Category Archives: Censorship

Wealthy Women Spur Market Recovery Art Basels market report reveals that high-net-worth millennial women are fueling the gallery recovery.

Art Fair Fare The first major IRL art fair is happening now in New York, and sales were swift at the Armory Shows opening day.

Sothebys Nabs Macklowe Trove The auction house won the rights to sell the divorcing couples more than $600 million art collection.

Basels Big Fund In an effort to quell nerves ahead of its Swiss edition, Art Basel created a solidarity fund as a safety net.

Twenty Years On On this weeks episode of the Art Angle, four artists who had residencies in the Twin Towers reflect on how 9/11 shaped their art and lives.

A Magical Armory Experience At this years fair, a witch channeling the spirit of Hilma af Klint is reading tarot cards.

Silicon Valley Backs Art Institution San Francisco is getting a new contemporary art venue that will emphasize diversity.

Iron Age Discovery A rookie metal detectorist literally struck gold, and the stunning trove is now on view at a Danish museum.

Christopher Columbus Replaced Artist Pedro Reyes is designing a new monument in Mexico City featuring Indigenous women;it will replace a 150-year-old statue of Columbus.

Removing Robert E. Lee The largest Confederate statue in Richmond, Virginia, has been dismantled and removed from sight, marking a milestone for the country.

Bannon Ousted From Italy At long last, Steve Bannons far-right school has been evicted from the 800-year-old monastery it inhabited.

House Oversight Lead Demands Receipts Representative James Comer is urging Hunter Bidens art sales to be made public.

M+ Museum Removes Ai Weiwei Work The Hong Kong-based museum took down Ais infamous Tiananmen Square photograph as it awaits government review.

Another Art Fair Bites the Dust Pariss local Salon Galeristes called off its event for October, even as some larger fairs barrel ahead.

Hedge Fund Titan Trumps Turkey A judge ruled that businessman Michael Steinhardt, and not the nation of Turkey, owns an ancientStargazer idol.

Read this article:
From a Robert E. Lee Statues Last Stand to Government Censorship of Ai Weiwei: The Best & Worst of the Art World This Week - artnet News

THE Film Censorship Board should have exercised restraint when it instructed two local TV stations to stop displaying visuals of men's and women's undergarments in their home shopping segments. Their directive lacked reasonability.

The Film Censorship Board must explain and clarify the relevant SOPs so that businesses may operate in accordance with regulations and work without interruption.

At the same time, disciplinary action must be taken against the related officers for creating their own rules and discretions, but contribute nothing to assuage the situation.

The affected broadcaster did not display any indecent visuals its models and mannequins were not arranged to exhibit obscene behaviour of donning undergarments.

Accusing the company that "any indecent visual displays, including advertising 'undergarments' will still offend the community" is far-fetched, and will not convince the public.

On the contrary, the officers' actions will cause the public to suspect that they were bent on fault-finding and deliberately making things difficult.

If not handled properly, their demeanour will backfire and cause a mockery of our nation's reputation.

Malaysia allows licenced businesses to sell and promote products. So long as the advertised products do not involve obscenity or violate the law particularly with e-commerce currently booming there are various platforms for innovative methods.

As long as manufacturers and retailers exercise self-discipline and operate within the scope of the law, this is the inevitable trend for innovation and e-commerce.

With the raging Covid-19 pandemic, Malaysian businesses have suffered a serious blow in sales and income and many have wound up.

Amidst such challenges and pressures, going online to publicise one's products is the best solution to adapt to in the current situation.

Unfortunately, despite the financial difficulties, there are overzealous officers who are adding salt to the wound.

This will not only cause public resentment, but also contravene the government's policy of fully promoting economic recovery.

Datuk Heng Seai Kie is Wanita MCA national chairperson

Read more:
Undergarments advert ban lacks reasonability, Film Censorship Board must explain and announce SOP - The Star Online

Trump sues Facebook, Twitter over 'blacklisting and canceling'

Claims that tech companies are biased against conservatives have emerged as a top issue to rally the GOP base ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

Associated Press, USA TODAY

Texas is on the verge of passing a new law that would crack down on social media companies Republicans say are censoring conservative speech.

The legislaturepassed the bill. It now heads to the desk of Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican who has publicly backed it and is expected to sign it.

The new law, passed in the final days of the second special session called by Abbott,would allow any Texas resident banned from Facebook, Twitter or Google's YouTube for their political views to sue the companies. The state attorney general also wouldbe able to sue on behalf of a user or a group of users.

It is similar to a Florida law that was blocked by a federal judge one day before it was set to take effect.

Trade groups representing the technology industry have pledged to challenge it as unconstitutional.

By ignoring the First Amendment, the Texas Legislature has chosen to abandon its own conservative and constitutional values in order to put the government in control of speech online," saidCarl Szabo, vice president and general counsel of NetChoice.

Dozens of states are considering legislation that targets how social media platforms regulate speech, though few have gotten this far.

Such bills resonatewith conservatives who believe their First Amendment rights are violated when posts are labeled or removed or when they are banned for violating the policies of social media platforms. Former President Donald Trump's suspensions from the major platforms spurred the new bills.

The First Amendment protects people from censorship by the federal government, not from content moderation decisions by private companies.

Social media companies say they don't target conservatives, only harmful speech that violates their rules.

