Category Archives: Censorship

In general, censorship in India, which involves the suppression of speech or other public communication, raises issues of freedom of speech, which is protected by the Indian constitution.

The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of expression but places certain restrictions on content, with a view towards maintaining communal and religious harmony, given the history of communal tension in the nation.[1] According to the Information Technology Rules 2011, objectionable content includes anything that threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order".[2]

In 2017, the Freedom in the World report by Freedom House gave India a freedom rating of 2.5, a civil liberties rating of 3, and a political rights rating of 2, earning it the designation of free. The rating scale runs from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free).[3] Analysts from Reporters Without Borders rank India 133rd in the world in their 2016 Press Freedom Index,[4] In 2016, the report Freedom of the Press by Freedom House gave India a press freedom rating of "Partly Free", with a Press Freedom Score of 41 (0-100 scale, lower is better).[5]

Watching or possessing pornographic materials is apparently legal, however distribution of such materials is strictly banned.[6] The Central Board of Film Certification allows release of certain films with sexual content (labelled A-rated), which are to be shown only in restricted spaces and to be viewed only by people of age 18 and above.[7] India's public television broadcaster, Doordarshan, has aired these films at late-night timeslots.[8]Films, television shows and music videos are prone to scene cuts or even bans, however if any literature is banned, it is not usually for pornographic reasons. Pornographic magazines are technically illegal, but many softcore Indian publications are available through many news vendors, who often stock them at the bottom of a stack of non-pornographic magazines, and make them available on request. Most non-Indian publications (including Playboy) are usually harder to find, whether softcore or hardcore. Mailing pornographic magazines to India from a country where they are legal is also illegal in India. In practice, the magazines are almost always confiscated by Customs and entered as evidence of law-breaking, which then undergoes detailed scrutiny.

The Official Secrets Act 1923 is used for the protection of official information, mainly related to national security.[9]

The Indian Press currently enjoys extensive freedom. The Freedom Of Speech, mandated by the constitution guarantees and safeguards the freedom of press. However, the freedom of press was not always as robust as today.[citation needed] In 1975, the Indira Gandhi government imposed censorship of press during The Emergency. It was removed at the end of emergency rule in March 1977.[10] On 26 June 1975, the day after the emergency was imposed, the Bombay edition of The Times of India in its obituary column carried an entry that read, "D.E.M O'Cracy beloved husband of T.Ruth, father of L.I.Bertie, brother of Faith, Hope and Justica expired on 26 June".[11] In 1988 defamation bill introduced by Rajiv Gandhi but it was later withdrawn due to strong opposition to it .[12]

On 2 October 2016 (see: 2016 Kashmir unrest) the Srinagar-based Kashmiri newspaper, Kashmir Reader was asked to stop production by the Jammu and Kashmir government. The ban order, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Srinagar Farooq Ahmad Lone cited that the reason for this was that the newspaper contains material and content which tends to incite acts of violence and disturb public peace and tranquility[13] The ban came after weeks of unrest in the Kashmir valley, following the killing of the militant Burhan Wani. Journalists have decried this as a clampdown on freedom of expression and democracy in Kashmir, as a part of the massive media censorship of the unrest undertaken by the central government. Working journalists protested the ban by marching to the Directorate of Information and Public Relations while the Kashmir Editors Guild (KEG) held an emergency meeting in Srinagar, thereafter asking the government to revoke the ban immediately, and asking for the intervention of the Press Council of India.[13] The move has been criticised by a variety of individuals, academic and civil groups in Kashmir and international rights groups, such as Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), Kashmir Economic Alliance (KEA), the Kashmir Center for Social and Developmental Studies (KCSDS) and Amnesty International, among others. Most of the major Kashmiri dailies have also rallied behind the KR, while claiming that the move represented a political vendetta against the newspaper for reporting events in the unrest as they happened on the ground. Hurriyat leaders, known to champion the cause of Kashmiri independence, also recorded their protests against the banning of the newspaper. Amnesty International released a statement saying that "the government has a duty to respect the freedom of the press, and the right of people to receive information,"[14] while criticising the government for shutting down a newspaper for opposing it. The journalists associated with the paper allege that, contrary to the claims of the J&K government, they had not been issued a notice or warning, and had been asked to stop production suddenly, which was only one manifestation of the wider media gag on Kashmir. Previously, the state government had banned newspapers for a few days in July, calling the move a temporary measure to address an extra-ordinary situation,[13] only to deflect the blame onto the police upon facing tremendous backlash, and thereafter asking the presses to resume publication. As of October 5, 2016, the ban has not been revoked and local journalists continue to protest against what they see as a breach of the freedom of the press and freedom of speech in Kashmir, with no official meeting forthcoming with government functionaries.

