The Great Firewall of China is famed for the restrictions it places on what Chinese citizens can access online. If a site provides access to news from the west, conflicts with state propaganda, or criticizes China or its ruling Communist party in any way, it is blocked. But some officials are now suggesting that it's time things changed.

The impetus is not a sudden softening of the political agenda, but a suggestion from the leading advisory body the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference that censorship is damaging China's progress in terms of the economy and science.

Vice-chairman of the body, Luo Fuhe, has taken the unusual -- and potentially dangerous -- step of speaking out against the internet restrictions put in place by the Chinese government. With the government not only blocking access to key websites (including making it near-impossible to circumvent restrictions), but also actively monitoring what citizens are posting online and engaging in barely-concealed state propaganda, Luo says that researchers in China have a difficult time accessing the sites they need.

As reported by the Guardian, as well as censoring sites completely, the Great Firewall of China also makes using the internet prohibitively slow:

From within China, attempting to visit to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization or a lot of foreign university website is very slow. Opening each page takes at least 10-20 seconds and some foreign university sites need more than half an hour to open.

Although China has taken steps to block the use of VPNs that could be used to get around restrictions, Luo says: "Some researches rely on software to climb over the firewall to complete their own research tasks. This is not normal."

Proponents of free speech might laud Luo's stand against the government, but there are issues. Firstly has not proposed that anything other than scientific websites be allowed to make their way through the Great Firewall. Secondly, he is doing nothing to question what the Chinese government is doing controlling general internet usage so powerfully.

Image credit: BeeBright / Shutterstock

Excerpt from:

Officials say it's time for the Great Firewall of China to ease up on censorship - BetaNews

Twitter introduced new safety measures this week meant to crack down on online harassment and protect people from viewing offensive material, but some free-speech advocates are concerned the changes could lead to censorship of unpopular ideas.

The social media company announced Wednesday that it would start hiding potentially menacing tweets, even if the tweets or accounts in question hadn't been reported as abusive.

"We're working to identify accounts as they're engaging in abusive behavior, even if this behavior hasn't been reported to us," the company said in a statement announcing the changes. "Then, we're taking action by limiting certain account functionality for a set amount of time, such as allowing only their followers to see their Tweets."

The so-called stealth bans could be placed on accounts, the company's statement said, if a Twitter user sent unsolicited messages to another user who was not following the sender.

Twitter said it would "act on accounts" only when it was confident abuse had taken place, based on the algorithms it uses to identify illicit posts.

This new automated stealth ban capability became a cause of consternation for Suzanne Nossel, executive director of the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, because she said it could easily become a solution "where there is really no problem that needs to be solved."

FILE - A Twitter app on an iPhone screen is shown.

'Mistaken' moves?

"To take action when there hasn't been a complaint raises the concern of whether there will be mistaken blocking of accounts or suspending of accounts," she said. "That raises a risk."

Twitter has been under pressure to address abusive speech and trolling on its platform in recent months after celebrities and others complained of sustained, coordinated abuse campaigns.

Actress Leslie Jones notably swore off the social media service for a brief time last year after she was targeted by online trolls and harassed with racism and death threats. The incident led to a personal meeting between Jones and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and several months later the company began introducing new tools to address online abuse.

Twitter expanded its "mute" feature to allow users to block specific words or phrases from showing up in their notifications. It expanded users' ability to report hateful conduct. And it retrained its support teams on dealing with online abuse.

These types of changes that allow users to have more control over what content they see and whom they interact with are positive steps, Esha Bhandari, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told VOA.

FILE - Twitter's Jack Dorsey is interviewed on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Nov. 19, 2015. The chief executive apologized Thursday, Nov. 17, 2016, after the service let through an ad promoting a white supremacist group.

Control for users

The ACLU encourages companies to focus less on a top-down approach to censorship and more "on tools that allow users to control their experience on the platform," she said.

"Attempts to put the thumb on the scale on the censorship side are prone to error and prone to human biases," Bhandari said.

Newer tools introduced by Twitter, though, give the company a far greater role in controlling what content gets seen.

In February, Twitter began pre-emptively hiding what it called "potentially abusive or low-quality tweets" from conversations on the website. The tweets will still be visible to users, but only to "those who seek them out."

"Our team has also been working on identifying and collapsing potentially abusive and low-quality replies so the most relevant conversations are brought forward," Twitter said in a February statement.

VOA contacted Twitter multiple times for clarification on guidelines used to identify "low-quality" tweets but received no response.

Twitter also introduced a "safe search" feature in February that automatically removes tweets that contain "potentially sensitive content" from search results. A request for clarification on how this content is identified was not returned.

Being a non-government entity, Twitter has no real obligation to preserve free speech on its website. But Twitter has billed itself as a platform for free expression, and on the Twitter rules page, it says it believes in "speaking truth to power."

FILE - The Twitter symbol appears above a trading post on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, July 27, 2016. Twitter, long criticized as a hotbed for online harassment, has been expanding ways to curb the amount of abuse users see.

Global town square

This is a role both PEN America and the ACLU take seriously. Both Nossel and Bhandari referred to the website as a sort of global town square, where everyone's voice has equal weight.

"As a practical matter, decisions made by Twitter have a huge impact on the messages that we receive, and I hope that Twitter and other companies take those responsibilities seriously," Bhandari said.

Nossel noted that Twitter has a financial incentive to be cautious on issues involving the balance between allowing free expression and stopping abuse.

"The power and influence of their platform depends on the free flow of ideas, so I think there are commercial reasons why they would not want to limit [free speech]," she said. "And I think for their users, they do have a kind of softer, implicit contract that they are going to be a platform in which you can express things freely."

Bhandari said it's important to find that balance, because if Twitter "allows a heckler's veto to take over," it will have a chilling effect on speech that's similar to pre-emptively hiding content.

"One of the really important parts of that has to be transparency," she said.

See the article here:

Could Twitter's New Abuse Crackdown Lead to Censorship? - Voice of America

Censorship, whether at a broader or more personal scale, ultimately leaves society with more harm done than good.

Everyone would agree that censoring society from potential evils protects and benefits the people in the long run, wouldnt they? Of course, they wouldnt. Censorship, whether at a broader or more personal scale, ultimately leaves society with more harm done than good.

Though I may not be proud of it, I have experienced censorship firsthand. Witnessing an innocent little boy being bullied by my friend in our local library didnt seem to trigger my preteen brain to spring into action. Not realizing the full severity of the situation, I decided to censor my words and actions in order to not lose my friend. Though I grew to learn that my decision was incorrect, I negatively impacted society by letting a bullying situation go untouched. I could have easily stopped this incident, if not for my personal censorship.

American author Charles Bukowski told how censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real, and I can't vent any anger against them. I only feel this appalling sadness. Somewhere, in their upbringing, they were shielded against the total facts of our existence (Bukowski, Charles Bukowski on Censorship).

Essentially, hes describing the simple principle of how censoring is only us pushing away reality, and it is unhealthy for us to do so. Chinas censorship of critical health information validates Bukowskis beliefs that censorship is used by those who want to intentionally withhold facts from others. In 2012, the World Health Organization estimated that about 4,000 people died each day in China due to severe air pollution, a devastating7 million each year (Jolley, End the censorship). Chinese citizens reacting to this created Under the Dome, a documentary created to grow awareness of this increasing health issue. However, the film, as well as posts regarding it, were deleted from the public eye. The Chinese government was trying to protect their image by not having society understand this issue, though it truly hurt China as a whole in the long run, considering this problem continued to worsen at the expense of human life. Meanwhile, President Xi announced that he was fully involved in cleaning this polluted air and expected all his people to be as well (Jolley, End the censorship). However, that idea of society helping out is unattainable considering how people arent even allowed to discuss it openly. This unnecessary censorship put not only China but also bordering nations at risk, considering how air doesnt remain within borders.

