Monthly Archives: October 2019

Credit: Lorin Granger For Banned Books Week, held at HLS from Sept. 23- 26, the HLS Library co-hosted a series of lectures that looked at the broad world of censorship through a number of lenses. Jocelyn Kennedy, executive director of the Harvard Law School Library, introduces keynote speakers for a Sept. 24 talk, Censorship by Fire; Book Burning as an Act of Cultural Violence.

In 1829, David Walker, a writer and abolitionist, published a treatise in Boston, To the Coloured Citizens of the World, But in Particular, and Very Expressly, to Those of the United States of America. Walker, the son of an enslaved man and a free black woman, made an appeal for black unity and the abolition of slavery.

Walkers tract, described by its opponents as the diabolical Boston pamphlet, was one of the most radical pieces of abolitionist writing at the time. A censorship campaign waged in the antebellum South to suppress the pamphlet and other abolitionist materials led to arrests, the smashing of presses, attempted censorship of the post office, as well as pressure on the Northern states to control speech at a time when it was believed that discussion would lead to disunity.

The censorship of Walkers treatisethe subject of a Sept. 25 talk by Harvard Law School Professor Randall Kennedywas part of a series of lectures hosted by the Harvard Law School Library at the end of September to commemorate Banned Book Week. This year marks the fourth time the Harvard Law School Library has hosted Banned Books Week, an annual program of exploration and discussion spearheaded by the American Library Association in support of the right to read.

In addition to Professor Kennedys talk, this years lecturesand an accompanying library exhibitexplored how book banning and censorship of knowledge has silenced dissent, wiped out cultural history in a time of war, and kept crucial information and art from the public.

According to Jocelyn Kennedy, executive director of the Harvard Law School Library and a lecturer on law at HLS, Banned Books Week is an opportunity to look at the broad world of censorship through a number of lenses and to showcase the things libraries value: difficult subject matter, deep inquiry, human rights and the way that the entire Harvard Law School community is part of the learning endeavor.

Libraries are champions of free expression and part of our job is to shine the light on the ways that censorship keeps us in the dark, said Kennedy. This is hyper relevant today as news, expression, artreally everything we intellectually consumeis being filtered through some sort of public or private censorship.

On September 23, the series kicked off with a discussion led by Svetlana Mintecheva, director of programs at the National Coalition Against Censorship. In her talk, Cancel Culture: Can Free Speech in Cultural Institutions Survive the Onslaught of Moral Outrage?, Mintecheva asserted that the cancel culture practice is placing cultural heritage institutions in the position of evaluating their exhibits and collection practices against social will. She warned cultural institutions are succumbing to public pressure to remove art and artists from their walls.

Mintecheva pointed to a 2017 controversy at the Whitney Museum of American Art, involving artist Dana Schutz portrayal of Emmett Till in her work Open Casket, as an example of the impact the current, but certainly not new, cancel culture movement is having on cultural institutions. She discussed the need to have nuanced conversations about the past, to create safe spaces for unsafe ideas, and the importance of preserving difficult art that serves as commentary on past, present and future concerns.

The second talk focused on the violence associated with censorship, particularly in times of war. In a Sept. 24 lecture, Censorship by Fire; Book Burning as an Act of Cultural Violence, Andras Riedlmayer of the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at Harvards Fine Arts Library and Radu Popa, assistant dean and director of the NYU Law Library, shared examples of attempts by state actors to control dissenting views and eliminate cultural heritage in times of war. Riedlmayer testified before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia as an expert onthe destruction of cultural heritage during the Balkan wars of the 1990s. He described the deliberate destruction of libraries and other cultural heritage spaces, particularly the targeting and destruction of Bosnias National Library during the shelling of Sarajevo in 1992.

Credit: Lorin Granger Radu Popa (left), assistant dean for Library Services & director of the NYU Law Library, and Andrs Riedlmayer, bibliographer in Islamic Art and Architecture at the Harvard Fine Arts Library, field questions from the audience during their talk Censorship by Fire; Book Burning as an Act of Cultural Violence, one of several Banned Books Week events that took place at Harvard Law School in late September.

