Category Archives: Censorship

Independence Day is an occasion to celebrate freedom from a colonial regime that not only cast chains of economic and political bondage upon Indians, but also fettered their freedom to think, dissent, and express themselves without fear. Demands for a right to free speech, and for an end to political, cultural and artistic censorship, were at the heart of our freedom struggle, and which culminated in the celebrated Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Last week, however, two events revealed that 70 years after Independence, the freedom of speech still occupies a fragile and tenuous place in the Republic, especially when it is pitted against the authority of the State. The first was the Jharkhand governments decision to ban the Sahitya Akademi awardee Hansda Sowvendra Shekhars 2015 book, The Adivasi Will Not Dance, for portraying the Santhal community in bad light. And the second was an order of a civil judge at Delhis Karkardooma Court, restraining the sale of Priyanka Pathak-Narains new book on Baba Ramdev, titled Godman to Tycoon.

Neither the ban on The Adivasi Will Not Dance, nor the injunction on Godman to Tycoon, are the last words on the issue. They are, rather, familiar opening moves in what is typically a prolonged and often tortuous battle over free speech, with an uncertain outcome. Nevertheless, they reveal something important: censorship exists in India to the extent it does because it is both easy and efficient to accomplish. This is for two allied reasons. First, the Indian legal system is structured in a manner that achieving censorship through law is an almost costless enterprise for anyone inclined to try; and second, the only thing that could effectively counteract this a strong, judicial commitment to free speech, at all levels of the judiciary does not exist. Together, these two elements create an environment in which the freedom of speech is in almost constant peril, with writers, artists, and publishers perpetually occupied with firefighting fresh threats and defending slippery ground, rather than spending their time and energy to transgress, challenge and dissent from the dominant social and cultural norms of the day.

The Jharkhand governments ban on The Adivasi Will Not Dance followed public protests against the writer, with MLAs calling for a ban on the book on the ground that it insulted Santhal women. The legal authority of the government to ban books flows from Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which, in turn, was based upon a similarly worded colonial provision). Section 95 authorises State governments to forfeit copies of any newspaper, book, or document that appears to violate certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code, such as Section 124A (sedition), Sections 153A or B (communal or class disharmony), Section 292 (obscenity), or Section 295A (insulting religious beliefs). Under Section 96 of the CrPC, any person aggrieved by the governments order has the right to challenge it before the high court of that State.

The key element of Section 95 is that it allows governments to ban publications without having to prove, before a court of law, that any law has been broken. All that Section 95 requires is that it appear to the government that some law has been violated. Once the publication has been banned, it is then up to the writer or publisher to rush to court and try and get the ban lifted.

The CrPC is therefore structured in a manner that is severely detrimental to the interests of free speech. By giving the government the power to ban publications with the stroke of a pen (through a simple notification), the law provides a recipe for overregulation and even abuse: faced with political pressure from influential constituencies, the easiest way out for any government is to accede and ban a book, and then let the law take its own course. Furthermore, litigation is both expensive and time-consuming. Section 95 ensures that the economic burden of a ban falls upon the writer or the publisher, who must approach the court. It also ensures that while the court deliberates and decides the matter, the default position remains that of the ban, ensuring that the publication cannot enter the marketplace of ideas during the course of the (often prolonged and protracted) legal proceedings.

The most noteworthy thing about the Karkardooma civil judges injunction on Godman to Tycoon is that it was granted without hearing the writer or the publisher (Juggernaut Books). In an 11-page order, the civil judge stated that he had given the book a cursory reading, and examined the specific portion produced by Baba Ramdevs lawyers in court which he found to be potentially defamatory. On this basis, he restrained the publication and sale of the book.

In this case, it is the judicial order of injunction that is performing the work of Section 95 of the CrPC. Effectively, a book is banned without a hearing. The book then stays banned until the case is completed (unless the writer or publisher manages to persuade the court to lift the injunction in the meantime). Once again, the presumption is against the rights of writers, and against the freedom of speech and expression.

In fact, the Karkardooma civil judges injunction order is contrary to well-established principles of free speech and defamation law. Under English common law which is the basis of the Indian law of defamation it is recognised that injunctions, which effectively amount to a judicial ban on books, have a serious impact upon the freedom of speech, and are almost never to be granted. The only situation in which a court ought to grant an injunction is if, after hearing both sides in a preliminary enquiry, it is virtually clear that there could be no possible defence advanced by the writer or publisher. The correct remedy, in a defamation case, is not to injunct the book from publication on the first hearing itself, but to have a full-blown, proper trial, and if it is finally proven that defamation has been committed, to award monetary damages to the plaintiff.

