Image from social media

Famous DJ Natalia Paris has once again turned social networks on through a photo she posted on her Instagram account, in which she invited her followers to visit her website where they can find her new book, as well as exclusive content for the businesswoman.

In the shot, the model is shown wearing a white blouse with one of her open breasts open and without a bra, defying Instagrams privileged censorship of content deemed explicit by the social networks algorithm. It is worth noting that Paris covered part of the nipple with a label in Spanish, censorship or censorship.

In addition to the shot, the artist announced the launch of her new book, which she described herself as: A collection of Erotic Photography Made with the best photographers in the country. A piece of art to collect, and according to her, it is available on her website http://www.nataliaparis.com.co.

Look here at a picture of Natalia Paris:

The post that was shared two days ago on the official profile of Natalia Paris on Instagram already has more than 152,250 copies, exceeds 16,600 likes and garnered about 160 comments, of which the artists beauty stands out with qualifiers such as Beautiful and Beautiful. precious.

I want one like this for Christmas, Beauty should never be restricted or censored, I love you, Why are men allowed to go shirtless naturally and women are forbidden, The most beautiful thing of the day is Natalia, Always beautiful , Do not change, every day is better, Book? What is Natalia planning, The most beautiful woman in Colombia , She has always been beautiful, blessed and abundant for her , Among other things.

It is worth noting that the artist topped the news on various occasions due to her statements about the Covid-19 virus, vaccination, and the various theories that she deals with in her life. One of them was when he asserted that young men became gay due to eating chicken, stating that the hormones injected into the animals and their subsequent human consumption affected sexual development.

Regarding these statements, Natalia Paris referred to this in an interview with Diva Rebeca, a character played by Omar Vazquez, where the DJ confirmed: Suddenly it was said wrong, but it has a lot to do with hormones, the truth is I still think so.

However, the case went further, after Antioqueas statements the interviewer laughedly stated that she had a slightly far-fetched theory, alluding to the fact that the food was of a different kind, alluding to the masculine male organ. With a term used in Spain.

On frequent occasions, Natalia Paris has been called stupid for her statements and tone of voice that characterizes the 48-year-old model, by users of social networks.

However, she recently made reference to the issue and strongly demanded that prejudices be put aside, through her Instagram Stories where she highlighted her accomplishments as a businesswoman with skincare products, as well as being a model, DJ and now with his book.

I know it was hard for a lot of people to think that women who are notoriously stupid are not able to do things well, The model noted and added, These are biases that we really should let go, because if we have a sophisticated, open mind, connected to abundance, we understand that. A woman is capable of many things.

Read on:

How and where do you see Leonids in Colombia, the most anticipated meteor showers of this year

From this Tuesday, a vaccination card is required in Colombia: we tell you what you need to know

Read more here:

Natalia Paris defied the censorship of Instagram with a picture without covering her chest and opened the networks - Persia Digest

In a rare ruling, Manitoba's information adjudicator has compelled the City of Winnipeg to turn over documents to a private citizen who complained after raw sewage began backing up into her home in August 2017.

While city administration is appealing the ruling, it could set a precedent by constraining public bodies from censoring records on the basis they might one day get sued.

"Right now, it's way too broad," said University of Winnipeg criminologist Kevin Walby, who has written frequently about Manitobas freedom-of-information system.

"Right now, it's not working in favour of citizens who have this right of access, but aren't getting records a lot of the time."

The new ruling stems from a Winnipeg woman who filed a claim to the city for $5,846.20 in damage to her home, which the city declined to pay. In August 2018, she requested all the citys records about the incident, using the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That law stipulates that all Manitoba government bodies must provide citizens with records that arent confidential.

The city blanked out almost all the records, citing exemptions for information that could hurt a public body if litigation occurs.

The citizen appealed to the Manitoba ombudsman, who ruled in March 2021 that city officials were stretching their use of those exceptions, given that just one per cent of claims to the city result in someone actually filing a lawsuit.

The city didnt comply, so the ombudsman referred the case in April to the information and privacy adjudicator, a position created in 2011 that has only ever ruled on one case, back in 2015.

In an Oct. 14 ruling, which the adjudicator recently posted online, he ordered the city to provide the records, bureaucrats cant just withhold any records that might possibly lead to legal action, unless they establish a real risk that providing the information would harm the city.

Walby said government bodies often use that exemption as a matter of course, even if the ombudsman ends up striking it down.

"A lot of times I think its a kind of bluff," said Walby.

"A lot of public bodies interpret these sections of the act in an over-broad manner, and they go a little overboard with them. This means that fewer whole records are released (and) there are more redactions."

During the adjudicator process, the City of Winnipeg opted against sharing the actual uncensored records with him, arguing that statements from bureaucrats were enough grounds for the adjudicator to make a decision.

Yet the city is now seeking a judicial review, arguing in a Nov. 8 court application that the adjudicator "violated... procedural fairness" and that claims for damage are indeed "part of the adversarial process under which litigation privilege applies."

The Court of Queens Bench is set to hear arguments Nov. 25.

