Category Archives: Transhuman News

CNN is still licking their wounds after a rather disastrous couple of weeks, where a shoddy Russia-Trump story led to three staffers resigning, a Project Veritas investigation exposed that the network's producers peddled the Russia story for ratings, and what came off as a wholly inappropriate veiled threat against an anonymous Reddit user who created a Trump WWE video, which the president tweeted before the Fourth of July Holiday. The video shows Trump beating up WWEs Vince McMahon, whose face has been superimposed with the CNN logo. The media went apoplectic as an attack against the press; it wasnt. This spurred the network's reporters to find the user and pretty much threaten to dox him if he continues to post things CNN doesnt like. Yet, before we get to that, lets revisit the Russia-Trump story that had to be retracted, along with The Intercepts Glenn Greenwald torching the media for their repeated trip ups in covering this story.

Three prominent CNN journalists resigned Monday night after the network was forced to retract and apologize for a story linking Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund under congressional investigation. That article like so much Russia reporting from the U.S. media was based on a single anonymous source, and now, the network cannot vouch for the accuracy of its central claims.

[]

Several factors compound CNNs embarrassment here. To begin with, CNNs story was first debunked by an article in Sputnik News, which explained that the investment fund documented several factual inaccuracies in the report (including that the fund is not even part of the Russian bank, Vnesheconombank, that is under investigation), and by Breitbart, which cited numerous other factual inaccuracies.

And this episode follows an embarrassing correction CNN was forced to issue earlier this month when several of its highest-profile on-air personalities asserted based on anonymous sources that James Comey, in his congressional testimony, was going to deny Trumps claim that the FBI director assured him he was not the target of any investigation.

Greenwald then lays into other outlets for peddling shoddy stories, like the Russian hacking into the Vermont power grid, the piece about an anonymous group identifying sites that peddled disinformation stories planted by Russia, the server in Trump Tower thats used to communicate with a Russian bank, and the claim that Wikileaks Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin are best friendsall of which fell apart. Yet, the media wonders why conservatives are using them for punching bags; its because theyre on a witch-hunt against this president. Not only that, theyre sucking at it. It only gives the Trump administration more ammunition and more for his supporters to relish when he delivers an uppercut to the liberal news media, who for months could not contain their outrage that he beat her majesty, Hillary Rodham Clinton. He noted that no one is perfect, and that we all make mistakes. Townhall (and by Townhall, I mean myselfmea culpa) posted about the Vermont grid story, albeit a short blurb that really didnt go into a deep dive, but it was not correct and we added a correction. At the same time, were not in the same mold as other outlets concerning the Russian threat. To this day, there is zero evidence that Trump campaign officials colluded with the Russians to tilt the election.

What is most notable about these episodes is that they all go in the same direction: hyping and exaggerating the threat posed by the Kremlin. All media outlets will make mistakes; that is to be expected. But when all of the mistakes are devoted to the same rhetorical theme, and when they all end up advancing the same narrative goal, it seems clear that they are not the byproduct of mere garden-variety journalistic mistakes.

[]

The importance of this journalistic malfeasance when it comes to Russia, a nuclear-armed power, cannot be overstated. This is the story that has dominated U.S. politics for more than a year. Ratcheting up tensions between these two historically hostile powers is incredibly inflammatory and dangerous. All kinds of claims, no matter how little evidence there is to support them, have flooded U.S. political discourse and have been treated as proven fact.

And thats all independent of how journalistic recklessness fuels, and gives credence to, the Trump administrations campaign to discredit journalism generally.

That story was posted on June 27. It took less than a week for CNN to get another face full of buckshot when they decided to search for the Reddit user that created the video of Trump beating up CNN right before the Fourth of July holiday. The user is not someone to be defended aggressively. Hes admitted to posting racist and anti-Semitic material on the site. Hes apologized, but heres where things got controversial [emphasis mine]:

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

And of course, Greenwald had a response:

There is something self-evidently creepy, bullying, and heavy-handed about a large news organization publicly announcing that it will expose someones identity if he ever again publishes content on the internet that the network deems inappropriate or objectionable. Whether it was CNNs intent or not, the article makes it appear as if CNN will be monitoring this citizens online writing, and will punish him with exposure if he writes something the network dislikes.

