Monthly Archives: March 2022

In India, there is constant struggle between freedom of expression and reasonable restrictions especially in the field of entertainment.

The battle between censorship and artistic freedom had started from early 1970s wherein the Apex Court first examined the question relating to pre-censorship of cinematograph films in relation to the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution[1]. The artistic freedom of a filmmaker is not absolute in India and is subject to restrictions. The courts have interpreted application of Article 19(2) of the Constitution vis-a-vis censorship to include restraints on such content which is against the sovereignty, integrity and security of India or is defamatory, in contempt of Court or leads to incitement of any offence. Any expression in a movie, which hits any of the aforementioned grounds, is censored by the Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

It is imperative to strike a balance between artistic freedom and censorship. Too much freedom and no censorship would result in display of content which is inappropriate for children or may have harmful impact on the society as a whole. On the other hand, too many restrictions in form of censorship may lead to restriction on freedom of expression and narrow the boundaries of creativity.

With the advent of technology and low footfall in theatres in the pandemic world, filmmakers have adopted the OTT Platforms as their favourite medium for release of motion pictures and web-series. This shift can be said to have a major relief for the filmmakers as it is not mandatory for procuring CBFC certification for making movies available on OTT Platforms. With the rising popularity of OTT Platforms and social media which can be said to have been unregulated by law for a certain timeframe, led to the enactment of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (Guidelines). Thus, it is not the case any longer that the content on OTT Platforms is unregulated as such content has to mandatorily comply with the Guidelines.

Though the Guidelines provide for a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism and a person aggrieved by any content available on the OTT Platform has the option to furnish his/her grievance to the self-regulatory mechanism (i.e. Level I of the three-tier grievance redressal mechanism), it appears that the Courts are still being preferred by individual to seek redressal of his/her grievances including seeking directions to ban content on the grounds for excessive obscenity, filthy language, public morality, hurting religious sentiments, etc.

One of the recent instances in relation to the content available on OTT Platform came up before the Honble Kerala High Court whereby it was contented that the language used in the Malyalam film titled Churuli (Film), is filthy and thus, opposed to public order, decency and morality[2]. It is interesting to note that the CBFC was made a party to these proceedings as the Film available on the OTT Platform was not the version that was approved or certified by the CBFC.

This matter drew light on the predominant issue of:

The Honble Kerela High Court has while dealing with the core issue before it, opined that the Court cannot dictate the film maker to use any particular type of slang by the characters in the Film and that the Court can only verify if the Film violates any existing law to ensure public order, decency or morality, bearing in mind the artistic freedom of a film maker. Interestingly, the Court had directed the State Police Chief to constitute a team to watch the Film, for verifying and submitting a report, if there are any statutory violations or any criminal offences made out in the Film. The report submitted by the police team primarily stated that the Film contains foul language which was essential for the Film to be believable to the audience; and no statutory offence or criminal offence has been committed by use of foul language and depiction of obscenity, as these are offences only if committed in a public place.

The Honble Kerala High Court has whilst dismissing the petition:

In relation to the aspect of CBFC certification for content made available on OTT Platforms the CBFC has admitted, and the Honble Court has concurred that CBFC has no role with regards to the films displayed on OTT Platforms. The content on internet cannot be governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952 which relates to theatrical content and from which CBFC draws its powers. Hence, it can be inferred that currently CBFC certification is not mandatory for any content displayed on OTT Platforms unless the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is amended to include the same.

Important Aspects in Relation to OTT Content Censorship:

The Guidelines do not contain any provisions for censorship of the content and OTT Platforms are only required to comply with self-classification of the content with appropriate age classification and content descriptor for each content displayed on the OTT Platforms.

The films/content first released on OTT and subsequently broadcasted on television will need to be in compliance with the Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1995 (CTNA) and the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 (CTNR).

It is however possible, that producers of films by way of abundant caution, may take a narrow interpretation and procure CBFC certificate for the OTT films. However, it is not mandatory to procure CBFC certification for any film/content directly or first released on OTT Platforms

Even though there is no censorship, if any content on the OTT Platforms contravenes Article 19(2) of Constitution, the Government under Section 69A of Information Technology Act and the IT (Blocking Rules), 2009 i.e., Power to issue directions for blocking public access of any information through any computer resource, has the power to remove such content which is objectionable.

