‘Is truth unparliamentary?’: Opposition hits out at Parliament’s censor order – The Indian Express

A day after the Lok Sabha Secretariat released a booklet that restricted the use of terms like jumlajeevi, baal buddhi, ashamed, and abused among others, calling it unparliamentary, the Opposition Thursday hit back and said that the ban was uncalled for.

Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi tweeted, What is the point of parliament if you cant be creative in your criticism? Jumlajeevi ko jumlajeevi nahi bolnege to kya bolenge? Banning words is uncalled for!

Creativity, punch, messaging, assault on senses thru words 2bring about reform, tellingly putting across a point all casualties under new Parl dictionary of unparl words!!how can hypricrisy, ashamed, abuse etc be banned?learn robust, incisive, penetrating debate from uk parl, he added.

The Lok Sabha secretariat booklet listing out unparliamentary words and expressions comes ahead of the Monsoon session beginning July 18, during which the use of words like anarchist, shakuni, dictatorial, taanashah, taanashahi, Jaichand, vinash purush, Khalistani and khoon se kheti would also be expunged if used during debates or otherwise in both the houses. The Lok Sabha secretariat has further listed words like dohra charitra, nikamma, nautanki, dhindora peetna and behri sarkar as unparliamentary expressions, according to the booklet.

Slamming the move, Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh said, All words used by the Opposition to describe the reality of Modi Sarkar now to be considered unparliamentary. What next Vishguru.

Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra tweeted and said The governments intention is that when it indulges in corruption, it doesnt want anyone to call it corruption, rather label it as a masterstroke. They use jumlas like 2 crore jobs, doubling of farmers income, but want us to say thank you for that.

Reacting to this, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra asked why the list of parliamentary words for the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha did not include the word sanghi. She attacked the government for selecting words used by Opposition to describe how BJP destroying India and banned them.

Lashing out at the governments decision, Trinamool Congress MP Derek OBrien said that he would ensure that he uses such basic terms. He also challenged the Speaker to suspend him.

Session begins in a few days. Gag order issued on MPs. Now, we will not be allowed to use these basic words while delivering a speech in Parliament: Ashamed. Abused. Betrayed. Corrupt. Hypocrisy. Incompetent. I will use all these words. Suspend me. Fighting for democracy, he said.

View original post here:

'Is truth unparliamentary?': Opposition hits out at Parliament's censor order - The Indian Express

Top Gun, Thor and other big budget Hollywood movies finally giving China the cold shoulder know why – Firstpost

Over the years multiple Hollywood films have been banned in China if they did not meet country's censorship standards. However, it seems the tides have changes with big budget Hollywood flicks actually deciding to refrain from releasing in Chinese markets

New Delhi: Chinese censorship of Hollywood movies commenced a long time ago. One of the first movies to reportedly be banned in China was The Ten Commandments, in 1923. A silent religious epic movie, it was banned in the country under a category of 'superstitious films' owing to its religious nature.

The 1925 movie Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ and 1931's Frankenstein would follow suit. Over the years many movies have been banned in China, owing to a number of reasons - from portraying a Chinese flag, to casting actors or having filmmakers who have not found favour with the government of the country.

Most recently, the 29th movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), Taika Waititi directorial Thor: Love and Thunder, Chris Hemsworth's fourth solo outing as the God of Thunder (the first for any MCU superhero), became one in a long line of movies which is not likely to receive a release date in the territory due to the inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters and scenes.

Reports suggest that it is unlikely the movie will be given the nod by Chinese censors owing to plot points such as Korg's two fathers, his onscreen moment with another Kronan and references to Valkyrie being bisexual.

However, Thor: Love and Thunder is not the only movie to face the wrath of Chinese censors in recent years. Movies like Marvel's Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings as well as Eternals were not released in mainland China either. The movies were expected to be huge draws in the Chinese market, given their ethnic bent in storyline, but they never released. There were reports that Simu Liu, the superhero of Shang-Chi and Eternals' director Chloe Zhao had received the cold shoulder for reportedly criticising the country's government years ago.

But when did it all begin?

While China has for years maintained strict censorship on movie content, Isaac Stone Fish in his 2022 book America Second, How America's Elites are making China Stronger had revealed how the Chinese government ordered a total rewrite of James Bond's Tomorrow Never Dies, the original storyline of which involved China taking over Hong Kong. On the government objecting, producers ditched the script and ordered a complete rewrite.

