Category Archives: Censorship

WASHINGTON, D.C. - After Lisa Correnti of the Center for Family and Human Rights and Grace Melton of the Heritage Foundation were appointed to the United States delegation for the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, radical LGBTQ groups sent a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson demanding they be removed because they do not support the extreme LGBTQ agenda. Incredibly, the Human Rights Campaign relies upon the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which recklessly labels any group that does not toe the LGBTQ line as a hate group.

The SPLC has been warned about its false, defamatory, and dangerous labeling of people and groups as haters or hate groups merely because it disagrees with them over marriage or LGBTQ issues. In 2012, Floyd Corkins attempted to commit mass murder of staff with the Family Research Council. The FRC security guard was able to stop Corkins and was shot in the process. Corkins confessed to the FBI that he was motivated by the SPLCs website and its so-called hate map. Watch the chilling video below.

The Center for Family and Human Rights and the Heritage Foundation are not hate groups. These organizations are both mainstream and thoughtful. Unlike the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Human Rights Campaign, they do not demean people with whom they disagree. To falsely label people with whom you disagree as haters or hate groups is irresponsible and dangerous, said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel C-Fam and the Heritage Foundation will come to the table genuinely seeking the best for women across the world. They are better qualified than their detractors because they are not fettered by blind adherence to the LGBTQ talking-points, Staver concluded.

See original here:
Left-wing Groups Attempt Censorship of UN Delegation - Canada Free Press

By Kathryn Foxhall

President Donald Trump has already labeled major media outlets the fake news media and the enemy of the people. His administration has blocked major news outlets from a briefing because it didnt like what they published.

With that in mind, the public should understand censorship by PIO at the federal level: For years, in many federal agencies, staff members have been prohibited from communicating with any journalist without notifying the authorities, usually the public information officers. And they often are unable to talk without PIO guards actively monitoring them.

Now, conversations will be approved or blocked by people appointed by the Trump administration, some of them political operatives.

The information about the administrative state that impacts our lives constantly is under these controls. They also cover much of the data through which we understand our world and our lives.

In January, according to the Washington Post: Trump called the governments job numbers phony. What happens now that he is in charge of them?

Some of us may feel less comfortable with Trump people controlling this information flow. But actually a surge in these controls has been building in the federal government and through the U.S. culture for two decades or more.

In many entities, public and private, federal, state, and local those in power decree that no one will talk to journalists without notifying the PIO. Congressional offices even have the restrictions.

They are convenient for bosses. Under that oversight staff people are unlikely to talk about all the stuff thats always there, outside of the official story.

Beyond that, PIOs often monitor the conversations and tell staff people what they may or may not discuss. Frequently agencies and offices delay contacts or block them altogether. An article on the Association of Health Care Journalists website, advising journalists about dealing with the Department of Health and Human Services, says, Reporters rarely get to interview administration officials

Remember, those HHS people journalists cant talk to are at the hub of information flow on what works and doesnt with Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid. Or they know whether there are other perspectives on the numbers the agency publishes. Not to speak of the understanding about food and drugs, infectious disease, and medical and health policy research. Many of them could quickly stun us with the education they could give, if they were not gagged.

Another fact that gives pause is these restraints are just for journalists. There are no special rules or offices to stop staff people from having fluid communication with lobbyists, special interest groups, contractors, people with a lot of money, etc.

Fifty-three journalism and open government groups wrote to President Obama asking him to lift the mandate that PIOs be notified of contacts and the related restrictions in federal agencies. We met with people in the White House in 2015 to leave that message for the president. A year ago we pleaded in an editorial that Obama not leave these constraints in place, given the authoritarian rhetoric on the campaign trail and the fact no one can know how these controls will be used in one year or 20 years.

We wonder how former Obama officials feel now about their medications, given that FDA officials cant talk without Trump controls.

But is it ever even rational to just believe staff people who are under such coercion?

Some journalists given our proclivity for believing we always get the story profess to not be concerned about the PIO controls, saying people on the inside will leak. But do we have any sense of how often that happens? Do we have a 75 percent perspective on an entire agency, or a 2 percent? No one leaked when EPA staff people knew that kids in Flint were drinking lead in water or when the CDC had sloppy practices in handling bad bugs.

Meantime, we have much more to worry about than just the gagged feds. In surveys sponsored by the Society of Professional Journalists, over half of political and general assignment reporters around the country said their interviews must be approved at least most of the time. Seventy-eight percent said the public is not getting the information it needs because of barriers imposed on reporting, and 73 percent said the controls are getting tighter.