The citizen with the sewage issue did not reply to a Monday interview request.

dylan.robertson@freepress.mb.ca

Read more:

Ruling against city could prevent lawsuit-wary censorship of public records - Winnipeg Free Press

Marie Henein near The Globe and Mail offices in Toronto on Sept. 24.Melissa Tait/The Globe and Mail

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Re Lets Try To Understand Vaccine-hesitant Health Care Workers (Nov. 12): Health care workers knowledge of medicinal failures, such as thalidomide and OxyContin, may factually justify their fears. Fine. But understanding would be incomplete while action is still required to treat a pandemic, where vaccination is the only realistic mass solution with a low probability of risk.

Consequently, subjective fears should not be a relevant criteria when the objective reality of a deadly pandemic is at play. If patients seeking health care are forced to put themselves in harms way, then I believe they are being knowingly sacrificed to the misunderstanding of medical reality by some health care workers.

I cannot morally or medically justify such a trade-off. Fear is understandable, but vaccination mandates should be an operational necessity.

Tony DAndrea Toronto

Re Poilievres Reappointment Is A Red Flag (Nov. 11): I think Pierre Poilievre is a good finance critic. He works hard to inform the public of the dire straits from a pattern of overspending by this government, particularly for working-class Canadians.

The Liberals have never met promises to reduce spending. An informed person should be reminding the public of the possible dangers.

Remember the fiscal debacle of the early 1980s, when Pierre Trudeau was prime minister and interest rates rose to over 20 per cent? A huge increase in unemployment and people losing homes was the result.

Justin Trudeau has stated that he doesnt look at monetary policy. That is scary to me.

Anne Robinson Toronto

I think Pierre Poilievre has failed to show any signs of maturing, his comments about the Bank of Canada being the latest example. Instead of thoughtful arguments and reasoned policy options, Mr. Poilievre often offers hyperpartisanship, sound bites and Twitter posts.

None of this gives me any reason to take him seriously, much less take the Conservatives seriously as a governing alternative.

Michael Kaczorowski Ottawa

Re Toronto School Board Rejects Marie Henein Book Club Event (Nov. 12): Im convinced that the stability of a nation rests on the incorruptibility of its judicial system and, presently, that systems greatest enemy is social media, where people can be condemned on rumour. Worse, judgments passed down after lengthy legal review can be lambasted and second-guessed.

By rejecting Marie Heneins book, I believe the Toronto District School Board is reinforcing judgment by social media. Everyone in Canada should read her section entitled Middles for lessons on the legal system.

Ms. Henein should be sought out to discuss the law with teenagers, rather than being prevented from doing so.

Bruce Sutherland Lt.-Col. (Retd); Calgary

As a survivor of sexual abuse, I side with the Toronto District School Boards choice to pull support from Marie Heneins presentation to a book club of impressionable high-school girls. No miscommunication this is a form of censorship, one I fully support.

Jian Ghomeshis trial is often presented as the nascence of the #MeToo movement. Sadly, I feel that his accusers found themselves on trial instead. In taking on his case then, there should be karma for Ms. Henein now.

Speaking on her life and immigrant experience, I have no doubt that Mr. Ghomeshis case would come into discussion. Under the guise of a noble profession, such a career-making case should forfeit access to a moralizing pulpit, particularly in retrospect and with such an impressionable audience in question.

#MeToo has evolved the legal profession seems to have some ways to go.

Marian Kingsmill Hamilton

What a shame that these girls do not get an opportunity to see an example of an immigrant beating all odds in the male-dominated world of criminal defence and rising to legal stardom. Marie Henein is exactly who these girls should be meeting. They should understand the legal system and hear from an exemplar in the field that there is a role for them in it.

I find it short-sighted and narrow-minded of the Toronto District School Board to censor Ms. Henein. It is the board that looks to be sending the wrong message to students not Ms. Henein.

Gilda Berger Toronto

Re More Schools Trying To Tackle Anxiety, Period Poverty By Providing Menstrual Products For Free (Nov. 9): Making menstrual supplies readily available to students at school would be an excellent move.

It is nerve-racking to have my period at school and wonder if I will have enough supplies to make it through the day. Periods can be uncertain due to the potential irregularity of menstrual cycles and factors such as stress. This causes worry over potential leaks or ruined clothes, and may interfere with education.

All schools should provide free menstrual products to prevent disruptions in female education and level the playing field.

Sarah Falk Woodland Christian High School; Cambridge, Ont.

Re International Student Recruiting Machine (Nov. 6): The rising cost of living, exploitation by employers and landlords, surging unemployment and a devastating pandemic have amplified problems faced by international students in Canada.

Indian youth are lured by pop culture, word of mouth and glittering social media from kith and kin who have migrated to Canada. They are pessimistic about achieving their goals and providing a good lifestyle for themselves and their families at home.

Many of my friends have migrated to Canada. Now their dreams have changed because it becomes a matter of survival in a new country. Study is at the back seat. Priorities change.

What solutions can the Canadian government offer? It should lower fees to study in Canada. It should invest in foreign talent with scholarships. Accommodations at subsidized rates are also a need of the hour.

More sensitive approaches from employers and landlords would also pave way for happier employees and renters.

Jaspreet Singh Patiala, Punjab, India

Re Walk This Way (Letters, Nov. 10): From a letter-writer who slows down to 90 kilometres an hour on the way to the cottage, to another who doesnt drive to the cottage if its raining, to yet another who hasnt owned a car or ridden in one for more than 25 years, there is competition over who contributes the least to climate change.