In 2011, the High Court of Delhi held that this basic common law rule acquired even greater force in the context of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and reiterated that injunctions did not serve the balance between freedom of speech and a persons right to reputation. The high court reaffirmed the basic principle of our Constitution: that the presumption always ought to be in favour of the freedom of speech and expression. In this context, the Karkardooma civil judges order granting an injunction before even hearing the writer and publisher is particularly unfortunate.

While the banning of The Adivasi Will Not Dance reflects the structural flaws in our criminal law that undermine the freedom of speech, the injunction on Godman to Tycoon reveals a different pathology: even where the law is relatively protective of free speech, it will not help if judges who are tasked with implementing the law have not themselves internalised the importance of free speech in a democracy.

The first problem is a problem of legal reform. The solution is obvious: to repeal Sections 95 and 96, take the power of banning books out of the hands of the government, and stipulate that if indeed the government wants to ban a book, it must approach a court and demonstrate, with clear and cogent evidence, what laws have been broken that warrant a ban. The second problem, however, is a problem of legal culture, and therefore, a problem of our public culture. It can only be addressed through continuing and unapologetic affirmation of free speech as a core, foundational, and non-negotiable value of our Republic and our Constitution.

Gautam Bhatia, a Delhi-based lawyer, is the author of Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Speech Under the Indian Constitution

Go here to see the original:
The architecture of censorship - The Hindu

This article first appeared on The Conversation.

Mandelas Last Years, written by retired military doctor Vejay Ramlakan, has become a sought-after commodity since the publisher, Penguin SA, withdrew it from the shelves in July. Ramlakan was the head of the medical team that looked after Nelson Mandela until his death in 2013.

The withdrawing and pulping of a book represents a huge expense for a publisher, as well as a source of some embarrassment. So why did the publisher do it?

Soon after the book was published, members of the Mandela family, led by his widow Graa Machel, threatened legal action. It must be admitted that the basis for any legal action wasnt clear, although it was probably linked to defamation. The book, Machel argued, constituted an assault on the trust and dignity of her late husband.

Soon afterward, the authors employer, the South African National Defence Force, distanced itself from the book, suggesting that it may have contravened doctor-patient confidentiality.

The publisher bowed to this pressure and withdrew the book, stating that no further copies would be issued out of respect for the family. This is almost unprecedented, anywhere, and needs to be teased out more fully. After reading the book, Ive considered how and why the publisher may have come to this decision.

REASONS FOR PULPING A BOOK

The decision-making process for a publisher in a case like the Mandela book revolves around balancing the potential costs against reputational damage. The costs can be extensive - in publishing, all costs relating to editing, design, production, printing and distribution are made up front. It is relatively easy to make a decision to withdraw a book after publication when it may have contravened the law, mostly due to defamation of character.

Books may also be withdrawn after allegations of plagiarism, or because the accuracy of the content has been called into question. Publishers sometimes cancel contracts with their authors based on the standard waivers dealing with defamation and inaccuracies.

Publishers try to avoid these kinds of situations by performing due diligence to see if manuscripts contain anything defamatory or that breaches privacy. They employ fact checkers to avoid inaccuracy. And they require authors to warrant that their work is original and accurate.

This doesnt mean that errors dont sometimes slip through. But it is very unusual for a book to be withdrawn simply because its controversial. In fact, publishers usually support controversial titles because they create publicity, and publicity generally leads to sales.

So, what happened in this particular case?

The first set of questions would relate to the credibility of the author, and the publishers relationship with him. Ramlakan was the head of Mandelas medical team and had unique access to the former president over a long period of time.

This means that he certainly had the access and authority to write the book, and as far as I know, nobody is questioning its accuracy.

This is important, because truthfulness is one of the main defences against defamation, as is the issue of public benefit or interest. It seems highly unlikely that a publisher would allow a nonfiction title to include material that is patently untrue or that would harm the reputation of a man like Mandela. Is there really still a need to protect the reputation of a man of such global stature?

FAMILY PERMISSION

Linked to the question of authority is whether the work was authorised. The author has repeatedly claimed he wrote the memoir at the request of family members, and with their permission. In such a large family, it would be difficult to obtain permission from every family member, and it is quite common for family members to protest their treatment in a biography of a famous public figure.