Texas House Democrats warned during a hearing last week that the new law would stop social media companies from taking down harmful content.

They offered amendments that would have allowed the removal of posts promoting Holocaust denial, terrorism and vaccine disinformation, but were defeated.

"When you force social media platforms to pull their referees, the bad guys are going to throw more fouls on the court, said Adam Kovacevich, CEO of Chamber of Progress, a tech industry coalition that includes Facebook and Google. Unfortunately this law is only going to put more hate speech, scamsand misinformation online, when most people want a safer, healthier Internet."

Florida was the first state to push through legislation whenGov. Ron DeSantis, a Trump ally, signed a bill in May that penalizes social media companies for removing or barring the speech of politicians.

However, afederal judge temporarily blocked the new law after NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association lobbying groups that represent Facebook, Google and other tech giants sued. DeSantis is appealing.

Both Abbott and DeSantis are widely seen as possible GOP 2024 presidential contenders coming from big states with large electoral votes. Abbott is facing his first challenging Republican primary to be re-elected governor.

Big Techs efforts to silence conservative viewpoints is un-American, un-Texan and unacceptable and pretty soon its going to be against the law in the state of Texas, Abbott said at a news conference announcing similar legislationin March.

Conservative think tank The Heartland Institute recently estimated that 70 bills in 30 states are challenging big tech censorship.

The Republican claim that powerful tech companies are biased against and "cancel" conservatives is emerging as a top issue to rally the base in the 2022 midterm elections.

The GOP is betting it will boost voter registration, turnout and fundraising as it tries to retake the U.S. House and Senate, political observers say. It also could help Republicans at the state level.

"It's an issue that Republican state legislators know will energize and agitate their base,"Ari Cohn, free speech counsel for tech think tank TechFreedom, told USA TODAY.

Trump, who was suspended from the major social media platforms after the Jan. 6 insurrection, escalated his war with Big Tech in July when he filed suit against Facebook, Google and Twitter and their CEOs, claiming the companies violated his First Amendment rights.

Trump and Republicans fundraised off the lawsuit, though legal experts say it has virtually no chance of success.

The perception that tech companies and the billionaire CEOs who run them are biased against conservatives has been around for a long time, but intensified as Trump made social media abuses a major plank of his administration and reelection campaign.

After he lost the presidency, Trump vilified tech companies for labeling or removing posts that spread falsehoods about the outcome of the presidential election.

Complaints of ideological bias come from across the political spectrum, but its difficult to prove social media platforms are targeting any one group. Tech companies disclose little about how they decide what content is allowed and what is not.

Researchers say theyve found no evidence to support GOP grievances that social media companies stifle conservative voices.

If anything, they say, social media platforms amplify the voices of conservatives, shaping the worldviews of millions of voters.

But for some conservatives, the 2020 election proved Big Tech's ideological bias. They point to tech companies throttling the spread of a New York Post article which made uncorroborated claims about Hunter Bidens business dealings, the Trump social media bans and the takedown of Parler, a social media platform popular with the political right.

Nine in 10 Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party say its at least somewhat likely that social media platforms censor political viewpoints they find objectionable, up slightly from 85% in 2018, according to an August report from the Pew Research Center.

Read more from the original source:
Texas is about to pass a new law Republicans say will stop censorship of conservatives on Facebook, Twitter - USA TODAY

By Jim Slusher

When we think about freedom of speech, it sometimes becomes important to discuss the difference between editing and censorship.

The debate has special relevance for people who bristle at the actions of social media companies like Twitter and Facebook that set standards of conduct for people wanting access to their platforms and that may restrict or block access to users the companies believe violate them. We deal with such issues at times even at our own level as we try to moderate civil and responsible discussions in the comments sections of our stories online.

But the distinction can reach -- and frankly does to some degree almost daily -- to the level of letters to the editor the newspaper publishes. It was, indeed, the centerpiece of a rather unpleasant conversation I had recently with a letter writer who complained that we were "censoring" him by refusing to publish without any changes a letter he submitted. We questioned some matters of fact as he described them, and we were concerned about accusations and condemnations of specific individuals we could not easily confirm. Although he acknowledged that "it's your newspaper and you can print or not print anything you want," he repeatedly condemned us (me, to be specific) for our "censorship" of his views.

I contended, and contend here, that we were not "censoring" him. We were insisting that he edit his writing to conform to certain minimum levels of civility and precision. We were willing to publish the letter if edited reasonably, but not in its present form. This may seem much like arm wrestling over semantics, but it's an important distinction. Certainly, the writer could find another outlet for expressing his ideas if he did not like the editing we required. We just felt it would not be responsible for us to present the letter in our publication. Is that censorship or editing? Perhaps it depends on your frame of reference.

And here I must add that regular readers of our letters to the editor will note that our standards of civility and precision are decidedly lenient. We want to allow a generally free and open conversation about issues that energize people in our communities, so we are very generous in what we permit. We do, however, insist on some levels of decorum and verifiability.

I have hanging in my office a framed poster of an Ernest Hemingway quote I find fundamental to good writing of any kind. "Write drunk," it declares in large type enclosed in a prominent dark circle. Then, added pointedly below, it says simply "edit sober."

It is probably useful -- not to mention cathartic -- for us to let our ideas flow with intemperate fervor on topics about which we care passionately. But once we have poured all that sputum and bile onto the page, it behooves us all to return to our thoughts with a little sober reflection to spruce up or clear away the messy parts.

