By Natalia Ruvalcaba

NEW YORK, NY The New York Times right, in relation to Project Veritas, to report and produce knowledge received big support this past Monday as the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the National Coalition Against Censorship worked collaboratively to present a supportive amicus brief.

The ACLU reports that the New York Times was told to cease further publications on any information found within the contents of a legal document drawn up by Project Veritas attorney. This came after the NY Times was instructed to hand over such documents by a New York judge.

In order to reverse the ruling, the NY Times decided to turn to a state appeals court, according to the ACLU.

As claimed by the ACLU, the NYCLU, and the NCAC, the courts order violates the First Amendment rights of the NY Times. The ruling of the court is undeniably restrictive, as explained by the ACLU, the NYCLU, and NCAC, prohibiting constitutional freedom of the press and individuals right to obtain that knowledge.

Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project asserted in support of The New York Times, Courts shouldnt be in the business of telling newspapers what to print and the public what to read. The appeals court must dissolve this blatantly unconstitutional prior restraint on The New York Times.

According to the ACLU, the NYCLU, and the NCAC, the court allowed its bias to dictate what amounts to a public concern, and thus infringe on their reporting. The three organizations note that leaks, like that of Project Veritas, are needed because they result in pivotal public revelations that would not be uncovered otherwise.

The ACLU notes that the lower courts had justified the ruling, as they believed that public concern was not relevant and the privacy interests of Project Veritas were valid. However, the ACLU claims the New York states ruling presents a greater threat to our constitutional rights, beyond that of just the NY Times.

Donna Lieberman, executive director for the NYCLU stated, The publics right to information and ideas is fundamental to a healthy democracy and a free society. Decades of case law have established that the First Amendment does not allow prior restraint on speech. The New York Times should not be barred from doing its job, reporting this story, and informing the people.

From the NCAC, executive director Chris Finan expressed, No one can be permitted to control what the American people are allowed to know and think. Our courts must uphold the publics right to be informed, to receive information and to engage in debate.

The ACLU, the NYCLU, and the NCAC have requested the court reverse the order made by the lower courtin order to block the infringement of the NY Times free exercise of the press.

As of this Monday, Project Veritas v. New York Times remains unsettled in the New York Supreme Appellate Division, Second Department.

Read the rest here:

ACLU, NYCLU, and NCAC Work Together against Attempted Censorship of New York Times Reveal of Project Veritas Info - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

Just a few years ago, as freshmen in Regis Jesuit High Schools student media program, we memorized the First Amendment, discussed the dangers of censorship, and listened intently to Mary Beth Tinker preach the power of a free press.

Unfortunately, students at our former high school have been robbed of those freedoms. On Dec. 17, the winter issue of Elevate, Regis Jesuits student magazine, was released. The issue included an opinion piece on abortion in which a freshman advocated for the basic human right of choice. Nothing she wrote contradicted the magazines editorial policies, which read that school officials shall not practice prior review or to censor any student media. The policy only notes narrow exceptions, like legally obscene content and the termination of employees. Nonetheless, the school retracted not only the article but the entire magazine.

We recognize the schools prerogative to educate students on the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Indeed, the school has made its anti-abortion stance clear in theology classes, its pro-life club, and official messaging. But the issue is not whether those with uteruses have a right to abortion. The issue is whether students should be able to question, speak, and reach their own conclusions. In essence, the question is whether students should be educated.

It is true private schools are allowed much greater latitude surrounding the First Amendment. However, there is legal theory and precedent for private school students deriving legal protection from school policies. The Student Press Law Center writes, Where a private school voluntarily establishes a set of guidelines or rules, it must adhere to them. Otherwise, there exists a breach of a legally enforceable promise .

Regis Jesuit voluntarily adopted its editorial policies, which were publically available until this week. The question of legality is not as straightforward as some may argue. Regardless, the legality of censorship does not render it appropriate.

Regis Jesuits website proclaims, We do not teach our students what to think; we teach them how to think It also states, We are called to create environments in which our students may encounter and engage multiple points of view that are presented thoughtfully and respectfully. In light of recent events, this is false advertising.

What is so disheartening about this censorship is that it does not reflect our education at Regis Jesuit. Previously, the school allowed an OpEd praising Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Roe v. Wade. Why start censoring students now?

We believe one reason to be a fear of conflict with the Denver Archdiocese, which is supported by the statement released by Archbishop Aquila. Although the Code of Canon Law allows Jesuit institutions self-governance, it also permits the bishop to issue directives regarding staffing decisions and other matters. Regis Jesuit depends on Archbishop Aquila for its recognition as a Catholic school, which has been leveraged against Jesuit schools before.

Aquila dictated that Catholic schools must be unabashedly defending the anti-abortion movement no matter what the cost. In this case, the cost was two beloved teachers, Nicole Arduini and Maria Lynch, who were fired for allowing the article to be published.

We dispute the notion that censorship is equivalent to defending a position. The school should have released the article in conjunction with their own statement, or alongside a pro-life stance, as was common practice. The decision to fire faculty also sparked a culture of fear among teachers and contributed to dire staffing shortages. A third teacher quit when burdened with an unfair workload. First and foremost, Regis Jesuit must honor its responsibility to educate students, which is impossible when educators are constantly looking over their shoulders or even leaving.

Censorship is not a new issue in schools, private or public. While the rights of schools to control student speech vary, the importance of student voice remains the same. Georgetown Universitys Free Speech Tracker has recorded 34 instances of student press censorship since 2017, and countless more go unreported. Regis Jesuit, and all Jesuit institutions, should follow Georgetowns lead in affirming the free speech of students. Georgetown explains its policy as being necessitated by the Catholic and Jesuit traditions citing the Catholic teaching about autonomy of reason and reverence for conscience.

Beyond religion, all American schools should be committed to promoting democracy. The press is a corollary of democracy, and opposing it discourages students from participating in the democracy that guarantees the freedom of religion. The future of democracy is directly threatened by polarization and unwillingness to have civil discussions.