I have them all beat: I dont go anywhere.

T.M. Dickey Toronto

Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com

Link:

Letters to the editor: Nov. 15: 'This is a form of censorship, one I fully support.' Toronto school board rejects Marie Henein book club event, plus...

A Sandown Town councillor has accused the Mayor, Cllr Paddy Lightfoot, of censorship and an unreasonable response to effective councillor scrutiny.

Cllr Emily Brothers says that at Mondays Town Council meeting the Mayor prevented her from making a statement, and also refused to allow for a hard copy of her statement to be circulated to fellow town councillors, as well as members of the public or press who attended.

Reason for investigation unknownCllr Brothers told News OnTheWight,

This is a form of censorship.

During the meeting the Mayor confirmed that an investigation into me is underway, but to date I have not been informed as to the terms of the investigation, why it has been initiated and who will be conducting the investigation.

News OnTheWight has emailed the Mayor and the Clerks of Sandown Town Council a series of questions in relation to the incident and will update once we hear back.

Brothers: Willing to co-operate with a fair and transparent investigationCllr Brothers went on to say,

I am willing to co-operate with a fair and transparent investigation, enabling me to move forward in representing residents and ensure accountability for the electorate of Sandown.

Thats why I would like to make my statement clear and available for them to read.

Cllr Brothers statementThe statement that Cllr Brothers had intended to share at the meeting reads:

I received an e-mail on 10/11/21 from the Town Clerk notifying that I would be subject: to have 2 members of staff present at any future meeting, and a note taken of any discussion and future action, and this note shared with the mayor.

What power is being applied by the Town Clerk?

No apparent process has been applied in reaching this decision.

This is an unreasonable response to effective Councillor scrutiny.

I am grateful to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor agreeing to meet me on 11/11/21 despite no resolution being reached.

The Mayor agreed to clarify by 15/11/21 the status and authority for the Town Clerks decision, which he endorses. No clarification has been received, so I now ask for clarification. Therefore, I will not adhere to the sanctions as no justification has been given for this action and I do not believe them to be lawfullyimposed.

I referred the matter to the Monitoring Officer, who advises that his powers are limited to member conduct not the process applied by a Town Council. Thus, no intervention is offered.

I will continue to observe the Members Code of Conduct, whilst not accepting the Town Clerks unfair restriction.

I remain determined to speak up for positive change in Sandown and will not be silenced by bullying and intimidation.

Image: Google Maps/Streetview and Sandown Town Council Website

Excerpt from:

Sandown Town council accused of censorship and unreasonable response to effective councillor scruti ... - On The Wight

This post was co-written by Alex Yu.

Late in the evening of November 2, Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai made an earth-shaking allegation: that a former member of the Politburo Standing Committee sexually assaulted her, and then kept her as his mistress. Peng posted an essay on Weibo alleging that Zhang Gaoli, former Vice Premier and member of the seven-man Politburo Standing Committee, coerced her into a sexual relationship. The essay was censored a mere 20 minutes after it was posted to Weibo, and a feverish cat-and-mouse game of censorship ensued. By the end of the night, Peng Shuaia Wimbledon and French Open doubles champ once ranked number one in the worldhad become part of the ever-expanding repository of sensitive words on the Chinese internet. Although she did not explicitly identify herself with the #MeToo movement, many view her essay as the first #MeToo post to broach sexual assault at the highest levels of the Chinese government.

According to Pengs account, she and Zhang Gaoli first had sex more than ten years ago in Tianjin, when Zhang was the citys Party chief. Peng alleged that the two reconnected about three years ago, after Zhangs retirement, when he invited her to play tennis and subsequently pressured her into having sex in his bedroom, while his wife guarded the door from outside:

I did not consent at first that afternoon. I cried the whole time. When I had dinner with you and Auntie Kang Jie [Zhangs wife], you said that the universe was so big that the earth was no more than a grain of sand in comparison, and that we humans were even less than that. You kept talking, trying to persuade me to let go of my mental baggage. After dinner, when I was still reluctant, you said that you hated me! You then said that you had never forgotten about me over the past seven years, and that you would take care of me I said yes because I was scared and panicky, and still had feelings for you from seven years ago and then, yes, we had sex.[] You were always afraid I would make recordings and keep them as evidence. In fact, I have no evidence or proof other than my own word. I dont have any recordings or videos. All I have are the true experiences of my own twisted self. I know that you, the high and mighty Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli, have said youre not afraid. But even if Im like an egg cracking against a rock or a moth to the flame, bent on self-destruction, I will speak the truth about you and me. I suspect that, given your intelligence, youll try to deny this or strike back at me. The world is but a plaything to you. You always say you hope your mother is watching over you from heaven. Im a bad girl who doesnt deserve to be a mother. Youre a father with a son and daughter. Ive asked you before: if it were your adopted daughter, would you force her to do what Ive done? Could you really, in good conscience, bear to face your mother after all youve done in your life? We are all so sanctimonious [Chinese]

Almost as soon as the essay was posted, Peng Shuai and Zhang Gaolis names were censored. Attempts to post their names on Weibo triggered a notice that relevant laws and regulations prevented the action. Soon after, their initials PS and ZGL were also censored, driving Weibo users to take refuge in a host of increasingly abstract homophones, allusions, variant characters and improvised stand-ins. Zhang Gaoli became Zhuge Liang, the famed military strategist of yore, and Zhang Guoli, the popular actor/director/comedian. Peng Shuai became Bodhisattva ( Ps), singer/songwriter Pu Shu, and Marshal ( Yunshui) Peng Dehuai, all of which share pinyin initials or other elements with her name. After Weibo began censoring those terms as well, users took to posting the phrase: Eddie Peng is so handsome. (The Taiwanese actor and Peng Shuai share the same surname, and the tennis stars given name uses the character for handsome.)

