Monthly Archives: June 2017

The Weibo microblogging app displayed on an iPhone, April 22, 2014. Brent LewinBloomberg/Getty Images

China's media oversight body has ordered three major online companies to halt some of their multi-media streaming services, the government's latest move to tighten controls on an already restricted Internet.

Agence France-Presse reports that Sina Weibo the country's Twitter-like microblogging site with more than 340 million users as well as news sites iFeng.com and ACFUN, were informed they lacked permits required by the body to run audio-visual streams.

An announcement by China's State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television said the sites hosted "many politically-related programs that do not conform with state rules," and authorities are trying to "create a cleaner cyberspace," according to AFP.

Earlier this month another regulator, the Beijing Cyberspace Administration, ordered internet companies to terminate social media accounts that cater to "the public's vulgar taste" and disseminate celebrity gossip, AFP reports.

Willy Lam, a professor at Chinese University of Hong Kong's centre for China studies, tells TIME that Beijing has steadily tightened the screws on expression ahead of the Chinese Communist Party's 19th Congress, due to be held around October.

Lam says that Chinese President Xi Jinping " wants stability above all else in this sensitive period," but that ultimately censorship could backfire. " The more control of the media there is, the more ordinary Chinese tend to believe in speculation and innuendo," he says.

[ AFP ]

Follow this link:
Chinese Authorities Crack Down on Streaming to Create a 'Cleaner Cyberspace' - TIME

In the never-ending battle to preserve free speech, there is always good news and bad news. There are triumphs and setbacks. The struggle for liberty always encounters the will to power, and often the will to power is cloaked in terms of compassion, justice, and equality.

And so it is with the quest to censor so-called hate speech. First, lets address the good news. Earlier this week the Supreme Court ruled 80 against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), which had refused to register a trademark for a band called The Slants. The PTO claimed that the bands name violated provisions of the Lanham Act, which prohibits registering trademarks that disparage...or bring into contempt or disrepute any persons, living or dead.

As I wrote immediately after the decision, it would have been shocking if the Court hadnt ruled against the PTO. After all, there are literally decades of First Amendment precedents prohibiting the government from engaging in punitive viewpoint discrimination, even when the viewpoint expressed is deemed hatred or offensive. Justice Alito made short work of the notion that the government has an interest in preventing speech that expresses offensive ideas:

As we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.

But not even a ruling joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor can persuade determined, far-left censors, and just as sure as night follows day, Laura Beth Nielsen, a research professor for the American Bar Foundation, took to the pages of the Los Angeles Times to make the case for viewpoint discrimination. Ive seen enough pieces like this to recognize the type. They always begin with misleading statements of the law, declarations that free-speech protections arent absolute, and then move to the core pitch in this case, that the state should regulate hate speech because its emotionally and physically harmful:

In fact, empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences. Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies. Exposure to racial slurs also diminishes academic performance. Women subjected to sexualized speech may develop a phenomenon of self-objectification, which is associated with eating disorders.

This is the very close cousin of the speech as violence argument sweeping campuses from coast to coast. Its the heart of the argument for the campus speech code that subjective listener response should dictate a speakers rights. The more fragile the listener, the greater the grounds for censorship.

And there is no limiting principle. If How does this speech make you feel? is the core question, it incentivizes victim politics and overreaction. Robust debate triggers robust emotions, and robust debate on the most sensitive issues issues like race, gender, and sexuality trigger the most robust of responses.

Lest anyone wonder about the actual definition of hate speech, look to campus and liberal activist groups. At Evergreen State College in Washington, a progressive professors statement against racial separation and division was deemed so hateful that he couldnt safely conduct classes on campus. Influential pressure groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center label the Ku Klux Klan and other genuine racistshate groups but also apply the same label to mainstream Christian conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council. The SPLC has branded respected American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray a white nationalist. Moreover, its far more forgiving of leftist extremism than of moderate speech that is conservative or libertarian.

In a stinging piece in the Wall Street Journal, Jeryl Bier notes the double standard:

Kori Ali Muhammad allegedly murdered three white people in California in April. The SPLC reports that on Facebook Mr. Muhammad wrote of grafted white devil skunks and repeatedly referred to the mythical Lost Found Asiaiatic [sic] Black Nation in America. Yet in contrast with its unequivocal (and false) tagging of Mr. Murray, the group describes Mr. Muhammad as a possible black separatist.

Got that? One of the Rights most important scholars stands condemned, while a man who shot and killed three people is just a possible separatist. Thats the through-the-looking-glass world of the anti-hate speech Left. The definitions are malleable, but one thing you can count on the Right will always lose.

Interestingly, the day before Nielsens call for censorship appeared in the Los Angeles Times, German police raided the homes of 36 people accused of hateful social-media postings. Thats where prohibitions against hate speech lead. Indeed, wannabe American censors often extol Europe as a model for their proposed American laws. Do you trust the government to decide when your viewpoint is unacceptable?

