies have also faced similar dilemmas: Google chose to withdraw from China rather than submit to censorship, and has been displaced here by a censored Chinese search engine, Baidu.com. But LinkedIn has submitted to censorship and continues to operate here. Apple recently complied with a demand from the Chinese government to remove many VPN (virtual private network) applications that Netizens use to access blocked websites, from its App Store in China.

Millward had argued that Cambridge as a whole has more power than it perhaps realized in a battle of wills with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

China is not going to ban everything branded Cambridgefrom the Chinese realm, because to do so would turn this into a big, public issue, and that is precisely what the authorities hope to avoid, he wrote.

To do so would, moreover, pit the CCP against a household name that every Chinese person who knows anything about education reveres as one of the worlds oldest and best universities. And Chinese, probably more than anyone else, revere universities, especially name-brand ones.

Cambridge University Press has made available a complete list of the articles that the Chinese government wanted censoredhere.

Luna Lin contributed to this report.

See the rest here:

In reversal, Cambridge University Press restores articles after China censorship row - Washington Post

Rewriting history is a form of censorship – The Journal

I am disgusted by the actions of lawless individuals and groups destroying statues and symbols of our past history.

Do these fools think they can somehow change our history by toppling a few bronze replicas of Civil War soldiers? They justify their actions by wrapping themselves in the banner of anti-racism, yet we do not see them attacking statues of Presidents Woodrow Wilson or Franklin D, Roosevelt, who were both racists. Wilson was responsible for re-segregating our armed forces in World War I, and Roosevelt imprisoned thousands of loyal Japanese citizens during World War II but did not arrest people of German or Italian decent.

Now we hear they want to destroy the Jefferson Memorial and rename Washington, D.C. Others have spayed paint on the Lincoln Memorial. Where are these attempts to destroy the reputations of great men like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and even George Washington leading us?

Is this a prelude to tearing up our beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Vince Young

Dolores

Continue reading here:

Rewriting history is a form of censorship - The Journal

Why India’s Battle Against Film Censorship Isn’t Over Yet | IndieWire – IndieWire

Movies lovers in India and advocates of artistic freedom everywhere breathed a sigh of relief on August 18, when filmmaker Pahlaj Nihalani the censorious chairman of the countrys film certification body was fired from his post. He was quickly replaced by screenwriter and advertising icon Prasoon Joshi. Nihalanis firing signals a positive direction for the countrys relationship to censorship but the chain of events has opened up several thorny questions.

See MoreWhy India Continues to Censor New Movies

India is the worlds most prolific filmmaking country, but movie news coming out of the subcontinent is often fraught with tales of censorship, bans and the public outrage as a result. According to the Indian Constitution, no film is eligible for public distribution or screening unless certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). To complicate matters further, the relevant Act in the Constitution (which hails from 1952) allows the CBFC to prohibit films that threaten the sovereignty of the Indian nation, its national interest, decency or morality. Over the years, members of the board have utilized the vague language in the Constitutions text to get scissor-happy with countless films.

For example, India employs the controversial practice of adding on-screen disclaimers to any smoking scene that are intrusive at best, overwhelming at worst. This found no favor with Woody Allen, who back in 2013 decided not to release Blue Jasmine in India rather than cave in to such demands. This trend only worsened when Nihalani was appointed to the chairpersons post in 2015.

Blue Jasmine

Within a month of joining the body, Nihalani sent his colleagues a list of objectionable words that were to be censored in any film submitted for approval. The list included words such as masturbating and Bombay, the colonial name for Mumbai. It was a lost cause: Filmmakers across the country and some members of the CBFC itself lodged vehement protests that blocked Nihalanis efforts. However, ad hoc decisions were still made with various films; the word lesbian was muted in a romantic comedy and the durations of the kisses in the Bond film Spectre were ordered to be cut down by exactly 50%.

During his term, Nihalani never shied away from the limelight and often spoke at length about the rationale of his decisions. The colorful nature of his statements only added to his infamy. When asked in an interview why the kisses in Spectre were a problem at their intended length, he responded, This means you want to do sex in your house with your door open. And show to people the way you are doing sex.

Perhaps the most well-known decision of Nihalanis term as CBFC chairperson was the bodys refusal to grant approval to feminist sex comedy Lipstick Under My Burkha. In their letter to the films producer, they claimed that the story is lady-oriented, their fantasy above life and that there are contanious [sic] sexual scenes. (Whether they meant continuous or contagious has never been addressed.) The letter and CBFCs antics attracted worldwide attention, the criticism of artists and film festivals; in a beautiful example of the Streisand Effect, not only did Lipstick Under My Burkha eventually win certification but also punched above its weight at the box-office.

