Category Archives: Censorship

In a video message posted Friday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) forcefully condemned the violence that took place in the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday while calling out the hypocrisy of the left and legacy media, which throughout last year downplayed violent riots in American cities as "peaceful protests" for racial justice.

"The events that we saw this week should sicken every one of us. Mob violence of the kind that you see in third world countries happened not just in America, but in your Capitol building. I don't care what hat they wear, I don't care what banner they're carrying, riots should be rejected by everyone every single time," Rubio said in his video statement.

On Wednesday, tens of thousands of Trump supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., to protest the certification of the Electoral College results in Congress, which officially made Joe Biden president-elect. An initially peaceful protest turned into mob violence after some of the protesters led the crowd to lay siege on the Capitol. Police officers were assaulted, government property was damaged by the trespassers, and offices in the Capitol were ransacked as the mob ran wild. One woman was fatally shot by Capitol Police and three other members of the mob died of medical complications during the incident. A Capitol Police officer who was violently beaten by rioters wielding a fire extinguisher later died of his injuries.

News media headlines about the incident called it a "riot," a "siege," or even an "insurrection."

Without making excuses for the violence this week, Rubio accused the media and the left of engaging in hypocrisy for being quick to condemn the riot by Trump supporters but slow to do so for mob violence at Black Lives Matter protests throughout last year.

"Now are the left hypocrites? Absolutely," Rubio said. "I remember what they now are calling 'insurrection,' they were justifying just this summer. They called it 'the language of the unheard' when rioters were burning cities. Is the mainstream media, especially places like CNN and MSNBC outrageously biased? Of course, 100%. I remember one of the CNN hosts last summer on the air saying something like, 'tell me where it says protests need to be polite and peaceful.'"

Rubio was referring to CNN host Chris Cuomo, who after violence and looting by BLM and Antifa last June, said on the air, "show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful."

"This kind of blatant bias, this double standard, that's one of the reasons why so many Americans have sought political shelter in divisive political movements and in conspiracy theories that offer them the promise of fighting back against it," Rubio asserted.

"But here's what I want you to hear right now," he said. "We can't allow our anger about all of that stuff to turn us into them."

"Remember what President Nixon said at the White House as he was leaving after his downfall, one of the lessons he said, 'Others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.'

"We can't destroy ourselves," he continued.

Rubio went on to give his opinion on what led to the violence that shocked and horrified Americans this week. He accused the media, Big Tech companies like Facebook and Twitter, and the Democratic Party of eroding the confidence of millions of Americans in the integrity of the election.

He also said, without naming President Trump specifically, that politicians lied when they said that Vice President Mike Pence had the power to overturn the election, which he did not. Trump repeatedly and incorrectly claimed that Pence had the power to reject slates of electors from states whose results were disputed by the Trump campaign.

It kind of begins with millions of Americans who voted for President Trump. They saw the nonstop bias and double standard of the legacy media. They see how social media companies covered up stories negative to Joe Biden. They saw how state officials mutilated election integrity laws to help the Democrats. And the result is you have millions of people who are convinced that the election wasn't fair and that the outcome wasn't' t legitimate. Millions of people. And they wanted something done about it.

And of those millions of people, tens of thousands of them came to Washington D.C. this week demanding that action be taken, that we do something. Ninety-nine percent of the people who came here had nothing to do with that mob. Nothing. But one percent of tens of thousands of people is a lot of people. It's enough to inflict damage on buildings, and it's enough to do even more damage to our country.

Now that we're looking at what's going on and learning more about it, there are growing signs that many of those in that mob were believers in a ridiculous conspiracy theory. And others were lied to by politicians that were telling them that the vice president had the power to change the election results.

The result is that now four people have died. Police officers were seriously injured. And our country was embarrassed before the entire world.

Rubio called on the Republican Party to take a moment for "honest reflection," noting that when President Donald Trump was elected in 2016, the GOP controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Four years later, they've lost control of all three.

"We need to reflect on why this has happened, because this country needs a viable and attractive alternative to the agenda of the radical left," Rubio pleaded.

"We shouldn't and we can't go back to the party of 2012, a party that frankly was out of touch with the unheard voices of millions of working Americans," he continued.