Another excellent example of censorship harming society revolves around global warming. It's well known in the media how burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide adds to the gradual worsening of the climate, though its barely known how arctic ice sheets containing tons of methane are melting extremely fast in some locations (Redmond, The Top 10 Stories The Mainstream Media Didnt Want You To Hear About In 2015). As methane enters the atmosphere as ice melts, it damages the environment much more than carbon dioxide would. American Journalist Dahr Jamail stated that a 2013 study, published in Nature, reported that a 50-giganton burp of methane is highly possible at any time, and that would be the equivalent of at least 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide...since 1850, humans have released a total of approximately 1,475 gigatons in carbon dioxide (Redmond, The Top 10 Stories The Mainstream Media Didnt Want You To Hear About In 2015). He also spoke about how a massive, sudden change in methane levels could, in turn, lead to temperature increases of four to six degrees Celsius in just one or two decades - a rapid rate of climate change to which human agriculture, and ecosystems more generally, could not readily adapt (Redmond, The Top 10 Stories The Mainstream Media Didnt Want You To Hear About In 2015). Since this isnt talked about in the news, the majority of society is unaware of how terrifying this situation is and that it is happening right now. The media believe that they are helping by keeping the people in the dark about this horrible issue, though it only leaves us without the knowledge to stop it.

Taking away books from the public is another form of censorship that is incredibly hurtful toward society. Judy Blume, an American writer, notes how tragic the idea is that there are some books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers (Blume, Judy Blume Talks About Censorship) When books are taken away from society, this unexplainable connection we have to books is cut, as well as the possible knowledge that it could provide us.

There are multiple forms of censorship that are damaging to society and individual life. Whether it be a countrys government withholding critical health information, or swallowing your words when witnessing an act of bullying, censorship is detrimental toward people on both sides of the act. Overall, if you ever find yourself in a situation where you feel the need to censor your voice or opinion out of fear that you may harm others, remember that your censorship will only do more damage to both sides in the end.

Katie O'Brien

Tyler Lane

Middleton

Follow this link:

Censorship, in all its forms, is damaging - Tri-Town Transcript - Wicked Local Boxford

Its always something with the Indian censors.

This time, its the refusal of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant filmmaker Alankrta Shrivastavas Lipstick Under My Burkha certification for a theatrical release in India. The film, a drama following four women in small-town India exploring sexual empowerment, freedom from patriarchy, and personal fulfillment won the Oxfam Award for Best Film on Gender Equality at the Mumbai Film Festival last October and the Spirit of Asia Award at the 2016 Tokyo International Film Festival, with upcoming screenings at festivals everywhere from Miami to Glasgow. The boards rejection of the film reignites familiar outrage, as the filmmakers and audiences alike have taken to social media to slam the decision as an assault on womens rights.

Infuriating as it is, this is hardly the boards first frustrating clampdown. The CBFC has long been the bane of films that push the envelope as far as social issues or physical intimacy are concerned. Some may recall the outright bans in the past of movies deemed too vulgar, like Shekhar Kapurs Bandit Queen in 1994, or Mira Nairs Kama Sutra A Tale of Love in 1996. More recently, in 2015, it raised objections to sex scenes in films like Anupam Sharmas UnIndian and Shonali Boses Margarita With a Straw, calling for re-edits that shortened the allegedly offensive depictions before clearing them for release.

And in its most high-profile and heavily disputed controversy to date, the CBFCcalled for a record 94 cuts pertaining to strong language, drug use and the mention of state names in last Junes star-studded Udta Punjab, arguing that the content jeopardized the countrys integrity and could compromise tourism in the region.

With a group as notoriously orthodox as the CBFC so often standing between films and theaters, then, some may say that the content of Lipstick Under My Burkha bold in the context of Indian cinema was bound to raise a few flags. But the refusal to certify this film, while unsurprising, has hit a particularly raw nerve for the wording used to explain its decision. The boards letter to the films producer, Prakash Jha, stated that the story is lady-oriented, their fantasy above life. There are contanious [sic] sexual scenes, abusive words, audio pornography, and a bit [sic] sensitive touch about one particular section of society, hence film refused under guidelines.

Its already flawed logic to deem a film inappropriate merely because it provides a perspective that could be displeasing to a certain segment of the audience. But to specify that the content is unsuitable precisely because it prioritizes the physical and emotional expression of female characters takes the decision to new levels of hypocrisy. Despite the widespread outrage over social media by industry members and audiences alike, the CBFC has only doubled down on its rejection. Board member Mamta Kale defended the decision, claiming that being a woman, you can talk about your sexual rights but you have to keep one thing in mind as to how you are showing that issue. Can families go together to watch such a movie? No, they cannot.

The argument is weak, given that watching movies especially non-mainstream ones like Lipstick Under My Burkha is less of a family affair in India today than it once was. More importantly, its a tone-deaf assessment from a group that evidently believes that routinely objectifying women for the sake of the male gaze qualifies as family-friendly entertainment.

In fact, if placing fantasy above life werentacceptable, an overwhelming proportion of mainstream, escapist Bollywood should have been banned as unsuitable for Indian audiences by now. For decades, weve watched item numbers cater predominantly to male sexual imaginations, whether in their early iterations in 1930s, when actresses playing cabaret dancers would shimmy for a roomful of men to lyrics dripping with innuendo, topresent-day Bollywood, where lithe actresses do essentially the same thing, only in even skimpier costumes, much to the delight of men ogling and hooting from the lower stalls of cinema halls.

Theres been little pushback by anyone of influence to the notion of stalking as an appropriate form of wooing a woman, a strategy that began in the 60s, when heartthrob Shammi Kapoor made it look like innocent persistence rather than harassment, and has continued to this day with 2014s Raanjhanaa, 2016s Sultan, and possibly even in the upcoming Badrinath Ki Dulhania next month. Actors over the age of 50 still woo heroines less than half their age, and actresses half-naked bodies are still plastered on posters and highlighted in film trailers to shamelessly lure in the male contingent.

The CBFC has protested to little, if any, of this. Yet the moment an outspoken film like Lipstick Under My Burkha gives female perspectives a realistic voice, or attempts to shed light on how women discover and experience their own fantasies, the censor board decides that a lady-oriented film is inappropriate. The message is clear: A male fantasy is a natural expression of masculinity; its female equivalent is somehow a threat to the sanctity of Indian society.

Its a double standard so blatant, it delegitimizes any lingering credibility the CBFC enjoyed, and throws into question the sincerity of any government calls to support creative liberty over excessive moral policing. The eventual court ruling last June to release Udta Punjab with an A (restricted to adults) certificate and a single cut, seemed to be an encouraging move pushing the board to stick to its role of certification rather than censorship. For many, it was an indication that audiences could henceforth make their own judgements about what they should or shouldnt watch. The ability of a movie like last years Parched a daring and sometimes explicit critique of misogyny in rural India to escape relatively unscathed from the boards easily offended sensibilities further re-stoked the sputtering confidence of the public.