Joshi, the new chairperson, seems far more progressive and less trigger-happy in his public statements. As a lyricist, he has twice won the National Film Award, the highest such honor in India. In 2003, a campaign he orchestrated for Coca-Cola India won the Golden Lion at the Cannes International Advertising Festival. In past interviews, he has expressed a refreshing open-mindedness. (One example: I believe that ideally we should have a society where no censorship is required.) He is also generally admired in Indias film industry, where professionals respect his talent and experience.

Lipstick Under My Burkha

JIGNESH PANCHAL

However, Joshis proximity to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) the biggest part of Indias ruling coalition ought to raise a few eyebrows. He has frequently worked on their political campaigns. For the BJPs campaign for the 2014 general elections, Joshi helped with the iconic Acche Din (Good times!) catchphrase, a message as integral to the BJPs positioning as Make America Great Again was to Donald Trumps Presidential campaign. Coincidentally, once the BJP formed the government at the center, Joshi was awarded with the Padma Shri, Indias fourth-highest civilian honor, for his contributions in the field of arts, literature and advertising.

Speaking with reporters in Mumbai after his appointment was made public, Joshi revealed that he did not know how [the CBFC] functions and that it takes time to understand the whole process. The credentials required to head a certification body are not amenable to bullet points, but Joshis statements make one wonder on what basis the government considers someone worthy of being appointed to the powerful post overlooking the distribution of every single film in the country. Among Joshis colleagues in the Board are several individuals with links to the BJP, some of whom have made inflammatory and partisan statements in the past.

In an ideal world, the CBFC would stick to its original mandate: certifying films in order to help them reach their audiences. There would be no need for filmmakers to fear cuts to their labor of love or for producers to be anxious about their release dates. Removing Nihalani is a step in the right direction, but a lot more remains to be done.

Read the original post:

Why India's Battle Against Film Censorship Isn't Over Yet | IndieWire - IndieWire

Ban of white nationalist website raising fears of government censorship – Washington Times

Major internet companies rush to oust a white nationalist website last week could make it tougher for tech companies and open-net advocates to try to keep the government from censoring websites in the future, the CEO of one of the companies said.

GoDaddy, Google and Cloudflare a company that protects sites from being knocked off-line all booted Daily Stormer from their services after the white nationalist website cheered the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and mocked the 32-year-old woman killed in the aftermath.

Matthew Prince, CEO for Cloudflare, acknowledged the decision makes it harder for his company to fight against pressure by some governments to take down a website in the future.

I dont know the right answer, but I do know that as we work it out its critical we be clear, transparent, consistent and respectful of Due Process, Mr. Prince wrote in his statement.

At a time when open-internet advocates are pushing policies such as net neutrality, the quick moves to punish the online presence rally participants or sympathizers worried activists who said the companies appeared to be making up the rules as they went along.

We think that there is a better route to making decisions that impact fundamental rights like freedom of expression than what appeared to be pretty ad hoc decisions being made right now, said Peter Micek, general counsel for Access Now.

Daily Stormer took the brunt of the online blowback last week, getting kicked off hosting sites. Twitter also banned an account that shared links to stories from the controversial site, while Facebook expunged all efforts to share the offending article that mocked the woman killed in Charlottesville.

But Facebook allowed the article to remain posted as long as it was accompanied by criticism of Daily Stormer or its white nationalist views.

Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, said he thinks its a good thing for the Facebooks of the world to ban certain types of racist speech, although he admits editorial editing from these sites is not without concern.

There is an inherent danger when so many people get so much of their information from, say, Facebook that when Facebook makes the decision not to carry something, the public is effectively deprived, said Mr. Abrams.

Meanwhile, OkCupid, an online dating site, banned one user who admitted to being a part of the white nationalist protests.

The kind of viewpoint refereeing the sites engaged in is likely legal because the sites are private, experts said.

I dont see that as adding any exposure to the service provider because they already have the ability as a private actor and as a commercial provider to determine who they are going to work with, to contract with or, if you will, even to discipline, said Brigadier Gen. Michael McDaniel, a professor at WMU-Cooley Law School.

But Mr. Abrams said tension is created when these sites engage in editing but are still protected from liability under the law.

Thats something that all these companies must be thinking about carefully, he said.

A spokesperson for Google said they ousted Daily Stormer because they feared Googles terms of use would be violated.

Twitter declined to comment, while GoDaddy and Facebook didnt respond to questions about their censorship decisions.

Mr. Prince at Cloudflare admitted to Gizmodo that he made an exception to their policy in canceling Daily Stormer but insisted he hadnt set a new precedent.

I think we have to have a conversation over what part of the infrastructure stack is right to police content, he said.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation said what hosting companies such as GoDaddy and Cloudflare did was more worrisome than the social media companies censorship.

