The Internets domain name system is not the place to police speech. ICANN, the organization that regulates that system, is legally bound not to act as the Internets speech police, but its legal commitments are riddled with exceptions, and aspiring censors have already used those exceptions in harmful ways. This was one factor that made the failed takeover of the .ORG registry such a dangerous situation. But now, ICANN has an opportunity to curb this abuse and recommit to its narrow mission of keeping the DNS running, by placing firm limits on so-called voluntary public interest commitments (PICs, recently renamed Registry Voluntary Commitments, or RVCs).

For many years, ICANN and the domain name registries it oversees have given mixed messages about their commitments to free speech and to staying within their mission. ICANNs bylaws declare that ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internets unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide. ICANNs mission, according to its bylaws, is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. And ICANN, by its own commitment, shall not act outside its Mission.

Buttheres always a but. The bylaws go on to say that ICANNs agreements with registries (the managing entities of each top-level domain like .com, .org, and .horse) and registrars (the companies you pay to register a domain name for your website) automatically fall within ICANNs legal authority, and are immune from challenge, if they were in place in 2016, or if they do not vary materially from the 2016 versions.

Therein lies the mischief. Since 2013, registries have been allowed to make any commitments they like and write them into their contracts with ICANN. Once theyre written into the contract, they become enforceable by ICANN. These voluntary public interest commitments have included many promises made to powerful business interests that work against the rights of domain name users. For example, one registry operator puts the interests of major brands over those of its actual customers by allowing trademark holders to stop anyone else from registering domains that contain common words they claim as brands.

Further, at least one registry has granted itself sole discretion and at any time and without limitation, to deny, suspend, cancel, or transfer any registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on registry lock, hold, or similar status for vague and undefined reasons, without notice to the registrant and without any opportunity to respond. This rule applies across potentially millions of domain names. How can anyone feel secure that the domain name they use for their website or app wont suddenly be shut down? With such arbitrary policies in place, why would anyone trust the domain name system with their valued speech, expression, education, research, and commerce?

Voluntary PICs even played a role in the failed takeover of the .ORG registry earlier this year by the private equity firm Ethos Capital, which is run by former ICANN insiders. When EFF and thousands of other organizations sounded the alarm over private investors bid for control over the speech of nonprofit organizations, Ethos Capital proposed to write PICs that, according to them, would prevent censorship. Of course, because the clauses Ethos proposed to add to its contract were written by the firm alone, without any meaningful community input, they had more holes than Swiss cheese. If the sale had succeeded, ICANN would have been bound to enforce Ethoss weak and self-serving version of anti-censorship.

The issue of PICs is now up for review by an ICANN working group known as Subsequent Procedures. Last month, the ICANN Board wrote an open letter to that group expressing concern about PICs that might entangle ICANN in issues that fall outside of ICANNs technical mission. It bears repeating that the one thing explicitly called out in ICANNs bylaws as being outside of ICANNs mission is to regulate Internet services or the content that such services carry or provide. The Board asked the working group [pdf] for guidance on how to utilize PICs and RVCs without the need for ICANN to assess and pass judgment on content.

EFF supports this request, and so do many other organizations and stakeholders who dont want to see ICANN become another content moderation battleground. Theres a simple, three-part solution that the Subsequent Procedures working group can propose:

In short, while registries can run their businesses as they see fit, ICANNs contracts and enforcement systems should have no role in content regulation, or any other rules and policies beyond the ones the ICANN Community has made together.

A guardrail on the PIC/RVC process will keep ICANN true to its promise not to regulate Internet services and content.It will help avoid another situation like the failed .ORG takeover, by sending a message that censorship-for-profit is against ICANNs principles. It will also help registry operators to resist calls for censorship by governments (for example, calls to suppress truthful information about the importation of prescription medicines). This will preserve Internet users trust in the domain name system.

Follow this link:

ICANN Can Stand Against Censorship (And Avoid Another .ORG Debacle) by Keeping Content Regulation and Other Dangerous Policies Out of Its Registry...

Global internet companies Facebook, Google and Twitter and others have banded together and threatened to leave Pakistan after the South Asian nation granted blanket powers to local regulators to censor digital content.

Earlier this week, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan granted the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority the power to remove and block digital content that pose harms, intimidates or excites disaffection toward the government or in other ways hurt the integrity, security, and defence of Pakistan.

Through a group called the Asia Internet Coalition (AIC), the tech firms said that they were alarmed by the scope of Pakistans new law targeting internet firms. In addition to Facebook, Google and Twitter, AIC represents Apple, Amazon, LinkedIn, SAP, Expedia Group, Yahoo, Airbnb, Grab, Rakuten, Booking.com, Line and Cloudflare.

If the message sounds familiar, its because this is not the first time these tech giants have publicly expressed their concerns over the new law, which was proposed by Khans ministry in February this year.

After the Pakistani government made the proposal earlier this year, the group had threatened to leave, a move that made the nation retreat and promise an extensive and broad-based consultation process with civil society and tech companies.

That consultation never happened, AIC said in a statement on Thursday, reiterating that its members will be unable to operate in the country with this law in place.

