Actor-writer Murali Gopy has spoken against the Central government decision to bring online streaming and news websites under the regulatory purview of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. OTT platforms have offered viewers bold subjects and portrayals, compared to the offerings of mainstream cinema and TV, and that looks set to face curbs, thanks to the government decision which appeared through a gazette notification on November 9. This would apparently mean that OTT platforms would have the same censorship rules as TV.The actor, who has always been a vocal advocate against the idea of censorship of the creative arts, wrote on social media, Saving creative content from Governmental curbs, political agenda and ideological propaganda, is paramount to any democracy. Any effort to curb it, on any creative platform, needs to be fought legally through a concerted effort. Hope that would happen soon. The post was liked by actor and director Prithviraj.Murali also later posted a quote by 20th century Irish playwright George Bernad Shaw, that The first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.Editor Abhinav S Nayak, whose film credits include Uriyadi and Aanandam, also posted against the government decision, saying that if OTT platforms do not take up the fight against the government decision, subscribers would just move to other digital providers who would offer uncensored content. It is 2020 and no adult wants their content censored or cut. Piracy will rise and the industry will suffer. Yours sincerely, An adult with a working brain, he wrote.

Originally posted here:

Murali Gopy writes against censorship of OTT platforms - Times of India

Social media users cannot escape censorship. In an age of misinformation, Facebook and Twitter are attempting to regain control over their platforms and prevent users from spewing unreliable facts online. Removing problematic content is completely understandable, but the actions are also raising concerns.

Music streaming giant Spotify has subtly entered the discussion, and podcast creatives have every reason to be concerned about their work. Love him or hate him, Joe Rogan started this conversation, and his ongoing battle with Spotify is proving just how important it is.

Rogan is among the worlds most popular podcasters, and The Joe Rogan Experience has garnered a fiercely loyal fanbase. His fans not only respect his jokes, but they appreciate his willingness to embrace controversy. From politics to sports to neuroscience, he covers it all.

Rogan dominated podcasting independently before agreeing to a $100 million deal with Spotify earlier this year. Afterward, Spotify employees held meetings to voice their concerns about including his content on the platform. They even threatened to walk out if they could not have direct editorial oversight of the show. Rogan promised back in May there would be no censorship, and that the entire library would be available on Sept. 1.

[Review: The Queens Gambit is a gorgeous look at femininity, addiction and the 1950s]

Yet, when it first debuted on the platform, his show was missing episodes with his most controversial guests. Those included Mikhaila Peterson, Owen Benjamin and Alex Jones, among other right-wing activists, comedians and YouTubers.

Recently, fans noticed another recent episode with Jones had disappeared. If you believe what Spotify has said, then youd think that the episodes deletion was due to a technical glitch. Rogan said the same in an Instagram post that ironically was also deleted. But everything is riddled with speculation nowadays.

Even if listeners believe Rogan, the glitch reminded everyone of how serious censorships effects can be, and the desires of some Spotify employee to censor Rogan have brought up huge red flags for creators on the platform.

Rogan is not affiliated with a political party, but he is definitely a vocal commentator who leans libertarian. The JRE has never been labeled a news podcast, and Rogan is certainly not trying to win the Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting.

Instead of acting like a professional news anchor, he often presents repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories while painfully stoned. Rogan was brought to Spotify to be himself, which inevitably means making waves. An episode is sometimes like listening to a group of friends contemplate the existence of aliens while under the influence. Its concerning that Spotify employees hope to have serious editorial privileges over a show that is not even taking itself seriously (and, that utter ridiculousness is arguably responsible for podcastings shocking increase in popularity.)

[Netflix, we need to talk]

Fans are pointing out now that his recent apologies about spreading misinformation are uncharacteristic. In that recent episode with Alex Jones, Rogan met him with a healthy amount of questioning and included a fact-checker.

Trying to be more responsible is a worthwhile effort. However, Rogan should not be forced to lose his unfiltered attitude. That would be a blow to the shows creative integrity, especially given that it was never meant to be an accurate source of information.

