Category Archives: Censorship

Reading Time: 3 minutes

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 hymnbook.

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 & Interim Atlantic Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Jay is a Troy Media Thought Leader. For interview requests, click here.

The opinions expressed by our columnists and contributors are theirs alone and do not inherently or expressly reflect the views of our publication.

Troy MediaTroy Media is an editorial content provider to media outlets and its own hosted community news outlets across Canada.

Authoritarianism, Censorship, Free speech, Freedom, Internet, Totalitarianism, Trudeau government

Jay Goldberg spent most of his career in academia, where he was most recently a policy fellow at the Munk School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. He holds an Honours Bachelors Degree in Political Science from the University of Toronto, and a Master of Arts Degree in Political Science from the University of British Columbia.

Read the original here:
The Trudeau government is on a quest for censorship - Troy Media

TAIPEI, Taiwan

Most internet users trying to get past Chinas Great Firewall search for a cyber tunnel that will take them outside censorship restrictions to the wider web. But Vincent Brussee is looking for a way in, so he can better glimpse what life is like under the Communist Party.

An analyst with the Mercator Institute for China Studies in Berlin, Brussee frequently scours the Chinese internet for data. His main focus is information that will help him understand Chinas burgeoning social credit system. But in the last few years, hes noticed that his usual sources have become more unreliable and access tougher to gain.

Some government websites fail to load, appearing to block users from specific geographic locations. Other platforms require a Chinese phone number tied to official identification. Files that were available three years ago have started to disappear as Brussee and many like him, including academics and journalists, are finding it increasingly frustrating to penetrate Chinas cyber world from the outside.

Its making it more difficult to simply understand where China is headed, Brussee said. A lot of the work we are doing is digging for little scraps of information.

One of the most sweeping surveillance states in the world, China has all but closed its borders since the start of the pandemic, accelerating a political turn inward as nationalism is on the rise and foreign ties are treated with suspicion. A harsh zero-COVID policy has contributed to the attrition of foreign residents, particularly after a long and bitter lockdown this spring in Shanghai, Chinas largest and most international city.

At the same time, academics and researchers have complained that the digital window into China seems to be constricting too. That compounds a growing concern for China experts locked out of the country amid deteriorating relations with the West. A tightening of internet access means observers will struggle to decipher what internal pressures Chinas leader Xi Jinping may be facing and how to keep track of Beijings diplomatic, technological and military ambitions.

Comprehensive analysis on whom Chinas Great Firewall keeps out is scarce; much of the focus on the countrys internet freedom remains on domestic censorship. But many researchers who have experienced such challenges suspect that their limited access is part of Chinas attempt to ward off what it sees as international meddling, and present its own tightly controlled narrative to the outside world.

Several researchers, for example, noted difficulties accessing Xinjiang government data from abroad, likely a response to international criticism on reports of forced labor and human rights abuses against the western regions Uyghur population. More puzzling to Brussee was when he encountered similar barriers to the government website of Anhui province, a decidedly less controversial part of China.

Brussee said websites have also added guards against data scraping, limiting how much information he can retrieve via automation on public procurement of surveillance systems, policy documents and citizens or businesses affected by the social credit system. Some bot tests known as CAPTCHA require manual input of Chinese characters or idioms, another barrier for those unfamiliar with the language.

China is keen to project an image of power and superiority. But that has been undermined at times by embarrassing revelations, including recent videos of Shanghai residents protesting harsh lockdown restrictions. The posts were quickly wiped from the Chinese web but continued to circulate beyond the Great Firewall, challenging Beijings claims that its zero-tolerance COVID policy was better at containing the pandemic than programs in the West.

Comments on Chinas internet can also cast an unflattering light. Earlier this year, users on the nations Twitter-like Weibo platform drew condemnation for sexist comments welcoming beautiful Ukrainian women as war refugees. An anonymous movement that translates extreme and nationalistic posts from Chinese netizens has outraged state commentators who call it an anti-China smear campaign.

In order to squeeze through bottlenecks, Brussee uses a virtual private network, or VPN, which routes an internet users web traffic through servers in a different geographic location. Though its a commonly used tool for Chinese netizens to circumvent the Great Firewall, Brussees aim is to appear to be visiting websites from within Chinas borders.

But VPNs arent foolproof. Chinese authorities have cracked down, making connections in and out of China slow and erratic. Brussee said he went a month without a VPN last fall, when his main provider inexplicably stopped functioning. After five fruitless calls to the company, he could only wait for service to eventually resume. His last resort would be to use a Chinese company with more reliable servers inside the country, but he said installing Chinese software comes with additional security risks.

I dont think the VPN is enough anymore a lot of the time, said Daria Impiombato, a researcher at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute who uses VPNs to bounce around to different locations when trying to visit Chinese government websites. You find workarounds, but it takes way longer.

