Category Archives: Transhuman News

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

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

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

Bloomberg

(Bloomberg) -- California Governor Gavin Newsom unveiled a $2 billion plan to help schools reopen for in-person instruction by early spring, even as a surge in Covid-19 cases overwhelms health-care facilities in the most populous U.S. state.Funds from his proposed legislative package would be spent on testing, ventilation and personal protective equipment. Newsom said hell seek weekly testing for communities with high rates of transmission; masks for all students and staff; improved contact tracing; and the prioritization of school workers for vaccinations. Distance learning will still be an option.The Golden State continues to address and deal with the challenges associated with this third wave, but its never too soon by definition to talk about getting our students back into the classroom in particular, Newsom said in a press conference Wednesday. Safety and mitigation measures, clearly we believe, can prevent transmissions in the school setting. Transmissions among and from younger students -- students-to students -- is simply not common.Newsom is pitching a phased approach to reopening, such that the states youngest as well as its most disproportionately impacted students would be prioritized, beginning in February, March or April. He wants to get everybody back on track across the spectrum by early spring, he said.The state would have to see an improvement in its outbreak before most schools reopen, with the vast majority of the population currently under stay-at-home orders. California has been averaging almost 40,000 new cases daily over the past two weeks, and its average rate of positive tests has climbed to 12.2% from 2.5% in mid-October.Newsom reported 432 daily deaths from Covid on Tuesday -- a record -- and said nearly 301,000 vaccine doses had been administered thus far. A new, more infectious strain of the virus, which emerged in the U.K., has now also been identified in California, the governor said in a separate conversation Wednesday with infectious-disease specialist Anthony Fauci.Safety PlanUnder Newsoms school outline, elementary schools may reopen if they submit a Covid safety plan to both local and state officials. Local health departments would have five days to disapprove. The respective county must have a seven-day average case rate of less than 28 cases per 100,000 people per day to implement the plan.California has more than 5,800 public elementary schools with almost 3 million students enrolled. The Los Angeles Unified School District is the nations second largest, after New York City.Related: Affluent Families Ditch Public Schools, Widening U.S. InequalityNewsom said California would be creative in terms of funding to address the issue of learning loss for students, many of whom have been in remote schooling since March.The state is looking at extending the day, looking at extending into the summer, looking at the opportunity to get tutors and additional supports, Newsom said. I can assure you it is not only top of mind, its foundational in terms of the budget that well be submitting for consideration to the legislature.Seven California school districts, including in Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco, put out a joint statement welcoming Newsoms plan to prioritize the reopening of public-school classrooms, and said they will put out a thorough response prior to the state legislature reconvening on Jan. 11.It will take a coordinated effort at the state and local levels to reopen classrooms as soon as possible while protecting the health and safety of all in the school community, the districts said.President-elect Joe Biden on Tuesday said once he takes office next month, hell seek congressional help to fund his ambitious vaccine distribution and reopening plans, including protective equipment for front-line health workers and tens of billions of dollars to reopen elementary and middle schools.(Updates with governor press briefing starting in third paragraph.)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.2020 Bloomberg L.P.

View post:
Blockchain Developers Are Focused on the Wrong Problem - Yahoo Finance UK