In 2020, CDT Chinese editors launchedtheCDTCensorship Digest series. The series will collect and quote from news and online speech that was censored by Chinese authorities during the previous month, as well as summarize efforts to preserve and strengthen freedom of speech in Chinese society. When relevant to CDT English readers, we willtranslate the Chinese series in part or in full. CDT has translated an excerpt from the fullCDT Chinese digest for August, adapted to include links to English coverage when available:

In August, while the CCP lavishly exercised its totalitarian power over China, signs emerged of global opposition to its increasing ambition to export that power to the world. At home, new crackdowns hit social media accounts on Weibo, WeChat, Douyin, and other platforms; various forms of censorship cleared distinct voices one by one; and a health code that emerged during the COVID-19 outbreak turned into a substantial weapon for surveillance. On the frontiers of the CCPs formal power, the newly implemented National Security Law allowed the CCP to make unbridled arrests of the once free people in Hong Kong; in Xinjiang, an extreme COVID-19 lockdown continued after cases subsided further terrorizing the people there; mass anger followed the governments requirement of schools in Inner Mongolia to use Chinese under the banner of Type Two Bilingual Education.

Meanwhile, on the international stage, the low profile that Beijing has long maintained began to crumble, and the values the CCP has attempted to export through economic, cultural, academic, and other avenues have been identified as a threat to the free world.

Two or three years ago, historian Yu Yingshi noted in an interview that under the status quo, it was impossible to talk about where China was headed. With the amount of resources currently devoted to its operation, and a regime willing to back it with violence, Party capitalism would be around for a while, there would be no possibility of immediate change to the status quo. However, he also noted that this in no way means he believes that the dictatorship of Party capitalism would dominate the world, as the world has noticed its tendency to sacrifice the weak and poor in society to allow elite groups to get rich first.

As Yu pointed out, while the CCP has poured effort into expanding its territory and global influence in recent years, it has exposed to the world its Achilles heel. Whether it be on the mainland, in Hong Kong, in Xinjiang, or on the international stage, the CCPs totalitarian violence is constant. But, there is also a growing consensus that a regime maintained on violence cant last.

1. Totalitarianisms Achilles Heel: Those Brave Enough to Challenge It

On August 17, the website of the Central Party School announced that retired professor Cai Xia made statements that are very politically problematic and damaging to the reputation of the country. Her character is vile, the situation grave. She has seriously violated the Partys political discipline and the behavioral norms of employees of state institutions [] and that Cais CCP membership and retirement benefits had been cancelled. Cai, who reported being safe and well in the United States, replied on Twitter:

Ive been totally cut out of this mafia party! Theyve always been afraid to see the light. When they expelled me, all they said was that I had made very politically problematic statements, but they didnt say what the problems were, or what exactly I had said. Thats why I have extracted the relevant parts of their official pronouncement of my expulsion. My friends, here it is: (1) I wrote a short piece about the National Security Law in Hong Kong; (2) I talked about replacing Xi in a speech I gave that was recorded; (3) I signed a petition for freedom of speech to my compatriots. [Source]

Days later, on August 19 Tsinghua University issued an unemployment notice for Professor Xu Zhangrun, who has in recent years attracted attention for publishing articles criticizing the government. Xu had been detained in July, and has pledged to challenge the wholly nonexistent charges of solicitation of prostitution that authorities have alleged. Shortly after, Xu was appointed as a research associate at Harvard, but has been barred from leaving China. China Heritage has translated Xus letter of thanks, and his reiterated critique of Beijing.

On August 4, the founder of the Not News protest tracking site Lu Yuyu was once again summoned by the police. He had recently been released after serving a four-year sentence for his work, and began publishing his experiences on Twitter (before switching to Matters; CDT has translated his account). What did police warn Lu about this time when they visited? Scaling the wall to access Twitter.

[] 2. Mainland Surveillance Becomes Increasingly Comprehensive, Increasingly Unsettling

The Cyberspace Administration of China took action once again in August, this time taking aim at commercial website platforms and self-media. Chinese social media sustained yet another great purge, amid which many Weibo and WeChat accounts were shut downvirtually all accounts discussing news or current affairs were taken down.

Commenting on this, the founder of Southern Metropolis Daily and former general editor of Beijing News Cheng Yizhong stated that he believed the current situation for Chinese internet platforms began taking shape back in 2003. This most recent action was nothing newjust authorities playing their old tune over again. This time, they moved self-media into their managerial purview, but theyre just beating a dead horse. Its a crackdown just for higher-ups to see, he said:

When the internet first appeared, the authorities hesitated. They thought they wouldnt be able to control it. They thought controlling traditional media would be good enough. But in 2003, a series of events, including the Sun Zhigang incident, SARS, the Southern Metropolis Daily case, etc., made the authorities realize that the influence of the internet had increased. They realized they had to actively manage it. And so they had to change the situation. And so, the situation began to change at this time. [Chinese]

Around that time, Chen recalled, the CCP changed its political approach and began imitating North Korea, and its control of the internet became greater and greater.

CDT Chinese editors have been taking note. In August, CDT Chinese published a review of WeChat censorship and its harm. A short excerpt is translated here:

Oh how WeChat has suffered in this world! WeChat has over 1.1 billion active accounts worldwide and over 20 million public accounts. Everyone knows, its enormous Chinese-language user base and the information monopoly it enjoys (maintained by the Great Firewall) are key tools for Chinas autocratic rule. For many years, WeChat has subjected users to increasingly strict censorship. During any important event society (the commemoration of June 4th, the death of Liu Xiaobo, the Sino-U.S. trade war, the #MeToo movement, the 709 human rights lawyer roundup, the Hong Kong anti-China extradition movement, the coronavirus epidemic, and other various public crises, civic movements, human rights movements, the arrest and persecution of citizen journalists and dissidents, etc.), WeChat will always cooperate with the authorities, conducting large-scale silencing campaigns, blocking and filtering information to deceive and control the public. On top of that, during so-called sensitives periods like the COVID-19 pandemic, WeChat censors speech, shuts down groups and individual accounts left and right, proverbially helping the tyrant carry out oppression, playing the jackal to the tiger. Xu Zhangrun called this WeChat terrorism. The people have long made their discontent over this heard. [Chinese]

On August 12, CCTV criticized renowned Hong Kong lyricist Albert Leung for associating with Hong Kong independence activists, because he interacted with Nathan Law on social media. The commentary also mentioned a 2015 lecture Leung gave at Hong Kong University, during which he delivered lyrics from the point of view of an official mouthpiece, in parody of the song Beijing Welcomes You. The article called this a stain on his life. CCTVs article incited widespread anger towards Leung on Weibo, where it became a trending topic. While comments called for Albert Leungs works to be banned, there were also voices opposing this.

In recent years, in Chinas high-pressure political atmosphere, numerous artists and celebrities have been boycotted after publicly doing or saying something involving Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, or other sensitive topicsor perhaps just because some unexpected incriminating evidence happened to surface. In these instances, they are frequently reported by nosy people, named and criticized by official media, then their stories explode online, thanks to the work of all the little pinks. In less serious cases, they apologize and delete their posts. In serious cases their work gets banned and they are blacklisted in Mainland China. The regime has silenced and caused artists to self-censor for a very long time, relying on the powerful deterrent of scaring artists into compliance. Other talented people who dont comply get shut out. This also impairs the quality of life for the ordinary people of the mainland by restricting their access to artistic works.

