DIRTY GUILD WARS 2: The Voice Cast - Unnecessary Censorship
What if the voice cast were dirty back in the days? Censored. YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/SammpoStudios Twitch http://www.twitch.tv/Sammpo Face...
By: Sammpo
Continued here:
DIRTY GUILD WARS 2: The Voice Cast - Unnecessary Censorship - Video
China #39;great firewall #39; expands to step up Internet censorship
(CNN) -- The government is making it more difficult for its country #39;s Internet users to access banned websites.
By: KHON2 News
Read more here:
China 'great firewall' expands to step up Internet censorship - Video
FINAL FANTASY XIV: Unnecessary Censorship #4
Here #39;s the fourth in a series of videos I really enjoyed making! Hope you enjoy, and if you do please leave a thumbs up so I can keep this series going! A bi...
By: Zodical Candy
See the original post here:
Sonam Kapoor: I Don #39;t Believe In Censorship! Supports AIB roast!
Sonam Kapoor looked stunning as she was present to unveil Ciroc Filmfare Style Glamour Awards, a new event to honour the stars of the entertainment world. She spoke about filmfare and shared...
By: BiscootTV
Excerpt from:
Sonam Kapoor: I Don't Believe In Censorship! Supports AIB roast! - Video
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.
Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, place, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what can and cannot be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.
Socrates defied censorship and was sentenced to drink poison in 399BC for promoting his philosophies. Plato is said to have advocated censorship in his essay on The Republic. The playwright Euripides (480406BC) defended the true liberty of freeborn men, the right to speak freely.[2]
The rationale for censorship is different for various types of information censored:
Strict censorship existed in the Eastern Bloc.[9] Throughout the bloc, the various ministries of culture held a tight rein on their writers.[10] Cultural products there reflected the propaganda needs of the state.[10] Party-approved censors exercised strict control in the early years.[11] In the Stalinist period, even the weather forecasts were changed if they had the temerity to suggest that the sun might not shine on May Day.[11] Under Nicolae Ceauescu in Romania, weather reports were doctored so that the temperatures were not seen to rise above or fall below the levels which dictated that work must stop.[11]
Independent journalism did not exist in the Soviet Union until Mikhail Gorbachev became its leader; all reporting was directed by the Communist Party or related organizations. Pravda, the predominant newspaper in the Soviet Union, had a monopoly. Foreign newspapers were available only if they were published by Communist Parties sympathetic to the Soviet Union.
Possession and use of copying machines was tightly controlled in order to hinder production and distribution of samizdat, illegal self-published books and magazines. Possession of even a single samizdat manuscript such as a book by Andrei Sinyavsky was a serious crime which might involve a visit from the KGB. Another outlet for works which did not find favor with the authorities was publishing abroad.
The People's Republic of China employs sophisticated censorship mechanisms, referred to as the Golden Shield Project, to monitor the internet. Popular search engines such as Baidu also remove politically sensitive search results.[12]
Iraq under Baathist Saddam Hussein had much the same techniques of press censorship as did Romania under Nicolae Ceauescu but with greater potential violence.[citation needed]
Follow this link:
Join the largest online protest in history: tell Congress to stop this bill now!
Optional Member Code
Not In The US? Petition The State Department.
I am writing to you as a voter in your district. I urge you to vote "no" on cloture for S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act, on Jan. 24th. The PROTECT IP Act is dangerous, ineffective, and short-sighted. It does not deserve floor consideration. I urge my representative to vote "no" on SOPA, the corresponding House bill. Over coming days you'll be hearing from the many businesses, advocacy organizations, and ordinary Americans who oppose this legislation because of the myriad ways in which it will stifle free speech and innovation. We hope you'll take our concerns to heart and oppose this legislation by voting "no" on cloture.
Fight For The Future may contact you about future campaigns. We will never share your email with anyone. Privacy Policy
Watch the video American Censorship page View the Infographic Read SOPA on OpenCongress Read PIPA on OpenCongress
The three most definitive articles on SOPA and PIPA: Free Speech, Problems, Security
Fight for the Future is a non-profit organization fighting for people's freedoms in a new digital age.
Read more:
New book retraces the idea of censorship
Censorship is often regarded as a new concept used by modern leaders to suppress ideas and thought. But a new book edited by Dr Geoff Kemp from the University of Auckland outlines how censorship has been part of human life for 2500 years.
In Censorship Moments: Reading Texts in the History of Censorship and Freedom of Expression an international team of experts explores the nature of debates over censorship from Socrates and Cato to the later twentieth century.
The book is pointing out that the whole idea of censorship is bound up with history. The story of censorship is in part the story of democracy, Dr Kemp says.
Chapter topics range from ancient Roman Censorship to the Papal Index of Prohibited Books, the American founders and the censorship of public opinion, and Lenin and George Orwell on censorship. Contributors are drawn from the US, UK, Germany, Italy, Ireland and New Zealand, and feature leading historians of political thought such as Professor Bryan Garsten of Yale University and Professor Melissa Lane of Princeton University Professor Lane will visit Auckland as a Hood Fellow in semester two this year.