"We must continue to fight for working Americans, not for corporations. We welcome legal immigrants, but we have to enforce our laws. We have to take the threat of China seriously. We have to investigate what went wrong in the last election and fix our election laws so people can have faith and confidence in them. We must continue to call out the media bias instead of being bullied by them. And we must oppose political correctness, social media censorship, identity politics, and this cult of wokeness.

"And we can do all these things without indulging the darkest instincts or inciting the most destructive impulses, and without the rhetoric and behavior that keeps the millions of Americans who agree with us from joining us in this fight."

Read more here:
Sen. Marco Rubio: Capitol violence was the result of media bias, Big Tech censorship, and lies from President Trump - TheBlaze

This isnt just an event, this is a movement.

Thats how Jack Frost, one of the organizers of theReOpenCalNowconference, planned for this weekend, characterizes their effort. Presenters include a bipartisan group of politicians including Fiona Ma, Californias State Treasurer, a Democrat, and Congressman Tom McClintock, one of the most reliable conservative Republicans in America. Presenters also include sheriffs who will not enforce the lockdown, attorneys who are challenging the lockdown, and economists and businesspeople to explain how the consequences of the lockdown have been catastrophic for millions of Californians.

The conference will also feature presenters from the medical community, and for that, big tech has suppressed the organizers attempts to publicize the event. How theyre doing this offers an update on just how pervasive big tech suppression of dissent has become.

Because the ReOpenCalNow organizers are targeting a high level audience of policymakers, they assembled an email list of several thousand of Californias local elected officials. The list includes city council members, county supervisors, and members of school boards. Using MailChimp, they sent out three email blasts before receiving the following message:

We received a direct complaint regarding a recent campaign sent from the account with the username ReOpen Cal Now. Direct complaints are serious because they indicate that a recipient contacted Mailchimp, our hosting facility, or a blocklisting agency about an unsolicited email.

The MailChimp email went on to say:

Because the content associated with your industry conflicts with our Acceptable Use Policy (mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use), Mailchimp is unable to serve as your email service provider and your account has been disabled.

MailChimp went on to reject all appeals, and it is clear that the reason they would not reinstate ReOpenCalNows account was not because of spam. The laws protecting people from receiving spamdo not applyto publicly available emails of elected officials. Every email on the list compiled by ReOpenCalNow were publicly available and corresponded to an elected official.

Tab Berg, whose consulting firm Tab Communications is assisting ReOpenCalNow to publicize their event, explained that by using MailChimp before the account was disabled, he was able to quickly verify that only four people out of over 3,000 recipients marked the emails as spam, and only one recipient logged a complaint directly with MailChimp. This would not be enough to trigger a cancellation of service, even if the emails were not going to public officials. Once MailChimp was informed as to the public nature of the email list being used, the account would have been immediately reactivated on appeal. The reason MailChimp cancelled ReOpenCalifornias account is because information about alternative therapies for COVID-19 is the target of organized censorship.

Evidence to support this version of what happened is found in how ReOpenCalNow was treated when they attempted to start an account on another major platform, Mailer Lite. Their application generated an immediate rejection from MailerLite. They wrote:

The approval team determined that your account violates paragraph 9. of our Terms of Use on appropriate content. We are sorry to disappoint you. I could not be of more help but thank you for understanding.

When ReOpenCalNow appealed, noting that they are a non-profit educational group that hosts public policy conferences, and that the content clearly falls under 1st Amendment expression, they received a second rejection:

Thank you for your interest in Mailerlite however, unfortunately, your websites type of content is not permitted on our platform. You can read more about this in our Terms of Use here:https://www.mailerlite.com/legal/terms-of-service. Due to the reason outlined above we were unable to approve your account.

In Mailerlites terms of service, the following applicable provision is found: You are also not allowed to send content that encourages discrimination, bullying or actions that could impose health-risk, such as anti-vaccination material.

This coordinated exclusion of dissenting medical opinions on COVID-19 was further evidenced in Facebooks refusal to permit paid ads from ReOpenCalNow. Their initial refusal was based on their recent policy inconsistently applied to stop accepting political ads. Upon appeal, ReOpenCalNow was told your website contains dangerous content that violates Facebooks terms of service.