Critics argue that someone is bound to take the nonsense that Rogans guests often spew seriously. This would require them to disregard the shows many disclaimers or labels. Some of the guests stances can absolutely be dangerous; however, context is crucial.

Listeners are not deceived into thinking they are hearing from the most sophisticated sources. The JRE could easily be classified as a comedy show. Criticizing a comedians content is easy. A good political comedian needs to push boundaries and make their audience a little uncomfortable. If Rogan cannot do that, he cannot properly do his job.

Call Her Daddys Alex Cooper is another comedy podcast host who deals with controversy over her content. Given the unclear standards for censorship across the internet, there is nothing stopping Spotify employees from going after the beloved Gluck Gluck, too. If political comedy is inappropriate for audiences, vulgar sex jokes are not immune to potential censorship, either.

Ultimately, Spotifys potential restrictive powers are not a political issue but a creative one. Due to the apps size, creators dont have many alternative platforms. Not everyone has a massive Rogan-sized following and budget that would allow them to work independently. Censorship needs to be watched to ensure the platform continues to welcome all podcasters and encourage creativity.

Originally posted here:

Joe Rogan and other creators are in trouble if Spotify has censorship power - The Diamondback

Letters complaining about newspaper articles are unexceptional. Not so letters from the lyse Palace. Last week, the Financial Times published, after the killing of teacher Samuel Paty in Paris and of churchgoers in Nice, an article by its Europe correspondent, Mehreen Khan, critical of French president Emmanuel Macrons policies towards Islam. Macrons desire to use the state to prescribe a correct religion, she wrote, has more in common with authoritarian Muslim leaders than enlightenment values of separating church and state.

Macron responded with a letter-cum-article defending himself and his policies and accusing Khan of misquoting him he insisted he had never talked of Islamic separatism, as Khan suggested, only of Islamist separatism. By the time the FT published Macrons letter, however, it had removed Khans article for factual inaccuracies. One could read the criticism but not what was being criticised. Newspapers do sometimes excise articles Im sure the Observer has done so. But they should do so only in truly exceptional circumstances, and then give a full account as to why. The removal of offending articles after criticism is, however, becoming a more acceptable part of our culture.

A few days before Khans article was pulled, Politico Europe published a highly disingenuous op-ed by leading French academic Farhad Khosrokhavar. The reason for Islamist terror, he said, lies in Frances extreme form of secularism and its embrace of blasphemy. Intellectuals who came out in praise of blasphemy should have considered their words more carefully. While French secularists are fighting for freedom of expression, he wrote, innocent people are dying, conveniently ignoring the fact that its not secularists doing the killing. You will have to take my word for all this because, after a barrage of criticism, Politico Europe removed the article for not meeting our editorial standards. I disagree with Khosrokhavars article, but I disagree, too, with its removal. This is not how journalism or public debate should work, or can work, especially when engaging with contentious issues.

At the same time, arguments such as Khosrokhavars must be robustly challenged. The claim that secularism and blasphemy help radicalise Islamists is false and dangerous. France has suffered grievously from Islamist terror 267 people have died in terror attacks since 2012 but it is far from a unique target. A week after the Nice killings came an Islamist terror attack in Vienna, with four people shot dead. Austria, unlike France, has a highly restrictive blasphemy law, which has been used to criminalise critics of Islam. In between the attacks in Nice and Vienna came terror strikes in Kabul and Peshawar, on university students and a Quran study class. The vast majority of jihadist killings are in Muslim-majority countries with obnoxiously tight blasphemy laws. Secularists and blasphemers in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and elsewhere have long faced murderous assaults, from both jihadists and the authorities. These are the people betrayed by western critics of blasphemy.