Dr Kemp, a Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations in the School of Social Sciences, has also written a chapter, Areopagiticas Adversary: Henry Parker and the Humble Remonstrance.
Areopagitica is the most celebrated denunciation of pre-publication press censorship in the English language. It was written by John Milton, poet and a civil servant for the Commonwealth (republic) of England under Oliver Cromwell, and published 23 November 1644, at the height of the English Civil War.
The Humble Remonstrance of the Company of Stationers had been written in April 1643 by political writer Henry Parker to support press regulation. The chapter asks how Milton and Parker, both associated with ideas of republican liberty, could differ on so fundamental an issue as free expression.
University of Auckland colleague Dr Katherine Smits chapter The Silencing of Womens Voices: Catharine MacKinnons Only Words discusses how Professor MacKinnons book identifies pornography as a key source of the continuing censorship of women, although it is, ironically defended on anti-censorship grounds.
The books release is topical given the recent Leveson Inquiry into the British Press, and the massacre of 12 people at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris last month.
View original post here:
The worst countries for press freedom are expected to increase control of the Internet, says Paris-based RSF
Authoritarian governments are doubling down on press censorship and becoming more adept at blocking Internet access to uncensored news sources, according to the annual World Press Freedom Index that will be published on Thursday.
The report, from Paris-based Reporters Without Borders, saw many countries lose points this year as threats against reporters and press freedom increased. They included governments using national security as an excuse to track reporters and their sources; threats from para-military, organized crime and terrorist groups; government interference in the media, and reporters being targeted for covering demonstrations.
The five countries ranked highest for press freedom were all in Northern Europe, while the U.S. ranked 49th, down 3 places from last year, in part because of a crackdown on government whistle blowers under President Barack Obama.
Most of the bottom 20 countries saw their ratings fall after greater efforts to control free access to information.
"With complete control of the traditional media assured, reining in the Internet is the next big task," said the report.
China was said to be "a pioneer" in Internet censorship, after blocking access to all Google services during the last year and stamping out domestic coverage of the Occupy Central protests in Hong Kong and the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.
Iran continues to pursue a national intranet that will keep citizens off the global Internet, and it arrested people who were using messaging apps WhatsApp, Viber and Tango. In Cuba, Internet access remains difficult to obtain and expensive, the report said.
Some countries, including Kazakhstan, have taken to blocking or banning websites without the need for court orders, while Uzbekistan, Belarus, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have cracked down on bloggers.
The two bottom-ranked countries, North Korea and Eritrea, run censorship regimes that ensure citizens have virtually no access to free information.
See the original post:
More online censorship coming to closed countries, says report
A new exhibit responds to the long practice of censorship of LGBT art.
Sexuality has been, and continues to be, used as a tool to prohibit LGBT cultural artwork. This exhibit at the Leslie-Lohman Museum of Gay and Lesbian Art, curated by Jennifer Tyburczy, includes work spanning three decades that has been censored, and in some cases vandalized.
Museum director Hunter O'Hanian says, The focus of this exhibition will be the work which has been excluded from other mainstream institutions due to its gay content. Going back to the Culture Wars of the 1980s, the exhibition landscape has changed as certain works of art have been excluded because they were considered offensive or too risky. While in some ways we live in a time which appears more tolerant, exclusion of artwork, and certain facts about some artists, are still excluded because of the persons sexual orientation.
Guest curator Jennifer Tyburczy says, The exhibition draws inspiration from the innovative responses to watershed moments in the history of censoring LGBTQ art in Canada, England, Ireland, the Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States. In concept, the show is principally drawn from two events: the censorship of Robert Mapplethorpes art in the 1980s and 1990s and the more recent withdrawal of David Wojnarowiczs A Fire in My Belly from the National Portrait Gallery in 2010. In practice, it seizes on the international fame of these controversies to delve deeper into the many ways that censorship functions in queer artistic life.
Irreverent: A Celebration of Censorship The Leslie-Lohman Museum of Gay and Lesbian Art February 13May 3 Public Opening: February 13, 2015, 68 p.m.
Zanele Muholi, excerpt from "Being" series, 2007, digital print, 48 x 39 in. Courtesy of the artist.
In the "Being" series (2007), Zanele Muholi interrogates black lesbian relationships and safer sex. On the surface, the visuals capture couples in intimate positions and moments showing their love for each other. However, Muholis photographs also critique HIV/AIDS prevention programming in South Africa, and how, in her view, it has failed women who have sex with other women. For years, Muholi has documented gay, lesbian, and transgender people in South Africa and beyond. In April 2012, Muholis apartment was broken into while she and her partner were away. The thieves took nothing but her archives, and little has been done to retrieve her works.
See the original post here:
In our last issue on Feb. 5, an article entitled Privilege is not an active part of our lives, was published in the opinion section of the Old Gold & Black.
Since then, members of the Editorial Board have received online comments, e-mails and verbal criticisms for having printed the article, which some have found offensive.
The individuals expressing these feelings seem to be under the impression that the views of this article are indicative of our own. As a result, we feel it is necessary to address the misconception over our policies regarding censorship.