But those hopes were extinguished just as fast when the CBFC kicked off a year-long battle with the makers of Haraamkhor, the BAFTA-nominated film about arelationship between a teenage student and her teacher, after deeming the subject matter not suitable for India. (The film was finally released in January after several enforced cuts made it suitable for a U/A certificate.) Later last year, outrage was sparked once again after the trailer of Hansal Mehtas Aligarh was restricted to adult-only audiences simply due to its mention of the word homosexuality.

By outright refusing to give Lipstick Under My Burkha a certification at all, effectively blocking a theatrical release, the CDFC confirmed that for all the alleged intent to certify rather than cut, it essentially remains a censorship body. Exercising creative liberties in India remains an exhausting, one step forward, three steps back process, at the mercy of an overly conservative boards arbitrary guidelines of what constitutes appropriate entertainment or art.

As far as Lipstick Under My Burkha goes, director Shrivastava has vowed to fight for the films big-screen release in India though it remains to be seen whether it can happen with or without edits that inevitably dilute the films message. As the country misses out on the bold storytelling talent of its own natives, well appreciate that the rest of the world can still acknowledge what India has to offer and hope that Netflix is watching.

Watch the trailer of Lipstick Under My Burkha below:

View original post here:

Why Indian Censorship Is Hurting the Country's Cinema - IndieWire

It is time to revamp the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The problem is not just with its current illustrious chief rather, the problem is with the entire body.

While the name of this statutory body suggests that its job is to certify films, its guidelines mandate it to act a censor. It does not take more than a glance to appreciate the total inanity of the guidelines, drawn up, clearly, by someone who lacks any understanding of cinema or the arts in general.

The current controversy over two films Lipstick Under My Burkha and Ka Bodyscapes, both of which have been denied certification stems from the illiberal and anti-constitutional right of the state to censor films. This should change. What we need is certification, to guide people to avoid wrong choices for juvenile audiences.

The guidelines call upon the CBFC to make sure that a film being cleared for exhibition offers clean and healthy entertainment; artistic freedom and creative expression are not unduly curbed; does not depict abuse of children; does not deprave the morality of the viewer; etc.

Clearly, the author of the guidelines either has no conception of the role of art in society or does not think of cinema as art. Films are just for entertainment, of the clean and healthy variety, a criterion that even a Tom and Jerry cartoon might well fail in these times of politically correct squeamishness over violence.

If the guidelines are to be observed strictly, no film can engage with the harsh reality of life in unequal, hierarchical, misogynist India.

Only vacuous, singsong melodrama would pass muster. The government should follow the recommendations of the Benegal committee, give up the mission of censorship and merely classify films as regards their suitability for particular age groups.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

View original post here:

It's high time to jump from film censorship to classification - Times of India (blog)

Welcome to Feminism Around the World, a weekly feature here at TMS where we focus on womens lives and feminist concerns around the world by applauding successes, reporting injustices, and amplifying the conversation around solutions to gender-based inequality. Because Until we are all free, we are none of us free. Teresa

INDIA: Alankrita Shrivastava Fights Censorship of Her Film Lipstick Under My Burkha

Award-winning filmmaker Alankrita Shrivastava has been getting accolades for her feminist feature film, Lipstick Under My Burkha. It won the Spirit of Asia Award at last years Tokyo Film Festival, the Oxfam Award for Gender Equality at the Mumbai Film Festival, and it had its U.K. premiere last weekat the Glasgow Film Festival.

This film is getting love everywhereexcept in Shrivastavas home country. Indias censor board has blocked the film coming to theaters by refusing to certify it at all, meaning that the film cannot be screened publicly anywhere in the country. Why have they done this? According to the censor board, the film is not clean and healthy entertainment. Check out the full letter the producers received on the films official Twitter feed:

Sooo, the story is lady oriented, their fantasy above life. There are contanious sexual scenes, abusive words, audio pornography and a bit sensitive touch about one particular section of society, hence film refused under guidelines. You heard it here, folks. Womenand their fantasies.and their desire for sex is enough to get your film banned in India. Awesome.

In an interview with Women and Hollywood, she talks about the fact that denying certification outright is not common in India. Usually, the censors will ask for curse words to be *bleeped*, or for scenes to be cut. So, why have they focused in on this film? Shrivastava speculates:

Maybe it made them uncomfortable. They are not used to films that speak so honestly about womens lives. They perhaps have a very patriarchal mindset and are used to only the regular popular cinema narrative maybe. But I think confronting honest thoughts, perspectives, and an intimate telling of female stories through a female point of view is something they were not prepared for. Maybe the idea that women can have desires too is a thought that unnerved them. That women are not there just to fulfill the needs of men.

But Shrivastava isnt taking this lying down.

Luckily in India, there is a way forward. We will be applying to the [Film Certification Appellate] Tribunal (FCAT) in New Delhi to appeal against the refusal. Hopefully, the film will get cleared at that level. After that, one can also go to court. I am determined to fight this out till the end. I really want the Indian audience to be able to watch this film in theaters.

In India, the filmmaking community is quite keen to get rid of the concept of censorship itself. Everybody really just wants the Board of Film Certification (commonly known as the Censor Board) to just do its job of certifying films rather than cutting, banning, and censoring films. The film industry at large is quite united about this opinion. Now it is for the government to take this opinion into view and act upon it.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Lipstick Under My Burkha revolves around four Indian women, from ages 18 to 55, living in a small town who assert their personal and sexual rights. Check out the trailer:

It looks really awesome! Heres hoping that thefight of filmmakers in India will push the government into removing the archaic hoops films have to jump through to be seen. In the meantime,Shrivastava has the entire rest of the world to play with.

NEWS FROM ELSEWHERE

FRANCE:Frances Marine Le Pen loses immunity over violent ISIS images (CNN, 3/2/17)

UNITED KINGDOM: Tories wary about plugging Trump gap in family planning funding (The Guardian, 3/2/17)

and also, Sheffields new bishop is a slap in the face for the women of steel (The Guardian, 3/2/17)

If you have a story you think should be included in a future Feminism Around the World column, please email it to teresa@themarysue.com with Feminism Around the World in the subject line. Please note that this column is exclusively reserved for stories related to women in countries outside the U.S. Please send current stories that have been posted/printed within a week of the previous FATW column. Thank you, tipsters!

The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.

Follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google+.

Read the rest here:

Feminism Around the World: Alankrita Shrivastava Fights Censorship of Her Film - The Mary Sue

The arXiv.org (said as archive) is one of the oldest websites on the internet and serves as a curated collection of scholarly preprints submitted by recognized scientist. I even have a paper there on massive star formation (arXiv:1311.3983). I tried to publish in another area and they say submit to a journal and get feedback. Then a favorable review isnt enough, so I need to get it published. Then in a subsequent email from them, I must get it published in a mainstream journal with no guarantee that being published in any journal would do the trick.

What is arXiv, why they moderate, and why that can go wrong.

The arXiv has to maintain a certain standard for a reason. The value of arXiv is that it provides a copy of papers that cost money either way. That means it is moderated. This is a reasonable thing to do. There is also an appeals process which is supposed to avoid abuses. However, when moderation devolves into unreasoned censorship and even doing what they tell you to get a paper up there may not sway them someone has to call it what it is.