One alternative source of information that Impiombato has relied on is WeChat, the ubiquitous social messaging app owned by Chinese gaming giant Tencent. Many party agencies have their own pages on WeChat where they post notices, but it requires a lot of mobile scrolling to find the relevant material, she said.

Signing up for an account, however, has become more challenging for foreigners in recent years as Chinese platforms like WeChat, Weibo and others have implemented additional screening, such as a Chinese phone number and official identification. In some cases, those registration requirements can be more prohibitive than geoblocking, ruling out resources from online discussions to official documents to industry databases.

Graham Webster, editor in chief of the DigiChina Project at the Stanford University Cyber Policy Center, has searched for a way to use Weibo since losing the use of his Chinese phone and subsequently his account. The closest solution he could find was a service that provided temporary, and he suspected fraudulent, phone numbers.

We are talking about something that would be on the internet for one-fifth of the worlds population and not for the other four-fifths, Webster said. This is one more wedge in a steepening curve of barriers between China and the outside world. It leaves a lot more ground for suspicion and uncertainty.

Blocking foreign internet users, particularly from sensitive information, is not unique to China. According to a 2020 report from Censored Planet, which studies internet freedom and censorship, the U.S. government had blocked about 50 websites from being viewed from Hong Kong and mainland China, including official military home pages and stores of economic data.

But Chinas control of information appears more expansive. The government, according to researchers and academics, had made files and data available online over the last decade. But in recent years as China has become more sensitive about its global image and more critical of the West that degree of openness has run into a trend to deter outsiders from peering in.

Its the effort of openness coming up against the current push towards closedness, said Maya Wang, senior China researcher at Human Rights Watch. The result is some strange hybrid landscape, where you can have access to a lot of information if you go through all these hoops, specifically because they are not designed for you to have access to them.

Some who have developed ways to bypass blocks were reluctant to share details, aside from generally trying to emulate a Chinese location, fearing those channels would be plugged as well.

Describing to a newspaper the workarounds to access blocked Chinese sites ensures that the workarounds will be blocked, too, one U.S. academic researcher wrote via email. The only thing I can add, without cutting short my own career, is another common sense measure, namely, scrape and cache whatever one discovers the first time around.

Thats turned into standard practice for Impiombato, who has grown paranoid about saving her own copies of everything as government web pages, news releases and social media posts have vanished unexpectedly amid her research.

Sometimes you see the perfect piece of information that you need and then suddenly its gone, she said. You almost have to start from scratch every single time.

Katherine Kaup, a professor at Furman University who studies Chinas ethnic policy, said the countrys changes have forced her and others to consider entirely new research topics and techniques. She has reservations about one day returning to China for field work, and even virtual discussions with people in the country have been dampened by concerns over repercussions for speaking too frankly amid a growing clampdown on dissent.

I sometimes feel like Im in a bad sci-fi movie, she said. The type of research that we used to do is not going to be possible moving forward in the next few years.

See the rest here:
As China shuts out the world, internet access from abroad gets harder too - Los Angeles Times

No free pass for intermediaries, appeared to be the general sentiment pervading the first public consultation on the proposed amendments to the IT Rules, 2021 held yesterday.The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) took particular note of unnamed intermediaries that have not fully complied with the IT Rules, 2021, spotlighting their refusal to take action on harmful content on their platforms citing safe harbour obligations.

Why it matters: Stakeholders aired their initial questions and concerns with the Rules with the Ministry yesterday. MeitYs responses shed light on its current outlook on all intermediaries operating in Indias Information and Technology sector, i.e., they must comply with Indian platform regulation laws.

Released on June 6th, the proposed amendments to the IT Rules, 2021, aim to curb the harms of Big Tech and improve user grievance redressal. In the same breath, they have raised concerns for both users of the Internet and stakeholders across Indias Information and Technology sector. As MediaNama has previously reported, who they apply to remains unclear in the draft. The proposed changes may also spur censorship by intermediariesincluding social media companies. A newly formed redressal Committee may result in overt government influence over speech online.

In yesterdays meeting, the Ministry repeatedly referred to intermediaries non-compliance with the IT Rulesleading to increasing complaints from users on faulty grievance redressal mechanisms. Describing the Rules as part advocacy and part rule-making, the Ministry added that it hopes the rules will ensure compliance by intermediaries. MeitY stated that the Rules move away from policies without principles and would enable an open, safe, transparent, and accountable Internet for Indians. It added that it was committed to improving the ease of doing business in India, and in no way wanted to stifle the operations of start-ups.