Family members often argue that there has been a breach of privacy or that embarrassing private details have been made public. But the truth is that their authorization is not actually necessary. Many authors write unauthorised biographies or memoirs, and while they may prove controversial, they certainly do not contravene the law. The broad variety of books already available on Mandela shows that there is ongoing public interest. It seems unlikely that each one of them was authorised by the family.

What complicates this scenario is that, as a medical doctor, Ramlakan is also expected to uphold ethical standards that an ordinary writer wouldnt be subject to. I am not an expert in medical ethics, but there are very few medical details in the book that are not already in the public domain.

In fact, one of the purposes of the book was to counter the rumours and speculation around Mandelas medical condition in the last years and months of his life. It does this by quietly countering inaccurate statements and setting out the bare facts. It appears that the author made a deliberate effort to avoid breaching confidentiality, and ended up writing a very respectful book.

Some have suggested that the publisher and author were simply attempting to cash in on the Mandela legacy. Whatever their motives, they shouldnt be the basis for withdrawing a book from public circulation. Taste and motivation are not legal issues.

CENSORSHIP

Given that there is no apparent material basis for a legal attack on the book, its withdrawal reveals self-censorship on the part of the publisher. South Africa no longer has censorship laws in place, but an influential family can bring pressure to bear that amounts to the same thing. But also given that the book was already on the market, it should be asked what the effect of the withdrawal will be.

While fewer copies will be sold in bookshops, and fewer people will have access to it, its not possible to entirely withdraw a book from the online market. The book reviews already mention all of the most controversial parts of the book, and the action of withdrawal only serves to highlight them. The best course of action would be to allow the book to circulate freely and to stand - or fall - on its own merits. Anything else is censorship.

Beth le Roux is an Associate Professor, Publishing, University of Pretoria

More here:
[OPINION] Withdrawal of Mandela book nothing short of censorship - Eyewitness News

President Trumps reelection campaign saidTuesdaythat CNN has denied its offer to buy air time for a campaign ad, marking the second time the network has refused to run a pro-Trump campaign spot.

The ad, called Let President Trump Do His Job, accuses the media of attacking our president and briefly displays pictures of news anchors from several news outlets, including CNN anchors Jake Tapper, Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper.

The presidents enemies dont want him to succeed, the ad states. Let President Trump do his job.

The ad alsotouts U.S. economic growth, the stock market, jobs figures and military strength, while accusing Democrats of obstruction.

One of the many reasons that so many millions of Americans support President Trump is because of their complete mistrust of the mainstream news media, and the presidents refusal to allow their biased filter to interfere with his messages, Trump campaign executive director Michael Glassner said in a statement.

Today, CNN provided further proof that the network earns this mistrust every day by censoring President Trumps message to the American people by blocking our paid campaign ad, he continued. Clearly, the only viewpoint CNN allows on air is CNNS.

CNN did not respond to a request for comment.

Earlier this year, CNN refused to run a Trump campaign ad because it cast the mainstream media as fake news.

Trump and CNN are locked in an increasingly personal feud that has pitted the White House against the networks top on-air talent.

CNNs chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta has gained prominencefor his entrenched opposition to Trump.

Acosta has infuriated conservatives, who view him as a grandstander whose chief goal is buildinghis personal brand through viral clips of heated exchanges with White House spokespeople.

At a press conferenceon Monday, Acosta, who was representing the media through the press pool, shouted a question at Trump, who responded: Youre fake news.

Havent you spread a lot of fake news yourself, sir?Acosta shot back.

CNN has run its own ads with footage of anchors lecturing White House officials and talking about whether Trump will be impeached.

The network has attracted criticism for its relentless hostility toward the president. A Harvard study found that CNNs coverage of Trump was negative 93 percent of the time over the course of his first 100 days in office.

CNN's ratings are up, although the networkstill trails rivals Fox News and MSNBC.

Read this article:
Trump campaign accuses CNN of censorship - The Hill

A deal between Beijing and the increasingly despotic Erdogan regime in Turkey is raising fears of a new phase of Chinese political influence, in which Chinese soft power is used to persuade foreign governments to allow the same type of pro-Beijing censorship that constricts the Chinese internet in their own countries. After a meeting last week between Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, it was reported that Turkey plans to block anti-China reports from its media and Turkish language websites. This has worried many activists from Chinas persecuted Uighur minority, for whom Turkey has functioned as something of a safe haven after other Asian countries closer to Beijing crumbled in the face of political pressure to crackdown on Uighur refugees within their borders.