For this reason, CDT Chinese editors have compiled a list of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Western celebrities that have faced backlash in China for political reasons. Whether innocent victims actively resisting oppression or protesters fighting for their ideals, they all deserve attention.

On August 17 The New Yorker published famed former China correspondent Peter Hesslers article titled How China Controlled the Coronavirus. The article was translated into at least two separate simplified Chinese versions that were circulated in Chinese social media. Observant internet users discovered that, compared to the original English, the translated versions happened to leave out mention of the initial Chinese coverup of the virus and a brief mention of policy on Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Additionally, global propaganda outlet CGTN couldnt resist using Hesslers article to exalt China and disparage the U.S.

On August 15, internet users discovered that the film V for Vendetta had completely disappeared from the web. The film, based on a cartoon of the same name, tells the story of a parallel time and space, where the Nazis won World War II and the United Kingdom became its colony. A strange masked hero, who called himself V, fought against the totalitarian government. Since the movies 2005 release, the Guy Fawkes mask worn by V has come to symbolize resistance to totalitarian rule.

Since Xi Jinpings rise to power, more and more movies, books, songs, videos, variety shows, and even animation have become subject to increased scrutiny. Some of this censorship originated from relevant authorities, such as the National Radio and Television Administration, but theres also a lot of self-censorship carried out within major media platforms. Intended to minimize the risk of drawing the ire of national authorities, this completely eliminates space for political dissent. Beyond that, tolerance is also dropping sharply even for content deemed unsuitable for children, negative energy, or non-mainstream. While this censorship is an infringement on peoples rights, its also a serious blow to content creators, to market freedom, and to economic vitality. For public reference, CDT Chinese editors are keeping track of recent instances of creators, works, and programs being censored.

Censorship isnt the only way the CCP exercises its totalitarian control. Its also increasingly interested in ordinary peoples daily lives. On August 5, New York Times correspondent Chris Buckley shared a video in which a Chinese man gave a detailed explanation of all of the various functions of the surveillance cameras on a monitoring pole. Some of the functions included car license plate monitoring, facial recognition, and cell phone positioning. The video demonstrated what personal privacy looks like in the collecting it all at a glance big data era in China.

In August, Xi Jinping issued orders aimed at stopping food waste, and the vague central orders along with the food industrys ham-fisted attempts to comply was met with a consumer backlash. Commenting on this situation on WeChat Moments, Zhao Chu said:

These days, the anti-food waste movement has been become the the proverbial deer who is called a horse: a deliberate misrepresentation, a nationwide stress test, to show complete loyalty and surrender. Living frugally and not wastingthis is simple common sense. Its meaning is limited. Because, first, the economic development of modern society is based on consumption. Second, ones personal consumption habits are not something that can be publicly controlled. In modern countries, money for public expenditure comes from the people. It is to be spent with the publics permission. Therefore, powerful and effective means should be available to the people to supervise and control the expenditure of public fundsrather than those in power having control over how people order food or eat, watch what movies, read what books. From Albania, the Khmer Rouge, Tanzania-Zambia Railway, to the Great Leap Forward, it doesnt take long to seewhat else in the world is more wasteful than power not controlled by the people? What could produce worse consequences? [Chinese]

In another worrying occurrence this August, electronic currency appears to be moving in to replace paper money with increasing speed. Electronic food stamps are even a possibility, further increasing public anxiety. On WeChat, Fang Haixin wondered how long it might take for this trend to be weaponized and used in efforts to control the public:

As it is with all things, where theres a positive, theres also a negative. You could easily imagine, for example, youre a victim of injustice, and you want to buy a car to go to Beijing to file a complaint. So, can the person in charge of the roads shut down your e-wallet with a simple phone call to the bank? Youd be instantly rendered penniless. Forget about buying a train ticketyou wouldnt even have money to pay for daily living expenses. Would you still dare go petition for your rights? If youre a lawyer, not only would the government be able to revoke your lawyers license, theyd also be able to shut down your e-wallet. What would you do then? [Chinese]

[] 5. Xi Jinpings China is the Greatest Threat to Life in the Free World

On August 29, a young American named Kevin posted an article in Chinese and English arguing that Xi Jinpings China is the greatest threat to the way of life we enjoy in the free world:

CPC influence is already widespread in American academia, business, think tanks, pop culture, and politics. Given what the CPC has done to suppress freedom within Chinas borders and the steps it is taking to buy influence and silence criticism globally, this should concern all Americans liberal, conservative, or otherwise. [Source]

It is increasingly clear that this is the understanding the world is coming to, the action the world has taken.

During an August 5 press conference, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced five new measures to establish a U.S. Clean Network, naming seven Chinese technology companies, including Huawei, China Mobile, and Baidu. The measures would ban more Chinese apps and put another set of restrictions on Chinese companies entering U.S. cloud networks. Pompeo, speaking to the media, went so far as to say that its possible companies like TikTok and WeChat that operate in the United States, all directly submit their data to the Chinese Communist Party.

Why is the U.S., who has always led the charge against Chinas internet censorship, taking moves to clean up the internet? There are a lot of reasons: security concerns, to protect their own economy But at the end of the day, its all about a conflict between two different value systems. From Voice of America:

[Scholar] Hu Ping said: The principle of reciprocity is a fair principle. This is reasonable to everyone. Whether or not the Chinese accept it, the U.S. has a moral advantage. This is more powerful than economic interest or security. If the Chinese side refuses, then the U.S. will have even more just cause to take any action against Chinese social media and self media. This is the CCPs weakness. I dont expect China to accept these restrictions, but this is a moral victory the U.S. can only win by emphasizing this [moral superiority]. They must put into stark relief that this is a battle between freedom and autocracy. It is a battle between two systems, two sets of values. [Chinese]

On August 13, the U.S. government announced they had labelled Confucius Institutes a foreign mission, forcing the organization to accept stricter administrative restrictions. This meant that the agency coordinating Confucius Institutes in the U.S. would join the ranks of the nine Chinese state media, targeted for review by the U.S. government.

On August 1, media began covering a report from Stanford University, Telling Chinas Story: The Chinese Communist Partys Campaign to Shape Global Narratives. The report analyzed two core institutions through which the Chinese government controls political messaging: the CPC Central Committee Propaganda Department and the United Front Work Department, and also warned of the threat that Chinas increasing propaganda power has to global freedom and democracy.

On August 11, multiple international non-governmental organizations, including Safeguard Defenders, issued a joint call to the United Nations to conduct a comprehensive review of Chinas use of forced television confessions. They urged action against the Chinese government to reduce forced television confessions and other human rights violations.

6. A Police State Will Eventually Fracture

As the CCP attempted to show the world its upgraded dystopian grand plan this August, its Achilles heel was simultaneously exposed by growing opposition at home, on the periphery, and worldwide. A viral article by Guo Jianlong, shared on WeChat, made a prediction of where this might lead:

In the end, no matter how large a superpower, once it embarks down the path of security maintenance, no matter how long they can stretch it out, it will inevitably fracture to pieces. And after the fracture, the result will be even more chaotic.