With a content host that is like a social media site, they can just take down one post or eliminate one bit of content whereas Cloudflare and GoDaddy and so on, they cant, said Jeremy Malcolm, senior global policy analyst at Electronic Frontier Foundation. They had to take down an entire website, and that gives a lot more risk of taking down legitimate speech along with the problematic speech.

The rest is here:

Ban of white nationalist website raising fears of government censorship - Washington Times

Concerns About Censorship Soar As Russia Detains Director – Forward

MOSCOW (Reuters) - A prominent Russian theater director who has lamented what he says is the lack of freedom and growing social conservatism in his country was detained on Tuesday and accused of embezzling state funds.

Russias Investigative Committee said it suspected Kirill Serebrennikov of embezzling at least 68 million rubles ($1.15 million) in state funds earmarked for an art project, it said in a statement.

Serebrennikov, artistic director at Moscows avant-garde Gogol Centre theater, denies wrongdoing. He faces up to 10 years in jail if found guilty.

Dmitry Kharitonov, a lawyer for Serebrennikov, said his client was detained in St. Petersburg where he was working on a film about a Soviet rock star.

Serebrennikov, an award-winning director whose father was Jewish, has used his work to criticize the authorities in the past, lashing out at what he sees as the pernicious growing role of the state and church in Russian society.

His detention shocked his supporters and the arts world.

The arrest of the director before a trial is a clearly excessive measure, wrote Alexei Kudrin, a liberal economist and former finance minister, on social media.

In May, investigators searched Serebrennikovs home and office and questioned him as a witness in an embezzlement case.

His lawyer could not immediately say if Serebrennikovs detention was linked to the same case or a different one. The accountant and general director of Serebrennikovs theater have already been accused of stealing state funds.

As The New York Times reported, well-regarded Russian cultural figures spoke out on Serebrennikovs behalf following both the earlier searches and his arrest. When Russian President Vladimir V. Putin gave a state award to the actor Yevgeny V. Mironov in May, Mironov passed him a letter advocating for Serebrennikov. And the literary critic and television host Aleksandr Arkhangelsky posted a Facebook status that, in the Times translation, was damning towards the authorities: Those who do this cover themselves with shame, he wrote.

In July, the Bolshoi Theatre postponed the world premiere of Nureyev, an edgy ballet about the famous Russian dancer which was directed by Serebrennikov.

The TASS news agency reported that Russias minister for culture had a long conversation with the Bolshoi before it announced it was postponing the premiere.

But Vladimir Urin, the theatres director general, said it had been pulled because rehearsals had shown it was not ready. He said it would be staged in May next year instead.

See the original post:

Concerns About Censorship Soar As Russia Detains Director - Forward

Measuring the Internet for Freedom – Project Syndicate

ROME Last year, during a wave of deadly political protests in Ethiopia, the government blocked more than 15 media websites and the smartphone chat application WhatsApp. Sites promoting freedom of expression and LGBTQ+ rights, as well as those offering censorship-circumvention tools, such as Tor and Psiphon, were also suppressed.

All of this was uncovered through the use of software called ooniprobe, which is designed to measure networks and detect Internet censorship. Ooniprobe was developed more than five years ago by the Tor-supported Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI), with which I work, in order to boost transparency, accountability, and oversight of Internet censorship. The software is free and open source, meaning that anyone can use it. And, indeed, tens of thousands of ooniprobe users from more than 190 countries have already done just that.

Those users have contributed to the collection of millions of network measurements, all of which are published on OONI Explorer, arguably the largest publicly available resource on Internet censorship. Thanks to their use of ooniprobe, we uncovered the extent of last years wave of censorship in Ethiopia, as well as details of many other cases of censorship elsewhere in the world.

In Uganda, local groups used ooniprobe during last years general election, when the government blocked social media. Ooniprobes network-measurement data not only confirmed the governments action; it also uncovered which sites were blocked and the different methods used by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to implement censorship.

Ooniprobe also came in handy in Malaysia in 2015. Facing accusations that he had transferred nearly $700 million from the state investment fund 1MDB to his personal bank accounts, Prime Minister Najib Razak attempted to block news outlets and blogs that reported on the scandal. It was ooniprobes network-measurement software that enabled Malaysian civil-society groups to collect data that serve as evidence of the blocking.

Of course, censorship is not always carried out to protect the politically powerful; it can also be used to reinforce social and cultural norms. In Indonesia, for example, low social tolerance for homosexuality may have played a role in the blocking of numerous LGBTQ+ websites, even though the country does not officially restrict LGBTQ+ rights. Similar factors may have influenced efforts to block sites perceived as overly critical of Islam.

