Category Archives: Censorship

The Socialist Equality Party (PES) of France and the World Socialist Web Site call for an immediate end to the censorship of articles about the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic by administrators of the Red Pens Facebook group. The group, created in December 2018, includes more than 70,000 teachers in France. With COVID-19 cases once again accelerating across Europe and thousands of students being infected each week, it is essential that teachers have the democratic right to freely discuss and share information on the spread of the virus in schools.

On October 9, a Red Pens member shared an article to the group entitled, Macron lifts mask mandates in French primary schools. Numerous WSWS articles, many with interviews and statements by teachers themselves, have been regularly shared to the group over the past 18 months, some receiving hundreds of likes and comments. However, while the latest post was initially approved, it was deleted by administrators two hours later.

When asked to clarify why the article had been removed, a Red Pens group administrator stated that it was part of a policy of promoting as a priority posts concerning our wages and articles which deal with the death of Samuel Paty, a high school teacher slain in an Islamist terror attack in October 2020. Two subsequent follow-up messages to the administrators appealing their decision have remained unanswered.

The censored article discussed the danger posed to teachers, students and their families by Macrons herd immunity policy in schools. Its analysis was based on data provided by Public Health France and modelling by the Pasteur Institute. It also cited Dr. Malgorzata Gasperowicz, from the University of Calgary, whose work has shown that COVID-19 can be eliminated within two to three months of stringent scientific measures.

The actions of the Red Pens Facebook group raises many troubling questions. What other articles on the pandemic, its impact within schools, its effect upon children, including in France and internationally, have been rejected by administrators? Why has a decision been taken to prevent teachers from having access to this critical information?

The claim that information about the coronavirus pandemic is less relevant to teachers lives than information about their wages or the danger of Islamist terror attacks is absurd on its face. The deadly virus continues to rip through schools, infecting thousands of children and teachers each week. Since the reopening of French schools, tens of thousands of pupils have been infected with COVID-19, and thousands of classes have been closed. At least nine children in France have died from the virus already. Dozens remain hospitalised.

The number of teachers who have died after contracting the virus in classrooms is unknown. This information is covered up by government authorities and goes unreported by the trade unions.

Administrators of the Red Pens Facebook group may claim that the COVID-19 pandemic is irrelevant for teachers, but it is a basic democratic right that teachers be able to decide this for themselves. Without such information, how else are teachers to wage a struggle in defense of the safety of their students, themselves and their loved ones?

This is all the more critical as the virus has begun to quickly rebound in France over recent weeks. The 7,360 cases reported on October 30 was the highest since September 21.

In the past, the Red Pens has sought to provide teachers with information about the pandemic. On its website, there is a COVID-19 information page for teachers and supporters to keep track of outbreaks across France. Teachers have shown strong interest in this information, with the page being viewed over four million times since May 2020. Why, then, amid a new surge of the virus in France and across Europe, have the administrators decided to censor teachers access to scientific information about the pandemic from the WSWS?

Regardless of their own individual views or intentions, the administrators actions objectively support the efforts of the Macron government to enforce unsafe conditions in schools. Since the end of the initial lockdown that began in March 2020, the Macron government has insisted that in-person schooling must continue at all costs, regardless of the impact upon the spread of the virus. As teachers are aware, this has not been aimed at protecting the psychological well-being of children but ensuring that their parents are able to continue to go to work.

This has been the centerpiece of Macrons policy of attempting to reach herd immunity through mass infection, allowing the virus to spread and tens of thousands to be killed in order to prevent any restriction on corporate profit-making operations.

Teachers have played a major role in the fight against this murderous policy in France. In November 2020, educators organized wildcat strikes at dozens of schools to close classes and oppose the unsafe reopening of schools in the midst of the second wave of the pandemic.

This movement remained isolated only because the teachers unions opposed any broader mobilisation. The administrators actions are serving the bureaucracy of the Sud Education and CGT trade unions, which have supported and enforced the Macron governments unsafe education policy from the beginning of the pandemic.

Opposition in the working class is rapidly mounting to the ruling elites policy of mass death. We again demand that the administrators of the Red Pens Facebook group allow the free circulation of information, without which there can be no talk of a successful struggle by teachers to defend their interests. We encourage members of the Facebook group to write to the group administrators and demand that they end the censorship of articles on the pandemic. Letters should also be sent to the WSWS here: https://www.wsws.org/en/special/pages/contact.html.