In actuality, many countries in the world have already embarked down the road to fracture. Its just that some of them are close to the end, and others have a long way to go. These uncertain times are making many in power to have a fluke mentality: After Im dead, who cares about floods or crops? Or: Im not going to become Chongzhen Emperor. [Chinese]

Translation by Little Bluegill and Josh Rudolph.

See the original post:

CDT Censorship Digest, August 2020: Xi's China the Greatest Threat to Life in the Free World - China Digital Times

Censorship, usually understood as repressive state power, has often been considered a theoretically dull subject even if a politically vital one.

Scholars saw their task as ensuring that such activity does not pass without historical accounting and would, therefore, catalogue the instances, discern motivations and assess the implications of censorship.

But, as three recent books on India demonstrate, the state is no longer the sole agent engaged in censorial activity. Demands for censorship, as well as practices of censorship, come from and are practised in all realms of society. Censorship then is often a collaborative venture between the state and society.

This shift in understanding from censorship as a unilateral exercise of coercive and monolithic state power to its more complex, motivated and collaborative dimension has political implications. For, if the traditional liberal concern was to protect the individual from the state, an additional question is now being posed: how does one respond when the clamour for censorship comes from the public groups that utilise a plethora of laws, and at times resort to vigilante action to achieve their aims?

If one is to diagnose contemporary democracy, and how the postcolonial present has been shaped by an infrastructure of colonial law and regulation, then expanding our understanding of the modalities and varieties of contemporary censorship is an urgent matter.

Watch | For Those Charged With Sedition, the Process Itself Is the Punishment

Devika SethiWar over Words: Censorship in India, 1930-1960Cambridge University Press (2019)

All three authors have examined the legacy of colonial censorship, which Devika Sethi, a historian, notes demarcated three broad categories: sedition (political speech regarded as illegitimate), obscenity (the transgression of perceived moral norms) and hate literature (incitement to communal or ethnic disharmony).

Sethis central concerns are, topically, an interest in the long history of censoring texts that have caused religious hurt, and practically, the informalization of censorship, that is, a shift from regulation to persuasion, incentives and collaboration. She examines the periods immediately preceding and succeeding independence (1930-1960) to assess the continuities and changes from the colonial to the post-colonial state.

While the overarching themes of all three books are similar, Anushka Singh fleshes out the category of sedition, whereas Malvika Maheswaris focus is on the offence caused by artists. She, therefore, concentrates on obscenity and hate literature. Singh and Maheswari, both political scientists, bring us up to contemporary events, trying to explain how charges of sedition, and the alacrity with which offence is taken, have become a pervasive feature of our times. All three writers underscore how individuals and groups use various laws to press the state into action.

Sethi examines the long history of individual and religious associations petitioning the colonial government, often successfully, to prohibit publications offensive to religious sensibilities. She notes that success often depended on the political context and that for the colonial authorities, considerations of public order usually trumped concerns over the restriction of free speech. The colonial state also sought co-operation and collaboration from its colonial subjects; in particular, from the Indian nationalist press during the second world war years.

Sethi details a variety of techniques through which the nationalist press was co-opted into exercising voluntary censorship as state officials sought to enlist them against a purported common enemy. After independence, this informalisation, Sethi argues, continued although the motivations may have changed. Informalisation was now, in part, a response to the conundrums of censorship faced by the Congress government.

Indian nationalists suffering from colonial censorship, had developed a commitment to free speech. Once in government, however, they faced the problems of hate speech, communalist violence and ideological challenges from both the right and the left. While attempts during the constituent assembly debates to add a new sedition law were defeated, additional restrictions on speech and expression were realised with the passing of the first constitutional amendment in 1951.

Also read: Book Review: Chronicling the (Mis)use of Sedition Law in India

Sethi argues that the focus on constitutional legality obscures the informal mechanisms of control that were elaborated and favoured in the initial post-independence years and which continued through the first decade of independence. That is, while the first amendment to the Indian constitution imposed further restrictions on free speech, Nehrus reluctance to institute formal censorship meant that the government did not initially resort to these new restrictions but preferred to use extra-legal means of controlling the press.

The informalization of censorship was consolidated by a shared outlook (the post-independence Nehruvian consensus) of the major press barons and encouraged by their developing business interests, which relied on state patronage, and so ensured criticism was further muted.

Anushka SinghSedition in Liberal DemocraciesOUP India (2018)

In Sedition in Liberal Democracies, Anushka Singh, explores the tension in liberal democracies between free speech commitments and imperatives of state security through a focus on sedition. Although Singhs book has a comparative dimension, in that she assesses the status of sedition laws in India against developments in other liberal democracies such as the US, the UK and Australia, and a theoretical interest in speech act theory, which she uses to determine if Indian jurisprudence on sedition can be considered coherent, the principal value of the book is its historical delineation of sedition. Singh provides a useful account of the law, introduced in 1870 as section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, and its subsequent additions and amendments, which have expanded the scope and manner of use, in both the colonial and post-colonial periods.

Unsurprisingly, its initial use and subsequent expansion was by the colonial authorities against the nationalist press and politicians, most notably, with the charges against Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who was tried on three separate occasions, in 1897, 1908 and 1916. Tilak contested the charges from within the law by pleading that his statements did not legally amount to sedition. He was convicted on the first two occasions but on the third set of charges in 1916, his defence lawyer, one M.A. Jinnah, succeeded in obtaining an acquittal.

Trials against nationalists only furthered discontent with the sedition law and strengthened their commitment to free speech. To be charged became a badge of ones patriotism and honour. The transvaluation of sedition, however, was most forcefully brought about by Mahatma Gandhi who, when charged as a result of the civil disobedience campaign of 1922, accepted that, within the terms of the law, he was guilty. Gandhi, however, made a larger argument against the law in toto, stating that it was designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen. Noting that Indian patriots had been convicted under it, he said, I consider it a privilege, therefore, to be charged under that section.

Despite the anti-colonial nationalist critique, attempts were made, during the constituent assembly debates, to include sedition as a constitutional limitation on fundamental rights. However, this was unacceptable to many nationalists who saw it as criminalising legitimate dissent and successfully defeated its inclusion. Nevertheless, anxieties about the security of the state ensured that Section 124-A was retained in the penal code. This, Singh suggests, was a contradiction that was subsequently exacerbated by executive actions, which, emphasising state security, brought actions against opponents from the left and the right. The courts, however, emphasising constitutional freedoms reasserted the scope of free speech.

The first constitutional amendment of 1951 can be seen as an attempt to limit the judiciarys strong commitment to freedom of expression by expanding the grounds on which to restrict speech while simultaneously continuing to eschew sedition as a constitutional offence. The first amendments inclusion of public order, in particular, opened up an avenue for emphasising considerations of state security and revived the validity of sedition as a category.

Also read: A Short Summary of the Law of Sedition in India

But the vexed question of the constitutionality of sedition continued until the Kedar Nath Singh judgment of 1962 where the Supreme Court, whilst allowing for dissent, and narrowing the scope of sedition, nonetheless upheld it as constitutionally valid through a public order rationale. The balance in favour of state security over freedom of expression was further consolidated by the 16th constitutional amendment of 1963, which added that the sovereignty and integrity of India be considered in assessing political speech.

