Category Archives: Censorship

During the last few years, we havewitnesseda very worrying period for free-speech within universities. In 2015 alone we witnessed 30 universities banning newspapers, 25 banning songs, 10 banning clubs or societies, and 19 worryingly banning speakers from events. Not only that, we have witnessed various feminists, human-rights advocates and LGBT-Rights defenders indicted as encroachers of acceptable propriety and consequently indicted as unfit for a speaker platform.

In the same year, the feminist and anti-Islamist Maryam Namazie was inadmissibly indicted as a highly inflammatory figure who could incite hatred, and was initially prevented from talking at The University of Warwick. Also in 2015, another feminist, Julie Bindell, was labelled transphobic and attempts were made to thwart her planned speech at The University of Manchester because it was deemed that she might also incite hatred. Furthermore, attempts were made to foil the planned university speaker-event of comedian Kate Smurthwaite at Goldsmiths, University of London, as well as Dapper Laughs at Cardiff University for similar refractory reasons. The factious journalist, Milo Yiannopoulos, was also initially no-platformed and prevented from appearing at the University of Manchester in October 2015 over concerns that he, likewise, might incite hatred.

The venerable Chief-Executive of HOPE not HATE, Nick Lowles, was also no-platformed and prevented from speaking at aNational Union of Students (NUS) anti-racism conference in February of this year by the NUS Black Students on the grounds that he was seen as islamophobic and could rile certain frail university students. Not only that, the eccentric MP and former Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has also been indicted as unfit for a speaker platform at Kings College London after he made inappropriate remarks about President Obamas ancestry.

Where did all of this encroachment on university free-speech originate? As many a student with even a tentative grasp of NUS-philosophy will attest, much of the encroachment has emerged out of a sanitising utopia that is politically-orientated NUS policy encroachment which is uninvitingly embodied in its current no-platforming policy. How did this happen? The NUS was once a profoundly respected body that prized free-speech and truly represented all students around the UK inclusive of political disparity.

Once upon a time, the NUS would only infract on the independence of a university platform when individuals such as fascists and racists wanted to perorate their sickly ideas. Now, however, we have a union gravely steeped in political proclivity, a union that thumps for inoffensiveness and one that regards any speaker who might aggrieve a persecuted minority worthy of censorship.

Its not just the no-platforming of speakers, we have seen people within the NUS short-sightedly no-platform themselves. The honcho of the NUS LGBT+ section caused an uproarwhen she did just that during an event that she was scheduled to appear on alongside the much-respected LGBT-rights campaigner Peter Tatchell. Much to the surprise of many LGBT+ people across the UK, her decision was motivated by the fact that she wanted to remonstrate against and to further arraign Peter Tatchell for holding apparent racist and transphobe views.

Such issues of no-platforming have obviously been a motivator alongside the appointment of Malia Bouattia as the new NUS president, a person that many deem cavil on account of past remarks that many argue are anti-Semitic for many NUS-disaffiliation campaigns. Whilst Exeter, Cambridge, Surrey, Oxford, and Warwick have all voted to remain, Lincoln, Loughborough, Hull, and Newcastle have all voted in favour to disaffiliate. And it wouldnt surprise me if more follow.

Weve seen a plethora of articles rightly griping about the NUS as of late by various academics, campaigners, luminaries, and students all of whom seem to be united in their consternation that the NUS and various university student-unions have restricted free-speech to excess. They rightly adjure their readers to challenge both the NUS and various student-unions because they both now undermine the very legitimacy of debate within universities leaving untold damage to the rich pluralism and debate that once characterised universities. Many deem such untold damage, such a low ebb, to be a mere reflection of the mollycoddling preferences of the uproarious, regressive, and deeply-forcible newfangled university generation.

What, though, is this newfangled university generation? This newfangled generation is characterised by its marked yearning for utopian-like inoffensive environments, its unashamed appeal to pity or guilt to effectuate its political campaigns, its identity politics, its clamorous protestations it calls liberation, its writhing victimisation, its brash holier-than-thou attitudes, its candid cultural relativity, and its unimpeachable ill-will towards those who have the audacity to criticise any unscrupulous areas within minority groups they deem persecuted.

However, what about its unapologetic safe-space advocacy? Is it not the case that universities should be safe places where people are protected from offensive narratives? Moreover, is it not right that universities be increasingly encouraged to symbolise places where students particularly LGBT students and other minority groups can feel protected from maltreatment, harassed, etc.?

