BBC News | El Salvador media bill prompts 'censorship' claim - BBC News BBC News The government says the press should self-regulate violent stories to help the nation's mental health. |
Continue reading here:
El Salvador media bill prompts 'censorship' claim - BBC News - BBC News
Health + Tech /13 Jul 2017
Organized protests are taking place against the Trump administrations goal of dismantling net neutrality, which will enable the powerful plutocrats who rule the United States to severely limit the ability of Americans to share anti-establishment ideas and information online. The United States of America is not a democracy, nor a democratic republic, nor a representative democracy, nor a constitutional republic, nor any combination of the above. America is effectively a corporatist oligarchy, according to a Cambridge University-published study conducted by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin.
Since the Supreme Court has slowly made it legal for the billionaire class to fully control the US government by legalizing corporate lobbying and campaign funding in a way that undeniably amounts to legalized bribery (see 1976s Buckley v. Valeo, 1978s First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, and 2010s Citizens United v. FEC), America is now ruled by the wealthy and the people who serve them as surely as a monarchy is ruled by a king or queen.
Ending net neutrality in the name of letting the Magical Free Market Economics Fairy sort things out in an unregulated system, as FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has been advocating, only makes sense if you live in a fictional America that isnt ruled by a small group of plutocrats. Since no American lives in a country wherein ordinary citizens can influence their government in any meaningful way, this cannot possibly be the case.
The US is a nation whose entire government is ultimately answerable only to the owners of enormous multinational corporations and banks, which means that deregulating the ability of those plutocrats to control internet communications is the exact same thing as allowing state censorship. Its easy to get lost in the smaller battles and partisan politics, but when you zoom out and look at the big picture US politics can accurately be described as the slow, suffocating process of robbing the American people of power and giving it to the plutocrats while preserving the illusion of democracy. This new bid to dismantle net neutrality is just one more of the many, many steps that have been taken over many generations to allow this to happen.
Net neutrality is an obstacle for US oligarchs in that it hamstrings their ability to manipulate web traffic away from information which challenges their rule. By dismantling an independent internet, the ever-growing media conglomerates who provide internet services will be able to choke off smaller independent sites by slowing them down with an unaffordable fee for faster service, which will put fewer eyes on dissenting online media. That may be all they need to do to strangle the media revolution, which for the first time in history caused Americas unelected power establishment to completely lose control of the narrative on both ends of the political spectrum in 2016.
The internet has been causing many problems for the ruling class, who up until very recently were able to use the consolidated legacy media they own to manipulate and control the way Americans think and vote. Last year, saw a populist candidate named Bernie Sanders nearly secure the Democratic party nomination while openly using the word oligarchy on national television and speaking out against the billionaire class. Then the official preferred candidate failed to win the general election. This all happened because the American people were able to use the alternative media, social media and WikiLeaks to form their own narratives about what was happening in their country.
Now, the oligarchs were never afraid of either Sanders nor Trump; subsequent events have shown that the US power establishment has been able to push those two individuals around pretty effectively. What they feared, and continue to fear, is the way the people broke out of their corporate media brain boxes and started fighting to take power away from the oligarchs and give it back to themselves. If they lose the ability to manufacture the consent of the governed using their media propaganda machine, they will be unable to govern, and people will use their insurmountable numbers to overthrow them by whatever means.
I feel very confident telling all of my readers that no matter where you are on the political spectrum, the dismantling of net neutrality is bad for you. Go to YouTube and watch some video footage of Ajit Pai right now. Ignore his words and just watch his face, listen to his tone of voice. That is not a sincere person. You can feel it in your guts. Trust that feeling. This former Verizon lawyer isnt trying to dismantle net neutrality because he wants to help you; this former Verizon lawyer is trying to dismantle net neutrality because he wants to hurt you. He wants to take away your power and give it to the ruling class he serves.
Net neutrality was one of the very few victories the American people were able to secure for themselves prior to last year, and they need to fight for it. It will be a challenge, because the ruling elites want the internet as loyal to pro-establishment narratives as they can possibly make it, but its worth fighting for. Dont let these creeps take this away from you.
Read more from the original source:
Large numbers of internet users in China have used elaborate methods to get round the censors to express their grief over the death from liver cancer of the political activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo.
References to Lius name were blocked on Weibo, Chinas version of Twitter, as well as other phrases linked to the rights activist such as I have no enemy a line from his final statement to court during his trial on subversion charges in 2009.
Liu was sentenced to 11 years in jail, but was released on medical parole and treated in hospital after his cancer was diagnosed in May. He died on Thursday.
Other references to Liu blocked online on the mainland included RIP and Emojis of candles, a common method used by internet users to express mourning, such as after natural disasters or serious accidents.
Liu Xiaobo the quiet, determined teller of Chinas inconvenient truths
Blocked searches on Weibo led to a message appearing saying the result cannot be displayed according to relevant laws, regulations and policies.
Similar censorship was in place on WeChat, Chinas hugely popular instant messaging app.
Internet users managed to express their sadness for Lius death by using indirect references to the political activist or through pictures and screenshots.
Many posts referring to Liu, however, were still blocked.
Abnormal weather appeared in many places around the nation and heavy rain poured down, one person wrote on Weibo, Maybe the gods were sad about someones death.
Many articles and poems written by Liu or his wife, plus the cover of Lius doctoral thesis, were widely circulated on WeChat.
Rest in peace, Dr Liu of Beijing Normal University, one of the posts said.
Internet users also posted screenshots of reports and obituaries released by overseas media about Lius death.
State-run media have largely remained silent about the Nobel Peace Prize winners passing.
However, the Global Times, a tabloid controlled by the Communist Party mouthpiece the Peoples Daily, said mourners were putting on a grand show of sorrow. The article was later removed online.
In another article, the newspaper said that Liu was a victim led astray by the West".
Liu lived in an era when China witnessed the most rapid growth in recent history, but he attempted to confront Chinese mainstream society under Western support, it said.
This determined his tragic life. Even if he could have lived longer, he would never have achieved his political goals that are in opposition to the path of history, it added.
Censors appear to have stepped up their surveillance and cast a wider net to catch posts with indirect references Liu as news of his death spread.
The most recent 200 Weibo posts deleted on Weibo were all related to Lius death on Friday morning, according to Weiboscope, a University of Hong Kong project that tracks censorship on the social media platform.
Live on well: fury, farewells and Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobos last words to his wife
None of the deleted tweets contained Lius name, with many referring to the activist simply as him.
Nearly a 10th of the censored posts after the announcement of Lius death on Thursday night contained the Chinese words for rain and storm.
Some of the messages trying to circumvent censorship by adding text inside pictures were also blocked.
Liu, 61, died of multiple organ failure on Thursday, according to statement released by the hospital treating him in Shenyang in Liaoning province.
Liu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010. He was represented at the ceremony by an empty chair.
Additional reporting by Kinling Lo
Read the original post:
How Chinese internet users got round censors to mourn Liu Xiaobo - South China Morning Post
NEW DELHI He may have won a Nobel Prize, but renowned Harvard economist Amartya Sen cannot say the word cow in a new documentary, Indias movie censorship board has ruled.
The documentary, called The Argumentative Indian, is named after abookof essays written by Sen thatdwells (rather ironically) on Indias long history of intellectual pluralism and public debate. The movie will not get a license for public screenings in India unless the cuts are implemented.
Censors have not said why the word cow is objectionable. The documentary at one point talks about the Hindu nationalist, self-styled cow protectors who attack people, mainly Muslims, for carrying or eating beef. Hindus consider the cow tobesacred.
The move comes against the backdrop of a rising nationalistic fervor in India after the victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2014. The party has pushed policies in line with its conservative view of Hinduism, the predominant religion in this diverse nation.
Director Suman Ghosh told IndiasTelegraphnewspaper that the censorship underlines the relevance of the documentary in which Sen highlights the growing intolerance in India.
He added, There is no way I would agree to beep or mute or change anything that one of the greatest minds of our times has said in the documentary.
It wasnt just cows that caught the censors attention.Ghosh was also asked by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to remove words such as Gujarat, the name of an Indian state, Hindu India, and Hindutva view of India, referring to the nationalist Hindu ideologyespousedby the BJP.The filmmakers face a lengthy appeals process through which they will attempt to fight the censorship boards decision.
In India, where films draw audiences numbering in the millions, nationalist ideology has slowly seeped into the experience of going to the movies. In 2016, the Supreme Court ordered that thenational anthembe played before every screening and that audiences must stand during it.
The CBFC has increasingly comeunder firefor overzealous censorship and moral policing under the leadership of Pahlaj Nihalani, avocal supporterof the BJP, who appears to take offense at any implied criticism of India or Hinduism.