The Supreme Court while delivering judgement in Sportsworld case in 2014 held that "A picture of a nude/semi-nude woman... cannot per se be called obscene".[12]

The Central Board of Film Certification, the regulatory film body of India, regularly orders directors to remove anything it deems offensive, including sex, nudity, violence or subjects considered politically subversive.[15]

According to the Supreme Court of India:[16]

In 2002, the film War and Peace, depicting scenes of nuclear testing and the September 11, 2001 attacks, created by Anand Patwardhan, was asked to make 21 cuts before it was allowed to have the certificate for release.[17][18] Patwardhan objected, saying "The cuts that they asked for are so ridiculous that they won't hold up in court" and "But if these cuts do make it, it will be the end of freedom of expression in the Indian media." The court decreed the cuts unconstitutional and the film was shown uncut.

In 2002, the Indian filmmaker and former chief of the country's film censor board, Vijay Anand, kicked up a controversy with a proposal to legalise the exhibition of X-rated films in selected cinemas across the country, saying "Porn is shown everywhere in India clandestinely ... and the best way to fight this onslaught of blue movies is to show them openly in theatres with legally authorised licences".[15] He resigned within a year after taking charge of the censor board after facing widespread criticism of his moves.[19]

In 2003, the Indian Censor Board banned the film Gulabi Aaina (The Pink Mirror), a film on Indian transsexuals produced and directed by Sridhar Rangayan. The censor board cited that the film was "vulgar and offensive". The filmmaker appealed twice again unsuccessfully. The film still remains banned in India, but has screened at numerous festivals all over the world and won awards. The critics have applauded it for its "sensitive and touching portrayal of marginalised community".[20][21][22]

In 2004, the documentary Final Solution, which looks at religious rioting between Hindus and Muslims, was banned.[23][24] The film follows 2002 clashes in the western state of Gujarat, which left more than 1,000 people dead. The censor board justified the ban, saying it was "highly provocative and may trigger off unrest and communal violence". The ban was lifted in October 2004 after a sustained campaign.[25]

In 2006, seven states (Nagaland, Punjab, Goa, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh) have banned the release or exhibition of the Hollywood movie The Da Vinci Code (and also the book),[26] although India's Central Board of Film Certification cleared the film for adult viewing throughout India.[27] However, the respective high courts lifted the ban and the movie was shown in the two states.

In 2013, Kamal Haasan's "Vishwaroopam" was banned from the screening for a period of two weeks in Tamil Nadu.[12]

The Central Board of Film Certification demanded five cuts from the 2011 American film The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo because of some scenes containing rape and nudity. The producers and the director David Fincher finally decided not to release the film in India.[28]

In 2015, the Central Board of Film Certification demanded four cuts (three visual and one audio) from the art-house Malayalam feature film Chaayam Poosiya Veedu (The Painted House) directed by brothers Santosh Babusenan and Satish Babusenan because the film contained scenes where the female lead was shown in the nude. The directors refused to make any changes whatsoever to the film and hence the film was denied a certificate.[29][30][31][32][33]

In 2016, the film Udta Punjab, produced by Anurag Kashyap and Ekta Kapoor among others, ran into trouble with the Central Board of Film Certification, resulting in a very public re-examination of the ethics of film censorship in India. The film, which depicted a structural drug problem in the state of Punjab, used a lot of expletives and showed scenes of drug use. The CBFC, on 9 June 2016, released a list of 94 cuts and 13 pointers, including the deletion of names of cities in Punjab. On 13 June 2016, Udta Punjab was cleared by the Bombay High Court with one cut and disclaimers. The court ruled that, contrary to the claims of the CBFC, the film was not out to "malign" the state of Punjab, and that it wants to save people[34] Thereafter, the film was faced with further controversy when a print of it was leaked online on a torrent site. The quality of the copy, along with the fact that there was supposedly a watermark that said "censor" on top of the screen, raised suspicions that the board itself had leaked the copy to spite the filmmakers. It also contained the only scene that had been cut according to the High Court order. While the censor board claimed innocence,[35] the lingering suspicions resulted in a tense release, with the filmmakers and countless freedom of expression advocates taking to social media to appeal to the public to watch the film in theatres, as a conscious challenge against excessive censorship on art in India. Kashyap himself asked viewers to wait till the film released before they downloaded it for free, stating that he didn't have a problem with illegal downloads,[36] an unusual thing for a film producer to say. The film eventually released and grossed over $13 million[37] finishing as a commercial success.

Heavy metal band Slayer's 2006 album Christ Illusion was banned in India after Catholic churches in the country took offence to the artwork of the album and a few song titles and launched a protest against it. The album was taken off shelves and the remaining catalog was burnt by EMI Music India.[38]

In 1999, Maharashtra government banned the Marathi play Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy or I, Nathuram Godse, Am Speaking[39] The Notification was challenged before the Bombay High Court, and the High Court Bench consisting of B. P. Singh (Chief Justice), S. Radhakrishnan, and Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud allowed the writ petition and declared the notification to be ultra vires and illegal, thus rescinding the ban.

In 2004, Eve Ensler's The Vagina Monologues was banned in Chennai. The play however, has played successfully in many other parts of the country since 2003. A Hindi version of the play has been performing since 2007.