Dangerous content. That is how awebsite, and the conference it promotes, is considered by the biggest social media and email platforms in the world. A conference that is organized and features individuals with impeccable reputations and credentials who dare to question the political and medical response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Consider the primary transgression of the organizers: A panel scheduled for mid-day on January 9 that features four doctors, individuals with medical licenses, with extensive experience treating COVID-19 patients. Their crime? Claiming there are therapeutic early stage treatments for COVID-19 that yield a high percentage of cures.

What if these doctors are right? For that matter, what if theyre wrong? So what? Why is it that COVID-19 is arguably the first disease in history where the treatment opinions of licensed physicians are suppressed and their reputations are scandalized, and virtually no approved early stage treatments are even offered as alternatives? Whats going on?

What is happening to the organizers of ReOpenCalNow is emblematic of a large and multifaceted political sickness in California today. A grotesque misreading of medical data being used to justify a lockdown that has destroyed the livelihoods of millions while enriching a handful of gigantic corporations and their shareholders. In parallel, anorganized suppressionof treatment alternatives has occurred that quite possibly has cost thousands of lives.

This is a reflection of the arrogance of big tech, united with other powerful opportunistic special interests ranging from big pharma to a thoroughly corrupt political establishment. The consequences of mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be overstated, and yet expert debate over what to do is denied by the platforms that once, in a better and very recent time, represented an explosion of freedom.

One may hope the organizers of the ReOpenCalNow event this weekend will livestream to multiple platforms. Online viewing is free to anyone whoregisters on their website, but shouldYouTubeorFacebook take a predictable next step and de-platform them, there remains at least for now robust alternatives the organizers should consider: DLive, Rumble, BitChute and Odysee.

Movements survived and grew in the days before the internet by using actual, physical newsletters, phone calls, and in-person gatherings. Perhaps it will come to that again, unless such activity shall itself be deemed too dangerous by the powers that be.

Ben Garrison political art and cartoons used with permission.

Edward Ring is a contributing editor and senior fellow with the California Policy Center, which he co-founded in 2013 and served as its first president. The California Policy Center is an educational non-profit focused on public policies that aim to improve Californias democracy and economy. He is also a senior fellow of the Center for American Greatness.

Continue reading here:
Big Tech Censorship Suppresses the Reopen California Movement - California Globe

We may not intend to hex our enemies these days, as damn sought to do. But weve hardly moved beyond a trepidatious use of language. Today its not bad words that will get you in trouble, so much as ideas deemed forbidden or ideologically unacceptable. And though most of the people going after you wouldnt regard themselves as religious, their moral righteousness often recalls the most austere, dour, unforgiving sect, the kind that might think that fizzy water is an unnecessary decadence and that pictures of kittens degrade the soul.

Perhaps I remember the past inaccurately. When I was growing up in the 1980s, after all, the music industry was dealing with Tipper Gores campaign to place Parental Guidance: Explicit Lyrics on offensive records, which only upped their desirability among teenagers everywhere. But then, as the 1990s progressed, I distinctly recall a general no one is above mockery sentiment amongcomedians and writers everywhere.

The implicit idea was this: censorship is a rotten old idea held by uptight prudes and Christian conservatives, and the Left is a space of free-thinking, liberal transgression, provocation and open-mindedness. This went for the mockers, too everyone was an idiot, and no one was above criticism. As philosopher Raoul Vaneigem put it in his 2015 defence of free speech, it was a time where nothing was sacred, everything could be said.

Today, as we accept the reality of yet another lockdown, perhaps there are other challenges we can set ourselves as a society, beyond making bread, or reading the entirety of Prousts In Search of Lost Time, or whatever else those not deemed essential to the ongoing maintenance of British society are doing. These quests could include listening to each other when we disagree; refining our own arguments before attacking others; imagining that our interlocuter is as well-motivated as webelieve ourselves to be; speaking to each other on the phone before denouncing each other online; forgiving ourselves and others for mistakes weve all made; recognising that people change their minds; and other such horribly reasonable thoughts.