[]

Moreover, if this persons name is newsworthy on the ground that racists or others who post inflammatory content should be publicly exposed and vilified does it matter if he expressed what CNN executives regard as sufficient remorse? And if his name is not newsworthy, then why should CNN be threatening to reveal it in the event that he makes future utterances that the network dislikes?

If youre someone who believes that media corporations should expose the identity even of random, anonymous internet users who express anti-Semitic or racist views, then you should be prepared to identify the full list of views that merit similar treatment. Should anyone who supports Trump have their identity exposed? Those who oppose marriage equality? Those with views deemed sexist? Those who advocate communism? Are you comfortable with having corporate media executives decide which views merit public exposure?

Whatever else is true, CNN is a massive media corporation that is owned by an even larger corporation. It has virtually unlimited resources. We should cheer when those resources are brought to bear to investigate those who exercise great political and economic power. But when they are used to threaten and punish a random, obscure citizen who has criticized the network no matter how objectionable his views might be it resembles corporate bullying and creepy censorship more than actual journalism.

The point with all of this is that its not just conservative media that are complaining about CNN and others tripping up. Greenwald is no fan of Donald Trump, conservatives, or our intelligence community - specifically the CIA - but hes also known for keeping both sides honest. In February, he criticized the media for forgetting that the Obama administration was heavy handed with the press, especially when it came to whistleblowers. He also said what the Deep State is doing to the Trump White House by intentionally leaking highly sensitive information is a prescription for the destruction of democracy."

The Intercept is a site where leakers to come forward with information that exposes government corruption or malfeasance. Its the safe space for leakers, but its another thing to leak classified material in the hopes of hamstringing an administration from governing because youre upset about an election result. Earlier this year, he told Amy Goodman of the left wing Democracy Now that the actions of the Deep State are akin to a soft coup as well:

Even if youre somebody who believes that both the CIA and the deep state, on the one hand, and the Trump presidency, on the other, are extremely dangerous, as I do, theres a huge difference between the two, which is that Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving. But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. Theyre barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. That is a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it.

Vox Media, which isnt a right wing rag either, also were appalled by CNNs apparent threat are highly unethical:

A plain reading of CNNs article, however, contradicts what the network and Kaczynski are saying. If CNN really intended to withhold HanA**holeSolos information regardless of what he did, then why didnt the news organization say it was withholding his private information simply because hes a private citizen? Why did it go on to add all the conditions about his behavior? And why did it say it could release the private information with an explicit condition tied to his behavior?

Personally, if I reported this story, it would have been pretty straightforward: CNN is not publishing HanA**holeSolos name because he is a private citizen. Period. The rest of the information in that paragraph is unnecessary, because a media organization simply shouldnt release a private citizens personal information. He shouldnt have his private information threatened just because the president picked up one of his Reddit sh**posts, which he made with the expectation that he would be kept anonymous. (Though it is a truly bizarre turn of events that its even possible to write this sentence.)

In journalism, there is a clear line between public and private figures. Public figures are held to a higher standard since they represent not just themselves but their offices, their industries, and so on. But private figures are given a veil of privacy, since its not really in the public interest to get some random persons private information.

The month isnt over yet; CNN could step on the rake once more. Stay tuned.

View original post here:
Glenn Greenwald: CNN Engaged In 'Corporate Bullying And Creepy Censorship' On Pro-Trump Reddit Story - Townhall

If youve made a habit of either watching Fox News Tucker Carlson Tonight or following the anti-abortion groups that frequently appear on the program, then youve heard allegations that these organizations and the anti-choice misinformation they spread are being censored by any number of media platforms.