In 1961, it was criminalised in India to question the territorial integrity of frontiers of India in a manner which is, or is likely to be, prejudicial to the interests of the safety or security of India.[40]

Freedom House's Freedom on the Net 2015 report gives India a Freedom on the Net Status of "Partly Free" with a rating of 40 (scale from 0 to 100, lower is better). Its Obstacles to Access was rated 12 (0-25 scale), Limits on Content was rated 10 (0-35 scale) and Violations of User Rights was rated 18 (0-40 scale).[56] India was ranked 29th out of the 65 countries included in the 2015 report.[57]

The India country report that is included in the Freedom on the Net 2012 report, says:[58]

India is classified as engaged in "selective" Internet filtering in the conflict/security and Internet tools areas and as showing "no evidence" of filtering in the political and social areas by the OpenNet Initiative in May 2007.[59] ONI states that:

As a stable democracy with strong protections for press freedom, Indias experiments with Internet filtering have been brought into the fold of public discourse. The selective censorship of Web sites and blogs since 2003, made even more disjointed by the non-uniform responses of Internet service providers (ISPs), has inspired a clamour of opposition. Clearly government regulation and implementation of filtering are still evolving. Amidst widespread speculation in the media and blogosphere about the state of filtering in India, the sites actually blocked indicate that while the filtering system in place yields inconsistent results, it nevertheless continues to be aligned with and driven by government efforts. Government attempts at filtering have not been entirely effective, as blocked content has quickly migrated to other Web sites and users have found ways to circumvent filtering. The government has also been criticised for a poor understanding of the technical feasibility of censorship and for haphazardly choosing which Web sites to block. The amended IT Act, absolving intermediaries from being responsible for third-party created content, could signal stronger government monitoring in the future.[59]

A "Transparency Report" from Google indicates that the Government of India initiated 67 content removal requests between July and December 2010.[60]

Here is the original post:
Censorship in India - Wikipedia

Video live-streamed on Facebook in June showed the action that precedes a shooting, as well as the aftermath.

Facebook Live gives people an easy way to broadcast live video, but it has also reportedly given Facebook a real live headache: how to decide when to censor video depicting violent acts.

In the year since its launch, the feature has been used to broadcast at least 50 acts of violence, according to the Wall Street Journal, including murder, suicides and a beating of a special-needs teenager in Chicago earlier this year. One of the problems is that Facebook "didn't grasp the gravity of the medium" during the planning process for the feature, an unidentified source told the newspaper.

Facebook Live, which lets anyone with a phone and internet connection live-stream video directly to Facebook's 1.8 billion users, has become a centerpiece feature for the social network. In the past few months, everyone from Hamilton cast members to the Donald Trump campaign has turned to Facebook to broadcast in real time.

"Soon, we believe a camera will be the main way to share," instead of the traditional text box, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said during an earnings conference call last November. "We think its pretty clear video is only going to become more important."

But the focus on video has prompted some tough philosophical questions, like what Facebook should and shouldn't show.

In July, a Minnesota woman named Diamond Reynolds used the service to live-stream her fiance Philando Castile after he was shot by police. The next day, Facebook Live captured the scene as five Dallas police officers were gunned down during a peaceful demonstration.

Both the Castile and Dallas videos were initially streamed unedited and uncensored. The Castile video temporarily disappeared from the social network because of a "technical glitch," according to Facebook. It was restored later with a warning about its graphic nature.

Zuckerberg addressed this issue last month in an open letter to the Facebook community, conceding that errors in judgment were made.

"In the last year, the complexity of the issues we've seen has outstripped our existing processes for governing the community," he wrote, referencing how some newsworthy videos were handled.

Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Solving for XX: The industry seeks to overcome outdated ideas about "women in tech."

Virtual reality 101: CNET tells you everything you need to know about what VR is and how it'll affect your life.

Follow this link:
Violence on Facebook Live presents censorship dilemma - CNET - CNET

Mona Shaikh performing at the Laugh Factory Courtesy of Mona Shaikh

Shaikh was 8 years old when she knew she wanted to become a performer after watching Indian actress Madhuri Dixit.

"You can literally have the world on your finger, spinning, because of so much charisma and charm and funny that you bring to the table, and I just loved her," Shaikh said.

She was 15 when she narrowed her interest to stand-up comedy, the same year she immigrated to the United States from Pakistan with her parents and four older brothers.

Shaikh spent much of her youth in Pakistan alone because her mother was frequently in America to get treatment for two of her brothers who suffered from polio. She credits her early life as having contributed to the foundation she needed to become an artist and to the perspectives she shares through comedy.

"I think it really kicked off my imagination and it just gave me this opportunity to dream and think what would it be like to be a performer. To travel the world, to connect with so many people who don't share the same background as you, but to bring these people together and convey to them artistically?" she said. "I think it really fed the artist that needed to be fed as a kid."