See more here:
Nobody cares about swearing today, the censors will come for your ideas - Telegraph.co.uk

When there's a possibility of censorship, prior review, or even self-censorship on staffs, it makes it less possible for other students and communities to hear as many perspectives as possible, Neha Madhira, a student journalist currently reporting for The Texan at the University of Texas at Austin, tells Teen Vogue. She says she began doing First Amendment and press freedom work during her junior year of high school after a censorship incident in her own school, where they had to petition to reverse a ban the principal had put on certain stories. She also helped spearhead New Voices legislation at the Texas statehouse. Neha is now the recording secretary for the board of directors for the Student Press Law Center and helps students with bill language and getting in touch with representatives. Neha says that student journalists arent just the future, but the now of whats happening, and that its vital to emphasize the importance of local reporting because not everyone has access to in-person meetings or updates on campus and beyond.

Says Lily Wobbe, 17, a student journalist who is part of the New Voices coalition in Kentucky, The media is such a crucial part of democracy, and if us students learn how to contribute to this democracy while were still in school, well be so much better equipped when we eventually fill the roles of professional journalists. She continues, Theres no reason we should be censored and prevented from covering things like gun control or racism or climate change, because these things impact our lives just as much as they impact adults lives.

Lily Wobbe giving a speech at the Kentucky Youth Assembly

Often journalists who are students are experiencing the firsthand, real-time effects of what theyre covering, whether thats a campus closure or holding leadership accountable for policies on campus. When the George Floyd stuff was happening in late May and early June, that was really difficult for me as a student, particularly because I'm Black, Marissa Martinez, 22, former editor in chief of the Daily Northwestern, tells Teen Vogue. Having to kind of watch the country crumble around me as I'm finishing five finals and leading a newspaper It was a lot.

She mentions being proud of how the staff handled coverage of protests to abolish university police on Northwesterns campus, another sensitive issue, that already had the country watching. I think it's really interesting to see [that] larger outlets have to come back to our coverage, she says, explaining that college publications are often seen as a stepping stone to the professional world, but are where bigger outlets come when they need a scoop. We are reckoning with the consequences of being, of course, [a] literally hyperlocal paper for our campuses, and then for our city as well, says Marissa. While national journalists can parachute in and out of a campus or city, student reporters have to personally deal with the consequences of not covering something accurately or angering community members with their coverage.

Read the original here:
Student Journalists Are Fighting for Protection After Covering the Crises of 2020 - TeenVogue.com

When we founded the Voltaire Network in 1994, our first concern was to defend freedom of expression in France, and then around the world.

Today, however, this concept is, in our view, distorted and fought against. We will therefore try to define this ideal further.

The circulation of ideas experienced a considerable boom with the invention of modern typography at the end of the 15th century. It was no longer possible to blindly believe authorities; everyone could make up their own mind.

It was agreed that although debate was indispensable to the evolution of human thought, certain ideas would be harmful to society and should therefore be censored. The authorities had to determine what was useful and what was harmful. But the creation of the famous Index librorum prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books) by Pope Paul IV did not prevent the spread of anti-Papist ideas.

Our view, on the contrary, is that in most cases censorship is more harmful than the ideas it prohibits. All societies that practice censorship end up being frozen. That is why all censorship authorities were once overthrown.

At that point, two great schools clash. Article 11 of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) stipulates that the law must determine and repress abuses of freedom of expression, while the First Amendment to the US Constitution (1791) states that no law may limit this freedom.

The United States was a nation in formation, newly emancipated from the British monarchy. It was not yet aware of the difficulties of living in society, but it had already suffered from the abuses of the Power of London. They therefore had a conception of freedom without limits.

It took nearly a century for the French legislature to determine the limits of freedom of expression: provocation to commit crimes or misdemeanors, insult and defamation. Compared to the censorship regime, control is no longer exercised before publication, but after.

Latin countries call defamation the act of reporting derogatory elements without being able to produce proof, it being understood that certain facts cannot be proven (for example amnestied facts, prescribed crimes or simply elements of private life) and therefore are not publishable. On the contrary, the Anglo-Saxon countries only call defamation imputations that can be proven false. In practice, Latin laws require the author to prove what he or she claims, while Anglo-Saxon laws on the contrary state that it is up to the defamed person to prove that the author is telling nonsense.

In either case, the courts can only protect freedom of expression if they are composed of popular juries (as in Belgium) and not of professional magistrates (as in France) likely to defend their social class. This was the great struggle of Georges Clmenceau, which was brought to an end during the Second World War, when governments regained control of proceedings.