Finally, all schools should be committed to effective education. The free sharing of ideas is the cornerstone of education. When students are sequestered to echo chambers, they cannot encounter diverse viewpoints and thus receive a less rigorous education than their peers.

Accordingly, all schools, including Regis Jesuit, should adopt policies to ensure their publications are classified as public forums for student expression. To censor student journalists is not just immoral, it is ineffective education.

Madeline Proctor is beginning her second semester at Harvard University, where she writes for the student weekly Harvard Independent. She was editor-in-chief of Regis Jesuits Elevate magazine, as well as former editor of the Opinion and Editorial section. Sophia Marcinek is a second-year nursing student at Seattle University and is a staff writer for the student newspaper, The Spectator. Marcinek was editor-in-chief of Elevate magazine and the head of Student Media in 2020.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Read the rest here:

Opinion: Private schools, like Regis Jesuit, must resist the temptation to censor student voices - The Denver Post

CDT Editors Note: As we enter 2022, CDT has compiled a special series of features for our readers, offering a look back at the people, events, controversies, memes and sensitive words that defined the past year. Some of this content is drawn from the CDT Chinese teams year-end series, with additional content added by the CDT English team. We hope that CDT readers will enjoy this look back at the busy, complex and fascinating year that was 2021.

We started with the CDT editors picks for favorite CDT posts and writing on China in 2021, CDT English top ten most-read posts of 2021, the Chinese internets top ten memes of 2021, and a look back at some of the civil society groups, bloggers, and media outlets that said goodbye in 2021. The following is a translation and contextualization of CDT Chineses Top 10 Censored Words of 2021.

1. Sprinkle Pepper

Related censored terms: indiscriminately + sprinkling pepper

February 25 was Xi Jinpings big day to celebrate Chinas triumph over poverty. But as he read out his florid victory speech, he flubbed one of his lines. Describing the governments poverty alleviation work, he read that we stress fact-based guidance and strict rules, not flowery fists and fancy footwork, red tape and excessive formality, and performative going-through-the-motions, and we resolutely oppose indiscriminately sprinkling pepper.

His long pause and the contrived earthiness of the phrase, which Xi uses to describe ineffectual work, offered rich fodder for those who suspect that Xis two Tsinghua University degrees (awarded under dubious circumstances) simply paper over his lack of formal education. He has stumbled over complex, and not so complex, phrases a number of times in the past. In 2016, CDT published two leaked censorship directives on a case in which Xi misread lenient to farmers as loosen clothing.

Censors immediately aimed to mute discussion of the pepper-sprinkling verbal blunder. The word pepper was completely censored on Weibo for eight days after the speech, and searches for video of the speech returned no results. The word remains sensitive today: posting sprinkle pepper on Weibo can result in deletion of the offending account. Former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle once incorrectly instructed an elementary school student to spell potato with an appended e, eliciting widespread mockery across the United States, but no censorship.

2. Nomadland

Related censored terms: Nomadland + release date/cancelled release, Nomadland / Chloe Zhao + humiliate China, Nomadland + block, cancel + Oscar , 93rd + Oscar Awards, Oscar + live stream + cancel, Chloe Zhao + Oscar, Nomadland + Oscar, Oscar for Best Director

When Chlo Zhao won Best Director at the 2021 Academy Awards for her film Nomadland, nobody in China, the country of her birth, was watchingat least not via officially sanctioned media. Coverage of her historic achievement was blacked out after nationalist commentators dug up a 2013 interview in which Zhao said China was a place where there are lies everywhere. Her namealong with the terms Nomadland, Oscar, and Best Directorwere all censored. Millions still found a way to watch and discuss through the adoption of code words like Settled Sky, an inversion of the films Chinese title.

Zhaos other films also seem to be banned in China. A Marvel film she directed, Eternals, never aired in China, although other possible factors in that decision include state-approved homophobiathe film shows a kiss between a male superhero and his husband. Other Hollywood personages with family ties to China have been subject to similar political scrutiny. An encore of the Zhao controversy engulfed Canadian actor Simu Liu after nationalists posted screenshots of an interview in which he recalled that his parents memories of growing up in China included stories of people dying from starvation.

3. Support Xinjiang People

Related censored terms: support + Xinjiang People, Support + Uyghurs, support + Uy people

In March, the Communist Youth League set Weibo afire when it accused Swedish fast-fashion brand H&M of lying about labor abuses in Xinjiangs cotton industry, and actively encouraged Chinese citizens to boycott H&M products. Amidst the sound and fury of nationalist support for Xinjiang cotton, some Chinese citizens spoke out in support of the people of Xinjiang: Dont just support Xinjiang cotton, support Xinjiang people! Support allowing them to stay in hotels, support them traveling abroad, support them finding work, support them walking down the street without having their phones & IDs checked. Those posts were quickly censored. But as the government fanned the flames of the boycotts, many netizens began to ask, What is really going on in Xinjiang?

The censored Weibo posts are an indication that international condemnation of Chinas human rights violations in Xinjiang may be capable of influencing Chinese public opinion, despite the Chinese governments assertions to the contrary. In the meantime, nationalistic boycotts over Xinjiang continue. The latest targets are Intel and Walmart.

4. Accelerationism

Related censored terms: China + accelerationism, Accelerator-in-Chief ()

From China Digital Space:

The concept that Xi Jinping is hastening the demise of the Chinese Communist Party by doubling down on his authoritarian rule, often referenced by the mock-title Accelerator-in-Chief. In its original sense, accelerationism holds that strengthening the growth of the techno-capitalist state, not resistance to it, will bring sweeping social change. While [the term] jiasuzhuyi is used satirically, in the West this fringe political theory has become closely tied to white supremacist groups, which hold that violence and discord will topple the current political order and pave the way for their vision of the future. [Source]

There was a brief moment on Baidu when searches for Accelerator-in-Chief returned results for Xi Jinping, but that is no longer the case. Bot accounts, the famed internet water army, have flooded Twitter with Chinese-language posts connecting accelerationism to America. These patently inorganic posts seem designed to drown out criticism of Xi in Chinese-language spaces on the global internet:

5. Guonan

Related censored terms: married ass, little dick, little dock

Guonan, a homophone for national male formed from characters that share a radical with maggot and cockroach, is a derogatory term for Chinese men. The term is used by some radical feminists to criticize what they see as pervasive chauvinism in Chinese society. A similar term exists for women in traditional heterosexual marriages: married asses. Censorship of guonan and related terms increased after Xinhuas May 31 announcement, The Three-Child Policy Is Here, which raised fears of another round of invasive government involvement in womens reproductive choices. The censorship of guonan seems mild in comparison to the mass shuttering of feminist groups and the arrest of #MeToo journalists. Even less overtly political expressions of feminism can be grounds for official censure. When the comic Yang Li posed the question, How can he look so average and still have so much confidence? she was accused of inciting gender oppositionwhich Weibo now uses as grounds for censorship.CDT was also accused of this by Global Times in December.