Recently, the board asked directors to remove all references to the northern state of Punjab in a crime drama called Udta Punjab, meaning Flying Punjab or High Punjab. Instead, the board demanded, the movie should be set in a fictional land. Censors made no comment at the time as to why references to Punjab were objectionable.
In the recent James Bond movie, Spectre, a kissing scene was cut short. Another controversy involves an upcoming Bollywood romantic comedy called Jab Harry Met Sejal, playing on the title of When Harry Met Sally, in which censors objected to the word intercourse.
The threat of violence from right-wing mobs also has resulted in censorship in recent months. In the Bollywood blockbuster Ae Dil Hai Mushkil, the role ofPakistani actor Fawad Khan was allegedly trimmed after a right-wing groupthreatenedto burn cinemas down.
The Argumentative Indian, which centers onSen, shows clips of his conversations with former World Bank chief economist Kaushik Basu.
The word cow, which the board wants removed from the film, is heard in an answer to Basus question about the context of Sen'sbook, according to the Telegraph. As part of his answer, Sen says, There was a kind of grandness of vision there, and an integrated picture which hangs together in trying to embrace each other, not through chastising people for having mistreated a cow or some other thing, but dealing with people in terms of argument.
Speaking tothe Telegraph, Harvard historian Sugata Bose, who also features in the documentary, lambasted attempts to block the film. It is a preposterous and unacceptable assault on the freedom of expression. The film ought to be given a certificate immediately. It is an academic film primarily where every word has been carefully weighed, he said.
Follow this link:
Armenia's Golden Apricot international film festival has run into controversy as rights activists accuse organizers of censorship for scrapping part of the event that featured two films dealing with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) themes.
The two features, Listen To Me: Untold Stories Beyond Hatred and Apricot Groves, were scheduled outside the competitive portion of the weeklong festival under the rubric Armenians: Internal And External Views.
Festival organizers, however, canceled the entire slate of 36 films by Armenian directors, as well as foreign productions about Armenia and Armenians, to be shown in the section, saying only that they "apologize for any inconveniences."
The move immediately sparked a backlash from filmmakers and rights groups who said it was a thinly veiled attempt at censorship reminiscent of the Soviet era and the Ottoman Empire.
"We condemn the actions of both the Union of Cinematography of Armenia, that has dared to censor the special program of the Golden Apricot International Festival because of the themes broached in the films Listen To Me: Untold Stories Beyond Hatred and Apricot Groves," more than 100 of the country's filmmakers, artists, and rights advocates said in a letter to the organizers.
"Golden Apricot should immediately restore the screening of all films regardless of the format. Otherwise the Golden Apricot International Festival should accept that they are the ones who are legitimizing the censorship and changes in the festival."
Facing Prejudice
Though homosexuality has been legal in Armenia since 2003, the subject is still taboo within Armenian society, which is firmly guided by the Apostolic Church.
The country does not recognize formalized same-sex relationships performed locally, has no antidiscrimination laws, and gay men are declared mentally ill and unfit for military service.
In the documentary Listen To Me, written by Hovhannes Ishkhanyan and directed by Gagik Ghazerah, 10 members of the LGBT community relate their experiences of coming out to their friends, families, and community.
Included in the group is Tsomak Oganezova, the owner of a gay pub in Yerevan that was firebombed and vandalized with Nazi symbols in 2012. Oganezova has said she left Armenia after the attacks "to be with those like me."
Pouria Heidary Oureh's Apricot Groves is about Aram, an Iranian-Armenian trans man who has lived in the United States since childhood. The story follows him as he returns to Armenia to meet his girlfriend's conservative family and make preparations for their marriage.
Both films have already been featured at festivals around the world.
"Understanding the fact that this is not only discrimination against the Armenian LGBT community, and a violation of freedom of expression and freedom to create, but also a slap to Armenian cinematography, we are calling upon the Ministry of Culture of Armenia, the staff, and sponsors, and partners of the...festival to put all their efforts to restore the whole...program," supporters wrote in a petition to Culture Minister Armen Amiryan*, the Cinematographers Union, and festival organizers.
'Officially Sanctioned Hate'
Given the hostile conditions they face, many LGBT people say they remain closeted to avoid discrimination and violence.
In 2015, a local tabloid outed dozens of LGBT advocates, calling on readers to shun them and providing links to their Facebook profiles. The victims filed suit against the publication, but the court ruled in favor of the paper and made the plaintiffs pay $100 in fees.
That incident came after a 2012 study was published showing 55 percent of Armenians would reject a friend or relative if they came out.
"Hate speech in Armenia is rising day by day," activist Mamikon Hovsepyan said after being one of the journalists outed by the tabloid. "The homophobic media has the support of government officials and promotes aggression and hate toward LGBT people."
This year, jury members at the Golden Apricot festival include Britain's Hugh Hudson, who directed the Oscar-winning 1981 epic Chariots Of Fire, and Dutch director Tom Fassaert.
*CORRECTED from original version.
See the original post:
Armenian Film Festival Sparks LGBT Outrage, Cries Of Censorship - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty
BY: Katelyn Caralle July 11, 2017 10:36 am
The Associated Press Stylebook, the traditional journalist stylistic handbook for decades, has sparked controversy over new updates that have right-leaning journalists and politicians concerned about potentially biased language.
The AP annually updates its stylebook in the spring to give journalists guidance on style and grammar. These changes are often analyzed and publicized, but the most recent updates have some observers particularly concerned.
Fox News host Shannon Bream on Tuesday listed changes that have some people questioning if the intent is to censor words more likely to be used by conservatives.
"The AP Stylebook tells people to change pro-life' to anti-abortion,'" Bream reported. "Militant,' lone wolves,' or attackers,' those are the preferred terms rather than terrorist' or Islamist.' And illegal immigrant' or undocumented,' well those are no longer considered acceptable words."
Dave Hoppe, former chief of staff to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), discussed the importance of language and the AP's changes along with the campaign director at the Center for Progress Action Fund, Emily Tisch Sussman.
"The thing you have to look at is that use of language is a very powerful tool. And to make choices like this, and I think in some cases bias choices like this, is something you have to watch very carefully," Hoppe said. "In extreme cases, this is actually censorship. So one has to be careful and be fair to use the language that both sides like."
One change that seems to be causing the most discussion is the disparity between "pro-life" and "anti-abortion."
Bream read off the change that instead of using "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion," journalists should use "pro-abortion rights." The AP also guides journalists to no longer use the term "abortionists" because it claims that term only refers to people who perform clandestine, or unsafe, abortions.
Bream then asked whether it is possible for language to truly be neutral in any story that raises such controversial and emotional topics.
Sussman said these standards exist so everyone can agree on and be aware of what is being reported.
"It's important to have a distinction if you are anti-abortion, pro-abortion, or pro-choice. There are people who can be anti-abortion and pro-choice, that is possible," Sussman said. "So I think it's important that we have clear guidelines."
"Use the word pro-life,' that is the phrase preferred by people who are pro-life. There's no problem in using it; it's not confusing to people to use it. It's very clear what they mean," Hoppe said. "That you use one set of words as opposed to the other and are told specifically not to use a certain set of words, it seems to me is bias and that's where the power of language can come in to try and turn people's minds and turn their thoughts away."
Sussman disagreed, arguing that it is important to be as specific as possible when talking about emotional issues like abortion and immigration.
"I do think that being anti-abortion is as specific as possible. I don't think that being pro-life is as specific as possible," Sussman said. "That would imply that someone would be pro-life in other contexts like death penalty or health care."
"To choose the language that someone prefers, I don't think is specific," she added. "As culture is moving, our definitions have to evolve as well."
Some other AP guideline amendments include calling migrants or refugees fleeing to Europe "people struggling to enter Europe." The AP also says that journalists should describe people who dispute that the world is warming as either "climate-change doubters" or "those who reject mainstream climate science."
Read the original post:
The Bolshoi Ballet has denied bowing to a controversial Russian law banning "homosexual propaganda" after it cancelled a new production about Rudolf Nureyev three days before the premiere.
The long-anticipated production had been due to open on Tuesday but was called off at the weekend amid speculation that authorities had balked at its depiction of Nureyev's love life.
Vladimir Urin, the theater's director general, said on Monday that he had cancelled the ballet about the Soviet dancer-turned-defector because rehearsals showed it was not ready.
"The ballet was not good," he said, saying it had been postponed rather than cancelled and would open in May next year instead.
Earlier the Tass news agency cited a culture ministry source saying Vladimir Medinsky, Russia's minister of culture, cancelled the production because he feared it broke a controversial law banning the promotion of homosexuality to minors.
Mr Medinsky's ministry confirmed he had spoken to the director, but denied issuing a "ban."