Weibo used nearly all the tools in its censorship toolkit to suppress discussion of Pengs post. Searches for the universe is so big, a line from Pengs post, returned only results from verified organization accounts (personal accounts, even verified, were excluded), and searches for tennis were similarly restricted. By preventing the display of non-verified users posts, Weibo was able to dramatically streamline its censorship by limiting the number of accounts it had to censor.

Given the stringent censorship of verified Weibo accounts and close scrutiny of any content relating to Party leaders, some have wondered why Weibo allowed Peng to post her message in the first place. CDT Chineses Eric Liu, who formerly worked as a Weibo censor, wrote that athletes and other celebrities who rarely post on political themes do not have their posts inspected before publication, unlike those users considered sensitive Big Vs, who have each of their posts screened. Pengs post was left up for approximately 30 minutes before censors deleted it, a timeframe Liu called normal to slow. The post did not go viral while it was live, likely because of Weibos automatic shadow ban feature, which makes potentially sensitive posts unsearchable and thus less viral. Her post was only shared 1,000 times in the 34 minutes that it was uncensored, but after it was deleted, it was searched for 6,749,000 times. Pengs Weibo account still exists, although all her posts are locked and her bio, which once was the opening lines of her post about Zhang Gaoli, has been changed to an anodyne description of her athletic accomplishments.

While intense, the censorship of Pengs account does not compare to that of Hao Haidong, widely considered the greatest soccer player in Chinese history. In 2020, Hao declared his opposition to the Chinese Communist Party and his intention to create the New Federal State of China with Guo Wengui and Steve Bannon. Haos name became a first-level sensitive word and all of his accounts across all social media platforms were deleted. His website haohaidong.com.cn was also taken offline.

Not all censorship was imposed from above. Some users accused those posting about the scandal on foreign social media sites of passing the knife to foreign forces. This left many in a hopeless predicament: Post on the foreign internet and give hostile foreign forces a smoking gun. Post on the Chinese internet and see it deleted in seconds, accompanied by a comment ban. You lose no matter what.

Weibo users hunting for censored news wrote of seeking melons or melon seeds, both online slang terms for morsels of gossip. The word melon and the watermelon emoji were both subsequently banned by Weibo. Some delighted in the cheeky search for melons, for example by posting eating melons in the comment section of Serbian tennis star Novak Djokovics latest Weibo post. The quest for melons turned the battle between censor and poster into a game. Yet others found the tongue-in-cheek use of eating melons unseemly. When a heart-wrenching accusation becomes a meme like a melon we commoners cant eat, theyve already won, wrote one Douban user. Another implored others to remember Pengs pain, which they felt was obscured by the talk of melons. Others lamented that the pressures of censorship had destroyed language and turned learning the truth into a fearful thing:

There is a new normal in this land: On hearing about the scandals of high-level officials, our instinctive reaction is fear. We know which side will win before the battle is even fought. Everyone knows this, but no one dares to discuss it; everything is secretive, and swept under the rug. Everything is reduced to code words; everyone nudges you into deleting your posts. Its as if, by the simple act of reading something, we have become the wrongdoers. [Chinese]

Peng Shuais allegation is nigh unprecedented in modern Chinese history, and entirely unprecedented in Chinas #MeToo movement, which had not previously touched the upper echelons of the Party. Sexual impropriety by lower-ranking Party officials, however, is less uncommon news. A study by researchers at Beijings Renmin University found that 95% of high-level officials detained for corruption in 2012 had had extramarital affairs; in 60% of these cases, sexual misconduct was the primary cause of their downfall. Scandals involving lower-level officials sexual improprieties often go viral. In March, a young woman was sentenced to prison after her former lovers, all powerful officials in small-town Jiangsu, turned on her and likely framed her for extortion. Her case went viral and drew nationwide attention. When Zhou Yongkang was snared by Xis anti-corruption campaign in 2014, social media users were given free rein to speculate on his sexual habits. There was even a game released on QQ and WeChat titled, Do You Dare Touch The Tigers Butt? The crucial difference between these past cases and Peng Shuais accusation against Zhang Gaoli is that Zhou, and countless other disgraced officials, were only fair game for public discussion after their downfall within the Party, whereas Zhang is a Party member seemingly in good standing. Dubbed a cautious reformer by some Western media, Zhang is known for keeping a low profile. In the course of his career, he has made very few public appearances or speeches. According to an official media report published in 2013, he has one son, who at the time was a low-ranking military officer. Left out of the official report was Zhangs adopted daughter named Zhang Xiaoyan, whom Peng Shuai mentioned in her essay. The younger Zhang is married to Hong Kong businessman Lee Shing Put, who had business operations in Tianjin, where Zhang Gaoli once served as Party chief. The couple were named in Panama Papers as shareholders of offshore companies incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.