6. Liedownism

Related censored terms: involution, Luo Huazhong

Lying down is not acceptable, according to state media. In an effort to escape the perceived involution of Chinese society, Chinese youth are lying downmuch to the chagrin of the Chinese government. The Cyberspace Administration of China mandated that products branded with lie down, liedownism, involution and the like be removed from e-commerce sites. Yet the art of liedownism slouches on: an image of the actor Ge You reclining on a sofa has become a popular meme, even making the list of CDT Chineses Top Ten Memes of 2021.

7. Zhang Xianzhong

Related censored terms: Zhang Xianzhong, Xianzhongology, Xianzhong gist, Xianzhong, Xianzhong incident, Xianzhong behavior, everywhere Xianzhong, no different from Xianzhong

A 17th-century rebel famous for slaughter so indiscriminate that he left Sichuan depopulated centuries later is perhaps an unlikely candidate for a memenonetheless, Zhang Xianzhong has become one online. His name has become a stand-in for two unrelated topics: the mass deaths that followed Maos Great Leap Forward and other fanatical Communist policies; and those who take revenge against society by following Zhangs (likely apocryphal) injunction to Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. In a famous recent case, an impoverished man in rural Fujian murdered his wealthy neighbors, with whom he had a long-running property dispute, and then fled into the mountains. Despite his grisly crime, his plight garnered widespread sympathy, and a few even expressed admiration: If the dead and injured were from the village tyrants family, then Id admire this Ou guy for being a real man. The now-suspended WeChat account @ sought to explain the attitude underpinning the Chinese internets adoption of Zhang Xianzhong as an anti-hero: The bottom rung of society is like a stagnant pond that grows more suffocating by the day. People are on their last nerve, and theyre feeling desperate. Thats why they want someoneanyone, for whatever reasonto show up and destroy the social order, to smash everything, and to hell with the consequences, so that they can vent their outrage.

8. Zhao Wei

Related censored terms: evil-doing artist, Henry Huo, Kris Wu, Zheng Shuang, Fan Bingbing

A profound transformation is underway in Chinas entertainment industry. The government has cracked down on both celebrity behavior and fandoms. Zhao Wei was erased from the internet for reasons that remain unclearperhaps due to her connection with former Alibaba CEO Jack Ma. CDT Chinese created a chart of the most sensitive celebrities and the extent to which they are censored across Chinas largest video platforms: red=total censorship, yellow=targeted censorship, green=uncensored.

The top row lists artists (from left to right) and their reported offenses: Zhao Wei (offense unknown), Henry Hou (serial cheater), Kris Wu (rape), Zheng Shuang (surrogacy and tax evasion), Fan Bingbing (tax evasion). The left column list the various platforms (from top to bottom): iQIYI, Youku, Tencent Video, Mango TV, Migu Video, Bilibili, Douban

9. Fragile

Related censored terms: Wee Meng Chee, Kimberley Chen + Fragile, Fragile + humiliate China

It is not difficult to understand why Fragile, by Namewee (Wee Meng Chee) and Kimberly Chen, was banned in China. The lyrics mock Xi Jinping, little pinks and their love of saying your mom is dead (NMSL), the ban on Taiwanese pineapples, and all the rest. The song is so sensitive that even criticizing it brings on censorship:

Even this Weibo post calling Namewee a bastard is censored

Namewee, meanwhile, has reportedly struck it rich by selling non-fungible tokens (NFTs) tied to the song.

10. Peng Shuai

Related censored terms: Peng Shuai, ps, Eddie Peng + Shuai, Pu Shu, Vice Premier Peng, Peng Dehuai, Zhang Gaoli, Usury Zhang, Gaoli, zgl, Zhuge Liang, Kang Jie, State Council vice premier, melon, eat melon, big melon, jumbo melon, tennis, The Prime Minister and I, Diamond Cup, Yibin Guesthouse, Womens Tennis Association, WTA, tennis association + leave/stop/suspend, Womens Tableless Ping Pong Association, Steve Simon

On November 2, in a Weibo post on her personal account, Peng Shuai accused former Standing Politburo Committee member Zhang Gaoli of sexual assault. Before an hour had passed, her accusation was deleted. A scorched-earth campaign of censorship followed. Peng herself also disappeared from public view, sparking an international outcry that eventually led to her forced reappearance. The fallout inspired the Womens Tennis Association (or the Womens Tableless Ping Pong Association, as one censorship-dodging Weibo user dubbed the WTA) to suspend all future tournaments in China. The breadth and intensity of the censorship of Pengs accusation is unmatched by any other event this year.

View post:

Sensitive Words: Top 10 Censored Terms of 2021 - China Digital Times

Two years into his tenure as President of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Will H. Hays was in front of Congress. Not for movie-related business, but for accepting and then obfuscating a small fortune from the founder of Sinclair Oil during the Teapot Dome bribery scandal. The former campaign manager for Warren G. Hardinga man who was, until recently, a shoo-in for running our most corrupt presidential administrationHays was the moral supervisor of the movies by the time he accepted $185,000 in cash and bonds, which he laundered and applied to the debts of the Republican National Committee. Just a few years later, Hays was synonymous with artistic censorship masquerading as dubious morality. The Catholic-pushed Motion Picture Production Code (AKA the Hays Code) came to define American cinema through both its limits and its loopholes for decades. Money still lurked beneath it all. Now, freed from the Code but under similar moral scrutiny, movies are often judged for their ethics by audiences weaned on revenue-driven discourse. And it all started with Hays appointment to the newly formed MPPDA 100 years ago.