Many people both within and outside of academia have quite a different opinion of what universities should represent. Many claim and quite commendably that universities should be places in which the rich tapestry of discussion and debate are safe-spaced i.e. protected as opposed to being safe-spaces in which inoffensive narratives are supressed.

Universities should, of course, be safe-spaces that protect students from certain types of behaviour. No university should put up with particular forms of behaviour such as students or speakers inhibiting the participation of LGBT-students within university life, or subjecting them to violence (or threats of violence). This would clearly be in breach of the law, and utterly reprehensible.

Here its important to introduce a key distinction: freedom-of-behaviour vs freedom-of-expression. Let us consider an example to highlight this. There are many students and speakers, for example, with rather regressive religious-leanings who make the claim that women should be prevented from showing their hair publicly and prevented from occupying certain positions in society the head of a church, for example. Now, whilst I find such a view utterly distasteful, I find myself unwilling to proscribe such drivel-like open expressions of such opinions. However, and here is the important point: if they were to then physically ring-fence such positions from women (or verbally threaten women with violence if they were to occupy or even pursue such positions) then I think contravening would certainly be justified.

What, then, about an external university speaker given a platform in which he or she spews the claim that LGBT people should be prevented from participating in the military? Or a speaker claiming that such a group should be stoned to death because they have spurned godly-endowed propriety? Should they be allowed to speak their minds? Am I really arguing that as long as such a speaker is not actually preventing the LGBT community from participating in the military, or actually stoning LGBT members, then such a speaker should be allowed to churn-out such cruel and hurtful narratives?

Most exponents of that shibboleth safe spacewould likely deem any approval to be, at best,outre, and at worst, uncouth a mere stridencycommandeered by the privileged in societythat doesnot merely ignorethe rights it obviouslytrammels but, most pressingly,ithas the potential ofyielding universityenvironments that is knownto becoldly indifferent and even a pillar that substantiatesthe injustices that besmirch minorities.

I think that an important distinction should be carried when talking about this upbraided term platform namely, contested vs uncontested speaker platforms. I am of the opinion that speakers should have the right to an uncontested platform that is to say, a platform bereft of an opposing speaker if the speaker has not been found to be in breach of what I call inalienable-traits. What do I mean here? To put it bluntly, not encroaching upon those fundamental traits that are an inalienable part of a persons identity at a given time. That includes, at the very minimum, gender, sexuality, race, age and nationality.

If, however, a speaker is found to be encroaching upon such fundamental traits of a person an example would be denying such characteristics, ridiculing them, etc., but is not in breach of the law, then it is my view that a university must only allow that speaker to talk on a university campus on the condition that they are challenged by an opposing speaker (agreed by individuals and/or a society within a university who identity with that trait a speaker is deemed encroaching upon). No-platforming here is positively inexcusable. The stultification of such liberty that this stifling would bring-aboutshould be utterly condemned by all students and university staff alike. Such a speaker should instead be debated and their views exposed to scrutiny.

Why, though, should open debate be prioritised? I have two arguments for this. I will expound the first. Now, its important for us to remember that noxious narratives those that infringe upon the rich humanist-based principles of equality, compassion, and, lets face it,human decency come in various forms, and they will likely be encountered wherever students might find themselves, and whatever age they may be. Noxious narratives can penetrate our local communities, our work environments, our friendships, and even our families. Surely theres an imperative that young people at university be equipped with the invaluable tools to effectively invalidate and neutralise such things as racism, homophobia, transphobia and sexism?There is therefore a key utilitarian point to be made: how can students challenge those noxious narratives in society in the furtherance of equality and overall societal well-being if they have come to learn that noxious narratives can only be defeated through avoiding them? Put another way, how can students particularly those who are passionate about promoting or directing social, political economic, orenvironmentalchange with the desire to make improvements in society and to correct social injusticecreate a better society if they are not fully aware of those things which are antithetical to it?

The secondargument relates to an important epistemic issue: how can students know if offensive narratives are actually morally circumspect if they are not exposed to them? After all, let us not forget that once upon a time Darwins account of evolution was deemed to be immoral and deeply offensive by swathes of people (and many still deem it to be). Galileos heliocentrism was also deemed to be immoral and deeply offensive and many efforts were made to muzzle such views. Given the advances in todays science and the benefits from this that have trickled into our society that the views of Galileos and Darwins have considerably effected we heartily look back to that time in the knowledge that such a view was indeed made manifest despite the significant offense caused. Whilst I deem many a narrative assuredly and distastefully in error racist ones being examples who can unerringly claim with a degree of confidence that all those narratives that our society (or others) considers offensive, whether by the majority or minority, are unquestionably so?