Conclusion:

The judgement passed by the Honble Kerala High Court is a landmark judgment as it recognizes and values artistic freedom of the filmmaker in the world where cuss words are heard all around the city, used loosely by people in general and it is not that people learn such abuses only through the film. Nobody can dictate a filmmaker to use only decent language in his film and it is his artistic discretion to choose the language within the reasonable restrictions as provided in Article 19(2). This judgement re-establishes the principle that use of foul language and/or presence of obscenity will not mandatorily lead to restriction on public exhibition of the film as long as the same is used in the context of the film and each film has to be viewed in its entirety to understand this context.

It can be said, this case recognizes that censorship requirements are less for OTT Platforms possibly due to the very nature of this medium itself whereby content can be viewed only by the subscribers. It being understood that the content on OTT Platform is a pull mechanism as against the push mechanism whereby subscribers are well aware of the nature of content they opt to view who make an informed decision basis the classification and description of the content provided on the OTT Platform(s), thereby reducing the need of censorship.

View post:
Artistic Freedom versus Censorship in the OTT Age - Lexology

In celebration of Read Across America Day, schools and libraries championed favorite books in a giant celebration of all things reading. Among the participants on social media was the New York State Education Department. Several employees had their photos taken with a book they love, alongside a short statement of why they encouraged people to pick up those titles.

One of those tweets was quickly picked up by a Twitter account notorious for reposting content to its right-wing following and encouraging them to harass the person in question. This account was the reason behind the removal of a 3rd grade teacher from her classroom in the fall because she shared LGBTQ+ books on her personal TikTok account available to her students (she was later reinstated).

The response was swift and immediate. Followers of the above account began to ask the New York State Education Department. The tweet, as well as the Facebook post, were deleted.

The story here isnt (yet) what has or has not happened to Moore. Its the fact that the State Eduction Department, where Moore is State Librarian, failed to defend her choice in a book thats been making censors angry for the last year. Rather than double down on their choice to run the tweet and defend the right to read rather than even note that accusations about the book being child pornography are wrong the Department removed the tweet and rendered themselves complicit in active censorship. It was and remains a victory for right-wing groups like this one, further emboldening and empowering them to continue pushing for silence.

Today In Books Newsletter

Sign up to Today In Books to receive daily news and miscellany from the world of books.

Thank you for signing up! Keep an eye on your inbox.

Compare this to stories of quiet censorship and see that where an institution of power like the above quietly pulls and buries its story while individual librarians whose jobs and livelihoods may be on the line by speaking out about the right for people to read whatever theyd like to read, and its impossible not to wonder what the Department was doing and who that Department is working for.

Its certainly not the students.

Its the bullies from which the State Eduction Department should be protecting those students.

Emily DeSantis, spokesperson for the New York State Eduction Department told The National Desk that,[NY]SED was not aware of the graphic nature of the contents of the book, which is not apparent from its title. Once we became aware, we immediately removed the post. SED is investigating the circumstances under which this title was selected and posted.

Its unclear what graphic nature DeSantis and the rest of the team deemed unfit for promotion Gender Queer is an award-winning book appropriate for teen readers but what is clear is that the priority isnt intellectual freedom and the freedom to read for people in New York state.

As of writing, no reputable news site has followed up on this, and the previously public LinkedIn account for Lauren Moore has been deleted.

Frank Strong has put together an incredible resource for Texans: The Book-Loving Texans Guide to May 7th School Board Elections. This voters guide offers a look at school districts where board elections will be on the ballot in May, along with whose running, their beliefs, and where energy is really needed right now to ensure censorship doesnt win at the voting booth. Youll see clear lines of where money and support comes from for many of these candidates, as well as short histories of those communities and their ties to book removal agendas.

If youre not in Texas, this guide is still for you. Can you help out with an election there by donating or spreading the word? How can you adapt this guide to your own state? Its an incredible and collaborative tool.

For more ways to take action against censorship, use this toolkit forhow to fight book bans and challenges, as well as this guide toidentifying fake news. Then learn how and why you may want touse FOIA to uncover book challenges.

Here is the original post:
Why Didnt The New York State Education Department Defend Its State Librarian?: This Weeks Boo... - Book Riot

Beware of politicians bearing reforms. Since the Trojans first wheeled awooden horseinto their fortified city, many are leery about "gifts" that may be heavily laden with dangers. That is true with the Trojan horse legislation just offered by Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy KlobucharDemocrats hunt for the right campaign stars Elton John, Vladimir Putin and my last conversation with Colin Powell Tech Trojan Horse: How the Senate is poised to codify censorship of social media MORE (D-Minn.). In the name of "reforming" the internet and bringing tech monopolies to heel, Klobuchar has penned a "Nudge Act" that would expand corporate censorship and speech controls.