These developments were indicative of the shift away from anti-colonial nationalisms positive evaluation of seditious speech. The road towards interpreting critical comments as anti-national and therefore, subject to sedition charges was, despite judicial ring-fencing, opened. It was a road that gradually widened over the decades, and with the slew of anti-terror laws in the 1990s, led to the increasingly casual use of sedition charges.

As the scope of nationalism has been narrowed by a majoritarian Hindu religiosity, charges of sedition have proliferated and become commonplace. While the higher judiciary, Singh notes, has tried to impose limits of what constitutes sedition, this is often ignored by the executive branches of government, whose political discourse increasingly marks dissent, and difference as seditious.

It, is, especially the police and the lower judiciarys low threshold for what is considered anti-national and seditious that has meant the charge has had profound consequences for individuals, as well as the political causes they espouse, leading to an effective criminalisation of political activity. Singhs case studies detail some of the many, diverse and bewildering arrays of persons and organizations who have been charged in recent years, which under the present dispensation can only continue to expand.

Singh compares the continued existence of Indias sedition laws with other liberal democracies, which, she notes, have repealed or rarely use sedition laws. Prosecutions based on the expression of dissenting political opinions is now regarded as embarrassing. Sedition is considered a decidedly archaic19th century provision. However, she notes these western liberal democracies have instead resorted to anti-terror legislation to curtail speech. But if the argument is to replace sedition with anti-terror legislation then one should pause for sedition has the advantage of highlighting the political nature of the offence, as Gandhi so clearly recognised.

Malvika MaheshwariArt Attacks: Violence and Offence-Taking in IndiaOxford University Press (2018)

The charge of terror on the other hand depoliticises. Rather than dispensing with sedition and resorting to anti-terror legislation then, perhaps sedition ought to be retained albeit it needs to be re-defined and its scope and usage restricted. Only then can political differences be recuperated and the process of decoupling, what is considered as anti-nationalism from sedition, begin. The present conflation of the political with the national has reduced the scope of genuine democratic politics, from one where disagreement, dissent and difference are no longer held as values but are taken as signs of subversion, betrayal and foreignness.

Maheswaris book investigates the politics of offence, of offence perceived to moral norms and religious sensibilities by artistic representations. Here, colonial laws against obscenity and harm to religious sentiments are mobilised by censorial publics and Maheswaris focus is on the motivations, politics and responses to these attacks on artists.

She argues that protests against Rushdies Satanic Verses (1988) and the murder of the playwright Safdar Hashmi (1989) marked the moment when violent politics and demands on regulating speech led to a transformation in the Indian state from the privileging of freedom of expression to the privileging of offended sentiments.

By the 1990s, the successful hounding of the artist M.F. Hussain by Hindu nationalists was indicative of this sea-change. Yet she does not rehearse an account of the rise and fall of liberal-secularism, the Nehruvian consensus and the modern state by simply and exclusively pointing to the machinations of power politics linked to a majoritarian religiosity.

While these factors are undoubtedly important in her analysis, she is also attentive to how such a framing conveniently constructs a binary of liberal-secular civility and reason against religious irrationalism and violence. She argues that rather than placing these as exterior and external, and hence aberrations, they are better understood as emerging from within, from the multifarious and at times conflictual aspects of both liberalism, on the one hand, and democracy, on the other.

Violence against artists should not be regarded as aberrations against democracy in India, she says, but its very condition. Within liberalism, the commitment to individual free speech can be countered by equally liberal principles of equal respect, dignity and public order as enshrined in the law. Maheswari investigates the motivations of those who employ the language of the law to register cases and organise protests and argues that their primary motivation is not only to realise personal ambitions but to gain the recognition and respect that a liberal-democratic polity ought to afford but often denies them.

Perhaps most interesting in her account is why artists became the focus of ire since the 1980s. She suggests that they mark a particular figure within one strand of liberalism of the self-actualising, creative individual the ideal citizen in one imaginary of progressive liberal-secular modernity. Noting that whilst cases had been brought against them in earlier decades, the judiciary tended to treat artists as ideal citizen-subjects and did not, therefore, subject them to the same constraints imposed on other members of society.

Also read: How Bal Gangadhar Tilaks 1897 Trial Marked the Criminalisation of Dissent

It is this unequal and protected status, she suggests, that only further encouraged mobilisations against artists. Protestors deployed laws on obscenity and harming religious sentiments to bring cases against them and resorted to violence if state officials were reluctant or the judiciary disappointed them. Vigilante violence can then be understood as upholding certain perceived moral norms that the law failed to uphold, and is consequently regarded as legitimate in the eyes of the perpetrators.

As a political scientist, Maheswaris methodological emphasis is on the individual and through her micro-case studies she examines the personal motivations, forms of self-interest and competitive politics of claim-making, that is, the competition to hold a monopoly on outrage in mobilising agitations and attacks. Whilst valuable and important, this emphasis on instrumental politics tends analytically to neglect the role of emotion and sentiment.

Taken together, these three books excavate, and highlight, the tensions within a liberal political order. Liberalism has always hedged its promises of freedom and rights with constraints and limitations. As the latter have increased, the scope of freedom seems narrow and precarious. But the solution cannot simply be a politically innocent call for the return of liberal principles, one that imagines that censorship can end within a progressive polity backed by state power.

On the contrary, a pragmatic recognition that censorship is, and will always, be exercised has to be acknowledged. The task, then, is to produce a new infrastructure of censorship, one that recognises that there are limits to expression while at the same time pushing rights of expression to its limits. Crucial to this is the continual reassessment of these laws and the introduction of mechanisms that reduce the ease with which the current laws are used to make accusations and register cases.

This ease of use has meant adversarial legal action has replaced social practices of debate, disagreement and the scope for mutual respect, review and contrition. The review and repeal of colonial laws that invite and incite accusatory practices laws that intensify conflict rather than redress injustice could be the start of a new conception of the relations of speech, dissent, harm and at the same time an acknowledgement of social and political differences.

Asad Ahmed is social-cultural anthropologist who works on the law, language and colonialism. He has taught at various North American universities including Harvard.

More:

Reading the Evolution of Censorship and Sedition in India - The Wire

White House officials are advising Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nations top infectious disease expert, to promote messages that prioritize political positions over scientific findings, an attempt to bolster Donald Trumps misleading claims about the coronavirus. The pressure is apparently coming from Paul Alexander, a Trump appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services who, in emails reported by Politico, has repeatedly tried to edit Faucis planned responses to outlets including Bloomberg News, BuzzFeed, HuffPost, and the science journal Cell. Just this week, Alexander reportedly sent a message to Faucis press team urging him not to promote mask-wearing by children in an MSNBC interview.

Can you ensure Dr. Fauci indicates masks are for the teachers in schools. Not for children, Alexander wrote. There is no data, none, zero, across the entire world, that shows children especially young children, spread this virus to other children, or to adults or to their teachers. None. And if it did occur, the risk is essentially zero, he said, addingwithout evidencethat children take influenza home but do not take COVID home. The advice prompted long email threads between Alexander and some of Faucis aides pushing back against the misleading claims. Alexander is a senior adviser to Michael Caputo, an ally of the president who currently oversees HHSs media strategy and who said in a statement that he hired Dr. Alexander for his expertise and not to simply resonate others opinions.