Popa, a fiction writer and essayist, focused on dissent under communist leader Nicolae Ceauescu in Romania, where he said his attempts to evade censorship through various literary techniques was like a game of chess. In his talk, Popa discussed his long and often humorous battle with the censors over his fiction work, a challenge he fought until 1985, when he asked for asylum in the United States. Popa eventually became the director of the New York University Law Library.

In addition to the lecture series, the library hosted an exhibit titled Walt Whitman: Banned in Boston. Curated by James Fraser, a current student in the Simmons University Library Science program, the exhibitwhich is on display through Oct. 18 in Areeda Hallshowcases the New England Watch and Ward Societys unsuccessful attempt to censor Whitmans seminal work Leaves of Grass. As was often the case with banned books, the attempted repression caused Whitmans book to gain in popularity, and it sold out on the day of its release. Harvard Law School Library holds part of the records of the Watch and Ward Society, which provided rich historical context for this exhibit.

For Jocelyn Kennedy, the Banned Books Week programming is a reminder that in a just and civil society, communities need to come together to discuss, to share and, most of all, to learn.

That sentiment was echoed in part in Professor Kennedys discussion of Walkers abolitionist treatise. Despite efforts by the Southern states to contain Walkers treatise, the pamphlet, along with other abolitionist pieces, spread far and wide. In the end, said Kennedy, the tide of public opinionrather than the courtsended this particular regime of information suppression.

Free speech is often a catalyst to racial justice, said Kennedy, who called for more, and difficult, conversation about race. Racial justice is the seedbed for civil liberties, he concluded.

Banned Books Week was first launched in the 1980s as a way to bring public awareness to the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Island Trees School District v. Pico, which established that local school boards could not remove books from school libraries solely based on content. Despite the Court ruling, the practice of challenging books continues today.

After the inaugural HLS Banned Books Week in 2016 garnered significant student interest, the library began partnering with student organizations. This years event was co-sponsored by the ACLU at HLS, The Harvard Law School Rule of Law Society, the Law and Philosophy Society, the American Constitution Society, the Harvard Federalist Society, and the Armed Conflict and Civilian Protection Initiative of the International Human Rights Clinic.

Joshua Smith 20 played an important role this year co-curating the event. Working closely with HLS Library staff, Smith helped identify speakers and topics.

In choosing banned book subject matter to highlight, Smith said, the library looked to the past and the present, as well as to international issues. Whenever the time, wherever the place, we saw governments, businesses, civil society, and individuals oppose open inquiry in art and ideas for all sorts of reasonspolitical, racial, religious, aesthetic, historical, moral, ideological, he said. Some censorship entrances, some repulses, all is worth examining, and all, at the very least, should make us pause.

Original post:
Banned Books Week at Harvard Law: How censorship leaves us in the dark - Harvard - Harvard Law School News

Minouk Lim.

LEILA MESDAGHI

Minouk Lim is a Seoul-based artist whose multimedia work looks at the various ways people can be marginalized, particularly by systems of government and various forms of mass media. Her work has been included in numerous international exhibitions, including the 2019 Biennale de Lyon, the 2016 Taipei Biennale, the 2016 Sydney Biennale, and the 2014 Gwangju Biennale.

Most recently, Lims work was included in the Aichi Triennale, which closed on Monday, October 14. The show has been the subject of controversy since it opened in August, when organizers decided to close an exhibition within the exhibition, titled After Freedom of Expression? That part of the Aichi Triennale looked at Japans history of censorship, and was shuttered citing threats against the exhibition and its staff. Among the most controversial works was Statue of a Girl of Peace by Korean artist-duo Kim Seo-kyung and Kim Eun-sung. That piece depicts ianfu, or comfort women who were drawn from throughout Asia and forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese Imperial Army.(It is still a controversial topic in Japan.)

Lim was among the artists who signed an open letter calling for the removal of her work in the exhibition, a new piece titled Adieu News, in a stand of solidarity with the censored artists. ARTnews asked Lim about her work in the exhibition and the controversy surrounding the entire Triennale.