Now, with these two arguments kept in mind, I deeming myself to be somewhat of a defender if notvying fordefender of both classical liberalism and human-rights fear that the kind of universityenvironments hankered for by both theNUS and large swathes of universitystudent-unions alikeis hindering students from effectively tackling noxious narratives in society whilst, simultaneously, deprivingthem of such a key epistemic point. However, there is a third argument to be made which is closely linked to the previous two I expounded. The kind of university environments hankered for by both the NUS and large swathes of student-unionswillcreate, sooner or later, the kind of university environments that preventstudents from expending real discretion. I say this because the kind of excessive censorship that we have seen being coveted by both NUS and student-unions alikewill have the dire consequence of creating a very large sect of people in universitywho are unequipped with the tools of extolling the difference between, on the one hand, independence of thought and, on the other hand, meekness. Students need to exposed to as much richly-plural a medium ofviews as possible in order that they can extol such a key difference. This is such an invaluable component within the development of our young peoples critical reasoning skills. And its critical reasoning which is indispensable in the overall fight against noxious narratives whether in university, our local communities or in society as a whole.

Its essential that students convene in solidarity and press the NUS and university student unions to recalibrate their footing and champion such an extolling, such a key difference. We cannot and should not tolerate their trajectory that currently sees them staunchly remaining inimical to it. Students need to be armed with those salient and deeply important tools to challenge, through debate, those noxious narratives within our larger society. Students need to be exposed to narratives that some, even many, deem offensive for this to happen, and universities need to be places that unerringly epitomise the fearsome pursuit of knowledge and, with it, epistemic-justification.

However, as long as mollycoddling and inoffensive environments continue to be the uncouth utopia of the new-fangled generation and university student unions and the NUS continue to epitomise this we will irrevocably see further free-speech violations within further education. The consequence of this will inevitably be students personifying a spindly type of principled-activism one mired in flimsiness and susceptibility that shakily endeavours to achieve the kind of decent society that most of us rightly deem upstanding.

comments

Continue reading here:
Universities and the Threat of Censorship - Conatus News - Conatus News

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says Breitbart senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos is facing "censorship" amid controversy over a video in which the far-right provocateur appeared to defend pedophilia.

"US 'liberals' today celebrate the censorship of right-wing UK provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos over teen sex quote," Assange tweeted Monday night.

US 'liberals' today celebrate the censorship of right-wing UK provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos over teen sex quote.https://t.co/bz6dH0jyhk

Yiannopoulos has been facing backlash since a video clip gained traction on social media in which he says relationships between older men and young boys can be beneficial. In the clip, he also mentions his own sexual abuse.

Employees from Breitbart News, where Yiannopoulos works, are reportedly prepared to leave if the company doesn't take action.

And Simon & Schuster is canceling the publication of Yiannopoulos's book, "Dangerous."

In a Facebook post Monday, Yiannopoulos denounced the claims that he was advocating for pedophilia.

"I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim, Yiannopoulos wrote.

"I would like to restate my utter disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers. I've outed three of them, in fact -- three more than most of my critics."

The government of Ecuador granted Assange asylum in 2012. Since then, he has been living inside the government's embassy in London.

The rest is here:
WikiLeaks's Assange: Yiannopoulos is facing 'censorship' - The Hill

This is a salad which works fine for Trump's oligarchy. However, these false fears and economics do nothing for the majority of our citizens.

After an hour and a half of waiting for his censorship to end, I hung up and I am sure I wasn't alone in this fiasco.

I wanted to ask questions about two pieces of legislation. The first was House Joint Resolution 40, which would allow "mentally incapable" persons to be omitted from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and enable them to legally buy a firearm.

Question: Congressman, really, haven't you heard of Sandy Hook?

The second was HJR 41, which would remove the requirement for energy companies to report any funds received from foreign countries.

Question: Congressman, do you really think that is an overly burdening regulation for Exxon and others?

You have said that "doing live town halls" doesn't work because it lets in the radical protesters and turns it into a political rally. I am not a radical protester. I simply wanted you to explain why you voted "aye" on both these bills. Because you censored your tele-town hall, I didn't get an answer and I am sure that there are others who didn't get their legitimate questions answered.

