Category Archives: Censorship

Channel 7's logo on display at a digital fair. BBTV's Channel 7 and Channel 5 have set up their own censorship association, disgruntling the Advertising Association of Thailand. (Photo by Jiraporn Kuhakan)

The Advertising Association of Thailand (AAT) has asked BBTV's Channel 7 and Channel 5 to explain why they have established their own censorship association, given the waste of time and money that such a group would represent.

Having two standards of censorship presents additional expense and procedural hurdles for advertising agencies and brands and will also affect the ad industry as a whole, said AAT president On-Usa Lamliengpol.

She said the creation of a new censorship association led by Channel 7, Channel 5 and some digital TV operators, and without any obvious explanation, would result in a double standard for the ad industry.

Royal Thai Army Radio and Television Channel 5 is owned and operated by the army. Channel 7 officially is owned by Bangkok Broadcasting Television. It was originally acquired by the army in 1967.

"We urge these channels to explain this move clearly and as soon as possible," Ms On-Usa said, adding that otherwise it will lead to complications for the ad industry.

The AAT has been operating for more than 23 years. The association is a non-profit coordinator between ad agencies and digital TV operators and allows the industry to run smoothly, Ms On-Usa said.

The Radio and Television Broadcasting Professional Federation and the Association of Digital Television Broadcasting also voiced displeasure with the establishment of the second standard. The entities pushing for the second standard must stop or at least provide clarification, they said.

Ms On-Usa said the censorship procedure will run as usual on the AAT's side, but brands and agencies must know that they will run into trouble if their TV spots are assessed by both associations.

"Ad agencies need to help the AAT clarify the issue for their own sake," she said.

AAT vice-president Niwat Wongprompreeda said that while he does not know Channel 7's and Channel 5's intentions, he knows that having another censorship commission will complicate matters.

Agencies and brands will struggle with the rising costs of TV ad production, Mr Niwat said, since they still need to broadcast on Channel 7 -- the most influential channel in the country. He said Channel 7 receives 30-40% of total TV ad expenditure.

The censorship process normally has no cost. It takes one day to know if a TV spot is rejected or not; if it is, it must be modified and presented again to the association for approval.

Palakorn Somsuwan, assistant managing director for programming and advertising at Bangkok Broadcasting & TV Co, the operator of Channel 7, said the new censorship association will uplift censorship standards and benefit TV operators by creating stronger networks.

On the other hand, Col Natee Sukonrat, vice-chairman of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC), said media regulations are sensitive and whether the self-censorship measure established by the private sector will help the NBTC to regulate the media industry will need to be looked into in close detail.

"The NBTC supports the latest establishment of a censorship association, as it will help create stronger measures for broadcasting suitable ads in the future," Col Natee said.

Get full Bangkok Post printed newspaper experience on your digital devices with Bangkok Post e-newspaper. Try it out, it's totally free for 7 days.

See more here:
Advertisers protest as military TV sets separate censorship - Bangkok Post

But it is already near impossible to hold a private conversation with anyone in the Chinese capital who takes an interest in politics without talk turning to Mr. Guo and his unverified insider tales of elite corruption and power plays. People here have followed each unveiling of Mr. Guos often long-winded allegations by creeping around Chinas barricade of internet censorship.

I dont think the party has ever had a big businessman so boldly challenge it like this, said Bao Tong, a former senior aide to Zhao Ziyang, a former party leader who was toppled from power during the 1989 protests. How to respond is a dilemma.

Mr. Guo, who also goes by the name Miles Kwok, has delighted in doling out his allegations on a lively Twitter feed as well as in hourslong talks and interviews broadcast, sometimes live, on YouTube and Mingjing, a Chinese news website based in the United States. All those sites are blocked in China.

During a broadcast in mid-June, which went on for more than four hours, Mr. Guo seemed to enjoy teasing the interviewer.

I dont get how youre just sitting there. Are you made from flesh and blood? Mr. Guo said as he laid out pictures and diagrams that he said proved his claims. Such huge news. Why dont you take off your clothes and get excited?

Mr. Guos stories have caused a stir in part because he socialized with security officials before he left China several years ago and has shown a familiarity with whos who in elite party families. But many of his recent claims are unverified and disputed, and Mr. Guo has sometimes left out important details needed to test the accusations.

Yet even without confirmation, the allegations appear vexing for Mr. Xi.