The Bond change marked a turning point in China-US censorship, with the demand for changes becoming a norm.

But are things still the same? It seems a wind of change has blown over Hollywood, with many movies deciding to go against Beijing appeasement when it comes to releasing movies in China. Tom Cruise starrer Top Gun: Maverick, which is easily one of the highest grossers in its 2019 trailer removed the Taiwanese and Japanese flags from Cruise's bomber jacket - appeasing Beijing. However, once investor Tencent TCEHY reportedly dropped out, the symbol was reinstated on Mavericks iconic jacket.

Following the change, executives at Paramount no longer expected a release in China. A similar move was exercised by Disney and Pixar, who were asked by China to remove a brief same-sex kissing scene from Lightyear. Disney declined the cut. Similarly, Sony faced flak in China when they were asked by Chinese regulators to cut out or minimise the appearance of the Statue of Liberty in Spider-Man: No Way Home. The studio reportedly refused, making it the third big-budget movie in recent years to not release in China.

Sony sacrificed big bucks, letting go of millions in additional revenue by standing up to Chinese censorship. Chinese censorship requesting the removal of the iconic Statue of Liberty, for Sony to be allowed to showcase in China, also illustrated how aggressive Chinese bullying of the US movie industry had become.

But not anymore

Industry experts are of the opinion that China's clout has receded, mainly because the China movie market is not what it used to be. Recent months have seen movie studios begin to rethink their strategies, with Chris Fenton, former president of DMG Entertainment and author of the book Feeding the Dragon: Inside the Trillion-Dollar Dilemma Facing Hollywood, the NBA, and American Business, stating that there is a 100 per cent shift in how Hollywood regards the Chinese censorship.

As per reports, China no longer guarantees big revenues, and while in 2020 it may have been the biggest movie market in the world, the favours have tilted towars the US once again. Theatres in the States opening in full boom post COVID, even as China maintains a strict 'zero COVID' policy.

Read all the Latest News, Trending News,Cricket News, Bollywood News,India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Read more here:

Top Gun, Thor and other big budget Hollywood movies finally giving China the cold shoulder know why - Firstpost

FrontFanz taking over the Web3 scene by storm – AMBCrypto News

Creators today face many difficult challenges. From problematic and fickle algorithms and overly aggressive, subjective censorship to shadow banning, chargebacks, delayed payments, and de-platforming. Indeed, its become very clear that Web2 platforms arent equipped to offer fair conditions to content creators.

Enter FrontFanz, a Web3 censorless platform built for creators by creators. Essentially removing third-party involvement, FrontFanz gives total control to creators to express themselves freely through their content. And now, with a rapidly growing fanbase, FrontFanz is becoming a great example of how Web3 platforms can take content creation and consumption to a new level.

FrontFanz all you need to know

FrontFanz is a content subscription platform built on the Polygon (MATIC) blockchain. People can share their content as well as enjoy content without any fear of scrutiny or censorship. Built by Rosey Sin and Stacey Carlaa, both of whom have over two decades of industry knowledge and experience, FrontFanz aims to benefit and protect both its users and creators as much as possible while providing the best service as well.

Addressing the need for intimate content, FrontFanz was built not just to provide content for its users but also to create a safe space for content creators. A space where theyd be completely safe, accepted, protected, and valued as an important part of the ecosystem. That includes timely payments, no chargebacks, and no interference from third parties something that similar platforms like Onlyfans face today.

Key advantages of FrontFanz

No more third parties. Web2 platforms like Onlyfans have inherent issues: high bank charges, continuous changes to policies that impact the creators earnings, high Credit Card chargebacks, and inconsistent payment cycles. That is until FrontFanz came out of the shadows.

Zero censorship. No more third-party involvement means no more censorship. Content creators can now truly explore their creativity on a whole new level.

Deeper connection with fans. This platform also offers subscription-based content. With this, fans can interact more with their favorite creators via live streams, NFTs, and digital collectibles.

Blockchain benefits, FANZ token, discounts, and passive income. FrontFanz has a deflationary token, FANZ, which is listed on the Polygon blockchain. The FANZ token has many utilities, such as:

Nodes also mean passive income. The more FANZ tokens are staked, the more rewards users will receive. Heres what the transactional fee breakdown looks like:

20% burnt;

30% FrontFanz;

50% to user validating transactions.

