The National Posts Jonathan Kay recently interviewed American author Dave Rubin, whose tour for his new book, Dont Burn This Book: Thinking for Yourself in the Age of Unreason, was disrupted by the ongoing pandemic, and is now being done out of Rubins garage.

Jonathan Kay: Nice suit. Look what Im wearing. Thanks for making the rest of us look like crap.

Dave Rubin: I thought Id keep it professional, you know? Im on a book tour.

Kay: Whats it been like doing a book tour without actually touring?

Rubin: I got to tell you, its really bizarre, actually. The book came out on Tuesday, April 28, and I was supposed to be in New York the week before, doing all kinds of press, going on every TV show you can imagine and meeting with the publishers and all that good stuff. And then I was supposed to be on a book tour starting that night. We were gonna be at the Gramercy Theater in New York. And then I think I was going to be in D.C. and then across the country for the next month and a half or so. And instead, Im in my garage. I mean, this is my garage. I happened to have a studio in my garage. So its kind of funny. Were seeing all these CNN anchors in their kitchens, in their living rooms and things. I was a little ahead on the home studio thing. So Ive got a nice professional setup here, which is great. And, you know, theres a certain convenience to it that I can do this all from here. But I guess it is missing a little something. Talking to a live person always adds a little something else to the conversation. But Ive enjoyed this. And in many ways its allowed me to do more than I was going to be able to do because I can basically just, every day for the last four or five days, Im starting in the morning. I started literally at 6 a.m. and I go till about 8 p.m., with just minor minor breaks and maybe lunch, if Im lucky. So, you know, Im happy to talk to people. Im glad the books being well received. And you do what you gotta do.

Kay: You write that your original book idea was about how you abandoned the left side of the political spectrum and then you decided you had a more interesting idea. Tell me about that.

Rubin: Yeah. The original title of the book was Why I Left the Left, which is the title of a very popular PragerU video that I did that has about 20 million views or so. I became sort of a left the left guy. I talk about the regressive left and that the left is no longer liberal.

Thats very much in the mix, the stew of things that Ive been talking about for the last five years or so. And I started writing that book. And then I quickly realized I was like, you know, I dont know if I want to write a book about just what Im against or what I used to be. I want to write a book about what Im for. And thats what it became: Dont Burn This Book. But I lay out three moments in the book that were my seminal wake up moments.

I wont give you all three. Ill give you one of them. You may know David Webb, who is a commentator, conservative commentator on Sirius XM Patriot Channel. He guest hosts on Fox News all the time. And years ago when I was a lefty, I was on the Young Turks. We were watching a clip of Fox News and David Webb came on and suddenly they were saying all the worst things about him. He was just talking about some basic conservative beliefs. Doesnt even matter what he was talking about specifically. But suddenly they were calling him an Uncle Tom and a sellout and a race traitor. Just all of the worst things that you could say about somebody. And what they didnt know was that a few years before I had had a show on Sirius XM and although I was a lefty and David Webb was on the right, wed met in the hall one day and we started chatting. I used to go on his show every week and wed debate topics and then wed go downstairs and have a steak and have some whisky. And we were good, even though we disagreed on almost everything. But I knew him to be a good man and forthright and a passionate advocate for his positions.

It wasnt some fake thing. And yet here the Young Turks were, the supposed tolerant people, the people who loved diversity. And they were suddenly seeing a black man. And just because he didnt think the way they want black people to think he was the bad guy. He was all the worst things you could say about somebody. And because I knew him, it suddenly became so stark, so clear to me that when we think of racism, we think, oh, that youre racist. You dont want those people using a water fountain, something like that, which obviously is racist. But theres a new pernicious racism, which is that you say youre for groups gays, blacks, women.

But you cant be for whole groups because, believe it or not, black people think all sorts of different things. Gay people think all sorts of different things. Women think all sorts of different things. And to watch a group of supposedly tolerant people be angry at a black man who just thought differently than them, I realized was a new sort of systemic racism. And I say systemic because its sort of spread throughout all of the left. And even right now, Harvard discriminates against Asian people because they had too many Asian people by their measure being admitted to the university.

What the left does is they see racism almost everywhere except where it really is. They're looking for it constantly. So they have to find it.

Dave Rubin

Kay: But what about the counterargument that theres still a lot of old-fashioned racism thats still around.

Rubin: I dont see that now. Thats not to say that there isnt a KKK. There are some marginal white supremacist groups or the Westboro Baptist Church or something like that, which dont have any mainstream traction, because anytime they do any stupid little thing that, of course, the media goes crazy with it. Does David Duke exist? Of course. David Duke exists. Does he have any influence in any way whatsoever? Of course not. So I dont see actual influential bigotry out of the conservative side or on the right. But I do see it almost everywhere on the left. The left has become obsessed with identity, obsessed with gender and sexuality and the colour of skin. And I wouldnt even call that reverse racism. I would call that racism. If you rail all day long against white Christian men because theyre white Christian men, thats racism.

Again, Im not saying that there are no racist people on either side of the political aisle. Of course there are. But I think what the left does is they see racism almost everywhere except where it really is. Theyre looking for it constantly. So they have to find it. And just because you believe in low taxes doesnt mean youre a racist. Just because you believe that America should have a strong border, doesnt mean youre a racist.

These movements, they get equality, but then they the activists don't want to go out of business. So then they have to just keep finding new and new perceived oppression.

Dave Rubin

Kay: Your book is partly about what you call the pitfalls of leaving the left. What are those pitfalls?

Rubin: The biggest growing political movement or political ideology in America right now is the disaffected liberal, which is what I would say that I am I am a true liberal. And I lay out what classical liberalism is, which, of course, is about individual rights, meaning everyone that is a legal citizen of any country should be treated equally under the law. And then basically laissez-faire economics, light touch. Thats pretty much what my belief system is. Thats live and let live. And we could talk about the marginal differences between that and libertarianism.

As far as the pitfalls, well, I lay out some of the things that I guarantee will happen to you if you leave the left or not even leave the left once you start questioning it. Because if you remember four or five years ago when I started talking about my frustrations with the left, I was always saying we. I was saying we guys, we the left have abandoned liberalism. We have to fix liberalism. We have to stand for the things that were supposed to stand for, like free speech and open inquiry and not deplatforming speakers and destroying people. These are liberal principles. So I was doing this from the left. And what I think a lot of people see right now is that Im trying to give them the courage, I suppose, to be able to walk and not be destroyed once you pick one position that is counter to whatever mainstream leftist orthodoxy is of the day.

If you dont check all of those 10 boxes, they will eliminate you and they will try to mob you on social media. They will go after your employer. You will watch friends and family members turn on you and call you all of the worst things. And even if you say no, those are none of my beliefs. Well, then theyll move the goalposts and try to extrapolate something else on you. One of the very important tips that I give people is dont apologize unless you genuinely have done something wrong. Im not saying never apologize. Weve all wronged people. Weve all done things that are wrong. So you can apologize if its earnest. But I think a lot of times that we see this when the mob comes after celebrities all the time, you know, a celebrity will say something that everyone knows is basically right. You may remember Mario Lopez said that we shouldnt be something to the effect of we shouldnt be transitioning kids who are four years old, you know, gender transition. And its like everyone knows thats the truth. Thats not anti-trans. Its just that we might want to wait till theyre a little bit older. Then we could discuss all of that stuff. But he got mobbed. And then what does he do? He basically issues in a faux apology, even though we know he doesnt really apologize. He doesnt really feel any contrition about what he said.

Another one would be a Hollywood actor who Im sort of friendly with, Mark Duplass, he basically tweeted out something to the effect that Ben Shapiro is not the devil, he just has different political thoughts. He got mobbed and then deleted the tweet and issued an apology. And its like once you do that, once you apologize for something youre not sorry for, now theyve got their foot on your neck forever and you will never get up. And theyre using that power over you. So one of the things you can do is be brave and stand up for what you believe. And I think if more of us start doing it, we can actually silence that mob.

Kay: But political cults come from the right side of the spectrum, too, no?

Rubin: Lets not forget, it was mostly people on the right who were going after violent video games. Remember, they were trying to ban Mortal Kombat from the shelves. So these things are cyclical. And Im glad you brought it up because its an important point.

Kay: Were talking about censorship and preventing people from saying what they think. But its interesting that youre not talking about government censoring people which is what we would have been worried about 20 or maybe even 10 years ago. Instead, were talking about people censoring each other.

Rubin: We should always be wary of the government silencing dissent, silencing speech. But at the moment, I mean, Donald Trump can tweet whatever he wants and then what happens? The first hundred people that respond to him are usually blue check journalists or actors or activists, all telling him hes a Nazi, hes Hitler. Hes going to burn in hell. I mean, the worst things you can imagine. And guess what? Nobody knocks on their door. The Gestapo doesnt show up to drag them off to the gulag. I mean, theres no version of any of that. The bigger worry to me is that we are censoring ourselves. That is separate than the government. Its an important distinction.

Kay: Youre a gay man. Ive noticed, anecdotally, that many of the people pushing back against social-justice cultism are gay men, lesbians, Jews, Muslims people who have some trait that makes them stand out from ordinary white people. Do you think having at least some mark of outsider status gives you moral capital to push back?

Rubin: I love this question because Ive asked this of other guests of mine who are in similar situations. So Douglas Murray, the wonderful author from the U.K. whos written a lot about this and talked about immigration in Europe and all sorts of things. His last book, Madness of Crowds, is one of the best books of the year. He happens to be gay. Hes a gay conservative in the U.K. And Ive asked him about this. I see this from women. I see this from black people. It sort of gets to what I was saying earlier about why when you say youre for a group, you will actually crush all of the free thinkers within that group. And thats what Im trying to restore. Im trying to stop that from happening.

If youre a minority because of your sexuality or your skin colour or some of these things, now, I dont think that should give you power over people. I dont think that inherently makes your opinions correct. I mean, that would be absurd. As absurd as saying, you know, someone who is a white male, that his opinions are correct just because of that. So those are silly notions. But what I do think is probable is that if you are a minority of some sort, you start looking at the world from a bit of an outsider perspective. Youre not in the machine all the time. And because of that, you suddenly realize that uniqueness is deeply important. You realize there is something different.

So the most interesting example of this would be whats sort of happened to the gay community. I would say that for four decades, the gay community brought a tremendous amount of art and music and comedy and all of this cultural stuff that would start in gay clubs or whatever. I was never even into that scene at all. Much of this is before my time. But we all know that so much great music and all of this cultural stuff came from the gay community. Then, things shifted and the progressive movement sort of infiltrated the gay community. Im not saying, well, their intentions were bad. Gay marriage, by the way, is an extremely positive development that the progressives pushed because they were pushing for equality. But they were pushing for gay people to be equal, not to be above. And what happens usually is then these movements, they get equality, but then they the activists dont want to go out of business, sort of. So then they have to just keep finding new and new perceived oppression.