So, I get endorsements, twice, that is not so unusual.

They ask that I submit to a peer reviewed journal for the requisite feedback. I get back a review from Science/Nature (does not matter which one) a long detailed review stating that the paper is not bad, and would be of interest to a small audience. Just not a big enough audience for Nature/Science.

Then arxiv says they need for it to be published in a mainstream journal. I ask for clarification of just what comprises a mainstream journal which would ensure acceptance on arXiv. Then I get this.

So even if I did what they asked it would probably not be enough. Supposed I submitted to another Nature/Science journal more focused on a specialty . What would the result be. I could never pay an open access fee for such a journal it would be too much. So even if I got it published in Nature/Science or a journal in one of those families that may not be enough. Hypothetically acceptance in Nature/Science wouldn't be enough for them.

Whats the big deal?

In this day and age most papers, in the fields of Physics, and Astronomy, are published open access in some form or fashion.

In this climate being published in a paywalled, traditional, and what I surmise they mean by mainstream, format is little better than not being published at all.

If one is browsing for papers on their Ipad, or phone or other device and has to pay they are not going to read it. If one has to even enter university library credentials that can be a pain in the rump many will simply avoid.

The assumption that serious researchers would be reading on a computer, on a campus, logged into a university or national lab IT system, etc is from the early 2000s or really the 1990s.

Philosophically, I believe in open access and I believe in public, post publication, peer review. The peoples taxes pay my salary, and for my retirement, and whos taxes loaned me money for school and pay for the facilities I rely on. They shouldnt have to pay Springer or Elsevier $30 bucks to read my work. If anything I should pay them to host it.

As for public, peer review, post publication, the attitude of the arXiv moderators shows why thats needed. It is possible to be frank, honest, and negative, without being unreasonable or insulting. Having to be publicly accountable for ones words ensures fairness in the process. Individual researchers are then free to use their own judgement on the pros and cons of a paper and contribute to the flow of ideas that will lead ultimately to greater knowledge accepting or rejecting all or part of a paper individually. The mainstream and traditional process is based on authority and belongs to a past era of paper and ink not hard drives and internet.

The bottom line

Yes, the arXiv does in fact censor ideas that dont fit the taste of the moderators. Even if those ideas have been found acceptable enough to publish, or have at a conference. . Yet they accepted how many papers about faster than light neutrino physics based on a clearly obviously flawed set up? Accepting those and not papers like mine which have a prayer of being right and propose an experiment to prove or disprove them is not scientific moderation. What that is is art criticism based on ones feelings about an idea without reasons and logic. That is the essence of censorship, not moderation.

See the original post here:

Censorship at the arXiv: endorsements, and even publication won't matter. - Science 2.0

Marine Le Pen

A presidential candidate in France who is riding the wave of anti-globalist populism that helped fuelBrexit and Donald Trumps victory is facing prosecution for tweeting graphic images of ISIS executions.

On Tuesday, the European Union took one step toward allowing the prosecution of Marine Le Pen as the legal affairs committee of the European Parliament voted 18-3 to lift her immunity as a member of parliament, Reuters reported.

Le Pen is under investigation in France for posting three images of ISIS executions on Twitter in 2015.

The images included the beheading of American journalist James Foley.

A Paris prosecutor is examining whether or not the photos violate a law against distribution of violent images.

Le Pen reacted to the EU decision Tuesday.

This only shows French citizens what the EU is, what the European Parliament is and that its all part of the system that wants to stop the French peoples candidate that I am, she said, according to Agence France-Presse

Le Pen, who is leading a tight, three-way race to succeed Francois Hollande, is president of the National Front Party, which opposes French membership in the EU and the mass immigration of people from mostly Islamic countries who largely are not assimilating into French society.

Le Pen tweeted the graphic photographs of ISIS killings in December 2015 in response to a journalist who compared her party to ISIS, which is also known by the Arabic acronym Daesh.

Daesh is THIS! she wrote, along with the photos.

Her tweet drew strong criticism from the victims families and French politicians across the political spectrum.

Le Pens immunity also was lifted in 2013, leading to prosecution of her in 2015 for incitement to discrimination over peoples religious belief because she compared Muslims praying in public to the Nazi occupation of France during World War II. The charges eventually were dropped.

Major terrorist attacks over the past two years by members of the Muslim immigrant community in France, attributed to ISIS, have bolstered the National Fronts popularity.

Le Pen is regarded as more democratic and republican than her nationalist father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and has sought to soften her partys image, expelling members accused of racism and anti-Semitism, including her father.

How political correctness handcuffs Americas Homeland Security officers is the story former counter-terrorism agentPhilip Haney tells in See Something Say Nothing. Its available now at the WND Superstore!

Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader who was the face of the successful referendum last yearin Britain to exit the EU, known as Brexit, said in an interview in December he believes that if Le Pen were to win, France would hold its own referendum on leaving the EU, a Frexit.

He summed up his opinion of Le Pen, describing her as very socialist on economic issues but a defender of French sovereignty.

Oh yes, she is (controversial). I mean look, let me absolutely clear about this. Ive never said a bad word about Marine Le-Pen, Ive never said a good word about her party.

That is my position on this. I think she has tried to make things better within the front national. Shes got rid of people who held genuinely extreme positions. I dont agree with her economic analysis at all or her view on trade or many other things.

Its completely different but she does believe in the sovereignty of France.

Incitement to discrimination

Le Pen is not the only member of the European Parliament to be punished for her speech.

Last month, after the parliament refused immunity, UKIPs Jane Collins was ordered by the high court in London to pay 335,000 pounds in damages and court costs for alleging three British members of Parliament had failed to speak out about child abuse carried out by British-Pakistani men in Rotherham, England.

Collinscharged the MPs were guilty of grave misconduct because they kept silent due to political correctness and cowardice.

A report commissioned by the British government supported her claim. It found that failures of political and police leadership contributed to the sexual exploitation of 1,400 children in Rotherham over a 16-year period.

Naming the horror of Islam

The vote Tuesday to lift Le Pens immunity was in response to a request by the French judiciary. The full European Parliament must back the decision. A vote is expected this week, Reuters said.

Prosecutors are considering a charge of publishing violent images, which can carry a penalty of three years in prison and a fine of 75,000 euros, about $79,000.

Reacting to the vote, National Front Vice President Florian Philipott argued: Showing and naming the horror of Islamism allow us to fight against it.

Polls show Le Pen winning the first two rounds of the French presidential election but losing in the runoff.

DHS agent Philip Haneys blockbuster revelations of the federal governments appeasement of supremacist Islam are told in his first-person account, See Something Say Nothing

Continued here:

Censorship weaponized against anti-globalist wave - WND.com

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Thats the lowkey Orwellian message that greets visitors to the website of Perspective, Googles new AI system for detecting (and potentially deleting, hiding, or burying) toxic comments on the web.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Perspective is still in early days of development, but in the future, you may have to adjust your speech in order to satisfy the lofty standards of Google. Otherwise, the companys faceless AI might just have to improve you. Wheres Sarah Connor when you need her?

The good news is that, for now at least, Perspective is about as effective as C-3PO with a lisp. Software engineer and columnist David Auerbach has found the program woefully inept at sorting toxic comments from ordinary ones. Because the AI currently focuses on words rather than meanings, inoffensive comments like, Rape is a horrible crime, or, few Muslims are a terrorist threat, were assigned toxicity ratings of over 75 percent.