ARTnews: What was your initial impression of the After Freedom of Expression? exhibition?

Minouk Lim: I found the implied message behind the After Freedom of Expression? exhibition deeply meaningful because Daisuke Tsuda, the Artistic Director [of the Aichi Triennale], comes from a journalistic background and has regrouped the works that have already been censored. Aside from works by Korean artists, including the Statue of a Girl of Peace, the exhibition actually included works by Japanese artists reflecting more direct criticisms [of censorship in Japan].

Another point that should not be overlooked is that the Aichi Triennale tried to balance the gender ratio of participating artists. The exhibition was not a display of political art as the Japanese right-wing party criticized, but instead showed how politics shook and hijacked the art. Rather, it was an event that exposed another side of the reality of Japan that we must continue to face.

AN: Did you anticipate that there might be backlash?

ML: I already anticipated that there would be backlash, as hate speech [has been] an important source of political power in Japan for a long time. However, I did not expect that the Mayor of Nagoya would demand the [exhibitions] withdrawal directly and the Agency for Cultural Affairs would respond back to the artists by cutting subsidy as punishment. This result both surprised and disappointed me.

Installation view of Minouk Lims Adieu News, 2019, at the 2019 Aichi Triennale.

COURTESY THE ARTIST

AN: You were part of the group of 72 artists who said that the Aichi Triennales decision to remove the section of the show was not appropriate. What motivated you to sign the letter?

ML: I decided to close my exhibition space and sent my statement before we issued another statement with 72 artists signatures. It was on August 3 when the Triennale decided to shut down the After Freedom of Expression? exhibition. I sent an email to Daisuke Tsuda and Shihoko lida [Chief Curator of the Triennale], informing them that I would withdraw my works. They only reiterated to the press that they had to close the exhibition due to the threat of terrorism. However, I insisted that it is more dangerous to weave freedom of expression into a safety issue. I felt ashamed of the decision to take down the show. Thankfully though, many of the participating artists and Japanese colleagues expressed their support. They drew 72 signatures after deep agony and vigorous debate. Of course, I also signed it in solidarity. Moreover, 11 artists out of the total 72 artists took action by boycotting their works, including myself.

AN: Can you talk about your work in the exhibition? Does it also look at the complicated histories between Japan and Korea?

ML: For the exhibition, I presented a new scenographic space through a new body of work called Adieu News (2019), which includes a two-channel video of a newly-edited [version of] The Possibility of the Half (2012), as well as an installation featuring fake-traditional Korean dresses, Hanbok. By juxtaposing two funerals of the former supreme leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-Il, and that of the former President of South Korea, Park Chung-hee, the work shows how the media-driven emotions create a community and how it resembles an incomplete ruin. If the former Japanese Prime Minister, Yoshida Shigeru, argued that the Korean War was a gift from God to the Japanese, both funerals are activated as an impetus behind the Nationalism and division of the two Koreas.

AN: Does the controversy at the Aichi Triennale speak to larger issues going on in the world?

ML: The censorship issue of the Aichi Triennale is a problem for the art world as a whole. South Korea is a divided nation, and artists think that they all live by self-censorship. There still exists great risk in revealing certain truths throughout the world, which questions whether information should be censored. Personally, I feel the answer is not to suppress the freedom of expression. Art and freedom of expression are a struggle against the oppression of all kinds. There is vulnerability in truth, which is why we must protect it. Japanese intellectuals denounced the Aichi Triennial as the worst case of censorship in the countrys history.

I do not want to lose hope and feel strongly that Aichi can be reborn as a symbol of expressive and creative freedom. I felt such a strong sense of solidarity and connection with the 11 participating artists, includingJapanese artists, who chose to withdraw their works in protest. I hope that this experience will not promote fear, but rather breed strength and security in anyones ability to effect change. This act of protest is not about Nationalism, or about being a Japanese artist or a Korean artist, but about the inherent right to find freedom in the act of creation.

