Category Archives: Censorship

Nadine Dorries will be able to censor theinternet unless new powers intendedto make techgiants more accountable are reformed, MPs have warned.

The Online Safety Bill must be overhauled so that the Culture Secretaryand her successors cannot order the industry regulator Ofcom to take downcontent before anassessment by Parliament, the MPs said.

In its current form the bill would allow Ms Dorries to directly intervene in Ofcom's decisions over what to block or permit online by making changes to its code of practice.

Julian Knight, the chairman of the digital, culture media and sport select committee, said: "A free media depends on ensuring the regulator is free from the threat of day-to-day interference from the executive.

"The government will still have an important role in setting the direction of travel, but Ofcom must not be constantly peering over its shoulder answering to the whims of a backseat-driving secretary of state.

The recommendations come as Ofcom is poised to inherit new powers to grapple with tech companies and social media apps by putting senior managers in jail or dishing out multi-billion pound fines worth up to 10pc of annual turnover if illegal or harmful content to children is found on their websites.

However, the bill has faced fierce scrutiny from news publishers over fears it could muzzle free speech without stronger exemptions for journalism.

Ms Dorries has already promised an accelerated appeals process for news providers whose stories are removed by tech companies, while exempting publishers from fines for false or harmful content.

Read the original here:
Nadine Dorries 'will have power to censor the internet' - The Telegraph

DW Akademie: Why do you see the coronavirus pandemic as a crisis in civil rights?

Gunjidmaa Gongor, director of the Media Council Mongolia: Mongolia closed its borders with China at the beginning of 2020 much earlier than most of the other countries did. Calling it a situation of "heightened preparedness", the government introduced legislation ensuring that it would monopolize communications during the crisis. This resulted in censorship-like effects where the media, for example, was only allowed to report using official sources. Still, the country wasn't experiencing an epidemic at the time, and the first coronavirus transmissions only happened in November 2020.

How did media workers cope?

They were basically out in the cold and being threatened with fines that could ruin their existence. The state and the media were openly hostile to each another, and at the daily press conferences, the national crisis staff rarely allowed any questions. The police also cited journalists for interrogation if they published the results of their own research, even if was correct. The reports from various government agencies often contradicted each other, so the media screamed "censorship" and the government screamed "defamation." It became impossible to agree on basic rules like the public's right to information from different sources, and coronavirus patients' right to not see their name in newspapers or on social media.

The first coronavirus carrier in Mongolia was apparently a truck driver. His photo and personal information about him, his family, work colleagues and neighbors was then shared on social networks and news channels

Has the Mongolian CCC project come at the right time for strengthening cooperation between state and non-state actors?

There was a turning point in the discussion back in January 2021, after a private television station circulated a video showing a young mother and her newborn baby being removed from a maternity clinic it was freezing in the middle of a night and being taken to a quarantine station for those who had contracted Covid-19. Protests then broke out in Ulaanbaatar and the entire government resigned. At the very latest, that was when everyone involved realized that something was fundamentally wrong with our country's crisis communications. We knew we had to work together to restore people's trust so that they could rely on "good" information, which was available, and that could help them in the pandemic.

'Be human!' Poster in Ulaanbaatar's Sukhbaatar Square, protesting the state's treatment of those who've contracted the coronavirus

How would you describe the Mongolian Crisis Communication Chapter (CCC) and how does it work?

We invited all those involved in the state crisis management, including the Ministry of Health, the National Center for Infectious Diseases and the National Crisis Staff.Our project has been working together with state actors, journalists and civil society on a pilot project with a community in a yurt district of the capital, Ulaanbaatar. Together with DW Akademie, it developed a journalism training program covering issues like fact-checking and storytelling for different channels. Another focus has been on how professional PR can support media professionals (and vice versa).

How does the CCC reach people?

It uses all media and dissemination channels available. Social platforms such as Facebook Live events are good for openly addressing virus-related questions right on the spot. The CCC has also developed flyers, information posters, and questionnaires, and our members on the ground also provide journalists and government officials with important information. This type of "two-way" communication is different from the way the government and the media usually work, where they can only look at a problem from the outside. Still, one thing is clear: this project can only succeed if people consider it to be useful. And that's what we're focusing on.

Where will the project go from here?

The national crisis management team seems interested in integrating a CCC structure in the state crisis management system. This would be a huge success because in future crises, decision-makers and experts would have a concept guaranteeing that crisis communication is not about competing for truths or interests, but is geared entirely towards the needs of the public.

This project is part of the global initiative "Transparency and media freedom Crisis resilience in the pandemic" of DW Akademie and is supported by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.

See the rest here:
COVID-19 in Mongolia: "The media screamed 'censorship' and the government screamed 'slander'" - DW (English)

New Canadian Media spoke with Iranian theatre creatives on their experiences dealing with the strict censorship they face in Iran. The post Creative freedom censored in Iran appeared first on New Canadian Media .

Freedom; who has it, what are people free to do and who makes those determinations is a controversial subject in politics. Currently, in various geopolitical contexts, in the United States, Russia, and here in Canada, the idea of freedom is being challenged.

Freedom is also central to the story of Mohammad Yaghoubi and the play Heart of a Dog. The play is a comical adaptation by the award-winning Iranian director and playwright, based on a novel of the same name by Russian writer Mikhail Bulgakov. The novel is seen as an allegory for the Communist revolution and a scathing critique of the Soviet Unions attempt to impose its ideologies to the world. Publication of Heart of a Dog was prohibited in the Soviet Union until 1987.

Yaghoubi also ran into issues with censorship when adapting the novel into a play. As Yaghoubi explained, Iran is an authoritarian country where many freedoms are significantly limited. Initially, Yaghoubi wanted the main character, the dog, to be played by a woman. However, this was impossible in Iran because womens bodies are politicized, they dont have autonomy, and the censorship bureau said no.

In the English premiere of Heart of a Dog, the lead is played by Iranian actor and director, Aida Keykhali. The two eventually got married and founded a theatre group in Iran called InRoozHa. They decided to move to Canada in 2015 to escape the harassment of the censorship bureaus and started Nowadays Theatre.