While Alexanders messages are couched as scientific arguments, Politico notes, they often contradict mainstream science while amplifying controversial positions the president has taken on topics such as school reopening and the risk coronavirus poses to children. On August 27, Alexander objected to a press-office summary of what Fauci was expected to tell a Bloomberg reporter. I continue to have an issue with kids getting tested and repeatedly and even university students in a widespread mannerand I disagree with Dr. Fauci on this. Vehemently, Alexander wrote in an email.

Fauci told Politico he had not seen the emails, nor had his staff advised him to minimize the risk coronavirus poses to kids or the need for mask-wearing. No one tells me what I can say and cannot say, Fauci said. I speak on scientific evidence, a point he reiterated in a pair of interviews on Friday. Asked by CNNs Wolf Blitzer whether the public should listen to Fauci or Trumpwho on Thursday claimed were rounding the corner of the pandemicFauci remarked, You dont have to listen to any individual if you look at the data. The data speak for themselves, he said. Were still getting up to 40,000 new infections a day and 1,000 deaths. That is what you look at. Look at the science, the evidence and the data and you can make a pretty easy conclusion."

Fauci also cited the data to MSNBCs Andrea Mitchell when she asked about the administrations contradictory messages, with Fauci telling Americans to hunker down and get through this fall and winterwhen the pandemic is likely to worsen againthe same day that Trump suggested the worst is past. Im sorry, but I have to disagree with that, Fauci said of the presidents comments, noting the disturbing statistics and increased test positivity in some parts of the country that come as people begin to move indoors due to colder weather.

That's not good for a respiratory-borne virus. You dont want to start off already with a baseline thats so high, Fauci said. The country needs to get the levels down, he warned, so that when you go into a more precarious situation, like the fall and the winter, you wont have a situation where you really are at a disadvantage right from the very beginning.

We are still in the middle of this, he told Blitzer.

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair

Melania Trump Sounds a Lot Like Her Husband in Stephanie Winston Wolkoffs New Book How Trumps Handling of White Supremacists Could Create a Homegrown Crisis Ashley Etienne May Be Bidens Deadliest Weapon Against Trump Whats the Reality Behind Netflix Hit Selling Sunset? How to Abolish the Police, According to Josie Duffy Rice The Pandemic Is Creating an Endless Summer in the Hamptons From the Archive: The Perks and Perils of Being Donald Trumps Daughter

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hive newsletter and never miss a story.

The rest is here:

Trump Health Officials Reportedly Tried to Censor Faucis COVID Messaging - Vanity Fair

One aspect of the 2020 presidential campaign that isnt much discussed is the fact that both candidates want to end the internet as we know it. Both President Trump and Joe Biden have called for the end of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects tech companies in most cases when their users post something illegal on their platforms.

Trump brought the subject up today when a Twitter account with fewer than 200 followers posted an obviously doctored image of Senate Majority Mitch McConnell dressed up in Soviety military garb, with the caption reading Moscow Mitch.

Why does Twitter leave phony pictures like this up, but take down Republican/Conservative pictures and statements that are true? the president wanted to know. Mitch must fight back and repeal Section 230, immediately. Stop biased Big Tech before they stop you!

He then tagged Republican senators Marsha Blackburn and Josh Hawley, who reliably step up to lodge baseless complaints about systematic bias against their party whenever called upon. (In fact, they introduced something called the Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act on Tuesday, the point of which seems to be to stop social networks from doing so much moderating.)

The reason Twitter (usually) leaves phony pictures like that up is that the United States permits its citizens to speak freely about politicians even to say mean things about them. Repealing Section 230 would likely have no impact on the tweet in question, because the Twitter users speech is protected under the First Amendment.

It might, however, make Twitter legally liable for what its users post which would lead the company to remove more speech, not less. Whatever repealing Section 230 might achieve, it would not be what the president seems to want.

Anyway, all of this is well known to followers of the long-running Section 230 debates and seemingly impenetrable to everyone else. But if theres one important lesson from 2020, its that long-running debates over expression can sometimes result in clumsy but decisive actions ask TikTok! And so its worth spending a few more minutes talking about what smarter people say ought to be done about Section 230.

As it so happens, theres a sharp new report today out on the subject. Paul Barrett at the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights looks at the origins and evolution of Section 230, evaluates both partisan and nonpartisan critiques, and offers a handful of solutions.

To me there are two key takeaways from the report. One is that there are genuine, good-faith reasons to call for Section 230 reform, even though theyre often drowned out by bad tweets that misunderstand the law. To me the one that lands the hardest is that Section 230 has allowed platforms to under-invest in content moderation in basically every dimension, and the cost of the resulting externalities has been borne by society at large.

Barrett writes (PDF):

Ellen P. Goodman, a law professor at Rutgers University specializing in information policy, approaches the problem from another angle. She suggests that Section 230 asks for too little nothing, really in return for the benefit it provides. Lawmakers, she writes, could use Section 230 as leverage to encourage platforms to adopt a broader set of responsibilities. A 2019 report Goodman co-authored for the Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State at the University of Chicagos Booth School of Business urges transforming Section 230 into a quid pro quo benefit. The idea is that platforms would have a choice: adopt additional duties related to content moderation or forgo some or all of the protections afforded by Section 230.

The Stigler Center report provides examples of quids that larger platforms could offer to receive the quo of continued Section 230 immunity. One, which has been considered in the U.K. as part of that countrys debate over proposed online-harm legislation, would require platform companies to ensure that their algorithms do not skew toward extreme and unreliable material to boost user engagement. Under a second, platforms would disclose data on what content is being promoted and to whom, on the process and policies of content moderation, and on advertising practices.

This approach continues to enable lots of speech on the internet you could keep those Moscow Mitch tweets coming while forcing companies to disclose what theyre promoting. Recommendation algorithms are the core difference between the big tech platforms and the open web that they have largely supplanted, and the world has a vested interest in understanding how they work and what results from their suggestions. I dont care much about a bad video with 100 views. But I care very much about a bad video with 10 million.

So whose job will it be to pay attention to all this? Barretts other suggestion is a kind of digital regulatory agency whose functions would mimic some combination of the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and similar agencies in other countries.

It envisions the digital regulatory body whether governmental or industry-based as requiring internet companies to clearly disclose their terms of service and how they are enforced, with the possibility of applying consumer protection laws if a platform fails to conform to its own rules. The TWG emphasizes that the new regulatory body would not seek to police content; it would impose disclosure requirements meant to improve indirectly the way content is handled. This is an important distinction, at least in the United States, because a regulator that tried to supervise content would run afoul of the First Amendment. [...]

In a paper written with Professor Goodman, Karen Kornbluh, who heads the Digital Innovation and Democracy Initiative at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, makes the case for a Digital Democracy Agency devoted significantly to transparency. Drug and airline companies disclose things like ingredients, testing results, and flight data when there is an accident, Kornbluh and Goodman observe. Platforms do not disclose, for example, the data they collect, the testing they do, how their algorithms order news feeds and recommendations, political ad information, or moderation rules and actions. Thats a revealing comparison and one that should help guide reform efforts.

