Category Archives: Censorship

THOR: THE DARK WORLD | Unnecessary Censorship Recap | Censored Marvel Funniest / Best Moments
In anticipation of the Guardians of the Galaxy and the Avengers 2: Age of Ultron by Disney... I mean Marvel... let #39;s take a look back at a recap / synopsis of the 2013 Thor: the Dark World...

By: NinjaPandaProductions

Continued here:
THOR: THE DARK WORLD | Unnecessary Censorship Recap | Censored Marvel Funniest / Best Moments - Video

Gang of 4: Wolfgang Halbig and the Sandy Hook Circus! Youtube Censorship!
Another lively Go4 discussion featuring +kateslate11 +freeagentmedia +redpillrevolution +freeradiorevolution Join the discussion below!

By: Free Radio Revolution ULTIMATE!

See more here:
Gang of 4: Wolfgang Halbig and the Sandy Hook Circus! Youtube Censorship! - Video

LISLE A Lisle native, museum curator and 22-year-old college student has joined forces with his North Central College professor to create an exhibit exploring the history of Chicago film censorship.

Brian Failing, a senior at North Central, cowrote an upcoming exhibit at the Lisle Station Museum with associate professor of speech communication and coordinator for the college's urban and suburban studies program, Steve Macek, called, "Banned in Chicago: Eight Decades of Film Censorship in the Windy City."

The exhibit is the result of research the two conducted for a book Macek is working on. Failing was Macek's research assistant over the course of two summers.

"He was very excited about the research we were doing on the history of film censorship in Chicago," Macek said. "He thought it would make a compelling exhibit."

Failing has worked at the museum since he was 15 years old, and took over as curator his senior year of high school.

"I thought (film censorship) was a topic that's really important and really interesting that I think a lot of people will like, because everyone likes stuff that has to do with films, movies and Hollywood," Failing said.

In 1907, Chicago became the first city in the country to create a local film censorship authority, Macek said. The city also had the longest-lasting such authority in the country it was dissolved in 1984 after funding for the agency stopped.

"When it was first created, the police chief the head of Chicago police was responsible for reviewing and licensing films," Macek said. "Any films that were amoral or obscene could be banned."

About a decade after the agency was created, Macek said the authority was delegated to a civilian board, which was usually chaired by a police officer. The other members of the board were often women.

"The thinking was that women had a stronger moral sense than men and were better able to determine what was suitable," Macek said.

Continue reading here:
Lisle museum exhibit to explore film censorship in Chicago

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has hit out at a European ruling on the "right to be forgotten." Joi Ito/Wikimedia Commons

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has hit out at a new European ruling forcing Google to edit or erase search results, calling it "wide-sweeping censorship."

Speaking to the BBC, Wales described the European Union Court of Justice's decision on Tuesday as "one of the most wide-sweeping internet censorship rulings that I've ever seen."

The ruling enshrines the "right to be forgotten", which allows individuals to request the removal of links to irrelevant or incorrect information about themselves. The ruling means that instead of trying to get an offending article, photo or online posting removed by whoever published it, the subject of that article or posting can contact Google and ask for the posting to be removed from search results.

But Wales is sceptical about the practicality of the ruling. "If you really dig into it, it doesn't make a lot of sense," he said. Users of the Internet can "complain about something and just say it's irrelevant, and Google has to make some kind of a determination about that. That's a very hard and difficult thing for Google to do, particularly if Google is at risk of being held legally liable if it gets it wrong in some way."

"If they have to start coping with everybody who whines about a picture they posted last week, it's going to be very difficult for Google," he added.

The ruling is designed to protect the privacy of the individual. The case came to the top European court following hundreds of cases regarding the right to be forgotten in Spain, including a complaint by a man claiming his privacy was infringed by a notice related to the repossession of his house.

The right to be forgotten is meant to protect, for example, an individual wrongly accused of a crime. Reports of the allegations are posted online and stay there, hanging around accusingly even if the person is later acquitted. Under the new laws, the person could ask Google to edit or remove links to the allegations.

But the decision could also be abused by people who want to cover up their misdeeds or indiscretions -- especially if they're in a position to afford lawyers.

Google said the European Court's decision was "disappointing", and is now taking time to "analyse the implications." But Jimmy Wales doesn't see much of a future for the ruling: "I suspect this isn't going to stand for very long," he said.