New Canadian Media spoke to them about the play and their experiences in both Canada and Iran.

The audio version of this conversation below focuses on freedom of expression, the play, and Yaghoubi and Keykhalis experiences in Iran.

The text version of this conversation below focuses on immigration and integration, and the differences between Canada and Iran. This conversation was edited and condensed for clarity.

Aida Keykhali: When youre living in a country like Iran with lots of censorship, your brain works differently. You dont have even in your private moments this idea in your head that you can do that. You are wired that youre not allowed.

How does that affect you as an actor, knowing that there are certain roles you cant do or certain things that your character isnt allowed to do?

Aida: Before I came to Canada, even in my mind, I couldnt think that I could do this kind of role. Because I grew up in Iran, from the first moment I remember I had a scarf on my head, with lots of censorship, with lots of limitations on lots of things because Im a woman.

When we immigrated here, Mohammed wanted to produce this and he told me, Aida, do you want to do the role of the dog? And I said, Mohammed, do you think I can do that? He said, Yeah, were living here, in a free country, you can do that. It was very shocking for me. And when I tried to do that [move], I said, Oh, my God, I have lots of abilities in my body, in my voice that I never had a chance to present.

When that board comes in to oversee something, if they dont approve, are you still able to publish it and then deal with the consequences or if they say no, it cant be published at all?

Mohammad Yaghoubi: This is the part of the theatre that I love, because you can disobey. But to disobey has results, thats why we are now, because we disobeyed too much and they punished us. Every time they asked us to cut something in theatre, we had two options: First, do whatever they told us or change it another way so I can say, okay, I changed it but I did it the other radical way I had in my pocket. Audiences love that disobedience. But the censorship office, whenever they saw that we tried to resist, they got revenge on us with our next production.

What are the benefits of pushing those boundaries and taking those risks if you get punished for it, if it ends with you having to leave the country?

Mohammad: For me, its celebrating theatre. Asserting Im a living person, not a robot. This is art and they can feel Im alive by showing rejection, showing resistance. I love this part of theatre. In Iran, theatre is a political movement inherently. Anywhere in the world [theatre is inherently political] because its a live art you can change anytime, because of its capability of change. I think it was the best way for us to connect with the audience.

Aida: Me as an artist, I think its our responsibility to act based on our beliefs. When I wanted to direct a play and there was a role and the girl was a prostitute. They said, No, you cannot do that. Could you change the job to a nurse? I said What are you talking about? She became a prostitute because of a lot of problems. These are the things that I want to show, its a social matter that I want to talk about. They said, we cannot show that because there is no prostitution in Iran. Theyre stupid. We cannot obey them because we dont want to be like them.

In the play, Polygraf Polygrafovich Sharikov grows more dissatisfied with their situation as they develop intellectually and you see the two doctors have less patience with Sharikov and are more dismissive. I thought it was an interesting way to think about power dynamics, could you speak to that Mohammad?

Mohammad: I think the authorities in Iran dont like Heart of a Dog because of the revolution in Iran. When I was under 30, I made my first draft of the Heart of a Dog adaptation. And I remember the Supreme Leader at that time, had a lecture about anti-revolutionary literature and he specifically mentioned Heart of a Dog as an anti-revolutionary novel in Russia. And I, as a young, inherently disobedient person, I thought, Oh, if I make this play, it can be a hidden struggle with my Supreme Leader. Thats why I did it. But I never told this to anyone, just Aida maybe. It was like a hidden fight.

Thats brave. Youre essentially saying that your approach to the play was going against the Supreme Leader because you were doing something you know is going to upset the Supreme Leader and thats not someone most people would want to get into a confrontation with.

Mohammad: I like that way of fighting. You can say, No, I didnt know. It was just a novel that I liked, thats it. The second time I staged this play, I changed my approach to directing and I asked the men, like women, to wear scarves. The propaganda, governmental papers and TV [stations] showed my picture [and said] this guy wants to mock the hijab.

In a totalitarian country, if everyone say, does an illegal move, even a small movement, based on their capability, we could change anything.

In a country like Iran, where speech isnt 100 per cent free, what impact do you think that has on the average person? For example, when you asked the cast members to wear scarves, how do you think the average person would react to that?

Mohammad: In Iran, if a man wears a hijab, its for cheap comedy but most actors liked my idea. One didnt like it but I could feel that its not his true answer. It was like he was shy and he couldnt do it because it was humiliating to wear a hijab. Some of the female actors said, now you can feel how difficult it is that we have to wear a hijab. You dont like to wear a hijab, even for theatre.

For our first night, all actors, male and female, had a hijab. After eight nights, governmental papers wrote against me.I remember the minister of the venue called me and said, Mohammad did you see the TV, what they wrote against you in the paper, what we should do now? And I told him if hijab is good, I want my male actors to have hijabs like women. He told me Mohammad, dont say that to me. You know what youre doing.

Aida: Me and Mohammad are not against the hijab, were against mandatory hijabs. Women in Iran, if you ask 100 women, 90 of them are against the hijab but they have to wear it. If you want to wear it, wear it but I dont like it, why should I wear it? They hate that people are different from them. This is the thing that Mohammed wanted to show in his production, that this kind of country wants to make people similar.

Mohammad: That was the connection between the Heart of a Dog and the Russian story and the Iranian story because after the revolution in Russia, the communist revolution, they forced people to be like each other. Its ridiculous because that country was against God and Iran is an Islamic country but they are the same in terms of policy with their citizenship. Thats why I thought this story is great to show how two different political countries can be the same like China, about their peoples; they force people to be like they want. This goes back to what you were talking about power dynamics. its about ownership and freedom.

Mohammad, you said in the directors note that Russias and Irans approaches to freedom of expression and opinion are ridiculous, why?

Mohammad: Because in Iran, you will be arrested if you dont believe in God, and in the Communist Party, they arrest people if you believe in God, which means they are contradictory. But in terms of the policy, their behavior towards their citizenship, they are similar. Even now, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Supreme Leader, they are close friends. We can see why they are similar, because its bullshit what they believe.