To say this is not to say that one should therefore defend Macron or his policies. For these policies, like much of the French response to Islam and terror, are shot through with hypocrisy and illiberalism. For all its claimed attachment to free speech, France has tough laws against speech deemed unacceptable, from Holocaust denial to insulting the French flag. It has criminalised those who call for a boycott of Israel. It has banned protests against Charlie Hebdo, and, after the 2015 massacre of the magazines staff, dozens of Muslims were arrested for suggesting sympathy with the killers, including a boy who posted on Facebook a cartoon mocking the magazine. A proposed law threatens academic freedom in the name of the values of the republic. Another would outlaw any filming of police in which officers may be identified.

Police brutality against those of North African origin is well documented. There is deep-seated racism in many spheres of social life from employment to housing, though figures are sparse given French reluctance to collect ethnic data. Being colour blind is all too often cover for being blind to racism.

Racism and double standards cannot be challenged by caving in to those who wish to restrict speech or the right to blaspheme. Nor can free speech be bolstered, or terrorism contained, by ignoring double standards, racist bigotry and the illiberalism of much of Macrons policies.

The struggles for free speech, in defence of secularism, against racism and to counter terrorism are inextricably linked. Self-censorship in response to Islamist threats needs resisting. So does self-censorship in response to the displeasure of democratic leaders.

Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

Link:

Fanatics have no right to censor critics. But neither does Emmanuel Macron - The Guardian

Twitter is censoring conservatives sharing information and opinions about the election, reinforcing the expected big tech bias against dissenting voices. Since it has been established that Big Techs censorship often targets the truth such as the recovered Hunter Biden laptop, whether research backs mask mandates, the efficacy of certain anti-COVID drugs, the Russiagate coup attempt its clampdown on discussion of electoral integrity indicates it is indeed a concern.

The Federalists John Daniel Davidson wrote an article breaking down some of the suspicious activity associated with key states, headlined Yes, Democrats Are Trying To Steal The Election In Michigan, Wisconsin, And Pennsylvania.

Twitter censored The Federalists tweet of this article, prohibiting any shares, likes, or comments. The label on the post claims that the article contained disputed or misleading information related to the election.

Davidsons article, however, simply breaks down some of the significant voting discrepancies that have been raised as multiple battleground states continue to be uncalled and undecided.

Earlier in the day, Twitter censored The Federalist Co-Founder Sean Davis multiple times, preventing people from sharing or interacting with some of his tweets, for simply restating Pennsylvanias supreme court decision declaring that all ballots received after election day, including those without a postmark, will be counted.

Pennsylvanias top court said that all ballots received after election day even those without a postmark must be assumed to have been cast by election day, Davis said in a retweet of National Review Senior Writer David Harsanyi, who stated that PA is allowing post-election day ballots. Its a fact.

The same thing occurred when Davis pointed out a suspicious vote dump in Michigan that clocked 138,339 votes in the middle of the night all for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Other conservative voices were also censored by Twitter such as The Daily Wires Matt Walsh.

Even the president was censored for claiming that the Democrats are attempting to steal the election.

A tweet from Biden claiming that were gonna win this, however, received no attention from the big tech giant.

The media also criticized Trump for announcing that he won even while states were being counted, but the same scrutiny was not applied when Bidens lawyer Bob Bauer prematurely declared a Biden victory.

It is clear from these labels, the limited distribution of these posts, and the hypocrisy demonstrated that big tech and the media dont believe that people can think for themselves. It is also clear that they are heavily invested in preventing the public from discussing or discovering the truth through inquiry and debate, as that often gives people the will to resist political changes imposed through lies.

Instead of admitting that there are still many unknowns in the presidential election, big tech and the media continue to assist Democrats in making a Biden win an inevitability rather than ensuring that all legal ballots are accurately counted so that both sides can trust the election outcome is legitimate.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Read more:

Big Tech Censorship Is Proof That Media Are Trying To Steal The Election - The Federalist

On 27 May, #CensorWebSeries trended on Twitter. Mobile and digital news portal Medianama reported then that it seems like a concerted campaign... [with] more than 65,000 mentions today alone. The accounts receiving the most engagement under the trend so far are right wing organisations like the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti; Hindu nationalist publishers group Sanatan Prabhat, and several individuals with bios along the same lines.