Within China, the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is steadfast on three sacred rights over which it perceives there is very little room for negotiations. These are continued unchallenged rule by the CCP at home; uncompromising defence of Chinese claims to sovereignty and territorial integrity within and without Chinas present borders; and continued economic expansion at home and abroad. Beijing has often sparred diplomatically with other countries and turned the screws on the private sector at home in pursuit of these three rights. It has also long threatened foreign governments and companies if it sees them as somehow challenging any of these core interests; what is new is that China now wishes to export the censorship methods it has perfected at home to foreign audiences whose interest and familiarity with China is very limited.

Of course, Beijing has long wielded control over what its own citizens can see or speak of both online and through media outlets whose output it can control domestically. But in a globalised world China is also the source of much concern from international observers, from the international status of Taiwan and the South China Sea to repression in Tibet and Xinjiang. It has been a source of great irritation to Beijing that media outlets online who are based overseas can contradict the official narrative without penalty. As China has grown stronger it has begun to try and impose a pro-Chinese narrative on media coverage overseas whose target audiences are not Chinese consumers. This overt effort especially targets Chinese dissidents searching for space to hide or places to broadcast from, but it also seeks to undermine foreign resistance to increasingly assertive Chinese territorial demands in places like the South China Sea.

In Turkey, media freedom has all but vanished following the failed coup last year and Erdogans victory in the April referendum. The Turkish media blackout there is only part of an offensive which China is carrying out with the help of autocratic states in the Middle East against Uighurs who have fled overseas. In Egypt, the military authorities have copied the example of Thailands junta and rounded up dozens of Uighurs for deportation back to China. But Uighurs are Turkic-speaking Muslims whose fate has traditionally been championed by Ankara. By muzzling the Turkish press, Beijing has both struck a blow against the international media coverage that Uighur activists have traditionally relied upon to publicise their cause, and made it easier to forcibly return such critics to Chinese soil without arousing much negative publicity.

Some may see the agreement between China and Turkey as constituting a special case; Uighur activists are vulnerable to accusations propagated from Beijing that their organisations are tied to terrorist groups. Some Uighurs have indeed joined international terrorist networks like the Islamic State and carried out attacks overseas which targeted foreigners and not Chinese state facilities (though these have been attacked too). This has made Middle Eastern governments, most whom are not particularly concerned with human rights, happy to be persuaded to fight Beijings battles for it. The terrorism connection has also muted Western and East Asian criticism of China, conditions which cannot be said to applied to issues such as Taiwan, Tibet or historical controversies that Beijing censors such as the Tiananmen Square massacre.

But success in controlling the narrative over its treatment of the Uighurs in Xinjiang is liable to encourage China to try this method of media manipulation in other regions, over other issues. Semi-democratic Malaysia for example, despite a border dispute with China, has cooperated with Beijing in the past, sending Taiwanese and Uighur detainees back to China despite international outcry. It is not hard to imagine Beijing demanding Kuala Lumpur extend its cooperation into the area of media censorship when Malaysia already has some of the toughest media controls in the modern world. This future blackout could be over the fate of Uighurs migrants as in Turkey, or it could be over a different issue entirely, such as corruption within the ruling CCP. Chinese dissidents are already vanishing overseas with the help of foreign governments; it is hard to image they will be keen to publicise the dirty work they carry out on Beijings behalf.

As democracy falters in the West and the rest, international human rights groups and large media conglomerates must remain wary of any emerging pact of censorship between China and the gaggle of autocrats and demagogues currently in vogue. Dictatorships can cooperate internationally to conceal the truth of their actions, as Latin American military regimes did when they joined together to hunt down dissidents in each others countries during Operation Condor. When one country inside such a pact is as powerful as China, such an arrangement would give the CCP almost unprecedented abilities to persecute its own people abroad, engage in bad faith negotiations over territorial disputes and manipulate foreign audiences sentiments in favour of CCP priorities. That is not a future which is good for China or the peoples with whom it is now coming into closer contact with in the 21st century.