Aida: In Iran, if you change your religion, they can hang you. So they have no choice, its not that they believe, for example, in hijabs, really or they believe in God, really. Its the thing that they have power over, these are the things that can control people.

Mohammad: Thats why in China, there are Uyghur Muslims who are under the pressure of the authorities in China but Iranian authorities dont say anything against China. Even though Iranian authorities all the time talk about we are Muslim, we want to defend any Muslim in the world, but specifically about Chinas Muslims, they are silent.

Now that youre in Canada and theres more freedom, what does having that freedom mean to you both as a citizen but also as an artist?

Aida: When I was in Iran, I didnt know that I, as a human, have value. But now here I feel that I have value. Im a person with specific thoughts that only belong to me, and people and the government respect it. I recently became a full-time ACTRA member [union for actors in Canada] and they sent me things to read about my rights and I told Mohammed, I didnt know that I have these kinds of rights as a human, let alone as an actor. I didnt know that I have some rights as a person to live in my life.

You know, its very sad because when I think about my friends, my family, everyone in Iran, they dont know that they have these kinds of rights. As I told you, they brainwashed us, they did it at schools, everywhere, and we cannot think differently. But when we came here to a free country, and we understand that we have value, we can talk, we have a voice, its very different.

Mohammad: When we do theatre in Iran, all the time part of our job is to get around censorship. But when we want to do Heart of a Dog here, we can get rid of this part and focus on the artistic practice. To connect to the audience to engage them, not fighting to get around them [censorship bureau]. That takes too much energy.

One time I thought, Oh, if they want to tell me to cut this phrase, this word, what if I asked actors to say 25 instead of anything the censorship office wanted me not to say. The actors asked me, why 25? I didnt tell them the reason. I just asked them to say 25.

As you can imagine the censorship office asked me again before the public show, Mohammad, What is 25? I told them, Its just a number. If you want, I can change it to 19 or whatever you want. But I knew why it was 25, 25 refers to code 25 of the constitutions laws which says censorship is forbidden. There is a specific code in our constitution but they dont care. After two or three shows, I used 25 and this approach to get around censorship, then I demystified this code and after that, I was not allowed to use 25.

Do you think artists have a responsibility to reflect society and to challenge norms? And why is that personally important?

Mohammad: Yes. Its actually in our companys mandate, on my policy, my way of writing. In 2018, I started to write in plain English because I live in this country and it doesnt make sense not to write in English. My second play is about my reflection about society here in Canada.

Aida: Yeah, and especially as a woman, I have a lot of responsibility to do something as an artist. I directed a play about swimming for Persian women because women in Iran cannot swim. So, they make an imaginary pool in their apartment and try to swim. Ive heard a lot of my friends in Iran say that we are just artists, we are not political people, but they live in a country, and I lived in a country where whatever you do is political, even small things.

The post Creative freedom censored in Iran appeared first on New Canadian Media.

Read the original here:
Creative freedom censored in Iran - Midland News - MidlandToday

Facebook and Instagram, both owned by Meta, have begun mass-deleting posts that provide information about accessing abortion pills in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established America's constitutional right to abortion.

Such content removals, first reported by Vice and the Associated Press, occurred immediately after the ruling was handed down. Much of the material in question reportedly contained information about how to obtain abortion pills by mail without breaking state laws.

"DM me if you want to order abortion pills, but want them sent to my address instead of yours," one of the since-deleted posts read, according to the Associated Press.

"I will mail abortion pills to any one of you. Just message me," another user wrote, reports Vice.

Both posts were immediately taken down by the site.

RELATED: Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade with Dobbs decision

The Associated Press tested how long it would take for one of its own reporters' posts to be scrubbed. "If you send me your address, I will mail you abortion pills," they wrote in a post that was taken down within a minute. Further, the account which published the post was reportedly put on a "warning" status for violating the platform's guidelines related to "guns, animals and other regulated goods."

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

When the reporter substituted the phrase "abortion pills" for "guns" and "weed," their post remained on the site, even though weed distribution is expressly prohibited by federal law and delivering the drug across state borders is likewise a federal crime. Abortion pills, meanwhile, can be legally distributed via mail by certified doctors, as the Associated Press noted.

Most abortion pills consist of two drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol. The first halts the production of a hormone, progesterone, that helps facilitate the early stages of pregnancy. The second drug induces the uterus to empty itself of pregnancy tissue.

Asked about their sudden abortion-related content removal, Meta told the Associated Press that it prohibits users from selling certain firearms, alcohol and pharmaceuticals.

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone affirmed this policy over Twitter, adding that the company has "discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these."

RELATED: Facebook bans Trump for two years, as social media giant changes controversial moderation rules

Just after the mass-deletions were flagged, the Intercept reported that Meta had secretly designated Jane's Revenge, an abortion rights group, as a terrorist organization. The classification reportedly stems from an act of vandalism the group led against an anti-abortion group in May, which "consisted of a small fire and graffiti denouncing the group's anti-abortion stance." According to The Intercept, Jane's Revenge has been put on "Tier 1" status speech restrictions, on par with drug cartels and mass murderers.

"This designation is difficult to square with Meta's placement of the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters in Tier 3, which is subject to far fewer restrictions, despite their role organizing and participating in the January 6 Capitol attack," Mary Pat Dwyer, academic program director of Georgetown Law School's Institute for Technology Law and Policy, told the Intercept. "And while it's possible Meta has moved those groups into Tier 1 more recently, that only highlights the lack of transparency into when and how these decisions, which have a huge impact on people's abilities to discuss current events and important political issues, are made."

Historically, the vast majority of abortion-related violence has been carried out by anti-abortion groups against pro-choice doctors and clinics, as the Intercept noted. This trend, according to Axios, has continued into the present day, with "assaults directed at abortion clinic staff and patients" having "increased 128% last year over 2020." Despite this, only two names associated with anti-abortion violence reportedly appear on Meta's list of Dangerous Individuals and Organizations, which was obtained by the Intercept last October.

RELATED: Facebook is killing democracy with its personality profiling data

Despite Facebook's apparent effort to crack down on abortion access and abortion rights advocacy, Meta has told its staff that it would cover travel expenses for employees who have to go out of state for an abortion, according to CNBC.