COVID-19 can be eliminated.

We gathered a panel of scientists to explain how.

Read the original here:
Open Letter to the Red Pens Facebook group administrators: End censorship of articles on the COVID-19 pandemic! - WSWS

When Penguin Books was prosecuted for publishing its uncensored edition of DH Lawrences Lady Chatterleys Lover in 1960, the prosecution lawyer, Mervyn Griffith-Jones, posed a rhetorical question: Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?

Griffith-Joness appeal to gentlemen as the guardians of moral probity was widely seen as an indication of just how out of touch and paternalistic the censors had become. The press seized on his remarks and lampooned the prosecution, which eventually lost the case. Penguin sold two million copies of Lady Chatterleys Lover in the six weeks before Christmas 1960.

The Lady Chatterley trial is widely seen as a landmark moment in the history of censorship in Britain. Christopher Hilliard certainly treats it as such in his new book, A Matter of Obscenity: The Politics of Censorship in Modern England, which explores the wider battle over censorship in the arts after 1857 the year of the first Obscene Publications Act.

As Hilliard explains, a major motivation behind the Lady Chatterleys Lover prosecution was the fact that the book was sold in a cheap paperback edition. Small editions of Lady Chatterleys Lover, and books like it, were already available in hardback, but these were too expensive to reach large readerships.

Paperback editions meant that erotic literature could reach a mass readership. This was why the director of public prosecutions (DPP) viewed Lady Chatterleys Lover as a book that could lower the morals of common people.

Griffith-Joness rhetoric further revealed the class dynamics underpinning the Lady Chatterley trial. The defence was aided by the press, which mocked Griffith-Jones. Together, liberal lawyers and the media undermined the moral and legal authority of the elite, while advancing literary free expression. They also, of course, opened up commercial opportunities for publishers.

Indeed, there is a clear sense in which the Lady Chatterley trial was above all a victory for the managerial middle class of senior newspaper editors, lawyers, publishers and authors. Here it is worth looking at the 1959 version of the Obscene Publications Act, under which Penguin was acquitted. The act allowed the defence of literary merit as a justification for publishing erotic material. The Obscene Publications Act of 1959, writes Hilliard, was the result of years of lobbying by authors to carve out a protected space for literature. Lobbying bodies included the Society of Authors and the National Council for Civil Liberties (now simply called Liberty).

The Obscene Publications Act did not protect imported works or pornography. It protected the publication of literature of value in England and Wales. From one perspective (the Whig view of history), we could see this as authors striving for more creative freedom and seeking to remove the hypocrisy of a class-based system of censorship. From another perspective (the elite theory of power), we can see this as the liberal bourgeoisie seeking to undermine the rival power bases of the patrician class and the Church.

As Hilliard shows, the act had been a long time coming. Back in the 1920s, James Joyces Ulysses became a test case for censorship. Imported copies were regularly impounded and destroyed. In 1926 literary critic FR Leavis deliberately challenged the censors by ordering a copy through a local bookseller so he could prepare a lecture on it at Cambridge University. Sir Archibald Bodkin, the then DPP, wrote to the university and stated that the book was not a fit subject for a lecture, especially for a mixed body of students.

Around this time the Metropolitan Police decided not to prosecute any translations of classics, deeming them de facto exempt from the law. Prosecuting possession of Boccaccios The Decameron or Petroniuss Satyricon made the police look foolish and boorish.

Yet even Radclyffe Halls unexplicit The Well of Loneliness (1928) was caught up in a censorship dispute simply because it touched on lesbianism, despite the author intending to explore the suffering of sexual inverts rather than celebrate their supposed depravity. The Well of Loneliness had been sympathetically and soberly reviewed before a star columnist at the Daily Express denounced it, prompted by concern about the perceived spread of lesbianism in the postwar era of the New Woman. Bodkin, as the DPP, wanted to prosecute but HM Customs and Excise felt that the novel treated lesbianism seriously and sincerely, with restraint in expression and with great literary skill and delicacy. Nevertheless, the destruction order (on behalf of the DPP alone) was granted and the publishers appeal failed.

The Lady Chatterleys Lover verdict did not end literary censorship. Marion Boyars and John Calder, the publishers of Hubert Selbys Last Exit to Brooklyn, were prosecuted in 1967 after rather recklessly daring the DPP to take them on. They were found guilty of publishing obscene material although the Court of Appeal later quashed the conviction.