Responding to a question on who the Rules applied to, it stated the definition of intermediaries remained the same as when the Rules were first notified last February. This indicates that the Rules may be applicable to all intermediaries listed under the Information and Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). Describing the IT Act as a mezzanine law for Indias Information and Technology sector, the Ministry hinted toward a contemporaneous law in the making that would address the issues raised by the stakeholders and centre user harm. It suggested that a consultation on the law was forthcoming.

The discussion was chaired by Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology, and senior officials from MeitY. Held in a hybrid format with over 50 physical participants and close to 100 virtual attendees, the consultation drew lawyers, researchers, industry bodies, and representatives from Indias intermediaries.

The proposed amendment to Rule 3(1)(a) directs Intermediaries to enforce their terms of service, user agreement, and rules and regulations. The proposed amendment to Rule 3(1)(b) causes the user not to transmit certain kinds of content onlinethese include content that belongs to someone else, is harmful to children, harms national integrity, or is defamatory in nature.

When Should Platforms Moderate Content?:Representatives of industry bodies repeatedly questioned how these rules should be enforced by intermediaries. That is, should intermediaries monitor content before it is published through proactive content filtering mechanisms? Or, should they monitor content once it is published?The former could give rise to pre-censorship by intermediaries eager to over-comply with the law. The latter could involve monitoring at a logistically infeasible scale for intermediaries.

MeitY stated that ensuring compliance with the Rules does not imply proactive content moderation. Rather, once an intermediary receives notice that a piece of posted information violates the Rules, they should act to take it down immediately. A Ministry representative added that Rules 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(g) clarify how content moderation can be operationalisedthe amendments merely seek to mandate that these rules are enforced. MeitY reiterated its stance that intermediaries have to comply with Indian laweven if it affects their business models or technologies.

The Ministry appeared open to adding clarificatory language on post-facto content moderation procedures. It also suggested submissions from those attending on how to operationalise these provisions.

Do the Rules Challenge Shreya Singhal?:Others added that the Rules may challenge the Supreme Courts 2015 verdict inShreya Singhal v Union of India, by delegating the interpretation of lawful or unlawful content to intermediaries. Similar iterations of this question cropped up during the meeting.

The Ministry responded that it was moving away from policies without principles. MeitY envisions an Internet that is open, safe, and accountableso, whatever content falls afoul of Indian law and intermediary rules needs to be acted on. Intermediaries are not being asked to judge legality.

Do All Intermediaries Have the Capacity to Comply with the Rules?: Some stakeholders added that implementing these amendments differs based on the intermediary, information, and user action. Smaller intermediaries may not have the proximity to information or know-how to cause a user not to upload something. Checking the legality of certain types of information, like hyperlinks, may be difficult to do for these types of intermediaries. Finally, the definitions of the content types prohibited online were vague and expansiveleaving Indian internet users with a wide range of things that they cannot do. Other representatives requested that some of these content types be struck down from the Rules, adding that whether content is defamatory, insulting, or inflammatory is a question even Courts struggle with.

After listing the different types of concerning speech listed in Rule 3(1)(b), as well as their various modes of transmission, MeitY firmly disagreed with the proposition that they were too broad. The Rules, it stated, have been designed to ensure absolute clarity on the nature of accountability the Indian government desires. However, it added that it was not wedded to the language used in the provision, and would consider submissions requesting the clarification of terms used in the amendment.

Rule 3(1)(m) directs intermediaries to ensure the accessibility of its services to users, complemented by reasonable due diligence, privacy, and transparency. Rule 3(1)(n) adds that the intermediary should respect the rights afforded to Indians under the Constitution of India.

How is Accessibility Defined?Stakeholders present raised concerns over the definition and scope of accessibility itself. For example, Rule 3(1)(m) can be interpreted as ensuring that there is no discrimination in services provided to users. However, it could also be interpreted as ensuring intermediary services are accessible to the disabled. Some added that it was unclear as to what steps would need to be taken to ensure accessibility. They inquired whether failure to comply with the provision would lapse the safe harbour provision for the intermediary.

The Ministry appeared ready to issue fresh language on the definitions. On the question of procedure, it stated that this was a matter of availability and access. Describing the provision as an unproblematic omnibus clause, MeitY added that no service can be availed of by only certain groups of people.

Will the Rules Impact Start-ups?:Notwithstanding this definitional confusion, multiple stakeholders representing industries noted that Rule 3(1)(m) may negatively impact start-ups and smaller intermediaries. These entities may simply not have the capacity to ensure accessibility to all users. The provision may also increase compliance costs for them. Additionally, they questioned whether a private entity can be compelled to provide a user a service, given that they are usually bound by a contractual relationship.

Linking its response to Indias tryst with Net Neutrality in the late 2010s, the Ministry responded by stating that no platform can deny a user access to a service. Describing the question of compliance costs as a bland claim, MeitY reiterated that it in no way sought to impede the growth or interests of start-ups. It appeared open to submissions on potential material harms to start-ups as a result of the provisions.