The draconian data localization requirements will damage the ability of people to access a free and open internet and shut Pakistans digital economy off from the rest of the world. Its chilling to see the PTAs powers expanded, allowing them to force social media companies to violate established human rights norms on privacy and freedom of expression, the group said in a statement.

The Rules would make it extremely difficult for AIC Members to make their services available to Pakistani users and businesses. If Pakistan wants to be an attractive destination for technology investment and realise its goal of digital transformation, we urge the Government to work with industry on practical, clear rules that protect the benefits of the internet and keep people safe from harm.

Under the new law, tech companies that fail to remove or block the unlawful content from their platforms within 24 hours of notice from Pakistan authorities also face a fine of up to $3.14 million. And like its neighboring nation, India which has also proposed a similar regulation with little to no backlash Pakistan now also requires these companies to have local offices in the country.

The new rules comes as Pakistan has cracked down on what it deems to be inappropriate content on the internet in recent months. Earlier this year, it banned popular mobile game PUBG Mobile and last month it temporarily blocked TikTok.

Countries like Pakistan and India contribute little to the bottom line for tech companies. But India, which has proposed several protectionist laws in recent years, has largely escaped any major protest from global tech companies because of its size. Pakistan has about 75 million internet users.

By contrast, India is the biggest market for Google and Facebook by users. Silicon Valley companies love to come to India because its an MAU (monthly active users) farm, Kunal Shah, a veteran entrepreneur, said in a conference in 2018.

Read more here:

Google, Facebook and Twitter threaten to leave Pakistan over censorship law - TechCrunch

View this letter as a PDF here.

November 17, 2020

Senator Lindsey GrahamChairmanCommittee on the JudiciaryU.S. SenateWashington, DC 20510

Senator Dianne FeinsteinRanking MemberCommittee on the JudiciaryU. S. SenateWashington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein,

On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (The Leadership Conference), a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 220 national organizations to promote and protect the rights of all persons in the United States, we thank you for the opportunity to submit our views regarding the need for major tech companies to address threats to civil rights created or facilitated by their platforms and improve civil rights infrastructure, and ask that this statement be entered into the record of the committee hearing entitled Breaking the News: Censorship, Suppression, and the 2020 Election, on November 17, 2020.

The internet has created immense positive value by connecting people, facilitating civil rights advocacy and adding new voices to our culture and public debate. However, it can also enable discriminatory conduct, exacerbate existing disparities, and give new tools to those who want to threaten, harass, intimidate, defame, or violently attack people different from themselves. While The Leadership Conference welcomes scrutiny of the role of social media companies in our democracy, we urge caution regarding potential changes to Section 230 to ensure any proposed changes will not do more harm than good. We encourage the committee to focus on the most important opportunities to ensure these platforms serve all people, which we discuss in more detail below.

Technological progress should promote equity and justice as it enhances safety, economic opportunity and convenience for everyone. On October 21, The Leadership Conference joined dozens of leading civil rights and technology advocacy organizations in releasing updated Civil Rights Principles for the Era of Big Data, in response to the current risks to civil rights including COVID-19, a surge in hate-based violence, private sector and government surveillance, and disinformation on social media platforms designed to manipulate or suppress voter participation and with an eye toward how technology can meet its promise and affirmatively promote justice and equity. These principles provide important guidelines to aid this committee in ensuring that new technologiesincluding algorithmic decision making, artificial intelligence and machine learning protect civil rights, prevent unlawful discrimination, and advance equal opportunity.

Congress should use this opportunity to ask platforms what actions they are taking or plan to take to reduce online activities that harm communities of color, religious minorities, and other marginalized communities. For years, we have urged major tech platforms to take responsibility for ensuring that their products and business processes protect civil and human rights and do not result in harm or bias against historically marginalized groups, but they have failed to take sufficient action. And despite years of advocacy urging the companies to rectify the problems, misinformation regarding time, place, manner, and qualifications to vote and content intended to suppress or deter people from voting continue to proliferate. The failure of tech platforms to address these activities harms people of color and members of other marginalized communities. Moreover, despite new policies that ostensibly forbid white supremacy, white supremacists continue to use platforms to incite racist violence on multiple platforms against Asian Americans, African Americans, Jews, Muslims, people with disabilities, and members of the LGBTQ community. Platforms have the tools and the ability to respond effectively to these concerns if they only had the will. Congress should press tech companies on the actions they are taking to improve and enforce their own policies and stop the weaponization of their platforms to suppress the vote, spread hate, and undermine our democracy.

Congress should not be distracted by baseless claims of anti-conservative bias and should instead focus on platforms efforts to respond to online voter suppression and other threats to our democracy. A commitment to civil and human rights is not a right or left issue it is about right versus wrong. Baseless allegations of so-called anti-conservative bias should not distract tech companies. Research shows that anti-conservative bias is a phantom problem; a number of studies, articles, and reports show that the voices of marginalized communities are more likely to be regarded as toxic by content moderators and content moderation artificial intelligence.