The rest is here:
Aichi Triennale Artist Minouk Lim Speaks Out on Art World Censorship and How the Exhibition Could Be 'Reborn' - - ARTnews

Online gaming communities are rife with toxic behavior sign on to Xbox Live and its a near-guarantee that youll hear some of your fellow gamers hurling insults and slurs as readily as they lob grenades in Call of Duty.

Its regular, every other game youre in, theres always someone who has a mic or types in chat, then-16-year-old gamer Bailey Mitchell told the BBC in 2017. Theyll call you some random abusive thing they can think of.

In an effort to fight back against that toxicity, Microsoft announced Monday that it had begun rolling out new filters for Xbox Live designed to block out potentially offensive messages andin a futuristic twist, the company is already trying to figure out how to do the same for voice messages.

According to a Microsoft blog post, Xbox users will be able to choose between four levels of content filtration: Friendly, Medium, Mature, and Unfiltered.

If the filtration system flags a message as being beyond the limits the player has set, it will replace the message with a placeholder reading potentially offensive message hidden. The player can then click on the placeholder if they want to read the message anyway.

But filtering text-based messages is just the first step.

Microsoft Research is already trying to crack real-time speech-to-text translation a technology that would allow it to transcribe a verbal conversation essentially as it takes place and the companys Xbox division is already contemplating what that could mean for its online community.

What weve started to experiment with is Hey, if were real-time translating speech to text, and weve got these text filtering capabilities, what can we do in terms of blocking possible communications in a voice setting?' Dave McCarthy, head of Microsofts Xbox operations, told The Verge.

Rob Smith, a program manager on the Xbox Live engineering team, addedthat the ultimate goal would be a system that could detect a bad phrase [in voice conversations] and beep it out for users who dont want to see that.

He compares it to broadcast TV, though television censors have the benefit of a seven-second delay to aid their filtration of offensive content delaying voice communications between gamers for even afraction of a second could dramatically impact game play.

Still, its easy to see how transcription technology is already moving in the direction Microsoft envisions, so while gaming communities might currently be cesspools of toxicity, that might not always be the case.

If we really are to realize our potential as an industry and have this wonderful medium come to everybody, theres just no place for that, McCarthy told The Verge.

READ MORE: Microsoft Unveils Xbox Content Filters to Stop the Swears and Toxicity [The Verge]

More on Microsoft: Microsoft: We Stopped Listening to Your Xbox Convos Months Ago

Continue reading here:
Microsoft Wants to Censor Xbox Live Voice Chat in Real Time - Futurism

An internally displaced woman rides a bus back to her village in North Darfur. Photo by Albert Gonzalez Farran via United Nations/Flickr.

For over thirty years, Sudan was ruled and controlled by a military regime under Omar al-Bashir until a revolution earlier this yearousted him from power. What started as protests against the rising price of bread became a movement against the Bashir regime, whocommitted mass crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide in Darfur. The regime often used laws and tactics to silence and oppress opponents including systematic internet censorship.

Today, as Sudan embarks on a three-year transition toward democracy and civilian rule, transitional authorities need to take steps to guarantee internet freedom and cut ties with censorship practices and policies of the former regime.

Transitional authorities have already taken small steps toward improving the climate for internet freedom, such as shifting regulatory power away from the military and making commitments to open up the press but these remain inadequate.

In September 2019, The Sovereignty Council of Sudan, sworn in last August as part of a power-sharing agreement to guide Sudans three-year transition toward civilian rule, issued a decree that places the Telecommunications and Post Regulatory Authority under the councils subordination instead of the Ministry of Defense.

The move is a welcome step toward ensuring the independence of the regulator from the full control of the military authorities, given that six of the 11-member-council are civilians. Five of these civilians were chosen from the Forces of Freedom and Change the political coalition that represents the protesters.

However, the rules and policies under which the regulator functions are still unchanged. In fact, the authority has been a key player in deciding and implementing the former regimes censorship policies with its filtering and blocking system.

According to a document explaining the regulators filtering practices, 95 percent of all banned materials pertain to pornography, while the rest of the banned content relates to drugs, bombs, alcohol, insults against Islam and gambling. Yet, these categories have been vague and lack definition, leaving the door open for those in power to decide what to block.

