Category Archives: Censorship

October 11, 2012, 5:30 AM PDT

Takeaway: Attempts to shut us up in walled gardens and curb our online freedoms are impossible to implement and police. The nature of the internet sees to it that they are doomed to fail.

The quandary for governments is that because the web is ubiquitous and transparent it is hard to police and harder to censor. Photo: Shutterstock

John Gilmore, an internet activist who was also one of the co-founders of both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the first free software company, Cygnus Solutions, once wrote that the net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

The internet was designed to enable military communications to find their way around points of failure in the event of a nuclear war. If one node fails or drops certain messages because it doesnt like their subject the messages find their way past that node anyway by some other route, according to Gilmore.

Censorship is practised for all kinds of political, social and commercial reasons, and all societies have limits on acceptable behaviour, but the point of the web is that there are no walled gardens and no limits to what we can access. If information wants to get out there, it will.

The idea that the internet is a universal resource that should be accessible to all is enshrined in the Declaration of Principles of the UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) of December 2003, which says, Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Such declarations were relatively meaningless before the emergence of the world wide web, which has transformed the possibilities for information exchange and the dissemination of ideas, and how we respond to them.

Beyond the possibilities of static media, the internet can be seen as a democratising force. It has allowed us to interact with our peers across the cultural, racial, political and religious boundaries of the physical world, precisely because there are few barriers to what we say and how we say it, other than the approval or approbation of our peers.

What makes the internet different is that, unlike newspapers or television, it is interactive. We can determine what we read and how we read it. We are the editors and the filters. We can speak and share our vision with our fellow citizens on the opposite side of the globe without the interference of spokesmen or intermediaries.

See the article here:
Internet censorship: Let it rot in walled gardens

Local artists, theatre-goers and theatrical producers are displeased by the fact that the Censorship Repealing Bill is set to be relegated once again to make room for discussions about the IVF Bill, the Cohabitation Bill, and the Car Park Privatisation Bill.

Unifaun Theatre Company Director Adrian Buckle told di-ve.com that while he understands the importance of the other bills, he is very disappointed that the impending issue is not being given more precedence.

I have a feeling at this point that we will have to wait for a new legislature for this bill to be approved, he said, before claiming that Minister for Tourism, Culture and the Environment Mario De Marco seems to be the only voice in our favour in this affair.

When asked whether he thinks that should the Labour Party (PL) be elected in government, things would change, Mr Buckle revealed that he was personally promised by Dr Owen Bonnici that PL, if in Government, would pass the bill.

I will be holding PL to this promise. If the party is elected to power in the upcoming elections, I will be producing Stitching and then we will see if PL is as good as its promises to fight censorship, he maintained.

The play "Stitching" was banned from being staged last year by the Film and Stage Classification Board. Penned by Scottish writer Anthony Nielson, "Stitching" addresses themes such as abortion and death.

An appeal to the Courts decision was made by the producers of the play in an effort to send out the message that the very banning of the play represented a denial of freedom of expression.

Mr Buckle told di-ve.com that board member Teresa Friggieri admitted to influencing the other members in reaching a decision to her liking by giving them notes on what to look for in the text. He also said that Joe Camilleri, another member on the board, admitted that he had no idea how the play ended, even though he had reread it a week earlier. Dione Mifsud, yet another member, said in court that his theatre experience was limited to his daughters school concerts and a couple of pantomimes.

Despite the Arts Councils determination to formulate an anti-censorship bill and make the public aware of it, this bill has been shrugged off by Parliament, which is choosing to focus on other issues.

See the original post here:
Censorship Bill pushed aside by Parliament

Iran on Tuesday stepped up censorship of websites that usually give foreign currency rates for its pummelled money, the rial, as the exchange market remained virtually paralysed and under tight scrutiny.

Sites such as Mesghal.com and Mazanex.com had rates blanked out for the rial's value against many other nations' currencies, extending a censorship that previously applied to dollar and euro rates.

The market rate for gold coins was also missing.

In Tehran's money changing district, licensed bureaux were doing no business at the rate of 28,500 rials to the dollar imposed since Saturday by the central bank in an effort to reverse a collapse of the money last week.