Congress should instead focus on some of the more significant challenges facing social media platforms such as safeguarding our elections and the census from manipulation and disinformation, as well as fighting hate and harassment online. We have made a series of recommendations to obviate false, misleading, and harmful content on the companies platforms that could lead to voter suppression and the spread of hate speech. While Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms have made some recent policy changes, their lack of consistent enforcement makes these policies insufficient to prevent the spread of voter suppression. Platforms must also better utilize disinformation tools for voter suppression content as they have done for other issues like COVID-19, and platforms must prevent disinformation in political ads.

The lack of consistent enforcement was evident in the period leading up to and on Election Day this month and in the current post-election period. Twitter labeled and limited sharing and interaction on some posts by President Trump and others that contained disinformation about mail-in ballots, the process of counting the vote, and falsely declaring victory while the vote count was occurring. However, the application of these steps was not consistent, and limiting of interaction has diminished significantly since the election, even as the president and others are still questioning and spreading falsehoods about the election process. Facebook and YouTube have also labeled similar posts and videos that have appeared on their platforms. The labels stated that the vote counting process is continuing and, once the election was called, that President-elect Biden is the projected winner of the election. But these labels do almost nothing to limit the interaction and sharing of the posts, allowing the disinformation to continue to spread widely.

Going forward, it is clear that platforms have to be more vigilant about stopping the spread of disinformation about voting and elections. The current lack of enforcement and application of the platforms voter interference policies is not sustainable. Systematic and consistent solutions that slow or stop the spread of disinformation that leads to voter suppression must be implemented rather than the inconsistent piecemeal approaches that the platforms currently take.Section 230 must be considered carefully and in context. President Trumps actions to use Section 230 to pressure social media companies is a threat to our civil liberties. The Presidents Executive Order and the FCCs recent announcement defy both statutory and constitutional principles in the name of protecting the presidents own speech online regardless of the consequences to everyone else. And many of the current legislative proposals around Section 230 would do more harm than good. One such example, the EARN IT Act, threatens to not only exacerbate the censorship that many LGBTQ persons face online, but also threatens the welfare and safety of the sex worker community. Instead of looking at simply changing Section 230 as a means of platform regulation, Congress should clearly define the problem and carefully consider whether Section 230 has a role in causing or exacerbating the problem before turning to making changes to Section 230 as part of the solution.

Congress should press tech companies to conduct independent civil rights audits as well as improve their civil rights infrastructure. Structural changes within the platforms will also help better protect civil rights by ensuring platforms can hold themselves accountable to their commitment to civil rights, diversity, and inclusion. Among the companies appearing at the committee hearing, only Facebook has undertaken a civil rights audit with outside auditors, though civil rights groups have urged all the major platforms to do so. Congress must press the other tech companies to conduct credible independent civil rights audits. But Facebooks example demonstrates that without institutional commitment and outside pressure, the impact of an audit will be limited and short-lived.

That is why, in addition to pushing for civil rights audits, Congress must also urge tech companies to adopt structural reforms that comply with federal civil rights law and demonstrate that the companies understand that civil rights are not a partisan issue, but instead are fundamental to protecting the constitutional rights of all people and thus should be part of the organic structure and operations of these companies. This means that tech companies must hire in senior leadership staff with civil rights expertise. The civil rights infrastructure within the companies must be well-resourced and empowered within the company and consulted on the companies major decisions. New and clarified policies should be subject to vetting and review by internal teams with real civil rights expertise and experience, prior to their implementation. Finally, tech companies should provide a process and format through which civil rights advocates and the public can engage with the companies and monitor their progress.

Congress must also press tech companies to do more to address meaningful diversity and inclusion at their workplaces and the lack of people of color in senior executive, engineering, and technical positions. People of color who are working at the companies often face discrimination and unequal pay, as well as a culture where they are devalued. Tech companies must ensure that this does not happen in their workplaces and must address the inequities that may have already occurred. They also must expand strategies to attract and retain talent in diverse communities to expand access to jobs and opportunities.

Prevention of harm, not damage and after-the-fact repair, must be the goal. This goal cannot be fully accomplished if those with civil rights expertise are not part of decision-making processes. Congress must continue to review and scrutinize tech companies to make sure that they are taking the necessary steps to accomplish this goal.Congress should consider other meaningful ways to protect civil and human rights. Congress should also focus on other means to protect civil and human rights. For example, invasive data collection and use practices can lead to civil rights violations. Congress should pass comprehensive federal consumer privacy legislation that protects consumers by requiring companies to minimize the data they collect, define permissible and impermissible purposes for collecting, sharing, and using personal data, prohibit discriminatory uses of personal data, and provide for algorithmic transparency and fairness in automated decisions. Congress should ensure federal agencies are focusing on identifying and ending data processing and algorithmic practices that discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics with respect to access to credit, housing, education, public accommodations and elsewhere.