The regulators so-called filtering unit also has a formthat allows users to submit requests to block or unblock certain websites or webpages. These decisions are made without a judicial order and the regulator explains that the unit treats these requests seriously and expeditiously before orders are submitted to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

To filter and block content, the former regime used technologies it imported secretly from abroad. For example, a 2013 report titled Some Devices Wander by Mistake by Citizen Lab, a Toronto-based interdisciplinary laboratory that studies information control and content filtering, concluded that Sudan was among 83 countries that installed the Blue Coat ProxySG and PacketShaper devices on its public networks.

According to Citizen Lab, these devices can be used to secure and maintain networks, but it can also be used to implement politically-motivated restrictions on access to information, and monitor and record private communications.

In another positive step, Prime Minister Abdulla Hmadok signed the Global Pledge to Defend Media Freedom and stated that never again in the new Sudan will a journalist be repressed or jailed, during the 2019 United Nations General Assembly (UNGA):

Under the Bashir regime, print newspapers that faced repression offline found respite online. A 2017 report by France 24 noted that about a dozen internet papers have been launched in the past year alone as agents of the powerful National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) continue to confiscate entire print-runs of newspapers over articles opposed to President Omar al-Bashir's regime.

However, authorities also targeted online newspapers, often blocking them without a judicial order.

For example, during the anti-regime protests of June 2012, authorities blocked access to three online newspapers: Hurriyat Sudan, Sudanese Online and al-Rakoba, without a judicial process. At that time, SudanTribune reported that the rulingNational Congress Party (NCP) accused some websites of launching a campaign to distort the countrys image in collaboration with opposition parties and the United States. Access to online newspapers was later unblocked. Hurriyat Sudan, however, ceased publications in April 2018, due tolack of funding.

To enforce and implement its censorship policies, authorities under the former regime resorted to laws that were vague and open to misinterpretation.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized at the international level through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), in 2003 inGeneva,Switzerland,and in 2005 inTunis, Tunisia,reaffirmedas an essential foundation of the Information Society that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers as outlined inarticle 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Articles 14 to 17 of the 2007 Cybercrime Act, criminalizes the dissemination of content deemed in violation of public order, morality, religious beliefs or the sanctity of private life and online defamation. Despite the fact that the Act delineated on the punishments, with sentences up to five years in prison, fines, or both, definitions were still vague and lack clarity, allowing for abuse by authorities.

Article 25 gives the court the right to confiscate the hardware, software or media used in the commission of any of the offenses provided for in this Act and of the funds proceeding from them.

Bashirs regime used these laws to restrict online content and target newspapers and news websites as well as individual citizens online and social media activities.

A 2018 report by the African Center for Justice and Peace Studies documented four incidents where four Sudanese citizens have been charged with defamation under the Cybercrimes Act, 2007 and Criminal Act, 1991, as well as breach of public order and morality under the Cybercrimes Act following statements shared via social media platforms.The report highlights the case ofSaad Ahmed Fadul, who was charged in April 2018 under the Cybercrimes Act for sharing a video via WhatsApp narrating a story of how she was dismissed from the Sudan Communication Company and replaced with Hind Abdalla Hassan Albashir, a niece to Sudans [then] President, Al Bashir. She was charged withblackmailing and threatening another person, breach of public order and morality and violation of religious beliefs or the sanctity of private life.

PM Hamdoks public commitment to press freedom and the Sovereignty Councils decree to reduce the influence of the military in the regulator are two steps in the right direction toward the guarantee of internet freedom.

However, lingering laws place vague restrictions on these fundamental rights and allow authorities to block and filter content without a judicial order. These laws allow authorities to jail individuals and journalists for exercising their right to freedom of expression.

Transitional authorities should rectify these laws and take additional steps to ensure that the telecommunications industry regulator is independent of government interference. The regulator should focus on protecting users rights to access the internet instead of serving as a political tool that silences dissent.