Most recently, Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, appeared on the June 26 edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight and claimed that Twitter was censoring Live Actions ads. Beyond alleging that Twitter was biased against the anti-abortion group, Rose also conveniently mentioned that Live Action had a $40,000 fundraising goal to meet within the week. Mere hours after Roses appearance, Live Actions homepage carried alarge addecrying Twitters censorship and begging for donations to meet the fundraising deadline. By June 30, the organization had reached its fundraising goal and wasaskingsupporters to continue donating in order to guarantee it could continue working to expose the abortion industry.

Rose is merely the latest person in a long list of anti-abortion extremists to baselessly allege censorship as a tactic in order to raise support and rile up right-wing media allies. When viewed as part of a larger pattern of behavior, it becomes clear that for these anti-abortion groups, crying censorshipto any perceived slight functions as a strategy to gain attention and support for their anti-choice misinformation.

Live Action ads and Twitter

During her June 26appearanceon Tucker Carlson Tonight, Rose claimed that Twitter was refusing to promote ads from either her or Live Actions Twitter accounts. Rose alleged that a Twitter bot had been telling them for months, that this is banned, we wont let you put this out. According to Rose, It took over a year for us to finally get from Twitter whats wrong with these tweets. and finally they said that any tweet that shows an ultrasound, that shows a prenatal life and affirms it, that exposes Planned Parenthood, violates the hate and sensitive policy. Carlson echoed Roses allegations and called Twitters policy an atrocity.

In a blog post, Live Actionpointedto Twitters advertising policies against inflammatory content andalleged that Twitter told them to delete tweets calling for the end of taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, tweets of our undercover investigations into Planned Parenthood, and tweets including ultrasound images of fetuses. Live Action includedemailsfrom Twitter support staff in the blog post, in which a Twitter representative citedtweets mentioninginfanticideand anotherincluding abirth videoas examples of content that violatedthe platforms sensitive advertising content policy.

The hate and sensitive policy Rose cited is in actuality the platformsad policyon hate content, sensitive topics, and violence. In a statement to Carlson, the social media platformsaid, Twitter has clear, transparent rules that every advertiser is required to follow, and the political viewpoints of an organization do not impact how these rules are applied. Twitters hate content policy also covershate speech or advocacy; violence or threats of violence against people or animals; glorification of self-harm or related content; organizations associated with promoting hate; and offensive, vulgar, abusive or obscene content.

Despite this, Live Actionhas continued to assert that Twitter is playing politics,citinga few tweets by Planned Parenthood to demonstrate the perceived imbalance. These Planned Parenthood tweets mention extremists and talk about Trump defunding the non-profit but without pointing an accusatory finger at a specific group. Many of Live Actions tweets which Twitter did not accept as ads target Planned Parenthood specifically.

Letsnot forgot Live Action is still free to tweet and keep such content on its Twitter account, as Roseclarifiedduring an interview onEWTN News Nightly. The content merely does not meet clear and non-ideological standards for promotion or sponsorship, as dictated by Twitters easily locatedadvertising policies.

Given these facts, it appears that Roses appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight and claims of censorship werepart of a fundraising strategy for Live Action. As RosetoldCarlson, Were actually doing a campaign right now to get people to fund Live Action and to get out the information that Twitter is trying to block using other platforms using Facebook, using YouTube, using the blogosphere, obviously coming on here and talking with you.

After Roses June 26 appearance, Live Action sent afundraisingemailabout the segment, claiming that Live Action is being suppressed and asking supporters to help us strengthen our efforts against the abortion industry. Live Actions censorship allegations also animated other right-wing media outlets.The Washington Timespromoteditsfundraising appeal, stating, Looking to take their business elsewhere, Live Action started a campaign to raise money to inundate other social media platforms with the pro-life message. On June 29, Christian Broadcasting Network published an article on Live Actions claims about Twitters ad policy, at the end of which itstatedthat Live Action has launched a campaign to compensate for their losses due to Twitters censoring, and directed readers to Live Actions fundraising page.RoseandLive ActionalsopushedthenarrativeonTwitter, using the hashtag #DontDeleteMe despite all content remainingpubliclyavailable on the platform.