Left-wing censors discount voices like mine, claiming that its easy for me to pontificate on free speech while basking in my white privilege. Yet my family has been exposed to more vile and vicious rhetoric than most people will experience in ten lifetimes. Yes, its painful. Yes, it has consequences. But it is far more empowering to meet bad speech with better speech than it is to appeal to the government for protection even from the worst ideas.

To paraphrase Alan Charles Kors, co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, no class of Americans is too weak to live with freedom. Rather than indulging weakness and fear, activists left and right would do well to cultivate emotional strength and moral courage. The marketplace of ideas demands no less.

READ MORE: Free Speech Isnt Always a Tool for Virtue Speech Is Not Violence and Violence Is Not Self-Expression When Speech Inspires Violence, Protect Liberty While Restoring Virtue

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

See original here:
Anti-Free-Speech Radicals Never Give Up - National Review

June 21, 2017 GDANSK, POLAND Housed in a $134-million, state-of-the-art building, Polands Museum of the Second World War opened early this spring. The museum, which took more than five years to construct, tells the story of Polands war experiences, which given the way the country is sandwiched between Germany and Russia are among the most tragic of all the conflict.

But even before the museum opened, it was already mired in controversy. The museums acting director, Karol Nawrocki hired when former director Pawel Machcewicz was fired, two weeks after the museum opened has complained that the exhibits about the rise of communism are too light, and the music is too happy, underplaying how deeply the political ideology inflicted damage on the Polish people.He has already indicated that he will be making changes to some exhibits.

In Hungary, meanwhile, it is a university that is in the sights of the government.Last week, students were busy finishing their spring term classes at Central European University, founded by American philanthropist George Soros. But even as faculty and students swarmed through the CEU buildings, clustered in the elegant heart of Budapest, a new law was taking aim at the Hungarian- and American-accredited university.

Both Polands Museum of the Second World War and Hungarys CEU one brand new, the other formed at the fall of communism have been seen as symbols of the advances in free thought and open societies in post-Soviet Europe. And the fact that both have become targets of their ruling governments is a sign, some critics say, of government attempts to control cultural and historic narratives and undermine academic freedom to consolidate political control.

The moves in central Europe hark back to an earlier era, in contrast to the anti-immigrant, anti-globalist nationalism taking root in western Europe, says Anton Pelinka, a professor of nationalism studies at CEU. The French nationalistic renaissance or German nationalistic renaissance is not about Alsace-Lorraine, says Professor Pelinka, referring to the historical land dispute. But Hungarian and Polish nationalism is very old fashioned. Taboos were perpetuated under communist rule, he says.But now, post-communist nationalistic regimes have created new taboos.

The war museum opened in March in the center of Gdansk, near a post office that was one of the first places Germans attacked the country during the war.It was commissioned in 2008 by then-Prime Minister Donald Tusk, today president of the European Council, and was intended to look at the war through an international lens. But the museum was barely open before the ultraconservative Law and Justice party (PiS) firedMr. Machcewicz and announced that some of the exhibits would change.

Mr. Nawrocki, the current director, says the museum the most expensive ever built in Poland has great potential. But I don't get [from the current exhibitions] the answer to a basic question what we Poles want to tell the world about our war experience, he says.

Poland suffered enormously in World War II, with 20 percent or more of its population killed,borders redrawn, and the war ending in communist rule. The new museum was not intended to diminish the Polish experience, says Machcewicz.But part of its purpose, he says, to tell a fuller story about the war, which may break ground for Poles, who havetended to cling to black-and-white ideas about victims and perpetrators.

One of the exhibits includes house keys that belonged to Jews in the village of Jedwabne, who were killed by their Polish neighbors with help from Nazis soldiers. The exhibits also spend time on atrocitiesperpetrated by the Soviet Union, as well ason the 3 million Russian soldiers who suffered in German captivity. The museum pushes Poles from the comfort zone, Machcewicz says, because we show how other nations suffered during the war.

Poles views are mixed, with some welcoming a new perspective, and others rejecting it. Kazimierz Burzynski, a retiree from Gdansk, says he is disappointed that there is not more about Poland in an educational center at the museum.But he also faults PiS opponents for politicizing the issue for political gain. [They are] discussing our issues abroad, involving foreigners in our discussion.

Internationally, the debate in Hungary has resonated even more widely.The Hungarian parliament passed a higher education law in April that effectively singles out the CEU, as it would require the school to open a campus in New York, where it is registered, or cease operations in Budapest.The university has announced that it will continue to operate in academic year 2017-2018, but its long-term future is now unclear. Negotiations between Hungary and the state of New York are expected later this month in an effort to find a solution before October, when the schools license to operate can be withdrawn under the new law.