Continued here:
Facebook swift to respond to Roe fallout with abortion censorship - Salon

TEL AVIV, Israel--(BUSINESS WIRE)--New research released today by Hola has highlighted concerns amongst internet users in countries with some of the most restricted web access in the world, that the need for web tools to access online content is going to grow in the next 12 months. The study, carried out by the leading market research firm Vanson Bourne on behalf of Hola, gathered insights from 2000 internet users across China, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and United Arab Emirates (UAE), and found 82% of users believe the need for web content tools will increase in the next year. 93% of respondents in China believe the need will increase in their region, and this comes as internet censorship in China will continue to expand.

Citizens surveyed across these regions are struggling to gain access to basic resources that many outside of those regions take for granted. The research revealed that those with limited access to web content are struggling to access educational information and resources (43%) and online news (29%). When it comes to overcoming the growing challenge of internet censorship, citizens in those territories most impacted by restrictions overwhelmingly believe technology providers should be doing more to make online content accessible. 97% of those asked believe this to be the case and nearly all respondents in China (99%) think technology providers should be doing more in this area.

Web content tools are becoming increasingly important as censorship grows and users look to bypass local restrictions. The findings show 92% of respondents that use web content unlocking tools to access online content believe they are important to enable this access. 95% of internet users that have limited access to online content already use web content tools to access restricted material. Some online tools can be expensive and therefore not accessible for all users, making free tools that allow a gateway to web content a necessity. When it comes to free-to-use tools, 80% of respondents would consider using free technology tools to be able to access online content.

The internet was created to be a global borderless resource that benefits us all, but due to geopolitical interferences, it is becoming increasingly closed off in certain regions, and we must all work together to fight back against this, explained Avi Raz Cohen, Holas General Manager. As we can see in the findings, users are struggling to gain access to educational material and online news content, amongst other things, and this is simply unacceptable. We agree with users in those regions that technology companies should be doing more to address this and one key weapon in this battle is free web content tools that help unlock blocked content. We are proud to provide free VPN technology and web tools that unlock online content and help bypass restrictions. One thing is certain - well do all we can to support citizens around the world as they push for borderless online freedom.

Read the rest here:
82% Of Internet Users in Countries With Some of the World's Harshest Internet Censorship Regulations Expect the Need for Web Access Tools to Grow in...

Since the beginning of the year, 4,154 Egyptian migrants have arrived on the shores of Italy. This represents a threefold increase compared to the same period last year. Confronted with an economic crisis and wide-spread repression at home, they consider leaving Egypt by boat as their only option.

Beginning in the spring, small boats loaded with migrants started arriving in Italy almost every day. Rescued off the coast of Calabria, Sicily and Lampedusa for the most part, these new arrivals take enormous risks to reach Europe by crossing the Central Mediterranean, one of the world's deadliest migration routes.

According to the Italian interior ministry, 26,652 people arrived in Italy by sea between January 1 and June 27, 2022. Egypt comes in second after Bangladesh as the top nationality of people arriving irregularly in Italy. It was even the first nationality represented among the arrivals up until May.

The distance from the Egyptian coast to Italy is considerable: for example, more than 1,500 kilometers separate Alexandria from the Italian islands of Lampedusa and Sicily.

Of the total number of people disembarked in Italy this year, 4,605 were Bangladeshi (16%) and 4,154 were Egyptian (15%). This is a threefold increase compared to 2021, when 1,543 Egyptian nationals were counted.

The European Commission has called this "a spectacular increase", and in an internal note dated June 15 and consulted by the media Euro Observer, it pledged 80 million to the Egyptian government to prevent people from taking boats toward Italy.

Of this amount, around 23 million will reportedly be handed out this year for "maritime border surveillance equipment." The remaining 57 million will be doled out next year "for further equipment to be identified," the document stated.

The note further stated that increased controls of the Egyptian border with Libya and Sudan are also to be expected, but without further details.

Read more: Egypt town fears worst for local men lost en route to Europe

The factors pushing Egyptians to leave for Europe via irregular channels seem to be rooted in the dire eonomic constitution of their country.

For several years now, Egypt has been mired in a serious economic crisis from which it is struggling to extricate itself. In 2016, two years after Abdel Fattah al-Sissi became president, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released an initial bailout loan of 12 billion dollars. The government then planned to implement austerity measures while encouraging the development of an inclusive economy driven by the private sector, necessary to create jobs and reduce poverty.

"Only half of this plan was implemented," says Timothy Kaldas, researcher at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy. "Austerity has become the reality for millions of people. The state has cut subsidies for oil, natural gas and even electricity. For Egyptians, the bill has been hefty: the amount of money spent on electricity by the poor and the middle class has increased by 271% between 2011 and 2017-2018."

As a result, the poverty rate in Egypt has skyrocketed. According to official figures, it now stands at 29.7%, two points more than in 2015. The World Bank issued an even grimmer outlook in 2019, declaring that 60% of the Egyptian population was very poor or vulnerable.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have dealt the final blow to an economic situation that was already moribund. Before the Russian offensive, Egypt was one of Kyivs main clients, importing 30% of its wheat imports from Ukraine. The remaining 60% of Egypts wheat imports came from Russia. This situation of almost total dependence makes the threat of a food shortage in Egypt all the more likely, the consequences of which would be disastrous for the population.

Faced with the scarcity of imports and the price of food increasing by 17.5% in February, the Egyptian government has been struggling to continue subsidizing the traditional Egyptian "baladi" bread, which has fed 70% of the population for decades.

Already in 2020, the Egyptian authorities had made the population pay for their poor economic management. To maintain the price of bread at the subsidized level of 5 piastres, or around 0.0027, the government reduced its weight. From 110 grams in 2016, it went down to 90 grams in 2020. This represents a departure from the years 1988 to 2013, when Egyptians could buy a 130-gram flatbread at a steady price.

For Timothy Kaldas, "the authorities constantly accuse foreigners as the source of all the evils in the country. But Egyptians have been fighting daily for a long time. Many young adults who cannot afford to move out live with their parents to spend as little as possible. So after several years without improvements, and faced with a constellation of problems, its logic that they seek opportunities elsewhere.