Of course, even if Perspective could successfully sort toxic comments from innocuous ones, that doesnt necessarily mean theyre going to be deleted or buried. According to the projects homepage, the systemperforms no function other than detection.

But statements from the projects developers make it clear that censorship is the end goal. Indeed, the system seems to have been developed to augment the lefts ongoing war on comments sections.The software was initially made available just to organizations that are part of Googles Digital News Initiative, including the BBC, The Financial Times, andThe Guardian,whichpromptly began testing the software to moderate their comments sections.

News organizations want to encourage engagement and discussion around their content, but find that sorting through millions of comments to find those that are trolling or abusive takes a lot of money, labour and time, says Jared Cohen, president of Jigsaw, the Google social incubator that built the tool. As a result, many sites have shut down comments altogether. But they tell us that isnt the solution they want.

Google couldnt be clearer: its a censorship bot. And just because its currently limited to news sites and comments sections doesnt mean it wont be rolled out to social networks and the rest of the web. Twitter, which just introduced yet another system to punish users whohurt celebrities feelings,would probably love to get their hands on a working version of Perspective.

Twitter already has a tremendous depth of data on its users, including gender, location, and personal interests. Imagine that data, combined with an AI tool designed to pinpoint inconvenient content, in the hands of a CEO who has done little to conceal his political biases.

The idea of an all-powerful Google robot watching over us all, making sure our speech is improved, has greatly excited mainstream media. Google, says the BBC, is going to make talk less toxic. According to WIRED, Perspective will put a stop to abusive comments that silence vulnerable voices. New York magazine portrays Perspsective as a friendly a robot, a kind of Clippy for the comments section.Our robot overlords are certainly getting a warm welcome

The left are likely to be disappointed though. If Auerbachs early research on Perspective is any guide, the system is designed to filter out impoliteness, not political disagreement. Googles censorbot might turn the comments section and perhaps the web into a grey, sanitized dystopia scrubbed of strong emotions and trollish humor, but it wont get rid of facts.

In other words, myths about gender wage gaps, police racism, and moderate Islam are still going to get debunked. Even Skynet cant keep some things quiet.

You can follow Allum Bokhari on Twitterandadd him on Facebook.Email tips and suggestions to abokhari@breitbart.com.

See the rest here:

War on Comments: Google Built an AI To Censor The Web, And The Media Is Celebrating - Breitbart News

Well, not quite. The assumption that students share the political views of their officers forgets that SUs and their overlord - the NUS - are entirely unrepresentative of the people they claim to represent. In UCLs union elections last year, only 12% of the study body bothered to vote. In 2015 at the University of Manchester, turnout reached a national record of around 25%. Hardly a resounding victory for democracy.

Indeed, contrary to the claim that students spend their time printing off topless calendars of Jeremy Corbyn, research carried out by the Universities of Southampton and Sheffield revealed that todays young people are more right-wing and authoritarian than any generation in recent history.

And even if students did support their student unions, the increasingly warped regard for genuine left-wing politics by union officers makes it hard to label their cause as truly left-wing. In an attempt to demonstrate their leftie credentials, working class officers have been created at Manchester, Soas, King's College London, and St Hildas, Oxford to ensure working class students dont feel marginalised.

This demonstrates just how far todays student Left has wandered from the barricades manned by its predecessors. Back in Paris in 1968, student activists took to the streets in a genuine attempt to overthrow capitalism. Todays self-labelled lefties are more concerned with fighting for Meat Free Mondays. Rather than uphold the power of the proletariat, student union officers view their working class peers as vulnerable creatures who need protecting. Marxs claim that workingmen have nothing to lose but their chains no longer resonates. Todays campus warriors just want to make the chains are a bit more comfortable.

See the original post:

We can't just blame the Left for student censorship every side is at it now - Telegraph.co.uk

Photo from Womens March on Washington

Following the Womens March on Washington and its sister marches around the world, Chinese women were noticeably absent from the international media spotlights. This is because street protests and demonstrations that promote falsehoods are illegal in China, and the Chinese government has a history of cracking down and retaliating against public events and figures that bring light to gender inequality.

While the Chinese governments restriction of public protests and demonstrations is nothing new, over the past few years, China has been slowly increasing its censorship of feminist media and publications. For example, in 2015, the imprisonment by the government of the Feminist Five, a group of vocal Chinese womens rights activists, made headlines and led to an international outcry, leading to their subsequent release. The members of the group had been detained for distributing pamphlets about sexual harassment on March 8, International Womens Day.

This event from last year also mirrors a recent attack on feminist press. Just last week, a Chinese feminist social media account run on Weibo, a Twitter-like platform, was suspended for a month after it re-posted news about a strike taking place in the United States to honor International Womens Day. The account, Feminist Voices, which is one of the most popular in the nation with 80,000 followers, has temporarily moved to a different name. Citizens reacted with anger and fear on social media, warning of the threat to general civil liberties and to womens groups who want to remain outspoken against U.S. President Donald Trump and on gender equality issues.

However, besides high-profile cases such as this, the more insidious censorship and oppression of female artists and writers in China who dedicate their lives to the production of pieces that will inform and illuminate a worldwide audience has remained less publicized throughout the last year.

Consider the film Hooligan Sparrow, which was on this years short list for the Oscars category of feature length documentary. The director, Nanfu Wang, captured the story of Ye Haiyan, one of the most prominent womens rights activists in China. Ye and seven other activists risked arrest for publicly protesting against the outcome of a child rape case in Hainan involving a government official. Wang filmed undercover and smuggled the footage out of the country. The documentary was also nominated for the Grand Jury Prize at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival.

Before the announcements of the final Oscar nominees, local authorities shut off all of Yes utilities and Internet from her apartment on the outskirts of Beijing. The film was not ultimately included in the nominee list; if it had been, Ye would have had an extremely difficult time remaining in China and most likely would have had to leave the country somehow, though the government confiscated her passport in 2014. Ye is now facing eviction, and her daughter is not allowed to enroll in school because of Yes political activities.

The film is strictly prohibited from being shown within China but has garnered international acclaim. Wang and Chinese organizations have worked to plan underground screenings of the film domestically, risking government backlash.

Though the Chinese government supposedly supports the promotion of gender equality, it views any press or publicity that reveals a less-than-stellar status quo of womens rights as a threat to its order and stability. Working in these unfavorable conditions, Chinese feminists have increased efforts and are looking to forge alliances with other womens rights activists in the United States and beyond in order to foster international awareness. Journalists and activists such as Lu Pin, who is New York-based, have founded organizations such as the Chinese Feminism Collective that promotes the communication of Chinese feminism to Western nations.

Original post:

Chinese Censorship of Feminism - Daily Trojan Online

Books, newspapers, magazines, broadcast media and Internet access are censored in Saudi Arabia.

In 2014, Reporters Without Borders describes the government as "relentless in its censorship of the Saudi media and the Internet",[1] and ranked Saudi Arabia 164th out of 180 countries for freedom of the press.[2]

The Royal Decree On Press and Publications (1982) set up the initial government regulation of Saudi books, newspapers and magazines, as well as all foreign publications sold in the kingdom. In addition to obtaining government permission, the Saudi citizen creating and distributing the content, had to ensure that it did not cause sectarian tension among citizens, or insult the royal family or Islamic values.

