Category Archives: Censorship

Apple is once again running into issues with state censorship in China, according toXinhua. Two different agencies will call Apple into their offices to demand tightercontrols over streaming apps in the App Store.

The move is part of a crackdown on streaming content from three Chinese sites: toutiao.com, huoshanzhibo.com, and huajiao.com. Government regulators said those three sites were offering illegal content, including porn.

Those companies had apps in Apples App Store in China.The Beijing Public Security Bureau and Beijing Cultural Market Administrative Law Enforcement Team want Apple more involved in policing such things.

This is part and parcel of the struggle Apple faces in China. On the one hand, Chinas government is an authoritarian communist government in the hands of a single party very focused on perpetuating the control of that party. Really, thats the other hand, too, but the other hand is highly interested in tamping down the success of western companies in China.

And thus we have Apple forced to shut down its iBooks and movie offerings on iTunes. More recently, Apple was forced to pull The New York Times app from the Chinese app store. China hates the idea of its people getting unfettered access to information.

Apple is far from the first U.S. tech giant to face such pressures. Facebook is banned outright. Microsoft chose to censor Bing to stay in business in China, while Google closed down its China business and redirected Chinese queries to its Hong Kong operation.

The problem for Apple is that these kinds of pressures are bound to increase. The bigger Apple gets, the more interest China has in knocking it down. At the same time, the bigger Apple gets, the more it becomes a pawn in political jousting between China and the U.S.

Its a tricky spot for Apple to be in, to be sure.

Originally posted here:
Apple Runs Up Against State Censorship in China, Again - The Mac Observer

Last night the Newseum gave its second annual "free speech award" to Apple CEO Tim Cook. The honor was just one of several "Free Expression" awards that "recognize those who exhibit passion for and dedication to free expression." I can't be the only person who found this ironic.

It was only a few months ago that Apple removed theNew York Times app from the Chinese version of the App Store. "The move limits access to one of the few remaining channels for readers in mainland China to read The Times without resorting to special software," thepaper reported. Nor was this the first time Apple hadaccommodated the communist dictatorship in its quest to deny Chinese readers an independent media. "Apple has previously removed other, less prominent media apps from its China store." When theTimes asked Apple what was going on, the global corporation, with a market cap of some $700 billion, said it was merely complying with the request of the Chinese authorities. Funny:a year earlier Tim Cook had self-righteously refused to comply with an FBI request to unlock the iPhone of the San Bernardino terrorists. Some authorities must be more authoritative than others.

The award illustrates just how perverse an institution the Newseum is.What connection does Tim Cook have to the cause of a free pressother than in suppressing itfor profit? His tenure at Apple has been more about political involvement than technological innovation. He's known foradvocacy of same-sex marriage, hiring former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, the San Bernardino pose. He doesn't finance newspapers, he has made no standagainst political correctness. I've never heard him utter a word that would offend John Oliver or Trevor Noah, say something that wasn't a clich. "We must be open to alternative points of view, not alternative facts," he said in his acceptance speech. Unless you live in China!

The Newseum is famous for the huge slab of marble that hangs from its facade. On it is engraved the text of the First Amendment.That amendment also guarantees the right to religious liberty, but Cook opposes state religious freedom statutes because they "would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors." That's a tendentious interpretation, to say the least, and Cook has never shown any sign of reckoning honestly with religious believers who disagree with him. So he's 0 for 2.

If the Newseum had presented Cook the "Thank you for using your power to squelch dissident views and bythe way please donate to us award," I wouldn't be making a fuss. Itwould have been consistent. As it stands the museummay want to reconsider itsmotto and swap the First Amendment for Orwell.There are several passages from1984 that would work.

Why did Cook receive this honor? A reader points out that, according to the program, Apple is a "platinum sponsor" of the Newseum's Free Expression awards.

Mystery solved.

Originally posted here:
Newseum: Let Us Now Praise Silicon Valley Oligarchs Who Abet Chinese Censorship & Oppose Religious Freedom ... - Washington Free Beacon (blog)

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

About 40 percent of 940 journalists interviewed in a three-year study said they had experienced interference in their work serious enough for it to impact their private lives, the council said.