FrontFanz growing popularity and token sales

With over 400 creators that have more than 32 million followers collectively and a yearly income in excess of $48 million, its no surprise that FrontFanz is gaining momentum throughout the industry. The momentum was clear when the first private sale sold out in just 72 hours. Now, FrontFanz has teamed up with ExMarkets, the market-leading crypto crowdfunding platform, to conduct its 2nd round private sale on the 15 of July. The first public Initial Exchange Offering (IEO) will start on the 20 of July 2022.

Numbers dont lie, and the growing momentum around FrontFanz is making people excited. So, if youre interested in participating in the sale, drop a line to token@frontfanz.com, and FrontFanz will come back with more information including Eligibility criteria.

Twitter | Instagram | Telegram

Disclaimer: This is a paid post and should not be treated as news/advice.

Read this article:

FrontFanz taking over the Web3 scene by storm - AMBCrypto News

VPN Software Developer Hola Conducted A Research Into Opinions Regarding The Future Of Privacy-Based Online Tools – Digital Information World

With free VPNs getting more and more popular, research conducted by Hola investigates just how effective such services are in their protection and how much theyll be required in the future.

VPN software has become rather common, with many users across the world utilizing it for a variety of reasons. Some individuals just want some protection from cybercriminals, others are paranoid about the government tracking their every movement. Overall, VPNs are a useful investment since theyre typically not that expensive and pride users with a comfortable degree of online privacy that they can then utilize as they wish. Online privacy nowadays is generally difficult to come by, what with every website that exists attempting to track your data via necessary cookies. Third party advertisers have used the likes of Facebook and Google as their starting points, so its nice to not encounter weirdly specific ads every now and then.

A major point of discussion throughout Holas research article is geopolitical interference on the internet. Certain countries across the globe have certain forms of online censorship that affect the average citizens surfing. China and the UAE are prime examples, with many publicly accessible platforms having been already banned in these countries. In fact, Hola lists China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam as some of the biggest offenders of censorship; naturally to the chagrin of local internet users (which consists of everyone these days). Hola, which is itself a free VPN service, led a poll for the publication, which revealed that 82% of the sample population sees VPN usage increasing in the coming years. Of the Chinese respondents for this poll, 93% shared the same sentiment, expressing concerns over censorship accelerating in the coming times.

TechRadar, writing on Holas research as well, cited its top picks for free VPN software; ProtonVPN, Privado, and Hide.me were some of the most popular and well-regarded names that popped up. Its always good to do your research Before using free VPN software; theres no knowing if and when youll accidentally run into malware.

Read the original:

VPN Software Developer Hola Conducted A Research Into Opinions Regarding The Future Of Privacy-Based Online Tools - Digital Information World

Sorry, Texas: Supreme Court blocks law banning censorship on social …

Enlarge / US and Texas flags flying outside the Texas State Capitol building in Austin.

Getty Images | PA Thompson

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked the Texas law that prohibits social media companies from moderating content based on a user's "viewpoint." The Supreme Court order came about three weeks after the so-called "censorship" law was reinstated by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

"The application to vacate stay presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted," the ruling said. "The May 11, 2022 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit staying the district court's preliminary injunction is vacated."

It was a 5-4 decision with Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts voting to block the Texas law. Alito wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. The ruling says separately that "Justice [Elena] Kagan would deny the application to vacate stay," but Kagan did not join Alito's dissent.

The Supreme Court ruling came in response to an emergency application from tech groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications & Industry Association (CCIA).With the preliminary injunction reinstated, litigation will continue, and Texas cannot enforce the law unless it wins the case. Advertisement

"This ruling means that private American companies will have an opportunity to be heard in court before they are forced to disseminate vile, abusive or extremist content under this Texas law. We appreciate the Supreme Court ensuring First Amendment protections, including the right not to be compelled to speak, will be upheld during the legal challenge to Texas's social media law," CCIA President Matt Schruers said.

"No online platform, website, or newspaper should be directed by government officials to carry certain speech. This has been a key tenet of our democracy for more than 200 years and the Supreme Court has upheld that," Schruers also said.

The Texas law is labeled as "an act relating to censorship of or certain other interference with digital expression, including expression on social media platforms or through electronic mail messages." The law says a "social media platform may not censor a user" based on the user's "viewpoint" and defines "censor" as "block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression." The Texas attorney general or users can sue social media platforms that violate this ban and win injunctive relief and reimbursement of court costs, the law says.