Education and science reporters cited similar controls.

Perhaps most chillingly, 56 percent of police reporters said they can never or rarely interview police officers without involving a PIO.

Almost 80 percent of police PIOs said they felt it was necessary to supervise or otherwise monitor interviews with police officers. Asked why, some PIOs said things like: To ensure that the interviews stay within the parameters that we want.

However people in power characterize it, censorship is a moral monstrosity. It leaves people on the inside to control information with their own ideas and motivations. It debilitates all of us with a lack of understanding or, just as bad, skewed information. It takes away trust in our systems. It puts democracy itself in question.

Understandably in shock at President Trumps attacks on the press, some feel these PIO controls are not a primary priority. Actually, this era makes it clearer than ever why we dont need to leave these networks of controls to people in power.

Kathryn Foxhall, currently a freelance reporter, has written on health and health policy in Washington, D.C., for over 40 years, including 14 years as editor of the newspaper of the American Public Health Association. Email her at kfoxhall@verizon.net.

See original here:
Guest essay: PIO censorship in the era of Trump - Irondequoit Post

The Movie

Due to the lavish thrill of anticipation of the popular heroes of the Marvel universe all gathering on the big screen, the all through regular guys of the Sci-Fi Drama Chronicle, who just happen to find an extraterrestrial artifact without any customs and stuff and discover different abilities afterwards, are probably destined to drown at the box office. Considering that it's a low-budget movie that had only cost $12 million, the money made his money at the box office and s sequel, for which the grand finale of the movie offers much potential, is already in preparation.

In comparison to the genre blockbusters, Chronicle has its focus on the characters, their character backgrounds and how they finally manage to handle their abilities - and not the other way around: in a surprisingly realistic scenario, that fits to the story, the movie perfectly illustrates that supernatural powers don't make the people who a that powers a better person per se and neither does it necessarily lead to a nemesis on his way to world domination. Much more realistic are incidents looks fooling around, accidents that were just supposed to happen under the circumstances or using the abilities for your own good. Very fatal if an outsider without a social life would be one the people with abilities.

The movie cannot avoid stereotypes and clichs all the time but the screenplay can come up with good new ideas most of the times. The characters seem to be real, the handy cam look fits pretty well, too. Especially the finale is terrific because cell phone and surveillance cam shots have been added. At a first glance, the showdown looks kind of over the top but it's also consistent. Long story short, Chronicle is a pretty down-to-earth movie that raises questions. And from the technical POV, it's a good alternative to Marvel, DC, Dark Horse & Co. that should be at least considered by genre fans.

The Versions

There were differences in the Theatrical Version of Chronicle. In Germany for instance, the uncut Theatrical Version was rated FSK 12, despite its rather sinister atmosphere in the final sequence. The people in the UK on the other hand weren't that lucky. Due to the BBFC 12A rating, some bloody dental work from the distance and the most violent shots of the staking scene in the finale have either been completely removed or shortened. The DVD and BD releases in the UK are uncut. Quite interesting is the trailer that contains footage which didn't make it in the movie. Sure, that's not uncommon. But in this particular case, the scene in question is a nudity scene of half-naked Ashley Hinshaw. Could be a case of pre-censorship to get the PG-13 Rating in the US. Very soon, the Extended / Director's Cut has been announced for both the US and the UK which seemed to be a confirmation for that theory. As usual these days, the DC is only available on Blu-ray. Comparing the two versions, it turns out that the DC barely contains content recently removed for censorship reasons. Instead, a little bit of "anything" has been added to the DC: a few more scenes of the guys checking out or fooling around with their new abilities, a deeper relationship between Andrew & Steve and more. Especially Andrew is more present in the DC and the above-mentioned scene with sexy Ashley Hinshaw is also in the DC.

Technically, the Director's Cut isn't better than the Theatrical Version. The upcoming relation between Andrew & Steve makes the incident at the end of the second act more dramatic and some more laughs or the eye-catching scene with Ashley Hinshaw don't make the worse of course. But it's kind of redundant because the DC is neither better nor worse with the new footage. Bottom line: the DC is a nice gimmick for Blu-ray consumers but there's no reason for DVD consumers to hesitate. Not in this parrticular case. Chronicle is worth it either way.

The Director's Cut is 5 Min. 36 Sec. longer than the Theatrical Version.