Instead, a few black market dealers were offering the dollar at 35,000 rials -- close to the all-time low of more than 36,000 reached last week when the rial plunged 40 percent in value.

Iran's currency market has effectively been frozen since October 3, when protests erupted in central Tehran over the sliding rial.

Although shopkeepers and exchange bureaux have since reopened, they are doing little trade.

Merchants in the city's historic Grand Bazaar, which packs political weight in Iran, have greatly increased prices, to the dismay of shoppers. Several were refusing to sell goods until the currency situation stabilises.

More here:
Iran censors currency rates as rial suffers

Philippine President Benigno Aquino defended a new cybercrime law Friday amid a storm of protests from critics who say it will severely curb Internet freedoms and intimidate web users into self-censorship.

Aquino specifically backed one of the most controversial elements of the law, which mandates that people who post defamatory comments online be given much longer jail sentences than those who commit libel in traditional media.

"I do not agree that it (the provision on libel) should be removed. If you say something libellous through the Internet, then it is still libellous... no matter what the format," Aquino told reporters.

Another controversial element of the law, which went into effect on Wednesday, allows the government to monitor online activities, such as e-mail, video chats and instant messaging, without a warrant.

The government can also now close down websites it deems to be involved in criminal activities without a warrant.

Human rights groups, media organisations and web users have voiced their outrage at the law, with some saying it echoes the curbs on freedoms imposed by Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970s.

Philippine social media has been alight with protests this week, while hackers have attacked government websites and 10 petitions have been filed with the Supreme Court calling for it to overturn the law.

Aquino, whose mother led the "people power" revolution that toppled Marcos from power in 1986, said he remained committed to freedom of speech.

But he said those freedoms were not unlimited.

Aquino gave a broad defence of the law, which also seeks to stamp out non-controversial cybercrimes such as fraud, identity theft, spamming and child pornography.

Read more here:
Philippine president defends cybercrime law

Twenty-six years since democracy was supposedly restored and media censorship ended, it is alarming to hear that Philippine President Aquino has signed into law Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

The Philippines Solidarity Network of Aotearoa (PSNA) joins the Filipino people in urging the Philippine Supreme Court to declare the cybercrime law unconstitutional.

Instead of signing a law that threatens anew not only the freedom of the press but also the freedom of millions of ordinary citizens who use the Internet, President Aquino should have instead worked for the immediate passage of the long-overdue Freedom of Information (FOI) bill.

We hope that when President Aquino comes to New Zealand on Oct. 22, 2012, he would have good news that the cybercrime law has been junked and the FOI bill has finally been passed.

The FOI bill must be passed if the Aquino administration is serious about taking the righteous path. Allowing citizens to access information about their elected public officials is crucial in ensuring accountability and promoting good governance.

In New Zealand, the Official Information Act has been in place for 30 years now.

With the cybercrime law that includes online libel, we are concerned that the Filipino peoples right to express their views and criticize erring public officials is seriously threatened. Journalists, anticorruption crusaders and ordinary citizens who express strong views against corrupt politicians would be sanctioned for merely expressing their views as cybercriminals.

With the cybercrime law, the Aquino administration has declared its own version of Marcos martial lawthe e-martial law, and now those in power may unjustly claim any information posted on the Internet to be libelous. Media censorship is back wholesale, and ordinary citizens are now more vulnerable to being charged with libel.

MURRAY HORTON,

secretary, Philippines Solidarity Network of Aotearoa,

Go here to read the rest:
‘Media censorship is back…’

LONDON (Reuters) - A leading media watchdog has accused Iran of trying to cow journalists into silence and self-censorship, adding to international pressure on Tehran over its treatment of activists and the press.

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)said Tehran, which is facing tough international economic sanctions over its nuclear program, was also trying to restrict internet access.

"The situation for independent journalists is Iran is worsening by the day," CPJ Deputy Director Rob Mahoney said in a statement on Wednesday.

"High-profile persecutions and imprisonments are an attempt by the authorities to intimidate the media into silence and self-censorship. The international community must speak out against such actions."

The United Nations human rights office called on Tuesday for the immediate release of prominent activists and journalists arrested or intimidated in what it called an apparent clampdown on critical voices ahead of next year's presidential election.