Read more here:
Chinese Censorship Hits the Middle East - Raddington Report (blog)

The saga of Indian Central Board of Film Certification is 65-year-old. And, during this time, there have been countless interesting incidents. Earlier dominated by bureaucrats, it was in 1981 that CBFC got its first chairman from the film fraternity - Hrishikesh Mukherjee. This was followed by Shakti Samanta, Asha Parekh, Vijay Anand, Sharmila Tagore, Leela Samson, Pahlaj Nihalani and the most recent being Prasoon Joshi. Here are some noted CBFC chiefs who in their own way made a difference in the world of censorship of Indian films.

Hrishikesh Mukherjee

A highly successful director, editor, Hrishikesh Mukherjee was highly respected as a censor chairman. Virtually none of his directed films ever faced trouble from the Censor Board. As a chairman, he was well versed with the 1952 Cinematograph Act. Even seniors, experienced filmmakers took his suggestions about censorship.

Asha Parekh

The superhit star of the 60s was the CBFC chairperson from June 1998 to September 2001. She had a traditional approach to censorship. Asha Parekh developed a big conflict with filmmaker Shekhar Kapur regarding the censoring of the film Bandit Queen (1996). It led to a lot of misunderstanding between the two. Ultimately the film was censored in favour of Shekhar Kapur.

Vijay Anand

Vijay Anand was the best CBFC chairman according to many film personalities like Kamal Hasan and Madhur Bhandarkar. The way he censored the film Mr. & Mrs. Iyer without any hue and cry remains a lesson in film censorship. He was the CBFC chief from September 2001 to July 2002. During his short tenure of ten months, Anand redrafted the entire 1952 Cinematograph Act with inputs from censors of USA, UK, France and Greece. He was the first to propose separate censorship of television.

Sharmila Tagore

According to many, she was one of the most accomplished CBFC chairpersons. Her study of the Cinematograph Act was thorough. During her tenure, she suggested many amendments in the act, but it wasnt payed heed to. Sharmila Tagore completed two terms as CBFC chairperson from October 2004 to March 2011.

Pahlaj Nihalani

Pahlaj Nihalani is perhaps the most controversial CBFC Chairman. Instead of being a friendly advisor to the film fraternity, he acted more like a moral police, which didnt go well with many filmmakers of the recent time. He suggested 14 cuts to Madhur Bhandarkars film, Indu Sarkar. He also censored words by Amartya Sen in a documentary on the Nobel laureate by Suman Ghosh. Ultimately, he was removed from the post in August 2017 and now adman Prasoon Joshi is the new CBFC Chief.

Follow @htshowbiz for more

See more here:
The saga of CBFC: Censor Board chairpersons who stood out over the years - Hindustan Times

The alt-right supporters of James Damore, the fired Google engineer who authored the so-called anti-diversity memo, are planning nationwide protests on Googles US campuses.

The first demonstrations are slated to happen on Aug. 19 at five locations: Mountain View, California, where Google is headquartered; New York City; Washington, DC; Austin, Texas; and Boston, Massachusetts. A website for organizing the details for #MarchOnGoogle says it plans to hold protests at every Google office. The website says demonstrators might exercise their right to free speech by protesting in front of the homes of Googles executive team.

A company representative tells Quartz that it is aware of the upcoming protests, but has declined to comment or say if it would try to stop them.

The protests are meant to raise awareness on how Google does not respect freedom of speech and censors dissenting voices on its video-sharing site YouTube, according to the organizer, Jack Posobiec. (To the ire of far-right radicals, YouTube does police hate speech.) Google canceled a town-hall meeting for its 60,000 employees at the last minute on Aug. 10, citing concerns for their safety, after the names of some staff were leaked to right-wing sites.

Posobiec has also invited Damore, who was fired on Aug. 7, to speak. At the heart of the brouhaha is an internal email he wrote that went viral when it leaked to the media. In it he questioned Silicon Valleys efforts to boost diversity, calling them a form a discrimination, and argued that techs gender gap was partly due to biological differences between men and women.

Damore, who has said he is considering his legal options, has not publicly commented on whether he will attend or speak at any of the rallies. A Twitter account that appeared to belong to him recently posted photos of a man wearing a shirt emblazoned with Goolag and holding a sign that reads Fired for truth on Googles Mountain View campus.

Read the rest here:
The alt-right supporters of James Damore, the fired Google engineer who authored the so-called anti-diversity memo ... - Quartz

New street art mocks Google's decision to reject those who "Think Different".

Artwork mocking Google for its oppressive censorship is popping up all over the Los Angeles area, near Googles office in Venice, California.