"Yes there was a long conversation with Urin," Irina Kaznacheeva, a spokeswoman for the culture ministry said in a statement. "But a ban is the not the ministry's working style."
Rudolf Nuryev was one of the most celebrated ballet dancers of his generation. In 1961 he became was one of the first acclaimed Soviet artists to defect to the West, where he had successfulcareer - and a turbulent love life including a string of gay relationships - until his death in 1993.
Go here to read the rest:
Bolshoi Ballet denies bowing to censorship over canceled Rudolf Nureyev show - Telegraph.co.uk
Bamseom Pirates Seoul Infernoby Jung Yoon-Suk (image courtesy M-Line Distribution)
The Last Waltz, Martin Scorseses quintessential concert film chronicling the last show of the 70s rock group The Band, begins with text declaring across the screen: This film should be played loud. In the decades following the 1976 classic, this advice found its way into the beginning of countless music films. Most recently, the spirit of the message traveled across the globe to South Korea in Jung Yoon-Suks documentary Bamseom Pirates Seoul Inferno (2017), the story of the college punk duo Bamseom Pirates and their struggles with government censorship. But the onscreen statement near the beginning of Jungs film skews in a more political direction, notifying the viewer, The sounds of the film were left unbalanced to help you experience the imbalances in Korean society. In the background, we hear the Pirates aggressive, discordant music.
As a bellwether of whats to come, the statement works twofold. First, it prepares the viewer for an on-the-ground look at the politics and class conflicts of contemporary South Korea. Second, like the rest of the movie, it presents an endlessly compelling subject in a clodding, inelegant manner.
The film, which is playing at the New York Asian Film Festival at the Film Society of Lincoln Center, revolves around the arrest of the bands producer and manager Park Junggeun. He is said to have violated the countrys nebulous National Security Laws after posting tweets that were seen as praising the enemy. These tweets, including Dear leader, please buy me some chocolate and Kim Jong-Il is Car Sex, show how vague and easily manipulable the laws are. The messages are shared on-screen in front of images of Park dressed in costumes goofing off with friends, making it even clearer that Park is joking. However, South Korean culture seems to treat any expression of dissent comical or not as aiding the enemy.
Watching the Pirates at work is a riveting experience. Sarcasm and irony infuse everything they do especially their lyrics. In some songs, they seemingly, wholeheartedly endorse North Korean Communists, with choruses like All Hail Kim Jong-Il! But we recognize this stance is a farce in moments where the band discusses its almost nonexistent politics. Having spent his young life firmly on the south side of the DMZ, the drummer of the band, Kwon Yung-man, admits at one point, Honestly I know almost nothing about North Korea. The musicians scream slogans praising their countrys enemies just to provoke the powers that be.
Despite efforts to mirror the bands slapdash aesthetic, the film unfortunately follows a fairly consistent formal structure that keeps it from being engaging. A protest ensues around the privatization of Seoul University and a Korea-US free trade agreement. Then the band Yung-man and bassist Jang Sung-geon performs at the protest, offering a set of their signature punk/metal fusion and nonsense banter. The handheld cinematography that fills most of the film is a visually unspectacular means of chronicling these happenings, and Kwons tendency to tell the camera exactly what the band is doing instead of simply showing it drags the story on.
More interesting is Jungs repurposing of newscasts that intrude on the bands story, giving cultural context for the society that yielded the Pirates. A story about a 1994 meeting between North and South Korean officials, where the Communist representative warns that his country can turn their countries into an inferno if provoked, offers context for the tense political climate on both sides of the DMZ; this anecdote also explains the origins for the name of the Pirates debut album Seoul Inferno, which is excerpted throughout the film. Later in the film, as Park is on-trial, Jung appropriates propaganda from the era, where in a staged conversation two men and two women discuss their thoughts on war with the north. One of them declares, If certain elements within the South cause turmoil when the North attacks, they will pay dearly for their mistakes. Jungs appropriation of this footage paints a vivid portrait of the social consensus allowing the crackdown on Park, which ends in a 10-month jail sentence and two years probation.
Following the delivery of the verdict, however, Bamseom Pirates Seoul Inferno fails to end on a note acknowledging this very emotional moment. The viewer is treated to shots of the pirates riding in cars through the city at night, a middle-aged man asleep on public transportation, and cats, as well as scenes of the band recording screams, moans, claps, belches, and the whir of power tools. The film suffers for not making a final statement regarding the censorship imposed on artists in South Korea. The fault lies with the filmmaker and not the artists, whose dadaist sensibilities are the reason to watch this documentary.
Bamseom Pirates Seoul Infernois playingat the New York Asian Film Festival at the Walter Reade Theater, Film Society of Lincoln Center (165 W 65th St, Upper West Side, Manhattan) on Tuesday, July 11.
Visit link:
A Korean Punk Band's Struggles with Censorship - Hyperallergic
Startup of the week:
Who they are:IranCubator
What they do:Its atech incubator that producesapps focused on achieving social change in Iran, backed by Berkeley-based nonprofitUnited for Iran.
Why its cool:Launchedthree years ago, IranCubator matches activists with app developers to create technology that can change the lives of Iranian citizens. The program has launched a series of apps in recent months, including womens health appHamdam. Geared toward women who dont have access to sexual health resources women from conservative families or from rural areas, for example Hamdam provides information on sexually transmitted diseases and contraception, and also offers the only Persian menstruation calendar, according to United for Iran founder and executive director Firuzeh Mahmoudi. And Hamdam offers resources to help women who often arent granted the same legal protections as men answer questions on marriage law, divorce, employment and more.
Another IranCubator app,RadiTo, lets Iranians listen to news programs blocked by the government, such as BBC Persian, as well as audio books and talk shows. Thats crucial in a country that has a reputation as being one of the worlds most restrictive regimes when it comes to accessing information Reporters Without Borders this year ranked Iran 165th out of 180 countries initsWorld Press Freedom Index.
IranCubator also released an appcalled Haami thats geared toward Irans 2.2 million drug users offeringrecovery resources including Narcotics Anonymous information translated into Persian and a personal safety app calledToranjthat helps women defend against domestic violence.
To learn more visitUnited4Iran.org.
Where they stand:Womens health appHamdam, the incubators most popular app, has been downloaded more than 70,000 times since its launch in March.
Only in Silicon Valley:
Bummed out by shoes that dont fit?Iovadopromises to fix that problem by combining Silicon Valley technologywithItalian fashion. Customers use the companys app to take 10 pictures of their foot, which Iovado converts into a 3D model. That model is then sent to leather workers in Italy who use it to make a pair of handcrafted shoes built exactly to your specifications. The whole process costs 240 Euros, or about $274.
Iovado had raised almost $65,000 on Kickstarter as of Thursday, surpassing its goal of $22,678.
Run the numbers:
When considering whether to invest in a startup, venture capitalists question female founders differently than male founders, according to a recentstudypublished in the Harvard Business Review. Investors are more likely to ask men about their potential for gains, and women about their potential for losses, according to researchers from Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania, who analyzed interactions between 140 VCs and 189 entrepreneurs at TechCrunch Disrupt New York.
Sixty-seven percent of questions posed to male founders had to do with promotion focusing on hopes, achievements, advancement and ideals, according to the study. On the other hand, 66 percent of questions asked of female founders had to do with prevention they focused on safety, responsibility, security and vigilance. For example, VCs were more likely to ask men how they will acquire new customers, and ask women how they will prevent current customers from leaving.
Those lines of questioning make a difference, the researchers argue. The male-led startups they studied raised five times more funding than those led by women.
Click here:
Following a string of female startup founders who have spoken out aboutsexual harassmentthey faced frommale investors, entrepreneur Perri Chase this week addressedthe more subtle nuances of the investor/founder relationship. In a blog post titled I had sex with an investor & I am sorry, Chase described a meeting over drinks with an angel investor she hoped would back her startup. Whenhe started hitting on her, Chase wrote, it became clear that he hadnt intended theinteraction to be a pitch meeting. She says she made a consensual choice to reciprocate his advances.
In all that has been emerging this week it dawned on me that I gave him permission to act this way, Chase wrote. My sleeping with him is actually part of the problem.
But its complicated, Chase wrote, adding that in a world where its common to meet investors over happy hour, the line between professional and social interactions can become blurred, and clarifying it needs to become a priority.
Here is the original post:
Early Stage: Apps to fight censorship, drug addiction and sexism in Iran - The Mercury News
Ive been storing a truckload of my deceased parents stuff. This summer, after several moves and even more years, I decided to go through it and make the hard decisions about getting rid of (at least) some of it.
In one box was a clear plastic bag with newspapers in it. Tribune-Stars, haphazardly folded, but with a similarity; they were the D section of the Sunday Trib containing my essays. My mother was saving my essays. Id discovered a treasure trove. Until 2007ish I didnt save my Tribune-Star essays, so these have been termed Moms archive and Ive been digitizing them and (re)publishing them on my personal blog.
