Category Archives: Censorship

Public release date: 19-Mar-2013 [ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Pam Cowburn pam@indexoncensorship.org 020-732-42533 SAGE Publications

London (19 March 2013). To celebrate more than 40 years as the world's most influential free speech magazine, Index on Censorship has launched a new print edition.

Index Chief Executive Kirsty Hughes said:

'The magazine's fresh new look reflects Index's increasingly international outlook and role in setting the agenda for freedom of expression. The magazine will continue to build on its unique literary heritage with intelligent content from the world's best authors, writers and thinkers, bringing readers the sharpest journalism, comment and analysis on the key free speech trends of the day.'

Index on Censorship will continue to publish ground-breaking serious journalism with an in-depth report on a pertinent topic or specific region in each issue. In addition, there will be up-to the minute news, opinion pieces and views from the ground. 'In Focus' will explore Index's global themes - from digital censorship, government censorship and surveillance to religious and cultural pressures, restrictive laws and access to information. There's interviews with high profile artists, activists and politicians as well as news of how Index is challenging censorship and supporting those on the frontline of the fight for free expression.

The magazine was designed by Matthew Hasteley, who said:

'Tackling a brief to modernize a magazine of Index's heritage is not a task you can approach without a great degree of care and respect. The magazine balances the weight of its past accomplishments with its current, ongoing struggle against censorship around the globe, and the design need to reflect that tension - honouring the gravity of its editorial content.'

The Magazine is published by SAGE, a leading independent academic and professional publisher. Global Publishing Director, Ziyad Marar said:

"We at SAGE are incredibly proud to publish Index's award-winning magazine. It perfectly exemplifies our belief that the free expression of ideas leads to healthy minds and healthy cultures. We hope this new design will ensure the range of important work we publish receives an even more engaged and wider readership. As one of this year's awards judges my personal sense of the hugely important contribution that Index can make has never been more strongly underscored."

Read this article:
Index on Censorship magazine launches new print edition

Mar 22 2013

Christian groups are complaining of "censorship" after the High Court upheld the Mayor of London's ban on a controversial bus advert suggesting gays can be helped to "move out of homosexuality".

A judge rejected accusations by Core Issues Trust, a Christian charity behind the ad, that Boris Johnson used his position as chairman of Transport for London (TfL) to obtain the ban in order to secure the gay vote and advance his 2012 re-election campaign.

Mrs Justice Lang, sitting at London's High Court, said: "In my view, such unlawfulness has not been established on the evidence."

But she gave the Trust permission to appeal because of the fundamental issues raised by the case over the right to freedom of expression. The ad posters earmarked for the sides of the capital's buses read: "Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!"

The trust said they were in response to a bus poster campaign by gay rights group Stonewall, which carried the message: "Some people are gay. Get over it!"

Mr Johnson condemned the "gay cure" ad as "offensive to gays" and said it could lead to retaliation against the wider Christian community.

The trust, which says its works with gay people seeking to change their lifestyles but rejects the idea of offering a gay cure, argued its right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated by the ban.

The judge ruled the trust had been a victim of unfairness in the way the ban had been introduced in April last year. She said: "TfL's decision-making process fell below the standards to be expected of a responsible public body."

But the Trust's Article 10 rights were outweighed by the rights of gays to respect for their private and family life under article 8(1). The judge said TfL was legally justified in imposing the prohibition in the run-up to the mayoral elections in May 2012 because the ad would cause "grave offence" to gays and "increase the risk of prejudice and homophobic attacks."

See more here:
UK & World News: ' Censorship ' claims over gay ad ban

The maker of a documentary in support of oil and gas fracking accused the International Monetary Fund Thursday of censorship after it declined to show a key clip from his film at a conference.

Phelim McAleer, whose film "FrackNation" argues in support of the controversial exploration technique, said the IMF was afraid of offending Russia by letting him show the clip at the conference this week.

The clip suggests that allowing fracking in Eastern European countries such as Poland would ease the region's dependence on imported energy.

It alleges that powerful gas exporter Russia was financing the anti-fracking movement to protect its sales.

"Basically they were censoring my presentation, they were censoring my speech," said McAleer.

"They're trying to force people not to say terrible things because it could offend one of their senior members," he told AFP.

"They didn't want to offend Russia."

McAleer had been invited to make a presentation at lunch on Wednesday, the first day of the two day joint IMF-Oxford University conference in Washington on commodity prices.