Even the name is designed to be non-threatening. After all, who could oppose an act titled "Nudging Users to Drive Good Experiences on Social Media"? It isenough to garnerthe support of Sen. Cynthia LummisCynthia Marie LummisGOP demands delay vote on spending, Ukraine aid Tech Trojan Horse: How the Senate is poised to codify censorship of social media Senate conservatives threaten to hold up government funding over vaccine mandate MORE (R-Wyo.). The act, however, is less of a nudge and more of a shove toward approved content and choices.

For years, PresidentJoe BidenandDemocratic membersof Congresshave pushed for greater and greater censorship on the internet and on social media. Liberals have found awinning strategy in using corporate censorshipto circumvent constitutional limits on governmental speech controls. Senators like Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)warnedsocial media companies that they would not tolerate any backsliding or retrenching by failing to take action against dangerous disinformation, and demanded robust content modification to block disfavored views on subjects ranging from climate control to elections to the pandemic.

The Nudge Act is arguably the most insidious of these efforts. Under the Act, Congress would enlist the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) to recommend sweeping design changes to Big Tech platforms like Facebook, Instagram and YouTube to reduce the harms of algorithmic amplification and social media addiction.

The Act is a masterpiece of doublespeak. It refers to developing content-agnostic interventions that would ultimately be enforced by a commission. That sounds great; after all, many of us have called for years for areturn to content neutrality on social mediawhere sites function more as communication platforms, similar to telephone companies. However, that is clearly not the intent of the bills sponsors, who see it as a weapon against "misinformation." That wasmade clear by Klobuchar herself: "For too long, tech companies have said Trust us, weve got this. But we know that social media platforms have repeatedly put profits over people, with algorithms pushing dangerous content that hooks users and spreads misinformation.

Liberal groups like Public Knowledge which support the bill also openly discuss its real purpose, declaring that it will halt the promotion of misinformation" anddevelop new avenues"to reduce the spread of misinformation. Klobuchar has repeated such descriptionsin support of the bill.

How is combatting "misinformation" content-neutral? The answer will be imposed by a new commission that can declare a sites failure to take appropriate measures as constituting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. That would create a glacial chilling effect on these companies, which will err on the side of censorship. After all, Democrats have maintained for years that "misinformation" is simply false and not really a matter a partisan content discrimination.With Nudge, Klobuchar seems to be making her own Trust us, weve got this" pledge to fellow Democrats.

The key term used in the Act is "algorithmic amplification." Klobuchar makes clear the intent to use algorithms to stop "pushing dangerous content." Democrats in Congress have argued for years that these companies need to protect citizens from bad choices by using beneficent algorithms to guide us to healthier" viewing and reading habits.

The most extreme effort wasa letter from Democratic membersto pressure companies like AT&T to reconsider whether viewers should be allowed to watch Fox News and other networks. It does not matter that Fox News is the most popular news cable station and even hasa greater percentage of Democratic viewers than CNN.(For the record, I appear as a legal analyst on Fox). The members insistedthatnot all TV news sources are the same and called on these companies to protect viewers from dissemination of false viewpoints.

Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenDemocrats hunt for the right campaign stars 'Urgent' COVID-19 funding hangs in balance amid partisan fight Tech Trojan Horse: How the Senate is poised to codify censorship of social media MORE (D-Mass.) hascalled for these companies to protect citizens from poor reading choicesby tweaking algorithms to steer them away from disfavored views. It is the free-speech version of therejected "Big Gulp" laws. Warren wants companies to amplify true books on issues like climate change and direct searches away from misleading books.

Some liberal think tanks admit it is not clear that such manipulation of information will help, yet they still appear all-in on trying.Brookings Institution declared:"Even though cause and effect are hard to discern in social media, it is undeniable that algorithms contribute to hate speech and other information disorder on social media.

If the Senate truly wanted content neutrality, it would not requirea new army of internet apparatchiks. It would condition the continued immunity protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act on removing "content modification" and amplification programs. Instead, it seeks to place content under the oversight of a commission while reaffirming the need to stop, in Klobuchars words, the spread of misinformation.