Some of these previous essays beg for updating and that is what I am doing today, updating an essay published on Feb. 6, 2005, titled A reaction laced with hypocrisy. The essay was about a survey published by the Knight Foundation on the attitudes of high school students toward the First Amendment. Knight has recently published another survey and given the tensions surrounding the press, its role, journalists rights and fake news it seemed ready-made for an update.
Some of the high points of the survey findings from 2006 were that 70 percent of the surveyed high school students believed that newspapers should seek government approval before running their stories and that only a bit more than a third disagreed that the First Amendment went too far in the rights it guarantees. Those students would be today in their middle to late twenties and voting.
I wrote that this finding was a reason for concern. The Knight Foundation cited a lack of resources and extra-curricular opportunities to learn about the First Amendment such as school newspapers. I pointed to broader changes in schools and likened them to prisons as the lives of students were becoming increasingly regulated leaving less room for student agency.
The hypocrisy referred to in the title had to do with this finding: Fifty-eight percent of students agreed that high schools should be allowed to report on controversial issues in their student newspapers without approval of school authorities. But only 39 percent of teachers did and less than a quarter of principals did.
In 2016, 56 percent of students disagreed that the First Amendment went too far in the rights it guarantees. For the teachers, it was 75 percent who disagreed with that statement. As to newspapers seeking government approval before running their stories, 61 percent of students and 73 percent of teachers agreed. Seems contradictory.
Ninety-one percent of students agreed that people should be able to express unpopular opinions. And those who more frequently consume news and actively engage with news through social media demonstrate stronger support for First Amendment freedoms. Unfortunately, the report does not include data on how many students regularly consumed and engaged with news sources. Based on my experience with my students, I would guess the proportion to be small. Of those who said they engaged often the smartphone was their overwhelming source for their news.
The study asked students and teachers about online news providers right to publish stories without government censorship. Seventy-three percent of teachers and 60 percent of students were supportive of that right, echoing somewhat the proportions responding to whether newspapers should seek government approval before running their stories. To me, this is concerning, especially now that the President of the United States is attempting to discredit the press.
Is there a difference in levels of trust for different media between students and their teachers? The highest trust for both students (83 percent) and teachers (91 percent) is news printed in newspapers. The trust placed on the information in newspapers was similar to information from friends and family. The lowest trust for both students (49 percent) and teachers (34 percent) was in social media. This was also the biggest gap between students and teachers.
The hypocrisy remains, however. Sixty-three percent of students believe high school students should be able to report on controversial issues in their student newspapers without the approval of school authorities. Only 37 percent of teachers agreed. Those numbers havent changed much since 2006.
In an age of high levels of distrust in government, to suggest censorship is an answer to an overreach of press freedom or for it to monitor offensive content seems strange. Three-quarters of teachers and almost 60 percent of students unquestioningly support the First Amendment. Why not look to the market as the answer? Dont like a source, dont read it.
Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.
Read more from the original source:
Tom Steiger: A strange attitude concerning press censorship - Terre Haute Tribune Star
Bibliophiles in Iran, clear your weekend: The huge Book Garden center just opened in Tehran.
Officialsunveiled the Book Garden, a giant academic complex on Wednesday. Atroughly 65,000 square meters (about 700,000 square feet), the center has several movie theaters, science halls, classrooms, a restaurant, a prayer room and whole a lot of literature. On its roof is a green park area for reading.
Related: Iran: Donald Trump cartoon contest mocks president as money-obsessed Nazi
Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox
All in all, the center aims to encourage Iranian children to be "active and creative through modern methods and equipment," as the Mehr News Agency reported Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said earlier this week."The opening of the Book Garden is a big cultural event in the country, so that our children can make better use of this cultural and academic opportunity," Tehran Mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf added.
It was a long time coming. The idea for the Book Garden was first pitched in 2004 as a way to cater to fans of the city's annual International Book Fair year-round. Construction on the center wrapped up last spring, and organizers spent the past few months stocking it with books. More than 400,000 titles areavailableforkids alone.One part of the center even has shorter shelves so youth can reach books better.
Iran has censored its literature for years, making publishers submit their books to the government so it can check for inappropriate content before publication. As such, a number of works have been banned, among them Dan Brown'sThe Da Vinci Code, James Joyce's Ulyssesand Tracy Chevalier'sGirl With a Pearl Earring. In addition, authors have been asked to avoid using termslike kiss,wine,drunk,dogand dance,according to The Guardian.
"Those responsible in the book industry should not let harmful books enter our book market on the basis that we let [readers] choose [what they want to read],"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in 2011. "Like poisonous, dangerous and addictive drugs which are not available for everyone without restrictionsas a publisher, librarian or an official in the book industry, we don't have the right to make [such books] available to those without knowledge."
There are some indications the policies have recently relaxed under PresidentHassan Rouhani, but some books are still on the blacklist, according to the Financial Times. Others are being sold underground.
The Book Garden may increase availability, but whether it was officially the largest bookshop wasn't immediately clear.
According to the Guinness World Recordsteam, the biggest individual bookstore since 1999 has been the Barnes & Noble along Fifth Avenue in New York City. It's about 154,000 square feet and includes more than 12 miles of shelves.
Read the original:
Huge Bookstore, Tehran's Book Garden, Opens in Iran Despite Government Censorship - Newsweek
A painting, a song, a dance and a novel these are all forms of expression. So too, is a film as art and literature are all forms of expressions.
When a person expresses himself or herself, he or she is exercising his or her freedom of speech and expression. But these are not absolute. Under international human rights law, freedom of speech and expression may be restricted, but must be through law and only if necessary.
The Federal Constitution also allows for restrictions. These must also be proportionate to the objectives that it wants to achieve.
So unless there is law enacted, and the purpose of the law falls within the permitted restrictions, and are proportionate, your freedom cannot be restricted.
When it comes to films, the governing law in Malaysia is the Film Censorship Act.
It says that a person shall not have in his possession or in his custody or under his control, or circulate, exhibit, distribute, display, manufacture, produce, sell or hire, any film or film-publicity material which has not been approved by the Film Censorship Board.
Anyone who contravenes this provision in respect of a film is guilty of an offence, and may be fined not less than RM5,000 and not more than RM30,000, or jailed for a term not exceeding three years, or both.
Activist Lena Hendry was found guilty of this section and fined RM10,000 for screening the documentary film No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka without approval of the Censorship Board.
This article is not questioning the good faith of the men and women of the Film Censorship Board, but is it right for a body to decide whether we can exercise our right to freedom of speech and expression before we ourselves are allowed to exercise those rights?
Would this not render our freedom of speech and expression an illusion?
Is having a body that approves a film before it can even be shown, proportionate to the aims of the Act?
Any law that makes state approval a pre-condition to exercising one's freedom should be challenged as violating human rights and deemed unconstitutional.
With such laws, the state decides which part of the film is suitable for public. The state can also decide to censor parts of a film which it does not like or is uncomfortable with.
Instead of using censorship, we should instead emphasise film classification or ratings. The Board already issues film classifications based on the contents of a film to be shown in cinemas. By using a robust film rating system, we would avoid the need for censorship.
But what about obscene films or pornography, you may ask? Surely we must have a law to restrict these?
Yes, the Film Censorship Act already has specific laws to deal with films which are obscene or against public decency.
At the same time, a case can be made where the state intervenes and censors or bans a film it deems as sensitive.
For example, a film whose objective is to incite hatred against certain ethnicities; is there a need for censorship in those instances?
There are laws to deal with such situations without having to censor the film.
However, censorship guidelines have to be clear and specific to avoid a situation where a blanket ban is imposed on all films.
It must be subjected to judicial review by the Courts.
This is to ensure balance is struck between the freedom of speech and expression and the preservation of national security and public order.
Read more:
If youve made a habit of either watching Fox News Tucker Carlson Tonight or following the anti-abortion groups that frequently appear on the program, then youve heard allegations that these organizations and the anti-choice misinformation they spread are being censored by any number of media platforms.
Most recently, Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, appeared on the June 26 edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight and claimed that Twitter was censoring Live Actions ads. Beyond alleging that Twitter was biased against the anti-abortion group, Rose also conveniently mentioned that Live Action had a $40,000 fundraising goal to meet within the week. Mere hours after Roses appearance, Live Actions homepage carried alarge addecrying Twitters censorship and begging for donations to meet the fundraising deadline. By June 30, the organization had reached its fundraising goal and wasaskingsupporters to continue donating in order to guarantee it could continue working to expose the abortion industry.