The CPJ expressed concern about Ali Akbar Javanfekr, press adviser to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and head of the state-run IRNA news agency, who was jailed for six months for insulting the Supreme Leader and Reuters Bureau Chief Parisa Hafezi on trial on charges of spreading lies and propaganda.

In citing a series of arrests of print journalists, it said Iranian authorities had maintained a 'revolving-door' policy, freeing some temporarily as they took others into custody.

In March, the Iranian government suspended the press accreditation of all Reuters staff in Tehran after publication of a video script on women's martial arts training that erroneously referred to the athletes as "assassins". Since then, Reuters has been unable to report from Iran.

Reuters, the news arm of Thomson Reuters, the global news and information group, corrected the script after the martial arts club complained and apologized for the error.

Reuters' Bureau Chief in Iran, Iranian national Parisa Hafezi, was subsequently charged on several counts including spreading lies and propaganda against the establishment. Hafezi had not been involved in drafting the video script.

The rest is here:
Media watchdog accuses Iran of intimidating journalists

KENT: The Kent Free Library is celebrating Banned Books Week, which runs from Sept. 30 through Saturday. Banned Books Week is an annual national event sponsored by the American Library Association with the dual purpose of promoting reading and generating attention to the issues surrounding censorship.

"We've been participating for over 5 years now, each year we try to create an interesting display of challenged and banned titles," said Melissa Ziminsky, Adult Services Manager at the library.

The ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom receives reports from communities around the country where certain books are being challenged or are in danger of being banned and compiles lists, including "Banned/Challenged Classics," "Frequently Challenged Books of the 21st Century," "100 Most Frequently Challenged Books by Decade" and "Most Frequently Challenged Authors pages of the 21st Century."

The ALA's official position is condemning censorship and advocating for free access to information.

According to the association's website, for every book that is reported as challenged by libraries, schools or community groups nationwide, an estimated four books that are challenged go unreported. The ALA's compiles its lists using two sources: newspapers and reports submitted by individuals.

Decisions on banned books are specific to the organization or entity banning them, such as a school district or local library. When a book is banned, it is then unavailable in the library that banned it or not taught in the school district that made the decision.

To generate awareness for the cause of freedom of information, the ALA hosts Banned Books Week each fall, typically during the last week of September. As part of the event, the association encourages book retailers, librarians, publishers, teachers and readers to get involved in the effort to advocate for freedom of information.

Also, for the second straight year, the ALA is co-sponsoring the Banned Books Virtual Read-Out, which invites readers to upload videos of themselves reading from their favorite banned or challenged books.

Books are banned for any number of reasons, as illustrated by the ALA's list of the most-banned books for 2011. The No. 1 book on the list, "ttyl" by author Lauren Myracle, has been banned in some communities for offensive language, religious viewpoints, sexually explicit content and being deemed inappropriate for its target age group.

Sexually explicit content is a common reason for books being banned, as are religious issues and racism. Not all of the books are recent, as the 1960 Harper Lee classic "To Kill a Mockingbird" was tenth on the list. The list is heavy on fiction, but there are non-fiction entries as well.

Originally posted here:
Kent Free Library brings attention to censorship with participation in Banned Books Week

With increasingly complicated issues of censorship and freedom of expression reverberating around the globe - from the suppression of artist Ai Weiwei to the protests against "Innocence of Muslims" in the Arab world - a glance back toward "Degenerate Art," the notorious 1937 Munich exhibition presented by the Nazis, seems as on point as ever.

"A War on Modern Art: The 75th Anniversary of the Degenerate Art Exhibition" at Cantor Arts Center at Stanford University may not include any of the exact pieces displayed at the original show, artworks that were attacked as "un-German," immoral and undesirable by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels. Instead, it presents a small, focused selection of 19 prints, watercolors and books by modernists included in the 1937 exhibition of 650 works, drawing mainly on the Cantor Center's permanent collection.

"It's kind of strange, I think, to quote, unquote commemorate something as horrible as this exhibition," says curator Hilarie Faberman by phone from Stanford. "But on the other hand, there were very much issues of censorship and degeneracy in art, continuing through the '80s and '90s."