Authorities have allowed discussion of other #MeToo accusations when politically expedient. After a fan accused Chinese-Canadian megastar Kris Wu of rape, authorities allowed discussion to percolate online, likely because the accusation coincided with a crackdown on the entertainment industry. But #MeToo activists who have taken a stand against the patriarchal structure of Chinese society have faced severe backlash. Huang Xueqin, a feminist activist, was detained in September and has been held incommunicado ever since. Zhou Xiaoxuan, better known as Xianzi, has repeatedly had her social media accounts shuttered. News of her ultimately unsuccessful suit against powerful television anchor Zhu Jun for sexual harassment was universally censored, no exceptions. She posted a veiled message of solidarity with Peng Shuai on Wechat near midnight on Tuesday evening, I hope shes safe. A post from a Weibo user on the same night reflected: Thinking back to when Chinas #MeToo first emerged, some said it started in the entertainment world because it was the most chaotic. Obviously notits just because the other [political] power system is more tightly closed and cannot be exposed. Despite such state-directed pressure and harassment, #MeToo continues to exert a powerful influence on Chinese society. In a Twitter essay, later republished by CDT Chinese, U.S.-based feminist activist L Pin reflected on the enduring power of Chinas Rice Bunny movement [Rice bunny is a homophonous euphemism for #MeToo]:

Everything is under surveillance. Even things yet unsent get censored. So many Rice Bunny voices were never heard, as can be imagined. Today the barriers to speaking up are extremely high. Nonetheless, Rice Bunny continues to break through censorship. It relies on those touched and moved by the heart-wrenching accusations of victims, which inspires people to discuss and repost, and to speak on their behalf. It relies on this spontaneous wave of human emotion, so that eventually everyone is made aware of the truth, and censorship loses its power. [Chinese]

The Partys official stance on Pengs post is ignorance. I havent heard of it and it isnt a diplomatic question, a Foreign Ministry spokesperson said in response to a question about the case in a press briefing on Wednesday. As of Thursday, November 4, Pengs whereabouts are unknown. Several foreign media outlets attempted to make contact with her or her representatives, but none were successful.

Visit link:

Inside Peng Shuais Accusation Against Former Top Leader: #MeToo, Censorship, and Resistance Discourse - China Digital Times

Is censorship a factor in the cancelation of the media accounts from Nicaraguas troll farm? Not at all, because they werent legitimate exercise of free expression.

By Uriel Pineda* (Confidencial)

HAVANA TIMES News of the elimination of 937 Facebook accounts, 140 Facebook pages, 363 Instagram accounts, and a large but undefined number of Twitter accounts has produced something of a commotion. The social media restrictions didnt end there either 82 YouTube channels and 3 blogs were also canceled shortly afterwards. What are the human rights implications of the closure of the Ortega-Murillo regimes troll farm?

The regime spokespersons cries of censorship go beyond ironic, to outright shamelessness, given their own long record of this. Theyre responsible for assuring impunity for the assassins of journalist Angel Gahona. In addition, theyve raided and occupied the Confidencial newsroom and installations twice; theyve taken over the equipment and site of the 100% Noticias television news channel, and twice imprisoned Michael Mora, its owner. They left the countrys longest-running opposition newspaper La Prensa without newsprint, then occupied its installations and jailed its general manager. Theyve perpetrated an infinite number of attacks against independent journalists in Nicaragua, forcing many them into exile. And theyve currently denied the international press entrance into the country to cover the elections.

However, the regimes cynicism, like their intention of remaining in power at any cost, has no limits.

Is the cancellation of the Ortega-Murillos troll farm a form of censorship? Clearly its not, since for censorship to exist, there must first be a legitimate exercise of free expression. The coordinated use of social media to discredit and stigmatize government opponents or to spread the propaganda of a criminal regime isnt free expression. The latter involves the universal right of all individuals or communications outlets to seek, receive and spread information and ideas through any means. The expression through any means naturally includes the use of the social networks.

Free expression is a right that opposes power. Consequently, forces in power cant claim as free expression their manipulation of social media through a coordinated action aimed at reviling their opponents and artificially spreading the regimes propaganda.

In fact, the cancellation of these troll farms is a measure compatible with international standards of free expression. From the perspective of collective free expression (societys right to be informed), the existence of a troll farm undermines societys right to be informed, insofar as it distorts the plurality of media outlets and the diversity of contents.

Put another way, the existence of the troll farm deliberately alters the free circulation of ideas and information, which society as a whole has a right to access.

But the cancelation of this troll farm is also in accordance with an emerging human right, the so-called digital right to be forgotten. The right to digital forgetting is the right that allows an individual to ask those controlling search engines to eliminate their name from the search results, when it appears in association with public information on third-party websites containing contents that are no longer relevant, necessary or accurate. This right was established by the European Unions Justice Tribunals in 2014, through ruling number C-131/12.

The troll farm, like all the regimes activities, had the goal of supporting its perpetuation in power. The utilization of these sites to discredit, stigmatize and revile critical or opposing voices was one more tool for them. Hence, the cancellation of the troll farm favors the right of those who have been victims of the regimes slander to be digitally forgotten.