Earlier this week, Google fired one of its engineers, James Damore, after he wrote a 10-page memo criticizing the way the tech giant treated female employees as well as the companys crippling level of liberal bias. In the memo, Damore pointed out the fact that men and women are different, and argued Googles refusal to recognize these differences and embrace them was hurting the company. The memo was distorted by members of the media as an anti-diversity tirade, when in reality, as many social scientists pointed out,science backs up Damores statements.

Portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace, Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote in a memo earlier this week.

Right-wing street artist Sabo took credit for the work in a series of tweets blasting the tech company.

Last night, news broke that Google cancelled an all hands on deck meeting about Damores firing out of fear that it would leak to the media. New York Times columnist David Brooks called for Pichai to resign. And Damore has taken to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to explain why he was fired.

More here:
Artwork Mocking Google's Censorship Just Started Popping Up In California - The Federalist

Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpColbert questions Trump: What's tougher than 'fire and fury'? Trump's DC hotel exceeds expectations making M so far in 2017 Graham on North Korea: 'If we have to, we'll go to war' MOREs attempts to undermine the First Amendment are undoubtedly troubling. But his attacks on the First Amendment are only part of the story. Trump is also stifling unbiased data and research that is coming from his own administration, and that is even more worrisome than his ongoing fake news crusade.

Silencing dissent and basic scientific data and research, all in the name politics, is behavior fit for a dictatorship, not a democracy, and Congress should act immediately to protect research and data, as well as whistle-blowers who are sounding the alarm on Trumps censorship, before its too late.

This week it was reported that the Department of Agriculture stopped using the term climate change and has been instructed to use the term weather extremes instead. Further, the USDA had to replace the phrase reduce greenhouse gases with the completely ambiguous build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency. Were in the middle of the second hottest year on record and the president wont let the federal government talk about it in words that actual humans can understand.

Government scientists fear Trump will suppress climate change study: report https://t.co/U3RR9Edsqm pic.twitter.com/bieBBNbpgl

In fact, one of Trumps first actions as president was to gag employees at the Environmental Protection Agency, Interior Department, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Health and Human Services agencies that are responsible for informing the public about climate change from publishing press releases, blog posts, or otherwise publicizing upcoming public events. The employees at these agencies were informed that they could not even send correspondence to other public officials and instead would have to go through senior officials who were reportedly instructed to wait until they received instructions from the White House.

President Trumps climate censorship extends to the Department of Energy and the State Department, too. In March it was reported that a supervisor at the DOEs Office of International Climate and Clean Energy instructed staff not to use the phrases climate change, emissions reduction, or Paris Agreement," while just this week it was reported Secretary of State, and former ExxonMobil CEO, Rex TillersonRex Wayne TillersonChuck Todd: Gorka a menace to other staff White House aide insists he was criticizing 'fake news' journalists, not Tillerson State responds to Gorka, says Tillerson carries a 'big stick' MORE, told U.S. diplomats to give vague answers about re-entering the Paris Agreement. How can we join with our allies around the world to address one of the biggest global threats we face if we cant even discuss it?

Trump's Agriculture Department telling staffers to stop using the term "climate change" https://t.co/6cUFX2Cg39 pic.twitter.com/OY4sUrrl5W

Clearly, scientists share this fear because a draft of a comprehensive climate change report written by scientists from 13 federal agencies was leaked out of fear that Trump would try to suppress the findings. The report provides some of the strongest evidence to date that humans are primarily responsible for rising global temperatures since 1951 and therefore must immediately take large-scale corrective action. This finding stands in stark contrast to President Trump and the climate-change skeptics Scott Pruitt and Rick PerryJames (Rick) Richard PerryOPINION | Trumps climate change censorship puts us all at risk Five takeaways from the federal climate report Dems face fundamental problem in Texas: Getting people to vote MORE he has put in charge of the EPA and Department of Energy, respectively, who argue human impact is minimal-to-non-existent.

The Trump administration's concerted climate censorship attack is a threat to our standing in the world, our preparedness to deal with a global crisis, and to our economy. A study by a team of scientists and economists published in the June 30th edition of "Science," the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, found, essentially, "the warmer it gets, the bigger the hit to the economy" and if global warming continues unchecked it could result in up to six points off of the United States' gross domestic product by the end of the century.