More than two-thirds of those questioned said they had suffered threats of violence, a third cited police intimidation and 53 percent said they were subjected to online harassment, the report by Europes leading human rights monitor said.

It should therefore come as no surprise that the survey found high levels of self-censorship among journalists, the report said.

Many are compelled to tone down controversial stories, or abandon them altogether, the report added, after sounding out reporters from five media associations, including Reporters Without Borders, in member states and non-member Belarus.

The councils secretary general Thorbjoern Jagland called on its 47 member states to fully implement its 2016 recommendation on affording journalists protection and safety in their work to create a climate of open debate and free speech.

Resolve is laudable

The study said that 87 percent of Turkish respondents reported being victims of targeted surveillance by state authorities, public officials or other powerful figures including media owners or advertisers.

The council said many reporters suffered stress, leading to depression or even paranoia. It added that 31 percent toned down a story and that 15 percent abandoned a reporting project altogether, and that 57 percent did not report incidents to police.

But 36 percent said such pressures made them more inclined to resist self-censorship and more determined to pursue their stories.

Their resolve is laudable, the council said.

Freedom of expression is one of the basic conditions for the progress of society. Without safeguards for the safety of journalists there can be no free media.

While conceding that the study was not necessarily representative of its member states as a whole, the council emphasised that the European Convention on Human Rights makes freedom of expression a central means by which power is held to account.

Different forms of violence against journalists have increased significantly over the last decade, the report concluded

Together with impunity for the perpetrators of unwarranted interference on journalists, these are among the most serious challenges facing media freedom today.

View post:
Council of Europe Warns journalists Self-Censoring Due to Police and Online Intimidation - Breitbart News

Everyone knows that China has some of the most sophisticated censorship tools in the world, but the details of how they actually work what they censor and when are often not fully understood. A new report by Citizen Lab, a research group studying the web, human rights, and global security, sheds some light on one particularly fruitful target for Chinese censorship: mobile messaging.

Citizen Lab looked at how the Chinese government censors discussion on WeChat, a popular messaging app. WeChat is the fourth biggest messaging service in the world, with more than 768 million active users, but is also deeply embedded in Chinese society, where its used not only for chatting, but for tasks like banking, paying bills, booking holidays, calling cabs, and much more.

The cornerstone of WeChat censorship is keyword filtering, which blocks messages that contain terms like human rights, mass arrest, and spiritual freedom. However, Citizen Lab found that the censors dont just block messages containing any one specific phrase, but instead look for combinations of different terms. So you can send a message with the words human rights lawyer in it, but if you combine that with the name of a specific lawyer Jiang Tianyong, who was recently disappeared by the government the message is blocked.

When a message is censored, users are not notified of this fact. They see it as sent in their own app, but it just never reaches its intended recipient. The system works by examining every message that is sent when it passes through WeChats servers. The list of filtered keywords is also reactive, and changes in relation to the news; and only to WeChat accounts using mobile phone numbers registered in the Chinese mainland. Citizen Lab says much of the censorship on WeChat is currently focused around the 709 Crackdown a series of arrests against civil dissenters that began on the 9th of July 2015 (hence the name).

An interesting quirk of WeChat censorship discovered by Citizen Lab is that its stricter when it comes to group discussions. The group found that more keyword combinations were blocked in chats containing multiple users than in one-on-one conversations. The reason for this isnt clear, but it could be the Chinese government thinks it prudent to allow limited discussion of sensitive topics, but that group conversations are more dangerous, perhaps leading to organized dissent. WeChat Moments (a feature similar to Facebooks News Feed) was also more heavily censored, with certain images filtered out as well.

The report notes: The greater attention to group chat and Moments in particular may be due to the semi-public nature of the two features. Messages can reach and inspire discussions among wider audiences, making it subject to a higher level of scrutiny.

For a full list of censored keywords and combinations, you can read Citizen Labs report in full here.

Link:
China's internet censors allow one-on-one complaining, but won't let ... - The Verge

Another week, another heretical speaker bullied and physically intimidated on an illiberal college campus.