Thank you for the consideration of our views. If you have any questions about the issues raised in this letter, please contact Leadership Conference Media/Telecommunications Task Force Co-Chairs Cheryl Leanza, United Church of Christ, Office of Communication, Inc., at [emailprotected] and Kate Ruane, American Civil Liberties Union, [emailprotected]; or Corrine Yu, Leadership Conference Senior Program Director, at [emailprotected]Sincerely,

Vanita Gupta

President and CEO

LaShawn Warren

Executive Vice President for Government Affairs

Original post:

Letter for the Record: Hearing on Breaking the News: Censorship, Suppression, and the 2020 Election. - Civilrights.org

It was, at that time of its release, the greatest success in German literary history:Erich Maria Remarques anti-war novelAll Quiet on the Western Front(Im Westen nichts Neues) was published on January 29, 1929 and was quickly translated into 26 languages. In Germany alone, nearly half a million copies were sold within months.

Yetthe roaring success of a novel detailing the horrors of the First World War did not go over well with the National Socialists, who were then preparing to assume power. They spread rumors that Remarque had assumed a false surname and was actually called Kramer. And they claimed that he was a French Jew, and also that he did not fight as a soldier in the First World War.

Adapted for the big screen

The film version of All Quiet on the Western Frontdid not appeal to the Nazis.

A year later, an American production company adapted the novel into a film directed by Lewis Milestone. Initially, the film was approved for German viewers by the Supreme Censorship Board in Berlin on November 21, 1930. It premiered in early December at the Mozartsaal, a large Art Nouveau-style theater and concert hall in Berlin, and attracted intellectuals, celebrities and other prominent people. The liberal paperVossische Zeitungwrote that never before had a film had such a profound effect on the audience, who left the hall quietly and deeply stirred at the end of the screening.

Mice and stink bombs disrupt screening

However, at another film screening for the general public at Berlins Nollendorfplatz, astonishment and horror followed when a Nazi mob who had infiltrated the audience demanded that the film be stopped and forced the projectors to shut down. In addition, Reichstag members of the NSDAP, exploiting their parliamentary immunity, released mice and tossed stink bombs into the theatre, driving the audience out.

Also read: When Hitler Realised the End of the War Was Upon Him

This was at the behest of Joseph Goebbels, then NSDAP district leader of Berlin (and who wouldlater gain notoriety as Nazi Propaganda Minister). He felt that the films unfavorable view of war ran contrary to Nazi ideology. He further railed against the film in an impassioned speech at Berlins Wittenbergplatz. As such, subsequent film screenings could only take place under heavy police presence. In December 1930, for security reasons, the Supreme Censorship Board withdrew the films screening license. Consequently, the Jewish manager of the Mozartsaal, Hanns Brodnitz, came under the scrutiny of the National Socialists, and was eventually killed in a gas chamber in Auschwitz in September 1944. In January 1933,All Quiet on the Western Frontwas completely banned by the Hitler regime.

Ruthless depiction of war

Yetnone of this diminished the films popularity among the general public and critics. It quickly gained popularity due to its no-holds-barred portrayal of the happenings on the front.

It tells the story of young high school student Paul Bumer before his deployment to the front. At that time, the mood was still buoyant in Germany. This was also the case in school, where Pauls patriotic teacher inspires his students to die for the fatherland.

Fighting over a slice of bread in All Quiet on the Western Front.

Thus encouraged, Bumer and his classmates enlist in the army; however, they quickly become disillusioned by the reality on the front. Bumer wounds a French soldier in an attack. He tries to save his life and asks for his forgiveness. Eventually, Bumer himself is also injured, and ends up in a Catholic hospital. Back home on leave, he visits his old school and his teacher again, who praises him for his German heroism. Bumer, however, speaks of his drastic war experiences and disillusionment and describes it as a mistake to have gone to war. As a consequence, the teachers and students brand him a coward.

Nothing about dying is sweet

Disappointed by this reaction, Bumer returns to the front where many of his comrades have already fallen. The final scene takes place in the fall of 1918, shortly before the end of the war. In the trenches, Bumer reaches for a butterfly and is shot by a French soldier. The film ends with Bumer uttering:Nothing about dying is sweet. Film critic Siegfried Kracauer stated that the film underscored the fact that war was not palatable. The harrowing scenes had never before been seen in the then early history of film. The journey of sacrifice of a lost generation is realistically and unrelentingly portrayed onscreen.

Winner of two Oscars

Russian-American director Lewis Milestone had a budget of $1.2 million(now, 1.01million euros) at his disposal for the film, a substantial sum for that time. (Milestone, hailing from a Jewish family, was born Leib Milstein in 1895 in what was then the Bessarabia Governate of the Russian Empire. He arrived in the US in late 1913, just months before the start of the First World War.) Milestone worked with tracking shots, crosscuts and perspectives that drew the viewer directly into the action. Never before was there such a realistic reckoning with war and its killing machines, and which was perceived as senseless. In 1930, Milestone was awarded with two Oscars for Best Film and Best Director.

The films international success even trumped the crude cultural policy of the National Socialists. In 1931, a heavily abridged and censored version returned to German cinemas, but it was only shown for certain groups of people and at closed events. After Hitlers seizure of power in 1933, the film was completely banned again.