Center for Medical Progress videos

In May 2017, the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress (CMP)circulateddeceptive video footage that had been barred from release by a federal judge. The videoquickly spreadthrough social media accounts of anti-abortion leaders and groups before Judge William Orrick ordered all copies of the video be taken down as there was aheightened concernfor the safety of abortion providers identified in the footage.

As copiesof the video were removed following Orricks order, anti-choice activists claimedcensorship had occurred and pointed a finger at almost every social media platform as potential culprits. During a May 31appearanceon Fox News Tucker Carlson Tonight, Rose accused both YouTube and Twitter of participating in the chilling effect right now on journalism that is the opposing viewpoint on abortion by complying with the court order to remove the video. Live Action alsoclaimedthat YouTube had caved to the abortion industrys censorship pressure while LifeSiteNewsarguedthat video hosting websites such as Facebook, YouTube, and Vimeo were on a witch hunt against the latest undercover Planned Parenthood video, deleting instances of it wherever they find it.

The anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony ListaccusedYouTube of partnering with Planned Parenthood to cover up the truth that #PPSellsBabyParts a common social media hashtag among staunch anti-choice activists. Liz Wheeler of right-wing news outlet One America News Network (OANN) took personal offense when YouTube removed a clip of her show, Tipping Point, in which she played some of the barred footage. In a follow-up clip, amusinglyavailable on OANNs YouTube channel, Wheeler said YouTube was trying to silence me and asked, What are liberals so afraid people will see that theyll censor me to ensure nobody sees [footage from the barred video].

Although anti-choice groups and right-wing media outlets alike cried censorshipwhen various platforms removed the video, the fact remains that itwas legally barred from release giving these platforms little choice even if they agreed with CMPs highlydiscreditedclaims. Undeterred, these groups and outlets evenextendedtheir criticisms to attack Orrick andattemptedto have him removed from CMPs case an effort that another federal judge ultimatelydismissedas lacking merit.Despite claiming the video was being censored, anti-choice groups still (somehow!)continuedto re-post andspreadthe video across the internet after Orricks order.

Operation Rescues Google ranking

The extremistanti-choice groupOperation Rescueclaimedthat Google was engaged in censorship after its page views decreased for when internet users searched forabortions in US orabortion statistics. The group alleged that Googles search engine has manipulated search parameters to dramatically reduce exposure to Operation Rescues webpages containing misleading abortion statistics.

In April, Googleannounceda policy change regarding how sites containing misleading or false information would be ranked. If Google is censoring anti-abortion pages as Operation Rescue argued it isnot doing a great job with it. Although the page rankings fluctuate,search results for abortions in US and abortion statistic still yield anti-choice sites, includingFox News, National Right to Life Committee, abortion73, and American Life League.

By alleging it wasbeing censored, Operation Rescue effectively sounded the alarm for other anti-abortion groups to use their own rankings on Googles search results to claim discrimination and promote their content. Within a day of OperationRescues initial post, similar stories were running onLifeNewsand the right-wing outletOneNewsNow. Operation Rescue also sent a fundraisingemailasking for support to launch a massive campaign to ensure our critical abortion research and pro-life content is available, and no longer pushed down by the pro-abortion radicals at Google.

March for Life coverage

Every January, anti-abortion groups andmediaoutletsallegethatmainstreammedia are censoring their protest, called the March for Life, againsttheRoe v. Wadedecision. The supposed lack of coverage has galled anti-abortion groups to such an extent that they started anumbrella groupcalled Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues, which primarily focuses on the March for Life Media Censorship. Many members of the group havecomplainedabout the media blackout of the March for Life on major media platforms. Rep. Alex Mooney R-W.Va., who is one of the two politicians in the Alliance, stated, The liberal medias consistent censorship of the annual March for Life is nothing short of shameful.

However, as some right-wing media outlets have themselves suggested, describing coverage of the March for Life as suffering from consistent censorship is inaccurate.After the most recent March for Life, the extreme right-wing outlet Church Militantpraisedthe media because the 2017 March for Life is receiving more media coverage than ever. Church Militant pointed out thatC-SPANandCNNlivestreamed the march, whileNPRfeatured stories from attendees. In addition,The New York Times,The Washington Post, andABC Newsall ran stories about the march.