There are aspects of the law that are positive, like the study of social media addiction and requirements for greater transparency from these companies. However, Congress is adept at the art of Trojan-horse legislation, and it is hard to argue against "studying" issues and recommending changes. Yet, this bill is designed to create a new system of content review and revision. It isviewed by the industryas designed "to slow down how misinformation or other harmful content spreads on social media.

A governmental regulation combatting misinformation likely would be unconstitutional. However, the obvious desire is for these companies to self-regulate and avoid any problems through the "robust content modification" demanded by Democrats. Moreover, it is not clear how courts would react to circuit-breaker tactics that limit or slow the dissemination of information, though this also could "neutrally" slow all stories of public importance from going viral.

Despite the unrelenting campaign against free speech in Congress, there remain political and constitutional barriers that have proven insurmountable thus far.In this case, the crack troops hidden within Klobuchars wooden horse are expected to be thestaffof the NAS and the FTC, who could cloak content modification in pseudo-scientific terms. They would be assisted by an increasingly anti-free speech media and academia, including the World Health Organizations chief whorecently supported censorshipto combat "the infodemic."

Before this Trojan Horse is wheeled into our own lives, Americans should consider whats inside the Nudge Act.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.Follow him on Twitter@JonathanTurley.

Follow this link:
Tech Trojan Horse: How the Senate is poised to codify censorship of social media | TheHill - The Hill

We need to talk about campus debate. I put that term in quotes because it has become so tortured that the terms actual meaning is hard to discern. But many people seem to link it closely to college learning, and this is a real problem.

In a recent New York Times piece, Emma Camp, a student at the University of Virginia, complains that she came to college seeking classrooms full of energetic debate where students could say what we really think, but instead found ideological conformity and self-censorship. There are lots of issues here to discuss (Self-censorship is a very important skill! State legislatures are actually banning universities from discussing racism!), but I want to focus on what energetic debate actually means.

Theres a great misperception in discussions about higher education that somehow college campuses are a site for robust debate between competing ideas and that this is the essence of university education. Some of this misperception has been fostered by interest groups like the Steamboat Institute, which pushes for debates to bring conservative ideals onto campus. But more generally, there are op/eds like the recent Times one that simply suggest that universities are places where people just argue all day over ideas in the public square and the best ideas survive.

Debate is a skill, not knowledge. It is sometimes used in the classroom along with many other techniques designed to teach, but it only works well within some set of parameters, and steeped in class material. Generally, what we want in a classroom is discussion, rather than debate. Debates have winners and losers; discussion, ideally, leaves everyone better off.

For example, I teach about political parties. Ill sometimes give students some readings and lecture materials on how party leaders seek to control nominations. And then well talk about questions of how democratic parties should be. Should it be easier for someone like Bernie Sanders to compete in Democratic primaries? What about Donald Trump competing in Republican primaries? Are party leaders doing their job when they pressure people out of congressional contests or are they making the whole system less democratic?

This is honestly more like a structured discussion than a debate. But these sorts of questions and debates help students dig into the readings more and may challenge some of their prior beliefs. There are no obviously right or wrong answers, but I want students to engage with the material and think through some of the merits and problems with competing views.

This is generally not the form of debate that is being pushed, however. Instead, groups like Steamboat and Turning Point bring a liberal and a conservative to campus to debate hot-button issues like social justice and identity politics, whether college campuses are free-speech zones, socialism versus capitalism, and more. People attend these events and cheer for their side and boo the other side, but very little learning occurs. Basically, its a sporting event. And thats fine, but it doesnt really enhance the intellectual life of a campus, and it doesnt deepen students knowledge.

Similarly, many campuses have debate teams, and students prepare arguments and rebuttals on various topics and travel to other schools to compete against other students. And thats fine, too it can be a useful skillset, and students can do research and develop a great deal of expertise on a topic in their preparation. But its largely a team sport that students who enjoy that activity select into. It doesnt necessarily translate into a broader classroom teaching technique.

Again, a lot of the push for more debate on campus comes from the right, who seem to feel that conservative intellectual ideas are being somehow canceled on university campuses. Its certainly true that college students and professors tend to lean left relative to the rest of the population. But that doesnt mean that conservative ideas get no hearing. I cant speak broadly for the discipline, but quite a few of my colleagues teach the ideas of Buckley, Schlafly, Friedman, Smith, Hayek, Reagan, and others not to indoctrinate students either for or against those ideas but because understanding those ideas is essential to understanding American political discourse and development. Students then get opportunities to interpret modern political events in light of what these writers had to say. This is how learning happens.

