Monthly Archives: April 2014

Censorship PSA
Filmed and Edited by: Arihant Bohara Go Check out his channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/XxPhantomLightxX Everybody, Remember to Like, Comment and Subscri...

By: DatAsianMC

Here is the original post:
Censorship PSA - Video

Facebook (FB) published its second transparency report on Friday morning, and this one includes more than just instances of governments seeking information about social network users. Now Facebook also reveals times when governments restrict access to content because it violates local laws. As an example, Facebook cites German laws against Holocaust denial. Sure enough, German authorities asked Facebook to restrict such content 84 times in the last six months of 2013.

But by far the most censorious government was India, where Facebook said authorities restricted content 4,765 times. Indias approach to Internet speech has been a flash point for years, with the government saying it wants to regulate content that is offensive to religious or ethnic groups, and companies such as Facebook and Google (GOOG) bristling at the restrictions. Turkey also ranks high on the list, which is unsurprising given its recent attempts to restrict Twitter (TWTR) use. Heres who is asking for content to be removed, and how often theyre doing it:

In large part the countries asking for information were the same ones asking for material to be taken down. Of the eight countries issuing the most requests for user information, six of them also asked that some content be taken down locally. The exceptions were the U.S. and Brazil, whose governments are very curious but apparently not so censorious.

Facebook says its not permitted to reveal how often the requests are granted and notes that it doesnt automatically accede to government requests for local censorship. Facebooks mission is to give people the power to share, and to make the world more open and connected. Sometimes, the laws of a country interfere with that mission, by limiting what can be shared there, wrote Colin Stretch, the companys general counsel, in a blog post accompanying the report. When we receive a government request seeking to enforce those laws, we review it with care, and, even where we conclude that it is legally sufficient, we only restrict access to content in the requesting country. We do not remove content from our service entirely unless we determine that it violates our community standards.

This is the first time Facebook has released data on such requests, so its just a snapshot of a single period. Twitter, on the other hand, has been releasing similar information for several years. Twitter took a lot of criticism when it said in 2012 it would grant some government requests to restrict content that violated local laws. Governments are asking Twitter to restrict content with increasing frequency, up ninefold in the last six months of 2013 compared with the same period the year before. Still, these requests to Twitter are much less frequent than those made to Facebook. In the last six months of 2013, all the governments of the world asked Twitter to restrict content 377 times. Interestingly, Brazils government made the most requests, despite letting Facebook be.

Unlike Facebook, Twitter tells how often it actually restricts content. For its most recent report, it did so 11 percent of the time. That adds up to 191 tweets that people didnt see. In the majority of cases, the people not seeing them were French.

Read the original here:
India Leads the World in Facebook Censorship

KUALA LUMPUR, April 11 (Bernama) -- A Community Communication Centre programme coordinator failed to set aside a charge alleging that she had screened a documentary that had not been approved by the Film Censorship Board.

Lena Rasathi Hendry was charged in the Magistrate's Court last Sept 19 for screening an uncensored film, 'No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka' at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Chamber of Commmerce Hall at Jalan Maharajalela here at 9 pm on July 3, 2013.

The charge under Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 carries a jail term of up to three years or a fine of up to RM30,000 or both, upon conviction.

She subsequently filed a motion to the High Court to strike out the charge on grounds that it violated Article 10 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution.

On Nov 25, she was granted a stay of her case, pending outcome of the application.

High Court Judge Kamardin Hashim in dismissing Lena's application today, said the imposition of restrictions by the Film Censorship Board was not ultra vires under Clause 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution and was emphasised in Clause (4(1) of the same Constitution.

"The onus is on the applicant to show how her rights had been violated or how she was discriminated against under Article 8 of the Federal Constitution. Her reluctance to do so will only end in a full stop for her application.

"The issue is, how are we going to monitor the contents of a film if it is not first screened by an independent body like the Board. Hence the practicality of Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002," said the judge.

Kamardin also ordered the case to proceed in the Magistrate's Court.

Meanwhile, counsel Edmund Bon said he would appeal to the Appeal Court against the decision.

Read the original here:
Programme Coordinator Fails To Strike Out Censorship Charge

BEIJING Several apparent suicides by Chinese officials in the past three weeks, including the deaths of two senior figures, have sparked public debate and questions, as well as a fresh round of online censorship.

Was President Xi Jinpings anti-corruption drive putting so much pressure on members of the ruling Communist Party that some were driven to take their own lives? Was it all just a coincidence? Or does a life of deceit and hypocrisy eventually take its toll?

Chinese media reported Thursday that Xu Yean, 58, a deputy director in the State Bureau for Letters and Calls, was found hanged in his office this week.

Xus department handles the citizens petitions and complaints against local government officials. Although Xu had not been publicly linked with any corruption investigation, a senior colleague was fired and placed under investigation in November for a severe violation of party discipline.

At the time, Yu Jianrong, a professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, was quoted as saying on social media that the department had become one of the most corrupt sectors of the government, often using its power to extract bribes from local officials to silence complaints.

He Gaobo, a local official responsible for building safety in the city of Fenghua in the eastern province of Zhejiang, was found dead in a suspected suicide Wednesday, five days after an apartment building collapsed in the city.

Local news media reported that the building had been declared unsafe months before but that no action had been taken to repair it. Three people involved in the buildings construction have been arrested in that case, news media reported.

On April 4, senior policeman Zhou Yu was found hanged in a hotel room in the central Chinese city of Chongqing. Zhou was a major figure in a crackdown on organized crime in the city under the leadership of Bo Xilai, a senior Communist Party leader who has since been imprisoned for corruption. Zhou was reported to be depressed about health issues related to diabetes and cirrhosis of the liver.

A senior official at the state-owned power-generation company Datang was reported to have died in suspicious circumstances March 29, after being unwell and depressed, although the company denied that his death was a suicide.

Perhaps the most sensational death of all was that of Li Wufeng, 56, who was known as Chinas top Internet cop and was reportedly involved in maintaining a system of online censorship known as the Great Firewall of China. Li was said to have jumped to his death March 24 from the sixth floor of the office building where he worked after constantly being in a bad mood, local news media reported.

The rest is here:
Mysterious spate of apparent suicides by Chinese officials sparks debate, censorship