When it comes to writing, which is a very intimate activity, we may not always be able to recognize objectionable elements in our own work. This I know from personal experience. But we should not assume that those who come after us to do the cleaning are out to censor or repress our ideas. Often, they just want to edit them to make them clearer and, well, more palatable for others to read.

jslusher@dailyherald.com

Original post:
On editing, censorship and sobriety in writing - Chicago Daily Herald

Texas is one step closer to enacting a law that would make it more difficult for social media companies to moderate political content. Both Texas House and Senate approved the bill earlier this week, sending it to Gov. Greg Abbotts desk.

The bill would make it unlawful for social media companies with more than 50 million users, like Facebook and Twitter, to censor users and content based on political views or geographic location. This includes moderation actions like banning, deplatforming, or demonetizing users and removing posts.

The bill initially failed in a special session earlier this year when Democrats fled the state to stall the passage of controversial partisan bills, including measures to ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected and new voting restrictions. The social media censorship bill was revived in July in a second special session. It was approved in the House on Monday and the Senate late Tuesday evening.

Its unclear when Abbott may sign the bill. His office did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Verge.

Texas is the second state to push through a bill aimed at combating the alleged censorship of conservatives online. In May, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a similar measure that would fine platforms for banning political candidates. The law was blocked by a Florida US District Court judge in June. The judge wrote that much of the bills text was wholly at odds with accepted constitutional principles.

The Texas bill could face a similar fate, according to experts. While the language in Texass bill is different, the outcome will be the same because the First Amendment protects against government intrusion into editorial discretion, Ari Cohn, TechFreedom counsel, said in a statement Wednesday.

The bill was widely opposed by Democrats, but many did not attend the vote as they protested other controversial measures led by Republicans.

See the original post:
Texas is set to pass a new law banning Facebook from censoring conservatives - The Verge

Hong Kong authorities on Tuesday said they plan to amend a film censorship law to forbid screenings of movies deemed contrary to national security.

The proposed changes to Hong Kong's Film Censorship Ordinance would step up censorship of movies in the semi-autonomous city, expanding an ongoing crackdown on political dissent that has led to the closure of various pro-democracy organizations and the arrests of dozens of activists.

The amendments would require a censor to determine whether a film contains elements that endanger national security. Older movies that were previously allowed to be screened could also have their approvals revoked on national security grounds.

"We need this provision to cater for circumstances where a film which was created or approved before but given the new law enacted and the new guidelines issued there might be chances that we need to reconsider such cases," Edward Yau, secretary for commerce and economic development, said at a news conference Tuesday.

The changes would apply to films made in Hong Kong as well as those produced elsewhere. Hong Kong's film industry is widely known for directors such as Wong Kar-wai, Tsui Hark, John Woo and Stanley Kwan and actors including Jackie Chan, Chow Yun-fat, Jet Li, Tony Leung Chiu-Wai and Maggie Cheung.

Those who violate the ordinance and screen banned movies could face up to three years in jail and a fine of 1 million Hong Kong dollars ($128,400).

The changes to the law, if passed, take the city a step closer to censorship levels in mainland China, where authorities have the power to block movies, TV shows and content deemed politically sensitive or contrary to the values of the Chinese Communist Party.

Britain handed Hong Kong over to mainland China in 1997 under a "one country, two systems" framework that allowed it freedoms not found on the mainland for 50 years, including free speech, freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

But critics say Hong Kong is fast losing those freedoms after Beijing's imposition of a tough national security law on the city in June last year following months of political strife and anti-government protests in 2019.

The law which outlaws secession, subversion, terrorism and foreign collusion to intervene in the city's affairs has been used to arrest over 100 pro-democracy figures.

Multiple pro-democracy organizations, such as rally organizer Civil Human Rights Front and the pro-democracy Professional Teachers' Union, have disbanded amid allegations they violated the security legislation.

Read the original here:
Hong Kong to amend law to step up film censorship - SHOOT Online

Modern authoritarian regimes dont attempt total, absolute control. Their censorship is more selective and calibrated and thus more resilient.

By: Cherian George and Sonny Liew

The political cartoon is the art form of our deeply troubled world; a chimera of journalism, art, and satire that is elemental to political speech. Cartoons dont tell secrets or move markets, yet as Cherian George and Sonny Liew show in Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle against Censorship, cartoonists have been harassed, sued, fired, jailed, attacked, and assassinated for their work.

As drawn commentary on current events, the existence and proliferation of political cartoons provides a useful indicator of a societys state of democratic freedom: It shows that the system requires powerful individuals and institutions to tolerate dissent from the weak; and that the public is used to freewheeling, provocative debate. But that is not the norm. In most countries, political cartoonists the guerrillas of the media are vulnerable to multiple and varied threats. In the excerpt that follows, George and Liew examine China and Turkey to illustrate that while totalitarianism may be out of style, what remains is no less insidious.

Censorship is the power to make 2 + 2 equal 5. Or 3. Or whatever people in power say it is.

You still think there are four. You must try Harder! So said George Orwell in his classic, 1984, which he wrote in the 1940s. Horrified by Stalins Soviet Union and Hitlers Germany, Orwell spun a tale that continues to color how we picture state censorship in controlled societies. Zero tolerance for dissent. Erasure of inconvenient data. Even the wrong thoughts are against law Thoughtcrime.