Rose is merely the latest person in a long list of anti-abortion extremists to baselessly allege censorship as a tactic in order to raise support and rile up right-wing media allies. When viewed as part of a larger pattern of behavior, it becomes clear that for these anti-abortion groups, crying censorshipto any perceived slight functions as a strategy to gain attention and support for their anti-choice misinformation.
Live Action ads and Twitter
During her June 26appearanceon Tucker Carlson Tonight, Rose claimed that Twitter was refusing to promote ads from either her or Live Actions Twitter accounts. Rose alleged that a Twitter bot had been telling them for months, that this is banned, we wont let you put this out. According to Rose, It took over a year for us to finally get from Twitter whats wrong with these tweets. and finally they said that any tweet that shows an ultrasound, that shows a prenatal life and affirms it, that exposes Planned Parenthood, violates the hate and sensitive policy. Carlson echoed Roses allegations and called Twitters policy an atrocity.
In a blog post, Live Actionpointedto Twitters advertising policies against inflammatory content andalleged that Twitter told them to delete tweets calling for the end of taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, tweets of our undercover investigations into Planned Parenthood, and tweets including ultrasound images of fetuses. Live Action includedemailsfrom Twitter support staff in the blog post, in which a Twitter representative citedtweets mentioninginfanticideand anotherincluding abirth videoas examples of content that violatedthe platforms sensitive advertising content policy.
The hate and sensitive policy Rose cited is in actuality the platformsad policyon hate content, sensitive topics, and violence. In a statement to Carlson, the social media platformsaid, Twitter has clear, transparent rules that every advertiser is required to follow, and the political viewpoints of an organization do not impact how these rules are applied. Twitters hate content policy also covershate speech or advocacy; violence or threats of violence against people or animals; glorification of self-harm or related content; organizations associated with promoting hate; and offensive, vulgar, abusive or obscene content.
Despite this, Live Actionhas continued to assert that Twitter is playing politics,citinga few tweets by Planned Parenthood to demonstrate the perceived imbalance. These Planned Parenthood tweets mention extremists and talk about Trump defunding the non-profit but without pointing an accusatory finger at a specific group. Many of Live Actions tweets which Twitter did not accept as ads target Planned Parenthood specifically.
Letsnot forgot Live Action is still free to tweet and keep such content on its Twitter account, as Roseclarifiedduring an interview onEWTN News Nightly. The content merely does not meet clear and non-ideological standards for promotion or sponsorship, as dictated by Twitters easily locatedadvertising policies.
Given these facts, it appears that Roses appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight and claims of censorship werepart of a fundraising strategy for Live Action. As RosetoldCarlson, Were actually doing a campaign right now to get people to fund Live Action and to get out the information that Twitter is trying to block using other platforms using Facebook, using YouTube, using the blogosphere, obviously coming on here and talking with you.
After Roses June 26 appearance, Live Action sent afundraisingemailabout the segment, claiming that Live Action is being suppressed and asking supporters to help us strengthen our efforts against the abortion industry. Live Actions censorship allegations also animated other right-wing media outlets.The Washington Timespromoteditsfundraising appeal, stating, Looking to take their business elsewhere, Live Action started a campaign to raise money to inundate other social media platforms with the pro-life message. On June 29, Christian Broadcasting Network published an article on Live Actions claims about Twitters ad policy, at the end of which itstatedthat Live Action has launched a campaign to compensate for their losses due to Twitters censoring, and directed readers to Live Actions fundraising page.RoseandLive ActionalsopushedthenarrativeonTwitter, using the hashtag #DontDeleteMe despite all content remainingpubliclyavailable on the platform.
Center for Medical Progress videos
In May 2017, the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress (CMP)circulateddeceptive video footage that had been barred from release by a federal judge. The videoquickly spreadthrough social media accounts of anti-abortion leaders and groups before Judge William Orrick ordered all copies of the video be taken down as there was aheightened concernfor the safety of abortion providers identified in the footage.
As copiesof the video were removed following Orricks order, anti-choice activists claimedcensorship had occurred and pointed a finger at almost every social media platform as potential culprits. During a May 31appearanceon Fox News Tucker Carlson Tonight, Rose accused both YouTube and Twitter of participating in the chilling effect right now on journalism that is the opposing viewpoint on abortion by complying with the court order to remove the video. Live Action alsoclaimedthat YouTube had caved to the abortion industrys censorship pressure while LifeSiteNewsarguedthat video hosting websites such as Facebook, YouTube, and Vimeo were on a witch hunt against the latest undercover Planned Parenthood video, deleting instances of it wherever they find it.
The anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony ListaccusedYouTube of partnering with Planned Parenthood to cover up the truth that #PPSellsBabyParts a common social media hashtag among staunch anti-choice activists. Liz Wheeler of right-wing news outlet One America News Network (OANN) took personal offense when YouTube removed a clip of her show, Tipping Point, in which she played some of the barred footage. In a follow-up clip, amusinglyavailable on OANNs YouTube channel, Wheeler said YouTube was trying to silence me and asked, What are liberals so afraid people will see that theyll censor me to ensure nobody sees [footage from the barred video].
Although anti-choice groups and right-wing media outlets alike cried censorshipwhen various platforms removed the video, the fact remains that itwas legally barred from release giving these platforms little choice even if they agreed with CMPs highlydiscreditedclaims. Undeterred, these groups and outlets evenextendedtheir criticisms to attack Orrick andattemptedto have him removed from CMPs case an effort that another federal judge ultimatelydismissedas lacking merit.Despite claiming the video was being censored, anti-choice groups still (somehow!)continuedto re-post andspreadthe video across the internet after Orricks order.
Operation Rescues Google ranking
The extremistanti-choice groupOperation Rescueclaimedthat Google was engaged in censorship after its page views decreased for when internet users searched forabortions in US orabortion statistics. The group alleged that Googles search engine has manipulated search parameters to dramatically reduce exposure to Operation Rescues webpages containing misleading abortion statistics.
In April, Googleannounceda policy change regarding how sites containing misleading or false information would be ranked. If Google is censoring anti-abortion pages as Operation Rescue argued it isnot doing a great job with it. Although the page rankings fluctuate,search results for abortions in US and abortion statistic still yield anti-choice sites, includingFox News, National Right to Life Committee, abortion73, and American Life League.
By alleging it wasbeing censored, Operation Rescue effectively sounded the alarm for other anti-abortion groups to use their own rankings on Googles search results to claim discrimination and promote their content. Within a day of OperationRescues initial post, similar stories were running onLifeNewsand the right-wing outletOneNewsNow. Operation Rescue also sent a fundraisingemailasking for support to launch a massive campaign to ensure our critical abortion research and pro-life content is available, and no longer pushed down by the pro-abortion radicals at Google.
March for Life coverage
Every January, anti-abortion groups andmediaoutletsallegethatmainstreammedia are censoring their protest, called the March for Life, againsttheRoe v. Wadedecision. The supposed lack of coverage has galled anti-abortion groups to such an extent that they started anumbrella groupcalled Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues, which primarily focuses on the March for Life Media Censorship. Many members of the group havecomplainedabout the media blackout of the March for Life on major media platforms. Rep. Alex Mooney R-W.Va., who is one of the two politicians in the Alliance, stated, The liberal medias consistent censorship of the annual March for Life is nothing short of shameful.
However, as some right-wing media outlets have themselves suggested, describing coverage of the March for Life as suffering from consistent censorship is inaccurate.After the most recent March for Life, the extreme right-wing outlet Church Militantpraisedthe media because the 2017 March for Life is receiving more media coverage than ever. Church Militant pointed out thatC-SPANandCNNlivestreamed the march, whileNPRfeatured stories from attendees. In addition,The New York Times,The Washington Post, andABC Newsall ran stories about the march.
The March for Life also benefited from the attention garnered by the Womens March in January 2017. Several anti-abortion groups and individuals tried toco-optthe message of the Womens March to push a so-called feminist anti-choice message. The Womens March ultimatelyadopteda pro-choice message, but the anti-abortion groups stillgainedsubstantialmediacoveragefrombeingsupposedlybannedfrom being sponsors ofthe Womens March.
Anti-abortion messages at schools
In March,anti-choicegroupsandmediaoutletsbegan crying censorship when anti-abortion chalk messages scrawled by a chapter of Students for Life of America (SFLA) were scrubbed from sidewalks at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania. Thehate groupAlliance Defending Freedom (ADF) came to SFLAs defensedeclaring, University officials cant chalk up their censorship to following orders to enforce an unconstitutional campus policy on sidewalk chalking. SFLA President Kristan Hawkinsagreed, saying, Too frequently we see that public colleges and universities feel they can engage in censorship of a student group just because officials dont agree with the viewpoint of those students.
In reality, the messages had beenremovedovernight during a regular cleaning process, and had nothing to do with the content of the chalking.