One of the 100 best films in film history

Even after the end of the Second World War, the film was only shown in edited and abridged versions: WhenAll Quiet on the Western Frontreturned to German cinemas in 1952, key scenes from the film were deliberately left out. It was not until 1983/84 that the German public finally got to view the newly dubbed, unabridged, and original American version on television.

Milestones film was consistently banned, and not just in Germany. Abridged versions were also screened in Austria and France, and even in the US. All these attempts at denigration and censorship, however, did not detract from the films success.All Quiet on the Western Front, directed by Lewis Milestone, is still considered one of the best 100 films in American film history.

(DW)

Originally posted here:

How 'All Quiet on the Western Front' Ran Afoul of Nazi Film Censors - The Wire

(Subscribe to our Today's Cache newsletter for a quick snapshot of top 5 tech stories. Click here to subscribe for free.)

Vietnam has threatened to shut down Facebook in the country if it does not bow to government pressure to censor more local political content on its platform, a senior official at the U.S. social media giant told Reuters.

Facebook complied with a government request in April to significantly increase its censorship of anti-state posts for local users, but Vietnam asked the company again in August to step up its restrictions of critical posts, the official said.

We made an agreement in April. Facebook has upheld our end of the agreement, and we expected the government of Vietnam to do the same, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity of the subject.

They have come back to us and sought to get us to increase the volume of content that we're restricting in Vietnam. We've told them no. That request came with some threats about what might happen if we didn't.

Also Read | Instagram, Messenger get new 'vanish mode' feature

The official said the threats included shutting down Facebook altogether in Vietnam, a major market for the social media company where it earns revenue of nearly $1 billion, according to two sources familiar with the numbers.

Facebook has faced mounting pressure from governments over its content policies, including threats of new regulations and fines. But it has avoided a ban in all but the few places where it has never been allowed to operate, such as China.

In Vietnam, despite sweeping economic reform and increasing openness to social change, the ruling Communist Party retains tight control of media and tolerates little opposition. The country ranks fifth from bottom in a global ranking of press freedom compiled by Reporters Without Borders.

Vietnam's foreign ministry said in response to questions from Reuters that Facebook should abide by local laws and cease spreading information that violates traditional Vietnamese customs and infringes upon state interests.

A spokeswoman for Facebook said it had faced additional pressure from Vietnam to censor more content in recent months.

In its biannual transparency report released on Friday, Facebook said it had restricted access to 834 items in Vietnam in the first six months of this year, following requests from the government of Vietnam to remove anti-state content.

'CLEAR RESPONSIBILITY'

Facebook, which serves about 60 million users in Vietnam as the main platform for both e-commerce and expressions of political dissent, is under constant government scrutiny.

Reuters exclusively reported in April that Facebook's local servers in Vietnam were taken offline early this year until it complied with the government's demands.

Facebook has long faced criticism from rights group for being too compliant with government censorship requests.

However, we will do everything we can to ensure that our services remain available so people can continue to express themselves, the spokeswoman said.

Also Read | Facebook moderators press for pandemic safety protections

Vietnam has tried to launch home-grown social media networks to compete with Facebook, but none has reached any meaningful level of popularity. The Facebook official said the company had not seen an exodus of Vietnamese users to the local platforms.

The official said Facebook had been subject to a 14-month-long negative media campaign in state-controlled Vietnamese press before arriving at the current impasse.

Asked about Vietnam's threat to shut down Facebook, rights group Amnesty International said the fact it had not yet been banned after defying the Vietnamese government's threats showed that the company could do more to resist Hanoi's demands.

Facebook has a clear responsibility to respect human rights wherever they operate in the world and Vietnam is no exception, Ming Yu Hah, Amnesty's deputy regional director for campaigns, said. Facebook are prioritising profits in Vietnam, and failing to respect human rights.

Read the original here:

Facebook gets shut down threat from Vietnam over censorship requests - The Hindu

A discussion between Noam Chomsky, a political activist and celebrated linguist, and Vijay Prashad, writer and Frontline columnist, organised by the Tata Literature Festival, was abruptly cancelled a few hours before the event. Chomsky and Prashad were scheduled to speak on November 20 on an online platform about Chomskys latest book Internationalism or Extinction. The organisers said they cancelled the event to protect the integrity of the festival.

Both Chomsky and Prashad accused the organisers of censorship and said they will find another platform to have the discussion, which they said was important and relevant.

Over 50 well-known activists had urged Chomsky and Prashad to bow out of the event, organised by the Tatas, who, they alleged, were involved in widespread human rights violations. It is believed that Chomsky and Prashad were planning to read out a statement during the discussion against corporations such as the Tatas, and the Tatas in particular. The organisers reportedly learned of the plan to open the discussion with the statement and cancelled the event.

In a statement published on Peoples Dispatch (an international media organisation highlighting voices from peoples movements) and released to the media,Vijay Prashad says: Both of us agreed to hold this dialogue because we believe that the themes in the bookthe dangers of nuclear war, climate catastrophe, erosion of democracyrequire the widest circulation and debate. We were pleased to join even though we had reservations about the sponsor of the event.