11 extended scenes = 5 Min 36 Sec

19:20 Steve tells Andrew (more or less in return for his prior frankness about his dad) that his parents were having problems as well. They fight regularly and Steve assumes his mother was cheating. He asks Andrew to tell no one. 34 Sec

24:50 The restaurant scene is destinctly longer: while Matt is making a spoon fly and stir and the coffee in a mug, he talks about his original dream of becoming a cop. But now, he just wants to do good (a law-abiding citizen probably wonders whether or not that's what a cop regularly does). Andrew maliciously brings up the question whether Matt was aware that smoking weed isn't an option for cops. Then he makes a bit fun of his cousin's "charitable attitude". In return, the cousin lets the spoon drop on Andrew's camera linse on purpose. Steve starts to home in on him and asks if, somewhere between all his philosophical gibber-gabber, he had made the effort to even apply at a college and adds he was just lacking motivation. Then Matt says "And you lack of a dick" to Steve (too explicit for a PG-13). Then they're making some mean jokes of the waitress. At first, Andrew makes the image of Virgin Mary appear in the sirup on his plate and calls for the waitress. The apparently very religious waitress backs off after taking a peek at it. Subsequently, Matt moves the serving cart away from her while she intends to put a couple of plates on it without looking. Of course, the plates hit the ground and get smashed into pieces. The waitress reacts kind of disturbed and the guys are having a blast. 122 Sec

39:36 The guys are walking acros a street. It doesn't take long till Matt leaves because it's his mother's birthday. He's playing it the easy way by using his abilities: he just flies away. Andrew & Steve are thinking about what they could do. Andrew suggests to go into town but Steve explains it was rush hour now. Andrew replies that was the interesting part and Steve laughingly agrees. 28 Sec

42:17 Steve adds that he admires Andrews "skill" to come up with with all the things they could do with their abilities. Andrew seems kind of embarrassed. 14 Sec

42:38 Steve is a bit down when he tells Andrew that his mom was barely home and it wouldn't make any sense at to talk to his dad about it because he was just sitting around all day without saying anything about it. 15 Sec

43:12 While Steve is doing some kung-fu stuff at the edge of the rooftop, Andrew asks him if he'd ever been at the "Space Needle". Steve says he'd been there once when he was about 5 and adds it was more of a tourist spot. Andrew says he'd been there as with his dad when he was 7. But in comparison to Steve, he liked it there. Steve is confused and wants to know if Andrew can actually remember. Andrew is positive. 30 Sec

56:42 Known from the trailer: Matt points the camera a half-naked Casey who tries to retreat because of that. She throws a stuffed animal at him. 4 Sec

1:00:32 Andrew is at the "crime scene" to shoot from different distances and angles. In the end of the scene, he turns the cam and shoots himself. He's looking in the camera without any facial expression. 49 Sec

1:04:57 Andrew witnesses (and shoots) his dad getting in the car. Then the car leaves. 21 Sec

1:19:29 Andrew gets up and the cops give him hell. They're shooting as much bullets as possible in his direction. Thanks to his abilities, he stops the bullets and the cops finally cease fire. Another shot from a further distance show the bullets hitting the ground. 13 Sec

Follow this link:
Chronicle (Comparison: Theatrical Version - Movie-Censorship

Censorship by country collects information on censorship, Internet censorship, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of speech, and Human Rights by country and presents it in a sortable table, together with links to articles with more information. In addition to countries, the table includes information on former countries, disputed countries, political sub-units within countries, and regional organizations.

2015 Freedom of the Press Classifications[6]

NotFree

PartlyFree

Free

NoData

2014 Press Freedom Index[7]

Very serious situation

Difficult situation

Noticeable problems

Satisfactory situation

Good situation

Not classified / No data

Internet censorship and surveillance by country[3]

[4]

Pervasive

Substantial

Selective

Changing situation

Little or none

Not classified / No data

This article incorporatespublic domain material from the United States Department of State document "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices" by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. This article incorporates licensed material from the Country Profiles, Regional Overviews, and Filtering Maps sections of the OpenNet Initiative web site. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, see the lower right corner of pages at the OpenNet Initiative web site

Follow this link:
Censorship by country - Wikipedia

Arvida Bystrm is a 25-year-old Swedish artist, currently living in Los Angeles. She has a background in photography and modeling, and has appeared in andwritten for a wide variety of publications, including Dazed & Confused, NYLON and Lula Magazine.

Molly Soda, a 28-year-old from New York, is an artist working across a variety of digital platforms on the subjects of feminism. She was named byComplex Magazine as one of the most importantartists of 2013.

Together, they have about 230,000 followers on Instagram.