In this context, many Egyptians are turning to the informal sector for work, which is certainly easier to access, but also more precarious. Some also choose entrepreneurship, a seemingly faster and easier way to earn a living. "But even starting your own business, the last resort for many people who cannot find work, is complicated. It is not uncommon to see the military arrive overnight in your offices, and close everything, if your activities do not suit them," says Kaldas.

The lucky ones are reprimanded. The others are thrown into prison. According to Amnesty International, Egypt currently has more than 60,000 prisoners of conscience, including "peaceful activists, human rights defenders, lawyers, academics and journalists detained solely for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association". For Bahey Eldin Hassan, an Egyptian pioneer of human rights exiled in France, the Egypt of Abdel Fatah al-Sissi is comparable to the "Syria of Bashar al-Assad" or "the Sudan" of former dictator Omar al-Bashir, as he said in an interview with TV5monde.

On April 27, the Egyptian president made concessions. That day, more than 3,200 detainees were released, on the anniversary of the "liberation of Sinai", a peninsula occupied by Israel from 1967 to April 25, 1982. The presidential pardon will not resolve eight years of restrictions, threats, and censorship. For Egyptians in search of a better life, it is difficult to imagine a future in a country with a leader who could technically remain until 2030, due to a revision of the Constitution carried out in 2019.

"I fear that migration has become the inevitable fate of thousands of Egyptians", says Hassan Abdel Rahman, a researcher. "The dream of a better future in Europe has become the main objective for many."

More here:
Poverty, restrictions, censorship: What's driving Egyptians to head for Europe - InfoMigrants

Sign first, then well discuss the details.

Nobody would trust a real estate agent or used car dealership with that approach, but thats how the Trudeau government is trying to sell its plan to regulate the internet.

The government is trying to rush new censorship legislation through Parliament at lightning speed. Through Bill C-11, the Trudeau government plans to hand the CRTC the power to control what content Canadians can access online. This includes filtering feeds on popular apps like Netflix, YouTube and TikTok.

As if that wasnt bad enough, the government is deliberately choosing not to disclose the scope of these new regulatory powers until after the bill becomes law.

Such an approach runs roughshod over the democratic process.

If the government wants to ram through new censorship powers, at a bare minimum we deserve to know just how aggressively the CRTC will be instructed to regulate what we see and share online.

The government cant even get bureaucrats singing from its own hymn book.

Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez has promised up and down that user-generated content, meaning content a typical Canadian might upload to YouTube or share on Twitter, will not be regulated through Bill C-11.

But Ian Scott, the chair of the CRTC, which will be responsible for applying the regulations on the governments behalf, says user-generated content will be fair game.

Who should Canadians believe?

If the CRTC says it will have the power to regulate user-generated content through Bill C-11, and theyre the ones tasked with implementing it, Canadians should listen to the CRTC.

As the government attempts to give itself sweeping new powers, it is worthwhile to ask why the government wants bureaucrats to have these new powers in the first place.

The government claims it wants to ensure Canadians are exposed to enough Canadian content online. But this raises serious questions.

First, is the government competent to decide what should count as Canadian content?

Currently, the CRTCs process in making that determination is flawed. A biopic of the Trump presidency, entitled Gotta Love Trump, is considered by the CRTC as Canadian content, while The Handmaids Tale, based on legendary Canadian writer Margaret Atwoods famous novel, is not.

On the competence question, the answer clearly is no.

Second, what happens if the government decides it wants to use the CRTCs new powers to influence what we see and share online based on standards other than Canadian content?

Its easy to foresee mission creep. Today, the government wants to promote Canadian content. But tomorrow, with the CRTCs powerful new tools to regulate the internet, Bill C-11 could easily be repurposed to quiet dissent or promote favourable narratives. Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, for example, has mused about the government pursuing new regulatory measures for the sake of social cohesion.

With these clear risks, it is worth asking whether this legislation is even needed, as the government claims, to ensure Canadian content gains adequate exposure.

The truth is that Canadian content is thriving like never before. In 2020 alone, Canadas film and television industry enjoyed $6 billion in foreign investment, up five per cent from the year prior. And Canadian films and shows are easy to find on streaming services like Netflix.

If the sole rationale of Bill C-11 is to have Canadian content thrive and succeed online, then present data demonstrate that the legislation simply isnt needed. The government could just scrap Bill C-11 and call it a day.

The fact that Rodriguez and the Trudeau government are still aggressively pushing Bill C-11 in light of these facts demonstrates that the governments motive is not, as it claims, to promote Canadian content. Rather, it is all about control.

Jay Goldberg is the Ontario and interim Atlantic director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Troy Media.

Read the original here:
Opinion | Justin Trudeau's government is on a quest for censorship - Hamilton Spectator

Controversial issues on which the Church maintains counter-cultural positions definitely bring more heated discussion, and you do have to play it safe, Chong said. You have to be more careful in the workplace. You want to pick your battles ... and if you need to avoid controversial issues, then do so if you think your job is at stake.

Such self-censorship by Catholic workers is definitely not fair, she admits, because fellow workers holding politically acceptable liberal woke views are usually free to espouse them at will.

Self-censorship can be seen as a manifestation of cancel culture, and its more than just a minor workplace irritant, say the authors of a major international report on the anti-Christian chilling effect thats rolling across modern Western society. In fact, they say secular intolerance represents a persecution engine that is both pernicious and dangerous to religious freedom.

The report Perceptions on Self-Censorship: Confirming and Understanding the Chilling Effect was published by the International Institute for Religious Freedom, the Observatory of Religious Freedom in Latin America, and the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe.

Hate crimes, including the wildfire of anti-Catholic arson and vandalism that swept across Canada last summer following the discovery of unmarked graves at former residential school sites, may be the latest, most visible manifestation of anti-Christian bias, but just as threatening is the rendering as unacceptable any expression of traditional Christian teaching on fundamental life issues.

Religious persecution is often thought of as people who are jailed or facing criminal charges, or even facing death for their faith, Canadian academic Janet Epp-Buckingham said during an online conference with the Vienna-based Observatory of Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians.