In 1992 the "Basic Law of Governance" was enacted as an informal Constitution. Article 39 of the kingdom's "Basic Law of Governance" states that

Mass media and all other vehicles of expression shall employ civil and polite language, contribute towards the education of the nation and strengthen unity. It is prohibited to commit acts leading to disorder and division, affecting the security of the state and its public relations, or undermining human dignity and rights. Details shall be specified in the Law.[3]

The Ministry of Interior has "responsibility for all the Saudi media and other channels of information".[4] The ministry has been called the "main agent of censorship" in the kingdom.[4] It is charged with the `purification` of culture prior to it being permitted circulation to the public. A special unit, the Management of Publications department, "analyzes all publications and issues directives to newspapers and magazines" stating that way in which a given topic must be treated.[4]

According to the Encyclopedia of Censorship

There is no precensorship of publications but if any material goes against a directive, or more generally qualifies as `impure`, the department will check it and notify the minister of information, who decides in what way and to what extent the publication and its employees are to be punished. The main effect of this system has been to impose on journalists rigorous self- censorship.[4]

Saudi Arabia directs all international Internet traffic through a proxy farm located in King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology. A content filter is implemented there, based on software by Secure Computing.[5] Since October 2006, the Communications and Information Technology Commission (CITC) has been handling the DNS structure and filtering in Saudi Arabia in the place of KACST. Additionally, a number of sites are blocked according to two lists maintained by the Internet Services Unit (ISU):[6] one containing "immoral" (mostly pornographic or supportive of LGBT-rights) sites and sites promoting Shia Ideology, the others based on directions from a security committee run by the Ministry of Interior (including sites critical of the Saudi government). An interesting feature of this system is that citizens are encouraged to actively report "immoral" sites (mostly adult and pornographic) for blocking, using a provided web form, available on the government's website.

The initial legal basis for content filtering is the resolution by Council of Ministers dated 12 February 2001.[7] According to a study carried out in 2004 by the Open Net Initiative "the most aggressive censorship focused on pornography, drug use, gambling, religious conversion of Muslims, and filtering circumvention tools."[5]

This resolution was subsequently modified and expanded into The Anti-Cyber Crime Law (2007). Article 6 of this royal decree makes it a crime to produce, possess, distribute, transmit or store Internet content or a computer program that involves gambling, human trafficking, pornography or anything deemed to be against Islam, public morals or public order.

On 11 July 2006 the Saudi government blocked access to Wikipedia and Google Translate, which was being used to bypass the filters on the blocked sites by translating them.[8][9]

In 2011, the Saudi government introduced new Internet rules and regulations that require all online newspapers and bloggers to obtain a special license from the Ministry of Culture and Information.[10] The Communications and Information Technology Commission (CITC) is responsible for regulating the Internet and for hosting a firewall which blocks access to thousands of websites, mainly due to sexual and political content. Many articles from the English and Arabic Wikipedia projects are censored in Saudi Arabia with no given explanation.

As of 2014, Saudi Arabia has plans to regulate local companies producing input for YouTube. The General Authority for Audiovisual Media, a recently formed watchdog, will issue a public declaration to regulate the work of YouTube channels. They plan to censor material that is "terrorist" in nature which according to the proposed rule will be any content that "disturbs public order, shakes the security of society, or subjects its national unity to danger, or obstructs the primary system of rule or harms the reputation of the state".[11][12][13]

Any speech or public demonstration that is deemed to be immoral or critical of the government, especially the royal family, can lead to imprisonment or corporal punishment.

Saudi and foreign newspapers and magazines, including advertising, are strictly controlled by censorship officials to remove content that is offensive. Newspapers and magazines must not offend or criticize the Wahabi Muslims and especially The Royal family, Wahabi government officials or government version of Islamic morality.

Censorship of foreign newspapers and magazines tends to focus on content of sexual nature.[14] Nudity and pornography are illegal in the kingdom and this can extend to inking out public displays or affection like hugging and kissing, the uncovered arms and legs of women and men or anything deemed to be promoting "sexual immorality", such as adultery, fornication, sodomy or homosexuality. Even advertising for driving classes for women is banned, in keep with the ban in the kingdom.

In 1994, all Saudi women magazines were banned by the Ministry of Information. This move was considered to be related to the pressures of the religious establishment or ulema. After this ban, nineteen of twenty-four magazines closed down since their major revenue was advertisement earnings paid by the Saudi companies.[15]

Public cinemas have been illegal since the 1980s when conservative clerics deemed cinemas to be a waste of time and a corrupting influence.

In 2007, permission was granted to two hotels to screen American children's films, to celebrate the end of Ramadan. That following year the first Saudi film festival took place.[16]

Television and radio news, educational and entertainment programming is subjected to government censorship and control. Live television broadcasting on government-owned national TV stations was briefly suspended in 2008 after disgruntled callers on a live show on Al-Ikhbariya news channel displayed discontent with the latest governmental salary increases and made critical remarks of some Saudi officials. The minister of Culture and Information then fired the network's director, Muhammad Al-Tunsy, and replaced him with one of his personal assistants. The minister also formed a censorship committee of which the approval would be required prior to airing any program or inviting any guests on national television stations. The legal status of satellite receivers is in something of a grey area.[17]

In 1994, the government banned ownership of satellite television receivers but throughout the 1990s, an increasingly large percentage of the population bought a satellite receiver and subscribed to various programming packages. Despite the ban, the Saudi government was, generally, willing to tolerate satellite television as long as the programming content was not pornographic, critical of the Saudi government or Islam.[17]

In the 2000s, the Saudi government launched its own satellite stations and expressed a desire to work with other governments in the region to develop common censorship guidelines and restrictions.[18]

In 2005, the two-part episode of American Dad! named "Stan of Arabia" was banned by the Saudi government. The English daily ArabNews published an article that accused the series of "a particularly brutal portrayal of Saudis and Saudi Arabia"; although some of what was being shown, such as intolerance of homosexuality as well as the ban of alcohol, was true. As a result, the two-part episode was banned in Saudi Arabia, although the rest of the TV series itself can still be seen.[19]

See the original post:

Censorship in Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia

Despite not being there in person, Iranian director Asghar Farhadi won big at Sunday nights Oscars, taking home Best Foreign Language Film for his movie The Salesman. Farhadis victory was broadcast on Iranian TV, but not without a few alterations; according to The Hollywood Reporter, at least one outlet decided that presenter Charlize Therons Oscars dress needed some touch-ups before it could be broadcast to the people.

But the digital wizards at the Iranian Labour News Agency didnt content themselves with a mere blurring of Therons body; instead, someone at the state-run agency attempted to take advantage of the relative immobility of Oscar presenters to add their own flair to her outfit, filling in long black sleeves and a high neckline with what looked like the black spray paint tool from MS Paint. The effect wasless than convincing, especially when Theronpresenting with Shirley MacLaineabruptly moved, forcing her dress to trail a few seconds behind her.

As displayed in a video by Facebooks My Stealthy Freedom, the censor team at ILNA later reverted to a simple censorship bar for Therons body. But they got a little creative again when Iranian-American engineer Anousheh Ansari took the stage to accept the award on Farhadis behalf. (The director boycotted the ceremony in protest of the policies of President Donald Trump.) Rather than editing out all of Ansaris pretty modest dress, they simply filled in one exposed bit of skin with blurring, resisting the urge to add some earrings or a new pattern of their own devising to her ensemble as they did.