By the way Congressman, Michael Flynn's phone was not wire tapped. The truth is that the Russian ambassador's phone was monitored while Flynn was doing Trump's bidding. Nice try, but you can't defend or excuse this guy.

Gary Anderson

Red Wing

Follow this link:
Letter: Tele-town hall is form of censorship - Republican Eagle

The magazine feared no subject under Sperling. Its coverage included an array of contentious topics like shoreline development and climate change.

Natasha Kassulke succeeded Sperling. Lost in the transition was the magazine's license to cover all things water and earth.

DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp often meddled. Under Walker's handpicked cabinet member an article about the state's endangered pine martens was killed. In 2015, a story on climate change and its impact on Wisconsin animals was kiboshed.

A search of the magazine's archives shows there hasn't been a story regarding climate change or global warming in the past three years.

Walker now wants to kill the publication once and for all.

His recently submitted budget has it ceasing publication in 2018. Cost savings of $300,000 annually and allowing the DNR to better focus on managing natural resources have been Walker's justifications for the move.

Since the magazine pays for operations and staff through subscriptions, some Badger State residents say Walker's logic is bunk. Anti-environmental politics is the culprit behind scotching the journal, they counter.

Kassulke worked at the magazine for about 15 years. She stepped down as editor last summer.

"When Walker's administration came in," she says, "I was required to show all stories, all text, all photos to the entire department leadership team for review. And through that process, I have several stories that were either edited [down], changed, or at times even killed."

In February, Kassulke's story about feedlots and drinking water was supposed to be included in a magazine insert. It still hasn't been published.

"My gut tells me [halting the magazine] is part of a continuing agenda to create a vacuum and black out information on very important environmental issues and an anti-science agenda," she says.

DNR spokesperson Jim Dick has repeatedly denied editorial content played a role in the decision.

See more here:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker goes from censorship to killing state ... - City Pages

It might be one of the leading Oscar contenders, but Indian audiences won't be seeing the full version of Moonlight.

Barry Jenkins's critically acclaimed coming-of-age drama follows three periods in the life of Chiron, a young, black, queer man growing up poor in Miami, and his journey has been heavily cut in India.

A document posted to Reddit shows that all swearing is out, with every instance of "bitch", "bitches", "motherf**ker" and "dick" muted, and two sex scenes have been cut entirely, including kissing between two men.

Reddit

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

The cuts total 53 seconds, but two minutes and 20 seconds of anti-smoking disclaimers have been added, with one appearing at the beginning and one in the middle of the movie, plus a "static message with scroll wherever smoking scene appears".

When we saw the full version of Moonlight, we described it as a "moving and visually beautiful film that speaks not only to gay or black audiences but to all of us".

A24

But will it be walking away with any awards at the Oscars on Sunday (February 26)?

Moonlight received eight nominations, including Best Picture, but was completely shut out at last week's BAFTA Film Awards, despite being nominated in four categories.

However, last night (February 19) saw it win at the Writers Guild Awards, which makes it a clear favourite to scoop Best Adapted Screenplay at the Oscars. And Moonlight's Mahershala Ali is widely expected to beat Lion's Dev Patel to Best Supporting Actor, despite Patel's BAFTA win.

A24

Find out if Moonlight manages to defy La La Land at the Oscars on Sunday night. Here's how you can watch it live in the UK.

Want up-to-the-minute entertainment news and features? Just hit 'Like' on our Digital Spy Facebook page and 'Follow' on our @digitalspy Twitter account and you're all set.

Read the rest here:
Indian censorship board cuts the sex and swearing out of Moonlight - Digital Spy

Over the next few months, therell be plenty of debate about the role of the government in funding public broadcasting.

The Trump administration reportedly has the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and a host of other cultural and arts organizations targeted for elimination.

Theres certainly a debate to be had over whether the government should provide financial assistance to a segment of the media it regulates and restricts how it can raise revenue. Theres no indication the administration nor Congress is interested in taking those restrictions off, a clear sign that the ultimate goal of politicians is to kill it.

But the New York Times media critic, Jim Rutenberg, has a cautionary tale of what can happen with a government that wants to control a message holds the money self-censorship; newsrooms that pull their punches because of the fear the government will cut the revenue.

When a Texas congressman took to the House floor to complain about the way the media has covered President Trump, a commentator for a San Antonio public TV station took notice.