The March for Life also benefited from the attention garnered by the Womens March in January 2017. Several anti-abortion groups and individuals tried toco-optthe message of the Womens March to push a so-called feminist anti-choice message. The Womens March ultimatelyadopteda pro-choice message, but the anti-abortion groups stillgainedsubstantialmediacoveragefrombeingsupposedlybannedfrom being sponsors ofthe Womens March.

Anti-abortion messages at schools

In March,anti-choicegroupsandmediaoutletsbegan crying censorship when anti-abortion chalk messages scrawled by a chapter of Students for Life of America (SFLA) were scrubbed from sidewalks at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania. Thehate groupAlliance Defending Freedom (ADF) came to SFLAs defensedeclaring, University officials cant chalk up their censorship to following orders to enforce an unconstitutional campus policy on sidewalk chalking. SFLA President Kristan Hawkinsagreed, saying, Too frequently we see that public colleges and universities feel they can engage in censorship of a student group just because officials dont agree with the viewpoint of those students.

In reality, the messages had beenremovedovernight during a regular cleaning process, and had nothing to do with the content of the chalking.

Hawkins also usedTucker Carlson Tonights right-wing platform toraiseanother issue of censorship in schools. During the June 2 appearance on the show, Hawkins supported a high school student whoclaimedher school had denied her permission to form a SFLA chapterbecause it was too controversial. According to school officials, the studentssimplydidnt followthe requirements for club formation and would be approved once they did.

Buffer zones

In 2014, ADF successfully arguedMcCullen v. Coakleybefore the Supreme Court,striking downa Massachusetts buffer zone law that banned anti-choice protestors inside a 35-feet parameter around abortion clinics. ADFclaimedthat this buffer zone in which anti-abortion extremists were not allowed to protest created a censorship zone where the First Amendment doesnt apply. Equating buffer zones with censorship has been a common tactic of anti-choice groups when challenging laws that mandate them. For example, ADF alsousedthe censorship zone argument when arguing against a Pittsburghordinance. Similarly, the anti-abortion group Created EqualclaimedOhios 15-feet buffer zone constituted a censorship zone that infringed on its right to protest outside abortion clinics.

Despite censorshipclaims from anti-abortion groups, buffer zones are essential for abortion access and to deter threats of violence against patients, providers, and clinics. The Massachusetts ordinance that was struck down inMcCullen v. Coakleywasoriginally introducedbecause of a 1994 shooting at a Brookline, MA clinic that killed two people. While anti-abortion protesters complain about the ability to spout their hateful rhetoric,violenceat abortion clinics has not only continued but increased in recent years; in 2015, ashootingat a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic killed three people and injured nine more. Data from the National Abortion Federation (NAF)showsthat protests outside abortion clinics rose in 2016 to the highest level since NAF began tracking them in 1977. There wasalsoan increase in a wide range of intimidation tactics meant to disrupt the provision of health care at facilities, including vandalism, picketing, obstruction, invasion, trespassing, burglary, stalking, assault and battery, and bomb threats.

As recent cases in Kentucky and Missouri have shown, someanti-choicegroupsintentionally harass abortion providers or engage in civil disobedience outside clinics. When these groups face backlash or legal pushback, they invokecensorshipas a tactic in order to continue their campaigns of harassment.

Crying censorship: An anti-choice tactic

These examples are wide-ranging, reaching from social media platforms, to news coverage, to sidewalk access, but the common thread and indeed, the underlying tactic at play is anti-abortion groups labeling a perceived injustice against them as censorship.These groups have much to gain and very little to lose by employing this tactic. By claiming theyve been unjustly censored, anti-abortion groups not only elevate their lies and misinformation, they are also able to incite followers and raise funds by claiming they are being persecuted.

Crying censorship is a win-win tactic for anti-abortion extremists. Meanwhile, clinic intimidation andviolencecontinues to rise asright-wing mediaagitate their increasingly polarized base to support anti-abortion causes,and an increasing number oflawsare being implemented to limit abortion rights. Anti-choice organizations also have thebenefitof PresidentDonald Trumpsadministrationbeing filled withanti-choiceextremistsalreadyon arampageagainstabortionandcontraception access.