Although Shaikh knew early on what she wanted to do with her life, she didn't share her dreams with her family until she was 18. They didn't support her, Shaikh said, and she was given an ultimatum of either studying physical therapy or being sent back to Pakistan to get married.

She rejected both options, moved to New York, dropped out of college and invested her money into acting classes with no backup plan.

"Here's the thing: if you don't burn your boats, you never know what you're capable of," she said. "With a backup plan, you're not going to give it your all because at the back of your mind, you always think you can always go back to that other life. I didn't want to do that. I burned my boats and it's not easy, but it's working out."

Since then, Shaikh has become the first Pakistani female comedian selected for the Laugh Factory's Funniest Person in the World Competition and to headline Hollywood Improv. In 2015, she launched a diverse comedy show called Minority Reportz, which features a diverse slate of comedians.

Across Los Angeles, she has performed at multiple venues, including The Ice House in Pasadena and Flappers Comedy Club in Burbank.

With the recent presidential election, Shaikh has incorporated current political events into her set and has been vocal about her dislike of President Donald Trump. As a Muslim, she joked that she's OK with the Muslim registry Trump had proposed, but that she would have her rear end photographed for it.

Despite the fact that politics can be a sensitive subject, Shaikh said having lived in Pakistan is why she includes the topic in her routines.

"I grew up in a politically unstable country so politics is weaved into my fabric," she said. "I can't be an artist now and not talk about things that impact people."

But Shaikh isn't always able to include that subject in her shows. During a set in Dubai, she was censored from discussing human rights violations or criticizing the government of Saudi Arabia, which is an ally of the United Arab Emirates, she said. Had she violated that instruction, she was told she would have been banned from going back to the country.

While she wasn't able to make those jokes live, Shaikh has taken to YouTube to poke fun at how women in Saudi Arabia aren't allowed to drive and how some Muslims imams have sanctioned domestic violence. In one clip, she jokes about how Pakistani men are obsessed with virgins because they don't like criticism. Shaikh's material has earned her the nickname

Sometime in 2012 or 2013, Shaikh said she was notified via email by her fans that her website website had been banned in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Last year, she received an email from YouTube saying her channel had been banned in the two countries, she said.

Shaikh said she has even received death threats via email, but said she isn't fazed and hasn't been deterred from continually bringing up those topics.

"They don't like the fact that I talk about these things, but when I see my fellow Pakistani sisters being physically assaulted or murdered by their own family for honor killings and such backward cultural things, how do you as a human being not speak up against that, especially as an artist? Especially if you have a platform?" she said.

"If the Pakistani government doesn't like it, maybe they can start changing their laws and start treating minorities, women, transgender and gay people with some more love and respect," she added.

Shaikh noted that either way, some people will take offense to her content and disagree with it, so she would rather talk about things that matter.

"I've seen when people don't speak up and they don't provide resistance against tyrants or evildoers," she said. "There's a big price to pay for that, and I think artistically and as a human, I try to be on the right side of history. I guess there's a price for that, too."

Through comedy, Shaikh says she hopes to do for audiences what two of her role models, comedians George Carlin and Chris Rock, did for theirs.

"What they did for people is they made them think," she said. "That's my goal."

Follow NBC Asian America on

Read more:
Death Threats and Censorship Can't Stop 'Naughty Muslim' Comic Mona Shaikh - NBCNews.com

PHOENIX A House panel voted 10-1 Monday to protect student journalists despite objections by one lawmaker who feared giving too much power to children.

SB 1384 would limit the ability of administrators to censor university, community college and public school papers. About the only time they could block publication would be in cases of libel, unwarranted invasions of privacy, violations of law of where there is imminent danger of inciting students or disruption of operations.

And that prior restraint would be allowed only for public school papers.

Members of the House Education Committee heard from a parade of high school journalists who cited their own experiences having stories edited or quashed by administrators. That included Henry Gorton at Sunnyslope High School who said he was barred from reporting the views of Trump supporters about issues of illegal immigration amid concerns that undocumented students would feel threatened.

Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, told Gorton that story might actually gain him support at the Republican-controlled legislature.

But Rep. David Stringer, R-Prescott, called the legislation well intentioned but also flawed.

Stringer indicated he had no real problem with providing protections for college journalists. But this bill, he said, goes too far.

I think it's a big mistake to include high schools and student newspapers in high schools with colleges and universities, he said. There's a very, very fundamental difference between high schools which are full of children, which are full of minors, and colleges and universities where we're dealing with adults.

And Stringer specifically objected to a provision to protect faculty advisers from administrative retaliation solely for either protecting student journalists from exercising their rights in the legislation or refusing to infringe on conduct that is constitutionally protected.

I can see the need to protect students, to allow students to have freedom of speech, he told Sen. Kimberly Yee, R-Phoenix, the sponsor of the legislation.

But I think it's pretty common knowledge that in many of our schools there's a strong liberal bias, Stringer continued. And I can foresee the unintended consequence of protecting faculty members who are influencing the students, or perhaps expressing their own views and biases, using public resources to propagandize their own liberal views through what purport to be student publications.