Trump's EPA head casts doubt on "supposed threat" of climate change https://t.co/1NAZQpbSM5 pic.twitter.com/Qk8v1PZo7Z

The study predicts that the hardest hit regions in the United States will be the South and the Midwest, which could reportedly face "huge damage to their local economies, due to enormous electric bills, dying crops, or mass migration away from the area, a warning that we cannot in good conscience ignore.

If left unchecked, Trump will continue to use censorship to remake the federal government in his own distorted image. We cannot let that happen, and every American has a responsibility to speak out against these reckless attacks on science, research, and transparency.

That starts with Congress, who has a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check on the Executive Branch, particularly when it comes to partisan overreach. They should act to protect researchers and scientists who should be able to work independently of political interference. Research shouldnt be politicized and scientific findings shouldnt be silenced to serve a presidents partisan agenda.

Emily Aden is the rapid response director of American Bridge, a progressive research and communications organization. Follow her on Twitter @emad16.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

More:
OPINION | Trump's climate change censorship puts us all at risk - The Hill (blog)

Farmers are on the front lines of climate change. The people who grow the food we eat deserve clear, candid scientific advice on coping with global warming and the growing threat drought and extreme weather pose to American agriculture.

But such honest counsel, it turns out, wont come from the Trump administration. A recently revealed series of emails shows that U.S. Department of Agriculture experts who help farmers deal with manmade warming were told after President Trump took office to stop using terms like climate change and reduce greenhouse gases.

My organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain these remarkable emails sent to staff at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a component of the USDA that provides land-conservation assistance to farmers.

The USDA emails have ignited a firestorm of controversy because they reveal the Trump administrations stark impact on language used by agency staff. NRCS leadership instructed employees to describe their work without any reference to climate change, instead describing weather extremes and eliminating any reference to human causes.

But obtaining those incriminating communications which are clearly public records was no easy task.

As an attorney specializing in public records law, I am profoundly grateful for the Freedom of Information Act, a landmark law that provides Americans with the right to know what their government is up to.

Yet in just the first six months of Trumps presidency, Ive been flabbergasted by his administrations dogged determination to avoid complying with this critically important law.

After the center submitted its FOIA request to the USDA in early April, the agency blocked the release of records under an exemption so abused by the government that some have labeled it the withhold it because you want to exemption.

The center was forced to appeal the NRCSs withholdings of information. We pointed out that officials failed to conduct an adequate search for responsive records and improperly redacted information.

As a result of the centers appeal the NRCS finally released 65 pages of records without redaction.

In other public records cases, weve actually had to sue. Indeed, weve filed 10 lawsuits to force the Trump administration to comply with its legal duty to make public records available to the public.

For example, the center sued the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to provide public records of closed-door meetings between the agency, states and industry groups regarding Trumps weakened wetlands regulations under the Clean Water Act. Those changes could potentially eliminate protections for millions of acres of wetlands, which are critical to water purification and provide habitat for hundreds of endangered species.

Weve also had to sue the EPA, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior and Department of State for failing to provide records addressing the censorship of words or phrases related to climate change in formal agency communications, violating deadlines established under the law.

We dont yet have the full picture of Trumps scientific censorship, since were still waiting for many federal agencies to release public records.

Yet one thing seems clear: The administrations opposition to transparency is closely connected to its desire to censor climate scientists and other federal experts. An administration that favors alternative facts over the truth is naturally determined to operate under the cover of darkness.

Thankfully, we have an open records law that can reveal disturbing realities like the fact that the climate-deniers now running our federal government are so determined to ignore science that theyll avoid telling farmers about climate changes increasingly potent threats to our food supply.

Thats not a pleasant thing to know, but its critical for Americans to have the full facts about the Trump administrations alarming attacks on truth.

Meg Townsend is an open government attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, a non-profit advocacy organization focused on protecting at-risk species and protecting thelands, waters and climatethose species need to survive.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

See original here:
How to fight Trump's climate science censorship - The Hill (blog)

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

The Price of Censorship for China's Internet Giants Wall Street Journal (subscription) By blocking foreign competition, China's censorship regime has groomed the country's internet companies into some of the world's biggest companies. Now Big Brother is turning against the behemoths. The country's largest social-media platforms ... China's censorship crackdown targets WeChat, Weibo, and BaiduTNW China Steps Up Censorship of Social Media SitesTheStreet.com China probes Tencent, Baidu and Sina over subversive contentFinancial Times Fortune -BBC News all 78 news articles »

Read more here:
The Price of Censorship for China's Internet Giants - Wall Street Journal (subscription)