The freedom of expression that the West had taken four centuries to develop was totally called into question with the appearance of new computerized techniques of diffusion that broadened the number of authors. As in the sixteenth century, after a short period of flourishing freedom, it is on the way to being completely controlled.

In the past, the French and Americans spoke of both freedom of expression and freedom of the press (i.e. the possibility of exercising freedom of expression in newspapers). Today, however, freedom of the press is often invoked to deny freedom of expression to mere mortals accused of being "conspiracy seekers", that is to say, uncultured, irresponsible and dangerous to society.

Usually the advocates of prior censorship do not invoke their desire to control the political opinions of the masses, but place themselves in the realm of religion (protecting society from heresy) or morality (preventing the corruption of youth through pornography). The appearance of "social networks" offers a new context for bringing out old arguments.

As established religions are in gradual retreat in the contemporary West, they are being replaced by a new one without God, but with its dogmas (consensus) and clerics (formerly journalists, today the owners of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc.). For example, a referendum should be called in France to enshrine in the Constitution the following sentence: "The Republic guarantees (1) the preservation of biodiversity, (2) the environment and (3) the fight against climate change". Three meaningless proposals since biodiversity is not a stage, but a process; that the environment has never been preserved, but always modified; and that the climate is not subject to any regulation. There is already talk of censoring this remark, which disturbs the consensus, first on social networks and then in society in general.

Each of us is shocked by the pornography inflicted on children and would spontaneously wish to protect them from it. True, but in the past little peasants used to watch farm animals not always very tender and moral, today small schoolchildren are convinced that animals only mate to perpetuate their species and watch films not always very tender and moral on their smartphone. Historically, most authoritarian regimes started by censoring pornography before attacking political ideas. It is therefore much less risky for everyone to implement parental control procedures rather than opening the way for the loss of our freedoms.

Last remarks: a big step backwards was taken in 1990 with the European laws repressing "Holocaust denial", then in the 2000s with the privileges granted to social networks, and finally in the 2010s with the rating agencies.

One would have understood that laws repress forms of rehabilitation of the Nazi racialist regime, but not that they set themselves up as guardians of the Truth. Above all, and this is the most important point, they have reinstated prison sentences for offenders. It is therefore possible today in Europe to find oneself in prison for ones ideas.

Internet forums (including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or YouTube) have obtained a staggering privilege in the United States in order to conquer the world. They are considered both as carriers of information (like the Post Office) and as regulators of the information they convey; as if the Post Office had the right to read what they convey and to censor what they dont like. Ensuring that they are only neutral carriers, these forums protect the anonymity of their customers. As a result, they all carry among their messages some that provoke the commission of crimes and offenses, insulting and defamatory, and they cover up for their perpetrators. Whereas in the print media, the printer who refuses to reveal the name of his client is considered responsible for the comments he has printed, these "information carriers" have set themselves up as "regulators". They always refuse to reveal the names of the guilty parties, but sovereignly destroy the accounts that they judge contrary to their ideas. In doing so, they set themselves up as judges, without laws, debates or appeals.

On May 28, 2020, President Donald Trump took away this privilege, paving the way for regulation by the judiciary, but it is unlikely that the US Congress will transform this Executive Branch decision into law. All the more so since the owners of these forums have already set up rating agencies with NATO for websites that are beyond their control (including NewsGuard). For them, it is a question of burying bad thinkers in the depths of search engines until they disappear. Arbitrariness and censorship are back.

Read this article:
Arbitrariness and censorship are back in the West, by Thierry Meyssan - Voltaire Network

As the world rapidly changed in 2020, new threats arose to our digital security. The shift to online education and the wave of police brutality protests brought new avenues for surveillance, so EFF created new resources to help people protect themselves.

EFF maintains a repository of self-help resources for fighting back against surveillance across a variety of different platforms, devices, and threat models. We call it Surveillance Self-Defense, or SSD for short.

SSD covers myriad topics, and is broken up into four main sections:

In 2017, we also launched the Security Education Companion, also known as SEC, as a sister site to SSD. Its geared toward people who would like to help their communities learn about digital security, but are new to the art of security training.

SEC also features four main areas of educational resources:

Our student privacy guide is a wide-ranging breakdown of the ways schools spy on students, both in and out of the classroom. It goes over the types of technologies schools can use and the data that they can gather, with strategies that students can use to protect themselves and their peers from invasive school surveillance.