Hays, a nervous little ex-traffic cop whom Time called a human flivver (Ill save you the Google: It means he was a busted-up jalopy of a dude) with a twisted grin in their 1926 cover story, left his appointment as Postmaster General on January 14, 1922 to become the dictator of the fourth largest industry of the time. It was a post Hays would hold for 24 years before passing it off to Eric Johnson, who would shift the positions ostensible focus from films morals to films international economic/diplomatic potential. But, really, capitalism always wasand continues to bethe driving force of censorship efforts.

State censorship boards reigned before the MPPDA, and making movies for a slew of arbitrary committees with no formal standard was expensive for everyone and made the final product sloppyeven incoherentfor audiences, as offending movies had to be chopped to bits (in different mangled formations) in order to screen in local theaters. Lawmakers across 37 states tried to pass over 100 censorship bills in 1921 alone. Overarching federal censorship and the anti-trust attention that may well follow seemed even worse for an industry that was just now finally becoming, well, an industry. Enter self-preservational self-censorship, here to sweep the real-life sex and drugs of Hollywood under the rug of sanitized films to put Wall Street at ease. But enforcement of these moral clauses always reflected what studio heads thought would be best for the bottom line.

In a speech to the National Education Association in July of 1922, Hays said that the influence of the movie industryan industry that had settled down commercially into a sanity and conservatism like that of the banking worldwas limitless, not just on our taste but on our conduct, our aspirations, our youth and our future. Movies, you know, the things that, before violent videogames, were blamed for Americas gun problems and general moral failures.

And so its integrity must, and shall, be protected just as we protect the integrity of our churches, Hays declared. The speech goes on to half-heartedly condemn political censorship, before reiterating a commitment to ethical censorship where real evil can and must be kept outa hypocrisy as American as comparing art to banks and churches.

Yet, during the 20s, Hays early passes at a Codeknown first as The Formula and, later, a long list of Donts and Be Carefulswere often ignored. But, like that speech, they were good PR. Placated by the coverage these rulesets got in the press (and publicity moves like banning any movie featuring Fatty Arbuckle, whose high-profile manslaughter accusation was an instigating factor to Hays recruitment), those same financial powers that got Hays appointed in the first place didnt see a rush for strict enforcement. Money was being made.

Initially, the Hays Code was also disobeyed. It was the Depression, and studios needed butts in seats any way they could get them. Movies actually got more lascivious for a while. But when the Catholic Legion of Decency put its supervillain supergroup name to good use in the early 30s, designating what its large and pious audience should or shouldnt see, the script flipped. Profits were now on the line, as the faithful realized they were far more organized than the degenerates that enjoyed any kind of realism in their cinema. Millions of Catholics pledged to stay away from unapproved and thus immoral films, and the Legion of Decency became influential enough to warrant a response from an industry that would love millions of Catholics to buy tickets, please.

The power of these religious tastemakers and their odd relationship to the movies is perhaps best and most hilariously displayed in this scene from Hail, Caesar!, which riffs on the counsel of denominational consultants advising Cecil B. DeMilles The King of Kings (one of whom was future Hays Code co-author Reverend Daniel A. Lord):

No matter your beliefs, Hollywood really, really wants your money. To keep this specific religious faction coming to theaters, Hays created the Production Code Administration and appointed a tough Catholic as its head. Joseph Breens PCA could fine producers releasing films without a stamp of approval, and the Hays Code (expanded from Hays Be Carefuls list by Lord and Catholic publisher Martin Quigley) finally had some teeth. Profits were once again protected. Its not like people didnt know what Hays and his ilk were up to at the time. Herere humorists Will Rogers and Irvin S. Cobb on a 1935 radio program:

Rogers: Do you find that this censorship that Will Hays has got in on us now, does it kind of interfere with you, kind of cramp your emotions in any way?

Cobb: Well, I noticed as a result of Will Hays campaign they no longer talk about putting a tax on raw film.

Not to get too into the weeds on the Hays Code and its future (our Ken Lowe already did a thorough rundown of the MPAA rating system it evolved into), but doesnt that all sound a little familiar? The codewhich not only made sure criminals were explicitly unsympathic and priests went unmocked, but also prohibited scenes of passion when not essential to the plot, as well as sex perversion and dances which emphasize indecent movementsreflected attitudes surrounding marketable prudishness still visible today.

As Code-verbatim complaints about sex scenes and immoral characters inspire thinkpieces considering the decline of the erotic thriller and the roots of people believing that depiction means endorsement, its no wonder why the biggest modern movies star sexless PG-13 brands like Captain America or The Rock rather than people. Its no wonder that the biggest modern movies expect (and obtain!) praise based on their moral messaging alone. Its all marketing, all about being palatable to those increasingly raised on four-quadrant films. The potential ostracized group is no longer a literal Legion of Catholics, but those whod be influenced by a Fortnite skin crossover. Family-friendly still means ticket sales, but also merchandising opportunities.

Then, you have the international market. Not only was the Hays Code important in desexing movies (at least on the textual surface), it helped suppress politically minded films that might insult lucrative global box offices like that ofNazi Germany. While anti-fascist Hollywood films eventually got made, there were years of self-censorship aimed at making sure distribution continued as we ramped up to WWIIa dismal failure mirrored by many, many American businesses (though Ford and DuPont didnt tout hoity-toity morality codes). Today, companies self-censoring subject matter that might offend certain countries administrations has been as visible as ever: Netflix pulling a Patriot Act monologue critical of Saudi Arabian royalty after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi; various China-pleasing cast additions, straight-washes, product placements and political scrubbings affecting every single blockbuster. Its never really gone away. Disneys Michael Eisner apologized to China and hired Henry Kissinger to deal with Martin Scorseses Dalai Lama-centric Kundun back in 1998. Now, the film remains hard to find and definitely unavailable to stream on Disney+. Why? As always, money. Chinas film market surpassed North Americas in size in 2020, hungry for a specific kind of inoffensive Hollywood film (plot-light, star and effects-heavyF9 was 2021s most successful crossover hit).