In Thailand, ISPs have, in the last three years, blocked access to a number of sites that are perceived to be offensive toward the countrys royal family. But, here, there is a legal justification: Thailands strict prohibition against lse-majest protects the royal familys most senior members from insult or threat. Other cases of legally justified Internet censorship include the blocking of sexually explicit websites in countries where pornography is prohibited.

Then there are cases where the motivation for censorship is unclear. Why, for example, has an online dating site been blocked in Malaysia? In some countries, ISPs appear to be censoring sites at their own discretion. According to ooniprobe data, multiple Thai ISPs simultaneously blocked access to different types of websites from news outlets to Wikileaks to pornography indicating that they likely received vague orders from authorities.

Before ooniprobe, such censorship was difficult to detect, leading to a lack of accountability, with governments and ISPs often denying any and all involvement. Even in cases where governments announce official lists of blocked sites, they may leave some targets off. Likewise, ISPs may not always comply with official orders to lift blocks. Vimeo and Reddit, for example, were recently found to be blocked in some networks in Indonesia, even though the official ban on those sites was lifted more than two years ago.

With ooniprobe, users are not only able to expose Internet censorship; they can also acquire substantial detail about how, when, where, and by whom the censorship is being implemented. OONIs Web-Connectivity Test, for example, is designed to examine whether access to websites is blocked through DNS tampering, TCP/IP blocking, or a transparent HTTP proxy.

Other ooniprobe tests are designed to examine the accessibility of chat apps namely, WhatsApp, Telegram, and Facebook Messenger within networks, as well as that of censorship-circumvention tools, such as Tor, Psiphon, and Lantern. OONI also provides software tests that uncover the presence of systems (middle boxes) that could potentially be responsible for censorship or surveillance.

The depth of OONI data supports much-needed accountability and oversight. Lawyers can use OONI data to assess the legality of Internet censorship in their countries, and potentially introduce it as evidence in court cases. Journalists, researchers, and human-rights defenders can use the data to inform their work as well. And censorship-circumvention projects like Tor can use OONI findings on emergent censorship events to shape their tools and strategies.

OONI data can help enrich public discourse about the legality, necessity, and proportionality of Internet censorship. That makes it a critical tool for safeguarding human rights on the Internet and beyond.

Todays media landscape is littered with landmines: open hostility by US President Donald Trump, increased censorship in countries such as Hungary, Turkey, and Zambia, growing financial pressure, and the challenge of "fake news." In Press Released, Project Syndicate, in partnership with the European Journalism Centre, provides a truly global platform to frame and stimulate debate about the myriad challenges facing the press today.

Excerpt from:

Measuring the Internet for Freedom - Project Syndicate

Protecting Democracy from Online Disinformation Requires Better Algorithms, Not Censorship – Council on Foreign Relations (blog)

Eileen Donahoe is Executive Director of the Global Digital Policy Incubator at Stanford University, and former U.S. ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council. You can follow her @EileenDonahoe.

Democracies face an existential threat: information is being weaponized against them with digital tools. Although propaganda is not new, the speed, scale and extraterritorial reach of digital disinformation makes it different in kind from propaganda of old. Digital mechanisms of manipulationfrom bot armies and clickbait to micro targetingare being mastered by authoritarian and anti-democratic forces, outpacing democratic societies capacities to protect themselves.

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of this threat is that information itself is the weapon. Information has always been the lifeblood of democracy. For democracy to work, free and well-informed citizens must actively engage in civic discourse. Digital disinformation is destroying the prospect of democratic engagement by well-informed citizens.

Given the digital disinformation campaigns in the lead-up to BREXIT and the recent U.S. and French presidential elections, democratic governments now are seized with defending against disinformation operations by foreign governments seeking to disrupt their democratic processes. Until recently, many national security experts were focused on cyber threats to critical infrastructure that could have a physical consequences (e.g. a cyberattack causing something to blow up). Few anticipated that the target of cyberattack would be the civic infrastructure of our democraciesnot only voting machines, but public discourse around our elections. Fewer envisioned that the preferred vector of cyberattack would be disinformation.

But an ominous risk also arises when democratic governments responding to digital disinformation undermine their own democratic values. Germanys new NetzDG law, also known as the Network Enforcement Act or social media law, aims to eradicate hate speech and propaganda on digital platforms. It imposes steep fines (up to 50 million) for failure to take down evidently criminal content within twenty-four hours. The motivation for this legislation was to protect the quality of discourse necessary to sustain democracy, but its unintended effects risk greater damage to democracy than the original threat.

As private sector platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter have become primary sources of information and vehicles for expression, they effectively function as the public square for civic engagement. Their algorithms affect their users access to information and how they form political opinions. This has created conceptual confusion about the roles and responsibilities of social media platforms in democracy. The German NetzDG Act manifests this confusion.