But this may not be how we should think about 21st-century despots. At least, not the clever ones. As Antonio Gramsci understood, rules achieve hegemonic domination when they are able to cloak their coercion with the consent of the ruled.

Hannah Arendt, a close observer of totalitarian regimes, realized that power needs legitimacy, which is destroyed when violence is overused.

In the 1980s, Mikls Haraszti in communist Hungary observed that arts censorship in a mature one-party state was quite different from the terror of Stalinism. Stalinism was paranoid, hard, and military-like. It required complete consensus, and loud loyalty Neutrality is treason; ambiguity is betrayal. Art was forced into a propaganda role.

Post-Stalinist regimes were more confident, and therefore softer. They expanded the boundaries of the permissible. Make no mistake modern authoritarians havent undergone a philosophical conversion to liberal values. They still use brutal methods. But paradoxically, if we overestimate their use of fear and force, we underestimate their power and resilience.

China the worlds longest-running communist state has swung between hard and soft censorship. Mao Zedongs cultural revolution (19661976) was a period of extreme, uncompromising mind control. The partys insistence on ideological purity impoverished China, even as other low-income countries were courting investors and improving living standards. After Maos death in 1976, his successors changed course dramatically.

The party blamed the excesses of the cultural revolution on a small faction, led by the so-called Gang of Four (including Maos widow Jiang Qing). Suddenly, caricatures of the Gang of Four, which had to be sketched in secret under Mao, were being celebrated in exhibitions and the press.

In 1979, Peoples Daily, the partys official daily newspaper, even launched a twice-monthly supplement, Satire and Humor, to provide an outlet for artists pent-up desire to lampoon the Gang of Four.

But how deep were these reforms?

In his first public work in 20 years, artist Liao Bingxiong portrayed himself frozen with caution when suddenly freed of the strictures of the cultural revolution. It expressed how traumatized many Chinese felt. He was probably right to be skeptical. The party was still exploiting art for propaganda purposes. It still set political limits on artistic expression.

Nevertheless, the 1980s did see the opportunities for cartoonists expand dramatically. Under Dent Xiaoping, communist ideology took a back seat to modernization and the market. The pendulum swung back after 2012, when Xi Jinping took over the party. He brought in a renewed emphasis on ideological purity, hints of a personality cult, and more repression of dissent.

The comparison to Mao is inevitable.

In his painting, Garden of Plenty, Shanghai-based artist Liu Dahong depicts Xi Jinping as a prodigal son in Maos embrace. Xi couldnt revert fully to cultural mode even if he wanted today. Todays Chinese are already too well-educated, exposed, and materially well-off to allow it.

The country is too vast and populous. The media are too plentiful, and authority is too decentralized to allow Mao-style total control.

By necessity and design, Chinas censorship efforts are porous, regularly bypassed without punishment, says political scientist Margaret Roberts. Modern Chinese censorship uses a blend of fear, friction, and flooding, she writes.

Fear of punishment works on most bosses of news media outlets and internet platforms. If they slip up and allow the wrong content to reach the public, they may not be sent off to do hard labor in a detention camp, but they could be demoted and their day docked a big setback in a highly competitive and unequal society where most people are desperate to get ahead.

Opinion leaders like journalists and artists are also subject to fear-inducing threats. The first tool is not terror, but tea. It is less publicly visible than an arrest. Wang Liming (known as Rebel Pepper) got an invitation to tea after he drew a cartoon supporting independent candidates for local peoples congresses, challenging the partys tight supervision of these elections. A private conversation over tea can intimidate without backfiring the way public punishment does. But it didnt work on Wang.

The next meeting was at a police station. (Tea was also served.) It still didnt work. When face-to-face intimidation fails to silence, the state ratchets up the pressure on critics, with character assassination and online harassment.

Wang received this treatment in 2014, when he visited Japan on a business trip and bogged about his positive impressions. He questioned the Chinese governments vilification of its neighbors. The authorities seized the opening to play the nationalism card.

People.cn, a widely read news portal owned by the party organ, Peoples Daily, ran an article calling him a Japanese-worshipping traitor. He knew he could not return to China. He now lives in the United States, working as a cartoonist for Voice of America.

Friction is about making it harder and less convenient to access unapproved material. The Chinese internet is a walled garden. Out: Foreign social media platforms, search engines, news media, human rights sites.

An army of human censors as well as automated programs trawl the internet for material that crosses the red lines, following directives from the party. Chinas gateway to the global internet is maintained by nine state-run operators. Chinese netizens can use circumvention tools like virtual private networks (VPNs) to access banned sites, but this is getting harder.

In 2009, censors played a long cat-and-mouse game with the grass mud horse, a meme created by Chinese netizens to protest internet controls. Its name in Chinese sounds like fuck your mother. Another pun that censors didnt appreciate was river crab, which sounds like harmony a government euphemism for control.

Although the Chinese internet is walled off, it cant be totally controlled.

Flooding is about filling the internet and other media with stuff that dilutes and distracts from the prohibited content.

Flooding plays to the governments strengths. The communist party of China cant always match the wit of a clever cartoonist. But it can overwhelm him with sheer numbers. The Chinese authorities are able to create and post around 1.2 million social media comments a day, thanks to an army of human trolls amplified by human-impersonating robots or bots.