In addition to being unconstitutional, the Texas law "would have been a disaster for social media users and for public discourse," said John Bergmayer, legal director for consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. "It would have ordered social media platforms to host and distribute horrific and distasteful content, and to turn a blind eye to hate, abuse, and coordinated misinformation campaigns. The main result of these policies would not be to enhance free speech, but to keep people from speaking by driving them away from toxic platforms."

See original here:

Sorry, Texas: Supreme Court blocks law banning censorship on social ...

#MeToo Cases Weather Censorship, Suppression, and Victim-bashing – China Digital Times

On Monday, several activists wore t-shirts emblazoned with the question Where Is Peng Shuai? to a match at Wimbledon in order to raise awareness about the Chinese tennis star. Peng has been absent from international media following her forced disappearance, forced re-appearances, and forced retirement in the wake of a sexual assault allegation against former Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli that she posted last November. Peng won a Grand Slam title at Wimbledon in 2013, but discussion of the injustice against her was unwelcome at the tournament this week. As Emine Sinmaz from The Guardian reported, the activists were confronted by Wimbledon security guards who warned them not to approach anyone at the venue:

Will Hoyles, 39, one of the campaigners, said: We came trying to raise a bit of awareness but Wimbledon have managed to make it worse for themselves by harassing us

They were asking loads of questions about what we were going to do, why we were here, you know, what wed already done etc. And we told them wed just been wandering around and wed spoken to a few people and thats when they seemed to get quite suspicious.

He said that the staff told them they should not approach anyone to talk to them. They said repeatedly the club doesnt like to be political, he added. [Source]

Despite citing political neutrality to justify tamping down the show of support for Peng Shuai, Wimbledon chose to ban 16 athletes from Russia and Belarus in April, in response to Russias invasion of Ukraine and Belarus support for the invasion. A similar controversy occurred in January, when the Australian Open ejected activists attempting to raise awareness about Peng Shuais disappearance, but that organization later reversed its decision under widespread public pressure. The Womens Tennis Association, one of the few major tennis organizations that has followed through on its supportive rhetoric of Peng, has canceled all of its events in China due to her continued absence from public life.

Off the court, other #MeToo cases are slowly making their way through Chinas judicial system. On June 22, a Chinese court sentenced Zhang Guo, a man accused of sexually assaulting a former Alibaba employee, to 18 months in prison. The former employee, surnamed Zhou, alleged that Zhang and her former manager, surnamed Wang, had pressured her into drinking too much alcohol at a client dinner last August and raped her later that night. After Zhou revealed her story on an internal corporate message board, Alibaba fired Wang, but then did an about-face and fired ten other employees for leaking Zhous accusation to the public. Zhou eventually lost her own job as well. This week, in the wake of Zhangs sentencing, Zhou called out inconsistencies in the police statement about the case. Huizhong Wu from the Associated Press reported on Zhous online post criticizing Wangs lenient judicial treatment:

Zhou criticized the official police account for turning her manager from someone who objectively has criminal intention, a rapist with actual criminal intentions, into a good boss caring for his drunk female subordinate.

And as for me? I have become a slut who is falsely accusing the male boss that she was carrying on with, she continued.

[] She wrote that her former manager had stolen her ID card to get the hotel to make him a key for her room, asking the staff to list him as a fellow traveler. She also said that police had concluded she could not express herself clearly when the front desk called to get her consent for giving him a key.

He voluntarily cancelled his taxi on the app, carried my stolen ID card, went back to the hotel and added himself to my room, sexually violated me, she told the AP, elaborating on her post. All these things show that not only did he intentionally try to rape, but also he committed a criminal act.