Of course, this kind of crass and shameless censorship has a silver lining, because it will always encourage those lovely sickos looking for exactly whats being banned in the first place. Whats a more enticing film to a thrill-seeking teen than a former video nasty, an ex-X, or a film loathed by the Chinese government? When George Mundelein, Archbishop of Chicago, protested indecent pictures in the early 30s, contemporary reports noted that cynical opponents suggest that the Legion of Decency has aided indecent pictures by advertising them. As anyone who was paying attention to last years Benedetta knows, some humorless Catholics still love to give movies free protest publicity.

But movies that are irreparably altered by censors, fail to get distribution, or go unmade in the first placeas shifting industry trends erase the mid-budget movie, quash specific subgenres and infect every films third act with half-assed sequel set-upsare the true victims of Hays legacy. This reminds me of a Stanley Kubrick quote, which our Natalia Keogan brought up when discussing the filmmakers A Clockwork Orange (a film with heavy roots in Catholicism and with plenty of experience with censorship): No work of art has ever done social harm, though a great deal of social harm has been done by those who have sought to protect society against works of art which they regarded as dangerous. And what of those that dont really even seek to protect society, but those that withhold any element that might prevent a sale? How much harm have these mercenaries done, and how much do they continue to do?

When looking back on Hays influence on the film industry over the past century, theres little nuance to be had. He and sociologist Mary van Kleecks development of Central Casting, which revolutionized and regulated the world of extras, wont ever be his legacy. Nor will his surprisingly successful political career or subsequent scandal. Instead, what remains is a negotiation-heavy dance between executives, filmmakers, religious leaders and self-righteous censorsas individual morals colored industry-wide economic policiessimplified into the Puritanical catch-all of the Hays Code. But so too, as blockbusters boom bigger than ever, remains the idea of playing it as safe as possible in order to make a buck. No Code required.

Jacob Oller is Movies Editor at Paste Magazine. You can follow him on Twitter at @jacoboller.

For all the latest movie news, reviews, lists and features, follow @PasteMovies.

Read this article:

A Century of Hays: The Movie Czar and Marketable Prudishness - Paste Magazine

When Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law in 2019 allowing the state to isolate the internet within Russia in the event of a security incident, international media outlets extensively covered the development, with many (incorrectly) likening it to Chinas Great Firewall. The spotlight quickly swiveled back to Beijings grip on online content and dataeven though a Kremlin campaign continues to ratchet up pressure on US technology giants, and could soon create a disruptive playbook for other states.

While Moscow made headlines after throttling Twitter and coercing Google and Apple into censoring opposition leader Alexei Navalnys election app last year, Western media coverage of internet repression and security threats still tends to focus on China. This penchant persists despite Russian developments that impinge on both the internet ecosystem and human rights in the countryand which constitute broader cyber threats and efforts to undermine the global internet.

In no small part, this pattern stems from the fact that Russian state control of the internet differs from that in China: It relies less on technical measures and more on traditional, offline mechanisms of coercion such as harassment, intimidation, and vague and inconsistently enforced speech laws. Notably, Russias domestic efforts to control the internet quite closely parallel its efforts overseas to shape information and to both weaponize the internet and undermine its global nature.

As the world watches Putins moves in and around Ukraine, these developmentswhile of course not comparable to the possibility of large-scale armed conflictare worthy of attention, given their impact on the Russian cyber and internet landscape more broadly.

The more the Kremlin cements its control over the internet, the more it can potentially suppress dissent and control information and data flows at home. And the more it slowly works on implementing the domestic internet law, the more it centralizes its control of the architecture of the internet in Russiawhich could also affect Russian cyber behavior abroad, such as by encouraging more assertive operations against global internet infrastructure. Though US policy debates often separate Russian internet governance and technology policy at home from Russian cyber behavior abroad, there is actually great interdependence and entanglement between the two.

As the Kremlin demonstrates and further develops a model of internet and information control that appeals to states without Chinas technical capacity, Moscows techniques may portend the future of internet repression elsewhere. Several recent, but largely overlooked, developments signal that the Kremlin may crack down on the internet more than ever in 2022while US tech companies and the US government increasingly have little room to push back.

Last year was a stifling one for Russian internet freedom. When citizens took to the streets to protest state corruption and the Kremlins jailing of Navalny, the government sent censorship orders to YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, VKontakte (Russias leading social network, also known as VK), and other domestic and foreign tech firms. Many caved and removed protest-related content. When Twitter refused to comply, the government leveraged newly deployed deep packet inspection capabilities to throttle it from within Russia. That was only partly successful, as many other websites were inadvertently affected by the traffic slowdown, but it still demonstrated to foreign technology firms that Moscow was expanding its censorship capabilitieswhich it also threatened to use again as desired.

The crackdowns hardly ended there. The government demanded that foreign tech companies set up local offices in Russia, and the Foreign Ministry called in the US ambassador to complain that US tech firms were not complying with the Kremlins censorship ordersdecrying the companies behavior as election interference and describing them as tools of the American state. The government blocked access to the website for TOR (short for the Onion Router), an anonymizing browser often used to bypass government restrictions when surfing the web. It also blocked access to six major virtual private network (VPN) websites, where citizens were accessing software to circumvent online censorship; set up a registry to track tech company compliance with censorship orders; blocked many other websites, including those for Navalnys campaign; and used its foreign agents designation to crack down on numerous online media.

As more and more Russians get their news from social media, and as internet mobilization and outreach become more important to protesters and opposition figures, the states crackdown on the web means citizens will have an even harder time accessing and sharing news that criticizes (or merely reflects poorly on) the Putin regime.