But in secular countries there is this death by a thousand cuts consisting of numerous smaller matters adding up to the larger issue of feeling under pressure for your faith and thereby having this chilling effect that I cant say anything about my faith, said Epp-Buckingham.

Epp-Buckingham, a professor at Trinity Western University in Langley, B.C., and director of the Laurentian Leadership Centre in Ottawa, said in a later interview that while the report on self-censorship centred on case studies in France, Germany, Colombia and Mexico, there has been a clear narrowing of acceptable public discourse in Canada, with the result that Christians here are being forced to self-censor.

Christians are afraid to express their views on social media for fear of repercussions at work or in their social circles, said Epp-Buckingham, who is also executive editor of the International Journal for Religious Freedom.

Christians are regularly advised to keep any church affiliation off their resume or LinkedIn as it might hurt their career. There seems to be a widespread view that religion should be a private matter and kept to oneself.

The chilling effect could have even more serious effects, said Madeleine Enzlberger, executive director of the Observatory of Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians.

One of the most worrying and tragic findings of this report is that (it finds) if the social costs to follow your belief and to express it become too high, people will ultimately abandon their belief, said Enzlberger. And it is especially younger and uneducated people whose faith is at risk here.

The study found secularization has narrowed the corridor of socially acceptable discourse, in turn producing a chilling effect on opinions outside of that corridor and ultimately precipitating extensive Christian self-censorship. The phenomenon is most noticeable in online social forums.

Its not about strict legal cases or persecution even, said German sociologist Friederike Boellmann, one of the reports three authors, but every person that I interviewed noticed a change in the climate or a narrowing of the opinion corridor.

German research showed it is universities that are the most hostile environment.

And the largest extent of self-censorship I found in my research (was) in the academic realm, said Boellmann.

Some interviewees said the nature of public debate has worsened to the point that people are forever excluded from debates, lose their professional credibility, are not invited anymore and not to be underestimated (are thought to) become dangers to other people that are seen in contact with them.

The research found that Catholics tend to self-censor more than other Christians. While the researchers did not study the self-censorship problem in Canada, Trinity Western political-science professor Paul Rowe told the conference this countrys political climate has clearly had a chilling effect on Christians.

Rowe said the Liberal Party of Canada has been responsible for mobilizing the electorate along anti-religious lines, with the result that Canada is far ahead of many other states when it comes to chilling Christian discourse.

The Liberal Party has long seen conservative Christians to be a soft target within the wider conservative movement, said Rowe.

It has become clear that certain views are not acceptable within the Liberal Partys ranks, and more to the point, they will run directly counter to them in an effort to pillory so-called social conservatives.

Whether or not Christians feel they can publicize their beliefs, there are clear reasons that they need to remain quiet about them if they wish to gain access to public funding, Rowe said, citing such examples as the Canada Summer Jobs program and pro-life organizations charitable status.

Moreover, he said, the breadth of application of (Parliaments) conversion-therapy ban also leaves many religious people uncertain whether they can affirm conservative religious views on sexuality without fear of prosecution, whether or not they formally engage in trying to persuade someone to diverge from their chosen sexual preferences.

Rowe said each of these policies has had a chilling effect not only on Christians but also on people of other religious communities and even some of no religion at all.

The instrumental use of religion as a wedge to ply apart Canadian society is dangerous. It signals that there is a minority which neither fully belongs in our society, nor should it enjoy the full privileges of citizenship.

Catherine H, a Catholic public sector worker whose name has been changed to protect her identity, said that pressure to conform to secular values takes many forms. Her employer is now encouraging employees to identify in their emails their favoured pronouns (she/hers, him/his, they/their). So far she is refusing and hasnt spoken out against it.

Its not mandated, but theres always the fear, What if I dont? she said. If that should come down to a condition of employment, then thats very troubling.

Christian Elia, executive director of the Catholic Civil Rights League, said there is an easy solution to the problem.

The solution really is to be more Catholic, Elia said. Think about it. We are called to love our neighbour and were also called to love our enemies. We are called to reconcile faith and reason.

While Catholics are called to live lives of humility, that doesnt mean being silent.

Quite frankly, we have to remind people of the immense good that we do, said Elia. What if our hospitals and schools didnt exist? Would Canada be a better society? Of course not.

Read the original post:
In face of 'woke' ideologies, Catholics increasingly self-censoring their faith - The Catholic Register

from the who-does-this-help? dept

This post analyzes California AB 587, self-described as Content Moderation Requirements for Internet Terms of Service. I believe the bill will get a legislative hearing later this month.

A note about the draft Im analyzing,posted here. Its dated June 6, and its different from theversion publicly posted on the legislatures website(dated April 28). Im not sure what the June 6 drafts redlines compare tomaybe the bill as introduced? Im also not sure if the June 6 draft will be the basis of the hearing, or if there will be more iterations between now and then. Its exceptionally difficult for me to analyze bills that are changing rapidly in secret. When bill drafters secretly solicit feedback, every other constituency cannot follow along or share timely or helpful feedback. Its especially ironic to see non-public activity for a bill thats all aboutmandating transparency. _()_/

Whos Covered by the Bill?

The bill applies to social media platforms that: (A) Construct a public or semipublic profile within a bounded system created by the service. (B) Populate a list of other users with whom an individual shares a connection within the system. [and] (C) View and navigate a list of connections made by other individuals within the system.

This definition of social media has been around for about a decade, and its awful.Critiques I made8 years ago:

First, what is a semi-public profile, and how does it differ from a public or non-public profile? Is there even such a thing as a semi-private or non-public profile?

Second, what does a bounded system mean?The bounded system phrase sounds like a walled garden of some sort, but most walled gardens arent impervious. So what delimits the boundaries the statute refers to, and what does an unbounded system look like?

I also dont understand what constitutes a connection, what a list of connections means, or what it means to populate the connection list. This definition of social media was never meant to be used as a statutory definition, and every word invites litigation.

Further, the legislature shouldbut surely has notrun this definition through a test suite to make sure it fits the legislatures intent. In particular, which, if any, services offering user-generated content (UGC) functionality do NOT satisfy this definition? Though decades of litigation might ultimately answer the question, I expect that the language likely covers all UGC services.