Finally, the social networks have become the vehicle for overcoming the officially imposed censorship of the Ortega-Murillo regime in Nicaragua. These networks are some of the most important allies the Blue and White (opposition) struggle possesses. The cancellation of the regimes troll farm represents more than just a blow to the regime and its poorly credible propaganda. Its an action that supports the Nicaraguan people in their fight for freedom.

Likewise, it is also a conclusive message from the social networks that connect the greater part of the worlds population. With it, theyre now telling a miserable regime that they dont have the right to use their social networks to deny that they assassinate, torture, imprison, censor, and repress the people.

*The author holds a Masters degree in human rights.

Read more from Nicaragua here on Havana Times.

View post:

Are Social Media Sanctions on the Ortega Regime Censorship? - Havana Times

For immediate release: Nov. 3, 2021For more information:Andrew Benson,abenson@splc.org

WASHINGTON The Student Press Law Center stands in support of the student journalists with The Hilltop at Howard University. We are deeply concerned about the unusual and harmful comments and steps taken by The Hilltops staff adviser to restrict student journalists covering campus protests.

Founded in 1924,The Hilltop describes itself as the nations oldest black collegiate newspaper.

According to The Hilltops statement published November 2, 2021, student journalists are being forced to send all breaking news stories to their adviser, Keith L. Alexander, for editing before publication. On several occasions, The Hilltop staff say their adviser has forced the editing or removal of stories related to the ongoing #BlackburnTakeover protests about the condition of Howard Universitys student housing.

The Hilltop staff say the advisers demand to approve stories prior to publication came on October 13 after The Hilltop published a story which recapped the second day of protests about mold, wifi and water outages in the dorms. The Hilltop editors say they received an email from their adviser on Oct. 8 stating that Howard University President Wayne A.I. Frederick was irate about a column published October 4.

Mandatory prior review requiring that an administrator or adviser read and approve a story prior to publication is a practice condemned by every major journalism education organization in the country. At public colleges it has also been ruled illegal. Prior restraint outright censorship of stories relevant to the student body like what has been reported at The Hilltop is even worse. Student publications are the voice of the student body and their job is to report the stories that are important to students.

The well-established role of a student newspaper adviser is not to direct, restrict or otherwise control the content independently produced by the student publications staff, but to guide and empower students to use their voices. The Student Press Law Center has materials that are helpful to new advisers and we welcome conversations with educators.

Censorship of student journalists is always unacceptable and Howard Universitys attempts to control students voices are alarming, Hadar Harris, executive director of the Student Press Law Center said. There has been widespread media coverage of the #BlackburnTakeover protests and alumni are speaking up on behalf of the students and the journalists who tell their stories. We stand with The Hilltop staff. Censorship will not work.

We will continue to monitor the situation at Howard University and stay in contact with the student journalists at The Hilltop.

Student Press Law Center: Since 1974, the Student Press Law Center has worked to support, promote and defend the First Amendment and freedom of expression rights of student journalists at the high school and college level, and the advisers who support them. Working at the intersection of law, journalism and education, SPLC runs the nations only free legal hotline for student journalists.We also provide training, educational resources and support the grassroots non-partisan New Voices movement, seeking state-based legislative support for student press freedom.The SPLC is an independent, non-profit 501c(3) organization based in Washington, D.C.

Related

Continue reading here:

The Student Press Law Center is concerned about censorship at Howard University's The Hilltop - Student Press Law Center

On September 19, Russia concluded a three-day parliamentary election bonanza, which caused much controversy. Not only were there allegations of ballot stuffing and a crackdown on the opposition but also of tampering with the final results, which unsurprisingly allowed President Vladimir Putins United Russia party to keep its majority in the State Duma.

Among the various tactics the Russian authorities employed to intimidate the opposition was internet censorship. While there have long been attempts to control online spaces in Russia under the banner of internet sovereignty, the recent election-related escapade should worry not only Russians but also the international community as a whole.

In the weeks leading up to the vote, the Russian government pressured Apple and Google to remove a popular voting app from their online stores. The app was put together by the team of jailed opposition leader Alexey Navalny and was meant to help opposition-minded voters cast their ballot in favour of whoever had the best chances of defeating the United Russia candidate in a given district.

This voting strategy had previously given good results in local elections and could have had a significant effect on the parliamentary election results. However, Google and Apple joined the Russian governments efforts to suppress organised opposition in the elections by making the app inaccessible.

According to media reports, the two companies caved in to pressure when the government turned to threats of criminal prosecution of their Russia-based staff.

It has been more than a month since the elections and the two companies are yet to speak out aboutwhat happened. Given their public commitments to respect human rights and freedom of expression, and the fact that their employees were essentially held hostage over a single app, some kind of a reaction would have made sense. In the past, such coercive measures have elicited sharp responses from Tech giants.

In 2016, for example, the Brazilian authorities requested private data from Facebook, which it refused to give. When they subsequently arrested Diego Dzodan, Facebooks vice president for Latin America, the company publicly condemned it. Apple and Google are yet to issue similar statements.

In fact, it was only on October 9 that Google restored access to the censored app, while Apple is yet to do so.

It was also disappointing that there was no public reaction from the United States government, where both of these companies are based. The US State Department declined to comment directly on the matter, instead issuing broad statements about freedom of expression. In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly just a few days after the election, US President Joe Biden promised to champion democratic values in his global diplomacy, but failed to call out the growing censorship of the internet in Russia or elsewhere in the world.