In general, deliberate defiance of the law and assaults on propriety provoked harsher legal responses than sexual explicitness. In the eyes of officials, puerility was worse than pornography. That is why the underground, counter-cultural magazine, Oz, faced legal action in 1970 but Penthouse did not. Oz advocated promiscuous sex, insulted authority figures and endorsed drug-taking acts almost designed to attract official opprobrium. The editor-publishers of Oz were, in the end, convicted of obscenity.

Hilliard also gives special focus to Mary Whitehouses campaigns for Christian decency. In 1977 Whitehouse brought a private prosecution of Gay News for publishing a homosexual erotic poem about the crucifixion of Christ. She did so, however, under blasphemy laws rather than the Obscene Publications Act. Gay News lost the case.

Whitehouse was involved in legal wrangles over film and television, too. Hilliard gives very telling descriptions of the debate over film censorship at the time. Greater London Council member Enid Wistrich proposed the abolition of the councils film-viewing board of which she was appointed chair in 1973 and (indirectly) a reduction in censorship. Labour Catholics, older members, and, she noticed, many of the East Enders, were in favour of censorship; the teachers supported abolition, Hilliard writes. Conservatives supported her, mostly in private, while Labour leftists were undecided feminists had hardened into a largely sex-negative position by this point and therefore opposed liberalisation. Ultimately, Wistrichs proposal was defeated because too few Labour GLC members backed her.

Hilliard also summarises the state of artistic freedom today. The picture has been complicated by the advent of the internet and the international publication and distribution of offensive and pornographic material. Home secretaries and others, he writes, still have little to gain politically, and plenty to lose, from tidying up the law of obscenity.

He explains the evolution of obscenity laws with well-chosen examples and a minimum of legal jargon. Overall, A Matter of Obscenity is an informative, even-handed and lucid study of British censorship in the 20th century. It is highly recommended, wherever you draw your personal lines regarding the division between the acceptable and unacceptable.

Alexander Adams is a writer and artist. His latest book is Iconoclasm, Identity Politics and the Erasure of History (Societas, 2020). His website is here.

A Matter of Obscenity: The Politics of Censorship in Modern England, by Christopher Hilliard, is published by Princeton University Press. (Order this book here.)

Picture by: LearningLark, published under a creative-commons licence.

Here is the original post:
Censorship is class war by other means - Spiked

For immediate release: Nov. 3, 2021For more information:Andrew Benson,abenson@splc.org

WASHINGTON The Student Press Law Center stands in support of the student journalists with The Hilltop at Howard University. We are deeply concerned about the unusual and harmful comments and steps taken by The Hilltops staff adviser to restrict student journalists covering campus protests.

Founded in 1924,The Hilltop describes itself as the nations oldest Black collegiate newspaper.

According to The Hilltops statement published November 2, 2021, student journalists are being forced to send all breaking news stories to their adviser, Keith L. Alexander, for editing before publication. On several occasions, The Hilltop staff say their adviser has forced the editing or removal of stories related to the ongoing #BlackburnTakeover protests about the condition of Howard Universitys student housing.

The Hilltop staff say the advisers demand to approve stories prior to publication came on October 13 after The Hilltop published a story which recapped the second day of protests about mold, wifi and water outages in the dorms. The Hilltop editors say they received an email from their adviser on Oct. 8 stating that Howard University President Wayne A.I. Frederick was irate about a column published October 4.

Mandatory prior review requiring that an administrator or adviser read and approve a story prior to publication is a practice condemned by every major journalism education organization in the country. At public colleges it has also been ruled illegal. Prior restraint outright censorship of stories relevant to the student body like what has been reported at The Hilltop is even worse. Student publications are the voice of the student body and their job is to report the stories that are important to students.

The well-established role of a student newspaper adviser is not to direct, restrict or otherwise control the content independently produced by the student publications staff, but to guide and empower students to use their voices. The Student Press Law Center has materials that are helpful to new advisers and we welcome conversations with educators.

Censorship of student journalists is always unacceptable and Howard Universitys attempts to control students voices are alarming, Hadar Harris, executive director of the Student Press Law Center said. There has been widespread media coverage of the #BlackburnTakeover protests and alumni are speaking up on behalf of the students and the journalists who tell their stories. We stand with The Hilltop staff. Censorship will not work.

We will continue to monitor the situation at Howard University and stay in contact with the student journalists at The Hilltop.