For the record, heres what Theron and Ansari were both wearing Sunday night:

(Photo: Kevin Winter/Getty Images)

(Photo: Kevin Winter/Getty Images)

Submit your Newswire tips here.

Go to the A.V. Club homepage

View post:

Iranian TV censors got creative with Charlize Theron's Oscars dress - A.V. Club (blog)

Ren Hang, the controversial Bejing photographer, has died at 29 of suicide.

Always provocative and often surreal, Hang featured his friends (and later his fans) nude. While his work was controversial in conservative China, it was revered worldwide. Like Ai Wei Wei, Ren Hang was on the front lines for expression in art in a China. The battle wasn't easy, and he was often censored and arrested for his explicit photographs.

Much of Hang's work is explicit (featuring erections, urine, and sexual acts), but on a broader spectrum he explored youth, sexuality, and nature in beautiful ways. Dwarfing nude human forms against monstrous Beijing architecture, or juxtaposing a sullen subject against milky waters, his work often feltethereal. While the focus of his critics was always been the explicit quality, he wasn't interested in discussing sex and gender. After being pressed on why he so heavily featured penises in a VICE interview, he responded: "Gender isnt important when Im taking pictures, it only matters to me when Im having sex.

Hang's perhaps most endearing quality was his humility and bluntness. He wasn't pretentious by any stretch of the imagination, casually shrugging off his controversies. I dont really view my work as taboo, because I dont think so much in cultural context, or political context." he said. "I dont intentionally push boundaries, I just do what I do."

In addition to being an acclaimed photographer, Ren Hang was also a poet. He documented his long-fought battle with depression on his website, sharing poems and stream-of-consciousness musings.

Ren Hang's arrests came from violating China's obscenity laws, shooting his subjects nude outside. He faced resistance throughout his career from arrests, his exhibitions in China getting cancelled, and his website being shut down twice.

His most recent collection spanning his entire, albeit brief, six year career was released just last month via Taschen. His long-time parter,Jiaqi, is featured on the cover.

See more here:

Remembering Ren Hang: A Subversive to China's Censorship - The ... - Daily Beast

The European Parliament is introducing a new rule set to curb hate speech, cutting live debate feeds and removing video/audio traces of offensive remarks. A fierce backlash from press and MEPs has critics accusing the EU Parliament of censorship.

The new rule would let the chair of a debate cut a live feed from the parliament in the case of defamatory, racist or xenophobic language or behavior by a member, also imposing a $9,500 fine on the offender. Remarks deemed offensive could also be erased from the audiovisual record of proceedings.

The step apparently aims to tackle racist remarks by far-right members of the EU parliament. For instance last year, Eleftherios Synadinos, an MEP for Greece's far-right Golden Dawn party, was expelled from the parliament after calling Turks dirty and polluted and comparing them to wild dogs.

Read more

Some MEPs agree that far-right rhetoric can go over the top at the parliament.

There have been a growing number of cases of politicians saying things that are beyond the pale of normal parliamentary discussion and debate, said Richard Corbett, a UK MEP who backed the new rule, according to AP.

What if this became not isolated incidents, but specific, where people could say: Hey, this is a fantastic platform. It's broad, it's live-streamed. It can be recorded and repeated. Let's use it for something more vociferous, more spectacular, he added.

The latest step wasnt made public and triggered a massive backlash by the press representatives and MEPs, with many of them questioning if the latest measure could amount to censorship.

This undermines the reliability of the Parliament's archives at a moment where the suspicion of fake news and manipulation threatens the credibility of the media and the politicians, Tom Weingaertner, president of the Brussels-based International Press Association, told AP.

Many journalists and MEPs took to Twitter to vent over the latest development.

It should be noted that the issue was on the table as early as last December. Back then Gerolf Annemans, an MEP from Vlaams Belang, Belgium's Flemish independence party, voiced his concern that the measure could be abused by those who have hysterical reactions to things that they qualify as racist, xenophobic, when people are just expressing politically incorrect views, as cited by AP.

Some of the MEPs voiced more balanced views, with German deputy Helmut Scholz saying that EU lawmakers are chosen to speak out on the state of Europe, adding that one can't limit or deny this right. At the same time, he said a tool was needed to tackle Nazi shouts and racists remarks.

We need an instrument against that, to take it out of the record, to stop distribution of such slogans, such ideas, Scholz argued.

Go here to read the rest:

Critics accuse European Parliament of censorship over 'kill switch' to ... - RT

Human rights activist, Lena Hendry, was charged under Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act in what many feel is a blow to freedom of speech and expression in Malaysia. @Net2Ayurveda

AS a documentary filmmaker, I regularly screen my films and also give talks and workshops, both locally and internationally. When I am out of the country, I always get asked the question of how local filmmakers deal with the strict censorship laws in Malaysia.

My first response is always to correct their question. The question shouldnt be how we Malaysian filmmakers deal with strict censorship laws; it should be how we deal with vague, unclear and inconsistent censorship laws.

Take for example,Lena Hendry, who is a former employee of a Malaysian-based human rights non-governmental organisation called Pusat KOMAS. She was found guilty of screening the documentary No Fire Zone: The killing fields of Sri Lanka without censorship approval in 2013.

SEE ALSO:HRW calls on Malaysia to drop charges against activist for showing film

Hendry was convicted under Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act, 2002 on Feb 21, 2017 and could now face up to three years jail or a fine not exceeding RM30,000 (US$6,750). Sentencing has been set for 22nd March.

Pusat KOMAS regularly screens films that have human rights themes. And this particular film has been screened numerous times before at a variety of different events. It was screened at the 2015 International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) and at a Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) event in 2013.

At both events, Malaysian government officials were in attendance. In fact, the IACC even claims that Prime Minister Najib Razak was there.

Here is a film that was openly screened during a government event, but wasnt allowed at a different event. So why the double standards?

Personally, I have experienced a similar incident, although mine wasnt to the extent of being arrested and charged. A documentary I produced about the conflict happening in Southern Thailand called The Life and Times of an Islamic Insurgency was banned.

SEE ALSO:Southeast Asian governments grapple with censoring Netflix

The documentary was not banned initially, and was even scheduled to be screened on national television. For anything to be broadcast on national television in Malaysia, it has to get through the censorship board, meaning my documentary was approved by the board.

However, two days before the scheduled broadcast, the television network gave me a call and informed me that the documentary was now banned and they were told to pull it from being on air. There was no reason given, I just had to be content with their lack of explanation.

Pusat KOMAS has now launched a campaign to fight for justice for Hendry. The campaign, #DefendLena, will run till the date of the sentencing and there will be events such as a public forum on censorship and screenings of the same documentary for various small groups.

The case involving Hendry is a blow to freedom of speech and expression. For a country that is a functioning democracy, it is important that diverse views and perspectives are made available so that dissent and discourse can happen.

The conviction has garnered opposition from many quarters including politicians, NGOs, human rights activists and even members of the public. Hendry, of course, is determined to appeal her conviction.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not reflect the views of Asian Correspondent

Read Full Article

{"total":13,"error":"","stumbleupon":0,"linkedin":0,"google":0,"facebook_total":12,"pinterest":0,"buffer":1,"twitter":0,"vk":0}

Follow this link:

Film censorship is being used to quell discourse in Malaysia - Asian Correspondent

Once again our elected state representatives are attempting to nail a lid on the constitutional right to protest, assemble, and express contrasting ideas. The recent bill passed by the state Senate to ostensibly protect businesses from property damage perpetrated by so-called professional anarchists is a thinly veiled attempt to intimidate and punish citizens who get off the couch and activate their right to protest.