Hawkins also usedTucker Carlson Tonights right-wing platform toraiseanother issue of censorship in schools. During the June 2 appearance on the show, Hawkins supported a high school student whoclaimedher school had denied her permission to form a SFLA chapterbecause it was too controversial. According to school officials, the studentssimplydidnt followthe requirements for club formation and would be approved once they did.
Buffer zones
In 2014, ADF successfully arguedMcCullen v. Coakleybefore the Supreme Court,striking downa Massachusetts buffer zone law that banned anti-choice protestors inside a 35-feet parameter around abortion clinics. ADFclaimedthat this buffer zone in which anti-abortion extremists were not allowed to protest created a censorship zone where the First Amendment doesnt apply. Equating buffer zones with censorship has been a common tactic of anti-choice groups when challenging laws that mandate them. For example, ADF alsousedthe censorship zone argument when arguing against a Pittsburghordinance. Similarly, the anti-abortion group Created EqualclaimedOhios 15-feet buffer zone constituted a censorship zone that infringed on its right to protest outside abortion clinics.
Despite censorshipclaims from anti-abortion groups, buffer zones are essential for abortion access and to deter threats of violence against patients, providers, and clinics. The Massachusetts ordinance that was struck down inMcCullen v. Coakleywasoriginally introducedbecause of a 1994 shooting at a Brookline, MA clinic that killed two people. While anti-abortion protesters complain about the ability to spout their hateful rhetoric,violenceat abortion clinics has not only continued but increased in recent years; in 2015, ashootingat a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic killed three people and injured nine more. Data from the National Abortion Federation (NAF)showsthat protests outside abortion clinics rose in 2016 to the highest level since NAF began tracking them in 1977. There wasalsoan increase in a wide range of intimidation tactics meant to disrupt the provision of health care at facilities, including vandalism, picketing, obstruction, invasion, trespassing, burglary, stalking, assault and battery, and bomb threats.
As recent cases in Kentucky and Missouri have shown, someanti-choicegroupsintentionally harass abortion providers or engage in civil disobedience outside clinics. When these groups face backlash or legal pushback, they invokecensorshipas a tactic in order to continue their campaigns of harassment.
Crying censorship: An anti-choice tactic
These examples are wide-ranging, reaching from social media platforms, to news coverage, to sidewalk access, but the common thread and indeed, the underlying tactic at play is anti-abortion groups labeling a perceived injustice against them as censorship.These groups have much to gain and very little to lose by employing this tactic. By claiming theyve been unjustly censored, anti-abortion groups not only elevate their lies and misinformation, they are also able to incite followers and raise funds by claiming they are being persecuted.
Crying censorship is a win-win tactic for anti-abortion extremists. Meanwhile, clinic intimidation andviolencecontinues to rise asright-wing mediaagitate their increasingly polarized base to support anti-abortion causes,and an increasing number oflawsare being implemented to limit abortion rights. Anti-choice organizations also have thebenefitof PresidentDonald Trumpsadministrationbeing filled withanti-choiceextremistsalreadyon arampageagainstabortionandcontraception access.
But please, thoughyou have an overtlyanti-choice administration that relies on a direct pipeline of information from anti-abortion extremists, continue to feign outrage about being unable to place ads on Twitter.
Read the original here:
How anti-choice zealots cry censorship whenever they are ... - Salon - Salon
July, more than most other months, is loaded with politically sensitive anniversaries that keep Communist Party of China (CPC) censors and security forces on their toes.
First comes the July 1 anniversary of Hong Kongs transfer from British to Chinese rule. Then there is July 5, marking the 2009 ethnic violence in the Xinjiang region that sparked an unprecedented crackdown on its mostly Muslim Uyghur population. The very next day, July 6, is the Dalai Lamas birthday, andJuly 9is the second anniversary of a sweeping repressive action against Chinas human rights lawyers.Finally there isJuly 20, the date in 1999 when the CPC banned the popular spiritual practice Falun Gong and began a massive and often violent campaign to eradicate it.
This year, the anniversaries overlap with other news stories that Beijing likely wants to quash, including an international uproar surrounding democracy activistLiu Xiaobos belated release on medical parole with terminal cancer, and a campaign by exiled tycoonGuo Wenguito publicize corruption allegations involving top Chinese leaders.
It is not surprising in these circumstances that the CPC hastightened information controls. But the party has not simply intensified its efforts in the short term. It has also gradually adapted its methods to a changing technological environment, one in which mobile phones, social media applications, and digital surveillance are critical features.
The result is a new level of intrusiveness and sophistication, as well as danger for populations that are already at risk of severe human rights violations.
Cutting off Access to Circumvention Tools
One of the escalating restrictions that may have the widest reach is a crackdown on virtual private networks (VPNs), which allow users to bypass official censorship. Several VPN applications have beendisabledor removed fromonline storessince July 1. In a June 22 message to customers,prominent VPN provider Greensaid that after receiving a notice from the higher authorities, it planned to cease operations on July 1, causing a ripple of conversations on social media about what circumvention tools could still be used. The latest initiative builds onincreasing official effortsto stop the dissemination of such tools, including some that the authorities had long tolerated.
The applications removal will have the secondary effect of cutting off software updates for users, leaving their devices more vulnerable to hacking. And while many use VPNs to access uncensored news or blocked social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, the tools are also used for security purposes, to protect businesses and activists from pervasive state surveillance.
Inspecting the Personal Communications of Minorities
Other recent controls have focused on ethnic and religious minorities. In Xinjiang, authorities in a district of the regional capitalUrumqiissued a notice on June 27 instructing all residents and business owners to submit their personal ID cards, cell phones, external drives, portable hard drives, notebook computers, and media storage cards to the local police post for registration and scanning byAugust 1. One district employee toldRadio Free Asiathat the campaign was taking place throughout the city. The goal is ostensibly to identify and purge any terrorist videos, but the action violates the privacy rights of Urumqis three million residents and exposes them to punishment for a host of other possible offenses, including those related to peaceful religious or political expression.
In Tibet, the instant-messaging application WeChat has become increasingly popular in recent years, as it has across China. But using it to communicate about the Dalai Lama or his birthday is difficult and dangerous. A test conducted in January by the Canada-based Citizen Lab found that the Tibetan spelling for Dalai Lama was automatically deleted in WeChat messages. Meanwhile, at leasttwo Tibetansare known to have been jailed for participating in a WeChat group commemorating the spiritual leaders 80th birthday in 2015. After a new spate of self-immolation protests took place in early 2017, Tibetans in Sichuan Province report that police aremonitoring communicationon the platform more closely and detaining those suspected of sharing information about self-immolations with overseas contacts.
New Tactics and New Targets
These developments reflect a broader trend identified in a recentFreedom House reporton religion in China. The study found that Chinese government tactics of religious control and persecution have been changing to incorporate new technologies and match the evolving communication habits of the public. Even in the absence of sensitive anniversaries, various modes of electronic surveillance have expanded dramatically at sites of worship and public spaces frequented by religious believers.
The CPCs information controls also appear to be spreading to traditionally less persecuted groups, like state-sanctioned churches and non-Uyghur residents of Xinjiang. Since March, authorities inZhejianghave reportedly been implementing a campaign to installsurveillance cameras in churches and possibly Buddhist temples, in some cases sparking altercations with police and violence against congregants. In Urumqi, the order to turn in digital devices forinspectionapplies to ethnic Han and Kazakh residents as well as Uyghurs, while localKazakhshave reported increased monitoring and some prosecutions related to expressions of their Muslim faith in recent months.
The Information Arms Race
The Chinese governments actions are partly a response to creative initiatives by minority activists to share their stories and perspectives in a heavily restrictive information environment.
It is a nonstop game of cat-and-mouse, journalist Nithin Coca wrote in a June 27articleabout Chinas high-tech war on Tibetan communication. As the Tibet movements digital-security abilities and training improve, the Chinese government implements more sophisticated hacking techniques.
Similarly, asFalun Gongpractitioners devise new means of disseminating information to debunk vilifying state propaganda and expose abuses they have suffered, security forces have adapted by increasing electronic surveillance and deploying geolocation technology to find and arrest them. Local authorities in places likeJiangsu provincehave also upgraded anti-Falun Gong propaganda efforts, deploying LED rolling screens, cartoons, microblogs, and QQ messaging including in schools last month to demonize Falun Gong and other banned religious groups.
A Vicious Circle
The result of the escalating controls is that there are even fewer avenues for persecuted groups and individuals to defend themselves, offer alternatives to the party line, or expose violence committed by officials. Meanwhile, other Chinese interested in knowing more about these and other censored topics find it increasingly difficult and risky to obtain information.