Such calls to ban online shows and platforms have been common in the last few years. Series like Sacred Games and Leila (Netflix), The Family Man and Paatal Lok (Amazon Prime Video) have all inspired campaigns of varying intensitymostly from deeply conservative groupsto see them censored or banned. Objecting to The Family Man, Hitesh Shankar, editor of Panchajanya, a publication affiliated to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), told The Hindu in September last year: There has to be some oversight, some mechanism through which this kind of content cannot make its way to screens in this country.

It seems the disparate protests have borne fruit, with a government order bringing all online content under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B). The notification specified that films and audio-visual programmes made available by online content providers and news and current affairs content on online platforms would be under the ministrys ambit. This was done by amending the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 under the powers conferred by Article 77(3) of the Constitution (which gives the President power to change rules for convenient business transactions for the government). The changes will see immediate effect.

This move can be seen as the culmination of increasing interest shown by the government in regulating online content. In March, the I&B ministry under Prakash Javadekar gave OTT players 100 days to set up an adjudicatory body and finalise a code of conduct. In September, the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI)a group of 15 streaming players that includes Netflix, ALTBalaji and Disney+ Hotstarsigned a code of self-regulation. However, in an interview with The Indian Express in October, Javadekar said no credible mechanism had been worked out. He also said, We dont censor. We believe in self-regulation.

Javadekars words notwithstanding, it seems likely that the OTT space will, for the first time, have to deal with the government telling them what they can or cant say and show. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is under the I&B ministry, so its likely streaming films will need a censor certificate before release. What will happen to streaming shows remains to be seen, but given how the demands for censorship by right-leaning groups most often focused on the purportedly "anti-Hindu" Leila and Sacred Games, its quite possible they will face some form of censorship too (foreign OTT contentalready self-censored on occasionmight be similarly impacted).

The emergence of acclaimed streaming series in the last couple of years is largely a result of the freedom afforded to their makers from censorship. It is difficult to see how shows like Paatal Lok, Sacred Games, Made in Heaven, The Family Man or Mirzapur can continue being made with the sort of opaque and stringent rules that govern our theatrical releases. Indian streaming TV was just coming into its own. But the party might already be over.

Read the original post:

Is the party over for Indian streaming platforms? - Livemint

For many years, social media firms like Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) and Twitter (NYSE:TWTR) courted controversy over accusations that they deliberately censor or otherwise stymie conservative and right-wing voices. In fairness, I can appreciate why big tech firms have a vested interest in cleaning up their content. Frankly, bigotry is bad for business. But this years election cycle has only ramped up contentions over content arbitration, clouding the narrative for FB stock.

Source: Ink Drop / Shutterstock.com

As you know, President Donald Trump garnered notoriety for his constant criticism of fake news and mainstream media suppression of conservative ideologies. Moreover, Republicans havent been messing around, leveling all kinds of accusations against big tech, putting the sectors executives on the hot seat. Now, the common charge is that the underlying business model of FB stock violates in spirit the First Amendment.

I say in spirit because the First Amendment only applies to the government restricting free speech, not private corporations. And before you send me hate mail, please note that Im using private in the sense that these companies are not government entities. I fully realize that Facebook is a publicly traded company.

Essentially, then, the argument is that social media firms are using a constitutional technicality to censor conservative ideas. But if the overall impact results in free speech suppression, wouldnt that essentially be a constitutional violation? Because if were being intellectually honest, social media firms today have unfathomable influence in directing the national discourse.

On the other hand, Im not really sure if conservatives will be able to win the war against big tech, which may seem to bode well for FB stock. Heres the deal nothing is stopping Republican voters from creating their own Facebook or Twitter.

For instance, the alt-right (you can look this up yourself, Im not going to give these organizations oxygen) offers dating websites for white people only. While this notion sounds like something out of the Third Reich, the U.S. government cannot prevent far-right wing organizations from creating a race-based dating site.