Last week it was pro-police Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald, who was invited to speak at Claremont McKenna College in California. Hundreds of protesters blocked the entrances to the building where she was scheduled to talk, chanting "Black lives matter," "F -- the police" and "Shut it down." Student journalists who tried to document the protest were swarmed, pushed and verbally threatened.

Mac Donald spoke via live-stream to a mostly empty room, as protesters banged on the windows and shouted; police cut the talk short and escorted her out of the building.

Just a few weeks earlier, conservative political scientist Charles Murray had been hounded by a mob at Middlebury College in Vermont. There, protesters sent his (liberal) faculty escort to the emergency room.

These are but the most recent examples of attempts to suppress speakers, viewpoints, teaching materials and works of art that students usually liberal students find "unsafe."

Each time something like this happens, pundits make impassioned pleas that the solution to speech you abhor should be more speech, not less; that you must be brave enough to face your ideological enemies, not muzzle them; that the free exchange of ideas is critical to scientific and moral progress; that censorship is contrary to American values, included those enshrined in our Constitution.

Clearly, this appeal to high-minded principles and character development isn't working.

So let's try another tack: naked self-interest.

To today's (predominantly liberal) college students, I offer five reasons that granting your ideological enemies a chance to speak benefits you, even perhaps especially when you believe their words are dangerous or hateful.

First, you're giving the speakers you abhor a much bigger platform when you martyr them.

As I've written before, censorship tends to generate more public interest, not less, in whatever message is being censored. This is true for paintings as well as paid lecturers.

Professional troll Milo Yiannopoulos grew especially adept at monetizing this phenomenon. Violent protesters helped him gain attention, speaking gigs and (at least until his comments about sex with underage boys went viral) a book deal. He would never have gained their large followings absent the telegenic hysterics of angry liberals.

Second, suppressing ideas you disagree with dulls your ability to cogently, convincingly rebut them.

If you want to win arguments let alone elections honing your rhetorical chops will be crucial. Asking a tough question at a speech is good practice. Especially for when you're no longer able to call in an in-loco-parentis administrator to punish or expel your adversaries.

Third, and relatedly, you're not actually crushing opposing views by shushing them; you're merely forcing them underground, where they can fester and mutate into more dangerous forms.

It's better to engage, argue and attempt to dissuade your opponents out in the open. As Brookings Institution scholar Jonathan Rauch once put it, "Suppressing speech that's wrong-headed and hateful is like curing global warming by breaking the thermometers. The root problem is fear and ignorance and hatred, and you go for that by correcting people."

Fourth, you may not realize it yet, but you're breeding resentment and reactionaryism and turning potential allies into enemies.

President Trump's jihad against political correctness not only appealed to those who long for the days when they could sexually harass their secretaries with impunity; it also resonated with some less regressive types who have soured on what they see as the left's illiberalism and virtue-signaling. Don't fuel the Trumps of the world by shutting down debate.

Finally, the same censorship tools you've developed to silence your enemies will be used against you.

Right-wing students and allies have already begun adopting tactics to intimidate intellectual enemies and muzzle ideas they dislike, including through trigger warnings, professor "watchlists," proposed ideological litmus tests for college hiring and even speech codes.

Remember, liberal snowflakes. You're playing the long game, which includes the day when you may no longer be in a position of power. Be smart. Before you have that debate tomorrow, from the minority position, set some fair ground rules today.

Catherine Rampell writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.

crampell@washpost.com

Read this article:
Column: College students empower foes with censorship - The Columbus Dispatch

Actor-filmmaker Amol Palekar has reached out to the Supreme Court for directing the government to overhaul the Film Censorship Regime. A petition was filed on behalf of Palekar on Monday regarding this.

The petition points out that pre-censorship serves no useful purpose in the digital age. There are no law or rules to restrain content available on the internet; nor is there any pre-censorship for investigative reports, stings etc., shown over television.

Then, why should a board of censors sit together to decide whether documentaries which are factual depictions of real-life events should be allowed public viewing only with certain modifications or excisions as directed? Since pre-censorship of films and documentaries are anachronistic to the fundamental rights of equality and freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution, shouldnt Indias Board of Censors be disbanded?