Several recent developmentsincluding official pressure on Google, the expansion of domestic software and a push for domestic internet, as well as local office requirements for tech firmsillustrate how both economic and security motivations drive Russias new campaign to control and shape the domestic internet environment. They also underscore just how wide-ranging this campaign is.

In September, when Apple and Google refused to delete Navalnys election app from their platforms, the Russian government threatened their employees in Russia and sent armed thugs to Googles Moscow office; both companies then removed the app. Since then, the State Duma (Russias lower house of parliament) met with Google to issue even more demands (for example, edit Google Maps in Russia to show illegally annexed Crimea as part of Russia), while a Moscow court fined it $40,400 for not removing content the Kremlin deemed illegalthen fined it a record $98.4 million for not complying with state censorship orders. Google was targeted again just last month, when another Moscow court upheld a ruling from last April that found Google-owned YouTube must restore the account for Tsargrad, the TV channel owned by sanctioned Putin ally and oligarch Konstantin Malofeev. Though unsurprising, the ruling nonetheless gives the state another reason to increase its pressure on Google.

Meanwhile, a recently published BBC analysis found that between 2011 and 2020, the Russian government had filed more than 123,000 individual requests to Google search or YouTube to delete contentmany times more than the number issued by Turkey (14,000), India (9,800), the United States (9,600), Brazil (8,000), Israel (2,000), or China (1,200). Moscow continued issuing those censorship orders in 2021, mostly focused on removing content related to Navalny. The Russian governments commitment to fining Google a percentage of its annual revenue in Russia for not removing content signals increased Kremlin frustration at Google not bending the knee and suggests the pressure will ramp up even further.

Google matters as a stand-alone issue here because YouTube is the most widely used social media platform in Russia. It also provides cloud and other services to Russian citizens, while opposition leaders have used Google services as wellsuch as when the Navalny campaign used Google Docs to share a list of opposition candidates. Moreover, how the Kremlin treats Google, and its mixed record of compliance with the Russian government, could foreshadow how the state will treat other foreign tech companies facing similar demands.

The Russian government has increasingly been pushing the development and use of domestic software. Driven by economic and security factors, Russia aims to replace Western software with its Russian versions where possible. (However, if forced to choose between those two considerations, security would likely win out: While the Russian government doesnt want to undermine the operations of Russian tech firms, the Putin regime has demonstrated increasing concern about Western espionage through Western technologies.)

Moscow has been making this push on multiple fronts. For one, it has been updating its domestic software registry, established in 2015, which lists government-approved software that state bodies and companies should use when replacing foreign software. It also implemented a law requiring that smartphones, laptops, smart TVs, and many other consumer devices sold in Russia have state-approved, Russian software preinstalled. This is primarily economically drivena way to theoretically give domestic firms a leg up against foreign software developers and big US tech companiesbut security factors (like Moscow wanting to secure backdoor access to Russian phones) may play a role as well.

The Russian government also updated its tax incentives for domestic technology production, making Russian companies with at least seven employees and 90 percent or more of their revenue from information technology (IT) eligible for reductions in their social security and corporate profit taxes. Given broader issues in Russian tech production (such as the quality of domestic hardware and the brain drain of IT talent to foreign countries), the effectiveness of this initiative seems questionable.

Overall, there has been mixed success in Moscows push to develop domestic tech. While some Russian companies have made small gains as Western technology is expelled from government and business systems, in many cases Chinese firms take slightly more market share in Russia. Chinese telecom company Huawei Technologies, for instance, has played into Kremlin fears of Western espionage to accelerate expansion in Russia.

It remains to be seen whether Russias increased use of domestic software will better protect the state against espionage or end up undermining the cybersecurity of Russian citizens and the Russian internet ecosystem.

On January 1, a new law came into effect requiring any foreign internet company with five hundred thousand daily Russian users to open an office in Russia. This is a blatant tool of coercion which fits neatly into the Russian governments internet control model. Technical measures play a part, but traditional forms of physical, offline coercionsuch as stalking and intimidation by the security services, including the Federal Security Service (or FSB, the KGBs successor) in the digital sphereare a means of scaring citizens, keeping tech firms in check, expanding surveillance, and generally controlling the shape of internet conversation.

The Kremlin demonstrated the power of this tool when it sent armed, masked thugs to Googles Moscow office: When a company has employees on the ground, those are people who can be stalked, harassed, intimidated, threatened, jailed, or even killed. As of a few months ago, Google and Apple had complied with the local-office law; other major companies with users in Russia, such as Facebook and Twitter, have not.

Russian authorities have said they will not begin fining companies immediately for noncompliance if they demonstrate they are working on setting up an office. The list of companies which are required to open offices is notable: Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, TikTok, Zoom, Pinterest, and Spotify. It will be key to watch if they complyand whether doing so would create any new legal or jurisdictional challenges amid any Kremlin censorship or data-access requests.

In December 2021, a law came into effect mandating that only Russian entities can own cross-border communications lines. While many telephone and internet cable systems in Russia are already owned by Russian entities (and, often, by state-owned firms such as Rostelecom), its unclear what this means for the undersea cables that link the Russian internet to the global internet and are owned by multiple companies, some of them foreign.

The government also set up a registry of autonomous systems (routing internet traffic) that would be critical to the operation of the planned domestic internet, as well as mandated that internet providers work on countering Kremlin-defined threats on their networks.

In short, the Russian government continued building out components of the domestic internet law this year and has slowly started centralizing control over internet infrastructure in Russia.

While its a very different internet and political environment, Western tech companies are at least generally familiar with a similar story in China: Companies wanted to enter the market and remain in the country to provide services and make moneyyet they all reached a point at which the Chinese government was cracking down harder on the internet, and at which compliance with Beijings demands was simply too much. Many US tech companies exited the market, or at least closed their local offices. The Russian government has far less technology leverage than Chinas vis--vis market size and power, as well as its chokehold on the global tech supply chain; but it has also demonstrated a considerable willingness to use outright force against foreign companies.