Mr. Guo has described himself as a paladin defending Mr. Xi and even acting indirectly on his orders. But the billionaire has also asserted that Mr. Xis plans for choosing a new leadership team for his second five-year term at the coming congress are mired in conflict. There is little evidence of that, but Mr. Guo has thrown a firecracker into the careful choreography of the lead-up, some experts said.

No matter whether these allegations are bogus or exaggerated, they have become a distraction, said Deng Yuwen, a current affairs commentator in Beijing. People who dislike Xi the democratic opposition, cadres unhappy with his policies are also finding something to focus on in Guo Wengui.

Much of the speculation has focused on the future of Mr. Wang, one of the most powerful men in China and the primary target of Mr. Guos ire. Party insiders have said Mr. Xi may want Mr. Wang to stay in office, bucking the established retirement rules.

But Mr. Guo wants Mr. Wang out and has claimed again and again that his extended family has amassed staggering wealth through a web of companies. At a minimum, the pounding has bruised Mr. Wangs reputation among members of the urban elite who have heard Mr. Guos claims. The state news media has long presented him as an incorruptible graft buster with the courage to catch tigers corrupt officials in the partys high echelons.

What if the tiger hunter turns out to be a tiger? asked Mr. Bao, the former senior aide. How do you explain that?

Still, Mr. Guos claims are uncorroborated and have been challenged even by some critics of the party.

Much of what Guo Wengui says is incorrect or speculative, said Zhang Lifan, a businessman and liberal intellectual in Beijing who has jousted online with Mr. Guo. Hes just letting off fireworks to create a ruckus.

Asked about Mr. Guos allegations, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said he was a crime suspect whom China had put on an Interpol list, and it referred questions to the legal authorities. The State Council Information Office, the government agency that deals with such inquiries, did not respond to faxed questions.

Leaders in Beijing face a quandary: Openly disputing Mr. Guo would give him more prominence, while ignoring him could be read by some as a sign that he is telling the truth, several experts said.

You cant give him attention, but you cant ignore him, either, Mr. Bao said. You might have been able to entirely ignore Guo Wengui before, when society was shut off and had no access to information. But that doesnt work now. You cant act dumb.

Mr. Guo, his business and his employees have been assailed by a wave of lawsuits in China and the United States claiming unpaid wages and debts, fraud and libel. The authorities have also channeled vitriol against Mr. Guo through Global Times, a tabloid that the party often uses to attack its foes.

Hes lied so much that the lies dont match up, and Guo Wengui has totally given up on logic, the newspaper said this month.

Still, the editorial nodded to Mr. Guos acumen as a showman: It must be said that hes a spectacle, and at home and abroad there are those who loathe Chinas political system and get a kick out of political rumors enjoying taking in this spectacle.

Though some opponents of the partys rule inside China and abroad have embraced Mr. Guo as a folk hero, others warn he is an opportunist who could drag democracy advocates into perilous undercurrents of party infighting.

Mr. Guo has denounced some of these critics, accusing them of lacking the backbone to support him.

Hes become a divisive force in the democratic movement abroad, said Li Weidong, a former Chinese magazine editor living in New Jersey who has fought with Mr. Guo. Theres a clash of views over whether to back him or keep a distance.

Much of the whispering in Beijing has fixated on Mr. Guos claim that he still has powerful patrons inside the party, including an old leader whom he has not named.

But no Chinese leader is likely to make common cause with a volatile, talkative exile like Mr. Guo, said Minxin Pei, a professor at Claremont McKenna College in California who studies Chinese politics.

Those attempting to do that must be mad since they can get caught easily and suffer the consequences, he said.

Professor Pei added that Mr. Guo was unlikely to derail Mr. Xis plans for the next leadership. For his allegations to disrupt these preparations, there need to be at least a critical mass of senior officials who demand an investigation, he said. Under the current conditions in Beijing, it is inconceivable that there are people in Beijing who dare to take such risks.

Michael Forsythe contributed reporting from New York, and Adam Wu contributed research from Beijing.