This could include government propaganda or even faked, low-quality dissent as well as totally irrelevant posts to simply change the subject, all of which makes it harder to keep track of the debate and find authentic material. The strategy works because peoples attention is in shorter supply than information.

The shifting red lines of Chinese censorship are reflected in the career of Kuang Biao, one of Chinas most famous political cartoonists. Kuang is a native of Guangdong Province, whose coastal cities were among the first to benefit from Dengs economic reforms.

The Guangdong model was associated with more freedom for civil society, trade unions, and media. Kuangs career as a newspaper cartoonist began at the commercially-oriented New Express, which he joined in 1999. In 2007, he was recruited by another commercial paper, Southern Metropolis Daily.

Though party-owned, Southern Metropolis Daily and Southern Weekend were not obliged to parrot the party line. Although of lower official rank than the party organ, their profitability and popularity gave them prestige and clout. They were among the most independent newspapers in China. They were able to publish groundbreaking investigative reports and critical commentaries.

And they gave Kuang the chance to publish cartoons that would not have appeared in a party newspaper. He also took advantage of social media, opening a Weibo account in 2009. This allowed him to publish cartoons that his newspaper would not.

Online, he was free of his editors restraints. But, ironically, being free to post his work publicly also exposed him to more personal risk. Thus, in 2010, his employer fined and demoted him after he posted a cartoon protesting the blacklisting of Chang Ping, one of Chinas most outspoken journalists.

Chang had been a senior editor at Southern Weekend but was progressively sidelined. The Propaganda Department later ordered media to stop carrying the writers articles. Kuang insisted on testing the limits, making him a regular target for censorship. Many of his online cartoons were short-lived. Social media platforms would remove each one as soon as they realized that they crossed a line.

After Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, things began to change at the Southern Media Group and in Chinese journalism generally. Xi wasnt the only factor that spelled the end of what, in hindsight at least, appears like a golden age for political cartooning and independent journalism.

Commercially-oriented media started suffering financially, as advertising rapidly moved online. Faced with stagnating salaries, many of the best journalists moved to other occupations. Commercial newspapers disappearing profits meant that the balance of power in media groups shifted back to the party outlets.

Party bosses were no longer tolerant of their commercial newspapers feisty journalism. By 2013, Kuang Biaos editors were routinely refusing to publish his cartoons. After 14 years with the partys commercial newspapers, he quit.

He refused to do commissioned work. In communist China, creating art for clients, whether state or corporate, can only compromise his independence, he says. Have the security officials met him for tea?

In two hours, not once does he mention the name Xi Jinping. Similarly, the political cartoons he posts online nowadays are subtle and abstract. The dragon must hide his tail.

Unlike China, Turkey is not a one-party state; it has plenty of privately owned media, and a rich, uninterrupted history of satirical cartooning. But, like China, its a showcase for modern authoritarian censorship.

Recep Tayyip Erdoans AKP government came to power in 2002. In its first term, it introduced some liberalizing reforms, but after 2007 it backslid dramatically.

There was a big increase in internet censorship, with tens of thousands of sites blocked. After a military faction attempted a coup in 2016 the government launched a massive crackdown on perceived opponents. In the following months, more than 150 media outlets were closed. Since the failed coup, Turkey has been among the worlds top jailers of journalists.

Jailed journalists include Musa Kart, cartoonist and board member of Turkeys oldest independent newspaper, Cumhuriyet. Musa Kart and his colleagues were imprisoned for allegedly using Cumhuriyet to support terrorist organizations, including the Glenist Movement (FET) behind the 2016 coup. One piece of evidence the state produced against him was that he had called a travel agency suspected of having FET links.

The charges were filed in the run-up to the April 2017 referendum to turn the country from a parliamentary to a presidential republic, which would greatly enhance Erdoans powers. The timing was no coincidence, Kart told interviewers.

In 2014, Kart had drawn fire for a cartoon about a major corruption scandal. It shows a hologram of Erdoan looking the other way while a robber says, No rush, our watchman is a hologram. The cartoon was inspired by Erdoans use of this technology to make a virtual appearance at a campaign rally a few days earlier.

The government tried to imprison Kart for this cartoon, but the court dismissed the charges. The 2016 coup attempt gave Erdoan carte blanche to jail critics like Kart.

The spectacle of overt repression serves as a warning to others. Equally powerful, though, are economic carrots and sticks that have been used to discipline the media.

Turkey is a textbook case of what has been called Media Capture. Although the country has never enjoyed high levels of press freedom, there were always newspapers highly critical of the government of the day. The AKP has been more successful than previous Turkish governments in taming the press.

Paradoxically, it has been helped by its privatization program. Big projects in infrastructure, energy, and other sectors were opened up for tender. Publishers joined the feeding frenzy, becoming diversified conglomerates. Just like in China, such pro-market reforms strengthened the media at first; but eventually the profit orientation became a liability for journalistic independence.

Media owners interests in sectors such as mining, energy, construction, and tourism made them reliant on government licensing, contracts, and subsidies, thus exposing them to political blackmail.

Take, for example, the influential newspapers Milliyet and Hrriyet, which were owned by the Dogan Group. Instead of attacking them head-on, the government targeted another Dogan company, the fuel retailer Petrol Ofisi. Petrol Ofisi was slapped with a $2.5 billion fine for alleged tax offenses. Dogan gave up, selling first Milliyet (in 2009) and then Hrriyet and other media assets (in 2011) to Demiroren Holdings, a pro-AKP conglomerate.