The sensation created by the photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe came quickly to mind. "In other words, censorship is very much an issue that's alive in our society."

"A War on Modern Art" includes watercolors by Wassily Kandinsky and Conrad Felixmuller, as well as a 1921 self-portrait by Oskar Kokoschka, two lithographs depicting the poor from Otto Dix's 1924 "Hunger!" portfolio, a linoleum cut of a young woman by Christian Rohlfs and two inward-looking prints by Lovis Corinth. The visually dense "Madhouse," "The Yawners" and "Lovers II" by Max Beckmann are part of the same portfolio of prints, some of which were shown in the 1937 exhibition.

"The ideas the artists are working with here are similar," Faberman says. "I think what offended the Nazis about those were the style of the prints and the way space is condensed. You've got all the mentally ill people in the print, which were considered disgusting and dissolute, like anyone who wasn't a part of this pure Aryan ideal - Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the physically challenged. Hitler used the show as a tool to show what they thought was sickness in society and how the culture needed to be purified."

Abstract art was considered the offensive purview of the elite, while some more-realistic artists, such as Dix and George Grosz, were attacked by the Nazis for their leftist leanings and unidealized, ugly imagery.

Working off the idea for "A War on Modern Art" from one of her assistants, Mariko Chang, and looking into the Los Angeles County Museum of Art's noted 1991 restaging of the original exhibition, Faberman never before had a chance to sit down and read about the 1937 show.

"It is astounding to see what was in the original exhibit," she says now. "Almost everything we consider important to understanding modern art was labeled as degenerate."

Through Feb. 24. 11 a.m.-5 p.m. Wednesday-Sunday; until 8 p.m. Thursday. Free. Marie Stauffer Sigall Gallery, Lomita Drive at Museum Way, Stanford. museum.stanford.edu.

View post:
Cantor revisits 1937 degeneracy, censorship

Many of the major web services have been expanding to emerging markets over the last few years. Googles travails in China are well documented, for example.

Now Googles YouTube is setting up shop in Europes fastest growing internet market with official sanction but that may call up the same kind of ethical concerns its parent has seen elsewhere.

Turkey says it has successfully convinced YouTube to operate at youtube.com.tr a fact that means the video site will have to comply with the countrys own domestic laws on such things as censorship.

Transport and communications minister Binali Yildirim (via Reuters):

It will now be in a binding and critical position to implement court decisions and remove any objectionable publications. Further more it will also pay taxes on its operations.

The issues is thrown in to relief by last weeks government edict that the controversial video, The Innocence of Muslims, be censored in Turkey.

Google, Twitter and Facebook last year said they would comply with the local laws of countries in which they operate.

Turkey is not considered a wildly oppressive state, but its stance of freedom of expression has been a sticking point in Turkeys efforts to gain European Union membership.

On the other hand, Turkey represents a tremendous business opportunity. With a young population, its online penetration surged from 15 percent in 2005 to 45 percent by late in 2011. And its 35 million users spend so much time online that they make Turkey the number-three country for time spent online per user.

YouTube.com was already the number-five site in the country last year, according to comScore.

View original post here:
YouTube goes legit in Turkey, bringing more sales and more censorship

01Oct12

This letter appeared in the Financial Times

Sir,Your editorial (Obamas realist foreign policy, September 27) claims that free speech purists were offended by Barack Obamas comments onInnocence of Muslims. As an organisation that defends free expression around the world, Index on Censorship would certainly include itself in the free speech purist camp. Even the president of the US is entitled to say what he likes under the first amendment, as long as he upholds thatvitalpart of the US constitution for all.

In his address this week to world leaders at the UN General Assembly, President Obama defended the right of all people to express their views even views that we disagree with.

However, in reality, the White House is guilty of reaching out toGoogleto look into taking the video off YouTube on the grounds that it breached Googles terms of service, justifying its removal. This intervention by the US government suggests censorship by stealth, whereby governments can claim to protect free speech while putting pressure on middle men such as internet service providers to censor for them. All of which raises the question: Who should control the internet?

Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive, Index on Censorship, London EC1, UK

Excerpt from:
Letter: White House guilty of censorship by stealth in seeking YouTube removal