See the original post:
Internet censorship in Sudan: Rethinking laws and tactics that served an authoritarian regime - Global Voices

The latest skirmishes in the bruising trade war between the U.S. and China have led to the unlikely politicization of the NBA. But how did the views of a basketball executive become such a political football? And what does Chinas ideological commitment to censorship say about the value of free speech and of free speech money, as bitcoin is sometimes known?

Also read: Berlusconi Admins Disappear Darknet Users Rush to Find Alternatives

The Communist Partys gangsterish demands on private companies is nothing new, but the recent decision by Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey to tweet support for pro-democracy protestors amid bedlam in Hong Kong quickly exposed just how fragile the notion of free speech really is. In the face of opprobrium from Beijing, Moreys climbdown, augmented by groveling input from Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta and NBA spokesman Mike Bass, was pitiful to behold. But it hinted at the wider problem of gutlessness among companies that have provoked the ire of the Chinese government.

A curated list of companies that have kowtowed to Chinese censorship requests, maintained on Github, is damning. As well as the NBA, the roll of shame includes Apple, Marriott, Nike, ESPN, several of the worlds largest airlines like British Airways, Qantas and American Airlines, and Versace. With trade talks between the US and China underway in Washington, the specter of censorship, while not on the agenda, will loom large over proceedings.

Both nations have a lot to answer for as far as free speech, privacy, money and other basic human rights are concerned. Chinas persistent assault on freedom seems more flagrant, but the U.S. and, for that matter, other western nations hardly cover themselves in glory. Attorney General William Barr recently squeezed major tech companies to provide government agencies with backdoor entry points for encrypted devices and software. It remains perfectly legal for citizens throughout the world to be fired by their employer or interrogated by customs for something theyve said on social media even when it occurred years ago.

Edward Snowdens expos of rampant state surveillance shows that when it comes to assembling a digital panopticon thats always watching, the Americans are even more ruthless than the Chinese. At least in China you can see the cameras observing you; theres no such courtesy when the U.S. agencies activate your webcam and start recording.

Speaking of surveillance and its insidious incursion into peoples lives, the Washington Post just reported that more than 400 police departments across the U.S. have entered into surveillance partnerships with Amazons camera-enabled doorbell company, Ring. Its yet another way in which the government is utilizing tech, while co-opting big business to bear down upon civil rights and liberties.

In the modern world, digital freedom is everything. The bulk of our lives now unfold online: our conversations, our financial transactions, our very identities. What we are witnessing, increasingly, is free speech being smothered via the deplatforming of certain voices and an attempt by governments to introduce regulatory oversight on financial transactions which goes beyond ensuring proper taxation, but under the guise of crime prevention impinges upon privacy at a fundamental level. When governments seek to blunt-force encrypted devices and software, it requires a stupefying level of naivety to assume that their motivation is cracking down on kiddie porn.

Value and dignity exist in an internet where speech, financial autonomy and other basic rights are not controlled by government agencies or international conglomerates. Where our private data is not commoditized and sold to the highest bidder, and where we have the right to lives that are not the object of constant and unforgiving scrutiny.

Avoiding inference from third parties in the form of censure (deplatforming) and restriction of speech are basic desires shared by all digital citizens. This is why, when the topic of censorship and governmental overreach rears its head, Bitcoin isnt far behind. Being able to process payments on the internet without permission or risk of confiscation is a privilege that provokes a desire to exercise the same level of freedom in other realms. To harness fully open source, secure and private systems of expression that are immune to the tentacles of power.

If the convergence of state and corporate interests continues unchecked, we are all imperilled; Chinese, American, or otherwise. Seized bank accounts, stolen information, frozen assets and ever greater attempts to stifle free speech and freedom of association will become the norm, and not just for those existing on the fringes, but for the masses. Is it any wonder that protestors harness technology to combat the might of the state? Tools such as PGP, Bitcoin, and decentralized networks allow individuals to conduct their affairs without permission from any bank, corporation or government.