But please, thoughyou have an overtlyanti-choice administration that relies on a direct pipeline of information from anti-abortion extremists, continue to feign outrage about being unable to place ads on Twitter.

Read more:
How anti-choice zealots cry censorship whenever they are challenged - Salon

Earlier this week, conservative media watchdog Media Research Center published a post about right-wing radio host Mark Levins latest book and their claim that the establishment media is ignoring Levin despite the book being a runaway best-seller.

To make their case, they pointed to the manner in which Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) was treated when his last book was released, claiming that nobody called up Levin for an interview, effectively censoring him:

They will allow a discussion of public policy as long as it matches their worldview. Think Sen. Al Franken. He is no Mark Levin intellectually, but thats irrelevant. His book came out a few weeks ago and he was the progressives toast of the town, celebrated all over the news shows, public TV and radio, and the late-night comedy shows. The Washington Post and New York Times rolled out 1,300-word rave reviews.

But once again, Levin is being shunned by the thought police. Witness that though its a runaway best-seller, now seven days consecutively, the establishment media have censored him completely, with not a single interview granted.

Aside from the fact that Levin has made several appearances on Fox News over the past two weeks, including spots on Watters World and Fox & Friends over the weekend apparently the MRC doesnt count the highest-rated cable news network as part of the establishment it appears theres one media personality who is disputing the conservative watchdogs take.

In his newsletter last night, CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter pointed out that he saw the MRCs claims of censorship as an opening to get Levin to finally appear on his show Reliable Sources. According to Stelter, however, Levin wanted nothing to do with CNN or his program. Stelter wrote:

I saw this as an opportunity to re-up our months-old requests for Levin to come on Reliable Sources. Surely, since MRC says hes been censored, hed jump at any chance at a non-Fox interview? But when I emailed him the offer on Thursday, he replied, Are you kidding me? Buddy, Ive zero respect for CNN or you. Youre a propagandist.

So, is it really censorship when one man, who already has access to a large platform, refuses to appear on certain outlets because he feels they are propaganda? Doesnt seem like it.

[image via screengrab]

Follow Justin Baragona on Twitter: @justinbaragona

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Read the original here:
Brian Stelter Rebuffs MRC 'Censorship' Claim By Revealing Mark ... - Mediaite

July, more than most other months, is loaded with politically sensitive anniversaries that keep Communist Party of China (CPC) censors and security forces on their toes.

First comes the July 1 anniversary of Hong Kongs transfer from British to Chinese rule. Then there is July 5, marking the 2009 ethnic violence in the Xinjiang region that sparked an unprecedented crackdown on its mostly Muslim Uyghur population. The very next day, July 6, is the Dalai Lamas birthday, andJuly 9is the second anniversary of a sweeping repressive action against Chinas human rights lawyers.Finally there isJuly 20, the date in 1999 when the CPC banned the popular spiritual practice Falun Gong and began a massive and often violent campaign to eradicate it.

This year, the anniversaries overlap with other news stories that Beijing likely wants to quash, including an international uproar surrounding democracy activistLiu Xiaobos belated release on medical parole with terminal cancer, and a campaign by exiled tycoonGuo Wenguito publicize corruption allegations involving top Chinese leaders.

It is not surprising in these circumstances that the CPC hastightened information controls. But the party has not simply intensified its efforts in the short term. It has also gradually adapted its methods to a changing technological environment, one in which mobile phones, social media applications, and digital surveillance are critical features.

The result is a new level of intrusiveness and sophistication, as well as danger for populations that are already at risk of severe human rights violations.

Cutting off Access to Circumvention Tools

One of the escalating restrictions that may have the widest reach is a crackdown on virtual private networks (VPNs), which allow users to bypass official censorship. Several VPN applications have beendisabledor removed fromonline storessince July 1. In a June 22 message to customers,prominent VPN provider Greensaid that after receiving a notice from the higher authorities, it planned to cease operations on July 1, causing a ripple of conversations on social media about what circumvention tools could still be used. The latest initiative builds onincreasing official effortsto stop the dissemination of such tools, including some that the authorities had long tolerated.