So what I think, unfortunately, has happened is the gay community, for whatever that term broadly means, they went from fighting for something. They went from being outsiders. And by the way, that comes with a lot of pain and all sorts of stuff. I mean, many gay people have written about this. And, you know, from my own experience, the pain and drugs and just doing stuff that I shouldnt have done, its just part of being closeted and the outsider and the rest of it. But you take that, then you get equality. And now thats great. Now things are good. But then the progressives move in and they kind of use you as a tool.

So if you notice, theres really nothing interesting coming out of the gay community these days. And that is to directly answer your question. That is why were watching so many gay people walk away (from progressive orthodoxy) right now. And by the way, its the exact same thing with the black community.

Kay: Youre an American. Do you find your political message resonates with Canadians? It used to be that a political writer like you was mostly a celebrity in your own country. But thanks to social media, things are much more global.

Rubin: It really, really does. Now, part of that I have to credit Jordan Peterson, obviously, because, you know, Jordan, whose origin he was a clinical psychologist in Toronto and professor at the University of Toronto, you know, hes sort of Canadas biggest export over the last couple of years, certainly intellectually their biggest export. And I toured with Jordan Peterson. We had many stops in Canada. Ive done some speaking events with Maxime Bernier from the Canadian Peoples party. And I do sense that there is a strong liberty movement growing in Canada. You know, as Justin Trudeau and the Liberals of Canada sort of extend their power. And I know you guys have all sorts of problems. You know, Western Canada and the Calgary area feeling that theyre sort of being left out from what the decision-making process is. I sense that there is a there is a strong liberty movement there. So we absolutely wonderful receptions in all of our Canadian stops. I love doing them. We had a running joke in every Canadian stop on the tour because I would moderate the Q-and-A at the end of the show. So the way the shows would work, I would do about 15 minutes of crowd warm-up. Jordan would give about an hour and a half speech and then we would do about 45 minutes of Q-and-A. And each time, somebody would ask if Jordan would run for prime minister and hed make you know, its a fun, silly comment about Trudeau. And it would always get a huge laugh. So I do sense that that there is a certain set of Canadians who are waking up to some of these more liberty or individual rights issues, which maybe isnt fully within the Canadian political ethos as much as it is within an American one.

But, yes, to your point. Look, were all on YouTube, were all podcasting. Were all doing all these things. And what is local is now everything. You know, its like everything is now local and whats local is now everything.

Kay: Thanks so much for joining us. Stay safe!

National Post

Follow this link:

Dave Rubin interview: His new book, censorship on the left and what he sees happening in Canada - National Post

WINGS Over Scotlands Stuart Campbell has accused Twitter of censorship after two of his accounts were banned.

The social media platform has taken action against the pro-independence bloggers @RevStu and @SealandGazette profiles for "evading a permanent suspension".

It comes a month after Campbell's Twitter account for a new pro-Yes party, @WingsPartyScot, was banned as soon as it was created.

The blogger hit back at Twitter over the latest action, saying that his @RevStu account predates @WingsScotland by years and was in constant use.

He commented: "The allegation that these accounts have been used to evade a permanent suspension are obviously ridiculous and false.

The @RevStu account preceded the @WingsScotland one by years and has been in constant use since its creation, and the @SealandGazette one was only used during a technical hitch with the @RevStu one which was subsequently resolved.

READ MORE:Another Wings Over Scotland Twitter account locked

The blogger added: "Twitter has still never given any explanation of how the Wings account broke any of its rules, because it did not.

These actions are quite simply direct censorship and interference in the political affairs of a country by an unaccountable, unelected foreign corporation, and even people who hate Wings Over Scotland should be extremely alarmed by."

Twitter confirmed the @RevStu and @SealandGazette accounts had been permanently suspended for violating our platform manipulation and spam policy.

The website added that the @WingPartyScot profile was suspended because it was linked to an account that had been suspended for violations of our hateful conduct policy.

Read more:

Twitter accused of 'censorship' after banning Wings Over Scotland accounts - The National

Facebook wont fudge content oversight, says Israeli legal expert. Emi Palmor, former director-general of Israels Ministry of Justice, was recently appointed as one of the 20 founding members of Facebook's Oversight Board. Read more

Qumra Capital sells $80 million in holdings to StepStone Group. Among the companies whose holdings were sold to StepStone are Fiverr, JFrog, AppsFlyer, Riskified, and Minute Media. Read more

Interview | Juganu wants to light the way forward in the digital revolution. With investments from telecom giants Comcast Ventures and Amdocs, Israeli startup Juganu is aiming to revolutionize light and connectivity through an innovative solution. Read more

Opinion | Mangrove Capital exec says Israeli tech does not need a bailout but could definitely use a slight nudge. Roy Saar responds to fellow investors who called on the Israeli government to refrain from bailing out startups. Read more

Opinion | Telemedicine, which gained momentum due to Covid-19, will be with us long after it recedes. Just as what counts as normal in our day-to-day lives may be changing, what counts as normal in healthcare provision will also change. Read more

View post:

Facebook Won't Fudge Censorship Oversight, Qumra Sells $80 Million in Holdings and Juganu Revolution in Today's Roundup - CTech

Local nonbinary drag theatre collective The Darlings have had two performances taken down from Facebook.PNG

Vancouver nonbinary drag collective The Darlings has a dedicated audience for its creative and cutting-edge performances. But since the group took its show online, its work is being targeted.

Both the March 29 broadcast debut and the April 26 followup were subject to reports that they contravened Facebooks terms and guidelines and were taken down following being reported.

In a statement posted on The Darlings Facebook page, the members point out that queer artists are being silenced by such actions and that the process to get reinstated on the viewing platform is extremely onerous. The video goes on to point out that the artists were even practicing self-censorship of its content to avoid contravening Facebooks terms and guidelines. This is particularly unsettling for queer artists everywhere being comfortable with using online platforms to deliver their art in the absence of queer spaces.

For now, both performances can be viewed on Vimeo.

I like to assume that it was someone random, and not direct targeting, because in most cases that is the case, said The Darlings Continental Breakfast. There are people out there who dont want to be seeing queer programming being accessible. And if anything you do can be seen as even being PG-13, it can get reported.

The first report was lodged when member PM was showing bare feet while wearing latex. For the second show, Continental Breakfast even had nieces watch it after it aired for extra vetting. The performer admitted to feeling calm and confident going into the event.

We were on the edge of our seats for the first show, because we didnt know how it would go, they said. So we completely adjusted our content to bring forward a family-friendly show that was sensitive, gentle and touched on vulnerability. Its really hard to see someone still report that.

With nearly 10,000 views across both shows, demand clearly exists for The Darlings work. But the group says being shut down the second time cut-off its audience in the first 15 minutes and the numbers were seriously impacted. This has lead The Darlings to take a break and reconsider alternative routes which do not risk the integrity and viability of their work.

Member Rose Butch stated that being silenced on the most accessible platform available to broadcast to viewers was discouraging and disheartening.

sderdeyn@postmedia.com

twitter.com/stuartderdeyn

Originally posted here:

The Darlings are discouraged and disheartened by live stream censorship - The Province

Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Rainer Puster/iStock/Getty Images Plus, macky_ch/iStock/Getty Images Plus, and ayzek/iStock/Getty Images Plus.

As the coronavirus pandemic spreads across the world, so does disinformation (intentional deceit, at times peddled by governments themselves) and misinformation (the spread of falsehoods that may or may not be intentional) about its origins, reach, and potential cures. Meanwhile, multiple different regimes are citing fears about misinformation and fake news to suppress unflattering information about the handling of the disease. To learn more about how three giantsChina, Russia, and Brazilare both handling and perpetuating misinformation about COVID-19, Jennifer Daskal invited country experts to discuss the current state of affairs: Mia Shuang Li, a former Beijing-based journalist, who is now a research associated at Yale Law Schools Paul Tsai China Center; Justin Sherman, a fellow at the Atlantic Councils Cyber Statecraft Initiative,columnist at Wired, and close follower of developments in Russia; and Roberta Braga, an associate director at the Atlantic Councils Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center and an expert on Brazil. This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Jennifer Daskal: Welcome, Mia, Justin, and Roberta! An initial question for all of you: What kinds of disinformation is percolating in the countries you cover with respect to the pandemic? And what has been the government response?

Mia Shuang Li: In China, the state is pushing a narrative on social mediausing both government accounts and sponsored nongovernment accountsthat authoritarianism is better at mobilizing all-society effort in a public health crisis, including citizens and private sector companies. This creates a rally around the flag effect, making the narrative seem a lot more supported and more like a widely accepted reality.

At this point, most of the population is too traumatized by all that has occurred to question the official narrative.

Justin Sherman: The Russian government itself has been very actively spreading disinformation about the virus, both in Russia and around the world. As early as January, Russian state media were propagating all kinds of lies about the coronavirus, like saying it was made in the United States. Moscow has used these kinds of false statementspushed on television, on social media, and elsewherein an effort to sow divisiveness and confusion abroad and to undermine trust in credible news sources.

This is being coupled with Russian efforts to demand that social media companies and other media platforms remove information about the coronavirus that Moscow deems false, information that is being viewed by those physically residing within the country.

Roberta Braga: In Brazils case, a lot of misleading information is coming from the top. Brazil is the largest, most populous country in Latin America, and the biggest economy in the region. Around 85 percent of Brazils population live in urban areas, with over 16 percent of the national population living in So Paulo and Rio de Janeiro alone. Brazil also has over 13.6 million people living in favelas. Informal workers comprise a large part of the Brazilian population. In this context, where for many people staying home can mean they face hunger, the most misleading narrative has been that of health vs. economy. In his live addresses to the country, President Bolsonaro says that the virus should not do more harm to the economy, and by extension peoples livelihoods, than it does to peoples health. So, in an effort to emphasize the importance of keeping Brazilians employed and working, he has built a campaign against social distancing.

A judicial order was required to stop a campaign he promoted using the hashtag #Brazilcannotstop. And as recently as April 10, Bolsonaro was taking to the streets in Braslia in his public effort to push back against social isolation. This has had an effect. Recent statistics say only around 50 percent of people in Brazil are social isolating. While local governments have taken measures to protect health, when the president himself is questioning those measures, that leads to more and more people failing to comply. Recent reporting from Reuters show 49 percent of So Paulo residents were considered to be in social isolation as of April 8, compared to a weekday peak of 56 percent on March 30.

Daskal: Mia, many reports suggest that the coronavirus situation in China was worse than is assertedbut that negative information about the persistence and spread of disease was suppressed by the Chinese government. Do you have a sense as to whether that is the case?