Rick Casey wrote his commentary. The stations Facebook page promoted it with a nod to the upcoming broadcast.

And the stations CEO spiked it just before it was to go on the air.

When I caught up with Mr. Emerson this week he acknowledged making a mistake that should not tarnish a career spent mostly in broadcast news, starting in a $1.25-an-hour job as a cameraman. I had to make a decision in what was about 20 minutes, he said.

He acknowledged that clearly we always worry about funding for public television, but said that wasnt the principal reason for his decision to hold back the commentary. We have to protect the neutrality of the station somebody could have looked at it as slander, he said. The commentary label, he said, would take care of it.

Mr. Casey is satisfied with the result. But he acknowledged that it was a close call and that he was uniquely qualified to push back in a way others might not be. Im lucky to be in the position of being 70 years old, and not in the position of being 45, he said, meaning that job security was not the same issue. Theres no level of heroism here.

If you look at what David Brooks has said on the PBS NewsHour in his commentary with Mark Shields, hes been very forceful in his opposition to Trump, Casey told the San Antonio Express-News. So thats part of our brand, but its also part of our values. As a practical reality, if the Corporation for Public Broadcasting does lose its funding, Im too humble to think its because of a piece that I did down in San Antonio.

But the enemy of the American people is censorship, regardless of where the intimidation of an independent media originates.

Bob Collins has been with Minnesota Public Radio since 1992, emigrating to Minnesota from Massachusetts. He was senior editor of news in the 90s, ran MPRs political unit, created the MPR News regional website, invented the popular Select A Candidate, started the two most popular blogs in the history of MPR and every day laments that his Minnesota Fantasy Legislature project never caught on.

NewsCut is a blog featuring observations about the news. It provides a forum for an online discussion and debate about events that might not typically make the front page. NewsCut posts are not news stories but reflections , observations, and debate.

Visit link:
A preview of self-censorship in the new political landscape - Minnesota Public Radio News (blog)

New York Times

In Trump Era, Censorship May Start in the Newsroom New York Times Rick Casey, the host of a weekly public affairs program on a small television station in Texas, recently fashioned a stinging commentary on remarks by Representative Lamar Smith that was pulled shortly before it was to air. The station later reversed ...

Read this article:
In Trump Era, Censorship May Start in the Newsroom - New York Times

We have patiently explained why the current academic freedom bill in South Dakota, SB 55, cannot possibly be construed in any reasonable manner as seeking to inject teaching intelligent design into public schools. As noted yesterday, that didn't stop a prominent lobbying group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, from working the phrase, "intelligent design," six times into a statement directed against the bill.

One of those instances was in a photo caption of an instructor in front of his class, "Teachers should not be given leeway to introduce intelligent design in science classes."

But with evolution proponents, such distortions are absolutely routine. It's bizarre. It's farcical. But this tops it. In a surreal move, a group called the National Coalition Against Censorship has plunged into the South Dakota situation to demand continued restraints on teachers and their academic freedom -- in other words, censorship.

They complain that SB 55 would "remov[e] accountability in science education." "Accountability" there would seem to mean instructors being vulnerable to career retaliation for teaching critical thinking skills to science students. These "anti-censorship" proponents advocate retaining the option of punishing biology teachers for going off message on Darwinism.

They go on: "Essentially, [the bill] removes the restraints on teachers that prevents them from straying from professionally-developed science standards adopted by state educators." The National Coalition Against Censorship favors keeping "restraints" on teachers firmly in place.

The bill, they say, "may encourage teachers who object to the scientific consensus on evolution and climate change to bring their opinions into the classroom," instead of sticking slavishly to a uniform Darwin-only script. The teachers should stick to their script.

Then there's this. Look again at the language of the bill. It's very brief:

No teacher may be prohibited from helping students understand, analyze, critique, or review in an objective scientific manner the strengths and weaknesses of scientific information presented in courses being taught which are aligned with the content standards established pursuant to 13-3-48.

That is another way of saying no teacher may be censored for challenging students with balanced information from objective science sources. Notice that the language concludes by saying that the "strengths and weaknesses" approach may be extended only to "scientific information presented in courses being taught which are aligned with the content standards" already established.

Because intelligent design isn't part of those content standards, the law extends no protection for teaching about ID. Because the content standards are already defined, instruction that's not "aligned" with them, in other words that "stray[s] from professionally-developed science standards adopted by state educators," would also not be protected.