We have to recognise that silence is complicity. It emboldens censors and makes online platforms that have become the basis for civic engagement even less safe for activists, NGOs, journalists, and all those who dare criticise their governments.

Arguments about internet sovereignty propelled by various governments, like Russias, fail to convince that increasing restrictions on the internet are meant to protect the people, when they clearly are designed to keep repressive regimes and dictators in power and uphold the political status quo.

Over the past few years, the Russian government has built a vast technical infrastructure to tighten its grip on the Russian internet, which has enabled it to force online services into submission. Earlier this year, for example, the Russian authorities throttled Twitter with the help of deep packet inspection technology in response to its refusal to take down 3,000 posts they deemed unlawful.

Russia has also enacted a set of restrictive legislation, which can be used to bully platforms into providing sensitive user data to the government or block them if they do not acquiesce. In 2016, LinkedIn was blocked after it failed to comply with one of these laws, requiring platforms to store Russian users data on servers based in Russia.

While the Russian government has been unable to achieve absolute control over the internet and many people are able to circumvent restrictions, these tactics have a destabilising effect on online spaces and on society both inside and outside the country. Blocking services or websites disrupts the normal work of civil society, businesses and everyone else who uses the internet to access information. It also undermines peoples rights to free expression and political organising.

The situation is getting worse not only in Russia, but also in neighbouring Belarus, where in the aftermath of the presidential elections in 2020, President Alexander Lukashenkos government disrupted access to the internet for several days to cover up the brutal crackdown on people protesting the election results. In other countries around the world, repressive regimes and autocrats are also getting bolder in censoring the internet. Online restrictions have worsened in India, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Brazil, Jordan and other states around the world.

To curb the growing threat of internet censorship, we need transparency from Big Tech companies on how such political demands are being dealt with and how they will ensure they will not cave in to them each time, to the detriment of their users. Commitments to human rights and freedom of expression need to be translated from PR rhetoric to actual corporate policies. Otherwise, it would mean that users are left on their own to fend for their internet rights against the growing power of censors.

There also needs to be action taken by democratic governments. They need to make a clear and unequivocal stand against international companies being forced to become tools of oppression and come up with solid policies to help prevent that. The upcoming democracy summit, hosted by Biden in December, can be a great venue to start this conversation and take concrete steps to protect internet freedom from autocratic encroachment.

If we do not act now, it may soon be too late. Precedents set today may turn into the order of the day tomorrow, undermining internet freedom for us all.

Editors note: The article has been updated with the correct date for the end of the Russian legislative elections.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeeras editorial stance.

Excerpt from:

Why are Google and Apple still silent on Russian censorship? - Al Jazeera English

You may have seen it on TV or in action, up close and personal on social media: Big Tech, at the request of the federal government, has been censoring Americans who ask questions about the COVID vaccines. The unintended consequences of this blatant violation of Americans' First Amendment rights has been a growing mistrust of the government and what it says about the vaccine, resulting in a steady percentage of Americans remaining hesitant to get vaccinated. Everyday Americans are being censored by our social media giants when they ask questions or oppose the prevailing narrative. This censorship, intended to tamp down on "misinformation," is instead a leading source of vaccine hesitancy and fuels the fires of conspiracy theories.

Recent polling suggests that across party lines, Americans have an overall negative view of social media. A supermajority of 69 percent of Americans believes that social media makes it easier for misinformation to spread, creating a culture where a lack of trust is prevalent. Big Tech companies have tried to remedy this by censoring content it finds problematic, but this has had the opposite effect. The answer to speech one disagrees with isn't less speech; it's more speech.

Ever since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Big Tech has been working overtime to promote its own ideology over any dissent standing in the way. This strategy has only grown during the Biden administration. We've seen doctors censored for questioning the vaccine, along with any posts that did the same thing. It's easy to conclude this was the result of Big Tech working together with the government, which Jen Psaki openly admitted did happen earlier this year. Big Tech and the federal government don't want debate that could undermine their preferred narrative. It's straight out of the totalitarian playbook.

Understanding and appreciating our differences helps bring us together by building bridges, thus benefiting all of us. That is why censorship and cancel culture are so troubling. Instead of resolving our differences, these forces exacerbate them. When you marginalize, you radicalize.

Today's biggest proponents, enablers and enforcers of censorship and cancel culture are the trillion-dollar Big Tech monopolists: Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple. Big Tech monopolists have an unholy alliance with Big Government to censor, silence, deplatform and even cancel those with whom they disagree. When Big Tech censors under the guise of protecting us from "misinformation," it behaves more like the communist Chinese than patriotic, constitutionally guided Americans.

Big Tech has been particularly egregious with its COVID censorship. Big Tech is censoring noted doctors, scientists and even a sitting United States senatorwho also happens to be a doctor. Even if one is ignorant or arrogant enough to believe that Big Tech is the ultimate arbiter of truth, how does censoring dissenting doctors and scientists help convince vaccine-hesitant Americans disproportionately Black and Hispanicto overcome their concerns and get vaccinated?

Censorship is counter-productive. It makes people lose confidence in the science, particularly the science behind vaccines. COVID vaccines are indeed quite effective, especially in preventing hospitalizations and deaths. But many people don't believe this because censorship has created mistrust.