Shuang Li: Chinas numbers are, the best I can tell, vastly, vastly undercounted inside Wuhan, and slightly undercounted outside. First, many died at home without ever getting a diagnosis. Those cases were not counted. No city in China tested the deceased. Second, asymptomatic cases never went to the hospital and therefore were never tested or counted. Iceland, which has done some of the most widespread testing in the world, found that approximately 50 percent of those infected never showed any symptoms. Third, only those who showed symptoms, went to the hospital, and were able to be admitted were counted. Inside Wuhan that is a very small portion of the patients. Ive read on Weibo that even hospital directors could not get friends and families hospital beds.

Daskal: Roberta, you described Bolsonaros concerning narrative about the disease. How is he responding to those who critique his approach?

Braga: Brazil is a democracy, and freedom of speech is a strong pillar of that democracy. Certainly weve seen dissent. For weeks, Brazilians in social isolation in key capital cities like Fortaleza, Braslia, So Paulo, Porto Alegre, Rio de Janeiro, and others have banged pots and pans together and called for a removal of Bolsonaro in a reaction to his public addresses.On April 16, Bolsonaro fired Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta, and the protests exploded even more. That said, of course, President Bolsonaro doesnt like to be criticized, much in the way that President Donald Trump doesnt take well to criticism.

Bolsonaro also continues to criticize the Brazilian media, saying they are twisting the facts and exacerbating polarization. This has really contributed to a crisis of trust in media. And at a time when Brazilians access to information is so important, people in Brazil are really struggling to trust in the independent journalists who are providing them with factual information. Fringe media outlets are becoming increasingly popular.

Daskal: Justin, you have written about Russias internal efforts to crack down on what it claims to be fake news in response to the pandemic. Can you talk a bit about how this is being done?

Sherman: In mid-March, Roskomnadzor, which is Russias internet and media regulator, threatened stringent action against anyone disseminating false information about the virus. (Again, false information here is defined by the Russian government.) It then began issuing content removal orders to a variety of media outlets, including those incorporated within and outside of Russia.

These takedown orders mostly draw on existing laws that give Roskomnadzor the authority to order media companies to censor particular types or pieces of content. That said, the upper house of Russias Parliament voted at the end of March to expand criminal punishments for those spreading false information with significant public health effects.

As for what is actually being censored by the government, there is still relatively little information available, but from what we do know, its clear that the censorship has increasingly targeted anything critical of the Russian governments response to the virus and anything that contradicts the official government narrative. In March, a couple of takedowns focused on claims that Moscow had a curfew in place when it didnt. But other takedowns have focused on everything from social media posts that contradict Russias official figures on infection counts (which many say seem suspiciously low) to claims that Russian hospitals didnt have enough supplies to deal with the pandemic (which is now something that even the Moscow Health Department has started warning about).

Daskal: Roberta, there has been a lot of attention to the fact that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube removed content from Bolsonaro, on the grounds that it violated their terms of service. Can you talk a bit about that?

Braga: Twitter recently took down two Twitter posts by Bolsonaro. The posts contained videos of the president walking around Braslia and talking with small-business owners and vendors on the streets. In the videos, the president also talked about the need to use hydroxychloroquine for treating the virus. This has been a consistent narrativein the videos, the president was shown claiming the anti-malaria drug has worked everywhere it has been used when in reality, the drug is still in the testing phases.

Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram also took down posts that depicted the presidents claims that hydroxychloroquine was the best treatment for COVID-19.

The companies state that the posts were taken down because they violated their platforms terms of service, which prohibit the spread of false information that can cause real harm to users. The removals were apparently done so in close collaboration with the in-country teams for better understanding of the country context.

Daskal: What was the reaction to those take down decisions in Brazil?

Braga: Reactions from Brazilians followed polarized linesthose who support Bolsonaro blasted the companies for blocking and removing the content. Others praised the decisions for preserving safety and for disallowing disinformation about a health crisis that could cost countless lives in Brazil.

Though perhaps not a direct reaction to the companies actions, the Brazilian Congress has proposed legislation to reduce the spread of disinformation and to penalize those who spread false information about the coronavirus. Some of the laws call for criminalizing the spread of disinformation. One of the proposed laws would also criminalize the sharing of disinformation if you are a government official. Fact-checking organizations in Brazil also jointly authored a statement calling on authorities in Brazil to stop spreading disinformation.

Daskal: Justin, do you know how the media outlets have responded to the content removal orders? Are the media outlets criminally responsible for the content that is on their sites?

Sherman: Media entities from Russian social media service VK to American internet platforms like Instagram have complied with censorship orders from Roskomnadzor. They can be fined by the Russian government for failing to censor content, although they are more likely to be blocked than fined. Fines for spreading false information are generally directed at specific individuals. In fact, law enforcement in Russia has already opened a number of cases against people alleged to have disseminated false information about the coronavirus online.

Daskal: As companies respond to Russias takedown demands, do you know if they are doing so on a global or local scale?

Sherman: Generally, companies complying with Russian government content censorship demands do so via geoblocking. In other words, the information they remove is only removed for those who appear to be viewing it from within Russia. This underscores the fact that Moscow is focusing its censorship efforts within the country.

Daskal: Mia, you and I have previously written about the ways in which Tencentthe giant China tech company that owns WeChat, the countrysmost popular messaging apphas used its market power to effectively disconnect those who spoke out against ways in which the Chinese government was managing the epidemic. Is that something that is continuing? What other tools is (and has) the Chinese government used to stifle dissent and critiques of its handling of the pandemic?

Shuang Li: Yes, Tencent is still censoring voices that counter the official narrative, not just in public posts but also in closed chat groups. Luckily their method is not as smart as we thought. I used to think Tencent can censor based on the sentiment of content, not just keywords, but now it looks like its just keyword combos, per this very good Citizen Lab report.

Daskal: Roberta, is there any way to assess how much of a chilling effect Bolsonaros efforts have had on the mainstream medias discussion of the pandemic and its seriousness? Are people rushing to use hydroxychlororoquine as a cure?

Braga: From what Ive seen, the mainstream media in Brazil continues working to report on the pandemic in a fact-based way, sticking to the guidelines of responsible journalism. Fact-checkers havent faltered, either.

But Bolsonaros reactions have had a real effect on how the population perceives the pandemic. When the discussions on hydroxychloroquine first started happening, we saw a race on pharmacies for the medication. And some patients who needed the medication for lupus, for example, reported not being able to find the medication.

It is worth noting that there is a much higher sense of skepticism and awareness about the dangers of disinformation two years after the 2018 presidential elections. Nevertheless, we are still seeing a lot of disinformation and misinformation circulating online and through messaging platforms in Brazil.

Daskal: Justin, can you talk a bit more about the ways in which Russia is spreading disinformation about the virus outside its borders? What are the means by which it is doing so? And you mentioned falsehoods with response to the origins of the virusare you seeing other kinds of disinformation emanating from Russia as well?

Sherman: Moscow is employing numerous vectors to project and amplify disinformation about the coronavirus. State-controlled media outlets like RT and Sputnik have been pushing lies about COVID-19. Russia also is likely using groups like the Internet Research Agency to spread these falsehoods on social media as well. Some of these narratives have targeted the viruss origins. True to form, some of these falsehoods are even contradictorylike accusing the U.S. of developing the virus and then a few days later saying it was developed in Latvia. But the disinformation has covered many different angles. Recently, for example, Russian state media organizations have exaggerated British Prime Minister Boris Johnsons hospitalization with oxygen support into claims that the prime minister is on a ventilator.

Daskal: Mia, a similar question for you as the one I asked Justinare Chinas information and censorship efforts focused mainly internally?

Shuang Li: China adopts different strategies inside and outside the Great Fire Wall. Beijing relies on a host of state media accounts and diplomats on Twitter and Facebook to push its narrative. However, due to a general lack of credibility of state media outlets, it doesnt work. Recently Beijing may have begun to use commercial entities and digital marketing firms to amplify its voice on Twitter and Facebook, but still is mostly pushing its narrative in Chinese targeting Chinese speaking populations. ProPublicas Jeff Kao and I did some digging on that issue in this story.

Outside the firewall, Beijings propaganda campaign is defensive and reactionary. It sees a narrative it doesnt like, or sees its enemy having a win and tries very hard to counter it.Often it backfires. So far Beijing is having a hard time selling its narrative outside of China.

Braga: A peak of the pandemic is expected to hit Brazil in May/June. This pandemic will have a devastating effect on Brazils society, particularly given the overburdened and underfunded public health system. Brazil needs to prioritize addressing this crisis head oneveryone has a responsibility to stick to the facts and to the science. The cost could be millions of lives.

That said, Id like to end on a positive note. Local media outlets in many of Brazils favelas are working hard to create content on how to address the spread of coronavirus in those communities. We are seeing everything from independent articles to videos produced by journalists who understand the realities Brazilians living in the favelas face every day.

Daskal: Huge, huge thanks to all three of you for your time and incredible thoughtfulness.

Read more from the Free Speech Project.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

Link:

Facing COVID-19 Misinformation and Censorship in Brazil, Russia, and China - Slate

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been accused of censoring parts of the British media after the couple announced theywould no longer engage with four UK newspapers.

On Monday, a representative for the couple wrote a letter toeditors of The Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Daily Express and The Sun in which they accused the four publicationsof writing distorted, false or invasive stories about them.

The letter stated:It is gravely concerning that an influential slice of the media, over many years, has sought to insulate themselves from taking accountability for what they say or print even when they know it to be distorted, false, or invasive beyond reason.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

But the move has been criticised, with Ian Murray, executive director of the Society of Editors, claiming that Meghan and Harry are trying to undermine the press.

In a statement on the Society of Editors website, Murray said: Although the Duke and Duchess say they support a free press and all it stands for there is no escaping their actions here amount to censorship and they are setting an unfortunate example.

Murray added that while the couple are no longer working members of the royal family, they are still public figures with a high profile.

By appearing to dictate which media they will work with and which they will ignore they, no doubt unintentionally, give succour to the rich and powerful everywhere to use their example as an excuse to attack the media when it suits them, he said.

Murray went on to say that the couple have benefitted from a huge amount of positive coverage for themselves and their philanthropic causes.

They may have been stung by some of the coverage they have not liked, he added.They may disagree strongly with some elements of that coverage and can of course take action to answer any criticism they consider unfair or inaccurate through several channels.

But the answer should never be to attempt to shun individual titles and their millions of readers.

Harry and Meghan officially stepped back from their roles in the royal family on 31 March and are currently residing in Los Angeles, California.