We revamped and renamed our previous censorship circumvention guide to break down more fully the ways in which censorship and surveillance go hand-in-hand, and the harms they bring to users. We also go over how network censorship happenswhere the blocking occurs, and by what mechanisms. And finally, the guide provides users with options for circumvention techniques, and the risks and benefits of these options.

Our guide on attending protests went through a major update in response to the protests against police brutality this past summer. We added new sections on dressing for anonymity and safety to circumvent surveillance techniques used at protests and considerations for transit, location, and social media tracking. We also provided additional resources to help address issues of self-censorship in the face of surveillance risk and guidance on posting images in a mindful way to minimize exposing other protesters to potential harm.

We added to SECs training repertoire this year by creating a lesson module on teaching others about phishing and malware. This resource is based firmly in learner empowerment, not fear. These topics can be daunting and scary for people just learning how to protect themselves online, and we frame this training in building up learners awareness and understanding, not recommending specific tools. An additional resource released in tandem with this lesson is our malware handout, a double-sided informative resource on the common types of malware, and protections against contracting this malicious software on devices.

Check out the rest of Surveillance Self-Defense to learn more about protecting yourself online, and Security Education Companion for more of our digital security training resources, at the beginner and intermediate levels of learning.

This article is part of our Year in Review series.Read other articles about the fight for digital rights in 2020.

Original post:
Surveillance Self-Defense and Security Education: Year in Review 2020 - EFF

Yesterday morning, for scores of Indian liberals, Christmas came early. They woke up to the cheer of the UK affiliate of Republic Bharat being hit with a fine of 20,000 British Pounds for broadcasting hate speech. This is the first time I have heard of the OfCom, the UK government body that served the fine.

For scores of Indias elite liberals, this was not the day to talk about free speech. It was a day to celebrate.

There were a couple of things that were noteworthy about the reporting around the incident. First, the OfCom was described to us as a regulator for the media. Okay, what does it regulate? Apparently, all the things that you can say on air. You know we have the National Board of Film Certification in India with a similar brief for what you can show in the movies. Our media usually refers to it as the unofficial term Censor Board. So why didnt the media refer to the UKs OfCom as a censor?

Oh, I get it. When they do it, its called regulation. When we do it, its called censorship.

Second, the sense of liberal cheer was not dampened when the nature of Republic Bharats alleged offense began to emerge. It turns out that in the backdrop of Indias Chandrayaan mission last year, the folks on Republic Bharat had referred to India as a nation that produces scientists, as opposed to Pakistan which produces terrorists. Hate speech for sure. And how untrue! Seventy-three years after partition, it was heartwarming to see the imperial British government, the Pakistanis and the Indian liberals come together to celebrate a common victory.

But I wanted to know more about this OfCom. Its full name is the Office of Communications. It holds sweepingpowersover broadcasting, telecommunications and even postal industries in the UK. Thats reassuring. I do hope that the OfCom is under the Ministry of Truth in the UK. Dear George Orwell, are you hearing this?

So what methodology does the OfCom use to decide whether something is hate speech? I did a simple google search. It led me to thisletter, posted on the official website of OfCom in response to a Freedom of Information request (similar to our RTI):

Thats just awesome. The methodology is secret. And the OfComs Secretary has confirmed that it is not in the public interest to release it.

Thank you, dear Secretary to Ofcom, for looking out for the public interest. Seems the good people of the United Kingdom had some kind of meeting, where they elected this faceless bureaucrat as God. Or at least the official guardian of public interest.

As a concession to those of us who are not guardians of public interest, the Secretary was kind enough to provide Annex B setting out the reasons why this methodology must be kept secret. And it makes for truly amazing reading. They have two columns, one listing factors for disclosure, while the other lists factors for withholding. And below that, the Secretary, who is a qualified person as defined by law, has delivered the final verdict.

First, let us read the factors in favor of disclosing the methodology. Its remarkably short.

Ah, the general desirability that the actions of the regulator should be transparent! The publics right to know how their government decides what they are allowed to say? Thats just generally desirable, though apparently not important enough. You have to give it to the British. They do condescension well.

Now let us find out the much longer and more important factors for withholding this methodology. First, there is this.