In 2015, Bystrm and Soda discovered they shared a mutual frustration: they both had a significant number ofInstagram posts taken down by the platform without explanation.Can we make a ceremony for all banned IGposts? Bystrm saidon Twitter backin September 2015, towhichSoda responded, We should make a book. Two years later, Pics or It Didnt Happenwas born, featuring hundreds ofphotographs that were once banned from Instagram, with some of the authors shots too.

Instagrams Guidelines prohibit violent, nude, partially nude, discriminatory,unlawful, infringing, hateful, pornographic, or sexually suggestive photos. Unsurprisingly, thesepolicies have been a source of tension and debate for many creatives who use the platform as a means of self-expression. So whenBystrm and Sodaputout an open call to submit censored images, the response was overwhelming.

We had to do a lot of sorting, Soda said, acknowledging that most submissions came from friends or friends of friends. However, the authors dont think any of the submissions were fake, and luckily didnt receive any absurdlyshocking ones either. So Bystrmand Soda selected pictures they thought lookeddifferent from other submissions, extraordinary in getting taken down, or just photos we thought were awesome and deserved some kind of platform. They also preferred photos taken with a cell phone and immediately uploaded, ones that capturedthe real vibe of Instagram.

The authors dont want their book to be seen as a book against censorship, nor as a book curatedby people who want to do whatever theyplease, or believe a society without moralswould be a better place. Its also not a how-to guide on feminism.Bystrmand Soda simply describe their publication as a collection of photostaken by people with a range of conflictingviews.

A debate about content moderationwho is doing it, and how does it happenwas one important motivation forthe book. Content moderators are supposed to act as arbiters of good taste and social norms,applying their own sensibilities to andthrough those of the platform. But how realistic (or subjective) is that? On another level, Bystrmand Soda want to getpeople thinking about todays digital and artistic culture.What gets removed from online, is what gets removed from history.Our minds eventually get shaped by what is allowed and what isnt, and then we subconsciously adapt to that. Even Instagrams layout us designed to make people think in certain ways! saidBystrm.

In a way, Bystrmand Soda feel Instagram and its guidelines reflect the mindset of todays society. Its a complicated issue, Soda admits, but it does say a lot about which bodies, what type of clothing or what kinds of posing are considered to be acceptable. Just likeInstagram, the world in general, especially with teens, also comes withvery vague guidelines,' Bystrm adds.

Do they think the guidelines are discriminatory toward women? Bystrm repeats its the world in general. Its sexualizing womens bodies. Its discriminating in a certain way, I guess.And Instagram is just trying to do what they think most people want, which might as well be censorship! But maybe this book will help the discussion about how bodies can or cant be shown.

When you look at most of the pictures with Instagramsguidelines in the back of your mind, youcan usually find a reason why most of the books pictures were taken down. But for some, its downright bizarre. Like@isaackariuki.jpg, for example (see below).The artist who took it told me it came with a caption that, for someone with Islamophobic thoughts, probably came across as violent, Soda and Bystrmexplain. But it wasnt. We could have used the same caption to talk about the internet or even as a title for this book, but because it was put under a woman in a hijab, someone chose to read it completely different.

That was the most bizarre example of a take-down. Most of the other ones, obviously, showed bodies, and could be interpreted, by some, as sexual. I think there are a few surprises, but I think that one is just the most controversial. Why? Because its really-really not sexual.

Instagram ultimately didnt really cooperate with the book, but that never wasBystrmand Sodas intention. I think certain people at Instagram definitely know that we made this book, but were not really interested in Instagrams reaction, Bystrm explains. Yeah, thats not the point, Soda adds. Also, who is Instagram? A lot of people see Instagram as this one persona that you cant really talk to. But Instagram actually has how many people working for them?

Pics or It Didnt Happen: Images Banned From Instagram, published by Prestel, came out in the UK as a hardcover on March 1 and will be available in the US April 27. You can pre-order it now via Amazon for $17.36, a 30% discount from the recommended retail price.

See the original post:
Exploring Modern Day Censorship Through Banned Instagram Photos (NSFW) - Resource Magazine

Disney said Wednesday it will not be cutting an exclusively gay moment fromBeauty and the Beast for its release in Malaysia, spurning a request from Malaysian authorities. That means the film most likely will not be seen in the majority Muslim country.

Malaysias Film Censorship Board had requested the studio remove at least four minutes fromthe live-action movie involving a homosexual character named LeFou, who has an unrequited gay crush on Gaston, the films villain.