The Kremlins escalating pressure on Google portends a growing intolerance of Western technology companies that dont comply with its demands. Importantly, the states will and ability to crack down will not apply equally or identically to all firms. Twitter, for instance, has been resisting the Russian governments local office requirementwhich meant the Kremlin had no Twitter employees in Russia to threaten when it wanted the company to censor protest content in March 2021. Still, companies are likely to face even more Kremlin pressure in 2022, and there is increasingly little that they can do to push back.

Filing appeals in the Russian courts is not a viable option, nor is looking for market leverage to negotiate with Russian officials. The US government is likewise in a tricky position, because any efforts to support Internet freedom in Russia will only exacerbate Moscows accusations, as conspiratorial and deluded as they are, that the internet and US tech firms are tools of the CIA and American subversion. If the Russian pressure campaign on tech companies ramps up further, as appears highly likely this year, it may prompt some (especially smaller) foreign tech companies to contemplate exiting the market altogether.

Many factors will influence whether and how the Kremlin will act, including traditional political considerations. Tech-company actions or inactions that intersect with high-priority issue areas for the Russian government, such as election opposition and mass demonstrations, are likely to continue receiving Kremlin attention (and therefore more coercive force). Conversely, it remains to be seen if historically lower-priority areas, such as enforcing Russias 2015 data-localization law, will get any more buy-in amid the domestic internet push.

Website or platform popularity and the reach of particular content may also be factors in the Kremlins response. YouTube, for instance, is the most widely used social media platform in Russia (with 85.4 percent penetration versus VKs 78 percent penetration), whereas Twitter is much less popular among Russians. Even if Russian tech companies can functionally operate without YouTube in the Russian market, a severe crackdown on it would still be a serious decision given the platforms immense popularity with Russians.

Notably, this campaign marks a departure from years past, when laws were enacted (such as on encryption, source code inspections, or data localization), but not necessarily enforced with high-level political buy-in. So while the pressure now seems like a means for the Kremlin to achieve compliance with its wishes, there is no guarantee it will stop there. Companies may find themselves facing a regime willing to use these tools for outright punishment as well.

Justin Sherman is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Councils Cyber Statecraft Initiative. Follow him on Twitter: @jshermcyber

Wed, Jan 12, 2022

UkraineAlertByHarley Balzer

While Russia has attempted to reduce its dependence on the SWIFT payment system, it remains vulnerable to a sanctions cut-off in the event of a new Kremlin offensive in Putin's eight-year undeclared war against Ukraine.

Image: Russians attend a rally to protest against tightening state control over internet in Moscow, Russia, on March 10, 2019. Photo by Shamil Zhumatov/REUTERS

Read this article:

This year, Russia's internet crackdown will be even worse - Atlantic Council

LABOURS belief that tougher state control of online information is the answer to anti-vax disinformation needs to be challenged.

This is not because the partys concern about anti-vaxxers is misplaced. Reports that the vast majority of those ending up in intensive care are now the unvaccinated demonstrate how important the vaccination rollout is.

Vaccination saves lives, and not just of the vaccinated the occupation of available intensive care beds by people who, had they been vaccinated, would not need them reduces NHS capacity to treat people with other acute problems.

Every peak in Covid infections has knock-on effects across the health service, diverting scarce resources, delaying non-emergency care and therefore inevitably leaving myriad health issues unidentified, untreated and liable to get worse.

The unvaccinated are not primarily responsible for these problems. The government is.

The impact on NHS capacity of the unvaccinated minority is limited by comparison with that of a government which has forced the NHS to operate with tens of thousands of unfilled vacancies through a failure to invest enough in the service or in its staff.

Labours efforts should be concentrated on forcing the government to act on NHS pay and funding. But there are other reasons to be wary of its proposals.

They exude an authoritarianism that is becoming familiar from Keir Starmers party.

Labour is the party that called for a ban on TV channel RT over allegations that its broadcasts sought to influence the EU referendum. Starmer was not alone in assuming that voting to leave the EU an action incomprehensible to so many Westminster insiders must have been the result of manipulation by shadowy forces. But he was wrong.

The reach and influence of Covid conspiracy theories online is harder to judge.

But even though they are a harmful presence, we should all be alarmed at Labours indifference to any negative consequences of state overreach in response.

The tech giants are failing to wipe out vaccine lies, shadow digital, culture, media and sport secretary Lucy Powell warns, railing against government complacency on fake news. Lest we be tempted to try to assess the scale of the problem and the proportionality of the response, she adds: One person put off the vaccine by dangerous anti-vaxxers is one too many.

Too many on the left adopt a naive attitude to the use of state power to police communications so long as the targets are sufficiently unpleasant. Even at the huge Cop26 protests in Glasgow being brutalised by the police, there were climate activists calling on the government to ban fake news from polluters, seemingly without thinking about who would define the fake news to be silenced.

We, however, can have an educated guess. It would be a combination of the tech giants Powell berates for not having done so already, and the state.

There is abundant evidence of the political deployment of censorship by the tech giants. We know that Facebook shut down former Ecuadorean president Rafael Correas account and that Venezuelans expressing support for their elected government on Twitter in 2019 had their accounts closed as supposedly fake.

We saw the creation of tens of thousands of actual fake accounts allowed to operate with impunity to support the military coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia in the same year.

As for the state, the Conservatives are already seriously curtailing the right to protest and threatening free speech on Palestine. Labour, whose right wing has deliberately tried to obscure the difference between political positions such as anti-zionism and racist hate speech directed at Jews, is hardly a safer pair of hands.

The anti-vaxxers are a menace whose disinformation must be countered with argument and persuasion.

If they are used as an excuse to extend the states right to police communications, the left will soon find that those doing the censoring are not our friends.

Here is the original post:

Increasing state censorship of the internet is not the answer to Covid conspiracies - Morning Star Online

The Austin Public Library said it stands with the larger library community against censorship in school and public libraries.

Its disheartening when I see it happen across Central Texas and the state as a whole, Roosevelt Weeks, the director of Austin Public Library, said in response to an increase in calls to remove reading materials in places like Llano County and Leander and Round Rock school districts.

Weeks said the freedom to read is a right and it's important for librarians and library workers to stand together to ensure people are not stopped or deterred from reading what they want.