A police statement last August said that Wang had the key made with Zhous consent and that he had her ID card, without saying how he had gotten it. [Source]

Two days after Zhang was sentenced to prison, a four-hour public hearing for a sexual assault case involving the leader of another powerful Chinese tech company took place in the U.S. The victim, Liu Jingyao, has accused Liu Qiangdong, the billionaire founder of Chinese e-commerce giant JD.com, of raping her after a dinner and drinks party in 2018. At the time, Liu Jingyao was an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota. The hearing revolved around a motion to add punitive damages against Liu Qiangdong and JD.com, and the official jury trial is scheduled to begin on either September 26 or October 3. In a recent overview of the case published by a WeChat account supportive of womens rights, friends and supporters of Jingyao who attended her hearing shared more details about the trial, and criticized the double standards applied to male and female behavior in sexual assault cases:

In the court of public opinion, victims are on the receiving end of boundless scrutiny and mistrust. Why dont we ask Liu Qiangdong, or the person who organized the event, why a dozen middle-aged men would invite a young twenty-something woman to a drinking party? Why did Liu Qiangdong bring Jingyao to his villa in the first place? Liu Qiangdong is a married man, so why wasnt he more circumspect about his words and behavior? People tend to instinctively come up with excuses to justify the behavior of rich and powerful men. But as a woman, unless you happen to think like a perfectly rational automaton, people will tend to exaggerate the irrational aspects of your behavior. [Chinese]

This week, similar public vilification was heaped on Yu Xiuhua, a woman born with cerebral palsy who has become famous for her poems about love, sexuality, disability, and female identity. In a Weibo post (deleted two hours after it was published on Wednesday), she accused her estranged husband Yang Zhuce of domestic violence, alleging that he physically assaulted her multiple times in the course of their two-month marriage, after she asked him if he was having an affair with another woman. While some of Yus fans were sympathetic or outraged on her behalf, other netizens criticized her for being an attention-seeker, alleged that she had it coming, or made her the target of online bullying and death threats. The author of a WeChat post archived by CDT detailed how women who suffer sexual violence often receive harsher public scrutiny and criticism than their male abusers:

This has become a common practice online. When a woman suffers domestic abuse, the first question people ask is, What did she do [to provoke it]?

In the absence of other evidence, the mind conjures up various and vilifying possibilities:

Did the man find out that their child wasnt his?

Was she mean to her in-laws?

Was she too bad-tempered?

This is particularly true in the case of Yu Xiuhua, a headstrong, high-profile woman with many enemies. Some will find it easy to understand why a man might beat her: theyll say she had it coming, she brought this humiliation on herself, she knew the risks and went into it with her eyes wide open.

Youre old, disabled, and uglywhy would you think such a young man could actually love you?

The heartless domestic abuser has thus far avoided the storm, while Yu Xiuhua, the one who was beaten, finds herself in the eye of the storm, the object of public censure. [Chinese]

Translation by Cindy Carter.

View post:

#MeToo Cases Weather Censorship, Suppression, and Victim-bashing - China Digital Times

India Wants Twitter To Participate in Government Censorship – Reason

On Tuesday, Twitter announced that it had filed suit against the Indian government alleging that it interpreted a suite of 2021 laws too broadly when ordering the company to censor dissident users in the country. The lawsuit comes in response to increased pressure from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which in recent weeks has ordered Twitter to block the posts and accounts of dissidents. According to CNN, a source familiar with the suit said that the company will attempt to show that the government's orders "demonstrate excessive use of powers and are disproportionate."

The 2021 regulations Twitter is now fighting gave India's government the ability to demand that social media companies block certain posts or accounts in the country. Further, the Indian government has required social media companies to locate their compliance officers within the country so that they can be held criminally liable if the company fails to comply with government orders.

While Twitter has complied with orders, the suit marks a major act of resistance against the Indian government's calls to censor dissident content. In 2021, WhatsApp filed a similar suit, attempting to prevent the government from forcing the company to make all messages "traceable" upon request. That order, according to the company, would "severely undermine the privacy of billions of people who communicate digitally[.]" WhatApp's suit is still ongoing.

Twitter's suit highlights an important issue faced by social media platforms: What to do when local laws demand they participate in politically-motivated censorship? Increasingly, censorious governments are attempting to deputize tech companies to do their dirty work for themforcing companies to censor, block, or even track the whereabouts of government critics. While these companies may have values which marginally attempt to protect free speech, oppressive governments often coerce tech companies into collaborating.

Governments all around the world have enlisted tech companies to carry out local censorship missions. In 2024, the European Union's Digital Services Act will take effect, forcing tech companies to sharply regulate their platforms. The legislation requires companies to take down content deemed as hate speech, or disinformationtwo broad categorizations that can easily morph into broad state censorship. In Germany, hate-speech laws require companies like Twitter to report users to law enforcement. As one Twitter spokesperson said, the law "forces private companies into the role of prosecutors by reporting users to law enforcement even when there is no illegal behaviour."