More:

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle accused of censorship over refusal to engage with tabloid media - The Independent

Germany is now notorious for weaponizing the charge of antisemitism in order to silence Palestine solidarity, labelling BDS the peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israeli violations, as inherently anti-Semitic.

In May last year, the German Bundestag passed a resolution condemning BDS as anti-Semitic, flatly conflating Israel with Jews, thus associating BDS with the Nazi boycott of Jews.

So now, there is a whole brouhaha about the distinguished professor Achille Mbembe, who is booked to speak at the Ruhrtriennale festival in North Rhine-Westphalia. Mbembe is booked to give the opening speech on the 14th of August, titled Reflections on planetary living. He has been supportive of BDS and has made comparisons between South African Apartheid and oppression of Palestinians. Mbembe is a Cameroon-born, South Africa-based historian who lectures around the world, holding an A1 rating from the South African National Research Foundation. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

The attacks against Mbembe appear to have been initiated by Lorenz Deutsch, a local politician with the FDP (Liberal Party), through a letter forwarded and promoted by Dr. Felix Klein, the Federal Government Commissioner for Jewish Life and Against Anti-Semitism. Deutschs letter highlights quotes from Mbembes writing which are supposed to prove his anti-Semitism, and what local as well as Israeli press have concocted to be Holocaust trivialization and Holocaust relativization. Here are the critical Mbembe quotes:

Now, how do you reach from here to antisemitism, Holocaust relativization or Holocaust trivialization? Even in this clinical isolation, the quotations are quite logically formed, and the latter quote even makes a crucial point of distinguishing the Holocaust from South African Apartheid.

The key to charging Mbembe is in the infamous definition of anti-Semitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which has been weaponized internationally to chill critique of Israel. The vague and clumsy definition provides a list of 11 examples of antisemitic speech, seven of which are related to Israel. Among these examples are:

These two examples seem to fall close to the accusations against Mbembe, though they dont really fit them anyway. This definition is not meant to be a perfect fit anyhow the whole point of it is to open up for a general campaign of tarnishing against BDS and critique of Israel in general, as has been the case in the many places, like the US and UK, where in the latter, the definition served as a major asset in the campaign against Jeremy Corbyn.

The attacks against Mbembe appear to have multiple outlets from the local politicians and conservative Jewish leaders to the Jerusalem Post. German cultural festival director urged to be fired for BDS antisemitism, is the title of the latest in a series of articles by Benjamin Weinthal in the Jerusalem Post, a journalist for whom such witch-hunts appear to be a pet project.

Weinthals target is also the festival director, Stefanie Carp. He approvingly cites a German official saying she should be fired because she booked Mbembe. Notice also the pairing BDS antisemitism. This is a linguistic wholesale conflation which leaves absolutely no room for the possibility that BDS is actually a movement concerned with human rights. No, it is simply a sub-form of antisemitism, and thats beyond discussion.

Weinthal cites Uwe Becker, the commissioner of the Hessian federal state government for Jewish life and the fight against antisemitism in Germany, who makes the precise same conflation:

Once again, the director of the Ruhrtriennale Stefanie Carp sets an anti-Israel accent and stages the defamation of the Jewish state in the guise of freedom of art and expression Obviously Ms. Carp not only has a problem with Israel but also deliberately provides a large platform for Israel-related antisemitism. Once again, she is abusing the framework of a publicly funded festival for antisemitic enemy images toward Israel.

Never mind that Carp confirmed that Mbembe, in his Festival speech, will not deal with Israel and the Middle East conflict. His positions are apparently beyond the pale, and Carp has to be fired for even considering to have him speak, about anything.

Weinthal points to Mbembes cardinal sin: That in a forward to a book from 2015 called Apartheid Israel: The Politics of an Analogy, Mbembe wrote that the time has come for global isolation of Israel.

Its a real problem when these conflations of Israel and all Jews are made and you cant talk about Israeli Apartheid without it being taken as an inherent hatred of all Jews.

Even Jews are attacked for these things. Last year, the German Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in the Near East, received a peace prize from the city of Gttingen, which Israel-apologists sought to have cancelled, suggesting these are the wrong kind of Jews. In 2016, after an incitement campaign by the Israeli government and its local supporters, the bank account of the organization was closed. This was in fact the first time in the post-WW2 era, that an account held by a Jewish organization in Germany was closed. It was explicitly explained to them that this was for political reasons if they would rescind their support for BDS, they could reopen the account. Only after a massive protest campaign, were they allowed to reopen the account.

Germany, in this respect, is applying state-sponsored censorship on steroids. The Holocaust guilt, which is actively and admittedly promoted by Israeli diplomats, is serving as a central emotional core from which to enact this censorship, which is meant to protect Israel from critique and condemnation, by tarnishing anyone who ever spoke about its racism, as racist themselves.

H/t Christoph Glanz

Excerpt from:

German censorship campaign targets scholar over BDS and applies 'antisemitism' charge - Mondoweiss

If there is one positive thing that can be said about this terrible plague were enduring, it is that now and then, it gives the Trudeau government some really, really great ideas.

Sure it was only a couple of weeks ago that the Liberals came up with the idea that they a minority in Parliament, remember should give themselves the power to tax and spend for the next two years, without having to get parliamentary approval. It was a truly brilliant idea, except that it ignored the fact that approving government spending is one of the most important functions of Parliament. Take away its authority over spending and the House of Commons might just as well be any old bingo hall, or with a little imaginative renovation, a one-of-a-kind Costco store.

Now, compliments of Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc, we learned that the Liberal government is contemplating legislation to make it an offence to, as a CBC report put it, knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people. In plain language, this government is openly thinking of making itself the official censor of what can and cannot be said about COVID-19. Pure brilliance again, dont you agree?

Well, actually, no. Dont even think of it. Better still, to borrow a phrase from Greta Thunberg: how dare you? There is already a government that has that power, and in some cases brutally exercises it. That is the government of the Communist Party of China.

And what has it done with that power? It barred telling the truth about COVID-19, and instead told lies about it. On the where it happened, when it happened, how it happened and how it spread, the Chinese government confounded, confused and lied about a plague that has now hobbled the whole planet. And China officially reprimanded the doctor who initially tried to warn people about the coronavirus, and who, with dread irony, actually died from it. (A postmortem apology followed from the government. That surely helped.) Admire the Chinese government if thats your thing, but on this subject, it is not an example to be followed.

So, lets tap this serpent of an idea on its little head before its fangs emerge and it develops a real appetite. The problem with government having control over what is said and written, completely aside from it being the utter contradiction of a liberal democracy, is that governments especially on a matter such as this pandemic are simply not competent enough to know what is right and what is wrong.

What is required for a government to pass a law against misinformation? To begin with, it presumes an infallible authority thats able to make judgments on what is, or is not, correct information. Even worse, it presumes the government has the ability to make judgments on a matter that, incontestably, is not yet fully understood by anybody.

This virus is new. The investigation of its nature, transmission, the best policies to confront it, the extent of the response to it, even the nature of the response all of these elements are, at best, in an incomplete and early stage of understanding.

Experts have varying degrees of skill and knowledge. If experts disagree, which happens often, will some of them be silenced? In actuality, a divergence of opinions can be seen as a path to the full truth emerging. But this cannot happen if the government gags those who may seem to be wrong at the present moment.

On the purely political front, there are equal objections to giving government censorship powers. Governments take to extensions of their power like bears to honey. The more power they get, the more they believe they alone should exercise it. Power swells the ego. Add more power, and if you follow the analogy, a little balloon soon thinks its the Hindenburg. And a government swollen with power does not like other voices.

It was only a couple of weeks ago that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau barred the leader of the Opposition from joining talks with other opposition leaders because, in Trudeaus own memorable words, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer disqualified himself from constructive discussions with his unacceptable speech earlier today.

Yet it is not for Trudeau, or any other prime minister, to determine what is acceptable speech from his constitutionally positioned critic, the leader of the Opposition. Nor is it proper for this minority government, which has had enough struggles of its own over misinformation on masks, on screening at airports, on our relative security from the pandemic to decide what the rest of us can, and cannot, say or write about this unique crisis.

National Post

Link:

Rex Murphy on COVID-19: The power to censor speech and other great ideas from our Liberal overlords - National Post

Over the course of the semester, the Lanthorn will be conducting an editorial series titled News on News revolving around how news is consumed today, the concept of fake news and the fight journalists continue to fight to have their voices be heard.

Over doing this editorial series, I learned a lot about how journalists think and learned some helpful lessons as to how to react to institutional pressures.

I highlighted the importance of the #FreeIgnace movement, the beninese journalist who is sadly still incarcerated for simply doing his job. I talked to students who have experienced censorship, both in their time at GVSUand in the Ukraine.

I learned some important lessons from journalists who continue to fight the good fight, whether it be Matthew Kauffman leading the charge to free Ignace Sossou or Raymond Joseph continuing to investigate a corrupt South African lottery system.

These journalists and students speaking out against the powers that be has always been important, but is crucial now more than ever, as Americans everywhere are staying in their homes trying to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

While journalists are not doing the work of essential workers and nurses and doctors working the front lines to fight the virus, those spreading news to the public are in the next tier below. Now more than ever, citizens around the world are looking towards local and national news.

As journalists, we have a responsibility to give the public accurate news, especially in this time of crisis. One of my roles as a part-time assignment editor at Fox 17 is to answer the phone of nervous viewers. Here are what the majority of those calls have consisted of the past few weeks:

Hey, my boss is making us go in to work, but my wife and I are nervous about me getting infected. What do I do to report them?

How do I file for unemployment?

Im about to run out of rent money ever since I lost my job, where can I turn to if I end being homeless in the next few weeks?

My daughter needs her heart medicine to survive. Is it even safe to go into pharmacies right now?

The Walmart by me is not practicing social distancing. Is there anything you guys can do about that?

While it can be nice to provide people with certain resources to help them get what they need in this worldwide pandemic, its a lot of pressure to try to help these people, who appear to have nowhere else to go.

I am nowhere near a guidance counselor or a life coach or a motivational speaker, but I have had to play all of those roles in these phone calls. While I struggle to sleep at night thinking of the thousands of people struggling just in West Michigan alone, its through these phone calls that I have realized that journalists are more than writers, editors, reporters, broadcaster and anchors: we have a job to help people in this time of crisis.

Phone calls such as the ones above are the reason why I am confident I will stay in journalism. As Kauffman and Gamble and Joseph advised in our interviews, journalists need to have thick skin; not just in dealing with criticism and institutional censorship and threats, but also helping those in need, whether that be in providing accurate information, conducting an investigation, or simply giving news consumers a guiding light and someone to talk to.

Through this editorial series, it has been reiterated to me that thick skin and a refusal to back down is a crucial skill that every young journalist needs to develop.