What we generally do not do is just turn over our classrooms to students who have a piece to speak. Thats a recipe for chaos. Campuses are not an incubator for all forms of speech, no matter how inane or offensive. And if you say things that demean your fellow students or suggest that they do not belong there, you may encounter criticism for that.

Our primary task as educators is to ensure that students are learning the material we have assembled for our courses. Well pursue a variety of techniques to get them there, including lectures, group discussions, written assignments, presentations, and, yes, sometimes forms of debate. But debate absent structured learning is, at best, a form of entertainment. And you dont need college for that.

Seth Masket is a professor of political science and director of the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver. He is the author of Learning from Loss: The Democrats 2016-2020.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

See the original post:
Masket: The problem with campus debate - The Denver Post

While international audiences saw images of besieged Ukrainian cities and thousands of civilians fleeing the country through humanitarian corridors that have faced Russian bombardment, Chinese viewers were shown Russian aid convoys bringing supplies to beleaguered Ukrainians.

China's People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party, posted a video on March 9 on Weibo, the popular Chinese social-media platform, showing Russia providing humanitarian aid to Ukrainians outside Kharkiv, a Ukrainian city near the Russian border that has faced artillery and rocket attacks since Moscow's February 24 invasion. The video received more than 3 million views.

In other coverage, the Moscow correspondent of China's Phoenix TV has issued reports while embedded with Russian troops outside of Mariupol, a strategic port city that is the scene of stiff fighting. In a recent clip he speaks with soldiers about their steady advance and talks to civilians allegedly welcoming the presence of Russian forces.

Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, China's tightly controlled media and heavily censored Internet have provided increasingly skewed coverage, omitting details on civilian casualties and the widespread international condemnation of Moscow, while quoting Russia's own state-backed networks and broadcasting the views of Russian officials -- without verification or pushback -- to its domestic audience.

While Beijing is threading the needle diplomatically and looking to put breathing room between it and its close ties with the Kremlin in the face of mounting international pressure over its invasion of Ukraine, China's state media and vocal officials are increasingly converging with Moscow's distorted narrative of the war -- even beginning to push conspiracy theories against Ukraine and the West in the process.

"U.S. biolabs in Ukraine have indeed attracted much attention recently," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said on March 8, echoing a conspiracy theory regularly pushed by Russian media and online accounts that some Western officials charge could be part of an effort by the Kremlin to justify its invasion by saying that Ukraine is working on biological or nuclear weapons.

"All dangerous pathogens in Ukraine must be stored in these labs and all research activities are led by the U.S. side," Zhao added, without providing evidence to support the claim. U.S. and Ukrainian officials say the allegation is baseless.

China, Russia, And The Ukraine War

The biolab theory has been a mainstay of Russian state media -- and even some embassy accounts on social media -- with a recent report by Foreign Policy magazine highlighting how it has taken hold among American far-right online conspiracy networks and spread to other countries as well.

It is also not the first time it has been referenced by Chinese officials, with Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying first raising the claim about biolabs in Ukraine during a May 2021 press conference.

Chinese diplomats have also frequently pointed to Fort Detrick -- a U.S. military facility in Maryland that the Soviet Union falsely claimed in the 1980s was the source of the virus causing AIDS and has often been a target of Russian disinformation -- to deflect questions when asked about the origins of COVID-19.

But the timing and renewed push of the theory could be part of a wider strategy, with Britain's Defense Ministry tweeting on March 8 that while the baseless claims are long-standing (Ukraine has stated that it has no such facilities), they "are currently likely being amplified as part of a retrospective justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine."

The biolab story also fits with a growing trend of convergence between Chinese and Russian sources that has accelerated since the war in Ukraine, with false and misleading stories echoed by Chinese media and receiving hundreds of millions of views on Weibo in the process.

Throughout the war, Chinese media have helped spread dubious Russian-state narratives about Ukrainian forces using civilians as human shields while also saying the Russian military only goes after other military targets, despite the shelling of dozens of apartment blocks and other civilian structures.

WATCH: CCTV video has surfaced showing a car carrying two pensioners being blown apart by an armored column at a crossroads in Makariv in the Kyiv region on February 28.

Chinese networks have also magnified and spread Russian disinformation, such as when Chinese state broadcaster CCTV quoted Russian officials to falsely claim that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy had fled the capital, or when the state-backed Global Times, citing the Russian state network RT as its only source, said many Ukrainian soldiers had surrendered on the first day of the invasion.