Another major paper thats been pulled into AKPs orbit is Sabah. Its former cartoonist, Salih Memecan, describes the change:

In the past, even when we disagreed sith our editors, they valued us as cartoonists and columnists. They knew people bought the newspaper for our voices. But, with the emergence of digital media, newspapers started losing sales revenues. So they aimed at getting government contracts, rather than readers. I felt I didnt fit, so I quit.

Through such market censorship as well as repression, AKP has built a bloc of loyalist media.

On the margins, there are still some independent media, including the satirical cartoon magazine, Leman. Turkey has a long tradition of cartoon-heavy magazines. The appetite for satire dates back at least to Ottoman times, when shadow puppet theater (Karagoz) satirized current events, targeting officials and sometimes even the Sultan.

Not even Erdoan has been able to crush this culture totally. In 2004, Musa Kart made fun of Erdoans difficulties enacting a new law, by drawing him as a cat caught in a ball of wool. The prime minister tried (unsuccessfully) to sue the cartoonist.

Observing Erdoans wrap at being drawn with a cats body, the cartoon magazine Penguen turned him into other animals. Leman decided to go with vegetables. After a 15-year run, the loss-making Penguen closed in 2017. Leman survives.

Tuncay Akgn, a former Girgir cartoonist, established Leman as an independent magazine in 1991. It was a reincarnation of Limon, which died when its parent newspaper went bankrupt.

Leman continues to test the red lines every week. But its getting harder. Facing the threat of lawsuits and imprisonment is nothing new to Akgun. But things were more predictable in the past, even under military rule (198082).

The big new factor is the mob. Erdogan has a large base of followers who can be counted on to go after anyone whos named as an enemy. Real supporters are augmented by paid troll armies and bots, which swarm critics and intimidate them.

Following the attempted coup, Lemans cover depicted the coups nervous soldiers as well as the mobs who defended the regime as pawns in a larger game.

As soon as a preview of the cover went out on social media, pro-government writers launched a smear campaign accusing Leman of being pro-coup. A mob showed up outside the magazines offices.

The government got a court order to ban the issue. Police went to the press to halt the printing and copies were retrieved from newsstands. Its the kind of orchestrated, intolerant populism that modern authoritarians have mastered and that at last one novelist predicted many years ago.

Big Brother seemed to tower up, an invincible, fearless protector full of power and mysterious calm, and so vast that it almost filled up the screen. Nobody heard what Big Brother was saying.

It was merely a few words of encouragement, the sort of words that are uttered in the din of battle, not distinguishable individually but restoring confidence by the fact of being spoken.

George Orwell, 1984

Cherian George is Professor of Media Studies at Hong Kong Baptist Universitys School of Communication. A former journalist, he is the author of Hate Spin: The Manufacture of Religious Offense and Its Threat to Democracy.

Sonny Liew is a celebrated cartoonist and illustrator and the author of The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye, a New York Times bestseller, which received three Eisner Awards and the Singapore Literature Prize.

Read more:
An Illustrated Guide to Post-Orwellian Censorship - The MIT Press Reader

At a glance.

The UK hopes to walk a tightrope of easing GDPR requirements that stifle innovation and offend common sense without falling afoul of the existing EU-UK data transfer agreement, the Wall Street Journal reports. If successful, the changes are expected to benefit British business, science, and technology. If the European Commission decides the revisions stray too far from EU standards, however, London will need to muddle through developing another data agreement, and organizations may face more complex compliance burdens. The UK is simultaneously hammering out data-transfer arrangements with Washington, Canberra, and eight other nations.

The Guardian spotlights users impatience with hallmark GDPR irritating cookie popups. England will present a test case, the piece says, for how much wiggle room the framework allows, and what diverse shapes data protection can take. Now that we have left the EU Im determined to seize the opportunity by developing a world-leading data policy, commented Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden.

The Record details the effects of Havanas new cybersecurity laws. In addition to establishing an Institute of Information and Social Communication, the legislation requires network providers to deploy gear that can monitor traffic, stop and report cybersecurity incidents, and block the transmission of false information. Cybersecurity incidents are defined to include criticisms of the regime. The laws also bind independent networks and ban unauthorized network equipment. The Record sees more Internet shutdowns along with a national firewall in Cubas future.

The New York Times traces the contours of Beijings trend towards Moscow-style hacking operations. As weve seen, the CCPs pivot to Ministry of State Security (MSS) sponsored cyber operations has correlated with increases in both sophistication and brashness. MSS recruits from universities, the private sector, and cyber tournaments, and looks the other way when the talent mingles crime and espionage. The current setup can be sloppy, with readily traceable online tracks, but onlookers fear Chinas cyber game will only improve in coming years.

Here is the original post:
Post-Brexit privacy moves away from GDPR. Havana tightens online censorship. Beijing's cyber contractors and their APT side-hustles. - The CyberWire

The communications system we live in is highly complex, mostly driven by greed and profit, in part semi-public, full of filth I know wed be better off without, and increasingly openly censored and monitored by defenders of accepted good thinking.

Fascist nutcases are spreading dangerous nonsense, while billionaire monopolists are virtually disappearing critics and protesters. Its easy to get confused about what ought to be done. Its difficult to find any recommendation that isnt confused. Different people want different outrages censored and censored by different entities; what they all have in common is a failure to think through the threats they are creating to the things they dont want censored.