But he decided not to attend after the IMF said in an email that it could not permit the clip on Russia and Poland "without allowing others to have their say on the matter."

"Since that isn't possible on this occasion, Phelim will have to skip that," it said in the email, viewed by AFP.

Follow this link:
Pro-fracking filmmaker accuses IMF of censorship

Christian groups are complaining of "censorship" after the High Court upheld the Mayor of London's ban on a controversial bus advert suggesting gays can be helped to "move out of homosexuality".

London Mayor Boris Johnson blocked the Core Issues Trust's bus posters last April, saying they were 'offensive to gays'

A judge rejected accusations by Core Issues Trust, a Christian charity behind the ad, that Boris Johnson used his position as chairman of Transport for London (TfL) to obtain the ban in order to secure the gay vote and advance his 2012 re-election campaign.

Mrs Justice Lang, sitting at London's High Court, said: "In my view, such unlawfulness has not been established on the evidence."

But she gave the Trust permission to appeal because of the fundamental issues raised by the case over the right to freedom of expression. The ad posters earmarked for the sides of the capital's buses read: "Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!"

The trust said they were in response to a bus poster campaign by gay rights group Stonewall, which carried the message: "Some people are gay. Get over it!"

Mr Johnson condemned the "gay cure" ad as "offensive to gays" and said it could lead to retaliation against the wider Christian community.

The trust, which says its works with gay people seeking to change their lifestyles but rejects the idea of offering a gay cure, argued its right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated by the ban.

The judge ruled the trust had been a victim of unfairness in the way the ban had been introduced in April last year. She said: "TfL's decision-making process fell below the standards to be expected of a responsible public body."

But the Trust's Article 10 rights were outweighed by the rights of gays to respect for their private and family life under article 8(1). The judge said TfL was legally justified in imposing the prohibition in the run-up to the mayoral elections in May 2012 because the ad would cause "grave offence" to gays and "increase the risk of prejudice and homophobic attacks."

See the article here:
' Censorship ' claims over gay ad ban

The well-known Chinese executive and censorship critic posts a list of how often his comments on social networks are deleted. It's a lot.

Kai-fu Lee, addressing the Abu Dhabi Media Summit in 2010.

Widely followed Chinese commentator Kai-fu Lee, a former Google and Microsoft executive, took to Twitter today to lay out just how often his blog posts get censored.

Turns out, it's quite often.

Lee, who ran Google's China division and founded Microsoft's China research lab before that, is now an investor in China. He speaks out regularly about censorship in China and recently encouraged his 30 million followers on the Chinese social-networking site Weibo to follow him on Twitter.

Today, Lee tweeted to those followers that his posts have been deleted dozens of times during the last year. Some 20 posts were censored in just the last few weeks when Lee was commenting on the news of thousands of rotting pig carcases floating in the rivers of Shanghai. He's also spoken out about the new Chinese government leaders.

The Chinese government has been particularly sensitive to discussions on the Weibo and Tencent social-networking sites about politics and the environment. Last month, Lee was banned for three days after using Weibo to complain about state controls over the Internet, something he referred to in his Tweet today as his "3-day silence."

See the original post here:
Outspoken Kai-fu Lee details Chinese censorship

Assuming three things: that ethnic tensions between Indians and Africans are worsening; that a significant contributor (some would say the main contributor) is politics; and that mainstream mass media remain a legitimising conduit for racial rhetoric, is it time for media leaders to agree on self-censorship in their coverage of racially provocative statements/events?

We have come through a divisive and desperate Tobago House of Assembly (THA) election which will be remembered for Hilton Sandys Calcutta ship announcement, the failure of his PNM party to censure him in an unprecedented way, and the Governmentunder the banner of the Tobago Organisation of the People (TOP)milking it for all its political poison. And thats only one very recent event. We wait in trepidation for local government and general elections.

The country is at a crossroads, saturated with discontent and resentment. Trauma at the loss of political reins is raw among some Africans and translatesin uniquely Trinidadian termsas Indians taking over, which in turn draws from the equally unique Trinidadian proverb Indians have land and money; Africans have political power.

The present Government, meanwhile, promised a coalition that represents and treats equally with all peoples but quickly turned into a UNC Government consumed with old racial prejudices and a rabid desire to equalise government patronage by unethical means. That the UNC found a new face and voice to spew old prejudices born of self-hate has been a handful of salt in racial wounds.