In one swoop, the German government handed over judicial authority for determining criminality to the private sector. It simultaneously encouraged censorship, by incentivizing platforms to err on the side of taking down flagged content even if not criminal. Finally, it eroded the core concept of limited platform liability for third-party speech, which has facilitated the free flow of information on the Internet and democratized distribution of content globally.

In effect, the German bill got the target wrong: Platforms should not be liable for speech posted by users, (but should take down criminal speech based on a court order.) Platforms should be accountable for their own algorithms when they push information to users to monetize attention. The German approach retreats from governing responsibility and undermines its own commitment to freedom of expression on the Internet.

This is especially true when Russia starts holding up the German law as a model for its own censorship efforts. Democratic values are at risk of serious erosion when Moscow looks at Berlin for inspiration to regulate internet content. Within two weeks of the adoption of the German law, the Russian Duma proposed a copy-cat bill, with multiple explicit references to the German law as its model. The Russian version, like the German original, compels social media companies to take down vaguely defined illegal content within twenty-four hours or face severe penalties. The official justification for the law was to prevent use of digital networks for illegal purposes. In Russia, this can mean anything that challenges the authoritarian rule of Vladimir Putin. Russias cynical use of Germanys example should raise alarm bells for all democratic actors.

Democratic governments concerned about new digital threats need to find better algorithms to defend democratic values in the global digital ecosystem. Democracy has always been hard. It requires an exquisite balance between freedom, security and democratic accountability. This is the profound challenge that confronts the worlds liberal democracies as they grapple with foreign disinformation operations, as well as home-grown hate speech, extremism, and fake news. Fear and conceptual confusion do not justify walking away from liberal values, which are a source of security and stability in democratic society. Private sector and government actors must design algorithms for democracy that simultaneously optimize for freedom, security, and democratic accountability in our digital world.

Read the rest here:

Protecting Democracy from Online Disinformation Requires Better Algorithms, Not Censorship - Council on Foreign Relations (blog)

Daily Stormer ban raising fears of government censorship – Washington Times


Washington Times
Daily Stormer ban raising fears of government censorship
Washington Times
Major internet companies' rush to oust a white nationalist website last week could make it tougher for tech companies and open-net advocates to try to keep the government from censoring websites in the future, the CEO of one of the companies said.
The Guardian view on censoring the internet: necessary, but not easyThe Guardian
Moran: Did Google, GoDaddy, and CloudFlare Violate Net Neutrality?Breitbart News

all 9 news articles »

Go here to see the original:

Daily Stormer ban raising fears of government censorship - Washington Times

In banning white-supremacist websites, progressive tech giants set a dangerous precedent. – National Review

Last week, multiple major Internet corporations essentially cooperated to kick a hate site, The Daily Stormer, off the Internet. Cloudflare, GoDaddy, Google, and various other companies withdrew their services, and now one of the Internets most odious sites lives mainly on the dark web, largely inaccessible to the casual user.

This was an ominous development for free speech and not because there is anything at all valuable about The Daily Stormers message. Its an evil site. Its message is vile. Instead, The Daily Stormers demise is a reminder that a few major corporations now have far more power than the government to regulate and restrict free speech, and theyre hardly neutral or unbiased actors. They have a point of view, and theyre under immense pressure to use that point of view to influence public debate.

Its a simple reality that the lines of Internet communication are in progressive political hands, these progressive corporations look to left-wing activists to define hate, and a large number of leftists believe to the core of their beings that hateful speech should be censored and suppressed whenever possible.

For example, just this week ProPublica, a respected journalism outlet, decided to study how leading tech companies monetize hate. The article begins by highlighting not the Klan or a white-supremacist militia but instead Jihadwatch.org. And how did it choose Jihad Watch? It relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that is notorious for supplementing its lists of white-supremacist hate groups with its own ideological enemies list, one that a university radical would love.

It singles out mainstream Christian organizations like the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defending Freedom as hate groups because they defend and support orthodox Christian beliefs on marriage, sexuality, and gender identity. It challenges Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch because he argues that traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful. Thats a highly debatable proposition (indeed, there are Muslims who agree with Spencer), but is it akin to white supremacy? After all, enormous numbers of people in the Muslim world believe in the death penalty for, among other things, blasphemy or apostasy. Those are mainstream Muslim views. Are those views moderate? Are those views peaceful?