Are the Rules Practicable?:Some stakeholders added that the nature of accountability desired by the Ministry has to be practicable. That is, the intermediary has to be able to actually implement the provision.

Intermediaries set out to conquer the world with a set of assumptions [on how they will operate], responded the Ministry. However, it concluded that the governments of the world have now woken up to keep citizens on the Internet safe. In short, if an intermediary believes a law is impractical, then that cant be a valid reason to change the law.

The Ministry added in another response that constitutional rights have been included in the Rules to ensure non-discrimination by intermediaries in grievance redressal. It stated that it had received many emails suggesting that the language in Rule 3(1)(n) was too soft in asking intermediaries to respect the Constitution. It stated that it may be inclined to harden the language of this provision.

The amendments to Rule 3(2)(a)(i) direct the Grievance Officers of an intermediary to acknowledge complaints relating to violations of Rule 3(1)(b) within 24 hours. Actions included in acknowledgement are suspension, removal or blocking of any user or user account. The complaint should be redressed within 72 hours.

Is the Intermediary an Arbiter of the Law?:Some stakeholders present argued that the lists of prohibited content under Rule 3(1)(b) were open to subjective interpretationdisposing of them in 72 hours may result in the intermediary hastily adjudicating on content. They cautioned that the intermediary should not become an arbiter of the provisions.

The Ministry stated that it was clear that intermediaries are not arbiters. They are simply encouraged to do their jobsthat is, enforce moderation policiesthrough the amendment. It added that viral content spreads much faster online, making the offline mechanism of approaching the Courts for takedowns infeasible. Approaching the judiciary may also raise barriers for Indian users of the Internet seeking grievance redressal. Can we ask someone in a village to file a Writ Petition against someone sitting in Menlo Park?

Some stakeholders submitted that the 72-hour redressal window may conflict with Prajwala v Union of India.A Supreme Court case concerning the circulation of child pornography online, Orders issuedby the Court dictate that such content should be expeditiously taken down by authorised officials within specified timelines. Stakeholders present suggested that content types like child pornography should be treated sensitively, with grievances addressed within a faster timeframe.

The newly inserted Rule 3(3) proposes the formation of a Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC). The GAC is an alternative redressal mechanism to approaching the Courts for users appealing decisions taken by Grievance Officers. Intermediaries must comply with Orders passed by the GACwhose members will be appointed by the Union government.

What is the Legal Basis of the GAC?: Representatives of industry bodies questioned whether the Rules are empowered to institute a quasi-judicial body like the GAC, without the parent statute (the Information and Technology Act, 2000) enabling it.

The Ministry responded by noting the rise in complaints received since the enactment of the IT Rules last year. It claimed that intermediaries appeared to be applying the Rules arbitrarily, leading to more Court cases and appeals to MeitY on these matters. The GAC acts as a middle layer of grievance redressal between the intermediary and the Courts. It also acts as a disincentive for platforms that are currently not fulfilling their grievance redressal obligations under the IT Rules.

Are There Alternatives to the GAC?: Noting the Ministrys comments on GAC emerging from the absence of a credible self-regulatory mechanism for intermediaries in India, representatives of industry bodies and prominent social media intermediaries probed whether MeitY would be open to such a mechanism in the future.

The Ministry emphatically stated that it is open to such a mechanismthe burden of grievance redressal is not something the Union should have to take on. It described the GAC as a mezzanine intervention until intermediaries step in with a better solution in the near future. It appeared open to receiving proposals on such self-regulatory bodies.

How Will the GAC Function?:Many stakeholders requested clarifications from the Ministry on the composition of the GAC, and the various functions its members would perform. With some citing Supreme Court verdicts, stakeholders further probed whether an adjudicatory Committee can be set up without members of the judiciary present.

The Ministry stated that the government will constitute the Committee in a transparent manner. It reiterated that it has no desire to form a body like the GACand that intermediary non-compliance had forced it to step in.

Will the GAC Affect Fundamental Rights?:Some stakeholders further added that by adjudicating on intermediary decisions, the GAC may essentially become one of the arbiters for what constitutes lawful speech online. This may lead to censorship. Clarifying the procedures of the Committee in the Rules would be useful to ensure no violation of Fundamental Rights takes place.

Describing concerns of censorship as a purist argument, the Ministry reaffirmed that the GAC simply incentivises platforms to follow their own rules and the laws of India.

Some stakeholders representing commercial enterprises welcomed the formation of the GAC, noting that they had been on the receiving end of ineffectual Grievance Officers. They suggested introducing a penalty for intermediaries for every act of non-complianceat an amount as small as one rupee.