Nothing described here would really resolve the angry debate we have once or week or so in this country about a post that Facebook or Twitter or YouTube left up when they should have taken it down, or took down when they should have left it up. But it could pressure platforms to pay closer attention to what is going viral, what behaviors they are incentivizing, what harms all of that may be doing to the rest of us.

And over time, the agencys findings could help lawmakers craft more targeted reforms to Section 230 which is to say, reforms that are less openly hostile to the idea of free speech. Moscow Mitch will continue to have to take his lumps. But the platforms at last will have to take theirs, too.

Today in news that could affect public perception of the big tech platforms.

Trending down: A video of a man shooting himself with a gun started circulating on TikTok Sunday night, despite the companys attempts to take it down. Creators warned that the clip was being hidden in innocuous videos and shared across the site, making it harder to avoid. (Julia Alexander / The Verge)

The Trump campaign is betting on YouTube as a primary way to reach voters ahead of the November election. It appears to be a move away from the Facebook strategy that helped propel him to victory in 2016. Alex Thompson at Politico tells the story:

Many digital strategists say YouTubes algorithm is more likely to recommend to viewers channels that are updated regularly with new content. The name of the game with algorithms is to flood the zones, said Eric Wilson, a veteran Republican digital operative. The Trump campaign is putting on a master class in advertising according to algorithms it just rewards the side that will produce more content. [...]

The Trump campaigns YouTube strategy is also the latest example of it becoming its own news publisher, bypassing the established media. Many of the campaigns videos are short news clips or snippets of the press secretarys daily briefing.

The 2020 US election will likely spark violence and a constitutional crisis, according to experts who gamed out possible November scenarios. Unless Biden wins in a landslide, the experts predict significant unrest. Gulp. (Rosa Brooks / The Washington Post)

The Trump campaign launched a series of Facebook ads featuring a manipulated photo of Joe Biden edited to make the former vice president appear older. Its among the latest examples of Trump sharing content that has been deceptively altered to attack Biden. (Jesselyn Cook / HuffPost)

Joe Bidens campaign is taking over a popular Instagram account created by a teen supporter. Formerly a fan account, @VoteJoe account will now serve as the campaigns primary point of grassroots outreach on Instagram. (Makena Kelly / The Verge)

Also: Joe Biden is partnering up with the celebrity video platform Cameo to allow celebrities to earmark payments for his campaign. Andy Cohen, Mandy Moore, Tituss Burgess, Dul Hill, and Melissa Etheridge are lending their support to the campaign on the platform starting this week. (Makena Kelly / The Verge)

Oracles closeness with the Trump administration could prove helpful in its bid to buy TikTok. Oracle founder Larry Ellison is a prominent Trump supporter. (David McCabe / The New York Times)

TikTok and WeChat are being lumped together in the Trumps administrations attempt to crack down on national security threats from China. But WeChat, in addition to being a vital communication channel for the Chinese diaspora, is also a global conduit of Chinese state propaganda, surveillance and intimidation. (Paul Mozur / The New York Times)

Facebooks ban on political ads the week before the US election will muzzle important political speech and disproportionately burden challenger campaigns, this article argues. That could benefit incumbents who have large organic reach on social media platforms. (Daniel Kreiss and Matt Perault / Slate)

Also: Facebooks political ad ban could threaten the ability of election officials to spread accurate information about how to vote. (Jeremy B. Merrill / ProPublica)

Facebooks decision to leave up Trumps post urging people to vote twice angered employees, who called the move shameful and unconscionable. (Craig Silverman and Ryan Mac / BuzzFeed)

Facebook took down an image posted by GOP congressional candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene, a QAnon conspiracy theorist, showing her holding a rifle next to a photo of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. The company said the post violated its policy on violence and incitement. (Eliza Relman / Business Insider)

Misinformation campaigns are likely going to come to online multiplayer games like Animal Crossing. Today, no online multiplayer game has a publicly available policy specifically related to medical or political disinformation in the US. (Daniel Kelley / Slate)

Amazon said it plans to continue protesting the Department of Defenses decision to award the JEDI contract to Microsoft. The DoD recently affirmed its decision, but Amazon said not all the relevant information about the politically corrupted contract has been made public. Cant wait! (Amazon)

Apple is doubling down on its legal battle against Epic Games. The company filed counterclaims alleging Epic breached its contract and seeking an unspecified amount in damages. (Todd Haselton / CNBC)

Apple didnt commit to stop processing requests for user data from Hong Kong authorities in the wake of a national security law imposed by Beijing. Now, the company is opening up about what kinds of data requests it receives. (Zack Whittaker / TechCrunch)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission opened an investigation into the Apple App Store and Google Play. The commission is looking at competition between the two app stores and how they share data. (Tegan Jones / Gizmodo)

Italys competition authority opened an investigation into cloud storage services operated by Apple, Dropbox and Google. The move comes in response to complaints about how the companies collect user data for commercial purposes. (Natasha Lomas / TechCrunch)

TikTok has been building a vocal contingent of young supporters amid growing uncertainty about the apps future in the US. the company is working behind the scenes to turn creators in the US into superstars, arming them with brand deals and introductions to Hollywood power brokers. Heres Sarah Frier at Bloomberg:

The effort has given TikTok growing influence over American culture, which is not an accident, says Brett Bruen, who served as the White House director of global engagement in the Obama administration. He believes China and ByteDance are playing the long game. Its all a localization strategy, which allows you to not only achieve relevance but respect, he said. The most effective advocates for your company and for policy decisions are those local influencers and local partners.

U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered ByteDance to sell its U.S. TikTok assets and he has threatened to ban the app if a deal doesnt happen in coming weeks. Embedding the business deeply in society, while providing a livelihood for thousands of rising American stars will make it harder to uproot the app from the country. Creators say they havent been asked to make public statements in support of the app, but it comes naturally to some.

ByteDance is giving TikTok employees a half-months salary bonus in an attempt to calm the workforce as the company continues to negotiate a sale. The company said the money is meant to reward employees at a time of unprecedented economic and social upheaval. (Zheping Huang / Bloomberg)

Fan armies are harassing gay and trans people on TikTok. Cut it out, fan armies! (Taylor Lorenz / The New York Times)

A Facebook engineer quit today, saying they could no longer stomach contributing to an organization that is profiting off hate in the US and globally. Its the latest resignation to come amid rising discontent within the company. (Read the resignation letter.) (Craig Timberg and Elizabeth Dwoskin / The Washington Post)

Facebook will now notify third-party developers if it finds a security vulnerability in their code. After a third-party developer is notified, theyll have 21 days to respond and 90 days to fix the issues. (Zack Whittaker and Sarah Perez / TechCrunch)

Facebook gave employees with children extra time off to care for their kids during the pandemic. Some employees without kids thought it was unfair. (Daisuke Wakabayashi and Sheera Frenkel / The New York Times)

Tech companies are changing up their perks to account for remote working conditions. Some are mandating people take time off, and offering childcare support and mental health resources. (Arielle Pardes / Wired)

Amazon announced plans to expand to 25,000 workers in Bellevue, Washington. In a blog post the company said new leases and office-tower development would increase its projected headcount by 10,000. (Matt Day / Bloomberg)

Twitter reenabled the ability to download archives of Your Twitter Data, nearly two months after shutting off the feature as a precaution against hacking. The data could give you insight into what teen hackers could have stolen during the notorious bitcoin scam in July. (Sean Hollister / The Verge)

Brands are paying Twitter users between $20 and $60 to respond to viral tweets with a mention of their company. The move sends people to their sites without having to pay higher fees to advertise on Twitter. (Michael Tobin / Bloomberg)

People are streaming chess games on Twitch. The game might seem like an unlikely contender for the digital era, but its captured peoples attention. (Kellen Browning / The New York Times)

The Social Dilemma, a docu-drama that debuts on Netflix this week, has a simplistic view on the evils of social media platforms. It treats social media as a totally unprecedented threat, dismissing comparisons with radio, television, or any previous mass medium. (Adi Robertson / The Verge)

The pandemic is exacerbating discrimination in the school system, particularly as it relates to suspensions and other disciplinary action. Experts are worried about an uptick in Zoom suspensions. (Aaricka Washington / The New York Times)

Send us tips, comments, questions, and Section 230 reforms: casey@theverge.com and zoe@theverge.com.