The SPLC even calls American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray Charles Murray a white nationalist. Does that mean ProPublica is going to call out corporations that help AEI process its online donations? ProPublica does at least acknowledge the controversy over the SPLCs rankings but then waves it away by arguing that the SPLC documents its decision about the Family Research Council by citing the evangelical lobbying groups promotion of discredited science and unsubstantiated attacks on gay and lesbian people. But did ProPublica do its own research on the FRC? What about the many other mainstream groups the SPLC labels as hateful? From its story, it looked like ProPublica simply accepted the SPLC list and ran its analysis.

In fact, the SPLCs language about the FRC is so inflammatory and one-sided that in 2012 it inspired a man named Floyd Lee Corkins to attempt to massacre as many FRC employees as he could and stuff Chick-fil-A sandwiches in their dead mouths. In 2016, the SPLC inspired a violent attack on Charles Murray when he tried to speak at Middlebury College. A number of the protesters reported that they hadnt read Murrays work. They relied entirely on the SPLCs inaccurate summary of his views.

None of this is happening in a free-speech vacuum. In some progressive enclaves even the most ordinary and mainstream of assertions cause meltdowns. The examples are too numerous to mention, but who can forget the physical threats on Evergreen State College professor Bret Weinstein when he objected to a plan to exclude white students and professors from campus for a day? Who can forget the incredible, overheated response at Yale University to the suggestion that adult students should be free to choose their own Halloween costumes? And lets remember that it was just days ago that Google a company that claims to value free expression summarily fired an employee for making good-faith arguments about sex differences that are well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history.

When Cloudflare terminated its relationship with The Daily Stormer, its CEO sounded a word of warning. In an e-mail to company employees, he said, Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldnt be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power. In fact, he explicitly hoped that his actions would not set a precedent. But he has set a precedent. So has Google. So has GoDaddy. Its a precedent that activists will cite time and again its a precedent that ProPublica just cited to try to force the most powerful communications companies in the world to use their immense reach to restrict debate on the most consequential issues in public life.

Americans by default and without any meaningful choice are putting their trust in a collection of companies that are largely ideological monocultures disproportionately influenced by the social-justice Left. No one weeps for The Daily Stormer, but censors often start with the easy targets, and even a cynic like me was surprised at how quickly ProPublica started probing tech companies relationships with far more mainstream organizations. The move from The Daily Stormer to the Family Research Council isnt a slippery slope, its a plunge off a cliff of reason and rationality, yet its a plunge that all too many Americans are willing to take. They see no distinction between orthodox Christians and the Klan, and theyll pressure corporations to see the world the same way.

There are no easy answers to our cultural drift away from free speech, but the first line of defense is persuasion. There are people of goodwill at companies such as Google, Cloudflare, and GoDaddy people who understand the high cost of censorship and the dangers of ideological uniformity. They understand that the proper cure for bad speech is better speech. Indeed, they remain powerful enough that our online culture is still vibrant and largely free. They cannot and must not fall for the activism and hectoring of ideological opportunists.

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Read the rest here:

In banning white-supremacist websites, progressive tech giants set a dangerous precedent. - National Review

‘TapDance’ Networking Technology Designed to Beat Censorship – Breitbart News

Robinson announced the project aiming to fight global censorshipvia Medium, breaking down the way in which he and his fellow researchers are rewiring the Internet for freedom. To do this, they will use refraction networking also known as decoy routing through a utility known as TapDance to confuse and subvert national censors. They debuted it at this years Usenix Security Symposium, in Vancouver, British Columbia.

TapDance is a complex tool with a surprisingly simple explanation. Essentially, requests from a country in which a site is censored will be rerouted through, and then refracted from, a site that is deemed acceptable to whatever censors are in place. To do this, relevant internet service providers will need to employ TapDance within the core of their infrastructure. Once they have done so, TapDance will simply watch for any signals sent with a special, secret tag that signals the request is from a censored area of the world then disguises it for them in real time.

The test conducted employed popular anti-censorship app Psiphon, and involved more than 50,000 users. After its promising success, the creators of TapDance believe thatTapDance can be practically realized at ISP scale with good performance and at a reasonable cost, and that it could very well create further opportunities for long-term, large-scale deployments of TapDance or other refraction networking schemes in the future.

That said, no one is really sure how good TapDance will be at evading the robust national defenses of governments ruling in places like North Korea, let alone China. In fact,professor Ian Goldberg and Ph.D. student Cecylia Bocovich at Ontarios University of Waterloo believe that it is within the capabilities of more powerful censors to detect and blockTapDancetraffic in its current form, according to an e-mail received by CBC News.

To that end, Bocovich and Goldberg are developing their own solution, in Slitheen. Rather than employing refraction networking to hide censored requests, Slitheen actually disguises them as requests for acceptable content, and tailoring the traffic patterns to match the fake data requested. Unfortunately, it is also currently much more difficult to implement for ISPs.