There is also a cost to the CPC. Such aggressive stability maintenance methods ultimately increase tensions with key populations, intensify resentment of the partys heavy-handed rule, and inspire anti-government activism and even violence, including among otherwise apolitical citizens.
From that perspective, while the CPCs efforts may successfully silence some critics this year, party leaders may face an even more daunting challenge next July.
Sarah Cook is a senior research analyst for East Asia at Freedom House, director of itsChina Media Bulletin,and author ofThe Battle for Chinas Spirit: Religious Revival, Repression, and Resistance under Xi Jinping.
Originally posted here:
CNN is still licking their wounds after a rather disastrous couple of weeks, where a shoddy Russia-Trump story led to three staffers resigning, a Project Veritas investigation exposed that the network's producers peddled the Russia story for ratings, and what came off as a wholly inappropriate veiled threat against an anonymous Reddit user who created a Trump WWE video, which the president tweeted before the Fourth of July Holiday. The video shows Trump beating up WWEs Vince McMahon, whose face has been superimposed with the CNN logo. The media went apoplectic as an attack against the press; it wasnt. This spurred the network's reporters to find the user and pretty much threaten to dox him if he continues to post things CNN doesnt like. Yet, before we get to that, lets revisit the Russia-Trump story that had to be retracted, along with The Intercepts Glenn Greenwald torching the media for their repeated trip ups in covering this story.
Three prominent CNN journalists resigned Monday night after the network was forced to retract and apologize for a story linking Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund under congressional investigation. That article like so much Russia reporting from the U.S. media was based on a single anonymous source, and now, the network cannot vouch for the accuracy of its central claims.
[]
Several factors compound CNNs embarrassment here. To begin with, CNNs story was first debunked by an article in Sputnik News, which explained that the investment fund documented several factual inaccuracies in the report (including that the fund is not even part of the Russian bank, Vnesheconombank, that is under investigation), and by Breitbart, which cited numerous other factual inaccuracies.
And this episode follows an embarrassing correction CNN was forced to issue earlier this month when several of its highest-profile on-air personalities asserted based on anonymous sources that James Comey, in his congressional testimony, was going to deny Trumps claim that the FBI director assured him he was not the target of any investigation.
Greenwald then lays into other outlets for peddling shoddy stories, like the Russian hacking into the Vermont power grid, the piece about an anonymous group identifying sites that peddled disinformation stories planted by Russia, the server in Trump Tower thats used to communicate with a Russian bank, and the claim that Wikileaks Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin are best friendsall of which fell apart. Yet, the media wonders why conservatives are using them for punching bags; its because theyre on a witch-hunt against this president. Not only that, theyre sucking at it. It only gives the Trump administration more ammunition and more for his supporters to relish when he delivers an uppercut to the liberal news media, who for months could not contain their outrage that he beat her majesty, Hillary Rodham Clinton. He noted that no one is perfect, and that we all make mistakes. Townhall (and by Townhall, I mean myselfmea culpa) posted about the Vermont grid story, albeit a short blurb that really didnt go into a deep dive, but it was not correct and we added a correction. At the same time, were not in the same mold as other outlets concerning the Russian threat. To this day, there is zero evidence that Trump campaign officials colluded with the Russians to tilt the election.
What is most notable about these episodes is that they all go in the same direction: hyping and exaggerating the threat posed by the Kremlin. All media outlets will make mistakes; that is to be expected. But when all of the mistakes are devoted to the same rhetorical theme, and when they all end up advancing the same narrative goal, it seems clear that they are not the byproduct of mere garden-variety journalistic mistakes.
[]
The importance of this journalistic malfeasance when it comes to Russia, a nuclear-armed power, cannot be overstated. This is the story that has dominated U.S. politics for more than a year. Ratcheting up tensions between these two historically hostile powers is incredibly inflammatory and dangerous. All kinds of claims, no matter how little evidence there is to support them, have flooded U.S. political discourse and have been treated as proven fact.
And thats all independent of how journalistic recklessness fuels, and gives credence to, the Trump administrations campaign to discredit journalism generally.
That story was posted on June 27. It took less than a week for CNN to get another face full of buckshot when they decided to search for the Reddit user that created the video of Trump beating up CNN right before the Fourth of July holiday. The user is not someone to be defended aggressively. Hes admitted to posting racist and anti-Semitic material on the site. Hes apologized, but heres where things got controversial [emphasis mine]:
CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
And of course, Greenwald had a response:
There is something self-evidently creepy, bullying, and heavy-handed about a large news organization publicly announcing that it will expose someones identity if he ever again publishes content on the internet that the network deems inappropriate or objectionable. Whether it was CNNs intent or not, the article makes it appear as if CNN will be monitoring this citizens online writing, and will punish him with exposure if he writes something the network dislikes.
[]
Moreover, if this persons name is newsworthy on the ground that racists or others who post inflammatory content should be publicly exposed and vilified does it matter if he expressed what CNN executives regard as sufficient remorse? And if his name is not newsworthy, then why should CNN be threatening to reveal it in the event that he makes future utterances that the network dislikes?
If youre someone who believes that media corporations should expose the identity even of random, anonymous internet users who express anti-Semitic or racist views, then you should be prepared to identify the full list of views that merit similar treatment. Should anyone who supports Trump have their identity exposed? Those who oppose marriage equality? Those with views deemed sexist? Those who advocate communism? Are you comfortable with having corporate media executives decide which views merit public exposure?
Whatever else is true, CNN is a massive media corporation that is owned by an even larger corporation. It has virtually unlimited resources. We should cheer when those resources are brought to bear to investigate those who exercise great political and economic power. But when they are used to threaten and punish a random, obscure citizen who has criticized the network no matter how objectionable his views might be it resembles corporate bullying and creepy censorship more than actual journalism.
The point with all of this is that its not just conservative media that are complaining about CNN and others tripping up. Greenwald is no fan of Donald Trump, conservatives, or our intelligence community - specifically the CIA - but hes also known for keeping both sides honest. In February, he criticized the media for forgetting that the Obama administration was heavy handed with the press, especially when it came to whistleblowers. He also said what the Deep State is doing to the Trump White House by intentionally leaking highly sensitive information is a prescription for the destruction of democracy."
The Intercept is a site where leakers to come forward with information that exposes government corruption or malfeasance. Its the safe space for leakers, but its another thing to leak classified material in the hopes of hamstringing an administration from governing because youre upset about an election result. Earlier this year, he told Amy Goodman of the left wing Democracy Now that the actions of the Deep State are akin to a soft coup as well:
Even if youre somebody who believes that both the CIA and the deep state, on the one hand, and the Trump presidency, on the other, are extremely dangerous, as I do, theres a huge difference between the two, which is that Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving. But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. Theyre barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. That is a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it.
Vox Media, which isnt a right wing rag either, also were appalled by CNNs apparent threat are highly unethical:
A plain reading of CNNs article, however, contradicts what the network and Kaczynski are saying. If CNN really intended to withhold HanA**holeSolos information regardless of what he did, then why didnt the news organization say it was withholding his private information simply because hes a private citizen? Why did it go on to add all the conditions about his behavior? And why did it say it could release the private information with an explicit condition tied to his behavior?
Personally, if I reported this story, it would have been pretty straightforward: CNN is not publishing HanA**holeSolos name because he is a private citizen. Period. The rest of the information in that paragraph is unnecessary, because a media organization simply shouldnt release a private citizens personal information. He shouldnt have his private information threatened just because the president picked up one of his Reddit sh**posts, which he made with the expectation that he would be kept anonymous. (Though it is a truly bizarre turn of events that its even possible to write this sentence.)
In journalism, there is a clear line between public and private figures. Public figures are held to a higher standard since they represent not just themselves but their offices, their industries, and so on. But private figures are given a veil of privacy, since its not really in the public interest to get some random persons private information.
The month isnt over yet; CNN could step on the rake once more. Stay tuned.
The rest is here:
Censorship is when an authority (such as a government or religion) cuts out or suppresses communication.
This has been done widely. All countries, religions and societies have their limits as to what can be said, or written or communication by art or nowadays by computer.
Certain facts are changed or removed on purpose. This may be done because it is considered wrong, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or other authority. This can be done for different reasons.
A censor is a person whose job is to look at all types of media and remove material. There are many reasons to censor something, like protecting military secrets, stopping immoral or anti-religious works, or keeping political power. Censorship is almost always used as an insult, and there is much debate over what censorship is and when it is okay.
When there is freedom of speech and freedom of the press, most information can published. However, even in developed countries with much freedom of the press, there are some things that cannot be published. For example, journalists are usually not allowed to publish many secrets about the military, like where troops will be sent on a mission. Pornography is censored in some countries because it is seen as not moral. For these reasons, the government might arrest anyone who publishes it.