Read the original here:

Trumps latest attack on Section 230 is really about censoring speech - The Verge

One of the problems with Chinas extensive and invasive internet control and censorship is just how efficient it is, thus inspiring many other countries around the world to either try to copy, or implement it in one way or another, to serve their particular situation and goals.

This appears to have manifested in Vietnam, whose authorities are said to be invested in fostering nationalism online, but also carefully monitoring social media in the hope of controlling content and narratives.

In 2016, Vietnam put to work 10,000 people making up the Force 47 cyber unit that is supposed to maintain a healthy online environment and, since late 2018, the country has had a unit whose task is to monitor the internet, sifting through up to 100 million news items every day in search of misinformation.

As in China, tight control over social media is needed to prevent actions such as protests.

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

As long as collective action is prevented, social media can serve as a pressure release valve for public opinion or even leave some elbow room for online activism, writes Dien Nguyen An Luong, a visiting fellow with Singapores ISEAS institute.

He mentions several instances of protestations generating online outrage and eventually resulting in real-world consequences.

An example is the huge diplomatic row between Vietnam and Cambodia on one side and Singapore on the other, after the latters prime minister made comments regarding Vietnams role in removing the Pol Pot regime and the Khmer Rouge denounced on social media as offensive.

What these examples show is that Vietnams authorities have become highly sensitive and accommodating to nationalist opinions and backlash expressed online.

But given that this is happening at a time of a planned leadership reshuffle, the authorities seem to want to follow the popular sentiment as much as to lead, by means of controlling online space, apparently in the same vein as what is happening in China.

More here:

Vietnam is importing the worst of Chinese-style online censorship - Reclaim The Net

Executive summary

Is the Chinese governments greater engagement with international institutions a gain for the global human rights system? A close examination of its interactions with United Nations human rights mechanisms, pursuit of rights-free development, and threats to the freedom of expression worldwide suggests it is not. At the United Nations, Chinese authorities are trying to rewrite norms and manipulate existing procedures not only to minimize scrutiny of the Chinese governments conduct, but also to achieve the same for all governments. Emerging norms on respecting human rights in development could have informed the Chinese governments approach to the Belt and Road Initiative, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and national development banks, but they have not. Chinese authorities now extend domestic censorship to communities around the work, ranging from academia to diaspora communities to global businesses.

This paper details the ways Chinese authorities seek to shape norms and practices globally, and sets out steps governments and institutions can take to reverse these trends, including forming multilateral, multi-year coalitions to serve as a counterweight to Chinese government influence. Academic institutions should not just pursue better disclosure policies about interactions with Chinese government actors, they should also urgently prioritize the academic freedom of students and scholars from and of China. Companies have human rights obligations and should reject censorship.

Equally important, strategies to reject the Chinese governments threats to human rights should not penalize people from across China or of Chinese descent around the world, and securing human rights gains inside China should be a priority. The paper argues that many actors failure to take these and other steps allows Chinese authorities to further erode the existing universal human rights system and to enjoy a growing sense of impunity.

Follow this link:

Chinas influence on the global human rights system - Brookings Institution

It would seem that pressure on Facebook ahead of the US election is continuing, and being stepped up, regardless of CEO Mark Zuckerbergs recent attempts to curry favor with his critics by going back on his previous positions regarding free speech.

This time, its Facebooks Instagram that is being targeted by activists of the Stop Hate for Profit coalition, who are announcing a day-long boycott of the platform, as they describe the tech and social media giant as failing to address racism, hate, and disinformation.

The one-day freeze in sharing posts on Instagram on September 16, and then the posting of a series of coordinated messages in unison everywhere on social media is a part of an entire week of the usual activist efforts to keep the spotlight on Facebook as a company that they believe has had a continued role in undermining democracy and sowing division.

The coalition, whose members include Anti-Defamation League, Mozilla, and NAACP, among others, has already tried its hand at damaging Facebook financially in June, when the giant was criticized for the way it handled racial unrest a largely inconsequential temporary suspension of advertising on Facebook took place at the time, that gave big brands and corporations a chance to promote themselves and then go back to business as usual.

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

This time, Stop Hate for Profit is making it clear that the goal is to preemptively caution Facebook of the needs to commit to more, not less censorship ahead of the US election.

The prepared messages that activists are expected to flood social media with have to do with the coalitions list of demands to be met before the election.

The coalition wants Facebook to remove groups found to be linked to white supremacy, militia, hate, and violent conspiracies, spend more money monitoring such pages, change platform policy to forbid any event page with a call to arms, as recommended by Change the Terms and give 5% of its annual revenue to anti-racist and anti-hate groups.

Other demands call for removal of election-related information that is deemed to be misleading by credible fact checkers, and also ban calls to violence by politicians in any format.

The campaign doesnt explain who or what should be the arbiter deciding when speech is hate speech, what kind of content is violent, etc.

Excerpt from:

Stop Hate For Profit is trying again in its calls for Facebook censorship - Reclaim The Net

The Viewco-host Sunny Hostin alleges that ABC News attempted to remove passages from her forthcoming memoir that reflected poorly on the network, journalist Yashar Ali reports. In his newsletter, Ali published excerpts from Hostins book,I Am These Truths: A Memoir of Identity, Justice, and Living Between Worlds, in which she claims that the news organization tried to censor her memoir months ahead of its release. I didnt want to believe that racism played a part in their revision requests, she writes, per Ali. We were just dotting some is and crossing some ts, right?

According to Ali, who obtained a copy of Hostins memoir from a source,I Am These Truthscontains a forward alleging that ABC News asked her to delete passages that portrayed the network in a negative light. Deleting those passages didnt feel right to me, writes The View co-host and ABC News legal analyst and correspondent. They were all true, and they were some of the battle scars of my experience.

Hostin reportedly does not reveal what passages she was asked to remove, but writes that the request came in early summer, as Americans took to the streets in the wake of George Floyds death. My television agent and my book agent emailed me to express confusion that a news organization would try to censor a Puerto Rican, African American womans story while they were covering global demonstrations demanding racial equity, she claims.

The authors lawyers pushed back, and ultimately, ABC relented. Then, on Friday, June 12th, I got a text from a reporter, she writes. That reporter was Ali, who published a bombshell HuffPost report about senior ABC News executive Barbara Fedida. The exec allegedly made racist comments about various Black employees, including Hostin (sources told Ali that Fedida called her low-rent) and Robin Roberts.