Student Press Law Center: Since 1974, the Student Press Law Center has worked to support, promote and defend the First Amendment and freedom of expression rights of student journalists at the high school and college level, and the advisers who support them. Working at the intersection of law, journalism and education, SPLC runs the nations only free legal hotline for student journalists.We also provide training, educational resources and support the grassroots non-partisan New Voices movement, seeking state-based legislative support for student press freedom.The SPLC is an independent, non-profit 501c(3) organization based in Washington, D.C.

Related

Link:
The Student Press Law Center is concerned about censorship at Howard University's The Hilltop - Student Press Law Center

One of my favorite moments of political dissent was being detained by a police officer after ignoring his demand to stop shouting toward the presidential motorcade, Fuck Donald Trump! My catharsis was worth the handcuffs, and I can only imagine how much less satisfying the memory would be if I had instead chanted something as neutered as, Lets go, Brandon!

Tough-guy conservatism has reverted to teenaged, coded taunting, where cheering for Brandon is understood as a profane insult toward our current president. I dont know if this substitution of language is intended to seem clever or classy or simply sates the conservative instinct to communicate in dog whistles.

Whatever its etymology, Lets go, Brandon! which is conservative code for Fuck Joe Biden is cowardly self-censorship among a group of people who endlessly whine about being unable to speak honestly. Supposedly champions of free speech, conservatives are so spooked by the politically correct boogeyman of their imaginations that theyve preemptively canceled their constitutional right to cuss out politicians.

White Republicans are not the only folks who have convinced themselves they cant express whats truly on their mind. Dave Chappelle has made millions of dollars with a series of stand-up lectures about the persecution he has endured due to his discomfort with LGBTQ advancement, and even though there are few jokes in his routines, his act allows viewers to rationalize their hostility to LGBTQ rights through the pretext of humor.

Chappelle could shoot a transgender person on Fifth Avenue and Netflix wouldnt lose a subscriber. He is destined to be enshrined beside historys bravest stand-up comics, despite every working comedian having their own version of the rage-against-cancel-culture shtick that has elevated his legacy.

Chapelles latest Netflix special was cited in a meme that went viral after Jon Gruden resigned as head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders. Leaked emails revealed that Gruden freely used racist and misogynist language, but his departure after homophobic slurs came to light seemed to prove Chappelle was right: homos hop the line, and their rights receive priority protection.

The meme suggests Gruden was fired because homophobia has become a death sentence, nevermind that he voluntarily resigned or the dearth of sports figures who have been terminated after expressing anti-LGBTQ sentiments. NBA analyst Chris Broussard and former Atlanta Braves pitcher John Smoltz both tried to pretend it was perilous for Christians to voice religious objections to LGBTQ rights; but since their respective, spiritually vulgar condemnations of same-sex marriage, Broussard has risen from a beat reporter to hosting the morning show on Fox Sports, and Smoltz provided color commentary for this years World Series.

There is no more profitable punishment than being canceled. There is also no doubt that LGBTQ court victories, as well as increased representation in Hollywood and corporate marketing, have outpaced the evolution of a society that for centuries believed God hated gay people.

So, it cannot be surprising that, as illustrated by the Gruden episode and Chappelles meditative rants, even minorities and progressives would rather pledge solidarity with conservatives who feel muzzled by cultural changes than unify against bigotry with LGBTQ folks. There has undoubtedly been a cacophony of LGBTQ support and acceptance over the last decade, but many of the people who we thought were cheering for us were actually chanting an anti-queer equivalent of Lets go, Brandon!

Read more:
Self-Censorship and the Veneer of LGBTQ Acceptance - Georgia Voice

Conservative pundit Dennis Prager feels muzzled by ongoing Big Tech restrictions on his media company PragerU, the radio talker told The Washington Times on Tuesday.

If I say the wrong thing whatever that might be on my Fireside Chat podcast for PragerU, I can be yanked off YouTube or Facebook. When big business and big government work together to muzzle free speech, thats fascism, Mr. Prager said.

The nationally syndicated talk show hosts comments came as his company PragerU continues to wage a long legal battle against Googles YouTube.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled unanimously against Mr. Pragers claim of illegal censorship of conservatives. But Mr. Prager continues to allege that YouTube prevents PragerU from advertising videos due to unexplained violations of community guidelines, restricting other videos as likewise inappropriate and adding a disclaimer that the content may be factually incorrect.