Vijay Prashads statement says: Noams book is based on a lecture that he delivered in Boston in 2016, in which he warns that human beings must act to end various calamities. Of nuclearism, Noam writes specifically, Either we will bring it to an end, or its likely to bring us to an end. The urgency of these matters cannot be dismissed. In conversation with the actor Wallace Shawn, which followed the lecture, Noam speaks about the perils of public discourse. Objectivity has a meaning, he notes. It means reporting accurately and fairly whats going on inside the Beltway, White House, and Congress. In other words, what is being said by the elites is notable and must be given judicious care by the media owned by large corporations, but what is said outside those circles must be ignored or disparaged. Since we do not know why Tata and Mr. Dharker decided to cancel our session, we can only speculate and ask simply: was this a question of censorship?

Regarding India, the issue of the erosion of democracy is a serious matter, with the passage of bills such as the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the vast sums of money that have now suffocated the voices of the hundreds of millions of impoverished Indian voters as examples of the problem; the issue of warfare is significant, with the Indian government participating in the highly destabilising Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with Australia, Japan, and the United States. We wanted to talk about how governments such as those led by the Bharatiya Janata Party and corporations such as the Tatas are hastening humanity towards a deeper and deeper crisis.

Anil Dharkar, Tata Mumbai Literature Festival director, issued a statement saying: The festival which I founded and run with a dedicated team, owes its success to a free expression of ideas, not a free expression of someones specific agenda. The expression of such an agendawhether against a specific organisation, a corporation or an individualis therefore misplaced in the discussions at our festival.

Read more from the original source:

Tata Lit Fest cancels a discussion between Noam Chomsky and Vijay Prashad, raising concerns of censorship - Frontline

Celebrated linguist and activist Noam Chomsky, and journalist Vijay Prashad have expressed regret at the abrupt cancellation of their discussion at the online Tata Literature Live festival, asking if the move was a result of censorship.

The dialogue about the 91-year-old Chomskys new book Internationalism or Extinction was scheduled to be held at 9 p.m. on Friday. But at 1 p.m., Chomsky and Prashad received an email informing them that the virtual event will not be taking place.

Noam and I were to speak at the Tata Lit Festival about Noams latest Book. Our Panel was abruptly cancelled just hours before it was to go live, Prasad said in a tweet.

In a statement issued on Peoples Dispatch, Chomsky and Prashad said that they were informed of the events cancellation in the mail.

Then, out of nowhere, near 1 p.m. Indian Standard Time, we received an email which said, cryptically, I am sorry to inform you that due to unforeseen circumstances, we have to cancel your talk today, they said in the joint statement.

It is with regret that we could not hold our discussion at the Mumbai Lit Fest, now owned and operated by the Tata Corporation... Since we do not know why Tata and Mr. Dharker decided to cancel our session, we can only speculate and ask simply: was this a question of censorship? they asked.

The sponsors of the festival did not respond despite repeated attempts to reach out to them.

The panel was to talk about the broad issues that threaten the planet, but then also talk about the specific role of countries such as India and corporations such as the Tatas, the statement said

The issues about the Citizenship Amendment Act, Adivasi (tribal) killing, the industrialisation of indigenous lands and environmental degradation were also to be discussed during the session, it said.

We wanted to talk about how governments such as those led by the Bharatiya Janata Party and corporations such as the Tatas are hastening humanity towards a deeper and deeper crisis, the statement said.

We wanted to appear at this platform in the spirit of open discussion to hold our dialogue about extinction and internationalism, about the darkest part of our human story and the brightest sparks of hope that shine in our world, it said.

Chomskys book is based on a lecture that he delivered in Boston in 2016, in which he warns that human beings must act to end various calamities. The dominant themes in the book include the dangers of nuclear war, climate catastrophe, erosion of democracy.

Here is the original post:

Was this censorship?: Noam Chomsky, Vijay Prashad ask Tata Lit Live after it cancels their discussion - The Hindu

Russia accounts for the eighth-largest online population in the world. (Photo by Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images)

Moscow (CNSNews.com) Russian lawmakers have introduced a bill authorizing the government to potentially block Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube for censoring Russian media outlets on their platforms.

The legislation seeks to target foreign social media companies that violate the rights of citizens of the Russian Federation to freely seek, receive, transfer, produce and distribute information, by removing content from Russian state media.

Under the bill, the prosecutor-generals office and foreign ministry would jointly designate violating platforms, which would be subject to punishments ranging from a fine of up to three million rubles (around $39,000), traffic slowdown, and even being partially or fully blocked in Russia.

In an explanatory note, the lawmakers singled out Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube for criticism, accusing the U.S.-based companies of committing at least 20 acts of censorship against Russian media outlets over the past seven months.

Sen. Alexei Pushkov, one of the bills sponsors and an influential member of the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Russias parliament, said the legislation is designed to put the American companies on notice, but insisted that a complete ban would only be implemented as a measure of last resort.