He said while library staff categorize books by age appropriateness, what children read should be between a child and their parent.

One parent should not dictate what another parents child should read, Weeks said. A small group of people shouldnt dictate what the majority of people may want to read or have an option to read.

Weeks said library materials are selected by a diverse group of professional library staff who are trained on how to select books for the community. The policy in selecting materials includes providing alternative perspectives on unpopular or unorthodox [ideas] as well as popular materials.

The Texas Library Association in October said there was a substantial increase in censorship activity across the state after the Texas Legislature passed laws restricting education related to history and racism.

In order for us to succeed as a society, we must recognize that there is a diversity of people and a diversity of thought, Weeks said. Thats why its important that we have a diverse collection so that people have a choice in what they read and get information [about].

Weeks said no materials have been removed from Austin Public Library shelves, but library patrons can challenge the materials by submitting a form explaining what they find objectionable. The item will then be reviewed by library staff.

Originally posted here:

Freedom to Read: Austin Public Library says it stands against book banning and censorship - KUT

An update to Tumblrs iOS app censors a long list of tags to comply with Apples strict safety guidelines. The platform explains that its changing iOS users ability to access sensitive content, affecting their experience when it comes to searching for content, scrolling through the Stuff for You and Following sections of the dashboard, and could even prevent access to blogs that are flagged. Tumblr says it has to extend the definition of what sensitive content is to remain available within Apples App Store, and it seems that Tumblr stretched it pretty far.

Tags are what make posts searchable on Tumblr; posts with censored tags wont appear on a users dashboard, nor will they show up on the platforms search page. A Twitter thread brought attention to some of the absurd tags that ended up getting filtered out on iOS, including the tag submission.

The interesting part, though, is that Tumblr applies that tag automatically when a post is submitted and then published to a blog on the platform. Users on iOS who receive a submission to their blog wont even be able to view it since the submission tag is already added, as shown in a post by one Tumblr user.

Another Tumblr user, aptly named bannedtags, has been keeping track of all the blocked tags in a Google Doc. The user notes that most of these tags have been banned on iOS not on all devices and that the listed tags are subject to change. Some banned tags are blatantly related to sexual, violent, or harmful content, but others dont seem to belong on the list, and may actually do more harm than good by staying on it.

For example, girl, sad, and oddly enough, Alec Lightwood, an actor from the show Shadowhunters, has been banned (because even Tumblr cant handle those eyes). Single dad, single mom, single parent, suicide prevention, and testicular cancer are also on the list, potentially harming those who want to seek support in any of these areas.

To make things even weirder, Tumblr blacklisted some tags that basically function as unspoken social cues on the site. Me and my face are blocked, both of which are tags that bloggers use to label their selfies (oh, and did I forget to mention that selfie is banned, too?). The platform appears to have blocked queue as well, a tag thats typically applied to posts that were placed in a queue and serves as a signal to followers that they may not be online at the moment.

Tumblr started having issues with Apple in 2018 when its app was unexpectedly removed from the App Store after child pornography was found on the platform. As a result, Tumblr banned adult content altogether, a major shift from the platform's previously laissez-faire policies on NSFW posts. When Tumblr first implemented the change, innocent posts were frequently flagged for explicit content, and it seems like were seeing history repeat itself, but in a different way.

Tumblr says its working on additional features for a less restricted iOS app experience, but theres no information on when or how this will be implemented. Users on Android or on the browser-based version of the site remain unaffected by this change. It remains unclear why Tumblr banned so many tags or if Apple was involved in any way. The Verge reached out to Apple with a request for comment but didnt immediately hear back.

Excerpt from:

Tumblr goes overboard censoring tags on iOS to comply with Apples guidelines - The Verge

Can the government censor you for tweeting happy birthday to a judge? The Senate Judiciary Committee recently voted 21-0 to advance a bill that would allow exactly that. If it is enacted, every American could face mandatory take-down orders for posting basic facts online about federal judges, including birth dates, spouses jobs and the colleges attended by their children. Because the bill stifles access to relevant information about public officials and arbitrarily limits its restrictions to the internet but not other media, it would violate the First Amendment.

The impetus for the proposed legislation was a tragic event: the murder last year of Daniel Anderl, son of Judge Esther Salas, at their home. Heres how the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act would work. If you post covered information about a federal judge online, that judge (or a designated federal official) can send you a written request to take it down. If you dont comply within 72 hours, the judge can sue you. If you lose, you have to take down the information and pay the judges legal fees and court costs.

Excerpt from:

Government Cant Censor the Truth About Judges - The Wall Street Journal

Journalist Asad Ali Toors Twitter account has on Wednesday been suspended. Toor says he received no intimation email from Twitter before his account was taken down.Asad Toor only came to know about the suspension when he realized that his Twitter account was showing zero (0) followers and followed accounts on Wednesday evening. I asked some friends if they could access my account and thats when I came to know that the account was suspended, he told Naya Daur-The Friday Times.Pakistan government often reports journalists tweets to Twitter, demanding action against these accounts and many journalists have complained about this in the past as well. Naya Daur Media itself has received intimation emails from Twitter Support. In the interest of transparency, we are writing to inform you that Twitter has received a request from Pakistan regarding your Twitter account, @xyz, that claims the following content violates the law(s) of Pakistan, emails read.Lawyer and journalist Reema Omer had also received a similar notice in 2019. Fawad Chaudhry, the information minister, had denied governments role in reporting her tweet. Why would the government question an academic debate, he had said. Earlier, journalist Mubashir Zaidi had also complained about receiving a similar notice from Twitter for his tweet when he had asked about the status of slain SP Tahir Dawars murder inquiry.However, Asad Toors account suspension is unique since he wasnt even informed by Twitter. Asad Toor has worked for various TV channels in the past. Hes also reported extensively from Supreme Court for Naya Daur Media and for his own Youtube channel. Earlier this year, he was beaten up by unidentified men. The inquiry of the incident is still pending.

View post:

Journalist Asad Toors Twitter Account Suspended Amid Censorship Concerns - The Friday Times