The university was founded by Mr. Soros who was born in Hungary in 1991, with the stated intent of helping to usher in democracy in post-Soviet Europe. It has been operating in Budapest since 1993. Today CEU has over 1,400 students, including many who are seen as leaders in the region,and it is considered a major center of independent scholarship. But Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban who has said that he sees illiberal democracy as the right path for Hungary says that the university has cheated by violating Hungarian rules, and that no institution should enjoy an unfair advantage.

For many observers, the new law has more to do with Mr. Soros as symbol of liberalism than with academic censorship.It is not about attacking academic freedom, its more like generating a conflict between the government and more pro-Western organizations or figures like George Soros,says Dniel Mikecz, an expert on social movements at the Republikon Institute. It is much easier to campaign with a scapegoat as enemy of the state. You dont have to raise the salaries of public servants, or introduce such benefits for the people.

Whatever Orbans motivations for moving against CEU, many observers fear its an open Hungarian society that is at stake. Orban has also clamped down on funding for NGOs and independent media, and rolled back checks and balances on the Hungarian constitution.

Globally, the fight over the CEU has stirred a firm response.

Two dozen Nobel laureates and academics and institutions around the world have declared support for the university. The law threatening its existence has been rebuked by the European Parliament, which started infringement proceedings against Hungary, prompting tens of thousands of protestors to the streets.I think free institutions and academic freedom strike a chord with a lot of people. It is a core democratic value. It is a core European value, says Michael Ignatieff, the president and rector of CEU.

For many of todays Europeans, its discomfiting to see politicians fighting for control of higher education and other cultural institutions. Machcewicz, a historian, says PiS views historic policy as one of its main pillars. He says the Polish government has set out to achieve control in ways that range from censuring art to announcing plans for new historic museums.

In rejecting our exhibition I see a growing anti-EU and xenophobic atmosphere, a rejection of Europe and multiculturalism, he says. While he says he sees a comparison between the Hungarian government's move against the CEU and the Polish government's decisions about his former museum, he characterizes Orbans move as a cynical power grab, while in Poland he suggests that something deeper is stirring. The Polish right wants power, too, but it is more ideological and radical, he says. The current government is striving for a cultural revolution in Poland.

Its not a direction that sits well with some Polish citizens. Sabina Woch is visiting the Gdansk museum with her 10-month-old son and her in-laws, eager to see the museums exhibits before the government makes any changes. World War II did not take place only in Poland or Europe, and its important to know what was happening in other continents, she says. Politicians should not decide who should run such institutions like a museum; its not their role.

Sara Miller Llana contributed reporting to this story from Paris.

Read the original:
Moves against Polish museum and Hungarian university stir fears of ... - Christian Science Monitor

Chris Finan

CONTACT: Jas Chana, NCAC Communications Director jas@ncac.org, 212-807-6222 ext.107

New York, NY, June 21, 2017- The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), an alliance of 56 national non-profit organizations, announced today that it has hired Christopher M. Finan as its next executive director. Joan Bertin, the current executive director, is stepping down after leading the organization for 20 years. NCAC promotes freedom of thought, inquiry and expression and opposes censorship in all its forms.

We are indeed lucky that a free expression advocate the caliber of Chris Finan has agreed to lead the NCAC to its next chapter, said Jon Anderson, chair of the NCAC Board of Directors and president and publisher of Simon & Schuster Childrens Publishing. In this most challenging of times for First Amendment rights, we need someone with the experience and reputation that Chris brings to the table in protecting the rights of all Americans to express themselves as they choose.

Finan has a long career as a free speech activist. He is currently director of American Booksellers for Free Expression, part of the American Booksellers Association (ABA). In 1982, he joined Media Coalition, a trade association that defends the First Amendment rights of booksellers, publishers, librarians and others who produce and distribute First Amendment-protected material. In 1998, he became president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression. The foundation merged with ABA in 2015.

Finan has worked closely with NCAC as a member of the board of directors and as a board chair. In 2007, he and Bertin created NCACs Kids Right to Read Project, which supports parents, students, teachers and librarians who are fighting efforts to ban books in schools and libraries.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to lead an organization that plays such an important role in protecting free expression. I am also very fortunate to be succeeding Joan Bertin, who has led NCACs vigorous defense of free speech during a time of growing censorship pressure, Finan said.

As examples of NCACs recent advocacy, Finan pointed to statements defending publishers who are pressured to censor books that some critics consider offensive, condemning the Trump administrations attacks on the press and criticizing the Walker Art Centers decision to dismantle a sculpture after accusations that it was cultural appropriation.

Read the original:
National Coalition Against Censorship Chooses New Leader - Blogging Censorship

Deutsche Welle

Qatar's censorship in Berlin Deutsche Welle A freshly renovated villa from 1907 in a wealthy Berlin suburb belongs to the state of Qatar. It's now being used as the embassy's Arab Cultural House. But the topless figure in front of the building has vanished.

Link:
Qatar's censorship in Berlin - Deutsche Welle