Never in the history of this country has free speech been in such jeopardy. Whats even more shocking is that the threat is not coming directly from the government but from woke corporations, Mr. Prager said.

One disputed video depicts Mr. Prager, who testified about it in July 2019 to a U.S. Senate committee hearing, discussing the Bibles commandment against killing. Mr. Prager said in his testimony that Google placed the video on a restricted list due to him using the word murder.

We go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in a way that doesnt take political leanings into account, said Ivy Choi, a YouTube spokesperson. And were proud that YouTube continues to be a place where many different voices are welcome, including PragerU, which has 2+ million subscribers.

Attempts to reach Facebook and Twitter, who have issued no comments on his allegations, were unsuccessful.

PragerU has claimed that other videos and audio podcasts targeted for censorship center around dissenting opinions on COVID-19 lockdown policies.

The Times reported Oct. 18 that Mr. Prager, a vaccine skeptic, had tested positive for the virus after deliberately seeking infection to acquire herd immunity.

Mr. Prager said Tuesday: A doctor cant offer his best medical advice to his patients without risking his medical license? When has that ever happened?

Marissa Streit, CEO of PragerU, said social media platforms routinely restrict the companys videos by preventing them from advertising and keeping the videos inaccessible to most of its followers for short periods.

These big tech companies invited us to invest in their platforms, but then they started changing the rules, making it impossible to benefit from reaching the very audience that we paid to build, Ms. Streit said.

She added that the California-based media company, which has 90 employees, is still seeking an explanation from Big Tech companies on why their videos get banned.

We dont understand which videos are inappropriate and why they flag them. They wont give us the guidelines and that allows them to take down things that they just dont like ideologically, Ms. Streit said.

She said PragerU signed a million-dollar annual lease last week on a 40,000 square foot building and has no plans to stop pushing out Mr. Pragers video content.

But PragerU isnt the only company complaining about Big Tech restrictions on political influencers.

The nonprofit Social Movement Technologies, an international NGO that advises the media campaigns of human rights protesters, called on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to stop suspending the accounts of human rights activists while leaving other accounts intact.

Left or right, Twitter got a lot of good press for being accessible to democracy movements during the Arab Spring. Today, however, Twitter has left human rights activists of all stripes out to dry, and needs to fix its human rights problem, Hannah Roditi, the groups executive director, told the Times.

Transparency in how Big Tech censors content cant come soon enough for Mr. Prager, whose company purports to make edutainment like PBS, but without what it calls left-wing indoctrination.

Time to stand up and fight back, Mr. Prager said. No free speech, no America. Its as simple as that.

Originally posted here:
Conservative pundit Prager says he feels 'muzzled' by Big Tech censorship - Washington Times

The city-state is majority ethnic Chinese but has a sizeable Muslim minority, and has strict laws to curb hate speech and actions promoting ill-will between religious or racial groups.

The book, Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship is banned from distribution in Singapore, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) said on Monday.

It has been deemed objectionable because it contains reproductions of cartoons published by French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, which led to violence and protests overseas, the regulator added.

The offensive Charlie Hebdo cartoons first appeared in 2006 and have been widely labelled as irresponsible, reckless and racist, it said in a statement.

Red Lines is by Cherian George, a Singaporean media professor now based in Hong Kong, and Sonny Liew, an award-winning Singaporean cartoonist.

Published in August, it features interviews with censored cartoonists around the world and explores censorship in graphic form.

In response to the ban, George said the authors did not agree with how Charlie Hebdo used cartoons that promoted anti-Muslim attitudes in Europe.

We showed a small number of them as examples of hate speech, he said in a statement to AFP. The intention was to educate readers about how some cartoons can harm vulnerable minorities in the West.

He said they knew some countries, like Singapore, would not accept the images and were prepared to edit the book for these markets, but the city-state choseto ban the book instead of letting them make the changes.

According to the IMDA, the book also contained denigratory references to Hinduism and Christianity.

- Advertisement 2-

Anyone convicted of importing, selling, distributing, making or reproducing an objectionable publication faces a fine of up to 5,000 Singaporean dollars (US$3,700), imprisonment of up to a year, or both.

The French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo first joined some other European titles in publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2006.

In 2015 a massacre at its office killed 12 people, after it reprinted some of the controversial images.

A French teacher was beheaded by an extremist last year after showing his class Charlie Hebdos cartoons of the Prophet.