I want to emphasize that the bill is not aimed at blocking foreign internet resources, but at protecting Russian mass media and ensuring that citizens have free access to information posted by Russian media outlets on foreign platforms operating on the territory of Russia, he told state-run newspaper Parlamentskaya Gazeta.

"Blocking is the most extreme means of responding to discrimination against Russian media and Internet channels, in the event of a conflict between a network company and Russian legislation.

Amid a growing campaign by social media companies to crack down on disinformation on their platforms, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have all recently imposed various restrictions on accounts affiliated with Russian state news outlets such as RT, RIA Novosti, and Crimea-24. In some cases, content was taken down, while in others, the accounts themselves were banned or removed from search results.

The privately-owned, conservative TV channel Tsargrad was permanently removed from YouTube earlier this summer because of U.S. sanctions against its founder, Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeyev.

The moves have prompted a backlash from Moscow. Last week, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov accused the U.S.-based social media giants of showing clear bias against Russian users. Of course, there must be action against this," he said.

In recent years the Kremlin has sought to reduce Russias technological dependence on the West, while also increasing state management of the Internet. In 2015, Moscow passed a law requiring all companies that collect the personal data of Russian nationals to store that information on servers physically located in Russia.

As part of a Sovereign Internet law adopted last year, Russia began working to develop a national domain name system, a mechanism that would allow for the Russian Internet to continue working even if the country was disconnected from the global web.

The Kremlins critics argue that these measures are less about national security than they are about expanding the governments ability to censor information online. According to polling from the state-funded Russian Public Opinion Research Center, a majority of Russians oppose the governments initiatives to strengthen control over the Internet.

Enforcement of the new regulations has been inconsistent at best, however. Although LinkedIn was blocked in Russia in 2016 for failing to comply with the newly-enacted data storage law, other offenders such as Twitter and Facebook notably were not.

In 2018, the government instituted a ban on the Telegram messenger app for refusing to hand over its encryption keys to the countrys security services. Yet even after authorities blocked millions of IP addresses associated with the app, Telegram continued to function in Russia and even increased its user base. The ban was lifted earlier this year.

Boasting over 116 million Internet users in a country of 145 million people, Russia has the eighth largest online population in the world.

See original here:

Russian Lawmakers Threaten to Block Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube Over 'Censorship' Claims - CNSNews.com

By Richard Reeb| For the Victorville Daily Press

Democrats across America can hardly wait for the Biden administration to commence, impatient with the seeming delay of that glorious day caused by legal challenges to questionable balloting in battleground states brought by the campaign of President Donald Trump. Evidently, they look upon the office of the President elect as an actual one, not acknowledging the fact that Democrat Al Gore held up the transition for over a month back in 2000.

I say seeming above because only the Constitution, with its stipulation that the next administration begins on Jan. 20, 2021, can be blamed for standing in the way of four years of folly, increased taxes and spending, overregulation, indulgence of rioting, incessant propaganda and, worst of all, suppression of our constitutional rights.

We must remind ourselves that the Constitution is not just a kind of guide to political conduct; it is the supreme law of the land. That refers both to the governmental powers granted and denied, and the individual rights and liberties secured. Those impatient with the pace of political change look upon that foundational touchstone as in need of changing with the times or, equally vile, being refashioned (rather than upheld) by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our nation has in this remarkable year of 2020 (to say the least) endured a pandemic and shutdown, massive rioting in our cities and a presidential campaign marked by shameless lying and censorship designed to push over the finish line the man who often displayed signs of severe dementia. What we have endured we will be subjected to still more.

Looking at all these shenanigans with a detached perspective is Samuel Alito, an associate justice of the Supreme Court, who actually issued an order to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to stay its vote counting until issues of constitutionality can be resolved. In a virtual speech to the Federalist Society, Alito expressed alarm over what he regards as the greatest general suppression of citizens liberties in our nations history.

As Paul Mirengoff at Powerline reported, Alitos message was that key American rights are in jeopardy. He noted, for example, that the coronavirus pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty.

We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020, he said.

Alito was careful to emphasize, Miengoff continues, that he wasnt diminishing the severity of the viruss threat to public health, or even taking a position on whether the restrictions are good public policy. However, he argued that the restrictions on public gatherings and worship services highlighted trends that were already present before the virus struck, including a dominance of lawmaking by executive fiat rather than by legislators and the relegation of certain rights to second-class status.

Religious rights, for example. Alito homed in on the decision of Nevada to limit church attendance to 50 people, while reopening large casinos to 50% capacity. It pains me to say it, but in certain quarters religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right, he concluded.

Take a quick look at the Constitution, Alito urged. You will see the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which protects religious liberty. You will not find a craps clause, or a blackjack clause, or a slot machine clause.

Alito made his remarks, mind you, as the encroachment on our liberties continues, and in the face of Biden advisor Sheldon Whitehouses threat to restructure the Supreme Court if it makes a pro-gun ruling in the current judicial session. Thats a polite term for court packing, which the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg opposed.

Add to this the frequent demands by leftist Democrats for a truth commission to squash the careers of anyone who served in the Trump administration, worked prominently in Trump campaigns or contributed substantially to them. After a finding of complicity in alleged evil, the object will be to demand that positions in the public or private sector be closed to these miscreants.