Here is the original post:
Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales blasts ruling forcing Google to erase search results

HOBBIT: DESOLATION OF SMAUG (CENSORED), funniest/best moments, unnecessary censorship parody recap
Once again, starring Dr. Watson from Sherlock as Dildo Daggins aka Bilbo Baggins. In anticipation of There and Back Again / The Battle of the Five Armies, let #39;s look back at the awesome movie...

By: NinjaPandaProductions

Read the original:
HOBBIT: DESOLATION OF SMAUG (CENSORED), funniest/best moments, unnecessary censorship parody recap - Video

DW: A lot of the discussion around this particular landmark case, which involved the Spanish data protection agency and a Spanish man against Google Spain and Google Inc, has centered around the distinction between a data controller and a data processor. But underlying this is what happens on a day-to-day basis for Internet users. Your position is that it centers around media freedoms. How do you feel about that?

James Waterworth: Much of the way people access information today is from the internet, often getting to it though services like the one in the judgment, i.e., through Google. We are really concerned that today's judgment opens the door to censorship, a new form of censorship over the internet, potentially to the whitewashing of history where people who have a grudge against something that is being said online in a link can simply write to the Internet company and have that information taken down. We think this is a dangerous precedent.

In this particular case, we're talking about information that was published around 1998 and was correct at the time. So when you talk about censorship and whitewashing and rewriting history, surely that is a reflection of how much time we are spending online and how much of our lives we are putting online. Sometimes we slip up and make mistakes, don't we?

James Waterworth is concerned the Google ruling may impact freedom of information

I might prefer, and politicians might prefer, for information not to be out in the public, but if it's true, people have a right to know. So it's a very dangerous route if we decide that something that is legally allowed to be published in a Spanish newspaper can't then be shown on the Internet. This is a very dangerous trend.

So how do you feel about the fact that this article was published in a newspaper with a relatively high circulation? There is probably a physical version of this article tucked away in some archive in a library, which is probably still accessible. Yet in this case, we are saying that the Internet version of that article should be removed, or we should all have the right to have that removed.

Exactly, and this raises the potential that we go to all the libraries in Spain and ask to have that article removed from those libraries.

And obviously, picking up on what you are saying, that's not the way to go, is it?

Clearly it is not the way to go. Given the heritage we have, whether the literary heritage or the information about people, it's important that people have access to information. The Internet has provided people with even easier access to information at a lower cost. That sometimes is uncomfortable for people who have done something wrong, but it is also extremely beneficial for society that politicians and other powerful people are held to account.

But the difference between a physical copy of an article on a piece of paper tucked away in an archive and what's online is the interconnectedness of all this information. Through an online search you can build a profile of a person. Isn't that what really makes the internet different in this age - that we can connect details of people's lives in such a way that can be perhaps a disadvantage to them, that people might not really recognize that what happened to a person in 1998 is not really relevant today?

Here is the original post:
Waterworth: 'Today's judgment opens the door to censorship'

Editors note:Geoff Yang is a founding partner at Redpoint Ventures.

Intellectuals for centuries have campaigned against censorship. From Ben Franklin to John F. Kennedy to Justice Earl Warren, the argument has been much the same: Censorship is antithetical to democracy. More recently, megastar Jay-Z reiterated the point in his 2011 book, Decoded, writing simply that we change people through conversation, not through censorship.

Its pretty hard to argue with Jay-Z let alone Franklin, Kennedy and Warren. But I find myself, uncomfortably, thinking more favorably about the concept of censorship as we in Silicon Valley grapple with the emergence of several social networks built around the concept of anonymity. Companies like Whisper and Secret, among several other lesser-knowns, have attracted outsized attention and funding as the next generation of social media platforms. While each has its own unique features, they all allow users to send messages to groups without names attached.

Let me first say that anonymity can be a very good thing. Having the ability to speak freely without fear of repercussions can spark honest discussion about important, delicate or emotionally charged topics. Just being able to share feelings and fears within a supportive network can be a productive mental health exercise and even connect people in meaningful and fun ways. Upstart Secret, for one, has shown strong success in the quality of discourse on its mobile app. It isnt perfect. I mean, some of it is silly and some of it is a little mean and petty. But overall, its much better than I expected. In general, the content is about real emotions, real fears, real aspirations and real desires.