The Ministry noted that currently, the worst penalty an intermediary can face is losing safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. Noting that it had not currently envisioned financial penalties on intermediaries, it appeared open to considering them in the future.

Some stakeholders suggested that before content gets taken down under Rule 4(8)(a), users be provided a hearing to appeal the decision, as post-facto appeals are hard to obtain from intermediaries. Others suggested introducing penalties for intermediaries who have wrongfully taken down a users accountas this amounts to a civil debt for them.

Some also suggested a graded system of penalties for intermediariesinstead of blocking their services under Section 69(a) of the IT Act, 2000, for non-compliance. They suggested temporarily blocking the onboarding of new users to penalise such intermediaries, arguing that this strategy worked well in the RBI-MasterCard standoff over the last year.

Other stakeholders wanted the GAC to operate as an Online Dispute Resolution mechanismto mitigate the prohibitive costs of appearing in person for hearings. Stakeholders added that the body should include consumer or user representatives, as they are on the receiving end of lacklustre grievance redressal.

Read More

View post:
Censorship fears over India's IT Rules as wrangle continues with MeitY - MediaNama.com

Proceeds from an auction of an unusual edition of Margaret Atwoods classic dystopian novel The Handmaids Tale will go to the free expression advocacy group PEN America, as the group stands up to right-wing attempts to ban books in the United States.

The single copy of the novel is made entirely of flame-resistant material, as evidenced in a video released on May 24 in which Atwood herself attempted to light the book on fire.

Atwood and the publishing company Penguin Random House announced Monday that the book will be auctioned off at Sothebys New York, both to help PEN America fight censorship and as a challenge to enacted and attempted book bans.

To see her classic novel about the dangers of oppression reborn in this innovative, unburnable edition is a timely reminder of whats at stake in the battle against censorship, said Markus Dohle, CEO of Penguin Random House.

The publisher worked with Atwood, PEN America, the Toronto-based creative agency Rethink, and a bookbinding studio called the Gas Company to create the book.

The flame-proof copy is made of thin sheets of Cinefoil, an aluminum product, and was sewn together using nickel copper wire.

The creation of the book comes as attempts to ban books by lawmakers and school districts have surged to their highest level since the American Library Association began recording such censorship two decades ago.

The group reported 729 challenges to materials in schools and libraries. Last week, more than 1,000 childrens book authors and artists signed a letter condemning the efforts by organized groups to purge books from our nations schools.

The Handmaids Tale was banned in schools in Texas and Kansas last year.

According to PEN America, as Republicans center their 2022 electoral campaigns largely on protesting the teaching of the United States long history of racial injustice and discussions of gender identity in public schools, GOP lawmakers in 42 states have proposed nearly 200 pieces of legislation seeking to limit school discussions of such topics.

The unburnable copy of The Handmaids Tale is an unforgettable visual metaphor for the current political climate in the U.S., Atwood said.

Follow this link:
Battle against censorship: Fire-Proof edition of "Handmaid's Tale" released to fight GOP book-banning - Milwaukee Independent

China's internet regulator has released a new set of draft rules that, if implemented, would impose stricter censorship of comments posted to social media platforms, MIT Technology Review reports.

Why it matters: Tighter restrictions could close off what few spaces remain for Chinese people to speak their minds online.

The big picture: The Chinese government has already created one of the toughest internet censorship regimes in the world, enforced in large part by content reviewers employed by social media companies to police posts.

Details: The Cyberspace Administration of China on Friday released draft guidelines that would require closer scrutiny of comments largely ignored by censors, such as replies to comments and messages featured on the screen during livestreaming.

What to watch: If the draft rule "about mandating pre-publish reviews is to be strictly enforced which would require reading billions of public messages posted by Chinese users every day it will force the platforms to dramatically increase the number of people they employ to carry out censorship," writes MIT Technology Review's Zeyi Yang.

Follow this link:
New draft rules portend more internet censorship in China - Axios

The increasing attacks on the freedom of speech and conscience of Christians in the West have been the subject of many discussions, columns and initiatives in recent years. But much less is being said about the attitude of Christians themselves, especially in the upper echelons of Western societies, towards these existential challenges to Christianity.

Are they fueling in any way by their silences or omissions the trend that has been going on for several decades, and which has progressively eliminated Christian influence from the spheres of decision?

The issue of self-censorship in the Christian world is the subject of a recent report produced by The International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF), the Observatory of Religious Freedom in Latin America (OLIRE) and the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe (OIDAC Europe).

Presented during an online June 9 press conference, the report is entitled Perceptions on Self-Censorship: Confirming and Understanding the Chilling Effect. It is based in a field of study encompassing France, Germany, Colombia and Mexico considered textbook cases for understanding the dynamics of this phenomenon, stemming directly from secular intolerance. The interviewees, chosen among the authoring institutions networks, were of different ages, genders and educational backgrounds as well as geographic locations, and come mostly from the education, media, political and religious fields.