Stringer was not dissuaded by Lori Hart, a faculty adviser at Cactus Shadows High School in Cave Creek, who argued such protections are necessary.

Advisers do get fired from teaching at the school if they go ahead and publish something that is not approved by the school, she said.

Hart said it's possible that if students get additional legal protections it might not be necessary to extend some sort of employment immunity to their advisers. But she told Stringer that's not the case now.

I just know that right now teachers need that protection, Hart said.

This is actually the second time Yee has advanced such legislation. The first time was in 1992 as a high school student journalist who came to the Capitol to seek protections after she said her own work at Greenway High School was being censored.

She got the bill through the Senate only to have it die in the House. Yee told colleagues she did not realize that until last year.

Yee, like Hart, defended the protection for faculty members.

They, too, receive intimidation from their school district administrators who tell them, 'Don't print the story, she said.

And they fight against that because they're protecting the student, Yee said. They're saying, 'The story is a valid story, it's got both sides of the issue, it's black and white, it's appropriate to go to print.

Stringer warned Gorton there's a potential downside in getting the freedom he and other students seek: Administration simply shutters the paper.

You do see the risk that if we statutorily guarantee you, to high school students, adolescents, this blanket kind of immunity and free speech protection that it could be totally self-defeating and have very unintended consequences that you basically lose your forum for expressing any opinions or journalistic ideas, Stringer said.

Gorton, however, was undeterred. He said if administration controls the content, the paper is no longer a forum for students.

Under censorship, it's not a forum but an echo chamber that's more propaganda and more a newsletter rather than a newspaper, something that only advances the interests of our administrators, he said.

Rep. Michelle Udall, R-Mesa, said she was concerned that the legislation did not specifically allow administrators to keep profanity and nudity out of papers. But David Cullier, dean of the journalism school at the University of Arizona, said there are court cases which already give public school administrators the right to prevent publication of such items.

The measure, which already has gained unanimous Senate approval, now needs a vote of the full House.

Originally posted here:
Students journalists gain protection against censorship - Arizona Daily Sun

To the list of what can get you censored on a university campus we can now add talking about censorship.

The University of Lincoln Students Union has suspended its student conservative societys social-media accounts until 1 May over allegations of bring[ing] the University of Lincoln Students Union and the University of Lincoln into disrepute.

According to a statement from the society, this was due to an anonymous complaint over two tweets. The first, in relation to freedom of speech, linking an article from spiked, and the second was in relation to an SU questionnaire that had to be completed before voting in recent SU elections.

After reading spikeds Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR), the society decided to publicise the fact that Lincoln Students Union had received a Red ranking. Screenshots of the offending tweet, seen by spiked, show a picture of Lincolns ranking page, alongside emojis with their mouths zipped shut.

Another student conservative society, the Hull University Conservative Association, flagged up the alleged censorship of the Lincoln society on its Facebook page. At time of publishing, Lincolns SU has not issued a statement, or responded to spikeds requests for comment.

More here:
A student society has been censored for talking about censorship - Spiked

Facebook logos pictured on the screens of a smartphone and a laptop computer. (JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP/Getty Images)

By Ese Olumhense

A careful approach to fake news

As part of its ongoing effort to curb the spread of misleading or completely fabricated news articles on its platform, Facebook launched a tool Friday to flag links shared from fake news sites, cautioning readers that the material shared has been disputed by non-partisan fact-checking sites.

Though the feature isnt yet available to everyone, according to the social media giants Help page, its the latest step in their war on fake news.

Facebook incurred the wrath of users frustrated by the many hoax news stories surrounding the 2016 election. Bending to pressure, the site announced in late 2016 a series of initiatives that it would take to deal with its fake news problem.

We believe in giving people a voice and that we cannot become arbiters of truth ourselves, so were approaching this problem carefully, said VP of Product for News Feed at Facebook, Adam Mosseri, in a December blog post.

As part of this careful approach, Facebook says that it will work with independent fact-checkers to identify fake news stories, which would then be flagged. These flagged posts would be deprioritized in news feeds, and if a user tries to share a flagged story, theyll see a warning cautioning that the story had been disputed. Flagged stories cannot be promoted or turned into advertisements.

Its unclear whether the mechanism outlined in December is the one in place now, or if other features have been included.

How lies and exaggerations spread on Facebook

Though it isnt a news site, 66 percent of Facebooks users rely on the platform to access news, a 2016 study found. This is up from 47 percent in 2013.

Considering the massive reliance on the social network for news, it became a lightning rod for 2016 election news.

But it soon emerged that some of the news appearing in Facebook feeds was misleading, or flat-out fake. Seeing an opportunity to capitalize on the interest in the presidential election, predatory publishers drove significant traffic to their sites with fake articles on anything from Democratic candidate Hillary Clintons supposed ill health to rumors that now-President Donald Trumps tax returns had leaked. At times, the misinformation campaigns bordered on dangerous, as fake stories teasing civil war or threatening riots if a particular candidate won or lost became more and more popular.