All this is happening in a climate of exceptional violence, short tempers, unending cries for justice, and plenty, plenty guns. Is it time, then, for mass media to prevent circulation of news that can potentially incite that which I will not name but which most of us fear?

Visit link:
Media self- censorship

Home national New rules needed for self-censorship: Supinya

Broadcasting

Opas Boonlom The Nation March 17, 2013 11:01 pm

She will float the proposal with the broadcasting committee on Monday, when they are scheduled to consider Channel 3s action for "Nuamek" series, she said.

The airing of Nuamek was abruptly suspended.

Supinya said the new rules are necessary given a similar action by Thai PBS, in abruptly ending the airing of the Fridays episode of the "Tob Jote Prathet Thai" (Answering Thailand's Questions).

"I believe that Thai PBS had knowledge of the programme detail. As such, it should not have made the decisionto prematurely stop the programme. Some contents are related to the lese majeste or national security laws, but these are screened by the editor. The decision could have been socially or politically motivated. Without the decision, the station may upset the public. But the decision clouds the media environment. Viewers benefits should also be taken into account," she said.

She also mentioned that the programme host, Pinyo Traisuriyathamma, could file a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission. Under the Constitutions Article 46, freedom of TV stations employees is to be protected against the station owners influence.

Read more:
New rules needed for self- censorship : Supinya

EDITORIAL

The broadcaster Thai PBS has taken a nasty fall, and is suffering deep injuries that may linger for a long time. Last Friday, even as technicians prepared to air the fifth part of a discussion on the monarchy on Tob Jote Thailand, station executives decided that self-censorship was a better part of valour than discretion. They moved the "Thai Monarchy Under the Constitution" topic to the rubbish bin and put on safe, unstimulating, uninteresting pap in its place.

The station claimed the discussion by well-known and thoughtful personalities was "sensitive". That may rank forever as the worst reason given for censorship. If topics are not sensitive, why discuss them? If not now, when? If not by respected and knowledgeable people, then by whom? And finally: If not on Thai PBS, where?

Censoring discussion of the great issues of the day will not make them disappear. Ignoring these issues will not solve them. Leaving them for later means more chance for error and a faulty solution at the last minute.

This is not what the public envisioned when Thai PBS went on the air in January 2008. In fact, expectations were just the opposite. Thai PBS began broadcasting in the wake of a disastrous military coup. The station was seen as a way to stimulate rational discussion of hugely controversial subjects. Its founders claimed Thai PBS would venture deeply into popular and intellectual issues where the other stations, heavy on soap operas and game shows, would never dare go.

The Thai PBS website, as of yesterday, was proudly proclaiming that as its greatest achievement, the station had co-organised Thailand's most celebrated traditional boat races. No doubt rowing is culturally important and physically invigorating. If that is true, the station needs different symbols.

The founding principle of Thai PBS was, and remains impressive. "Editorial independence and accountability are crucial to the role of Thai PBS as a public broadcaster," says its website. Independence was to be assured by the Board of Governors and the Audience Council. Neither of these worthy bodies was mentioned in the station's weak explanation of why Tob Jote Thailand was cancelled.

On the contrary, the station said that "executives" met and decided to cancel the broadcast. Programme host Pinyo Trisuriyadhamma was clearly upset. He and his team decided to stop producing the show. The public, he said, might not be confident about its integrity.

That comment is spot-on. For now, it appears that Thai PBS executives were stampeded into cancelling a perfectly rational, interesting debate because about 20 people held a protest rally outside the station's doors. The opinions of all viewers matter, but to turn weak-kneed at the sight of a tiny group of self-described patriots doesn't just challenge the integrity of Tob Jote Thailand, it risks the entire reputation and credibility of Thai PBS.

Thai PBS is "publicly funded", meaning taxes help pay for its operation. There was always fear that an over-reaching government would intimidate the station by threatening its funding. It is disappointing to learn that Thai PBS executives are even faster to censor the station than the government.

Here is the original post:
Lamentable censorship

China #39;s Censorship Costs Western Businesses
China #39;s intense online surveillance doesn #39;t just affect Chinese Internet users and their ability to access information freely. As more and more western entit...

By: NTDonChina

See original here:
China's Censorship Costs Western Businesses - Video

Reporting from Moscow under strict censorship
Former CBS Radio Correspondent Marvin Kalb marks the 75th anniversary of the CBS World News Roundup, describing his experience reporting from Moscow under st...

By: CBSNewsOnline

Original post:
Reporting from Moscow under strict censorship - Video