Part of the genuine nature of the conversations on Secret stems from the fact that users are only sharing their personal reflections with people somehow relevant to them, as they come from their personal networks (via phone contacts). Secret is more like going to a masquerade ball with your friends versus being in a completely dark room with a bunch of strangers. You sign on to Secret with a verified identity and then can exchange messages anonymously with other people to whom you are digitally connected to, and who are also on Secret. This is an important distinction and works because the lack of total anonymity on Secret forces users to refrain from sending truly offensive messages they may otherwise send if they were among strangers. Deep down you worry that people might be able to figure out who you are.

I think of Secret as qualified anonymity, and this aspect of a companys network is hugely important in establishing both credibility and value and why startups like Secret have a shot at real success. But it is not enough by itself.

Here comes the tough part. As abhorrent as the concept of censorship is to many people who embrace the ideals of anonymity, including me, we need censorship to keep the dimly lit corners of cyberspace safe. It is just too tempting for people under the protection of anonymity to devolve into irresponsible and immoral behavior.

We have all seen how damaging it can be to offer an unbridled platform for the worst kind of human impulses, particularly for teens. Prejudice, bigotry and sheer meanness can easily proliferate, transforming a winning concept into little more than a digital bathroom wall.

That is why any platform leveraging anonymity will have to have some group of moderators that delete inappropriate and dangerous posts in real time and then banish those posters from the site forever. To be clear, I am only in favor of striking comments that are truly hateful or dangerous. Unpopular or controversial viewpoints that are part of honest discourse should be allowed to flow freely.

Whisper, for one, has already hired dozens of employees whose sole job is to constantly monitor the site for inappropriate content. These are important actions because they ensure consequences for behaviors that deliberately cause harm. To purists, it may inhibit free speech, but to me its no different than why we prohibit people from yelling fire in a movie theater when one doesnt exist.

See the original post here:
The Case For Censorship In The New Social Age

Drug Censorship in Music
I #39;m always in a debate with myself about whether or not I should censor drug references in the edits I do. For certain artist, like Mac Miller (who #39;s new mixtape I #39;m currently cleaning) it...

By: relly rel

View post:
Drug Censorship in Music - Video

NEW YORK, May 12, 2014 /Emag.co.uk/ The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) today announced the launch of its newly redesigned website in celebration of the coalitions 40th anniversary. The goal of the new site, with an updated design on a new platform, is to enable the NCAC to reach a wider audience in its continued mission to support First Amendment principles. New features include integration of a continually updated sample of tweets from people around the world who are talking about free expression as well as access to video clips from renowned artists, authors, and other free speech defenders.

With our 40-year history defending free expression, and our status as an umbrella for many organizations, NCAC can connect the dots on free speech controversies. Our new site features will help supporters stay updated on the latest free speech news and discover new connections between the issues, said NCAC Executive Director Joan Bertin.

The new site includes an archive of Censorship News, the NCACs newsletter, to enable visitors to read the latest issues as well as access a deep archive of censorship topics from the past 40 years. To build on the coalitions established role promoting free speech, the site encourages continued discussion via a platform for visitors to share their insights, experiences, and ideas.

Bertin continued, We are excited to showcase articles from our coalition partners and Free Expression Network members in the Our Network section of our homepage. Here, supporters can check out the latest news from organizations working with us to protect free expression, in education, art, theater, entertainment, and more.

To find out more about NCAC and to visit the new site, go to http://www.ncac.org.

About National Association Against Censorship

NCACs mission is to promote freedom of thought, inquiry and expression and oppose censorship in all its forms. The Coalition was formed in response to the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Miller v. California, which narrowed First Amendment protections for sexual expression. For the last 40 years, as an alliance of more than 50 national non-profits, including literary, artistic, religious, educational, professional, labor, and civil liberties groups, NCAC has engaged in direct advocacy and education and mobilized support for First Amendment principles and addressed new modes and targets of censorship.

Media Contact: Michael ONeil, National Coalition Against Censorship, 212-807-6222 x 107, michael@ncac.org

News distributed by PR Newswire iReach: http://www.ncac.org

Excerpt from:
National Coalition Against Censorship Celebrates 40 Years of Promoting Freedom of Thought, Inquiry, and Expression

I don #39;t believe in censorship: Vinod Khanna - IANS India Videos
Veteran actor Vind Khanna, who will soon be seen in apivotal role in #39;Koyelaanchal #39;, a film based on coal mafia, says he doesn #39;t believe in censorship. Subsc...

By: iansindia

Excerpt from:
I don't believe in censorship: Vinod Khanna - IANS India Videos - Video