Ah, the government needs a safe space where they can decide what should be censored. If the general riff-raff get to know what is being said here, the government might get its feelings hurt. And then the government might feel shy about expressing its views in the future.

Dear President Xi Jinping, do consider giving a bear hug to these sensitive souls in the British government.

And finally, there is this.

Long sentences. So, were going to have to break it down. The monitoring is only effective if the broadcasters dont know when and who is being monitored. If this information becomes public, the broadcasters might become alert in time and fix their conduct before the sword falls on them. Then, how would the government know who the thought criminals are?

So everyone is suspect, all of the time. At any time, a government bureaucracy, using a secret methodology, might decide that you have broken their secret rules. Nothing to worry here. As long as you only talk about unicorns and rainbows, you will be just fine. Hopefully.

And finally, the Secretary delivers the expected verdict. No disclosures, sorry.

Observe how long the sentences are in the latter part of Annex B. Unlike the simple, easy to understand sentence that mentioned the general desirability of things being transparent. In case you are wondering, you do have a right to appeal. In that case, the OfCom will do an internal review.

Thisis modern liberalism. A parody of itself and its alleged goals. Honestly, tell me. If I had not told you at the very beginning, would you have known if these were documents from the British government or the Chinese government?

But to scores of Indian liberal elites, all this matters little. They dont care if the bosses of some TV channel cheat investors using insider trading. They dont care if notable journalists are on tape fixing portfolios in the Union Cabinet with lobbyists and big business. And they dont care if media coverage endangers lives of security forces during anti-terror operations. All they care about is making Republic Bharat shut up about Pakistan.

In other words, yes to corruption. Yes to terrorism. No to free speech.

The rest is here:
OfCom: The secretive govt censor that has fined the UK affiliate of Republic Bharat. Why people are rejoicing and what it means - OpIndia

SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISMThe article youre about to read is from our reporters doing their important work investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers businesses have been impacted. Thats why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insiders program here. Thank you.

JOIN NOW

PAMELA ROTH, San Clemente

The day a newspaper decides it must flag and not print inflammatory or insensitive letters to the editor is the day we need a new newspaper.

Newspapers used to be a bastion of free speech. Once you start to not publish letters because it could offend someone, you get into very scary territory. All fascist countries and regimes start out censoring distasteful speech. You arent the taste committee.

I was born a New York Jew, in a Long Island suburb, that was approximately 95% Jewish. We were taught about the Holocaust at a very young age. And your apology about publishing someones viewpoint about stickers and Nazismwith a vow to censor such opinions in the futureis much more frightening than a letter to the editor comparing stickers to Nazi identifying badges.

In fact, that person writing the letter might have been Jewish.

Do you have no journalistic standards? Your job isnt to be sensitive to everyones emotions. Everyone is sensitive about something.

So, be a newspaper. Print our letters to the editor. Its not your place to judge whether a letter writers stance is justifiable. Were adults. Leave censorship to North Korea and the Taliban, please. Thank you.

Related

BECOME AN INSIDER TODAYTrustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

CONTRIBUTE NOW

Follow this link:
Letter to the Editor: Censorship - San Clemente Times

When our family received a stimulus check in the spring, we decided the best use of this money was to give it to others. We gave some of it to family members suffering from the economic fallout of the pandemic, and we donated the rest to nonprofits facing an even greater demand for their services.

Now that Congress has passed another Covid relief bill that includes another stimulus check, we are pledging to donate this amount as well. My wife and I have been fortunate to retain our jobs and income throughout the pandemic, and while we could put the money to use for ourselves, there are too many others still suffering from the fallout of the pandemic.

I urge my fellow readers to consider how they can best use the stimulus funds to help others in need. Find a family member, friend, or neighbor who could immediately benefit from additional support. Alternatively, support one of the many nonprofits that have seen funding shortfalls and increased demand during this challenging year.

Congress has chosen a funding mechanism that prioritizes speed (of distribution) over need (of the recipient), so it is up to us to redirect the funds to ensure that those who have been most impacted by the pandemic receive as much help as possible.

Daniel Tikk, St. Paul

I didnt intend to copy Charlie Brown today, but Good Grief, I see in the paper the culture cops are at it again.