The rest is here:
Tycoon's Claims Reverberate in China Despite Censorship and Thin Evidence - New York Times

Donald TrumpDonald TrumpAmazons acquisition of Whole Foods underscores the threat posed by big data Trump gets green light for partial travel ban OPINION: Trump's travel ban victory should force media to examine itself MOREs Twitter account manages to create controversy even when hes not tweeting. Over the last few weeks, many legal academics haveaccusedthe President of violating the First Amendment by blocking some critics from posting on @realDonaldTrumps timeline. Their argument and a recent Supreme Court decision on free speech and social media create an even stronger case that all government accounts on social media with companies with discriminatory speech codes are unconstitutional.

Earlier this month, attorneys with the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Universitywroteto the president on behalf of two Twitter users who were blocked by Trumps account.They argued the account is a designated public forum for citizens to respond to the President. Knight Institute director Jameel Jaffer explained, Having opened this forum to all comers, the president cant exclude people from it merely because he dislikes what theyre saying.

Last week, The Supreme Court unanimously invalidated a state law barring registered sex offenders from social media inPackingham v. North Carolina. The case strengthens the concept that social media is a public forum. Justice Anthony Kennedys opinion noted that a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen. He described "social media in particular" as one of the most "important places" for Americans to express these rights.His opinion emphasizes how citizens can interact with their public officials on social media,noting on Twitter, users can petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a direct manner.

This ruling does not necessarily prohibit President Trump from blocking his Twitter antagonists.UCLA law professor and Washington Post legal blogger Eugene Volokharguesthat the Trump is not acting as a government official with his private account, as opposed to the official @POTUS handle. However, he acknowledges it is unsettled law and ultimately the question is whether Trump is acting as Trump-the-man and not Trump-the-government-official in running.

Whether or not the @realDonaldTrump can block accounts is an interesting, but relatively trivial, issue. However, these recent cases could have a far more consequences for Twitter and Facebooks speech policies. Both companies prohibit hate speech, even when not accompanied with harassment or threats. These policies would be unconstitutional if enforced by the government.

While Twitter and Facebook are private companies, the state effectively adopts their unconstitutional speech restrictions when government agencies and public employees conduct official business on the platforms. Conservatives have accused Facebook and Twitter of suspending accounts for taking merely taking strong stances against refugee admissions and illegal immigration. Congressmen haveheldTwitter town halls on these very topics, which effectively excluded citizens who Twitter kicked off. Even if these complaints are unfounded and the platforms only censored extremist and Alt-Right accounts, those users still have the constitutional right to interact with their government officials.

While the First Amendment rarely applies to non-state actors, the government cannot delegate censorship to a private party. For example, a church or private club have the right to kick out its members for advocating legalized abortion. However, if a city council rented a church or clubhouse for a town hall, the city could not prohibit the pro-choicer from attending the meeting and advocating his policies on the grounds that it is just following a private organizations policies. Either everyone would be allowed to attend the town hall, or the city would have to find another venue.

Mark Epstein is an attorney and legal policy advisor forThe American Cause, a nonprofit conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read more:
Should government 'outsource' censorship to Facebook and Twitter? - The Hill (blog)

Everyone whos visited the internet has seen the ugliness that a websites comment section can host. Oftentimes, hate, slander and generally ignorant comment threads will bury genuine, insightful and civil discussion, leaving readers frustrated and hostile to say nothing of the irrelevant trolling, name-calling and spam that will just as often flood the page. How is a news organization meant to combat this? Some, like the New York Times, will strictly moderate each comment and leave articles open for comments for only a brief period. NPR shut down their comment sections in August of 2016, electing to move the discussion over to their myriad of social media platforms, as has Business Insider.

Although approaches such as these may hide inflammatory and discriminatory posts, they come at the cost of curbing free and open expression, as well as weakening the channels for direct communication between content creators and their audiences. While comment sections can easily become choked with vile posts, they still offer an open platform for the exchange of ideas, and the unfiltered expression of the audiences honest reactions to the content. The comment sections primary purpose is to enable conversation, and while its understandable that content creators would only want to see civil discussion, teetering at the edges of censorship is not the way to go.

Ultimately, inflammatory comments are an unavoidable aspect of the internet. Rather than shut down comment sections altogether, or constantly regulate each and every comment, an alternative solution is for websites to ask their users upfront to adhere to a loose set of community guidelines aimed at encouraging an environment of relevant and open discussion. Its inevitable that some users will still post comments that others will not like, but instead of silencing those users, the website can, in addition to maintaining community guidelines, give each user the tools to block or hide posts which they find objectionable. A solution like this gives users more power over what they can see, and allows for free discussions without moderators having to constantly regulate or ban anyone.