Individuals must be allowed the freedom to make their own choices, especially when it comes to their health and well-being. We don't need Biden administration officials and their censors working with Big Tech to protect us from ourselves. Get the information out there, good or bad, right or wrong, and let people make their own informed decisions, in consultation with their own medical providers.

There are no real competitors to Big Tech, especially as it relates to online speech. Google owns YouTube. Facebook owns Instagram and WhatsApp. Google controls online search. Facebook and Google control the digital advertising market. Google and Apple control the smartphone app market. And Facebook, Twitter and Google control social media. These conglomerates can pick and choose winners and losers with no repercussions. This cannot be allowed any longer.

How do we fix this? We must do two important things.

First, we must end Big Tech's antitrust amnesty. We cannot continue to allow trillion-dollar Big Tech monopolists to use their market dominance to kill competitors like Parler, control the online public square and censor our opinions. We must break up Big Tech before it is too late.

Second, we must repeal Big Tech's Section 230 shieldwhich gives the companies immunity with respect to third-party content posted on their platformsso they can no longer censor, silence, deplatform and even cancel those with whom they disagree. This leads to government-sponsored censorship, and Biden officials have made it clear that the government is actively working with various social media platforms to censor Americans.

The COVID vaccine is a remarkable human achievement that is saving millions of lives across the globe. But many Americans aren't going to believe that because they think they aren't being told the full story. And it's truethey're not. Big Tech is censoring critical voices online and it's having a devastating effect, contributing directly to vaccine hesitancy. If we break up Big Tech to give users more options and modernize Section 230 to allow for freer online speech, Americans would feel more confident they aren't being lied to. They would choose to get vaccinated after they feel more fully informed.

We need more competition, not less. We need more free speech, not less. The less we have of each, the more dangerous and totalitarian the national political and social environment becomes. And that's not a road we want to continue to go down.

Mike Davis is the founder and president of Unsilenced Majority, an organization dedicated to opposing cancel culture and fighting back against the woke mob and their enablers. Davis is the former chief counsel for nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and clerked for Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Go here to read the rest:

Big Tech Censorship of COVID Information Leads to Vaccine Hesitancy | Opinion - Newsweek

One of my favorite moments of political dissent was being detained by a police officer after ignoring his demand to stop shouting toward the presidential motorcade, Fuck Donald Trump! My catharsis was worth the handcuffs, and I can only imagine how much less satisfying the memory would be if I had instead chanted something as neutered as, Lets go, Brandon!

Tough-guy conservatism has reverted to teenaged, coded taunting, where cheering for Brandon is understood as a profane insult toward our current president. I dont know if this substitution of language is intended to seem clever or classy or simply sates the conservative instinct to communicate in dog whistles.

Whatever its etymology, Lets go, Brandon! which is conservative code for Fuck Joe Biden is cowardly self-censorship among a group of people who endlessly whine about being unable to speak honestly. Supposedly champions of free speech, conservatives are so spooked by the politically correct boogeyman of their imaginations that theyve preemptively canceled their constitutional right to cuss out politicians.

White Republicans are not the only folks who have convinced themselves they cant express whats truly on their mind. Dave Chappelle has made millions of dollars with a series of stand-up lectures about the persecution he has endured due to his discomfort with LGBTQ advancement, and even though there are few jokes in his routines, his act allows viewers to rationalize their hostility to LGBTQ rights through the pretext of humor.

Chappelle could shoot a transgender person on Fifth Avenue and Netflix wouldnt lose a subscriber. He is destined to be enshrined beside historys bravest stand-up comics, despite every working comedian having their own version of the rage-against-cancel-culture shtick that has elevated his legacy.

Chapelles latest Netflix special was cited in a meme that went viral after Jon Gruden resigned as head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders. Leaked emails revealed that Gruden freely used racist and misogynist language, but his departure after homophobic slurs came to light seemed to prove Chappelle was right: homos hop the line, and their rights receive priority protection.

The meme suggests Gruden was fired because homophobia has become a death sentence, nevermind that he voluntarily resigned or the dearth of sports figures who have been terminated after expressing anti-LGBTQ sentiments. NBA analyst Chris Broussard and former Atlanta Braves pitcher John Smoltz both tried to pretend it was perilous for Christians to voice religious objections to LGBTQ rights; but since their respective, spiritually vulgar condemnations of same-sex marriage, Broussard has risen from a beat reporter to hosting the morning show on Fox Sports, and Smoltz provided color commentary for this years World Series.

There is no more profitable punishment than being canceled. There is also no doubt that LGBTQ court victories, as well as increased representation in Hollywood and corporate marketing, have outpaced the evolution of a society that for centuries believed God hated gay people.

So, it cannot be surprising that, as illustrated by the Gruden episode and Chappelles meditative rants, even minorities and progressives would rather pledge solidarity with conservatives who feel muzzled by cultural changes than unify against bigotry with LGBTQ folks. There has undoubtedly been a cacophony of LGBTQ support and acceptance over the last decade, but many of the people who we thought were cheering for us were actually chanting an anti-queer equivalent of Lets go, Brandon!

See the rest here:

Self-Censorship and the Veneer of LGBTQ Acceptance - Georgia Voice