While the threat of criminal liability for employees (India-based executives found guilty of violating censorship orders could face up to seven years in prison) might prevent companies from outright refusing to comply with censorious regulations, lawsuits like Twitter's are a clear step in the right direction.

However, the future increasingly appears to offer social media companies a choice between participating in government-mandated censorship and surveillance, or ceasing operations entirely in those countries. The first entails participating in considerable injustice, the other could involve reducing their customer base by billions.

Continue reading here:

India Wants Twitter To Participate in Government Censorship - Reason

Facebook swift to respond to Roe fallout with abortion censorship – Salon

Facebook and Instagram, both owned by Meta, have begun mass-deleting posts that provide information about accessing abortion pills in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established America's constitutional right to abortion.

Such content removals, first reported by Vice and the Associated Press, occurred immediately after the ruling was handed down. Much of the material in question reportedly contained information about how to obtain abortion pills by mail without breaking state laws.

"DM me if you want to order abortion pills, but want them sent to my address instead of yours," one of the since-deleted posts read, according to the Associated Press.

"I will mail abortion pills to any one of you. Just message me," another user wrote, reports Vice.

Both posts were immediately taken down by the site.

RELATED: Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade with Dobbs decision

The Associated Press tested how long it would take for one of its own reporters' posts to be scrubbed. "If you send me your address, I will mail you abortion pills," they wrote in a post that was taken down within a minute. Further, the account which published the post was reportedly put on a "warning" status for violating the platform's guidelines related to "guns, animals and other regulated goods."

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

When the reporter substituted the phrase "abortion pills" for "guns" and "weed," their post remained on the site, even though weed distribution is expressly prohibited by federal law and delivering the drug across state borders is likewise a federal crime. Abortion pills, meanwhile, can be legally distributed via mail by certified doctors, as the Associated Press noted.

Most abortion pills consist of two drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol. The first halts the production of a hormone, progesterone, that helps facilitate the early stages of pregnancy. The second drug induces the uterus to empty itself of pregnancy tissue.

Asked about their sudden abortion-related content removal, Meta told the Associated Press that it prohibits users from selling certain firearms, alcohol and pharmaceuticals.

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone affirmed this policy over Twitter, adding that the company has "discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these."

RELATED: Facebook bans Trump for two years, as social media giant changes controversial moderation rules

Just after the mass-deletions were flagged, the Intercept reported that Meta had secretly designated Jane's Revenge, an abortion rights group, as a terrorist organization. The classification reportedly stems from an act of vandalism the group led against an anti-abortion group in May, which "consisted of a small fire and graffiti denouncing the group's anti-abortion stance." According to The Intercept, Jane's Revenge has been put on "Tier 1" status speech restrictions, on par with drug cartels and mass murderers.

"This designation is difficult to square with Meta's placement of the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters in Tier 3, which is subject to far fewer restrictions, despite their role organizing and participating in the January 6 Capitol attack," Mary Pat Dwyer, academic program director of Georgetown Law School's Institute for Technology Law and Policy, told the Intercept. "And while it's possible Meta has moved those groups into Tier 1 more recently, that only highlights the lack of transparency into when and how these decisions, which have a huge impact on people's abilities to discuss current events and important political issues, are made."

Historically, the vast majority of abortion-related violence has been carried out by anti-abortion groups against pro-choice doctors and clinics, as the Intercept noted. This trend, according to Axios, has continued into the present day, with "assaults directed at abortion clinic staff and patients" having "increased 128% last year over 2020." Despite this, only two names associated with anti-abortion violence reportedly appear on Meta's list of Dangerous Individuals and Organizations, which was obtained by the Intercept last October.

RELATED: Facebook is killing democracy with its personality profiling data

Despite Facebook's apparent effort to crack down on abortion access and abortion rights advocacy, Meta has told its staff that it would cover travel expenses for employees who have to go out of state for an abortion, according to CNBC.

See the article here:

Facebook swift to respond to Roe fallout with abortion censorship - Salon

Draft Amendment to the IT Rules 2021 Smacks of Censorship – NewsClick

The proposed Grievance Appellate Committee will lead to bias and violation of the principles of natural justice.

On June 6, the Union Government proposedamendmentsto theInformation Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021(IT Rules). As per the press release by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, these amendments are proposed to steer through the challenges and gaps that exist in the IT Rules.