[Note: based on a quick Lexis search, I saw similar statutory language in about 20 laws, but I did not see any caselaw interpreting the language because I believe those laws are largely unused.]

The bill then excludes some UGC services:

The Laws Requirements

Publish the TOS

The bill requires social media platforms to post their terms of service (TOS), translated into every language they offer product features in. It defines TOS as:

a policy or set of policies adopted by a social media company that specifies, at least, the user behavior and activities that are permitted on the internet-based service owned or operated by the social media company, and the user behavior and activities that may subject the user or an item of content to being actioned. This may include, but is not limited to, a terms of service document or agreement, rules or content moderation guidelines, community guidelines, acceptable uses, and other policies and established practices that outline these policies.

To start, I need to address the ambiguity of what constitutes the TOS because its the most dangerous and censorial trap of the bill. Every service publishes public-facing editorial rules, but the published versions never can capture ALL of the services editorial rules. Exceptions include: private interpretations that are not shared to protect against gaming, private interpretations that are too detailed for public consumption, private interpretations that governments ask/demand the services dont tell the public about, private interpretations that are made on the fly in response to exigencies, one-off exceptions, and more.

According to the bills definition, failing to publish all of these non-public policies and practices before taking action based on them could mean noncompliance with the bills requirements. Given the inevitability of such undisclosed editorial policies, it seems like every service always will be noncompliant.

Furthermore, to the extent the bill inhibits services from making an editorial decision using a policy/practice that hasnt been pre-announced, the bill would control and skew the services editorial decisions. This pre-announcement requirement would have the same effect as Floridas restrictions on updating their TOSes more than once every 30 days (the 11th Circuit heldthat restriction was unconstitutional).

Finally, imagine trying to impose a similar editorial policy disclosure requirement on a traditional publisher like a newspaper or book publisher. They currently arent required to disclose ANY editorial policies, let alone ALL of them, and I believe any such effort to require such disclosures would obviously be struck down as an unconstitutional intrusion into the freedom of speech and press.

In addition to requiring the TOSs publication, the bill says the TOS must include (1) a way to contact the platform to ask questions about the TOS, (2) descriptions of how users can complain about content and the social media companys commitments on response and resolution time. (Drafting suggestion for regulated services: We do not promise to respond ever), and (3) A list of potential actions the social media company may take against an item of content or a user, including, but not limited to, removal, demonetization, deprioritization, or banning. I identified 3 dozen potential actions in myContent Moderation Remedies article, and Im sure more exist or will be developed, so the remedies list should be long and Im not sure how a platform could pre-announce the full universe of possible remedies.

Information Disclosures to the CA AG

Once a quarter, the bill would require platforms to deliver to the CA AG the current TOS, a complete and detailed description of changes to the TOS in the prior quarter, and a statement of whether the TOS defines any of the following five terms and what the definitions are: Hate speech or racism, Extremism or radicalization, Disinformation or misinformation, Harassment, and Foreign political interference. [If the definitions are from the TOS, cant the AG just read that?]. Ill call the enumerated five content categories the Targeted Constitutionally Protected Content.

In addition, the platforms would need to provide a detailed description of content moderation practices used by the social media. This seems to contemplate more disclosures than just the TOS, but that definition seemingly already captured all of the services content moderation rules. I assume the bill wants to know how the services editorial policies are operationalized, but it doesnt make that clear. Plus, like Texas open-ended disclosure requirements, the unbounded disclosure obligation ensures litigation over (unavoidable) omissions.

Beyond the open-ended requirement, the bill enumerates an overwhelmingly complex list of required disclosures, which are far more invasive and burdensome than Texas plenty-burdensome demands:

All told, there are 7 categories of disclosures, and the bill indicates that the disclosure categories have, respectively, 5 options, at least 5 options, at least 3 options, at least 5 options, and at least 5 options. So I believe the bill requires that each services reports should include no less than 161 different categories of disclosures (75+75+73+75+75).

Who will benefit from these disclosures? At minimum, unlike the purported justification cited by the 11th Circuit for Floridas disclosure requirements, the bills required statistics cannot help consumers make better marketplace choices. By definition, each service can define each category of Targeted Constitutionally Protected Content differently, so consumers cannot compare the reported numbers across services. Furthermore, because services can change how these define each content category from time to time, it wont even be possible to compare a services new numbers against prior numbers to determine if they are getting better or worse at managing the Targeted Constitutionally Protected Content. Services could even change their definitions so they dont have to report anything. For example, a service could create an omnibus category of incivil content/activity that includes some or all of the Targeted Constitutionally Protected Content categories, in which case they wouldnt have to disclose anything. (Note also that this countermove would represent a change in the services editorial practices impelled by the bill, which exacerbates the constitutional problem discussed below). So who is the audience for the statistics and what, exactly, will they learn from the required disclosures? Without clear and persuasive answers to these questions, it looks like the state is demanding the info purely as a raw exercise of power, not to benefit any constituency.

Remedies

Violations can trigger penalties of up to $15k/violation/day, and the penalties should at minimum be sufficient to induce compliance with this act but should be mitigated if the service made a reasonable, good faith attempt to comply. The AG can enforce the law, but so can county counsel and city DAs in some circumstances. The bill provides those non-AG enforcers with some financial incentives to chase the penalty money as a bounty.

An earlier draft of the bill expressly authorized private rights of action via B&P 17200. Fortunately, that provision got struckbut, unfortunately, in its place theres a provision saying that this bill is cumulative with any other law. As a result, I think the 17200 PRA is still available. If so, this bill will be a perpetual litigation machine. I would expect every lawsuit against a regulated service would add 587 claims for alleged omissions, misrepresentations, etc. Like the CCPA/CPRA, the bill should clearly eliminate all PRAsunless the legislature wants Californians suing each other into oblivion.

Some Structural Problems with the Bill

Although the prior section identified some obvious drafting errors, fixing those errors wont make this a good bill. Some structural problems with the bill that cant be readily fixed.