The applications removal will have the secondary effect of cutting off software updates for users, leaving their devices more vulnerable to hacking. And while many use VPNs to access uncensored news or blocked social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, the tools are also used for security purposes, to protect businesses and activists from pervasive state surveillance.

Inspecting the Personal Communications of Minorities

Other recent controls have focused on ethnic and religious minorities. In Xinjiang, authorities in a district of the regional capitalUrumqiissued a notice on June 27 instructing all residents and business owners to submit their personal ID cards, cell phones, external drives, portable hard drives, notebook computers, and media storage cards to the local police post for registration and scanning byAugust 1. One district employee toldRadio Free Asiathat the campaign was taking place throughout the city. The goal is ostensibly to identify and purge any terrorist videos, but the action violates the privacy rights of Urumqis three million residents and exposes them to punishment for a host of other possible offenses, including those related to peaceful religious or political expression.

In Tibet, the instant-messaging application WeChat has become increasingly popular in recent years, as it has across China. But using it to communicate about the Dalai Lama or his birthday is difficult and dangerous. A test conducted in January by the Canada-based Citizen Lab found that the Tibetan spelling for Dalai Lama was automatically deleted in WeChat messages. Meanwhile, at leasttwo Tibetansare known to have been jailed for participating in a WeChat group commemorating the spiritual leaders 80th birthday in 2015. After a new spate of self-immolation protests took place in early 2017, Tibetans in Sichuan Province report that police aremonitoring communicationon the platform more closely and detaining those suspected of sharing information about self-immolations with overseas contacts.

New Tactics and New Targets

These developments reflect a broader trend identified in a recentFreedom House reporton religion in China. The study found that Chinese government tactics of religious control and persecution have been changing to incorporate new technologies and match the evolving communication habits of the public. Even in the absence of sensitive anniversaries, various modes of electronic surveillance have expanded dramatically at sites of worship and public spaces frequented by religious believers.

The CPCs information controls also appear to be spreading to traditionally less persecuted groups, like state-sanctioned churches and non-Uyghur residents of Xinjiang. Since March, authorities inZhejianghave reportedly been implementing a campaign to installsurveillance cameras in churches and possibly Buddhist temples, in some cases sparking altercations with police and violence against congregants. In Urumqi, the order to turn in digital devices forinspectionapplies to ethnic Han and Kazakh residents as well as Uyghurs, while localKazakhshave reported increased monitoring and some prosecutions related to expressions of their Muslim faith in recent months.

The Information Arms Race

The Chinese governments actions are partly a response to creative initiatives by minority activists to share their stories and perspectives in a heavily restrictive information environment.

It is a nonstop game of cat-and-mouse, journalist Nithin Coca wrote in a June 27articleabout Chinas high-tech war on Tibetan communication. As the Tibet movements digital-security abilities and training improve, the Chinese government implements more sophisticated hacking techniques.

Similarly, asFalun Gongpractitioners devise new means of disseminating information to debunk vilifying state propaganda and expose abuses they have suffered, security forces have adapted by increasing electronic surveillance and deploying geolocation technology to find and arrest them. Local authorities in places likeJiangsu provincehave also upgraded anti-Falun Gong propaganda efforts, deploying LED rolling screens, cartoons, microblogs, and QQ messaging including in schools last month to demonize Falun Gong and other banned religious groups.

A Vicious Circle

The result of the escalating controls is that there are even fewer avenues for persecuted groups and individuals to defend themselves, offer alternatives to the party line, or expose violence committed by officials. Meanwhile, other Chinese interested in knowing more about these and other censored topics find it increasingly difficult and risky to obtain information.

There is also a cost to the CPC. Such aggressive stability maintenance methods ultimately increase tensions with key populations, intensify resentment of the partys heavy-handed rule, and inspire anti-government activism and even violence, including among otherwise apolitical citizens.