The existence of abusive and hateful comments can be credited to the nature of the internet itself as an open and wild platform that can never be truly, completely controlled. Anyone can put anything out there, and while this isnt an inherently bad aspect, many people use that power for malicious ends, particularly in comment sections. As much as an article or videos comment section allows for interaction between the creator and the audience, it also allows for the audience members to be as spiteful and confrontational as they please. It would be easy to chalk this up to the anonymity that being online affords you: Some websites allow commenters to post completely anonymously, but even if they dont, you can make an account with a fake name and profile, then flame and troll all you want with little to no repercussions. Even if you get banned, you can just make a new profile ad infinitum.

There may not be any absolute blanket solution to alleviate this issue. However, one way of addressing it may be to limit or remove anonymity as an option for posting online, and require users to log into and use their Facebook profile to post comments, as some websites currently do. This could cause users to be more careful about their posts, since it can be tied to their real identities. There are plenty of comments online that users would not be willing to say with their real name attached to it, since they would be held accountable and possibly get in trouble for what they say. Potentially, this could serve to reduce the amount of abuse and venom that we see online.

However, this solution could also be ineffectual. The problem is that anyone can make a fake social media profile, Facebook profiles included. Besides that, despite the added accountability, people make poor decisions with their personal social media all the time. Consider the Harvard freshmen who recently got their admission offers revoked for posting obscene memes and jokes on Facebook. And besides them, there is no shortage of examples of people getting fired or arrested for posting things that can be considered unprofessional, threatening or illegal. Consider also that Facebook, Twitter and other social media are no haven from toxic and idiotic comments in general. While one would think that having your real name and reputation at stake for what you post online would serve to curb abusive and hateful content, it seems that vitriolic posts and comments will always crop up here or there.

Another aspect to weigh is whether there are situations where anonymity can be more valuable than accountability. For some users, remaining anonymous is the only way in which they feel comfortable expressing how they truly feel about certain sensitive topics, or to talk about their personal experiences without fear of compromising their privacy or that of their friends or family. However, just because there are some legitimate uses for anonymity online doesnt discount that many users also abuse their anonymity to harass, stalk and bother others. Although having your identity tied to your online presence may not always deter users from posting hateful content, complete anonymity and the lack of accountability also allows plenty of users to harass and attack others all they want, meaning that neither of these extremes can work for keeping comment sections civil and constructive.

Dealing with online comments is a tricky business. Comment sections can be informative and spark thoughtful conversation, but are also home to a myriad of spam and worthless and generally terrible posts by users who have nothing better to do. However, it is not the job of a websites moderator to obsessively monitor each and every comment or rule with an iron fist. Instead, sites that allow comments should establish guidelines for the kind of content they want to see, and then give the the users the power to respond as they will. In order to facilitate a free and open discourse, the policing of comments should only be kept to a bare minimum, such as removing posts which incite or threaten violence or contain other illegal content. Free expression is essential for intellectual conversation, and maintaining that means coexisting with speech that not all users will appreciate.

See the article here:
Fixing toxic comment sections requires light moderation and guidelines, not censorship - Highlander Newspaper

Facebook, Twitter, and other web companies are facing increased pressure to remove hate speech, fake news, and other content in Europe, where lawmakers are considering new measures that critics say could infringe on freedom of speech.

In the wake of recent terrorist attacks in Britain, Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron said last week they are considering imposing fines on social media companies that fail to take action against terrorist propaganda and other violent content. The European Union, meanwhile, recently moved closer to passing regulations that would require social media companies to block any videos containing hate speech or incitements to terrorism.

But nowhere is the pressure more acute than in Germany, where lawmakers are racing to pass new legislation that would impose fines of up to 50 million ($55.8 million) on tech companies that fail to remove hate speech, incitements to violence, and other obviously illegal content from their platforms. Companies would have to remove clearly illegal content within 24 hours; they would have up to one week to decide on cases that are less clear.