We will face criticism. We will face threats. We will be called pigs and biased, and our writing will be deemed as fake news and thats on the tame end of the criticism. But for every negative message towards us, the positive support comes through tenfold, and knowing that we have a truly important role informing and helping people makes this job more worth it than I ever could have imagined.

Read this article:

News on News: Reflecting on institutional censorship and the conversations with the experts - Grand Valley Lanthorn

Some media are praising Facebook for donating $100 million to small businesses and other acts, but they are also putting a positive spin on the tech giants efforts to censor its users for organizing groups around the country to protest state lockdowns.

The Verge website reported its Facebook-favorable version of the ongoing story:

Facebook is a publicly traded company that mostly operates in rational and predictable ways. Facebook is also a collection of posts from more than 2 billion people, and an enduring lesson from the companys history is that those people often operate in irrational and unpredictable ways. This weekend we got to witness an important tension between the two.

Facebook the company is fighting the good fight against the global pandemic. It has donated more than $100 million to small businesses and is prominently displaying vetted information from public health authorities across Facebook and Instagram. It released maps illustrating regional mobility patterns that have informed elected officials decisions to close parks and beaches. Its using machine-learning systems to help hospitals anticipate spikes in demand for intensive care unit beds, ventilators, and other supplies.

And on Monday, the company announced early results from its symptom tracker, which is asking people across the country to self-report their health status in a survey conducted by Carnegie Mellon University. Two weeks in, researchers say that results from the tracker correlate with available public health data, suggesting that the 150,000 reports a day the survey is generating can be used as an effective surrogate for in-person surveys. On Wednesday the survey will go international, in coordination with researchers at the University of Maryland.

But when it comes to reporting that almost one million people have expressed interest in attending the recent open America protests, the tone quickly goes negative and implies people who attend them are breaking the law.

But while Facebook the company works on its maps and its symptom trackers, Facebook the user base continues to post in sometimes dangerous ways, The Verge reporter wrote. And then over the past week, some people began using Facebook to organize protests of legal orders to stay home.

By Monday there were 100 state-specific groups, with more than 900,000 members who had organized at least 49 events, NBC News reported.

ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos interviewed FacebookCEO Mark Zuckerberg about the censorship.

We do classify that as harmful misinformation and we take that down, Zuckerberg said. At the same time, its important that people can debate policies, so theres a line on this, you know, more than normal political discourse. I think a lot of the stuff that people are saying that is false around a health emergency like this can be classified as harmful misinformation.

The Verge writer then goes on to compare these open America protesters to the Islamic State (ISIS).

These are the same mechanics that helped fueled the rise of anti-vaccination zealots, ISIS, and most famously Russian election interference, The Verge reported. They are mechanics that benefit enormously from Facebooks vast reach and its commitment to permit the maximum amount of speech. And they are mechanics that seem to be working basically as well as they ever have.

And so on one hand you have Facebook the company working to stop the spread of the pandemic, and on the other you have a small but growing group of users working to exacerbate it, The Verge alleged.

As Breitbart News reported, the media leaves facts about Americans rights out of coverage:

Protests and demonstrations, like other forms of lawful speech, are constitutionally protected. The First Amendment of the United States, in addition to protecting freedom of expression and religion, also specifically protects the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

President Donald Trump has been criticized for supporting protesters, saying it is their right to do so.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter.

See the rest here:

Facebook Pandemic Philanthropy Overshadowed by Its Censoring of Protests - Breitbart

Almost 60 years ago, Lady Chatterleys lover brought sex and lust into the courtroom and changed the way we thought about censoring literature.

What is it about literature and censorship? Some of the most influential books ever written have been censored because someone thought they were an affront to common decency, whatever that means. John Miltons Areopagitica (1644) was banned for political reasons; Mark Twains The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) was banned for being racially insensitive; JD Salingers The Catcher in the Rye (1951) apparently undermined morality. Melvilles Moby Dick (1851), Steinbecks The Grapes of Wrath (1939), Baldwins Another Country (1962), Orwells Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), Nabokovs Lolita (1955), all banned. As recently as 1987, Toni Morrisons Beloved (1987), Salman Rushdies The Satanic Verses (1988) and Dan Browns The Da Vinci Code (2003) were banned in some countries. In 2015 copies of Bret Easton Elliss American Psycho (1991) were confiscated from Australian bookshops because they werent shrink-wrapped.

So many books, so many bans.

One book had a massive impact on the public perception of censorship: Lady Chatterleys Lover, DH Lawrences most famous or perhaps infamous work, which was finally published in Britain in 1960, thirty-two years after hed finished it and thirty years after Lawrence himself died from tuberculosis at the age of 44.

Lady Chatterleys Lover was published in Italy back in 1928, but its sexual explicitness was quickly labelled unmitigated smut; the book was declared obscene and banned in Britain and the United States.

It wasnt Lawrences first brush with the censors. The Rainbow (1915), the novel that followed his remarkable 1913 work Sons and Lovers was also judged obscene and banned after publication. Copies of The Rainbow were unceremoniously seized and burned, the authorities outraged at Lawrences candour regarding sexual attraction and yearning. Such notoriety made it difficult for him to find a publisher for Women in Love, published in 1920, three years after hed written it. Next came Lady Chatterleys Lover.

The story revolves around Connie, the free-thinking wife of an aristocrat whose wartime injuries have left him paralysed from the waist down. She has a few flings, but when the new gamekeeper Oliver arrives on the estate, Connie is instantly aroused. Just the sight of him sensuous, muscular, masculine is enough. Oliver exudes the vitality her husband lacks. At first he rejects her advances, mindful of the social divide that separates them, but before long their encounters are pretty torrid, Lawrence describing fiery loins, helplessly desiring hands and orgasms. It was all a little too much for the establishment.

The novel is about sex and sexual desire, but its also about class and social divides and the very real search for intimacy. And importantly, its also about the aftermath of World War I, which left so many men crippled either physically, emotionally or both. As well, its said to reflect elements of Lawrences own situation with his wife Freida, a complicated relationship to say the least. Freida had affairs, claiming Lawrence was impotent; they fought, they made up. But were not going into that here.

For a week during late 1960, publishers Penguin Books had to fight at the Old Bailey for the right to publish Lawrences novel banned under the Obscene Publications Act as a cheap paperback, which would make it affordable for most people. The prosecution maintained the ban should stay, that its pornographic elements far outweighed any consideration of literary merit, and that the liberal use of certain Anglo-Saxon four-letter words was disgusting. They felt it was far too raunchy for the masses to read.

Naturally, the defence argued that the books literary qualities and the novelists status as an author of significance should take precedence over prudish notions of what constituted obscenity. The defence called some 35 witnesses, among them academics and writers (including noted authors EM Forster, Cecil Day-Lewis and Rebecca West) to attest to the literary and inherently moral value of the controversial book. An eminent bishop testified that Lawrences depictions of sex were the equivalent of an act of holy communion.

The prosecuting lawyer was a pillar of the priggish upper class, which was in many ways far more horrified by the notion of inter-class adultery than by the use of obscene language. Generally speaking, the legal profession at that time was overly concerned with public morality; lawyers felt they had a duty to protect the public from perceived filth. He read out many descriptions of lovemaking from the book clearly meant to shock listeners, but was informed by witnesses that such descriptions, including the use of the words fuck, shit, arse etc were entirely appropriate in the circumstances. His next question was met with absolute hilarity in the court:

Would you approve of your young sons, young daughters because girls can read as well as boys reading this book? Is it a book you would have lying around your own house? Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?

Not many people had servants in 1960; juries were made up of ordinary working people (this particular jury included a butcher, a labourer and a machinist), and how out of touch was this man who had seemingly only recently discovered that girls could read as well as boys? He misjudged that one; the jury took a mere three hours to determine that Lady Chatterleys Lover did not contravene the Obscene Publications Act.

The beginning of the 1960s saw conservative attitudes beginning to take a back seat. Young people were moving away from the staid and proper behaviour of their parents and grandparents. Outlooks were changing. Even attitudes towards the trial were liberal, some newspaper editorials suggesting the money spent on prosecuting a work of literature would have been better spent in the investigation of actual exploitative pornography.

But social change is slow and there were many who were thoroughly outraged by the decision. They lodged official complaints and there were incidents of book burning. Some worried their children would be corrupted by the book.

Reports say that three million copies of Lady Chatterleys Lover were sold in the few months following the trial, people keen to see what all the fuss was about and no doubt looking forward to some titillation. Over the years, Lawrences lurid descriptions of sex have lost some impact were almost bombarded with sex these days but as already touched upon, the novel isnt just about a blistering liaison. Lawrence examines the impact of industry in post-war England and has much to say on the apparent differences between the aristocracy and the working class. Its this, as much as his characterisations and explorations of what makes people tick that make him an author of renown.

Looking at the case now, its clear that Penguins victory had a lasting impact. For one thing, the governments jurisdiction over personal morality had weakened. Censorship was now being seen as an infringement of individual judgement and private ethics. Interestingly, in 1971 when the Australian-born editors of Oz magazine were tried and convicted under the Obscene Publications Act, their conviction was quickly overturned.

Lady Chatterleys Lover was in a way a victory for liberalism, the notion that a book could lead people to live a debauched lifestyle dismissed out of hand.

Can certain literature truly corrupt us? Or does it just make for expensive court cases?

Read the original:

Lady Chatterley's censor: Almost 60 years ago, a court case looked to save us from ourselves - The Big Smoke Australia

The Anti-Defamation League, which previously sought to outlaw the OK sign and Pepe the Frog, is now setting its sights on hate speech in video games. The gaming community can be toxic, but ADL-level censorship is not the answer.

Issues when it comes to the gaming community are never easy to tackle. Especially when it comes to the way that people decide to speak online. It goes without saying that inhibitions are dialed down on the internet. People will often speak in a way that they never would in public, when they realize they wont get fined, arrested, socially canceled or struck down by God if they drop a racist or homophobic slur. There were moments of playing Call of Duty 4 years ago where Id mute every single person whenever Id enter a match. The last thing I wanted to hear when shooting terrorists was some thirteen year old squawking like hes Richard Spencer at Charlottesville.

There are absolutely reprehensible things that are said on the internet. You can browse 4chan for ten seconds to realize that. But when it comes to gaming, especially competitive match environments, trash talk is almost part of the deal. People do it, and some tend to take it too far. Thats undisputable. Whats also undisputable is that there are already methods in place to deal with it. There exist mechanisms for reporting and banning players who break community rules which in virtually any game with a chat (voice or text) include prohibitions against racism, homophobia and other ways of inciting hatred.

Are those measures perfect? No. It goes without saying that, from the developers perspective, it probably feels like herding cats. But these arent idiots who are developing these games. They have experience and they have the agency to make their own rules for their own games and the interactions within.