These stark questions form the pith and substance of auteur Amol Palekars challenge to the legal regime of censorship. Based on Palekars writ petition, the Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Centre and the Central Board of Film Certification (the Censor Board), asking for their response to the pleas made in the petition.

On September 24, 1970, in the KA Abbas case, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled that because cinema was a medium which could easily excite the masses and (depending on the contents of the films) had the potential to incite violence, rapacious acts, or other illegal actions, or could corrupt society, there was a legal need to censor films before they were released for public viewing.

This decision is no longer in sync with the times for it infantalises the audience and should be overruled, the writ petition claims.

Palekar has also contended that the film certification or censorship regime unleashed by the Abbas ruling has turned into an uncontrollable behemoth, which willy-nilly pulverises the freedom of expression of some, while giving a free-hand to others.

It has also led to the creation of a parallel censorship regime, he claims, and gives the example of Jolly LLB 2. That film, granted a clearance by the Censor Board, had to suffer four excisions because the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, acting as a predator to artistic freedom, was of the opinion that the scenes were defamatory to the judiciary.

Invoking the fundamental Right to Equality under Article 14, he has asked why documentaries are required to carry disclaimers and implement excisions as directed by the Censor Board, when television programmes which also depict real life events and incidents are not subjected to the same restrictions.

Contending that there should be certification of films, and not censorship, Palekar has challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the Guidelines for Film Certification, 1991 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 for violating the fundamental rights to life, equality and freedom of speech and expression.

Taken together, these laws, rules and guidelines mandate that only those films which are granted a viewer certificate should be shown in public. If the CBFC orders that certain scenes be modified or removed, and the director refuses to comply, then the film in question would be stuck. Not only can it not be screened in commercial theatres, it cannot also be shown on television or film exhibitions.

The writ petition also contends that those provisions of law which provide for appointments of members to the CBFC, its Revising Committees and the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) be declared null and void.

Instead, the Shyam Benegal Committees recommendations, which were directed at radically reforming the censorship mechanism, should be implemented at the earliest, the petition contends.

Excerpt from:
Amol Palekar moves SC for an end to film censorship - National Herald

Another week, another heretical speaker bullied and physically intimidated on an illiberal college campus.

Last week it was pro-police Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald, who was invited to speak at Claremont McKenna College in California. Hundreds of protesters blocked the entrances to the building where she was scheduled to talk, chanting "Black lives matter," "F -- the police" and "Shut it down." Student journalists who tried to document the protest were swarmed, pushed and verbally threatened.

Mac Donald spoke via live-stream to a mostly empty room, as protesters banged on the windows and shouted; police cut the talk short and escorted her out of the building.

Just a few weeks earlier, conservative political scientist Charles Murray had been hounded by a mob at Middlebury College in Vermont. There, protesters sent his (liberal) faculty escort to the emergency room.

These are but the most recent examples of attempts to suppress speakers, viewpoints, teaching materials and works of art that students usually liberal students find "unsafe."

Each time something like this happens, pundits make impassioned pleas that the solution to speech you abhor should be more speech, not less; that you must be brave enough to face your ideological enemies, not muzzle them; that the free exchange of ideas is critical to scientific and moral progress; that censorship is contrary to American values, included those enshrined in our Constitution.

Clearly, this appeal to high-minded principles and character development isn't working.

So let's try another tack: naked self-interest.

To today's (predominantly liberal) college students, I offer five reasons that granting your ideological enemies a chance to speak benefits you, even perhaps especially when you believe their words are dangerous or hateful.

First, you're giving the speakers you abhor a much bigger platform when you martyr them.

As I've written before, censorship tends to generate more public interest, not less, in whatever message is being censored. This is true for paintings as well as paid lecturers.

Professional troll Milo Yiannopoulos grew especially adept at monetizing this phenomenon. Violent protesters helped him gain attention, speaking gigs and (at least until his comments about sex with underage boys went viral) a book deal. He would never have gained their large followings absent the telegenic hysterics of angry liberals.

Second, suppressing ideas you disagree with dulls your ability to cogently, convincingly rebut them.

If you want to win arguments let alone elections honing your rhetorical chops will be crucial. Asking a tough question at a speech is good practice. Especially for when you're no longer able to call in an in-loco-parentis administrator to punish or expel your adversaries.