The Social Networks Enforcement Law, first announced in March by Justice Minister Heiko Maas, aims to hold social media companies more accountable for the content published on their sites, and to ensure they are in accordance with Germanys strict laws on hate speech and defamation. But the bill has drawn vehement criticism from rights groups, lawyers, and a diverse mix of politicians, who say such steep financial penalties could incentivize tech companies to censor legal speech out of caution. Critics also claim that the proposed legislation known as the Facebook Law would give social media companies undue power to determine what people can say online, effectively outsourcing decisions that should be taken by the justice system.

a wholesale privatization of freedom of expression

Joe McNamee, executive director of the Brussels-based digital rights group EDRi, says the German law would compel social media companies to shoot first and dont ask questions later in relation to anything thats reported to them. He also believes it would move Europe closer to a wholesale privatization of freedom of expression, with large internet companies deciding what they want the public the discourse to be, and how much restriction to impose to have legal certainty.

Maas defended the bill during parliamentary debate last month, describing it as a necessary measure to curb the spread of illegal speech. "The point of the proposed legislation is that statements that violate the law must be deleted," Maas said, according to Deutsche Welle. "These are not examples of freedom of speech. They're attacks on freedom of speech. The worst danger to freedom of speech is a situation where threats go unpunished.

Maas has been a particularly outspoken critic of Facebook, claiming that the social network should be treated as a media company, which would make it legally liable for hate speech, defamation, and other content published to its platform. The justice minister also criticized Facebook for failing to remove flagged hate speech in 2015, amid rising anti-migrant protests violence across Germany; prosecutors in Hamburg opened an investigation into Facebooks European head later that year for ignoring racist posts.

Facebook, Twitter, and Google agreed to remove hate speech from their platforms within 24 hours, under an agreement with the German government announced in December 2015. But a 2017 report commissioned by the Justice Ministry found that the companies were still failing to meet their obligations. Twitter removed just 1 percent of hate speech flagged by its users, the report said, while Facebook took down 39 percent. The companies struck a similar agreement with the EU in May 2016, and although Facebook has made progress in reviewing and removing illegal material, the European Commission said in a report last month that Twitter and YouTube are still failing to adhere to the voluntary accord.

Facebook and Google have also taken steps to combat fake news in Europe, amid concerns that misleading content could influence elections. Facebook began labeling fake news in Germany and France earlier this year, and it partnered with Correctiv, a Berlin-based nonprofit, to help fact-check dubious news stories.

Facebook pushed back against Germanys proposed law last month, saying in a statement that it provides an incentive to delete content that is not clearly illegal when social networks face such a disproportionate threat of fines.

It would have the effect of transferring responsibility for complex legal decisions from public authorities to private companies, the statement continues. And several legal experts have assessed the draft law as being against the German constitution and non-compliant with EU law.

When reached for comment, a Twitter spokesperson referred to a previous statement from Karen White, head of public policy in Europe, following the release of the European Commissions report. Over the past six months, we've introduced a host of new tools and features to improve Twitter for everyone, the statement reads, in part. Weve also improved the in-app reporting process for our users and we continue to review and iterate on our policies and their enforcement. Our work will never be done.

You cant just delete what these people are thinking.

Chan-jo Jun, an activist German lawyer who has filed several high-profile lawsuits against Facebook, says hes ambivalent about the draft law because it lacks what he sees as a crucial component. In a phone interview, Jun said the law should allow for users to appeal Facebooks decision to remove flagged content, and to force the company to hear the voice of the person whose post has been deleted. Free speech may be jeopardized without such a mechanism, he said, though he believes there is still a need for government oversight of social media.

If we think criminals should be prosecuted on the internet, then we have to make sure that German law applies on the internet, as well, Jun said, and that it is not only being ruled by community standards from Facebook.

Maas is looking to pass the bill before the Bundestags legislative period closes at the end of June the last chance to do so before national elections in September though it faces opposition from a broad range of politicians. Lawmakers from the far-left and far-right have strongly criticized the bill, as have organizations such as Reporters Without Borders. McNamee says that even if the law does pass, it likely will not hold up to legal challenges in Germany or Europe. In a non-binding ruling handed down last week, a German parliamentary body determined that the bill is illegal because it infringes on free speech and does not clearly define illegal content.

Maas has expressed support for Europe-wide laws on hate speech and fake news, though EU regulators have traditionally favored a more self-regulatory approach to policing online content. Yet new EU data protection rules slated to go into effect next May point to a more aggressive stance. Under the regulations, technology companies found to violate consumer privacy could face fines of up to 4 percent of their global turnover. (Facebook earned nearly $28 billion in global revenue in 2016.)