Along with establishing that self-censorship in the Christian world is not a mere hypothesis but an overwhelming reality, the report also warns that the significant number of successful court cases involving freedom of speech for Christians does not coincide with an appeasement of secular intolerance, nor with a liberation of the speech for Christians.

According to Madeleine Enzlberger, executive director of OIDAC Europe, while the law still defends freedom of speech overall in many Western jurisdictions, the social pressure tends to be much more deterring and oppressive than the legal framework.

Because of the social climate of intolerance around Christians, they dont feel allowed to speak freely. It is the basis of the chilling effect, she told the Register following the reports presentation, adding that the choice for a growing number of Christians to keep quiet on certain issues in public tends to make religion, and thus the Christian anthropology and values, more and more relegated to the private sphere.

The forms that self-censorship takes are multiple and often subtle, the report indicates. Most of the time, this mechanism is almost unconscious. Friederike Bllmann, author of the Germany study, noted in an interview with the Register that none of the interviewees would mention self-censorship to describe their deliberate omissions, and that they would rather describe their attitude as being professional, tactical, politically correct or simply cautious.

Many people, especially those employed by Christian churches, said they would make a distinction between the form and the content of their public statements, claiming for instance that while their stance on sexual and bioethics issues or on COVID measures hasnt changed, their wording has changed in order to be more inclusive and welcoming to a greater amount of people, but without losing their core beliefs, Bllmann said.

Another tendency emerging from the study, especially for Germany, is that of prioritizing the battles. In other words, a person who challenges the established order of secular intolerance on one issue will be unlikely to show the same determination on other important issues. And the chilling effect mentioned in the report is, according to its authors, necessarily amplified by the so-called cancel culture that has been spreading all across the West in the academic, artistic, political and media worlds.

With the shift of the right for people not to be offended, the risk for people in the media and politics to speak up is just too high, Bllmann continued.

While noting that unlike France, there is no laicit (a formal policy of separation of religious influence from government policy) in Germany, Bllmann said that being a very practicing and believing Christian is no longer accepted within society.

People are not discriminated [against] for belonging to a Church, it is seen as a simple cultural element but as soon as it is about real faith, if you argue as a believing person, it is identified as right-wing extremism, she said.

In France, which embodies the most pronounced form of post-modern secularism, a generational gap seems to have developed and continues to grow. According to the various interviewees, in the face of a Catholic Church hierarchy and an older generation particularly prone to self-censorship in order not to displease the dominant anticlerical mentality, a new generation of unabashed and more daring faithful is emerging in concert with a renewal of conservative thought in the country.

In Mexico and Argentina, one of the most noticeable aspects of the research is that practicing Catholics are more prone to self-censor than Christians from other denominations, especially Evangelical Christians, who tend to have a better biblical training. In general, a high level of religious education appears to play an important role in the ability to resist the chilling effect in these Latin American countries. Those with a solid grounding tend to speak more openly about topics related to life, marriage and family from a Christian perspective.

Education on the one hand, and awareness of self-censorship on the other, are the two main keys to overcoming the chilling effect of secular intolerance, according to the conclusions of the reports authors. In fact, for almost all respondents in all countries, the mere realization via their own answers to the researchers questions that self-censorship is occurring among Christians, especially in countries with advanced secularization, was enough to trigger in them the desire to reflect on its true impact on their lives and on the ways to combat it.

Dennis Petri, one of the leading authors of the report, said during the June 9 press conference that a Mexican bishop reached out to the team after answering their questionnaire, to thank them for prompting the interviewees to reflect about this serious issue. This in turn led the researchers to the conclusion that among the many things that can be done to address this, raising awareness among Church communities would be the most pressing and efficient step to take.

Weve heard more and more cases of self-censorship over the past years, its getting too much to be unnoticed, so we needed to document this and show the bigger picture, Enzlberger told the Register, warning that the consequences of such progressive disappearance of Christian voices in the public discourse is having a very damaging impact on societies as a whole. Many seemingly minor self-censorship phenomena lead to the silence of many, and if such a situation consolidates, we can no longer say we are living in liberal democracies anymore.

Visit link:
Self-Censorship in the Christian World: An Underestimated Consequence of Secular Intolerance - National Catholic Register

This content contains affiliate links. When you buy through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission.

When putting together the book censorship news this week, it felt like each story was trying to one up the next, ranging from the ridiculous to the truly chilling. Were seeing an increase in lawsuits and legal involvement, from residents suing officials for banning books, to parents suing teachers for reading LGBTQ books in class, to the ACLU planning legal action against a schools new book challenge policy.