Whether or not gamers feel safe with the community rules and the way they are enforced, they can decide for themselves by choosing or refusing to invest their dollars and their time in a given studios product. Ultimately, the fact of the matter is if you dont want to deal with other people in multiplayer outside of the competition, you dont have to.

Enter the Anti-Defamation League.

The Anti-Defamation League is a non-profit organization that works to combat anti-semitism and bigotry.

They are also the guys who branded Pepe the Frog as a hate symbol just because some online morons decided to photoshop it into something offensive and saw alt-right hate code in the OK sign and the word Boogaloo.

Oftentimes, theyre seen making public declarations whenever a public person says something particularly nasty. Other times theyre doing things that seem rather pointless, like hosting a virtual panel about xenophobia and Coronavirus. They also were rather infamously involved in the most recent adpocalypse at YouTube, where they were brought in to consult and fight hate speech.

Theres no reason not to believe the ADL will not take the same sledgehammer approach to gaming. Their ability to ignore context has already been demonstrated in the Gamesindustry.biz interview with Daniel Kelly, the assistant director for the ADLs Center for Technology, when it was first reported that the organization is preparing its foray.

The norms that come up in the qualitative research is that women and people of color go into game spaces and just turn off the mic and don't speak, because they know if they speak, they'll be identified, targeted, and harassed. That's just the reality of how they play, Kelly said.

Heres the reality. Everyone gets that sort of treatment online. Men are just as likely to receive online harassment as women, and video games are no different. Trash talk exists, and its not a pretty thing.

Kelly is worried that the video game industry fights hate by adopting the tactics of Facebook or Twitter circa 2006 . as if the Twitter and Facebook of today have it all figured out and are not suffering from excess censorship and liberal moderator bias.

There have been attempts at applying woke censorship to games before, and they have shown that those trying this approach have zero understanding of the environment and that actual gamers have zero wish for such interventions. If Bully Hunters was unnecessary, and if Anita Sarkeesians nonsense was unnecessary, then so is the ADLs.

Its certainly not fun for a twelve-year-old to tell me hes going to throw me in Auschwitz, but I can mute him because a developer thought of that ahead of time.

What you also notice is that, in the interview, the ADL is mum when it comes to the means of helping games. Thats because theyre not developers. Theyre protesters. They dont have a solution outside of censorship. Maybe they want something genuine, like less hate in the world. Maybe they want more control over peoples speech. If its the former, theyre terrible at what theyre trying to do. If its the latter, theyre sinister.

Though the systems already in place arent perfect by any means, the fact that the ADL isnt coming into it with anything aside from platitudes comes across like a power play, not genuine concern. If the ADL knew what to do from the get-go aside from doing something about hate speech they would have said it already.

To put it succinctly, the ADL is trying to bully its way into a situation that it has no business in on the assumption that companies like Valve and Blizzard have no clue what theyre doing. Id ask this of the ADL. Of your organization, Valve, and Blizzard, which is the one that makes money off of innovation? I think they can handle things themselves.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

See the rest here:

The ADL wants to fight hate in video games, but ham-fisted CENSORSHIP is the last thing we gamers need - RT

Getty

During the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been many economic and political measures. One of the most unfortunate ones is censorship of the Internet.

NetBlocks, a civil society group working at the intersection of digital rights, cyber-security and internet governance, reported on strange Internet outages in Wuhan during certain nights when the COVID-19 epidemic was starting to gather steam. The Farsi version ofWikipedia was blocked for about 24 hours in Iran.

VPN company Surfshark reported that its VPN infrastructure in Iran was seeing a dropoff of 50% in connection rate after the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 13th. Their cybersecurity advisor Naomi Hedges claims that since 13 March - when [COVID-19] was labeled as a pandemic - Surfshark's connection rates inIranhave dropped by 50%. Meanwhile, our website traffic fromIranhas decreased fivefold of its usual rate. Before the announcement, we haven't experienced notable fluctuations inIran's connectivity rates, so the numbers indicate the increased attempts to censor the internet.

It comes amid reports that China too is clamping on access to the Internet outside the Great Firewall, with VPN providers and connections under strain. Chinese social media networks such as WeChat have also been reported to have censored COVID-19 related terms since December 31st in a notable incident, Dr. Li Wenliang was censured by the Wuhan police for posting about COVID-19 in a private WeChat group.

This is a threat that many cryptocurrency and Bitcoin advocates are aware of. The Internet itself is a protocol Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies depend on in order to communicate data. If the Internet is shut down or content within it is filtered/blocked, peers within a certain country would not be able to communicate with one another effectively.

If content is being censored or tracked, cryptocurrency miners and peers within a country could see their connectivity attempts to the global network be denied, effectively shuttering their ability to transact and to get the global status of the Bitcoin network.

Its why Blockstream has tried to diversify away Bitcoin from its dependency on an uncensored Internet by launching a satellite network that broadcasts data from the Bitcoin blockchain and any other data people choose to pay to upload through the Lightning Network.

This makes the cost of censoring Bitcoin and other information more expensive: nation-states go from needing to cut off domestic broadband communications to having to deploy kinetic force in space an option few countries have access to, and which would be politically unenvious even for the boldest of political leaders.

Beyond just the blunt question of on/off censorship however, cryptocurrencies and their relationship to the Internet at large pose interesting dilemmas. As central banks look more and more at digitizing their currencies and the legal attitude towards digital privacy is being redefined by COVID-19, broad changes may threaten

Centralized digital currencies will have access to lots of metadata associated per each account, including possible location data, that can be tracked and compiled.

This may be necessary in a pandemic, but in general, governments who gain hard-fought emergency powers are loath to return them. The post-9/11 period saw a spate of renewals of the authorization of military force and Patriot Act, stretched to give cover to different government powers until reform only came more than a decade later. This fact led Edward Snowden to warn that temporary surveillance powers may well outlast the COVID-19 pandemic.

As governments look to respond to COVID-19, some will look to censor the Internet and some will look to use digital tools to track their population during the crisis period, perhaps with long-lasting consequences. Both have the potential for abuse, and both pose different but ever-present threats for cryptocurrencies and our liberty at large.

Read more here:

Internet Censorship During COVID-19 Is Threat To Cryptocurrencies And Liberty - Forbes

Every day new initiatives are being announced to ensure people have the correct information on the COVID-19 pandemic, but who watches the watchers?

The BBC reported today that the UK government is cracking down on misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. This is taking the form of a rapid response unit within the Cabinet Office [that] is working with social media firms to remove fake news and harmful content. As ever harmful is undefined, but the government seems worried that people could die as a result of being misinformed.

Meanwhile an initiative started by the BBC, among others, called the Trusted News Initiative, has announced plans to tackle potentially harmful coronavirus disinformation. Most things are potentially harmful, surely, and theres something distinctly sinister about an organisation designating itself trusted. Surely thats for other people to decide.

During emergencies of this magnitude, the need for trusted, factual, evidence-based reporting is more crucial than ever, said Noel Curran, Director-General of the European Broadcasting Union, which calls itself the worlds leading alliance of public service media and is a member of the TNI.

Yet there is a tide of misinformation and bad information, driven mainly through online social platforms, which is threatening to undermine public trust and cause further anxiety for people. This initiative underlines the role of public service media in tackling misinformation head-on and delivering accurate content that audiences can safely rely on.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are all members of the TNI too and on top of this, they seem to be constantly rolling out initiatives of their own. Last week Nick Clegg, Facebooks VP of Global Affairs and Communications wrote about what the company is doing to ensure purity of information across all its platforms.

The most untainted source of COVID-19 information, according to Clegg, is the World Health Organization. So Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp are now all spamming their users with top tips from the WHO, in many cases whether they like it or not. Until recently not many people would have contested claim that the WHO is the ultimate global authority on such matters the clue is in the name, right? but the tendency of its senior leadership to overtly kowtow to China, as in the clip below, is undermining trust in it.

Speaking of Twitter, it seems to be taking a strong position on the matter of hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug that also seems to have at least some positive medical effect on COVID-19. Twitter apparently doesnt like people bigging the drug up too much on its platform, even going so far as to take down posts from President Trumps Lawyer, Rudy Giuliani and the President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, for extolling its virtues.

However, as Axios points out, Twitter is inconsistent in its implementation of this new rule, having recently permitted a tweet of clear misinformation from tech entrepreneur Elon Musk to stay up. This highlights the problem with this latest attempt at censorship, one shared with all others. The censorship decisions ultimately have to be made by humans and will therefore always be flawed.

Until recently very few people expected Twitter to be expert on the therapeutic qualities of hydroxychloroquine, yet now we do. Meanwhile Facebook has unilaterally anointed the WHO the Oracle of Healthy, despite its refusal to acknowledge Taiwan and many questions about its effectiveness in mitigating the catastrophe the world is now having to endure.

As for trusted sources, how much of the mainstream media can really be trusted? Very few publications dont have some kind of bias, with the US especially egregious in that respect. If President Trump suggested a new course of action, how sure can we be that CNN or the New York Times wouldnt dismiss it out of hand or that Fox News would subject it to proper scrutiny?

The thing is, Journalists are human too and no less prone to biases and prejudices than anyone else. At Telecoms.com we never expect our audience to unquestioningly accept everything we say and encourage stress-testing of our stories by investigating what else has been written on the matter. In fact, the more trusted a source of information claims to be, the more we would urge you to seek a second opinion.

As we have said previously, censorship is at best a game of whack-a-mole because you cant perfect speech. You cant have good speech without bad speech and attempts to eradicate the latter lead to no speech at all, at least none that you can hear in public. In practice censorship just drives banned speech underground, where it gains prominence and is subject to far less scrutiny.

There is currently an abundance of official information on the coronavirus pandemic, meaning supposed misinformation can easily be fact-checked by anyone with an internet connection. Nothing can be done about those who choose not to and attempting to protect such people from themselves through blanket censorship and culling of information sources is both futile and repressive.

The rest is here:

Social media censorship in the time of coronavirus - Telecoms.com

The coronavirus pandemic has caused governments all over the world to introduce drastic emergency measures, suspending many of the freedoms that citizens normally take for granted. Many of these measures are necessary in order to save lives. To flatten the curve through social distancing, we must be willing to sacrifice certain liberties for the safety of our colleagues, friends, and family.

However, an increasing number of governments are also using the current health emergency to suppress criticism and undesirable information through the proliferation of laws against disinformation. Free speech advocates have long warned against so-called fake news bans, fearing that they would prove to be, at best, a well-intended but ill-conceived effort to address a real problem and, at worst, another weapon in the authoritarians arsenal. Examples abound of these laws applied as a weapon against critics and dissidents, rather than a balm for misinformation. In countries such as Egypt and Singapore, applications of fake news restrictions have led to troubling prosecutions oflawyers,anti-harassment activists,opposition politicians, andwatchdog groups.