The IT Rules of 2021 were brought in to bring a slew of reforms by replacing theInformation Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. It imposed various compliance regulations on social media intermediaries, from appointing a Grievance Redressal Officer to tracing the first originator of information as and when required by a judicial authority or by any competent authority defined in Rule 2(d) of theInformation Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for interception, monitoring and decryption of information) Rules, 2009.

It drew various criticisms from experts and social media intermediaries. Theyreasonedthat the rules would break the end-to-end encryption system since it mandated finding the first originator of a text. Also, the Ethics Code establishes anOversight Committee, which consists of a majority of persons from the executive branch of the State. This is problematic since the Executive will now play the role of the Judiciary, which can lead to arbitrariness and favouritism in the decision-making process.

The IT Rules of 2021 drew various criticisms from experts and social media intermediaries. They reasoned that the rules would break the end-to-end encryption system, since it mandated finding the first originator of a text. Also, the Ethics Code establishes an Oversight Committee, which consists of a majority of persons from the executive branch of the State.

Also read:SC refuses to pass effective order in Centres petition to transfer to apex court challenges to IT rules in high courts

It requires the setting up of an additional committee (a Grievance Appellate Committee) which will review the appeal against the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer. Rule 3(3) of the proposed amendment states that the chairperson and members of the committee shall be appointed by the Union Government. This aspect of the proposal is problematic on the ground that it would lead to arbitrariness in the decision-making process of the committee, and may also lead to favouritism. The committee will act as the final arbiter on the complaints made against any content that is present on Intermediaries and having a body that is filled with people appointed by the Executive branch can lead to bias in the order and violation of the principles of natural justice.

Rule 3(2) requires the intermediaries to respect the constitutional rights of the citizens. This is an unprecedented move by the Government since this is essentially akin to enforcing fundamental rights against private entities. This may lead to a flurry of petitions against intermediaries in the already overburdened courts of India.

The Rules establishing the Union Government as the final arbiter in complaints against content on social media and OTT platforms directly or indirectly goes against the ethos of our Constitution.

The establishment of the Grievance Appellate Committee by the government is on similar lines as the three-tierGrievance Redressal Mechanismwhich was proposed in the IT Rules of 2021, beforebeing stayedby the Bombay High Court last year. The third or the final tier in the above-mentioned mechanism was an inter-ministerial committee consisting of people majorly from the executive branch. There were alsoconcerns flaggedregarding the government being the final arbiter in deciding the validity of the content on social media or on over-the-top platforms.

The Draft proposals also reduce the time given to the Grievance Officer to act on the complaints made by users. In certain circumstances, it requires that the Grievance Officer must address the complaint within 72 hours of the receipt of the complaint. The stayed relevant provision of the IT Rules of 2021 currently provide 15 days to act on the complaints made to the Grievance Officer.

Also read:Social media, content moderation and free speech: A tussle

The IT Rules, 2021 are already underchallengebefore the Supreme Court in various petitions. These Rules invited flak from critics and observers on various grounds. As discussed above, some of their provisions were partially stayed by the Bombay High Court; theKeralaandMadrashigh courts, too, had stayed any coercive action by the Union Government under these Rules last year.

The Rules establishing the Union Government as the final arbiter in complaints against content on social media and OTT platforms directly or indirectly goes against the ethos of our Constitution. It goes directly against thefundamental right to free speech, since any opinion (or majority of them) which will be critical of the Government might be taken down by the committee appointed by the government. This will essentially make the government a judge in its own case. It is akin to the violation of one of the principles of natural justice:Nemo judex in causa sua.

Against this backdrop, bringing this amendment which is reminiscent of the stayed Rules, is an unfortunate step by the government. The proposed draft amendments could lead to censorship by the government. Content posted on social media platforms at times includes criticism of the establishment, which might not be very pleasing for the elected government. This amendment provides the government with the authority to adjudicate complaints made against the decision of the Grievance Officer, which is open to misuse. The Government has to make amendments to the present mechanism, where the independence in decision-making is in absentia.

Also read:Explained: Bombay High Court order partially stay new IT rules on plea by The Leaflet

In India, the Supreme Court acts as thesentinel qui viveby protecting our fundamental rights. It is imperative that the Supreme Court, which is entrusted with the quintessential duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens, intervenes and protects the fundamental rights of the citizens.