From that perspective, while the CPCs efforts may successfully silence some critics this year, party leaders may face an even more daunting challenge next July.

Sarah Cook is a senior research analyst for East Asia at Freedom House, director of itsChina Media Bulletin,and author ofThe Battle for Chinas Spirit: Religious Revival, Repression, and Resistance under Xi Jinping.

Here is the original post:
China's Newest Censorship Methods on Display - The Diplomat

Those who spread fake news through the social media are also liable under the proposed bill. Flickr photo by Stanley Cabigas (CC BY 2.0)

Philippine Senator Joel Villanueva filed a billin late June that would criminalize the malicious distribution of false news. Media groups are warning it could lead to censorship.

Villanuevas Senate Bill No. 1492 or An Act Penalizing the Malicious Distribution of False News and Other Related Violations defines fake news as those which either intend to cause panic, division, chaos, violence, and hate, or those which exhibit a propaganda to blacken or discredit one's reputation.

The billassigns penalties to those who publish fake news and even to those who share it, potentially criminalizing social media users who may not fully understand the implications of simply sharing an articlewith friends.

Prison sentencing under the proposed law depends on the status of the entity who publishes or spreads the so-called fake news. A private individual found guilty of publishing or spreading fake news can face a prison term of up to five years. Agovernment official's sentence would be double that of a private individual. And a media entity or social media platform spreading fake news could be detained for up to 20 years.

Villanueva explained the rationalebehind these penalties:

The effect of fake news should not be taken lightly. Fake news creates impression and beliefs based on false premises leading to division, misunderstanding and further exacerbating otherwise strenuous relations.

He added that the passage of the bill will encourage our citizens, especially public officers, to be more responsible and circumspect in creating, distributing and/or sharing news.

Journalism Professor Danilo Arao reviewed the four-page bill and summarized his objections:

Definition of false news or information under Sec. 2 is so broad that it includes practically anything perceived to cause, among others, panic and hate (obviously hard to define)

Media organizations could be subjected to censorship under Sec. 3 of the proposed law because even fair commentary or investigative reports that are perceived to tarnish the reputation of a public official could be flagged as false news.

Arao further disputed theneed for a special law mentioning public officials, reasoning that they are already assumed to be following a code of conduct.

In a TV interview, a spokesperson fromthe Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility said the proposed legislation is unnecessary because Philippine libel law already addresses the issues raised by the senator.

A member of the House of Representatives proposed that instead of criminalizing fake news, the congress should work to approve a pending Freedom of Information bill that he says would helpcounter the irresponsible sharing of false information on media and the Internet.

AlterMidya, a network of independent media groups, denounced Villanuevas bill as irresponsible, unnecessary and dangerous attempt to impose a form of censorship on free expression and press freedom.

How does one distinguish between a false report based on an honest mistake and one maliciously spread through print, broadcasting and online?

It would endow the bureaucracy with the arbitrary power to declare any media issuance contrary to government interests as fake news, while approving, loudly or otherwise, even the most fraudulent report from either private or State media so long as it favors whatever regime is in power.

Veteran journalist Luis Teodoro reminded the senator that there are better ways to fight fake news:

Accountability in the exercise of the right to communicate is best enforced, not by the State, but by the media community itself as well as by a public media-literate and responsible enough to detect and not to spread fake news.

Philippine Star newspaper columnist Jarius Bondoc warned that if the bill becomeslaw, it could be abused by authorities who want to silence critics:

The bill is prone to abuse. A bigot administration can apply it to suppress the opposition. By prosecuting critics as news fakers, the government can stifle legitimate dissent. Whistleblowers, not the grafters, would be imprisoned and fined for daring to talk. Investigative journalists would cram the jails.

This is not the first time that a Philippine legislator has filed a bill that seeks to address the negative impact of fake news. Early this year, the Speaker of the House of Representatives proposedregulatingsocial media to prevent the spread of fake accounts and fake information.

Visit link:
Philippine Senator Moves to Criminalize 'Fake News' Could This ... - Global Voices Online