Since the opportunity exists for conservatives to create their own platforms, the First Amendment ruckus probably wont work. Still, censorship is probably not in Facebooks or big techs interest and heres why.

In recent years, two stories piqued my interest. First, Tracy Jones article about his challenges rearing his biracial daughter in Japan, and second, the death of Christian missionary John Allen Chau at the North Sentinel Island. I found both narratives to be heartbreaking. But there are also two sides to every story.

Underlining these two seemingly disparate topics is the idea that the American foreigner has the right to assume that their permanent presence is welcome in a land not their own. In Chaus case, the indigenous Sentinelese tribe made it abundantly clear that they did not want the Gospel message. With Jones, some Japanese made it clear (in a far nicer way than the Sentinelese) that he was not appreciated.

Mainstream media coverage was generally sympathetic toward the Sentinelese. Though the indigenous tribe murdered Chau, there was an inherent risk of spreading disease to an uncontacted people group. Further, the Sentinelese expressed their displeasure at every attempt made at contact.

Similarly, the Japanese would probably continue embracing their homogeneity and nationalism had it not been for U.S. Navy Commodore Matthew Perry. For Japan, diversity of ideas and eventually people came at the threat of annihilation.

But the raging hypocrisy is that the Sentinelese murdered Chau, whose only crime was to preach salvation through Jesus Christ. Im sorry folks but thats not worthy of a death sentence; you can just say, no thanks! Yet the media emphasizes that ultimately, the Sentinelese have the right to protect their heritage at any cost.

However, the mainstream media has made it clear that the Japanese do not have that same right. Here, I am deeply troubled when Americans go to foreign countries to promote American-style virtue signaling. I mean, we wouldnt like it if Japanese commentators came to America and called us a bunch of gun-loving loons.

You know what wed say? Our guns, our business, go fly a kite. But in turn, dont the Japanese have the right to say the same thing about race relations in Japan?

But by censoring counterarguments and opposition speech on the faulty, reactionary notion of racism, only one side of the narrative is broadcasted. That feeds into deep resentment, contributing to characters like Donald Trump becoming leaders of the free world. And thats why capricious censorship of any conservative idea, no matter how well-reasoned, may be unfavorable for FB stock. It not only leads to blowback in the worst possible way but its bad for business (just like outright bigotry and racism is bad for business).

Youre losing an audience that is actually much more vocal and voluminous than coastal liberal elites assume. Just look at how close Trump came to winning reelection, even with fake ballots.

I like to consider myself a world traveler, although I havent had much time to do so in recent years. Still, I fondly remember my very brief time in Slovakia.

I was in a rundown part of the country. Honestly, the place looked like a warzone. And scrabbled all over the walls were the numbers 14/88. Thats code for if youre not white, you better run.

Did I find this offensive? Of course! But at the same time, I didnt run around to every Slovak and demand that they accept me. Look, its a white country and they want to keep it that way. Who am I, a foreigner, to demand they accept diversity with open arms?

I tell you this story because racial diversity is not a moral virtue. Its merely a choice: some people embrace it, but others do not. Whats wrong is to assume that those who dont embrace diversity which to be clear is far different from racism or fighting words are somehow morally flawed and must either be punished or censored.

Thats not the American way. And I would argue that its probably not good for FB stock. Again, youre denying voices that have every right to speak. Further, these voices often have hefty wallets. While Facebook can censor, it doesnt necessarily mean that it should.

On the date of publication, Josh Enomoto did not have (either directly or indirectly) any positions in the securities mentioned in this article.

A former senior business analyst for Sony Electronics, Josh Enomoto has helped broker major contracts with Fortune Global 500 companies. Over the past several years, he has delivered unique, critical insights for the investment markets, as well as various other industries including legal, construction management, and healthcare.

Continue reading here:

Facebook Can Censor But Heres Why It Shouldnt - InvestorPlace