After the election, some journalists blamed Facebook for Trumps eventual election, claiming that its lucrative advertising prospects helped malicious actors sway popular opinion, even when those actors lived outside the United States.

Fight over fake news continues

Fake news did not stop after Trumps historic upset. In fact, it became a major talking point for Americans on either side of the political spectrum, weaponized to discredit and delegitimize news pieces that dont adhere to either sides agenda.

While Facebooks latest effort is certainly appreciated by some news consumers, others are skeptical, believing that the companys actions amount to arbitrary and unjustifiable censorship.

Who are these people that will be deciding what is relevant and what is not to the largest social media site in the world? asked Mickey White, conservative commentator and critic in December. The source of information for over half the country. We dont know that [they] have any qualifications outside of their own individual bias.

Facebook has enlisted fact-checking organizations like Politifact and Snopes to help monitor stories flagged as fake. The sites are part of a network of fact-checking organizations coordinated by the Poynter Institute. Members of the group must apply and be vetted by a team at Poynter, and agree to a set of principles including transparency and nonpartisanship.

Link:
Facebook launches tool to fight fake news but is it censorship? - New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV

Facebook logos pictured on the screens of a smartphone and a laptop computer. (JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP/Getty Images)

By Ese Olumhense

A careful approach to fake news

As part of its ongoing effort to curb the spread of misleading or completely fabricated news articles on its platform, Facebook launched a tool Friday to flag links shared from fake news sites, cautioning readers that the material shared has been disputed by non-partisan fact-checking sites.

Though the feature isnt yet available to everyone, according to the social media giants Help page, its the latest step in their war on fake news.

Facebook incurred the wrath of users frustrated by the many hoax news stories surrounding the 2016 election. Bending to pressure, the site announced in late 2016 a series of initiatives that it would take to deal with its fake news problem.

We believe in giving people a voice and that we cannot become arbiters of truth ourselves, so were approaching this problem carefully, said VP of Product for News Feed at Facebook, Adam Mosseri, in a December blog post.

As part of this careful approach, Facebook says that it will work with independent fact-checkers to identify fake news stories, which would then be flagged. These flagged posts would be deprioritized in news feeds, and if a user tries to share a flagged story, theyll see a warning cautioning that the story had been disputed. Flagged stories cannot be promoted or turned into advertisements.

Its unclear whether the mechanism outlined in December is the one in place now, or if other features have been included.

How lies and exaggerations spread on Facebook

Though it isnt a news site, 66 percent of Facebooks users rely on the platform to access news, a 2016 study found. This is up from 47 percent in 2013.

Considering the massive reliance on the social network for news, it became a lightning rod for 2016 election news.

But it soon emerged that some of the news appearing in Facebook feeds was misleading, or flat-out fake. Seeing an opportunity to capitalize on the interest in the presidential election, predatory publishers drove significant traffic to their sites with fake articles on anything from Democratic candidate Hillary Clintons supposed ill health to rumors that now-President Donald Trumps tax returns had leaked. At times, the misinformation campaigns bordered on dangerous, as fake stories teasing civil war or threatening riots if a particular candidate won or lost became more and more popular.

After the election, some journalists blamed Facebook for Trumps eventual election, claiming that its lucrative advertising prospects helped malicious actors sway popular opinion, even when those actors lived outside the United States.

Fight over fake news continues

Fake news did not stop after Trumps historic upset. In fact, it became a major talking point for Americans on either side of the political spectrum, weaponized to discredit and delegitimize news pieces that dont adhere to either sides agenda.

While Facebooks latest effort is certainly appreciated by some news consumers, others are skeptical, believing that the companys actions amount to arbitrary and unjustifiable censorship.

Who are these people that will be deciding what is relevant and what is not to the largest social media site in the world? asked Mickey White, conservative commentator and critic in December. The source of information for over half the country. We dont know that [they] have any qualifications outside of their own individual bias.

Facebook has enlisted fact-checking organizations like Politifact and Snopes to help monitor stories flagged as fake. The sites are part of a network of fact-checking organizations coordinated by the Poynter Institute. Members of the group must apply and be vetted by a team at Poynter, and agree to a set of principles including transparency and nonpartisanship.

Original post:
Facebook launches tool to fight fake news but is it censorship? - WGN-TV

Reddit BTC moderator Jratcliff63367 officially resigned from the subreddit due to its dysfunctional operations and limited discussions. In his official statement, Jratcliff stated emphasized the censorship on both the Bitcoin subreddit and BTC subreddit, expressing his concerns over two of the largest bitcoin discussion communities.

For a long period of time, the Bitcoin subreddit operated by main moderator Theymos has been the most successful and popular bitcoin community. It still faciliates some of the most important and collaborative discussions with developers, users, businesses and enthusiasts.

However, as Jratcliff notes, the Bitcoin subreddit began to receive harsh criticisms from non-Bitcoin Core supporters for being censorship-heavy. Theymos along with his other moderators of the Bitcoin subreddit was accused of eliminating any pertinent discussions in regards to Bitcoin Unlimited or alternative solutions other than the technologies being developed by Bitcoin Core.