A school, named To Be Decided (Im sorry but the previous name has been judged to be an embarrassment) has banned some books. Literature, deemed to be too dangerous an influence on the gentle sensibilities of our naive and innocent high school students.

Well first off, if you think todays high school students are naive and innocent, that description would be better applied to you.

But, secondly, if you exclude classic, thought-provoking literature from developing minds, you are starving them of the protein that develops the muscle of critical thinking. Leaving them to feed on the predigested carbohydrated snacks and treats of most of the popular media.

Sadly, too much snacking and treating turns to fat, an unfortunate condition to have in the head.

But, thirdly, and fortuitously more likely, banning a book will elicit a curiosity as to why it was forbidden, thus leading to even greater readership than before. I suggest Of Mice and Men; its a short, yet stimulating read.

Take care, wash your hands, cover your mouth, keep your distance and stay safe.

Bob Emery, Mendota Heights

I just read the article about a high school pulling two books from English classes, reprinted in the Duluth News Tribune. I havent read either of the books, so I have no opinion on whether they are the best choices for classroom reading.

According to the article, however, the books have also been censored elsewhere. Do I misunderstand the word censor? I thought censoring a book meant to prohibit someone from reading it, or to suppress its availability. If you stop requiring it, is that also censorship?

If a school deems material inappropriate and bans it from the library, maybe that could be called censorship. But not changing a required reading list.

Ethan Perry, Duluth

Originally posted here:
Letters: If possible, donate that federal check to people in greater need - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

Thiruvananthapuram: Malayalam film 'Varthamanam', set in the backdrop of students protest held in Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi early this year, has been denied permission for screening by the Censor Board of Film Certification's (CBFC) regional office here.

Directed by noted filmmaker Sidhartha Siva with award- winning actress Parvathy Thiruvoth in the lead role, the movie revolves around the journey of a Keralite woman who goes to the JNU campus from the home state for her research studies.

Aryadan Shoukath, the film's producer-script-writer, said the CBFC officials here did not point out any reason for denying the certification.

He also said the movie would be submitted to the revising committee of the Censor Board in Mumbai for certification this week itself.

"The CBFC officials here just informed us that the film has to be submitted to the revising committee.

We still do not know why the movie is denied the certification," Shoukath, also a Congress leader, told PTI.

The award-winning script writer said he had carried out several months of research and studies before penning the script and spent several days in Delhi to get first-hand experience of the culture and lifestyle in JNU campus.

"We cannot send the movie for any award this time if we do not get the Censor Board clearance before December 31," he said.

Shoukath suspected that the nod for screening was denied on political grounds citing a recent tweet of a censor board member, who is also the state vice president ofSC Morcha of the BJP.

"Adv V Sandeep Kumar, a censor board member, recently tweeted that the permission was denied as Aryadan Shoukath was its script writer and producer.

Now a days Censor Board has several political appointees who have no basic knowledge of cinema," he said.

Shoukath, the other day, also uploaded on his Facebook page the screenshot of the controversial tweet of the regional censor Board member.

In his tweet, which was found removed later, Sandeep Kumar had said that he, as a member of the Board, was opposed to giving nod for the movie.

"As a member of the Censor Board, I saw the movie Varthamanam. The theme was the persecution of Muslims and Dalits in the JNU agitation. I opposed it.

Because Arydan Shoukath was its script writer and producer. Of course, the theme of the film was anti-national," the tweet said.

Violence broke out at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus early in January this year as masked men armed with sticks and rods attacked students and teachers protesting the fee hike and damaged property on the campus, prompting the administration to call in the police which conducted a flag march.

Coming down heavily on him, Shoukath, in his FB post, sought to know how a movie would become anti-national if it speaks about the students' agitation in Delhi campus or the democratic movements in the country.

"We are still living in India which is a democratic, secular and socialist country.

Is it based on the clan and race of the script-writer that a film is given a nod for screening? The undeclared emergency situation in the cultural sector cannot be accepted," the script-writer's FB post said.

Film sources here told PTI that when two censor board members, who are from the film industry, strongly supported the movie and wanted to give it a nod for screening, two others, who are political nominees, objected to it.

When contacted, the censor board officials here were unavailable for a comment.

Read the original:
'Theme of the film was anti-national': Kerala censor board denies nod for movie on JNU agitation - Free Press Journal