Up until now, one could argue that large tech companies have been able to, by and large, get away with saying, oh, its all technology and its all very difficult, says Joss Wright, a research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute. Lately, however, European regulators have shown an increased willingness to take on tech companies directly, Wright adds.

In Germany, however, some activists worry that lawmakers who support the bill may be looking to score political points ahead of this years elections, while ignoring deeper societal issues that have allowed hate speech to propagate.

We fear that after this law comes to action, the whole debate is over for the politicians, and we are just right at the beginning, says Johannes Baldauf of the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, a Berlin-based NGO that tracks and combats hate speech and extremism. Baldauf, who leads a project tracking hate speech online, says there has to be some sort of legislation to curb illegal speech, though he believes it should be coupled with public awareness campaigns and public debates about what drives racism and xenophobia.

You cant just change the mind of the people by proposing a law, Baldauf says. And you cant just delete what these people are thinking.

View post:
Germany wants to fine Facebook over hate speech, raising fears of ... - The Verge

Fort Worth Star Telegram (blog)

Kaepernick case isn't about race but NFL censorship Fort Worth Star Telegram (blog) In short, Kaep' is full of it. If a team had offered him a job with a seven or six-figure salary he would have played ball, even on the bench. He would have been dumb not to, and this is not a dumb man. Kaep's famous taking of a knee is the ultimate ...

Excerpt from:
Kaepernick case isn't about race but NFL censorship - Fort Worth Star Telegram (blog)

We all know the Chinese government is keeping a close eye on what content can be found on the Internet. China is not exactly known for freedom of speech or making information easily accessible. Various broadcasters and media platforms have been put on notice regarding broadcasts putting China or its government in a negative spotlight. This is another clear example of how censorship is enforced by oppressive governments.

It is understandable governments are not too happy when negative press gains mainstream traction. Reading about how a government official did X or Y wrong is not fun, even though such information deserved to be shared. Contrary to what the Chinese government may want to believe, negative information deserves to be known by the public as well. However, if it is up to government officials, that situation will come to a halt very soon.

More specifically, the Chinese government has warned local broadcasters regarding what they can and cannot share with the public. Any negative news regarding China or its government will be banned from now on. This appears to be a rather drastic decision, as this is a clear example of censorship. According to the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film, and Television, airing the dirty laundry violated local regulations.

It has to be said, this is quite an interesting turn of events. According to the government, all of the notified broadcasters share large amounts of programs with the public. However, a lot of this information doesnt comply with national rules. Moreover, there are seemingly more broadcasts regarding negative discussions about public affairs. This seems to indicate the local government isnt doing the job to the best of their abilities, yet no one is supposed to know about these things, it seems.

It is believed the agency will take measures: to shut down these programs airing the dirty laundry of China and its government. Considering the agency contacted both traditional and online broadcasters, it remains to be seen how this new rule will be executed. It is possible some broadcasters may effectively lose their license or suffer from major government repercussions, including fees and potentially even jail time.

It is not the first time we see such drastic actions taken by the Chinese government regarding censorship and freedom of speech. The country ranked in the bottom 5 countries on the 2017 World Press Freedom Index. It is evident freedom of speech and China will never be two peas in a pod, and one can only expect harsh measures like this to become even more common in the future. In fact, the government has recently been granted more control over the Internet and broadcasts in May of this year.

Interestingly enough, it looks as if some broadcasters are taking this new guideline to heart. Both Weibo and Acfun have made a post on their official Weibo accounts to state how they will enforce stricter content management. For Chinese companies, complying with new regulations is a top priority. No one wants to lose a license or face severe punishment for disregarding the rules. Moreover, Weibo will only allow users to broadcast if they have the proper government license to do so.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

See original here:
Chinese Government Enforces Censorship by Targeting Local Broadcasters - The Merkle

DW: Mr. Baumhauer, according to the Freedom on the Net Report 2016, internet freedom has declined globally for six consecutive years. Users in China, Syria and Iran are among the most affected. The report also states that governments are increasingly censoring social networks and messaging apps like WhatsApp and Telegram. How does this affect strategies to hold online censorship in check?

The basic concept hasn't changed. Millions of people are affected by online censorship, it happens across the globe, it affects social media as well,and it's nothing new to DW. We know exactly that there are governments out there who don't want us to get into the country to make sure that our content reaches the people who live there. Depending on how the internet is set up technically in a certain country, it can be very easy to block websites. However, in some societies, for instance in Iran, the young generation is very capable when it comes to bypassing censorship - that also goes for messaging apps. We at DW won't accept censorship, and wherever it happens, we'll try to find a way around that. Bypass Censorship is just another approach.