The censors initially approved the films release in theaters following their submission for parts of the film to be cut, but Disneys refusal to comply with the request has held up its release, likely in perpetuum.

The chairman of Malaysiascensorship board, Abdul Halim Abdul Hamid initially said that he did not know why the films release was delayed, as they had already approved the movie for a P13 (which is equivalent to a PG-13 in the US) release after requesting the cut of the gay moment. Under the P13 rating, scenes promoting sexuality are forbidden.

We have approved it but there is a minor cut involving a gay moment. It is only one short scene but it is inappropriate because many children will be watching this movie, Abdul Halim said to the AP.

Beauty and the Beast first courted controversy after its director Bill Condon revealed last month thatLeFou is openly homosexual. Condon told Allure magazine that the LeFou / Gaston subplotcontainsan exclusively gay moment.

Disneys announcement follows our report of the films delay in Malaysia, where it was originally planned for screenings on March 16. Tickets sold by two of the nations largest cinema chains, TGV and Golden Screen Cinema, are being refunded to viewers.

Majority Muslim Malaysia is notorious for its censorship of films shown in theaters and on TV.Swear words and romantic sceneseven kissingare often cut. Since 2010, the country has relaxed its restrictions on sexual and religious content in films, allowing for the depiction of gay characters, provided their sexuality isnt celebrated. These rules are only actively enforced in theaters, and do not apply to online or optical media.

Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken media critic. You can reach him through social media at@stillgray on Twitterand onFacebook.

Visit link:
Disney Refuses to Censor 'Beauty and the Beast' 'Gay Moment' for Malaysia - Heat Street

Does Milo Yiannopoulos have a constitutional right to tweet?

Most Americans know they can speak their mind in the public square, thanks to the First Amendment. Speech on social media, however, can be censored because private companies own those cyber spaces.

But a recent Supreme Court oral argument suggests Twitter's practice of banning controversial right-wing pundits could be deemed illegal.

During a Feb. 27 hearing involving the constitutionality of a state social media law, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that Twitter and Facebook had become, and even surpassed, the public square as a place for discussion and debate.

"Their utility and the extent of their coverage are greater than the communication you could have ever had, even in the paradigm of public square," he said while hearing arguments in Packingham v. North Carolina.

A majority of justices agreed. "The president now uses Twitter everybody uses Twitter," observed Justice Elena Kagan. "All 50 governors, all 100 senators, every member of the House has a Twitter account. So this has become a crucially important channel of political communication."

Although justices' comments pertained to whether North Carolina may bar registered sex offenders from using social media, the case could herald a broader expansion of digital liberties by a court that's often mocked for being behind the times.

While there may be a free speech issue when a state government bans individuals from using social media, it would seem that there is no such issue when Twitter does the same because the First Amendment applies only to government actors.

However, the justices' shockingly forward-looking views open a potential game-changing loophole.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Two months after his nomination, a confirmation hearing hasn't even been announced.

03/17/17 12:01 AM

Long ago, the high court established that state constitutions may provide more protection than the U.S. Constitution when it comes to free speech, including the extension of rights to privately-owned spaces.

In 1980, in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a California Supreme Court decision recognizing that California's Constitution protected the right of high school students to gather signatures at a privately-owned shopping center for a petition objecting to a United Nations resolution that said Zionism was a form of racism.

Driving the California court's reasoning was a concern that traditional public squares the old "Main Street" were giving way to privately-owned businesses. Consequently, the speech rights that Californians enjoyed in these public Main Street spaces would greatly diminish if a town's center of gravity shifted to a mall and its owners were able to restrict speech because it's on private property.

In the 40 years since that landmark ruling, social media has become society's modern day public square. Think about it: If I were in the shoes of those California students today and wanted to maximize the number of signatures I got for such a petition, I'd first put it online, and then I'd tweet it to various pro-Israel politicians, celebrities and others with a large number of followers who could easily retweet it and thereby broadcast it to millions of people.

During the Supreme Court's recent hearing on North Carolina's law, justices acknowledged this shift.

Also from the Washington Examiner

The White House's budget gets the federal government to focus on what it can do better than anyone else.

03/17/17 12:01 AM

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said restricting social media access is dangerous because "these people are being cut off from a very large part of the marketplace of ideas. And the First Amendment includes not only the right to speak, but the right to receive information."

Kagan agreed. "Whether it's political community, whether it's religious community these sites have become embedded in our culture as ways to communicate and ways to exercise our constitutional rights," she said. "How many people under 30 do you think don't use these sites to get all their information? Under 35? I mean, increasingly, this is the way people get everything, all information."