Laws that punish violence and mob rule are already on the books and have been so for generations. I suggest that these elected officials see themselves as police rather than representatives of the people. Controls and censorship seem to be the prevailing philosophies driving many folks in the Arizona government and feeding on peoples fear of the what ifs is their tactic to nail down the commonweal to a prescribed set of behaviors they deem acceptable.

No responsible citizen supports violence or mob rule, but this bill assumes that there is a demon lurking in every shadow and every living room and so will punish citizens for even discussing the possibility of expressing their right to protest. What are they afraid of a broken window or an open society?

See the original post here:

Rioting bill about censorship - Arizona Daily Sun

The EuropeanParliamentis often the stage for political and sometimes nationalist theater.

Beyond routine shouting matches, members occasionally wear T-shirts splashed with slogans or unfurl banners. Flags adorn some lawmakers' desks.

But some MEPs say nationalist rhetoric has recently crossed the line of what is acceptable.

"There have been a growing number of cases of politicians saying things that are beyond the pale of normal parliamentary discussion and debate," said Richard Corbett, a British MEP who backedthe new rule.

"What if this became not isolated incidents, but specific, where people could say: 'Hey, this is a fantastic platform. It's broad, it's live-streamed. It can be recorded and repeated. Let's use it for something more vociferous, more spectacular,'" he told The Associated Press.

Rule 165 of the parliament's rules of procedure allows the chair of debates to halt the live broadcast "in the case of defamatory, racist or xenophobic language or behavior by a member." The maximum fine for offenders would be around 9,000 euros ($9,500).

The new rule, which was not made public by the assemble until it was reported by Spain's La Vanguardia newspaper, offending material could be "deleted from the audiovisual record of proceedings," meaning citizens would never know it happened unless reporters were in the room.

Mr Weingaertner said the IPA was never consulted on that.

A technical note seen by the AP outlines a procedure for manually cutting off the video feed, stopping transmission on in-house TV monitors and breaking the satellite link to halt broadcast to the outside world.

A videotape in four languages would be kept running to serve as a legal record during the blackout. A more effective and permanent system was being sought.

It is also technically possible to introduce a safe-guard time delay so broadcasts appear a few seconds later. This means they could be interrupted before offending material is aired.

Critics say the system would be unwieldy and possibly ineffective.

See original here:

Censorship concerns as European Parliament introduces 'kill switch' to cut racist speeches - Telegraph.co.uk

On CNNs Reliable Sources this morning, Bret Stephens, the deputy editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, suggested that the media should boycott the Trump White House in retaliation for Trumps censoring of the media.

Stephens also added that what Trump was doing was worse than Nixon.

Stephens comments came during a discussion of Trumps decision to ban the NYT, CNN, Los Angeles Times, BuzzFeed and Politico from a press gaggle, or informalbriefing, at the White House on Friday.

It is thought that Trumps censorship of these outlets was in response totheir reports a day earlier on the White Houses growing efforts to obstruct the Russia investigation.

It was particularly surprising to hear the notion of a boycott come from the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, a conservative publication. Heres Stephens:

I would call it Nixonian, except I think that would be unfair to the memory of President Nixon. This is an attempt to bully the press by using access as a weapon to manipulate coverage. The Wall Street Journal put out a statement that I thought was very clear, if we had known what was happening we wouldnt have participated in that meeting with Mr. Spicer. And I think thats the right attitude for the rest of the press to take. That if the administration is going to boycott certain news outlets, then perhaps we should as news organizations return the favor to this administration.

Add your name to the thousands who aredemandingthe Justice Department appointa special counselto investigate Trumps ties to Russia.

With the election of Donald Trump, AMERICAblogs independent journalism and activism is more needed than ever.

Please support our work with a generous donation.(If you prefer PayPal, use this link.) We dont make much on advertising,we need your support to continue our work. Thanks. Also, check out our Trump Swag store, where you can get your Illegitimate t-shirts and more. Allthe proceeds go to supporting our independent journalismat AMERICAblog.

John Aravosis Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in New York City, and is the cofounder of TimeToResign.com. Bio, article archive.

Originally posted here:

Wall Street Journal editor endorses boycott of Trump White House over media censorship - AMERICAblog (blog)

Here in the United States, if the internet isnt working, or is working slowly, the solution is often as simple as calling tech support. In most cases, theyll have the user run a speedtest, and there are millions of sites and applications that provide this service. However, there arent so many sites that allow users to see who has access to their information, and for people in countries where the internet is censored or restricted, even the fastest internet connection wont grant them open access to information.

This is one issue the team working on the Open Observatory of Network Interference project hope to address with their new Ooniprobe app, which, as of Feb. 9, is available in a beta version for free on Google Play and in the App store. The app has three main features, a speed test, a web connectivity test and a test that detects the presence of components that could be responsible for censorship or surveillance.

Without a tool like Ooniprobe, governments have plausible deniability in terms of censorship events, and actually, people claiming that they can't access a website is not in itself proof of intentional, government-commissioned censorship, Arturo Filast the creator of the app said. Now, anyone around the world can run Ooniprobe and can inspect how their network is working and whether censorship is being implemented. The type of data collected by Ooniprobe cannot really be denied by governments since it provides a clear picture into what is happening in a user's network.

Filast believes access information is a fundamental human right, but in the current state of affairs, many countries either censor or severely restrict the internet; with countries such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and India showing thousands of blocked sites - including many messaging sites like WhatsApp and Telegram, according to OONI World Map Explorer.

While countries like the United States have considerably fewer reports of censorship and blocked sites, the country isnt entirely free of censorship. Even here at Western Michigan University types of censorship are in place, but according to Chief Technology Officer Tom Wolf, there is a fine line between censorship and internet security.

In my opinion preventing malicious cyber activities that are illegal in nature and/or intended to disrupt normal internet traffic would not be considered a form of censorship. I would view this as cyber security, Wolf said.

This begs the question of exactly where one should draw the line between security and censorship. Most firewalls, such as Merits Palo Alto - the firewall currently in place here at WMU - scan for evidence of malicious activities and dont otherwise censor content.

Filast addressed the very fine line between security and censorship, distinguishing that security measures should restrict themselves solely to universally bad content.

Internet censorship, in any form and of any type of content, is a slippery slope. We see this in countless occasions where it's implementation is passed as an excuse to restrict access to content that is universally bad, but then the same system gets used to implement censorship for content whose value is much debatable, Filast said.

However, Nathan Tabor, a visiting professor and historian focusing on South Asia, expressed concerns over this slippery slope mentality, pointing out that when someone knows their internet activity is being censored, theyre more likely to change their patterns of consumption in a form of implicit censorship.

A lot of my work is in Persian, so I often access sites from Iran, another place that has very restricted internet access. The things that I access have to do with history and literature, pretty innocuous subjects, but perhaps my internet history comes up on the radar of some overzealous homeland security official because Im accessing sites from Iran. With the data mining that happens with my search history, Id look like a terrorist, Tabor said. The sites that you read will fall into some kind of aggravated pattern decided by a security apparatus, regardless whether or not youre doing anything wrong.

More here:

New app to bring awareness to internet censorship - Western Herald