Logically, the reasoning of Theymos and the rest of the Bitcoin subreddit moderators in censoring non-Bitcoin Core discussions can be justified, as the current Bitcoin network is overseen by the Bitcoin Core development team and with the codes the team has written over the past few years.

However, for bitcoin to evolve, bitcoin investors including Ver believes a group of developers or experts need to receive baton to continue the development of bitcoin, the same way bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto passed on his vision to his successors.

Bitcoin Unlimited supporters, as well as many miners,firmly believe that the censorship of Bitcoin Unlimited and non-Bitcoin Core solutions doesnt necessarily benefit the long-term health and development of bitcoin. In fact, they seem to believe that granting one development team the monopoly over a bitcoin network is stalling the development of bitcoin.

Evidently, if Bitcoin Unlimited developers and supporters want to force a hard fork in order to place Bitcoin Unlimited on top of the bitcoin protocol, they can simply initiate a hard fork. No organization or individual can stop Bitcoin Unlimited supports from executing a hard fork. Currently, they simply dont have the support from miners to do so and that is what the Bitcoin subreddit moderators are emphasizing.

Jratcliff specifically mentioned in his statement that the BTC subreddit, despite what it was structured to be, is no longer a platform wherein users freely discuss various solutions, events and activties within the bitcoin industry. As Coinbase Director of Engineering and Litecoin creator Charlie Lee states:

Sadly, /r/btc is becoming a cesspool. Its basically a Core/Blockstream/SegWit-bashing, BU-praising echo chamber. /r/bitcoin is much better.

Former /r/btc moderator Jratcliff offered a similar insight to Lee, stating Today, I find the /r/btc community to be highly dysfunctional. It is not operating as an open and engaging discussion for all things bitcoin. It has become something else. He adds that users including himself cant share off-chain scaling solutions on /r/btc due to the communitys ignorance to off-chain scaling.

I no longer think that increasing the on-chain blocksize by any amount will accomplish much of anything. I have a lot of views on this topic. And I have tried to share them both here as well as /r/bitcoin and other forums such as Lets Talk Bitcoin. I can no longer share them on /r/btc because any post or comment I make immediately receives dozens of downvotes and is hidden from view. explained Jratcliff.

To summarize, both subreddits are censoring discussions and promoting Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Unlimited respectively. Thus, it is dishonest and unfair for any of the moderators of the two subreddits to claim censorship and attempt to appeal themselves to the community as victims.

Image from Shutterstock.

See original here:
Reddit BTC Mod Resigns, Cites Censorship in Both Subreddits - CryptoCoinsNews

A senior Chinese official has spoken out against his countrys repressive internet censorship measures in a rare show of defiance.

Luo Fuhe, a technology adviser to Chinas parliament, said that Communist officials should un-ban some of the thousands of websites currently blocked by the so-called Great Firewall.

Web censorship has become more severe in the years since Xi Jinping became president, with hundreds of news sites blocked, as well as most social networks.

But Luo spoke out against Chinas determination to control its peoples internet access over the weekend, saying that academic sites should be removed from the filter.

He said continued censorship will have a grave impact on our countrys socio-economic development and scientific research, theSouth China Morning Postreported.

He cited examples of state filtering software slowing the internet down to an unusable pace.

Pages hosted by the UN could take 20 seconds to load, while sites hosted by foreign universities are so heavily vetted they can take more than half an hour, he warned.

Luo belongs to one of Chinas non-Communist political parties, and works for theChinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference, which advises their parliament.

His criticism is exceptionally outspoken given the commitment of the Communist party, which dominates Chinas political culture, to the policy.

Notably, Luo stuck to uncontroversial academic examples and the economic costs of web censorship, rather than focusing on personal freedom.

He left out the social penalty suffered by the Chinese people, unable to access huge chunks of the internet which are freely available in the West.

The repressive outlook earned China the worst score in the world in a recent ranking of government internet policies by the Freedom House watchdog organization.

But is unlikely to be taken on board by leading figures of the Chinese politburo, who are headed in the opposite direction.

View post:
Chinese Official Dares to Challenge Repressive Government Internet Censorship - Heat Street

One step back, two steps back.

Here we go again.

If youve been keeping up with stories pertaining to Indian censorship, youll know how arbitrarily regressive some of the decisions tend to be. Words aretaken out of contextor even misheard by the Central Board of Film Certification, leaving producers little choice beyond bowing to their whims. You can catch up on all my articles on the history and progress (or lack thereof) when it comes to censorship here(including my frustrating interview with the head of the CBFC), though something I havent yet touched on in detail is the boards outright refusal tocertify, as has recently been the case with Alankrita Shrivastavas Lipstick Under My Burkha.