The current coronavirus outbreak has undoubtedly resulted in the viral spread of misinformation, a veritable infodemic that poses a challenge to containment efforts. Yet the fears that fake news laws are an antidote whose side effects may be worse than the disease are being borne out. Across the globe, illiberal leadersfacing questions about their preparedness to deal with a pandemic that has killed nearly 45,000 people, at a time when too few states appear to be equipped for the challengesee fake news bans as convenient tools to suppress criticism and accurate information just as readily as misinformation.

In Cambodia,Human Rights Watch foundthat at least 17 people have been arrested on fake news charges for comments they made about the coronavirus. The detainees include four members or supporters of the dissolved opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), all of whom remain in pretrial detention, as well as a teenage girl who was arrested and subjected to police questioning about her social media posts expressing fear about potential positive diagnoses in her area.

[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how its affecting countries around the world.]

In Thailand, aman was arrestedafter complaining on Facebook about a lack of preventative measures at Bangkoks Suvarnabhumi Airport. He wrote that the airport did not enforce any coronavirus screening against him or his fellow passengers returning from Barcelona, even though Spain now has more coronavirus cases than China, the original epicenter. His arrest is part of a larger effort to crack down on alleged misinformation, which happens to include criticism of Thailands response to the outbreak. These efforts include threats of lawsuits, firings, and punishment against journalists and medical staff who have pointed out the strain that the coronavirus is placing on the countrys public health system.

Turkey has unfortunately become infamous for its suppression of criticism under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. So its unsurprising that, as of a March 16report, authorities had identified at least 93 suspects allegedly responsible for unfounded and provocative social media comments about the coronavirus, and they had arrested 19 of them. Reuterswritesthat the Turkish interior ministry was acting to arrest social media users whose posts were targeting officials and spreading panic and fear by suggesting that the virus had spread widely in Turkey and that officials had taken insufficient measures. But, only 10 days later, the New York Timesreporteda marked surge in Turkish coronavirus cases, outstripping rates in most other countries. While this is obviously politically inconvenient for the Turkish government, it might not be false, then, to suggest that Turkey, like the United States, Italy, and Spain, is insufficiently prepared for the threat of the coronavirus.

A number of other authoritarian and illiberal states such as Egypt, Azerbaijan, Russia, Iran, the Philippines, Honduras, and Singapore are taking similar steps byharassing journalists,adopting new lawsspecifically aimed at suppressing fake news, or using existing onesto targetundesirable content on social media.

A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic

However, even countries formally committed to democracy have been infected with the irresistible urge to fight the coronavirus with censorship. On its officialhome page,the South African government warns: Anyone that creates or spreads fake news about the Coronavirus COVID-19 is liable for prosecution. In Indias Himachal Pradesh state, a journalist was arrested on charges of spreading fake news about COVID-19 on social media.

And in Hungary, where democracy has long been in decline under the illiberal government of Prime MinisterViktor Orban, the coronavirus outbreak has offered Orban another opportunity to cement and drastically expand his authority. On March 30, the countrys parliament passedan emergency bill that gives Orban sweeping powers to rule by decree, without a clear cut-off date, according to the Guardian. One terrifying provision of the law? Theintroductionof prison terms of up to five years for anyone publicising false information that alarms the public or impedes government efforts to protect people, the Guardian reports. This bill, with its vague and broad definitions, is a gift to a proven authoritarian who has already made clear his distaste for journalists and critics.

The censorship bug has spread to social media platforms themselves. Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter walk a tight line between ensuring the spread of vital information to affected populations and limiting the virality of potentially harmful disinformationsome of it state-sponsored. But due to lockdown measures, the use of automated content moderation has increased on social media platforms where algorithms, rather than humans, have removed well-researched journalistic coronavirus stories from media outlets including the Atlantic and the New York Times. This unintended consequence vividly demonstrates the dangers of erring on the side of censorship in times of even real emergencies.

Its true that many social media postsand even government statementsabout the coronavirus have been unwittingly inaccurate or, worse, intentionally false and intended to spread panic or bigotry. All may be deserving of responses, whether to ensure dangerous medical disinformation is countered with facts or to show support for groups that have been targeted with racist rhetoric. But fake news bans, and the harm they inflict upon civil society and aid they provide to authoritarians, are too tough a pill to swallow.

At a time when information and transparency are necessary to combat this pandemic, it is vital that government-led censorship be identified, exposed, and rejected. The devastating effects of censorship during Chinas initial outbreak make this clear. Had China not engaged in censorship of information it claimed to be false in nearly every step of the outbreakthreatening or silencingdoctors, whistleblowers, journalists, and social media usersits possible that its citizens wouldve been more prepared and taken better precautions that wouldve limited the spread. (This, of course, does not absolve such leaders as U.S. President Donald Trump who are responsible for their own failures to sufficiently prepare for the outbreak or warn their citizens about its dangers.)

The idea that governments should tolerate even false and misleading information is deeply counterintuitive at a time when people around the world are desperate for certainty and reliable information about an outbreak threatening millions of lives. In such times it is tempting to demand prompt and urgent action to combat those who undermine national and global efforts through disinformation. However, the feedback loop of informationmuch of which will be unreliable or wrongis critical in efforts to identify the most efficient responses and communicate them to the public.

Harsh and unprecedented measures are needed to combat the coronavirus. But censorship is not part of the cure, and the more authoritarians use it, the more well see that its a symptom of another disease.

Read more:

The Coronavirus Has Started a Censorship Pandemic in Turkey, Hungary, Thailand, and Around the World - Foreign Policy

It is 40 years since Howard Brentons play The Romans in Britain, directed by Michael Bogdanov, opened at Londons National Theatre. Set in ancient Rome, it deals with themes of imperialism and abuse of power, and became infamous for a brief episode in its first act when actors Peter Sproule and Greg Hicks portrayed an act of male rape.

The play made legal and political history when morality campaigner Mary Whitehouse tried to prosecute Bogdanov using the Sexual Offences Act 1956, alleging that he had procured an act of gross indecency between two men by directing the two actors.

The controversy reflected the cultural wars of the time. Thirteen years before the play had opened, the Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised homosexual acts in private between two men. Yet as Geoffrey Robertson QC, who was a junior barrister for the defence, says, the attitude of the law was that it was not to be encouraged or legitimised.

Theatre censorship became less common after the Theatres Act abolished the lord chamberlains historic role of censor in 1968, but homophobic attitudes were still the norm. In 1976, Whitehouse, described by Robertson as the self-appointed conscience of the nation, sent her solicitor Graham Ross-Cornes to see The Romans in Britain, and then sought to bring her case.

The director of public prosecutions, Thomas Hetherington, advised the attorney general, Michael Havers, that the play did not contravene the Theatres Act. So Whitehouse tried another route and sought to prosecute Bogdanov under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The legislation was designed to prevent men soliciting in public lavatories which is why, according to Robertson, the prosecution treated the National Theatre as a large public toilet.

Defence barrister Jeremy Hutchinson compiled a list of actors who were willing to give evidence for Bogdanov, while the prosecution only planned to call Ross-Cornes.

His evidence in the trial at the Old Bailey, Robertson says, prompted one of the most amazing piece of cross-examination ever heard. Giving his evidence, Ross-Cornes had not said where in the theatre he had been sitting.

Barristers are reluctant ever to ask a question in court to which they do not know the answer, and Hutchinson had to be persuaded to ask Ross-Cornes to mark on a map of the theatre where he had watched the production from.

The plan came back showing he had been sitting in the back row of the upper circle, 90 yards from the action. This exchange followed:

Hutchinson: You know that theatre is the art of illusion?

Ross-Cornes: If you say so, Lord Hutchinson.

Hutchinson: And as part of that illusion actors use physical gestures to convey impressions to an audience?

Ross-Cornes: Yes, I would accept that.

Hutchinson: And from the back row, 90 yards from the stage, you can be certain that what you saw was the tip of the actors penis?

Ross-Cornes: Well, if you put it that way, I cant be absolutely certain. But what else could it have been?

At this point Hutchinson balled up his fist, placed his hand by his groin and his gown over his hand, stuck out his thumb and made a thrusting action. He then asked: Are you sure you did not see the tip of the actors thumb? Ross-Corness subsequent admission that he might have been mistaken halted the trial.

As Robertson says, the case put an end to Whitehouses courtroom crusades. Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, meanwhile, says the cases impact went beyond the play itself: The failure of the prosecution was a huge victory, not just for LGBT+ people and the theatre world, but also against censorship and for liberal Britain. It struck a blow for gay visibility, against the homophobes and puritans.

But Lord Michael Cashman, the actor who played Colin Russell on Eastenders and portrayed the first ever gay kiss in a UK soap opera, says: The case was a very clear indicator that homosexuality would not even be tolerated, let alone expressed on a theatre stage.

He is unsure that the case accelerated the campaign for equality but says it was a vivid reminder that our rights were non-existent.

He says the support that the defence received from senior figures across the creative industries was heartening and encouraging, but adds: It must be remembered that they were defending not particularly homosexual issues but the right to artistic independence, as well as challenging the notion of censorship via the imposition of anothers perspective on morality.

See the article here:

Landmarks in law: the controversial 80s play that defied gay censorship - The Guardian

In times of mortal strife, humans crave information more than ever, and its journalists responsibility to deliver it.

But what if that information is inaccurate, or could even kill people?

Thats the quandary journalists have found themselves in as they decide whether to cover President Donald J. Trumps press briefings live.

Some television networks have started cutting away from the briefings, saying the events are no more than campaign rallies, and that the president is spreading falsehoods that endanger the public.

If Trump is going to keep lying like he has been every day on stuff this important, we should, all of us, stop broadcasting it, MSNBCs Rachel Maddow tweeted. Honestly, its going to cost lives.

News decisions and ethical dilemmas arent simple, but withholding information from the public is inconsistent with journalistic norms, and while well-meaning, could actually cause more harm than good in the long run. Keeping the presidents statements from the public prevents the public from being able to evaluate his performance, for example.

The Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, updated in 2014 during my term as president, states that the press must seek truth and report it, while also minimizing harm.

When the president of the United States speaks, it matters it is newsworthy, its history in the making. Relaying that event to the public as it plays out is critical for citizens, who can see and hear for themselves what their leader is saying, and evaluate the facts for themselves so that they may adequately self-govern.

Thats true even if leaders lie. Actually, its even more important when leaders lie.

Think of libertarian philosopher John Miltons plea for the free flow of information and end of censorship in 1600s England. Put it all out there and let people sort the lies from the truth, Milton urged: Let her and Falsehood grapple.