But interestingly, if you read the statement from the "anti-censorship" group, their quotation from the bill cuts off before getting to the part about how instruction must be "aligned with the content standards." The whole proposed law is just a sentence long, but they truncate it a little more than half way through, perhaps to keep the reader from realizing that their dire prediction of teachers "straying" is undercut by the clear language of SB 55 itself. The anti-censorship activists are engaging in censorship right there in the middle of their own statement.

They conclude by comparing exploring mainstream debate about evolutionary theory with, yes, denying the Holocaust. And that is where they transition from absurdity to obscenity.

Good gravy. These complaints, whether from Americans United or from the horrifically misnamed National Coalition Against Censorship, are totally detached from a straightforward reading of the law they wish to attack. They are mere scaremongering, and frankly, contemptible.

In this, though, they're not much worse than supposedly objective news outlets like the Washington Post or ProPublica. When it comes to defending evolutionary orthodoxy, journalism and propaganda merge seamlessly.

Image: South Dakota State Capitol, dustin77a -- stock.adobe.com.

I'm on Twitter. Follow me @d_klinghoffer.

See more here:
South Dakota Science Education Controversy Gets Surreal as Anti-Censorship Group Demands Censorship - Discovery Institute

Last month, a fire tore through an iconic Tehran high-rise building, killing more than 20 firefighters and injuring another 70 people as it collapsed.

The fire made international headlines, but it was a particularly important story for BBC Persian, the British broadcasters Persian-language service that targets Farsi speakers in Iran and neighboring countries.

Covering the story, however, presented a challenge: The Iranian government doesnt permit BBC Persian reporters in the country, and official news agencies are often not reliable.

So BBC Persian turned to a different source: Telegram, the most popular messaging app in Iran. (Its estimated that more than a quarter of all Iranians are on Telegram.) BBC Persian has more than 713,000 followers on its channel, but it also has a profile where users can get in touch with BBC Persian. After news of the fire broke, it asked its followers to share photos and videos of the fire.

Thats the main source of newsgathering at the moment for us, BBC Persian multimedia editor Leyla Khodabakhshi told me from London. The only way we could basically understand what is going on inside the country and get access to pictures was to put a call to action on different platforms and then receiving the UGC via our Telegram, she said, adding that lots of news agencies inside Iran have close ties to different political groups in the country, so you cant rely on what youre getting from the news agencies that are operating inside the country. We have to always crosscheck what we are receiving. Thats by putting different agencies together, but also to compare them to what were receiving from user-generated content as well.

The Iranian Internet is heavily censored. Facebook, Twitter, and most major social platforms are blocked. BBC Persians website is blocked (and its TV broadcasts are routinely censored as well). Even though Iranians regularly use VPNs to circumvent government censorship, BBC Persian has turned to platforms such as Telegram that are permissible in the country in order to conduct reporting and promote its coverage to a wide audience of Iranians.

This is a social circumvention strategy rather than a social media strategy, Khodabakhshi said.

BBC Persians other main platform in Iran is on Instagram, which is the rare social network that is permitted in the country.

BBC Persian has significant followings on Facebook and Twitter, but it recently surpassed 1 million followers on Instagram, where its audience tends to skew female, Khodabakhshi said.

Our strategy on Instagram is partly based on community building. Its where we try to engage women to debate news on our page, she said. Its not very straightforward, because its not a platform that is built for this type of debating or conversation, but it works for BBC Persian.

There are, of course, limitations built into Instagram, though (its difficult to share links, for instance), and thats why the Iranian government has decided at least for now not to block it, said Emad Khazraee, a professor at Kent State University who has studied social media and news consumption in Iran.

I believe the Iranian government consciously left Instagram open because the affordances of Instagram are very limited, Khazraee said. You had a hard time to use it for social activism. They then herd them to one platform by letting it be accessible while blocking the other ones. Within Facebook, you have features, like organizing groups and having private groups, that you can manage to organize protests.

BBC Persian puts most of its major stories on Instagram, Khodabakhshi said. And the account covers a wide range of stories from Playboys decision this week to bring back nude images to Austrias ban on full-face veils. It also uses Instagram to repurpose and promote BBC Persian television programs.

But because of the restrictions of the Telegram and Instagram platforms along with Iranian censorship driving users back to the BBCs own platform isnt necessarily a priority. Instead, Khodabakhshi said BBC Persians goal was to make as much information readily available as possible.