Justice Samuel Alito added: "I know there are people who think that life is not possible without Twitter and Facebook."

To be clear, the justices' discussion concerned a very different issue than the one raised by Pruneyard. But their comments indicate a majority might be open to expanding the definition of what constitutes a public forum where people are free to speak their minds.

And, given that many of the most popular social networks are headquartered in and physically exist on server space located in California, it could be argued that the Pruneyard precedent should apply. If a shopping center, with its piddling 25,000 visitors per day can't restrict political speech, then Twitter and Facebook, with their hundreds of millions of daily visitors, shouldn't be able to either.

Like the mall's owner, social media companies surely won't stop infringing on their visitors' speech rights without a fight. But if Twitter continues down its censorious path, it might find itself in court and lose.

Mark Grabowski is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is an internet law professor at Adelphi University in Garden City, N.Y.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Read this article:
Twitter's censorship may be unconstitutional - Washington Examiner

Independence isnt on trial here, democracy is on trial, said Mas, outside the courthouse in February before his trial began. Indeed, this clampdown should concern any democrat. The majority of MPs in the Catalan parliament support independence, and while Mass pseudo-referendum cannot be treated as an impartial democratic exercise, it did reveal that a significant proportion of Catalans (81 per cent, in his referendum) support independence.

The shaky distinction made by the government seems to be that while people on the streets should be free to argue and campaign for independence, politicians are different. If people on the streets can talk about independence, why should deputies not be able to?, asked Carme Forcadell, speaker of the Catalan assembly, at the Catalonia Superior Court of Justice last year. Shes right. How can Catalonias politicians be representatives if they cannot debate Catalonias most talked-about political issue?

This is all part of a wider clampdown on dissident political views, on both left and right, in Spain. Last year, five members of Popular Unity Candidacy, a fringe left-wing Catalan party, were arrested for burning images of Spains King Felipe VI. Only two weeks ago, Madrid City Council banned a Catholic group from driving a bus through Madrid adorned with the slogan Boys have penises, girls have vulvas. Do not be fooled. It was deemed to be transphobic.

While the Scottish and Catalan independence movements share some common features, the climates in which they operate are very different. The SNP operates within a climate conducive to debate. In 2014, Scotland was allowed to hold a referendum. In the same year, Catalonia wasnt even allowed to hold a fake referendum. If the Spanish government wants to defeat the Catalans, they should do so through public debate, not shady political censorship.

Jacob Furedi is a spiked columnist. Follow him on Twitter: @jacobfuredi

Picture by: Getty

For permission to republish spiked articles, please contact Viv Regan.

Read more:
Censorship in Catalonia - Spiked

Photo-sharing website Pinterest is now inaccessible in mainland China,according to censorship watchdog websites greatfirewallofchina.org and blockedinchina.net.

Watchdog greatfire.orgreported that the San Francisco-headquartered website has been inaccessible in the mainland since last Thursday.

Users of Chinese social media platform Weibo expressed shock and disappointment.

Mainland designers like us now have one less way of surviving, wrote Weibo user Odbdhd.

I used to joke that having Pinterest meant having the entire world, wrote Weibo user Luyingsang. Today I found that I couldnt use Pinterest anymore!

Pinterest follows a long line of international social media websites, such as Facebook and Twitter, to be blocked by Chinas Great Firewall, which refers to theCommunist Partys technological and legislative efforts to regulate the internet.

Websites of Hong Kong and international media outlets including HKFP have been blocked, as well as social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

Comments

See the original post here:
Photo-sharing website Pinterest blocked in China, according to censorship watchdogs - Hong Kong Free Press

The March 9 edition of the Gazette-Times included a letter to the editor under the headline "Censorship Simply Doesn't Work." The author, John Larsen of Corvallis, compared Sean Spicer to Joseph Goebbels and seems to say that Spicer believes what he is required to say in those press conferences.

Spicer is not a minister of propaganda; he is employed as a spokesman for our delusional president and must try to twist Trump's wild statements into more reasonable language. His performance is painful to watch. The worst I can say about him is that he lacks personal honor.

Mr. Larsen closes his letter with a statement that censorship did not work for Hitler. Of course it did! The enthusiastic support given by the German people to the Nazis during the 1930s was certainly affected by pro-Hitler propaganda and the absence of dissent. We must guard against censorship because it IS effective.

See more here:
Letter: When censorship is effective - Corvallis Gazette Times