After French President Emmanuel Macron defended the right to publish cartoons, angry protests erupted in Asia and the Middle East. / AFP

More here:
Book on censorship banned in Singapore - The Independent

Filipino teachers, researchers, school administrators, and other education professionals called out Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Chairperson Popoy De Vera for justifying the removal of so-called subversive books from libraries of various universities nationwide.

The Academics Unite for Democracy and Human Rights (ADHR) on Wednesday, Nov. 3, slammed De Vera for twisting the meaning of academic freedom to include book censorship and other forms of attacks on the free exchange of ideas that form the very essence of academic freedom.

When De Vera first broached the idea of constituting a panel of experts to redefine academic freedom back in January, we found it laughable because this is already enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, said ADHR lead convenor Dr. Ramon Guillermo.

Now it has become clear that the intention is to repress and limit the scope of academic freedom to whatever is acceptable to the state, added Guillermo who is also a former University of the Philippines (UP) Faculty Regent.

ADHR alleged that De Vera is diverting the attention to respecting the prerogative of schools when the issue is about book censorship and the real threat this poses to the freedoms of academic institutions, faculty, and students.

READ:

Guillermo stressed that academic freedom includes the right to challenge dominant ideologies without fear of repression thus, book censorship represses the freedom to pursue knowledge and engage in social critique sans reprisals and persecution.

CHED wishes to make book censorship, by itself a concrete threat on academic freedom, acceptable by reducing academic freedom to the matter of respecting administrative prerogative of affected universities Guillermo added.

Furthermore, Guillermo pointed out that CHEDs calls for respecting book censorship defies logic noting that it was the governments National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) and military that have been actively calling for the removals of these books from libraries in the first place, thereby intruding on the academic freedom of affected higher education institutions.

ADHR said that CHED in the Cordillera Administrative Region late in October 2021 issued regional memo nos. 113, series of 2021 calling on all universities and colleges to surrender subversive reading materials to authorities.

To oppose book censorship, the ADHR launched an online petition dubbed Defend Academic Freedom, Hands Off Our Libraries (https://forms.gle/HRm3NiwUsp5Zghb68) which has garnered over 400 signatures from members of the countrys academic community as of press time.

ADHR also launched the Aswang sa Aklatan website (https://handsoffourlibraries.crd.co) which seeks to provide the public updates on the #HandsOffOurLibraries campaign as well as free and easily accessible resource of endangered books and materials.

RELATED STORY:

SIGN UP TO DAILY NEWSLETTER

See the original post here:
Book censorship is an assault on the very essence of academic freedom, CHED told - Manila Bulletin

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has called for an end to Instagrams censorship of the Tamil Guardian and for Facebook to be more transparent, after the news website had its account disabled last month.

The London-based English-language website is one of the main sources of news about the Tamil community in Sri Lanka and the rest of the world and has more than 19,000 followers on Instagram, and yet it was censored in the most brutal manner, with no prior warning and no explanation, said RSF in a statement released this morning.

It went on to detail how despite the Tamil Guardians efforts to contact Facebook and Instagram, no response was received and despite a 12-hour temporary reinstatement, the account had simply disappeared from cyber-space.

Without the least explanation, without the least justification, Instagrams managers deprived nearly 20,000 followers of the news that theTamil Guardiannormally publishes on its Instagram account, said Daniel Bastard, the head of RSFs Asia-Pacific desk. We call on those in charge at Facebook, Instagrams owner, to restore the account at once and to demonstrate more transparency and responsibility in the management of their algorithms. This kind of censorship is completely unacceptable.

The standard response that Facebook sent to the Tamil Guardian simply said that accounts may be disabled for violating Facebooks community guidelines. No further explanation was provided.

In the absence of transparency, the algorithms used by Facebook to regulate its social media can be manipulated by troll armies or social bots ghost accounts designed to generate automatic messages with the aim of getting content deleted or accounts shut down, continued the press freedom organisation.

The disabling of the account last month provoked outrage across the world, with Tamil lawmakers in the North-East joining parliamentarians in Canada and the United Kingdom in expressing their condemnation.

This disabling of the Tamil Guardian account on Instagram came despite the news outlet continuing to post freely on Twitter, where it is a verified account, and other platforms, with content never having been flagged or removed elsewhere. The newspaper has also never been accused of breaching any laws in the United Kingdom with regards to proscribed terrorist organisations or concerns ever having been raised by British authorities.