Its a somewhat loaded title for a sexually conservative nation so divided by religious conflict, though only a tad more inflammatory than its Hindi original (Lipstick Ke Sapne, meaning dreams of lipstick), because the issue the board seems to have isnt strictly religious. But dont take my word for, lets hear what the CBFC hasto say:

"Reasons for Certificate Refused to the film:

The story is lady oriented, their fantasy above life. There are containious sexual scenes, abusive words, audio pornography, and a bit sensitive touch about one particular section of society. Hence film refused under guidelines 1(a), 2(vii), 2(ix), 2(x), 2(xi), 2(xxi) and 3(i)."

Oh boy.

Im not one to judge the English skills of somebody who doesnt speak it natively, but even looking beyond the apparent errors, theres a fair amount to unpack right from the opening statement: The story is lady oriented. No matter what language you speak, that right there sends a very clear message about why a film has been outright banned from cinemas. To give you a clearer picture of what kind of movie it is, heres a look at the trailer:

If that video doesn't work for you, try this one:

Doesnt that look delightful? Lipstick Under My Burkha is a tale of the little victories that make up everyday rebellion in a society like Indias, where notions of culture and values are tied to the suppression and control of female sexuality. With that in mind, the censorship situation takes on an even more sinister connotation.

After Shrivastavas film was sent to a revising committee to determine its rating, she was called into the darkened theatre and told outright by CBFC head Pahlaj Nihalani that there had been a unanimous decision to stop it from being seen theatrically. Despite the films success at festivals in Mumbai, Tokyo, Glasgow, andthis past week in Miami, a regressive, bigoted government body and the short tempered yes-man at its apex stopped her from sharing her art with the public. Even better, Lipstick won the Oxfam Award for Best Film on Gender Equality at the Mumbai Film Festival, mere miles from where Nihalani sits. Thats what the CBFC is inadvertently opposing. Gender equality.

The Central Board of Film Certification is colloquially referred to as the censor board, though they insist what they do isnt censorship. In terms of the process, they inform artists of what they do or dont deem permissible for public viewing (even for films with an A or Adult certificate goodbye Moonlights beach scene), and if producers have a problem with this, they can go through the arduous process of appeal after appeal until the decision is made by the courts, often leading to the hemorrhaging of legal fees and a wrench being tossed into the theatrical rollout.

Theres a strange hypocrisy to the boards censorship that you've probably picked up on by now and make no mistake, it iscensorship no matter how many times Nihalani defaults to the just doing our job excuse. Their concern for the protection of women leads them to demand words like bitch and whore be muted regardless of context, but when it comes to women expressing their own stories, fantasies and struggles, they bring down their fascist gavel and ban a movie before insisting it isnt a ban. I dont think I need to tell our American readers that when a court needs to reverse a decision like this, its a ban no matter how much you deny it.

The problem isnt limited to the laws, of course. In the year since I wrote about the cultural roots of Indian censorship, the conversation has gotten louder, but it hasnt really changed. Hell, it wasnt until I sat down with Nihalani that I learned the laws hadnt changed either (despite being brought up in Parliament!) because information on the proceedings is harder to come by than it should be. But were the rules to change, it would still only be a first step towards changing how the culture approaches disagreement on art.

Take for instance the set of the upcoming Padmavati, which a local Rajput group trashed before attacking director Sanjay Leela Bhansali over the depiction of the eponymous queen. Not only was this over an anachronism in a film they hadnt seen (apparently, an intimate scene with ruler Alauddin Khilji, whose obsession with Padmavati is the films main focus), but the ahistorical sequence that had them so riled up seems to itself have been a fabrication. According to the director, there is no such scene in the film.

Physical attacks on artists are far from the norm in India, but the react first, be informed later mindset that leads to this violence is still the status quo. The idea that all art needs to be agreeable, inoffensive and in line with the abstract notions of culture creates an intellectual vacuum, one that exists symbiotically with the CBFC and the Cinematograph Act of 1952. Both of these things are in need of radical revamp, as is the hypocrisy surrounding the protection of women from subjects concerning their experience, especially when its their voices being suppressed in the process. If thats the case, women arent the ones these laws protect. The only things being protected are the fragile egos of men who cant deal with female autonomy, and a culture that refuses to be challenged by a more inclusive society.

In the directors own words:

"Shouldnt the voices of women be encouraged and given more space? Instead we have a situation where a small film that dares to tell a story from a female point of view is being silenced. We are being told that our voices do not matter. We are being told it is better to shut up and comply.

As a woman, and as a filmmaker, I have decided that I will not shut up. I refuse to be silenced. I will not be discouraged. I will fight to ensure that Lipstick Under My Burkha is released in cinemas in India. And I will continue to make lady-oriented films as long as I can."

Now that we're here, let's keep the discussion "lady oriented." What are your favourite films by and/or about women? What experiences or perspectives do they articulate? Sound off below, completely uncensored. We'll let you know if and when Lipstick Under My Burkha makes it to Indian cinemas.

Continued here:
A New Low For Indian Censors: Banning Lady Oriented Films - Birth.Movies.Death. (blog)