The website provides download links and guides for a number of tools that help you go online without being tracked or get access to blocked content. How exactly does that work?

Some users at some point might have tried to watch a movie that was released in another country, for instance in the US, but not yet in their own country. They might have used some kind of VPN (virtual private network) software. These tools make it look like they're an American user, that way they get access to US servers. The tools we recommend on the website use a similar technology. After downloading them, they help users connect to various servers, and thus offer unrestricted internet access to them. For example, we use PSIPHON for our Farsi and Amharic services. Both Iran and Ethiopia are pretty good at censoring.

Some of the tools on the website, for instance TOR, are quite well-known, at least to people who know a thing or two about encryption. Does this mean the website is aimed at users who aren't familiar with these topics?

DW's Guido Baumhauer hopes that DW's knowledge of combating censorship can help internet users worldwide

Most of the tools have been out there for a while;none of them are brand new. In countries where censorship is a daily routine, let's say Iran or China, we find a lot of internet-savvy users who know what they are doing. But other users elsewhere might want to get access and feel a little helpless to begin with. We want to show them what possibilities they have.

Additionally, the website always provides download links for the newest versions of the tools. The moment the censors realize how the technology works, they start blocking the servers. The tool basically adapts to the censorship and tries to keep the road to free internet access open. It's an ongoing race and it will not stop until one side backs down - and that will definitely not be us. We will do everything we can to help people get access to information, because we believe freedom of speech is the highest value for people. Even if we only reach a few people through the website, it will be worth it.

But aren't you worried that the whole website might be blocked once word gets out?

That's definitely something that's going to happen, and we have to find ways for users to access the information on the website through other means. When content on the DW website gets blocked, for instance in Iran or China, we find ways around that and we'll do the same with Bypass Censorship. For example, we offer users to email the tools to them. That might sound stupid and very simple, but it works.

Experts say that tens of thousands of internet police are employed to implement China's "Great Firewall"

Bypass Censorship sounds like a project that could have been founded by activists or a hacker group. Why are leading international broadcasters getting involved?

If we're talking about providing free access to censored content that people should be able to see in order to know what is happening in their country and around them - which does not include promoting things that are lawless -I think we have the same mindset.

We have great people who know ways around censorship and we want to share this knowledge. In that respect, I think there is no difference between people who call themselves activists and broadcasters like DW.

Bypass Censorship is co-sponsored by Deutsche Welle, the BBC, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), France Mdias Monde (FMM) and the Open Technology Fund. Guido Baumhauer is DW's Managing Director of Distribution, Marketing and Technology.

Thisinterview was conducted by Helena Kaschel.

Read the original:
Fighting censorship online: 'It's an ongoing race' - Deutsche Welle

The Weibo microblogging app displayed on an iPhone, April 22, 2014. Brent LewinBloomberg/Getty Images

China's media oversight body has ordered three major online companies to halt some of their multi-media streaming services, the government's latest move to tighten controls on an already restricted Internet.

Agence France-Presse reports that Sina Weibo the country's Twitter-like microblogging site with more than 340 million users as well as news sites iFeng.com and ACFUN, were informed they lacked permits required by the body to run audio-visual streams.

An announcement by China's State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television said the sites hosted "many politically-related programs that do not conform with state rules," and authorities are trying to "create a cleaner cyberspace," according to AFP.

Earlier this month another regulator, the Beijing Cyberspace Administration, ordered internet companies to terminate social media accounts that cater to "the public's vulgar taste" and disseminate celebrity gossip, AFP reports.

Willy Lam, a professor at Chinese University of Hong Kong's centre for China studies, tells TIME that Beijing has steadily tightened the screws on expression ahead of the Chinese Communist Party's 19th Congress, due to be held around October.

Lam says that Chinese President Xi Jinping " wants stability above all else in this sensitive period," but that ultimately censorship could backfire. " The more control of the media there is, the more ordinary Chinese tend to believe in speculation and innuendo," he says.

[ AFP ]

Follow this link:
Chinese Authorities Crack Down on Streaming to Create a 'Cleaner Cyberspace' - TIME

In the never-ending battle to preserve free speech, there is always good news and bad news. There are triumphs and setbacks. The struggle for liberty always encounters the will to power, and often the will to power is cloaked in terms of compassion, justice, and equality.