While the summit in Washington is focused on matters such as trade imbalances and intellectual property violations, at an individual level we have bigger questions to ask of ourselves. Are we prepared to endure online censorship and a veritable onslaught on our civil liberties? Or are we willing to fight for an internet that does not function as an arm of the state but as an open platform for the free exchange of ideas and value? A censorship-resistant internet benefits everyone. It also benefits Bitcoin, for where theres free speech, theres demand for free speech money.

Do you think free speech and financial sovereignty as provided by Bitcoin are interlinked? Let us know in the comments section below.

Op-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the authors own. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.

Did you know you can verify any unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction with our Bitcoin Block Explorer tool? Simply complete a Bitcoin address search to view it on the blockchain. Plus, visit our Bitcoin Charts to see whats happening in the industry.

Kai's been manipulating words for a living since 2009 and bought his first bitcoin at $12. It's long gone. He's previously written whitepapers for blockchain startups and is especially interested in P2P exchanges and DNMs.

More here:
Bitcoin Is a Weapon for Free Speech in the Face of Government and Corporate Censorship - Bitcoin News

Americas entertainment industry is known for touting its love of artistic freedom.

Chinas authoritarian government is not.

The worlds largest and most influential communist regime routinely takes White-Out (or rather, Red-Out) to American products.

Movies have either been white-washed so as to contain the minimal amount of free expression and political commentary while still drawing eyes or canceled altogether so as not to offend the communist regime. Products have been altered to comport with Chinese propaganda regarding Taiwan or Tibet.

The worlds most popular search engine, Google, has entertained the idea of adhering to the regimes Internet censorship demands. And in June, Nike famously bowed to Chinas demands and removed an entire product line of sports shoes because the designer supported the Hong Kong protests on social media.

Get started today for free and become the most informed Texan you know after your first month, it's just $9.00.

Earlier this week, Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morey widely considered one of the leagues brightest young figures tweeted out a photo that said Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong.

In retaliation, China announced it would be ceasing operations with the NBA.

Since then, the NBA has attempted to straddle both sides of the fight on one side, adhering to Chinas demands and protecting the leagues massive growth rate that is largely thanks to Chinas market, and on the other defending its employee and the free expression it has long touted.

Commissioner Adam Silver stated, It is inevitable that people around the world including from America and China will have different viewpoints over different issues. It is not the role of the NBA to adjudicate those differences.

For their part, the Rockets (who boast the largest popularity of NBA teams in China) carted its star duo James Harden and Russell Westbrook out to apologize. We love China. We love playing there, Harden stated.

The Houston Rockets press office did not reply to request for comment.

This trend of capitulation to the Chinese government is not new, and not limited to the NBA.

Just yesterday, Deadspin got its hands on an internal ESPN memo forbidding employees, when discussing the Morey controversy, from mentioning Chinas and Hong Kongs political dispute.

ESPNs parent company, Disney, has been widely accused of self-censoring its products at the bidding of Chinas National Radio and Television Administration (NRTA) for some time now.

The video game company, Activision Blizzard, banned one of its players for making a pro-Hong Kong statement on camera after a victory. That company has nearly $18 billion worth of assets and has both a sales headquarters in Dallas and a design studio in Austin.

Apple and Paramount recently excluded the Taiwanese flag from its products, while Tik Tok censored videos mentioning the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Mercedes even apologized for quoting the Dalai Lama on Instagram.

However, not everyone has elected to go this route.

In typically prescient fashion, the popular and irreverent cartoon comedy South Park released an episode in its latest season called Band in China. The whole premise is how American companies self-censor in order to sell their products in China.

In this fictional-in-name-only version of China, Winnie the Pooh and Piglet are held as political prisoners. How is this not that fictional? Because Chinese censors banned the movie Christopher Robin after internet trolls started comparing Xi Jinping to the honey-loving, friendly bear.

This episode went over about as well as youd expect among Chinas communist ruling party. China banned South Park from its internet.

To which the creators (Matt Stone and Trey Parker) issued the following sarcastic statement: Like the NBA, we welcome the Chinese censors into our homes and into our hearts. We too love money more than freedom and democracy. Xi doesnt just look like Winnie the Pooh at all. Tune into our 300th episode this Wednesday at 10! Long live the Great Communist Party of China! May this Autumns sorghum harvest be bountiful. We good now China?