Last month, the news website also revealed how Sri Lankas Criminal Investigation Department had formally written to the social media platform, calling for posts by the news website to be removed.

We have functioned freely on other platforms, despite the efforts of the Sri Lankan state to stop us, said a statement from the newspaper last month.

For many of our stories, our correspondents based in the North-East brave harassment and reprisals from the Sri Lankan security forces to bring crucial insight to the plight of the Tamil people. Our journalists have faced beatings, interrogations and have even been forced to leave the island in the lineof their work. Now, Instagrams broad and blunt censorship has effectively strengthened the Sri Lankan states repressive approach to clamping down on freedom of expression.

Facebook and Instagram are pandering to an authoritarian state.

See the full RSF statement here.

Go here to read the rest:
Reporters Without Borders calls for Tamil Guardian's Instagram to be reinstated - Tamil Guardian

According to the Palestinian Committee to Protect the Journalists (PCPJ), Israeli forces arrested 9 Palestinian journalists just in October.

AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): According to the Palestinian Committee to Protect the Journalists (PCPJ), Israeli forces arrested 9 Palestinian journalists just in October.

15 other Palestinian journalists were reportedly wounded by Israeli forces during the operation. According to the latest report of the Palestinian Prisoners of War Club, the number of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails has reached 4,600, including 200 children and 35 women, and 500 are in administrative detention.

Earlier, PCPJ said in a report that Israeli government had violated the rights of Palestinian media workers 652 times since the beginning of the year. The report also states that the Israeli military has attacked journalists several times during this period. During the 11-day war on Gaza in May a journalist was killed and 59 media centers were damaged by Israeli airstrikes.

The committee has called on the international community to protect the Palestinian journalists who are always targets to Israelis attacks. It also called for pressures on Tel Aviv to release 24 captured journalists.

In an annual report in January, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate (PJS) asserted that Israel violated rights of Palestinian journalists 490 times in 2020.

Systemic violation of international laws

The Israeli government continues to detain Palestinian journalists in violation of the international laws. The torture and detention of journalists is in complete violation not only of Israeli domestic law but also of the international law. Reporters Without Borders (RWB) also warned last month that journalists and families of prisoners in Palestine were at risk of arbitrary detention after totally unfair convictions.

Elsewhere in the world, in Turkey for example, Western reactions are made to violations of rights of the journalists. Last year, the European Court for Human Rights reacted to detention of journalists by Turkish government, stating that temporary and long-term sentences for journalists in Turkey are merely based on suspicious cases and there are no persuasive pieces of evidence to deprive the journalists of their right of freedom before judicial proceedings.

The cases of violation of the rights of the journalists in the occupied Palestinian territories have been way more compared to Turkey but the Western institutions choose to turn a blind eye.

It was in the shadow of this Western blindness that Tel Aviv razed to ground Al-Jalaa media tower in Gaza city with bunker buster bombs that penetrated the foundation of the tower, which hosted Associated Press and Aljazeera offices. The pictures of the bombardment were aired by world media live. The shocking and terrifying attacks, an apparent war crime, remained practically unaddressed by the international community and Western governments.

Israeli officials have repeatedly proven that they do not shy away from violating international laws in the light of the West's silence and support. Last week, the Israeli envoy to the UN tore up a Human Rights Watch report condemning Tel Aviv. The Israeli regime has been violating the UN resolutions for many years, and settlements in the West Bank are the most obvious form of violation of the international laws.

Seeking to cover up crimes

Tel Aviv knows that the more it cracks down on the journalists, the more it can throttle the stream of information about the Palestinian circumstances. Therefore, the regular attacks on the journalists are coming with the aim of preventing world awareness of the realities in the occupied territories.

The Israeli military routinely attacks, beats, arrests, seizes equipment of journalists covering protests against settlement projects, raising the cost of reporting on the situation in Palestine so that limited journalists can cover. With risks of long-term detentions and inhumane conducts by Israeli forces, journalists usually have much difficulty and restrictions reporting from Palestine.

Also, there is a systemic censorship policy followed by the Israeli officials. The Israeli regime, despite claims of being democratic, has in place laws of martial supervision of the news and media productions and therefore applies a strict regime of censorship. The Israeli Military Censor (IMC) is a unit of the Israeli army which watches over the publication of information regarding the military network and the general security. The IMC has Censorship Agreement signed in 1966 with representatives of media outlets. The Israeli media are ruled by a 1945 emergency law imposed when Palestine was under the British mandate. This censorship includes content published on television and radio networks and in newspapers and even books, and before it is published, it should be examined by the relevant center, and what is dangerous from the point of view of military censorship should be removed from the content. Naturally, content related to Palestine and against the Israelis favor is easily deleted and censored. Tel Aviv is in complete control over the cyberspace and communication networks of the Palestinian territories.