Third, and relatedly, you're not actually crushing opposing views by shushing them; you're merely forcing them underground, where they can fester and mutate into more dangerous forms.

It's better to engage, argue and attempt to dissuade your opponents out in the open. As Brookings Institution scholar Jonathan Rauch once put it, "Suppressing speech that's wrong-headed and hateful is like curing global warming by breaking the thermometers. The root problem is fear and ignorance and hatred, and you go for that by correcting people."

Fourth, you may not realize it yet, but you're breeding resentment and reactionaryism and turning potential allies into enemies.

President Trump's jihad against political correctness not only appealed to those who long for the days when they could sexually harass their secretaries with impunity; it also resonated with some less regressive types who have soured on what they see as the left's illiberalism and virtue-signaling. Don't fuel the Trumps of the world by shutting down debate.

Finally, the same censorship tools you've developed to silence your enemies will be used against you.

Right-wing students and allies have already begun adopting tactics to intimidate intellectual enemies and muzzle ideas they dislike, including through trigger warnings, professor "watchlists," proposed ideological litmus tests for college hiring and even speech codes.

Remember, liberal snowflakes. You're playing the long game, which includes the day when you may no longer be in a position of power. Be smart. Before you have that debate tomorrow, from the minority position, set some fair ground rules today.

Catherine Rampell writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.

crampell@washpost.com

See more here:
Catherine Rampell: College students empower foes with censorship - The Columbus Dispatch

By: Express Web Desk | New Delhi | Published:April 17, 2017 3:30 pm

The Shyam Benegal committee was set upon January 1, 2016to lay down rules and regulations for film certification taking note of best practices in various parts of the world and giving sufficient and adequate space for artistic and creative expression. The committee submitted its report on April 29, 2016 but there has been very little progress on it so far.

What does the report say?

The report says that Central Bureau of Film Certification (CFBC) should primarilybe allowed to issue certificated to the films depending on its content. It lists out that the body should be allowed to cancel certification under following circumstances:

*When a film contains anything that contravenes the provisions of Section 5B (1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

*When content in a film crosses the ceiling laid down in the highest category of certification.

*The applicant must specify the category of certification being sought and the target audience.

What are the objectives?

The committee lists out objectives of these guidelines as it protects children and adultsfrom potentially harmful or unsuitable content. In addition, it helps the audiences to make a better informed decision and the artistic freedom is maintained.

What are the other points?

The committee also made recommendations regarding the size of Board and its functioning. It also mentions that the chairman should only play the role of a guiding mechanism and not involve himself/herself in day to day activities of CFBC.

The size of the Board should be compact with one member representing each Regional Office. Therefore, the total composition of the Board should not be more than nine members and one Chairman, the report states.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

Follow this link:
What is Shyam Benegal Committee report on censorship? - The Indian Express

Government approval is required to display art in galleries, so some artists in Ho Chi Minh city are unleashing their expression on the streets for public viewing to bypass what they consider censorship.

Photo by: TRT World

Urban expansion and a development boom also threaten to reduce viable graffiti space.

Artists in Vietnam'sHo Chi Minh city have taken to street art, or graffiti, as the governmenttightens thenoose around what it deems controversialart.

In Vietnam, the government's approval is required before works of art can be displayed in galleries. But many times state censorship forces these artists to paint outside the lines.

AsTRT World'sSarah Jonesreports,artists are not giving up on expanding people's access toart.

Pence says "all options on table" with North Korea

US promises coordinated response to Taliban, Daesh in Afghanistan

North Korea fails missile launch as Pence lands in South Korea

Bangkok's street vendors are being forced off the streets

Death toll rises to 21 in Sri Lanka rubbish landslide

Eight suspects charged with murder of Pakistan university student

See more here:
Vietnam artists find solace in street graffiti amid state censorship ... - TRT World

Common Dreams

Censorship at the Border Threatens Free Speech Everywhere | By ... Common Dreams "The practice that the Trump administration is proposing to entrench and expand offends the First Amendment and the very idea of an open society, and it is a ... and more »

The rest is here:
Censorship at the Border Threatens Free Speech Everywhere | By ... - Common Dreams