This is why Kelly Jensen and I keep emphasizing that simply reading banned books or buying them isnt enough: this is a systemic issue, and it needs a systemic solution. We need to organize in order to fight back against this wave of censorship, and that includes paying attention to who is getting elected to school and library boards if you have the opportunity, running for these positions is one of the most effective ways that you as an individual can fight censorship.

In May, we announced the School Board Project, which is a database in progress that documents every school board and school board election in the country, state by state. Its a massive project, but weve been chipping away it, prioritizing the states that have school board elections coming up. Eventually, we hope to do the same thing for library boards.

As Kelly explained, this is meant to be a resource that you can build on for your own local activism:

The School Board Project allows anyone to download the spreadsheets and add any relevant information that helps them. For example: individuals or groups may find including the names and stances of those running for boards in the sheet to help guide voters and/or as a means of tracking the kind of topics that are producing the most discussion in those districts. It can be useful for those considering a run for school board to collect information about what they need to do to become eligible or how long they have to prepare for a run. The possibilities here are wide open.

In Reading Color Newsletter

A weekly newsletter focusing on literature by and about people of color!

Thank you for signing up! Keep an eye on your inbox.

Today, Im happy to announce round two of the School Board Project. In addition to the states already included in round one Florida, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Virginia we have also documented the upcoming school board elections, and how many seats are available, in Kentucky, Nebraska, and Wyoming.

Just open the document and save a copy, and then you can add any extra information or delete states that arent relevant to you.

Wed also like to get in contact with grassroots anti-censorship organizations that are helping people with these values run for school or library boards. If you know of any groups like this, especially on the state level or smaller, please let us know!

If you want to be involved in literary activism and the fight against censorship, one easy thing you can do is sign up for our Literary Activism newsletter. Well keep you updated about the latest relevant news as well as give you practical tips for how you can help in the first against censorship. Its also the best way to make sure you see this Censorship News Roundup every week!

Read the original post:
Once the Books Start Coming Off the Shelves, Well See You In Court.: Book Censorship N... - Book Riot

Ah, remember 2012? When many of us were convinced that the end was nigh? Well, okay, not that many of us, but enough for Roland Emmerich to make boatloads of cash off of it? North Korea sure does. "2012" was a massive hit at the box office, but it didn't make its way to North Korea not legally, anyway.

In further proof that North Korea seems to be living in its own alternate universe, the nation's government declared that 2012 would be a very prosperous year for the country. According to The Guardian, not only was 2012 the 100th birthday of the nation's founder, Kim Il-sung, but it was the first year in the reign of its new Supreme Commander, Kim Jong-un. As such, the government promised the advent of a more powerful military, an end to the country's hunger crisis, and the evolution of North Korea as an "economic giant." It wasn't about to let a silly global apocalypse jinx everything!

Now, technically, all foreign media is banned in North Korea. However, according to a study done by InterMedia in 2017, media piracy is rampant in the country, and Kim Jong-un's rise to power came with a crackdown on international productions.

"2012" arrived at just the wrong time, directly challenging the country's success by portraying the mythology around the year 2012 as real, and implying that the government was killing whistleblowers. Perhaps that last part hit a bit too close to home. As reported by Japanese newspaper Asahi (by way of The Telegraph), "numerous" citizens found watching bootleg copies of the film were arrested, and faced up to five years in prison.

See the rest here:
Why These Sci-Fi Movies Are Banned Around The World - /Film

Parenting is hard. There is no other way to describe it. And parenting at a time of social and political turmoil is especially challenging. Old social norms are losing their authority. Social media intrude on the family, often supplanting parental authority. Predators are a concern. Video games are a concern. The music is a concern. The list goes on and on.

As parents, our first instinct is to do everything we can to shield our children from the world around us. And that is a good instinct. But at the same time, it comes with a cost. If we shield them too successfully, do we keep them from preparing to take on the world when they become adults? What are parents to do?

I have thoughts about these things, as you do. I have made my share of mistakes as a parent, and Im sure you would admit you have as well. And there is probably no one answer for every family. Having said this, I would suggest that most parents are trying too hard to protect their children from the world today. I certainly sympathize with this. When I look around, a lot of what I see scares me. But fear shouldnt be our motivation as parents.

We need to find a way to strike a balance between too much fear and too little fear. We must look for ways to keep the pendulum from swinging too far in either direction. Aristotle taught that virtue is a mean between an excess and a defect between too much or too little of something. And courage is a mean between too much fear and too little fear.

Let me ask a question: What do we see as our primary goal as parents? Obviously, we want to provide all the love and support we can for our children. But I suspect that many of us would say that our primary goal is to prepare our children for the future so that they can live successful, independent lives on their own. If that is our goal, then the most important thing is to teach them how to think for themselves. And that means that sheltering them too much is a mistake. They are going to need to know how to respond for themselves to all of the things that we hope wont hurt them.