Hostin addressed Fedidas alleged remarks on The View shortly after Alis story was published, but in her memoir, she goes into great detail about the experience. I was floored. I felt incredibly sad, but I also felt relief, writesThe Viewhost. Many of the experiences Ive had at ABC, including several described in these pages that standards and practices at first asked me to delete well, if the allegations were true, all of the dots were connected.

My suspicions that I was treated worse than my white colleagues the fears that I tried to talk myself out of many times maybe they were true, she continues. Had my employer, my home away from home, devalued, dismissed, and underpaid me because of my race? I had just read emails from them directing me to erase evidence of such treatment from my story. And if Im being honest, I wasnt even angry. I was deeply, profoundly shaken and saddened.

In July, The Walt Disney Company, ABC News parent organization, fired Fedida following an investigation into the allegations. The investigation substantiated that Ms. Fedida did make some of the unacceptable racially insensitive comments attributed to her, said Peter Rice, Chairman of Walt Disney Television, in an email sent to ABC News employees. It also substantiated that Ms. Fedida managed in a rough manner and, on occasion, used crass and inappropriate language.

Sunny Hostins memoir,I Am These Truths: A Memoir of Identity, Justice, and Living Between Worlds, hits bookstands on Tuesday, September 22.

More:

Sunny Hostin Claims ABC News Tried to Censor Memoir Passages That Reflected Poorly on the Network - Decider

WeChat and TikTok have begun some forms of censorship of content in the U.S. as well as around the world. As reported by Bloomberg the companies have taken practices used in China and brought them to the rest of the world.

Given the context of Trump's ban on WeChat and TikTok, this move could give his administration even more ammunition to attack these companies. It is worth noting that the type of censorship we are talking about his is very different to the moves Facebook and others have taken to ban hate speech.

This much more political in nature. WeChat and TikTok often bury or hide certain words. These are words that reflect political movements, gender and sexual orientation or religion.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute said that most of the content censored on WeChat supported pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong. It also censored messages from the U.S. and U.K. embassies regarding a newnational security law.

Since its roots as lip-syncing based platform TikTok has become a place or political protest. It has often been used to protest issues such as the Black Lives Matter movement.

One of the authors said that hashtags related to LGBTQ+ issues have also been censored in several languages. Other topics include criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This sort of censorship in the U.S. and around the world by WeChat and TikTok is potentially very worrying. Washington has accused services like TikTok of blocking content considered sensitive to the Communist Party.

WeChat generally admits that it complies with controls back in China. Whilst TikTok has often pushed back against claims that the Chinese government influences the company. This is because TikTok mainly operates outside of China.

The report says that the above hashtags are categorized in the same way as "terrorist groups, illicit substances and swear words". This means they are treated in the same way as these sorts of ideas.

TikTok claims it censors certain terms and phrases because of "relevant local laws". The company also claimed that it strongly supports our LGBTQ creators around the world".

TikTok went onto reiterate that its "user data is stored in the U.S. and Singapore, with strict controls on employee access". The company was categoric that it had never "shared user information with the Chinese government".

With bans on TikTok and WeChat to take effect in mid-September further claims of censorship is the last thing this story needs. How these tensions develop has been fascinating to observe and will no doubt continue to twist and turn as the months' progress.

See the original post:

WeChat And TikTok Taking Censorship Outside China To The U.S. - Android Headlines

San Francisco State University is again at the center of a national discussion about the boundaries and consequences of freedom of expression, this time brought about because two faculty members have invited Leila Khaled to participate in a virtual class discussion.

Let me be clear: I condemn the glorification of terrorism and use of violence against unarmed civilians. I strongly condemn antisemitism and other hateful ideologies that marginalize people based on their identities, origins or beliefs.

At the same time, I represent a public university, which is committed to academic freedom and the ability of faculty to conduct their teaching and scholarship without censorship.

Embracing these core principles freedom of expression, freedom from censorship and a university as an inclusive and welcoming environment serves as the foundation of a strong higher education that develops critical thinking; they need not be mutually exclusive.

Embracing hard-to-reconcile complexities and rejecting binary thinking are the hallmarks of a quality educational experience.

Justice Louis Brandeis famously asserted that the response to falsehoods or ill-conceived ideas is not censorship, but rather to avert the evil by the processes of education. He noted that the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

Our university is among the most diverse in the nation, where students frequently encounter divergent viewpoints and world views, which plays an essential role in the development of the burgeoning minds of our students. It is our obligation to utilize moments such as these to heap on more learning, engage in more debate, and challenge viewpoints and assumptions.

Rather than stifle speech, we must encourage robust questioning and dissent, and ensure that our students and faculty are free from retaliation or censorship for doing so.

My conversations with SF Hillel and Jewish student leaders have enhanced my appreciation for the deeply painful impact of this upcoming presenter, as well as past campus experiences. I understand that Zionism is an important part of the identity of many of our Jewish students. The university welcomes Jewish faculty and students expressing their beliefs and worldviews in the classroom and on the quad, through formal and informal programming.

As stated in this letter by Jewish student leaders at SF Hillel to the university, the university has committed to partnering with student leaders to ensure their right to freedom of expression and to promote viewpoint diversity. The SFSU Division of Equity and Community Inclusion has allocated funds to host speakers with diverse points of view.

Our recently formed Bias Incident Education Team joins our Office of Equity Programs and Compliance to strengthen our work in tracking and addressing bias incidents. The university is providing, and will continue to provide, staff training on rising rates of antisemitism and the intersection with anti-Zionism, and moreover we will maintain strong and open lines of communication with our community as we respond to divisive events.

While we undertake these important efforts to create safety and inclusion, the university will not enforce silence even when speech is abhorrent.

What sets a university apart from primary or secondary education is that the views of our faculty are not prescribed, curtailed or made to conform to content standards. This is the time in a students education when exposure to the views of their academic instructors challenges their intellectual capacity and brings about greater intellectual rigor. For San Francisco State, protecting viewpoint diversity enables our important mission of delivering higher education.

We must couple our collective commitment to academic freedom and freedom of expression with a collective commitment to being a welcoming and inclusive campus. We condemn ideologies of hatred and violence. We do this not by restricting protected speech, teaching or scholarship, but by providing resources for those in need of support and, again, by facilitating educational opportunities that promote viewpoint diversity.

At my first SFSU Fall Convocation last year, I talked about engaging in courageous conversations. There are no harder conversations than those centered on volatile political and cultural issues.

My goals remain unchanged.

We will have these conversations. We will encourage diverse viewpoints. We will demonstrate compassion. But I am also a realist and a historian. There will be times when conversation, let alone agreement, is impossible. There will be times when people find a courses content or a speaker deeply offensive.

I have urged the university community to use these moments as opportunities to invite others to share their thoughts, ideas and words. I urge all to see these moments not as evidence of permanent or widespread disagreement. We should not allow ourselves to be defined by the moments that divide us but by the opportunities to come together for the kinds of rich courageous conversations that only one of the most diverse universities in the world can foster.

Originally posted here:

SF State president: I condemn hate but cherish a diversity of opinions - The Jewish News of Northern California