Most often things are censored for one or more of the following reasons:
There is much debate about when censorship should be allowed. For example, U.S. President Richard Nixon censored the New York Times when they tried to publish articles about the Pentagon Papers, a group of classified military documents that showed that Nixon and the military lied about the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court in New York Times Co v. United States overturned the censorship, saying that Nixon had not shown it would be dangerous to the military, just embarrassing. In other countries, journalists and bloggers (who are usually not seen as journalists) are sometimes arrested for saying bad things about the government. In Egypt, Kareem Amer was famously arrested for insulting Islam and calling the president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, a dictator. [2]
Governments are not the only ones who censor information. For example, when the history department at Middlebury College did not allow professors to accept Wikipedia as a source in papers, some said it was censorship.[3] This was because the department was telling professors (who usually have academic freedom) what works they should and should not accept. Sometimes, a group or a website will not allow some facts, articles, and pictures that they do not think should be seen. There is much debate over the difference between censorship and editing, that is, deciding what should or should not be published.
Read the original:
Censorship - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Earlier this week, conservative media watchdog Media Research Center published a post about right-wing radio host Mark Levins latest book and their claim that the establishment media is ignoring Levin despite the book being a runaway best-seller.
To make their case, they pointed to the manner in which Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) was treated when his last book was released, claiming that nobody called up Levin for an interview, effectively censoring him:
They will allow a discussion of public policy as long as it matches their worldview. Think Sen. Al Franken. He is no Mark Levin intellectually, but thats irrelevant. His book came out a few weeks ago and he was the progressives toast of the town, celebrated all over the news shows, public TV and radio, and the late-night comedy shows. The Washington Post and New York Times rolled out 1,300-word rave reviews.
But once again, Levin is being shunned by the thought police. Witness that though its a runaway best-seller, now seven days consecutively, the establishment media have censored him completely, with not a single interview granted.
Aside from the fact that Levin has made several appearances on Fox News over the past two weeks, including spots on Watters World and Fox & Friends over the weekend apparently the MRC doesnt count the highest-rated cable news network as part of the establishment it appears theres one media personality who is disputing the conservative watchdogs take.
In his newsletter last night, CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter pointed out that he saw the MRCs claims of censorship as an opening to get Levin to finally appear on his show Reliable Sources. According to Stelter, however, Levin wanted nothing to do with CNN or his program. Stelter wrote:
I saw this as an opportunity to re-up our months-old requests for Levin to come on Reliable Sources. Surely, since MRC says hes been censored, hed jump at any chance at a non-Fox interview? But when I emailed him the offer on Thursday, he replied, Are you kidding me? Buddy, Ive zero respect for CNN or you. Youre a propagandist.
So, is it really censorship when one man, who already has access to a large platform, refuses to appear on certain outlets because he feels they are propaganda? Doesnt seem like it.
[image via screengrab]
Follow Justin Baragona on Twitter: @justinbaragona
Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
Read more:
Brian Stelter Rebuffs MRC 'Censorship' Claim By Revealing Mark Levin Declined CNN Invite - Mediaite
Those who spread fake news through the social media are also liable under the proposed bill. Flickr photo by Stanley Cabigas (CC BY 2.0)
Philippine Senator Joel Villanueva filed a billin late June that would criminalize the malicious distribution of false news. Media groups are warning it could lead to censorship.
Villanuevas Senate Bill No. 1492 or An Act Penalizing the Malicious Distribution of False News and Other Related Violations defines fake news as those which either intend to cause panic, division, chaos, violence, and hate, or those which exhibit a propaganda to blacken or discredit one's reputation.
The billassigns penalties to those who publish fake news and even to those who share it, potentially criminalizing social media users who may not fully understand the implications of simply sharing an articlewith friends.
Prison sentencing under the proposed law depends on the status of the entity who publishes or spreads the so-called fake news. A private individual found guilty of publishing or spreading fake news can face a prison term of up to five years. Agovernment official's sentence would be double that of a private individual. And a media entity or social media platform spreading fake news could be detained for up to 20 years.
Villanueva explained the rationalebehind these penalties:
The effect of fake news should not be taken lightly. Fake news creates impression and beliefs based on false premises leading to division, misunderstanding and further exacerbating otherwise strenuous relations.
He added that the passage of the bill will encourage our citizens, especially public officers, to be more responsible and circumspect in creating, distributing and/or sharing news.
Journalism Professor Danilo Arao reviewed the four-page bill and summarized his objections:
Definition of false news or information under Sec. 2 is so broad that it includes practically anything perceived to cause, among others, panic and hate (obviously hard to define)
Media organizations could be subjected to censorship under Sec. 3 of the proposed law because even fair commentary or investigative reports that are perceived to tarnish the reputation of a public official could be flagged as false news.
Arao further disputed theneed for a special law mentioning public officials, reasoning that they are already assumed to be following a code of conduct.
In a TV interview, a spokesperson fromthe Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility said the proposed legislation is unnecessary because Philippine libel law already addresses the issues raised by the senator.
A member of the House of Representatives proposed that instead of criminalizing fake news, the congress should work to approve a pending Freedom of Information bill that he says would helpcounter the irresponsible sharing of false information on media and the Internet.
AlterMidya, a network of independent media groups, denounced Villanuevas bill as irresponsible, unnecessary and dangerous attempt to impose a form of censorship on free expression and press freedom.
How does one distinguish between a false report based on an honest mistake and one maliciously spread through print, broadcasting and online?
It would endow the bureaucracy with the arbitrary power to declare any media issuance contrary to government interests as fake news, while approving, loudly or otherwise, even the most fraudulent report from either private or State media so long as it favors whatever regime is in power.
Veteran journalist Luis Teodoro reminded the senator that there are better ways to fight fake news:
Accountability in the exercise of the right to communicate is best enforced, not by the State, but by the media community itself as well as by a public media-literate and responsible enough to detect and not to spread fake news.
Philippine Star newspaper columnist Jarius Bondoc warned that if the bill becomeslaw, it could be abused by authorities who want to silence critics:
The bill is prone to abuse. A bigot administration can apply it to suppress the opposition. By prosecuting critics as news fakers, the government can stifle legitimate dissent. Whistleblowers, not the grafters, would be imprisoned and fined for daring to talk. Investigative journalists would cram the jails.
This is not the first time that a Philippine legislator has filed a bill that seeks to address the negative impact of fake news. Early this year, the Speaker of the House of Representatives proposedregulatingsocial media to prevent the spread of fake accounts and fake information.
Continue reading here:
Media Matters for America | How anti-choice zealots cry censorship whenever they are challenged Media Matters for America Most recently, Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, appeared on the June 26 edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight and claimed that Twitter was censoring Live Action's ads. Beyond alleging that Twitter was biased against the anti ... |
Read the original here:
How anti-choice zealots cry censorship whenever they are challenged - Media Matters for America
Nosy Floridians now have another outlet for their moral outrage. Now anybody in the US state can formally complain about books used in public schools, and schools are required to hear them out.
Last week governor Rick Scott signed a bill that allows any Florida resident to formally challenge new or old materials, like books and movies, available in public schools. In drafting the bill, lawmakers specifically added language that expanded the complaint process to include anyone, not just parents.
Original law:
Each district school board must adopt a policy regarding a parents objection to his or her childs use of a specific instructional material, which clearly describes a process to handle all objections and provides for resolution.
New law, with new language highlighted:
Each district school board must adopt a policy regarding an a parents objection by a parent or a resident of the county to the his or her childs use of a specific instructional material, which clearly describes a process to handle all objections and provides for resolution.
The law also lays out specific guidelines on how schools should field complaints to materials used in class, included in school libraries, and placed on reading lists. Previously the law said that when schools wanted to add new materials, parents had to file a petition within 30 days of the introduction, and that schools had to list the petition on their site and hold a public forum about it. The new version of the law adds that the petition can be filed by anyone, not just a parent; that forums will be overseen by a formal hearing officer, who cant be an employee of the school district; and that schools now have 30 days to hold the forums, instead of seven.
It adds three reasons that material can be challenged:
The purported goal of the bill is to create more transparency around what Florida kids are learning in school. But it effectively institutionalizes censorship, with broad criteria like not suited to student needs. Critics fear that the new legislation constitutes a big step toward the suppression of information on evolution and climate change. And it can be used as a formal process to keep out classics and new works that Floridians think are inappropriate.
According to the office for intellectual freedom (OIF), a part of the American Library Association, the added red-tape will ultimately be used to pressure individual teachers into sticking with safe choices. The goal of this bill is to tie up educators with so much process and challenge and review that they give up on trying to teach contemporary authors on difficult subjects, says OIF director James LaRue, And to intimidate anyone who crosses a political line.
He adds, This is not about education; its about politics.
See the article here:
A US state now lets anyonenot just parentsrequest to ban books in schools - Quartz