A 1975 Canadian government commission recommended censoring libel, obscenity, breach of the Official Secrets Act, matters affecting the defense of Canada, treason, sedition, or promulgating information that leads to incitement of crime or violence. This is a typical muddle. Half of those things were almost certainly already banned, as suggested by their identification through legal terminology. A few of those things probably should be banned, such as incitement of violence (though not promulgating information that leads to incitement of any crime or violence). Of course I would include as incitement of violence a speech by the Prime Minister advocating the shipping of Canadian Peace Keepers to Africa, but the Prime Minister (who would have more say than I) would no doubt have just identified me as commenting on a matter affecting the defense of Canada plus, if he or she were in the mood, Ive probably just promulgated something that will lead to inciting some crime or other, even if its just the crime of more people speaking on matters affecting the defense of Canada. (And it shouldnt matter that Im not Canadian, since Julian Assange is not from the United States.)

Well, whats the solution? A simplistic and surprisingly popular one is to blame philosophers. Those idiot postmodernists said there was no such thing as truth, which allowed that great student of philosophy Donald Trump to declare news about him fake which he never could have thought of doing without a bunch of leftist academics inspiring him; and the endless blatant lies about wars and economies and environmental collapse and straight-faced reporting of campaign promises cant have anything at all to do with the ease people have in distrusting news reporting. So, now we need to swing the pendulum back in the direction of tattooing the Ten Commandments on our foreheads before morality perishes at the hands of the monster relativism. We cant do that without censoring the numbskulls, regrettably of course.

This line of thinking is dependent on failing to appreciate the point of postmodern criticism. That the greater level of consensus that exists on chemistry or physics as opposed to on what should be banned as obscenity is a matter of degree, not of essential or metaphysical substance, is an interesting point for philosophy students, and a correct one, but not a guide to life for politicians or school teachers. That there is no possible basis for declaring some law of physics permanent and incapable of being replaced by a better one is not a reason for treating a law of physics as a matter of opinion or susceptible to alteration via fairy dust. If Isaac Newton not being God, and God also not being God, disturbs you and youre mad at philosophers for saying it, you should notice what follows from it: the need for everyone to support your right to try to persuade them of their error. And what does not follow from it: the elimination of chemistry or physics because some nitwit claims he can fly or kill a hurricane with his gun. If that idiot has 100,000 followers on social media, your concern is not with philosophy but with stupidity.

The tech-giant censors concern is in part also with stupidity, but its not clear they have the tools to address it. For one thing, they just cannot help themselves. They have other concerns too. They are concerned with their profits. They are concerned with any challenges to power their power and the power of those who empower them. They are concerned, therefore, with the demands and national bigotry of national governments. They are concerned whether they know it or not with creative thinking. Every time they censor an idea they believe crazy, they risk censoring one of those ideas that proves superior to existing ones. Their combination of interests appears to be self-defeating. Rather than persuade people of the benefits of their censorship, they persuade more and more people of the rightness of what was censored and of the arbitrary power-interests of those doing the censoring.

Our problem is not too many voices on the internet. It is too much concentration of wealth and power in too few media outlets that are too narrowly restricted to too few voices, relegating other voices to marginal and ghettoized corners of the internet. Nobody gets to find out theyre mistaken through respectful discourse. Nobody gets to show someone else theyre right. We need to prioritize that sort of exchange, before a flood of misguided good intentions drowns us all.

The promulgating information that leads to incitement of crime or violence bit of that proposed law seems to have had a surprisingly good intention, namely benevolent parental concern with all the action-filled (violence-filled) childrens entertainment on television, the violence-normalizing enter/info-tainment programming for all ages that studies and commonsense suggest increase violence. But can we ban all that garbage, or do we have to empower people who actually give a damn to produce and select programming, and empower families to turn it all off, and schools to be more engaging than cartoons?

The difficulty of censoring such content should be clear from the fact that discussions of it tend to stray into numerous unrelated topics, including the supposed need to censor wars for the protection of, not children, but weapons dealers. Once you allow a corporation to censor damaging news poof! there go all negative reports on its products. Once you tell it to put warning labels over recommendations to drink bleach as medicine, it starts putting warning labels on anything related to climate collapse or originating outside the United States of Goddamn Righteousness. You can imagine whether that ends up helping or hurting the supposed target, stupidity.

Censoring news, and labeling news as factual, seems to me a cheap fix that doesnt fix. Its a bit like legalizing bribery and gerrymandering and limited ballot access and corporate airwaves domination and then declaring that youll institute term limits so that every rotten candidate has to be quickly replaced by an even more rotten one. Its a lovely sounding solution until you try it. Look at the fact-checker sections of corporate media outlets. Theyre as wrong and inconsistent as any other sections; theyre just labeled differently.

The solutions that will work are not easy, and Im no expert on them, but theyre not new or mysterious either. We should democratize and legitimize government. We should use government to break up media monopolies. We should publicly and privately facilitate and support numerous independent media outlets. We should invest in publicly funded but independent media dedicated to allowing a wide range of people to discuss issues without the overarching control of the profit interest or the immediate interests of the government.