If TapDance succeeds on a broader scale, it represents the worlds current best hope for a free and open internet. If ISPs along the very backbone of the information superhighway can implement such a simple tool, freedom of speech and information will be exponentially harder to hold prisoner.

FollowNateChurch@Get2Churchon Twitter for the latest news in gaming and technology, and snarky opinions on both.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read the original:

'TapDance' Networking Technology Designed to Beat Censorship - Breitbart News

FCC Censorship Rules Vary for Broadcast, Cable, and Streaming – Variety

Its about halfway through the fifth season of Orange Is the New Black when Elizabeth Rodriguezs recently un-incarcerated, always opinionated Aleida sums up the plight of female-forward broadcast television writers everywhere with one simple, well-crafted exchange.

Can I say bitches? she asks a local newscaster and then, when she gets the green light, immediately and involuntarily exclaims, s. The journalist, played by Thea McCartan, responds she cant say that, to which Aleida replies, What kind of fing bulls rule is that?

Although the writers may have simply been trying to show that Aleida was not as media savvy as she was street smart in this episode, which was written by co-exec producer Lauren Morelli, in a lot of ways, were all like Aleida, says writer-producer Carolina Paiz.

After years of working on broadcast TV, Paiz understands Aleidas frustrations. On network shows, she notes, Were constantly censoring or told to self-censor. Even before the FCC has a way to weigh in, Standards and Practices is all over us.

Paiz recounts her frustration from working on one unidentified show that had plenty of violence, but required the writers to go back and forth and come up with 20 different racial slurs to see which one was more acceptable than the other. She was also on ABCs Greys Anatomy earlier in its run when writers were told that they couldnt say vagina on a medical show but penis was OK thus resulting in terms like vajayjay entering our lexicon. (A representative for ABC confirmed to Variety that vagina is now acceptable language.)

Ron Simon, curator of TV and radio at the Paley Center for Media, notes that since 1934 over-the-air television and radio has been regulated, including a safe harbor period between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Although the First Amendment prohibits outright censorship or interference with broadcasters right to free speech, during these hours content the FCC deems indecent material may not be broadcast because kids are arguably most likely to hear it.

Simon says most of the recent viewer complaints have come from live events, such as CNNs decision to air the audio of Donald Trumps Access Hollywood hot mic interview during the election or Stephen Colberts late-night monologue where he claimed to know the only thing the president is good for. Neither were within the FCCs jurisdiction.

It seems very arbitrary, if you look at the complaints, Simon says. Hes not sure how much the average viewer has made a distinction between what is and isnt regulated by the FCC.

Of course networks have their own rights to self-censor and Paizs experience with broadcast Standards and Practices is not unique. Museum of Broadcast Communications television curator Walter J. Podrazik says he has seen a desire not to offend from the business side since the days of Lucy and Ricky Ricardo, and Rob and Laura Petrie, sleeping in separate beds. He points to a scene in a televised production of the play No Time for Sergeants that aired in 1955 during The United States Steel Hour as an example. In the play, Andy Griffiths character, Will Stockdale, is on latrine duty and decides to make all the toilet seat covers stand at attention and flush when his superior walks though. But the gag was deemed inappropriate for television audiences, so an orchestra played instead. Even by 1971, Podrazik says, it was a big deal when audiences heard a toilet flush in one of the first scenes of All in the Family.

What is offensive or what is an imposition has sort of changed over the years, Podrazik says. But he adds that writers and directors are crafty enough to get around it and convey it without having to say the words.

Foxs Empire only used the most derogatory word for a gay man in the pilot (in 2015), since becoming more creative when reaching for terms an old-school music mogul might use to hurt his gay son. ABCs Modern Family made light of an emotional situation in 2012 by bleeping the tirade of f-bombs that the young Lily (Aubrey Anderson-Emmons) unleashes during a wedding ceremony. But this year NBCs The Carmichael Show aired the n-word unedited during primetime albeit with a parental advisory notice appearing ahead of the broadcast. These examples all serve the argument that words can be hurtful, but hearing them can add to the authenticity of characters, diminish their shock potential and reclaim their ownership.

ABCs anthology drama American Crime, which ended with its third season this year, was never gratuitous with foul language, but it did incorporate it into the show to capture the reality of its characters vocabulary. Its work-around for the FCC? A short cut to black.

Michael J. McDonald, one of American Crimes executive producers, says early viewers thought something might be wrong with their screens, but now, people are used to it, and when you watch it, you just fill in the word. McDonald appreciates that ABC allowed these cutaways because it implies theyre not shying away from the language being spoken. Theyre almost saying, Were censoring this because we have to.