Contrast that with the NBAs diplomatic statement and you have two clear and different approaches toward facing down big brothers authoritarian stick.

Indeed, when hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars are at stake, its clear that some companies have been all too comfortable choosing one particular path even if Matt Stone and Trey Parker chose another.

Will corporate America, particularly those in the entertainment industry, support protestors in Hong Kong standing up for their human rights and basic human freedoms?

The trend line is not promising.

A free bi-weekly commentary on current events by Konni Burton.

Original post:
Houston Rockets-NBA Controversy Over Chinese Censorship Reveals Growing Corporate Trend - The Texan

Radhika Apte recently got nominated in the Best Actress category in the International Emmy Awards. (Photo: Radhika Apte/Instagram)

Radhika Aptes Kalindi, a fiery college professor in the first Anurag Kashyaps Lust Stories got her nominated in the Best Actress category in the International Emmy Awards. Her first reaction on hearing the news was similar to how anyone of us would have reacted. She googled Emmys a bit and found out if it was the same Emmys.

Aptes nomination and the nomination of Netflixs Sacred Games in the International Emmy Awards speaks volumes about Indian content being accepted across the world. The acclaimed 34-year-old actor feels the idea of television has changed in India. Thus, our content has gained recognition on the international platforms.

She tells indianexpress.com, I think it is about television. So far the television we had was not at par with the world content at all. Lets call it a revolution or whatever, but with the digital medium, the world has become so small. Everyones viewing each others content. The idea of television has changed completely which is why we are making content which can be viewed across the world. And, this is why there are so many nominations this year. If we continue making such content, I am sure well have nominations every year.

But does it mean, we are at par with other industries or we still have a long way to go? Apte says, We will have to wait and see since we have been producing digital content only for two years now. So, lets give it another two-three years to see if our content becomes better or balanced or if it gets dumbed down.

While Indian web series are gaining prominence in the international sphere, a lot of debate is going on over their censorship in India. Violence, intimacy, obscene language and characters smoking on-screenscenes like these have often irked a section of the audience. The Sacred Games actor doesnt understand this criticism of online content for being inappropriate for the Indian audience.

She argues, The web is a great platform and reaches to a lot of people at the same time. You can watch both longer and shorter format stuff. Now whether if you use it to your advantage or you just waste your money on it, its on you. As a medium, I dont think theres anything bad in it. If we talk about the misuse of freedom in the absence of censorship, I dont agree with it at all. We are all becoming very right-wing. We are all so extreme, we are trying to ban everything. We have the freedom to express. What is misuse? I mean if two people are intimate, it happens in every household.

And, this is why she thinks her anthology film Lust Stories which is a take on Love, Sex and everything in between! found its audience in India. Theres nothing more common than sex. We are one of the most populated countries. People just dont like to talk about sex but they all relate to it. Its the most relatable thing. Lust, love, attraction, sex, all of them are the most relatable things. Thats what it is. Cinema is one the mediums where we feel emotions which we dont talk about openly, suggests Apte.

Apte will soon start work on Australian filmmaker Justin Kurzel directorial Apple TV+s upcoming series Shantaram. It is based on Gregory David Roberts bestselling India-set novel of the same name. Talking about her decision to star in the series, the actor says, I accepted it without even knowing what my role was. I think that is because its such a big book. It is Apple first series. The people involved are really great, and I like their work. So I thought that it would be quite an interesting project to work on.

Lastly, we ask Apte who has surprised the audience with her every performance, to describe the evolution of Indian cinema. She replies, The content has changed, more people are up for this industry, there are more subjects and different stories being explored, suddenly our content is being consumed by audience across the world. So, the standard has changed. But I think it is still a male-dominant populace and there is still a lack of equal parts for women. We are still massy in many ways and we still have to do a lot of compromises.

See the rest here:
Radhika Apte on censorship of web content: We are all so extreme, we are trying to ban everything - The Indian Express