Cover-up of the Israeli crimes in Palestine takes place both through detaining and silencing the journalists and also officially by the government agencies on Tel Aviv-controlled cyberspace and communication networks. These actions explain why Israeli crimes less frequently find their way to the international media.

/129

Continued here:
Analysis: How Tel Aviv censoring information on its crimes? - AhlulBayt News Agency ABNA24

While legally this topic shares much with other forms of censorship, internet censorship specifically deals with the restriction of online content. The largest point of interest is the reach of the internet regardless of what policies one country creates concerning allowable content, providers in other countries can post whatever is allowed under their respective legal systems. While countries have made attempts to restrict what is obtainable, such as Google and China striking a deal over filtering its search engine, the ease of accessibility remains the largest obstacle to being able to control what people can find online.

Wikipedia Definition & Overview Internet CensorshipInternet censorship is the control or suppression of the publishing of, or access to information on the Internet. It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations at the behest of government, regulators, or on their own initiative.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) webpage on Internet CensorshipThe ACLUs vision of an uncensored Internet was clearly shared by the U.S. Supreme Court when it declared, in Reno v. ACLU, the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines.

Amnesty International Internet CensorshipAmnesty International portal with news, blogs and issues on Internet Censorship.

Google Battles With China Over Internet CensorshipThis article shows Googles battle with internet censorship in many countries like China and at least 40 other countries in the world.

Googles Fallout With ChinaThis article describes the stringiest internet censorship in China and its recent fallout with Google.

How Internet Censorship WorksAn explanation of the methods of restricting online content.

Internet Censorship and ControlA collection of peer reviewed papers on the topics of Internet Censorship and Control.

Internet Censorship by CountryInternet censorship by country provides information on the types and levels of Internet censorship or filtering that is occurring in countries around the world. Includes map.

Internet Censorship Huffington PostRecent posts that relate Internet censorship.

Internet Censorship Mashable WebsiteRecent stories and news about Internet censorship.

Internet censorship in China and IranThis newspaper article illustrates for the need to stop internet censorship in countries like Iran and China to promote wider internet access to the public.

Internet Censorship in China New York TimesNews about Internet Censorship in China

Internet Censorship News ABC News

Internet Censorship World MapThis world map shows that what countries are affected by censorship around the world.

Internet Freedom Index WebsiteRecent news that relate Internet freedom.

OpenNet InitiativeA group involved with monitoring and reporting on internet censorship/surveillance.

Promoting free expression on the internetGoogles stance on the freedom of expression on the internet.

Pros and Cons of CensorshipThis article discusses the pros and cons of internet censorship.

PsiphonA software service that bypasses online filtering of content by acting as a web proxy.

Reporters Without Borders Internet enemies campaignReporters Without Borders has information on the freedom levels in all countries, including information specifically on internet freedom. They also have rankings for the countries with the worst current conditions for internet freedom.

TED Talk: A look behind the Great Firewall of ChinaJournalist Michael Anti gives a unique look beyond the Great Firewall of China in a recent TED Talk. Watch below.

TED Video: Rebecca MacKinnon Lets take back the Internet!In this powerful talk from TEDGlobal, Rebecca MacKinnon describes the expanding struggle for freedom and control in cyberspace, and asks: How do we design the next phase of the Internet with accountability and freedom at its core, rather than control?

Telecommunications Act of 1996 & Reno v. ACLUThe Telecommunications Act of 1996, with Title V featuring preliminary restrictions surrounding pornographic material on the internet. Additionally, it maintained that ISPs are not liable for the actions of users of their services. However, in 1997, the Supreme Court upheld the 1996 case Reno v. ACLU, citing an infringement on free speech.

The Trend of Internet CensorshipThis article describes the ongoing and rising trend of internet censorship in many countries.

Top 10 Internet-censored CountriesUSA Today releases news about top 10 Internet-censored countries around the world.

Video YouTubeFaceblocked: Internet Censorship in China. (05/26/10)

View post:
Internet Censorship - George Mason University