American Crime still had to fight battles for certain terms, though. Lollipop is not an acceptable euphemism for oral sex, according to the ABC S&P, and dick is banned as well, which McDonald says is innately misogynistic, considering you can say bitch as many times as you want in an episode. It is interesting to note, too, that when licensed on Netflix and airing in other countries, American Crime plays its scenes with the words intact.

Cable networks that are not as beholden to advertisers have slightly fewer censorship rules to which to adhere, but most are still selective with their language. Although shows on FX have used the f-word for years, and The People v. OJ: American Crime Story ran the gamut of racist and sexist commentary when depicting the infamous Mark Fuhrman tapes, its 2017 anthology Feud was the first to use the c-word.

Id like to get to the point where theres virtually no censorship, and were pretty close, FX chief John Landgraf told journalists during his executive session at the summer 2015 Television Critics Assn. press tour. Landgrafs policy is to use as few offensive epithets toward women and minorities as possible.

When they are used, they tend to be used in a context where you see theyre used by a character that is doing something wrong, and its pretty clear theyre doing something wrong, he says.

Oddly, this issue is compounded by something for which many networks have been commended: a push for diversity. As series push to include more characters speaking foreign languages, there comes the problem of what is inflammatory in one country isnt in another even if those countries speak the same language, as McDonald found on American Crime. Similarly, Paiz says she once worked on show that had a character named Jesus. S&P was fine with his name if it was used with the Latino pronunciation, but she says they dug in their heels that his friends were not refer to him with the Anglicized one.

I come from Latin America and they censor words that we say in Spanish in ways that make no sense, says Paiz. She was also told that under no circumstances could she use the Latino insult pendejo, which literally translates to pubic hair but can also be used pejoratively to call someone a stupid or contemptible person, because they had gotten complaints about it before.

Paiz understands the reasoning behind these rules, even if they do feel arbitrary, but McDonald points out that an hour on social media on which children spend a great portion of their day can bring up more scathing language than anything available on scripted television. He believes cursing and strong language definitely have their places on television, just not on all shows.

I dont think people are going to be watching American Crime and think, Oh, dear lord. They said the f-word!, McDonald says. You already have chosen to watch our show and know what the subject matter is. I think if you dropped the f-word and the n-word into an episode of The Middle, that might be a little more shocking to a family.

Read the original post:

FCC Censorship Rules Vary for Broadcast, Cable, and Streaming - Variety

Trump campaign accuses CNN of censorship – The Hill

President Trumps reelection campaign saidTuesdaythat CNN has denied its offer to buy air time for a campaign ad, marking the second time the network has refused to run a pro-Trump campaign spot.

The ad, called Let President Trump Do His Job, accuses the media of attacking our president and briefly displays pictures of news anchors from several news outlets, including CNN anchors Jake Tapper, Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper.

The presidents enemies dont want him to succeed, the ad states. Let President Trump do his job.

One of the many reasons that so many millions of Americans support President Trump is because of their complete mistrust of the mainstream news media, and the presidents refusal to allow their biased filter to interfere with his messages, Trump campaign executive director Michael Glassner said in a statement.

Today, CNN provided further proof that the network earns this mistrust every day by censoring President Trumps message to the American people by blocking our paid campaign ad, he continued. Clearly, the only viewpoint CNN allows on air is CNNS.

A spokesperson for CNN said the network asked for changes to make the ad "factually accurate" and that the Trump campaign declined.

"CNN would accept the ad if the images ofreporters and anchors are removed," a spokesperson said. "Anchors and reporters dont have 'enemies,' as the ad states, but they do hold those in power accountable across the political spectrum and aggressively challenge false and misleading statements and investigate wrong-doing."

Earlier this year, CNN refused to run a Trump campaign ad because it cast the mainstream media as fake news.

Trump and CNN are locked in an increasingly personal feud that has pitted the White House against the networks top on-air talent.

CNNs chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, has gained prominencefor his entrenched opposition to Trump.

Acosta has infuriated conservatives, who view him as a grandstander whose chief goal is buildinghis personal brand through viral clips of heated exchanges with White House spokespeople.

At a press conferenceon Monday, Acosta, who was representing the media through the press pool, shouted a question at Trump, who responded: Youre fake news.

Havent you spread a lot of fake news yourself, sir?Acosta shot back.

CNN has run its own ads with footage of anchors lecturing White House officials and talking about whether Trump will be impeached.

The network has attracted criticism for its relentless hostility toward the president. A Harvard study found that CNNs coverage of Trump was negative 93 percent of the time over the course of his first 100 days in office.

CNN's ratings are up, although the networkstill trails rivals Fox News and MSNBC.

- This story was updated at 1:06 p.m.

Here is the original post:

Trump campaign accuses CNN of censorship - The Hill