Taken together, this highlights a different version of the war that viewers and online users are seeing in China compared to most of the world and how Chinese authorities have allowed the Kremlin's propaganda networks to shape its public's perception of the war with few restrictions.

For instance, the Kremlin-backed Sputnik has over 11.6 million followers on Weibo and other Russian outlets also have large and engaged followings inside China, where access to many other foreign media outlets and major information sites are blocked or restricted.

This has contributed to Russian claims about Ukrainian officials being extremists and neo-Nazis to be regularly adopted online and also picked up by Chinese-language outlets, which often reference the Azov Battalion -- a fringe unit of the Ukrainian National Guard known for having neo-Nazi sympathizers in its ranks -- and show it as representative of wider Ukrainian society.

More Than Censorship

Control of all Chinese media by the Communist Party and intensive Internet censorship make it difficult to gauge public opinion, while pervasive censorship also means the pro-Russian sentiment online in China is likely not representative of the country as a whole.

But the types of content that are allowed online or published by state-backed media show what Chinese authorities want their population of 1.4 billion people to think.

China's government has neither condemned nor condoned Russia's war in Ukraine and has even refrained from calling it an "invasion." Both expressions of sympathy for Ukraine and support for Russia appear online and in social media, but criticism of Moscow is regularly censored, according to China Digital Times, a group that tracks Chinese censorship and online discussion at the University of California, Berkeley.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin have grown closer in recent years and heralded a new era in their ties during a joint meeting in Beijing on February 4.

While Russia's invasion of Ukraine has left Beijing awkwardly distancing itself diplomatically from the Kremlin, the shared messaging from both countries' state media shows that ties are still intact and they could be growing in the information space, an area where many experts say cooperation has been developing in recent years.

Xi and Putin have signed a variety of media-cooperation agreements over the years and have held a Sino-Russian media forum annually since 2015.

A December report by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) found that both China and Russia had played a central role in spreading COVID-related disinformation and propaganda throughout the pandemic. However, the report did not find clear-cut evidence of direct cooperation between Beijing and Moscow, instead noting that they "borrowed from and amplified each other's campaigns."

Similarly, a June report from the Carnegie Moscow Center found that while both countries' state-backed media and officials often echo similar talking points and narratives on world events, this is largely due to Beijing and Moscow having shared "strategic objectives" in global affairs.

"Chinese and Russian online behavior are largely the result of Chinese actors' careful but independent study of and creative adaptations of the Kremlin's tools, rather than an expression of active, ongoing cooperation between the two governments," the report noted.

Read more:
China's Censorship, Propaganda Push Russian Version Of The War In Ukraine - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has confirmed that it is changing its rules on violent speech in several countries because of the Ukraine invasion.

The company says that it has "temporarily" made allowances for violent speech - for example death to the Russian invaders - that would usually break its rules.

Meta said, though, it wont allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians. The internal emails discussing the policy were obtained by Reuters.

The Reuters report says that posts that call for death to Russian President Vladimir Putin or Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko will be allowed in several countries.

The temporary policy change allowing for calls for violence against Russian soldiers applies to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, and Ukraine, according to one email.

Moscow's internationally condemned attack on its neighbor has provoked unprecedented sanctions from Western governments and businesses, but also a surge of online anger and debates over social media's role in the war. The policy decision from Facebook and Instagram's parent Meta was met immediately with controversy, but the social media giant defended its change.

Meta, which counts billions of users globally across its apps, has previously struggled with what it would allow people to post in moments of upheaval.

In July 2021, the firm temporarily allowed posts calling for "death to Khamenei", referring to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, during protests that rocked the country.

Citing the Reuters story, Russia's embassy in the United States demanded that Washington stop the "extremist activities" of Meta.

"Users of Facebook & Instagram did not give the owners of these platforms the right to determine the criteria of truth and pit nations against each other," the embassy said on Twitter in a message that was also shared by their India office.

Since Moscow's invasion of Ukraine last month, Russian authorities have also stepped up pressure against independent media, though press freedoms in the country were already rapidly waning.

Moscow blocked Facebook and restricted Twitter the same day last week that it backed the imposition of jail terms on media publishing "false information" about the military.

(To receive our E-paper on whatsapp daily, please click here. We permit sharing of the paper's PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)

More here:
Selective censorship? Facebook and Instagram to allow violent speech - if its targeted against Russia - Free Press Journal