We should not be simplistic about banning or allowing censorship, but highly wary of opening up any new types of censorship and imagining they wont be abused. We should stick to what is already illegal outside of communications (such as violence) and censor communications only when it is actually directly a part of those crimes (such as instigating particular violence). We should be open to some limits on the forces empowered by our choice through our public dollars to shape our communications; Id be happy to ban militaries from having any role in producing movies and video games (if theyre going to bomb children in the name of democracy, well, then, thats my vote for the use of my dollars).

At the same time, we need through schools and outside of them radically better education that includes education in the skills of media consumption, BS-spotting, propaganda deciphering, fact-verification, respect, civility, decency, and honesty. I hardly think its entirely the fault of youtube that kids get less of their education from their classrooms part of the fault lies with the classrooms. But I hardly think the eternal project of learning, and of learning how to learn, can be restricted to classrooms.

The original article can be found here

See the rest here:
Which Is Worse, the Tech Giant Censors or the Stuff You Want Censored? - PRESSENZA International News Agency

Companies selling hemp-derived products, including cannabidiol-infused products, have been faced with significant marketing challenges. For the past 18 months, the industry has been hit with a wave of suspensions, deletions, and warnings for advertising hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) products. Yet, depending on the platform, the reasons for such actions vary.

Facebook, for example, does not offer public terms and conditions or policies that expressly prohibit CBD advertisements on that platform. Instead, the company justifies its ban by stating on its website: Ads must not promote the sale or use of illicit or recreational drugs, or other unsafe substances, products or supplements, as determined by Facebooks in its sole discretion. Interestingly, the list of problematic products and substances Facebook provides does not include CBD.

Other social media companies, such as Twitter, offer CBD-specific policies that are overly restrictive. In the U.S., Twitter permits approved CBD topical advertisers provided they meet the following requirements:

These are extremely restrictive and paternalistic regulations. Ironically, Twitters advertising policy places more constraints on CBD advertisers than many states do on CBD companies. These terms are so broad it is likely that most companies advertising CBD on Twitter are in clear violation of those requirements, and therefore, are at risk of seeing their accounts suspended or deleted.

This level of risk is hugely problematic, especially for small CBD companies. Any small business owner knows that getting social media followers takes time and money. With the risk of seeing an account shut down and losing all the good will associated with that account, social media advertising can be a serious gamble for CBD businesses. There is no clear right of appeal for these denials, and the idea of taking a social media giant to court (or forced arbitration) is just unfathomable for most CBD companies.

Regrettably, social media companies are not the only group creating marketing obstacles for the CBD industry. The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), a nonprofit that monitors SHAFT (Sex, Hate, Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco) content and reports violations to the FCC, recently added CBD to its list of illicit substances and prohibited content. CTIA deems that while a growing number of states have legalized medical or recreational cannabis, including CBD use, Federal law still prohibits cannabis use, and thus, companies cannot send text messages with cannabis- or CBD-related content. This means that carriers will suspect any short code that sends CBD-related content, despite the legal distinction between hemp-derived CBD, which is lawful, and marijuana-derived CBD, which remains a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act.

Notwithstanding the fact that the FDA has publicly acknowledged that there may be a regulatory pathway to marketing certain products containing hemp-derived CBD, such as cosmetics, many social media companies and organizations like CTIA have apparently taken it upon themselves to step into the shoes of regulators and ban all hemp-derived CBD products. To add insult to injury, many social media companies have yet to publish formal guidance on this issue and are choosing to arbitrarily censor CBD.

These overly restrictive and widely disparate regulations against hemp-derived CBD products reflect the confusing legal landscape of these products. As I have previously explained, the lack of federal regulations, combined with the patchwork of state-by-state regulations, has created a great deal of confusion regarding the legality of these products but also contributed to the misinformation surrounding the legal status of hemp-derived CBD, resulting in more confusion in the consumers minds.

In response to these discriminatory marketing policies targeting CBD, a coalition of hemp-derived CBD brands, including Prima, a leading B-Corp, have organized a Stop Censoring CBD #freeCBD initiative to help bring awareness to this pervasive issue. The coalitions main objectives are to encourage lawmakers to pass the Hemp Access and Consumer Safety Act (S. 1698), which proposes to establish legal and regulatory pathways for the sale of hemp-derived products; and to pressure the FDA to recognize the legal distinction between hemp-derived and marijuana-derived CBD and to develop a regulatory framework for the manufacture, sale, and marketing of those products.

This initiative shows, once again, that the industry is determined to legitimize its lawful commercial activities by advocating for federal standards and regulations that will provide consumers access to safer CBD products. For now, one thing is clear, social media companies and nonprofits like CTIA should step out of the shoes of the government and let CBD companies advertise products that are lawful or ban content of their choosing but provide clear and legitimate guidelines for such policies that align with existing CBD regulations.

Nathaliepractices out of Harris Brickens Portland office andfocuses on the regulatory framework of hemp-derived CBD (hemp CBD) products. She is an authority on FDA enforcement, Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and other laws and regulations surrounding hemp and hemp CBD products. She also advises domestic and international clients on the sale, distribution, marketing, labeling, importation and exportation of these products. Nathalie frequently speaks on these issues and has made national media appearances, including on NPRs Marketplace. For two consecutive years, Nathalie has been selected as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine, an honor bestowedon only 2.5% of eligible Oregon attorneys.Nathalie is also a regular contributor to her firms Canna Law Blog.

Visit link:
Stop Censoring CBD - Above the Law