If a president spreads lies and disinformation, or minimizes health risks, then the electorate needs to know that to make informed decisions at the polls, perhaps to vote the person out to prevent future missteps.

Likewise, theres a chance the president could be correct in his representation of at least some of the facts.

Its not up to journalists to decide, but simply report what is said while providing additional context and facts that may or may not support what the president said.

Maddow is correct that journalists should not simply parrot information spoon fed by those in power to readers and viewers who might struggle to make sense of it in a vacuum. That is why its imperative journalists continuously challenge false and misleading statements, and trust the public to figure it out.

Those who would urge the medias censorship of the presidents speeches may feel they are protecting citizens from being duped, because they believe the average person cant distinguish fact from fiction. Communication scholars call this third-person effect, where we feel ourselves savvy enough to identify lies, but think other more vulnerable, gullible and impressionable minds cannot.

It is understandable why journalists would try to protect the public from lies. Thats the minimizing harm part in the SPJ code of ethics, which is critical in these times, when inaccurate information can put a persons health at risk or cause them to make a fatal decision.

So how do journalists report the days events while minimizing harm and tamping down the spread of disinformation? Perhaps this can be accomplished through techniques already in use during this unorthodox presidential period:

Report the press briefings live for all to see, while providing live commentary and fact-checking, as PolitiFact and others have done for live presidential debates.

Fact-check the president after his talks, through contextual stories that provide the public accurate information, in the media and through websites such as FactCheck.org.

Call intentional mistruths what they are: Lies. With this administration, journalists have become more willing to call intentional falsehoods lies, and that needs to continue, if not even more bluntly.

Develop a deep list of independent experts that can be on hand to counter misinformation as it is communicated.

Report transparently and openly, clearly identifying sources, providing supplemental documents online, and acknowledging limitations of information.

The coronavirus pandemic is a critical time for the nations health and its democracy. Now, more than ever, we need information. As humans, we crave knowing what is going on around us, a basic awareness instinct, as termed by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in their foundational book, The Elements of Journalism.

Sometimes people dont even realize they need information until after they have lost it.

In his autobiography, the late Sen. John McCain wrote that upon his release after five years as a Vietnamese prisoner of war, the first thing he did when he got to a Philippines military base was order a steak dinner and stack of newspapers.

I wanted to know what was going on in the world, and I grasped anything I could find that might offer a little enlightenment, McCain wrote. The thing I missed most was information free, uncensored, undistorted, abundant information.

People arent dummies. They can decipher good information from bad, as long as they have all the facts at their disposal.

And journalists are the ones best positioned to deliver it.

[You need to understand the coronavirus pandemic, and we can help. Read our newsletter.]

Read more:

It's a bad idea for journalists to censor Trump instead, they can help the public identify what's true or false - The Conversation US

An increasing number of governments - including Turkey - are using emergency measures to deal with the coronavirus pandemic to suppress criticism and undesirable information, said analysts writing in the magazine Foreign Policy.

Many freedoms that citizens take for granted have been suspended in order to save lives during the pandemic, and misinformation poses a challenge to containment of the virus. But the proliferation of laws and censorship against supposed fake news, or disinformation, in countries such as Turkey, Egypt, and Singapore has led to troubling prosecutions and harassment of lawyers, anti-harassment activists, opposition politicians, and watchdog groups, said FP on Wednesday.

Across the globe, illiberal leaders - facing questions about their preparedness to deal with a pandemic that has killed nearly 45,000 people, at a time when too few states appear to be equipped for the challenge - see fake news bans as convenient tools to suppress criticism and accurate information just as readily as misinformation, said FP.

The FP said that, as Turkey has become infamous for its suppression of criticism under the rule of President Recep Tayyip Erdoan, it is unsurprising that the authorities had identified at least 93 suspects allegedly responsible for unfounded and provocative social media comments about the coronavirus, and had arrested 19 of them.

The Turkish Interior Ministry has been arresting social media users whose posts were targeting officials and spreading panic and fear by suggesting that the virus had spread widely in Turkey and that officials had taken insufficient measures, said FP, citing a Reuters report.

But Turkey on Wednesday confirmed 63 new deaths of people who contracted the coronavirus, marking the second consecutive deadliest day in the battle against COVID-19.With the new numbers, the total number of coronavirus deaths in Turkey have reached 277, Health Minister Fahrettin Koca said.

Another 2,148 people have tested positive for the deadly virus, raising the total number of COVID-19 cases in the country to 15,679, he added.

While this is obviously politically inconvenient for the Turkish government, it might not be false, then, to suggest that Turkey, like the United States, Italy, and Spain, is insufficiently prepared for the threat of the coronavirus, said the FP.

The FP also detailed a range of similar prosecutions and harassment under the guise of tacking disinformation in Cambodia, Thailand, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Russia, Iran, the Philippines, Honduras, Singapore, South Africa, India, and Hungary. Many social media platforms have also taken down well-researched coronavirus content.

The FP said that censorship in China by threatening or silencing doctors, whistleblowers, journalists, and social media users during the outbreak has demonstrated the harm in such an approachas its citizens would have been more prepared and taken better precautions to limit the spread of the virus.

At a time when information and transparency are necessary to combat this pandemic, it is vital that government-led censorship be identified, exposed, and rejected, said FP.

Link:

Turkey among several countries censoring their coronavirus critics - Ahval

In brief

The Bitcoin Core website is now reachable through the dark web, according to a statement on March 27. It will provide a greater level of resistance against censorship.

The Bitcoin Core website posts the latest updates to the open-source Bitcoin software. Bitcoin Core is maintained by a large group of developers.

The darknet or dark web is a part of the Internet that's hidden from Google. Image: Shutterstock.

After frequent requests, this site is now reachable as a Tor hidden service through an onion address, the post stated, adding, As well as adding another means of censorship resistance, a hidden service gives an alternative trust path that doesnt rely on certificate authorities nor DNS infrastructure.

Certificate authorities check that websites are genuine while the DNS infrastructure is what connects IP addresses to domain names, such as http://www.bitcoincore.org. By making the site accessible via the dark web, it becomes less reliant on these technologies.

The dark web is a segment of the Internet not indexed by traditional search engines. On the most basic level, this means that you cant find or visit a dark web site unless you know its exact URL-address. The dark web can be accessed via the Tor browser.

While the dark web is most commonly associated with illegal activities, such as buying and selling drugs, it can be used for legitimate reasons.

In October 2019, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) made its website available to Tor users last October by providing a dark web copy. This made its content available in Vietnam, China and Iran, where it was being censored.

However, the dark web can be risky to use. As Decrypt reported last year, malicious actors have used the onion network to steal Bitcoin funds from unsuspecting users.

More:

Bitcoin Core shifts to dark web to resist censorship - Decrypt

JOIN 12,000+ OTHERS:

Covid-19, the condition that first rose from a wet market in Wuhan, is now crippling a better part of the world. While China says that it is recovering and is returning to normalcy, it is worth noting that the country has time and again wiped evidence, manipulated the state media, and blatantly lied.

This has been the same way the country tackled the SARS outbreak hiding facts and silencing whistleblowers.

A leader of the WHO that recently visited China was in awe of the countrys miraculous recovery from the outbreak. I think the key learning from China is speed its all about the speed, said Dr. Bruce Aylward.

That has been true indeed. Whether it was building an emergency hospital in ten days or suppressing the news of the mysterious infection from December till January, the Chinese Communist Party was indeed swift.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

Heres a brief account of all the activity that took place prior to China officially acknowledging the fact that it was hit with an epidemic disease:

First, the government workers and officials of Wuhan kept mum when several people were falling sick and suffered from a set of common symptoms. Not a single official divulged the dire situation to any media personnel within the country.

Secondly, by December 25, Dr. Lu Xiaohong, who first recognized that some catastrophic was about to occur, hesitated to speak up to the authorities or media persons.

In China, journalists and their sources face a harsh action for speaking up about any concerning happenings in the country.

Had it not been so risky, Lu would have revealed the facts to at least one media outlet, if not higher authorities, who should have probably made the news public.

MORE:Viral video shows Police in China arriving at womans door, telling her to delete coronavirus post

Finally, when a group of whistleblowers tried to make it public knowledge that there was an infection ravaging the masses, they were arrested on grounds of circulating false rumors.

Whats more, eight of these whistleblowers have passed away from coronavirus infection. Finally, by December 31, China broke its silence and intimated the WHO about the to-be pandemic.

Four days after China revealed the Coronavirus outbreak to the WHO, it ended up sequencing the virus, and yet again, chose not to reveal the information immediately. So despite sequencing the virus on January 5th, the information was not out till January 11th, when the first coronavirus-related death surfaced.

MORE:Dr. Li Wenliang, who was reprimanded for warning people of coronavirus on Weibo, has died

Now, despite publicly declaring the news of coronavirus infections, China went on to censor several keywords related to the outbreak on its highly controlled platform, WeChat.

According to an analysis by the University of South Hampton, it was revealed that China could have potentially manipulated the statistics of the number of coronavirus-infected people by as much as 67%.

The study estimates that by the end of February 2020 there was a total of 114, 325 COVID-19 cases in China. It shows that without non-pharmaceutical interventions such as early detection, isolation of cases, travel restrictions and cordon sanitaire the number of infected people would have been 67 times larger than that which actually occurred, reads an excerpt taken from the analysis.

MORE:China tells citizens to only share coronavirus news from state-run media, or face up to seven years in jail

The leading international NGO Reporters Without Borders also claims that Chinas lackadaisical attitude when it came to revealing the growth and spread of the Coronavirus could cost millions of lives around the globe.

Without the control and censorship imposed by the authorities, the Chinese media would have informed the public much earlier of the severity of the coronavirus epidemic, sparing thousands of lives and perhaps avoiding the current pandemic, argued the RSF.

Sadly, most social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are also blocked in China, meaning that the citizens cant even reach out to social media and share their angst with their fellow countrymen.

While tech-savvy individuals still browse the social media networks with the help of VPNs, they still remain silent about the surrounding happenings. Because in China, expressing dissent from the governments actions can end up causing costly repercussions.

Cut to a decade earlier, there was another epidemic, much like the coronavirus, that the Chinese government ended up successfully dealing with: The SARS pandemic.

China got away with manipulating the figures, consequences, and every possible detail of the epidemic; back then, the internet was still in its nascent stages, meaning that people did not have social media and other similar outlets to spread information.

While the WHO is simply blowing the trumpet of the Chinese government and its excellent measures in tackling the coronavirus outbreak, it must account for the blatant censorship and manipulation of the truth that takes place behind the scenes and the lives that it cost.

View post:

The mounting human cost of Chinas coronavirus censorship - Reclaim The Net