In other words, our children need to learn how to think critically. That involves weighing and balancing competing arguments. It means developing an ability to confront the harshness and the evil of the world around them. It means our children need to learn their limits. And it means that we need to know our limits as well. We cant do this for them.

Of course, all of this needs to be done in an age-appropriate manner. No sensible person would want a kindergartner to be reading about abortion. But we should even look for age-appropriate ways to challenge kindergartners to think for themselves. If we set the bar too low for them at that age, they may never develop true independence. And by the time our children make it to high school, we shouldnt be trying to shelter them. Its time for them to deal with everything the world brings their way.

Censorship in schools is therefore the worst possible thing for our children. We do them a disservice if we try to keep them from feeling uncomfortable when their beliefs are challenged, even if those are our beliefs as well. And if we keep them from learning about the darkest moments in our nations history, they will not be able to understand todays world. They need to read novels that reveal the beauty in the world around us and the ugliness of which human beings are capable. They must confront racism, sexism, antisemitism and other forms of hatred and prejudice. They need to ask questions about gender.

So the nationwide push by parents and politicians for new forms of censorship in schools harms our children. We are not showing them the respect they deserve if we focus on trying to indoctrinate them rather than inviting them to think for themselves. Laws that prohibit specific topics, books and even discussions from the classroom limit the ability of our children to think. If we want to bless our children by giving them the strength and wisdom they need to be independent, then we have to restrain our desire to always be protecting them.

Solomon D. Stevens is the author of Religion, Politics, and the Law (co-authored with Peter Schotten) and Challenges to Peace in the Middle East. He wrote this for InsideSources.com

More here:
National View: Parenting and censorship in the schools - Duluth News Tribune

As a boy in Sydney, I remembered Anzac reunions (as) emotional, excited days when old soldiers gathered together and drank far into the night. They lived in the past for one drunken day when they got together, the past was all they had in common.

Yeldham had originally pitched his play to the ABC, but it had been rejected.

So he revived it when the BBC came calling. Sadly, the BBCs recording has been erased.

It featured a wealth of Australian and New Zealand expatriate acting talent - including Ray Barrett, Ron Haddrick and Nyree Dawn Porter.

Betty Best, of the Australian Womens Weekly, described how one of the BBCs studios in fog-blanketed Manchester had been converted into a private bar in a Sydney hotel, a North Shore home with a sun patio, a fibro bungalow and a bachelor flat.

Reunion Day, 1962 BBC production, starring Ron Haddrick and Nyree Dawn Porter.

The BBCs recording was due to be shown in Australia on the eve of Anzac Day 1962 in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

Then calamity struck. Australian censors, under the government of Australias longest-serving prime minister, Robert Menzies, insisted on drastic cuts to both the characters and the language.

Chief censor CJ Campbell ruled the language used may be all right for a soldiers reunion but it is all wrong for a suburban sitting room.

Frank Packer (father of Kerry, grandfather of James) agreed, according to Yeldhams autobiography: He refused to show it on his network because he decided it offended the RSL.

The original BBC cast of Reunion Day in 1962, including Nyree Dawn Porter, Ray Barrett and Ron Haddrick plus author Peter Yeldham.

An unnamed Packer executive told the TV Times: Reunion Day depicts Anzac Day as just another excuse for a debauch. The action takes place almost entirely in a pub. The language goes from bad to worse.

Every two or three minutes someone says, lets have a drink. The whole thing (is) blasphemous, obscene and thoroughly nasty.

If we had shown it we would have had the RSL marching on us, not without justice.

Haddrick, who had performed for five seasons at Britains Royal Shakespeare Theatre alongside the likes of Laurence Olivier before returning to Australia, was shocked and upset when Reunion Day was banned: There are only three bloodys in it!

Reunion Day might have remained forgotten, but in 2008, literary critic and former academic Susan Lever published a paper honouring the forgotten play as an important part of our cultural history.

Loading

She will host a discussion about the plays relevance after the read-through. Writer and historian Stephen Vagg, prime mover behind this reading, saw Levers article and says: The ban was absurd, even at the time. Australian officials were simply oversensitive at the plays honest depiction of the issues faced by returned servicemen.

The read-through features Brandon Burke and Ruth Caro among a host of well-known faces and is directed by Denny Lawrence who says the issues faced by returned servicemen from Iraq and Afghanistan are not far removed from those of the returned servicemen in Reunion Day.

Reunion Day: A Reading. AFTRS, Entertainment Quarter, Sydney, June 26, 2pm, reunionday.eventbrite.com.au

More here:
The revival of the Anzac play the censors wouldnt let us see 60 years ago - Sydney Morning Herald