And so it is with the quest to censor so-called hate speech. First, lets address the good news. Earlier this week the Supreme Court ruled 80 against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), which had refused to register a trademark for a band called The Slants. The PTO claimed that the bands name violated provisions of the Lanham Act, which prohibits registering trademarks that disparage...or bring into contempt or disrepute any persons, living or dead.

As I wrote immediately after the decision, it would have been shocking if the Court hadnt ruled against the PTO. After all, there are literally decades of First Amendment precedents prohibiting the government from engaging in punitive viewpoint discrimination, even when the viewpoint expressed is deemed hatred or offensive. Justice Alito made short work of the notion that the government has an interest in preventing speech that expresses offensive ideas:

As we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.

But not even a ruling joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor can persuade determined, far-left censors, and just as sure as night follows day, Laura Beth Nielsen, a research professor for the American Bar Foundation, took to the pages of the Los Angeles Times to make the case for viewpoint discrimination. Ive seen enough pieces like this to recognize the type. They always begin with misleading statements of the law, declarations that free-speech protections arent absolute, and then move to the core pitch in this case, that the state should regulate hate speech because its emotionally and physically harmful:

In fact, empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences. Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies. Exposure to racial slurs also diminishes academic performance. Women subjected to sexualized speech may develop a phenomenon of self-objectification, which is associated with eating disorders.

This is the very close cousin of the speech as violence argument sweeping campuses from coast to coast. Its the heart of the argument for the campus speech code that subjective listener response should dictate a speakers rights. The more fragile the listener, the greater the grounds for censorship.

And there is no limiting principle. If How does this speech make you feel? is the core question, it incentivizes victim politics and overreaction. Robust debate triggers robust emotions, and robust debate on the most sensitive issues issues like race, gender, and sexuality trigger the most robust of responses.

Lest anyone wonder about the actual definition of hate speech, look to campus and liberal activist groups. At Evergreen State College in Washington, a progressive professors statement against racial separation and division was deemed so hateful that he couldnt safely conduct classes on campus. Influential pressure groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center label the Ku Klux Klan and other genuine racistshate groups but also apply the same label to mainstream Christian conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council. The SPLC has branded respected American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray a white nationalist. Moreover, its far more forgiving of leftist extremism than of moderate speech that is conservative or libertarian.

In a stinging piece in the Wall Street Journal, Jeryl Bier notes the double standard:

Kori Ali Muhammad allegedly murdered three white people in California in April. The SPLC reports that on Facebook Mr. Muhammad wrote of grafted white devil skunks and repeatedly referred to the mythical Lost Found Asiaiatic [sic] Black Nation in America. Yet in contrast with its unequivocal (and false) tagging of Mr. Murray, the group describes Mr. Muhammad as a possible black separatist.

Got that? One of the Rights most important scholars stands condemned, while a man who shot and killed three people is just a possible separatist. Thats the through-the-looking-glass world of the anti-hate speech Left. The definitions are malleable, but one thing you can count on the Right will always lose.

Interestingly, the day before Nielsens call for censorship appeared in the Los Angeles Times, German police raided the homes of 36 people accused of hateful social-media postings. Thats where prohibitions against hate speech lead. Indeed, wannabe American censors often extol Europe as a model for their proposed American laws. Do you trust the government to decide when your viewpoint is unacceptable?

Left-wing censors discount voices like mine, claiming that its easy for me to pontificate on free speech while basking in my white privilege. Yet my family has been exposed to more vile and vicious rhetoric than most people will experience in ten lifetimes. Yes, its painful. Yes, it has consequences. But it is far more empowering to meet bad speech with better speech than it is to appeal to the government for protection even from the worst ideas.

To paraphrase Alan Charles Kors, co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, no class of Americans is too weak to live with freedom. Rather than indulging weakness and fear, activists left and right would do well to cultivate emotional strength and moral courage. The marketplace of ideas demands no less.

READ MORE: Free Speech Isnt Always a Tool for Virtue Speech Is Not Violence and Violence Is Not Self-Expression When Speech Inspires Violence, Protect Liberty While Restoring Virtue

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

See original here:
Anti-Free-Speech Radicals Never Give Up - National Review