After President Donald Trump last month issued his executive order banning citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries including Iran BBC Persian went to work explaining the ban and its implications on each of its main platforms.

We had to put the news in bullet points and push them on Telegram so people knew what is the latest and how Iranians are affected by this executive order, Khodabakhshi said. BBC Persian also visualized it and post it on Instagram without necessarily thinking that we need to have a referral back to our website, even though we have a detailed explainer on our website. Thats how it works in BBC Persian. We have to serve the audience.

Messaging apps are popular among Iranians because they offer more privacy than more traditional social networks, Khazraee said. (But Telegram and other apps are still vulnerable.)

The beauty of messaging apps is that there is no API that you can go get user information from the system, he said. The max you might be able to do is to crawl all messages that are sent through a channel that is public, but you cant get much information about who is using these channels. This is hard for us as researchers because its extremely hard to study this environment, but its extremely effective in terms of preserving users privacy.

BBC Persian approaches Telegram slightly differently than Instagram and other social platforms. Though it shares video and other features on Telegram, the apps chat interface helps BBC Persian view Telegram primarily as a breaking news tool, Khodabakhshi said. It sends about 20 messages per day.

When stories break, itll post news on Telegram and then also solicit comments and user-generated content as well, taking advantage of the less-public nature of the apps.

We have received hundreds of messages on Telegram about people who have been trapped somewhere, Iranians who have been traveling, those who were really concerned about the impact of the executive order on their lives. It has helped us give a more human personal flavor to our coverage. Not only for BBC Persian, but for the wider BBC as well.

Ultimately, Khodabakhshi said BBC Persian is committed to publishing online to reach audiences in Iran, and it will continue to adapt as platforms and access changes in the country.

We have always had to have contingency plans, Plan Bs, she said. If they shut down this platform, if they filter this platform if they block Telegram, for example, all together, what would be our Plan B? Were basically all the time on our toes.

Read the original here:
How BBC Persian is using Instagram and Telegram to get around Iranian censorship - Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard

The ACLU of Maryland contends Gov. Larry Hogan's deletion of Facebook comments is tantamount to censorship.

The civil rights organization sent the Republican governor a letter Friday outlining its legal argument that Hogan violated the First Amendment rights of his constituents when he deleted their comments from his official Facebook page and banned some people from posting.

The letter said Hogan's actions also violate the state's social media policy, and it asked the governor to reinstate seven ACLU clients who have been banned.

"If he does not, we'll take him to court," said Deborah Jeon, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Hogan's staff said in a statement they reinstated six out of the seven people, but could not find a Facebook profile for the seventh.

"We appreciate them identifying a handful of individuals out of the over 1 million weekly viewers of the page that may have been inadvertently denied access," Hogan spokeswoman Amelia Chasse said in a statement. "We have already reinstated these individuals, however we will be monitoring them closely for any profane, violent, racist, or inappropriate posts including political spamming attacks."

Chasse also said "the ACLU should be focusing on much more important activities than monitoring the governor's Facebook page."

Since he took office two years ago, Hogan has banned 450 people from leaving comments on his social media page, aides estimated. Scores were recently banned after Hogan's page was bombarded with requests to take a position on Republican President Donald J. Trump's controversial travel ban that barred immigrants from seven predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States.

Hogan spokesman Doug Mayer has said that the press staff considers such efforts "spam" and that they have a responsibility to curate the conversation online.

"We've had to remove and prevent coordinated political spam attacks from infiltrating and hijacking the page," Mayer said when the controversy surfaced two weeks ago. "We have an obligation to the 146,000 people who likes the governor's page to keep the conversation fresh, appropriate, and on topic."

Hogan has not taken a position on the travel ban, and bristled at requests for him to make comments about the Trump administration. The governor did not support Trump as a candidate.

In their letter, the ACLU contend Hogan appeared to have blocked their clients "seemingly because you did not wish to address their questions on various issues or respond to their concerns about your silence in the face of violations of civil rights and liberties by President Donald Trump and his administration."

Several other local politicians also ban posters on their Facebook page, according to The Washington Post, but do not exclude as many as the Hogan administration.

The Maryland Democratic Party and the government accountability group Common Cause have also criticized the governor for silencing constituents on Facebook.

ecox@baltsun.com

twitter.com/ErinatTheSun

See more here:
ACLU calls Hogan Facebook policy 'censorship' - Baltimore Sun