The opinion section of the Old Gold & Black is comprised of editorials and letters to the editor, written by members of the Wake Forest community who wish to express their own, personal thoughts on current events and happenings of the day.
These op-eds do not, in any way, shape or form, represent the views of this newspaper or its staff. They represent only the views of the author.
No matter how controversial or unpopular ones views may be, the members of the Editorial Board strongly believe that every voice has the right to be heard a right that we will not rob from Wake Forest students, faculty, staff or alumni.
Our constitution states: In accordance with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S., we believe that all members of the Wake Forest community should have the right to exercise freedom of speech regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, physical disability or political views.
We are a newspaper founded on the principle of free speech for all not just for those who hold opinions more favorable than others. We are not now, nor will we ever become, an instrument of censorship. We do not believe controversy is something to shy away from.
There are important discussions and debates that we, as a community, must have; silencing the opinions of certain students is not the way to go about moderating these conversations.
To that end, we encourage all who call Wake Forest home to use the OGB as a way to engage in meaningful, constructive dialogue and debate. To clarify our policies for the future, we will include a disclaimer at the beginning of the opinion section of the newspaper, beginning with this issue.
Read this article:
The 200,000 or so Russian Internet users who have signed up with Tor since Vladimir Putin regained the countrys presidency in 2012 might soon have to find new ways of getting around Internet censorship. Under Putin, Russia has increased the Kremlin's ability to control information online, and now, based on the remarks of a powerful politician, it looks like Tor could be next.
One of the factors in the formation of the Internet environment in our country has become the authority for the pretrial blocking of websites, Leonid Levin, the head of the Duma Committee on Information Policy, Information Technologies and Communications, said in a speech Thursday, as quoted by RBC.Ru. It allows [us] to block information banned in Russia quickly. At the same time the pretrial blocking of anonymizing services deserves attention, such as access to the anonymous network Tor.
Tor, which stands for The Onion Router, cloaks Web users' Internet activities and physical locations, gives them access to otherwise inaccessible regions of the Internet and provides other services that help people hide themselves online. Its open to question exactly how safe the software is, but it's clear that Russia is not the only country trying to find out who is doing what -- and where. Originally a U.S. military project, Tor has been a target of virtually every major intelligence agency (including the National Security Agency) and repeatedly demonized by lawmakers throughout the world.
This could mean the Russian government's offer last July to pay $3.9 million rubles ($111,000 at the time) to anyone who could study the possibility of obtaining technical information about users and equipment on the Tor anonymous network wasn't successful.
Levin, who also said the state could pursue virtual private networks, expressed frustration that Moscow invests substantial additional funds in police and military but lacks the wherewithal to do so online.
Maybe the only surprise about the Russian government's going after Tor is that it hasn't clamped down already. Not content with television and radio, the Kremlin quickly increased its control of the Internet with laws targeting foreign social media outlets, popular Russian bloggersand was recently cited as the possible perpetrator of iOS malware launched against Russia's European rivals.
Go here to see the original:
Russian Censorship: Tor, Anonymous VPNs Could Be Target Of Next Crackdown, MP Warns
The 200,000 or so Russian Internet users who have signed up with Tor since Vladimir Putin regained the countrys presidency in 2012 might soon have to find new ways of getting around Internet censorship. Under Putin, Russia has increased the Kremlin's ability to control information online, and now, based on the remarks of a powerful politician, it looks like Tor could be next.
One of the factors in the formation of the Internet environment in our country has become the authority for the pretrial blocking of websites, Leonid Levin, the head of the Duma Committee on Information Policy, Information Technologies and Communications, said in a speech Thursday, as quoted by RBC.Ru. It allows [us] to block information banned in Russia quickly. At the same time the pretrial blocking of anonymizing services deserves attention, such as access to the anonymous network Tor.
Tor, which stands for The Onion Router, cloaks Web users' Internet activities and physical locations, gives them access to otherwise inaccessible regions of the Internet and provides other services that help people hide themselves online. Its open to question exactly how safe the software is, but it's clear that Russia is not the only country trying to find out who is doing what -- and where. Originally a U.S. military project, Tor has been a target of virtually every major intelligence agency (including the National Security Agency) and repeatedly demonized by lawmakers throughout the world.
This could mean the Russian government's offer last July to pay $3.9 million rubles ($111,000 at the time) to anyone who could study the possibility of obtaining technical information about users and equipment on the Tor anonymous network wasn't successful.
Levin, who also said the state could pursue virtual private networks, expressed frustration that Moscow invests substantial additional funds in police and military but lacks the wherewithal to do so online.
Maybe the only surprise about the Russian government's going after Tor is that it hasn't clamped down already. Not content with television and radio, the Kremlin quickly increased its control of the Internet with laws targeting foreign social media outlets, popular Russian bloggersand was recently cited as the possible perpetrator of iOS malware launched against Russia's European rivals.
See the original post here:
Russian Censorship: Tor, Anonymous VPNs Could Be Target Of Next Crackdown, Kremlin Warns