Aarya Parihar is an undergraduate student of law at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.

Read more:

Draft Amendment to the IT Rules 2021 Smacks of Censorship - NewsClick

State control of publications on the Internet in Armenia – JAMnews

State control of publications on the Internet

Armenian Prosecutor General Artur Davtyan suggested that the government introduce state control over information published on the Internet and, if necessary, force the removal of any publications. The Prosecutor General actually made a proposal to introduce censorship in the network. As an example, he referred to the experience of Roskomnadzor.

The initiative of the Prosecutor Generals Office has not yet been formalized in the form of a draft law. But if this regulation is adopted, it will apply not only to the media, but also to users who publish a post on Facebook.

Human rights activists and media experts reacted negatively to the proposal of the Prosecutor General. They warn that if a structure is created to control information on the web, it could become a tool that restricts freedom of speech, a ministry of censorship.

The government has not yet commented on the proposal of the prosecutors office, and there are no comments on the critical remarks made by the experts.

From the message published by the Prosecutor Generals Office, it turns out that Artur Davtyan proposed to the government

At the same time, it is emphasized that control should be combined with a guarantee of the constitutional right to freedom of expression.

The prosecutors office also reports that it has conducted a study in the field of protecting the non-property interests of the state, which showed:

The prosecutors office said that in the absence of such control, information resources continue to freely distribute such content, distorting and abusing the democratic principle of freedom of speech.

The experience of Russia is also cited as an example, where the Prosecutor General or his deputies, in the event that information about suicide methods or drug trafficking is discovered, submit a demand to Roskomnadzor to immediately delete this information and restrict access to the relevant Internet resources.

Armenian experts believe that the goal of the Prosecutor Generals proposal is not to prevent suicide and drug sales among minors, but to control media and social media.

The experts were alarmed not only by the prosecutors proposal itself but also by the reference to the experience of the Russian Roskomnadzor.

In fact, Roskomnadzor has become a body that exercises open censorship in some cases necessary for the state. And the reference to it does not give grounds to think about anything positive, said Shushan Doydoyan, head of the Freedom of Information Center.

According to her, this creates the ground for prompt intervention, so that government agencies, if necessary, can immediately take measures and actions on the Internet. According to her, this is fraught with serious consequences.

Shushan Doydoyan agrees with the presence of numerous problems in the content published on the Internet, but believes that their resolution is not the job of the prosecutors office.

It would be good if the prosecutors office did not take on functions reminiscent of the Russian Roskomnadzor. This is in the interests of everyone, first of all, in the interests of our democracy.

Boris Navasardyan regarded the proposal of the Prosecutor General as an attempt to restrict freedom of speech. He says that the initiative has no serious justification. And the expert does not consider it a coincidence that the statement of the prosecutors office was preceded by high-level Armenian-Russian contacts.

Now, when he leaves his post [the term of office of Prosecutor General Artur Davtyan expires on September 15] and receives a medal, he is doing his duty. At the same time, he will not be obliged to complete this initiative, Boris Navasardyan emphasized.

On April 19, as part of an official visit to Russia, Nikol Pashinyan and Vladimir Putin signed a statement that refers to the use of modern information and communication technologies to commit illegal and harmful actions, interfere in the internal affairs of states and undermine their sovereignty. The document enshrines an agreement to strengthen bilateral cooperation in the field of international information security.

Recently, by decree of the President of Russia, Prosecutor General Artur Davtyan was awarded a medal.

The expert considers the initiative of the prosecutors office a proposal to introduce censorship on the Internet, an attempt to create a ministry of censorship. He says that he does not understand why the structure has only now discovered that there is an Internet where, for example, people can swear or sell drugs.

If we follow the path of Russia, then first the fight against drugs and calls for suicide will be banned on the Internet. And one fine day we will find that the state is engaged in blocking, and, moreover, mainly of posts of a political nature.

In his article published on the Media.am website, Samvel Martirosyan emphasized that it would not be possible to fight drug selling in this way, but it would be possible to block political dissent, closing websites for every unauthorized sneeze.

Under the guise of this fight against windmills, huge amounts of money for Armenia will be written off. Because if you decide to do a quality job, this implies serious costs at the level of the Internet infrastructure. Not to mention the fact that they will feed the hungry army of censors at the expense of the taxes we pay, the expert believes.

Excerpt from:

State control of publications on the Internet in Armenia - JAMnews