Actions follow words. For political purposes, but also out of misguided ideological conviction, the Democrats have hurled charges of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and even transphobia against the Trump administration and all those in support of it. Now comes the fun part, which consists in validating all those specious charges by our equivalent of the French Revolutions reign of terror that sent thousands to the guillotine. If such is not now available, just give the Left time and opportunity, and some device equally deadly will no doubt appear.

This is not paranoia. When disregard for the Constitution coincides with fanaticism, the result is predictable: Political assassination.

Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of Taking Journalism Seriously: Objectivity as a Partisan Cause (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net.

Go here to see the original:

Thinking It Through: Censorship is all the rage, man! - VVdailypress.com

First, the Kerala model of healthcare fell even behind the Bihar model of containing Coronavirus. Then, there was the gold scam. And elections in Kerala are due in six months. Naturally, it is time for Keralas Communist government to bring a new law that couldimposefive years in jail for offensive posts on social media.

And with this, Pinarayi Vijayan has established himself as one of the most forward thinking and open minded among Communist leaders who have ever been. This law could be the beginning of a kinder, gentler Communist Party.

I dont mean that in a sarcastic way. It is very factual. You cannot expect Communists to learn democratic values overnight. It has to be a gradual process. For instance, the NDA government in Bihar was recently facing three term anti-incumbency. It pleaded its case before the people and won again. The Communist government in Kerala is facing just one term anti-incumbency. But Communists dont react like that. They can only react with oppression. Its the only thing they know.

This law is a beginning. Five years in jail for offensive social media posts. I presume that the accused will get some sort of hearing in a court of law before the conviction. A judicial process. No torture. No death penalty. And no concentration camp. This is a step forward, folks. Towards a kinder, gentler brand of Communism.

In the recent past, Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan has been an outspokenfanof North Koreas Communist dictator Kim Jong Un. In the past, the CPIM had passed a resolution supporting the 1989 Tiananmenn Square massacre in China. Some people say that as a student leader, Sitaram Yechury had himself distributed Chinese Communistpropagandaon the Tiananmenn Square incident. When the Communists ruled over Bengal, there were 28,000 political murders in the first 20 years of Communist rule. This is the official numberthat the Communist government admittedon the floor of West Bengal Assembly. We can only guess what the real number would be.

In view of this, a legal process and a maximum penalty of five years in jail does not seem so bad at all. If you are lucky, the penalty could be as little as a fine of Rs 10,000. Historically, dissenters against Communism never got such a good deal.

If there is one thing that is offensive, it is a handful of liberals pretending to be shocked by Keralas new law. First, there were not many of them. But a small handful did put out one or two word tweets feigning disagreement.

You have to understand that this is just positioning. The tiny handful who objected are also part of the plan. To create the narrative that Communists have some kind of conscience. Dont judge the left by what they do when they are outnumbered and in the opposition. You have to judge the left by what they do when they are in power.

Further, with these one or two word tweets, they are trying to make you think that this draconian law is the worst thing that the CPIM has ever done. If there was a time to be shocked, it was when Pinarayi Vijayan paidtributesto a convicted murderer. Or when he supported Kim Jong Un. If there is something to criticize the CPIM for, it is the 28,000 political murders under their rule in Bengal.

Pretending to be shocked or surprised by Kerala governments new law is like being shocked that Stalin would cheat while playing hide and seek as a kid.

Yes, if a BJP government had brought a law such as this, there would have been earth-shattering outrage. Liberals would have brought down the sky with invocations of some Pakistani poet who writes about liberty by smashing idols or something. They would have booked the protest venues at Jantar Mantar for months. And millions of $$$ would have flowed from Chinese government coffers to Western newspapers and from there on to Indian liberals to militate against it. And so what? The BJP, the Congress, or say the Samajwadi Party or DMK are part of some sort of consensus on Indian democracy. Despite all the differences.

Are the Communists part of this democratic consensus? Ask a Communist if they even accept the sovereignty of India. Who do you think the Communists supported during the 1962 war? The Indian Communists use the hammer and sickle. The same emblem that appears in the Soviet flag and the Chinese Communist Party flag and in flags of Communist parties worldwide. They are not trying to hide anything. If we cant see the obvious, the joke is on us, really.

I will tell you what the hardcore Communists are thinking right now. They are thinking that sweet old Pinarayi Vijayan has gone too soft on dissenters. The Communists who once ruled Bengal with an iron hand would laugh at his new law. Kim Jong Un would be so unimpressed. Stalin sent his dissenters to build a road in the Siberian permafrost. Some 10 lakh human bodies are buried inside this road, which cuts through some of the most scenic landscapes in the world. Theycallit the Road of Bones.

In this backdrop, Kerala governments new law should be seen as an attempt by Communists to engage with Indias democratic and judicial institutions. We should welcome this. Or better still, figure out what Communists are really about.

Read more here:

It is offensive to pretend that anyone is shocked by Keralas draconian new censorship law - OpIndia