The overall problem with mandatory editorial transparency. I just wrote awhole paper explaining why mandatory editorial transparency laws like AB 587 are categorically unconstitutional, so you should start with that if you havent already read it. To summarize, the disclosure requirements about editorial policies and practices functionally control speech by inducing publishers to make editorial decisions that will placate regulators rather than best serve the publishers audience. Furthermore, any investigation of the mandated disclosures puts the government in the position of supervising the editorial process, an unhealthy entanglement. I already mentioned one such example where regulators try to validate if the service properly described when it does manual vs. automated content moderation. Such an investigation would necessarily scrutinize and second-guess every aspect of the services editorial function.

Because of these inevitable speech restrictions, I believe strict scrutiny should apply to AB 587 without relying on the confused caselaw involving compelled commercial disclosures. In other words, I dont thinkZauderera recent darling of the pro-censorship crowdis the right test (I will have more to say on this topic). Further, Zauderer only applies when the disclosures are uncontroversial and purely factual, but the AB587 disclosures are neither. The Targeted Constitutionally Protect Content categories all involve highly political topics, not the pricing terms at issue in Zauderer; and the disclosures require substantial and highly debatable exercises of judgments to make the classifications, so they are not purely factual. And even if Zauderer does apply, I think the disclosure requirements impose an undue burden. For example, if 161 different prophylactic just-in-case disclosures dont constitute an undue burden, I dont know what would.

The TOS definition problem. As I mentioned, what constitutes part of the TOS creates a litigation trap easily exploited by plaintiffs. Furthermore, if it requires the publication of policies and practices that justifiably should not be published, the law intrudes into editorial processes.

The favoritism shown to the Targeted Constitutionally Protected Content. The law privileges the five categories in the Targeted Constitutionally Protected Content for heightened attention by services, but there are many other categories of lawful-but-awful content that are not given equal treatment. Why?

This distinction between types of lawful-but-awful speech sends the obvious message to services that they need to pay closer attention to these content categories over the others. This implicit message to reprioritize content categories distorts the services editorial prerogative, and if services get the message that they should manage the disclosed numbers down, the bill reduces constitutionally protected speech. However, services wont know if they should be managing the numbers down. The AG is a Democrat, so hes likely to prefer less lawful-but-awful content. However, many county prosecutors in red counties (yes, California has them) may prefer less content moderation of constitutionally protected speech and would investigate if they see the numbers trending down. Given that services are trapped between these competing partisan dynamics, they will be paralyzed in their editorial decision-making. This reiterates why the bill doesnt satisfy Zauderer uncontroversial prong.

The problem classifying the Targeted Constitutionally Protected Content. Determining what fits into each category of the Targeted Constitutionally Protected Content is an editorial judgment that always will be subject to substantial debate. Consider, for example, how often the Oversight Board has reversed Facebook on similar topics. The plaintiffs can always disagree with the services classifications, and that puts them in the role of second-guessing the services editorial decisions.

Social media exceptionalism. As Benkler et als book Network Propaganda showed, Fox News injects misinformation into the conversation, which then propagates to social media. So why does the bill target social media and not Fox News? More generally, the bill doesnt explain why social media needs this intervention compared to traditional publishers or even other types of online publishers (say, Breitbart?). Or is the states position that it could impose equally invasive transparency obligations on the editorial decisions of other publishers, like newspapers and book publishers?

The favoritism shown to the excluded services. I think the state will have a difficult time justifying why some UGC services get a free pass from the requirements. It sure looks arbitrary.

The Dormant Commerce Clause. The bill does not restrict its reach to California. This creates several potential DCC problems:

Conclusion

Stepping back from the details, the bill can be roughly divided into two components: (1) the TOS publication and delivery component, and (2) the operational disclosures and statistics component. Abstracting the bill at this level highlights the bills pure cynicism.

The TOS publication and delivery component is obviously pointless. Any regulated platform already posts its TOS and likely addresses the specified topics, at least in some level of generality (and an obvious countermove to this bill will be for services to make their public-facing disclosures more general and less specific than they currently are). Consumers can already read those onsite TOSes if they care; and the AGs office can already access those TOSes any time it wants. (Heck, the AG can even set up bots to download copies quarterly, or even more frequently, and I wonder if the AGs office has ever used the Wayback Machine?). So if this provision isnt really generating any new disclosures to consumers, its just creating technical traps that platforms might trip over.

The operational disclosures and statistics component would likely create new public data, but as explained above, its data that is worthless to consumers. Like the TOS publication and delivery provision, it feels more like a trap for technical enforcements than a provision that benefits California residents. Its also almost certainly unconstitutional. The emphasis on Targeted Constitutionally Protected Content categories seems designed to change the editorial decision-making of the regulated services, which is a flat-out form of censorship; and even if Zauderer is the applicable test, it seems likely to fail that test as well.

So if this provision gets struck and the TOS publication and delivery provision doesnt do anything helpful, it leaves the obvious question: why is the California legislature working on this and not the many other social problems in our state? The answer to that question is surely dispiriting to every California resident.

Reposted, with permission, from Eric Goldmans Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Filed Under: ab 587, california, content moderation, disclosures, internet regulations, terms of service, transparency

View original post here:
California Seems To Be Taking The Exact Wrong Lessons From Texas And Florida's Social Media Censorship Laws - Techdirt

Listen here or subscribe at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favourite podcasts. Stay updated on episodes via our Twitter page. If you would like to support the journalism of the Toronto Star, you can subscribe at thestar.com/subscribingmatters.

Guest: Allan Woods, global and national affairs reporter for the Toronto Star

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine enters its fourth long month, you may wonder, whats it like in Russia? In a country slipping into further isolation and sanctions, where information is tightly guarded, do Russians support this war or are they living in fear of government surveillance and censorship at home? According to Star reporter Allan Woods, the answer is as complicated as the country. Like many journalists, Allan fled Russia when the war broke out. He had lived in Moscow for over four years. He made a recent trip back to Moscow and he gives us a glimpse into a city that appears as electric as ever at least on the surface.

Audio sources: France24, PBS, Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy.

This episode was produced by Saba Eitizaz, Alexis Green and Matthew Hearn

Link:
Sanctions, censorship and war: What it's like living in Russia - Toronto Star