Category Archives: Transhuman News

For clarification of my quote, "Anything posted of REAL (mind the emphases on REAL) activity of illegal actions that would be considered a federal crime such as child pornography isn't really in the realm of being censored or not, it's simply not even within the question.", the reasoning behind this is that of which it is a federal crime. Being a federal crime generally excepts the ideal principal that the vast majority see's it to be wrong and without question filtered. However, because this action is done out of the will of the vast majority of people, it would not be considered censorship because of its highly undemocratic characteristic.

Now, my opponent brings into the light of how the UK has treated certain kinds of hate speech causing him to rather agree with their actions. First of all, I hypocritically applaud the UK for banning Michael Savage and his arrogant racist bigotry. Unfortunately I feel it's the wrong approach by a government to blacklist an ideology. Even IF that said ideology was racist, hateful, and outright false. I guess this would be a reflection of me living in my country as well. You see we have a party here in our country that is hateful and outright false all the time but we as a nation do nothing to restrict there speech because we feel it is their democratic right, to speak their minds. I'm talking of course about the republican party. (zing)

Needless to say that just because I feel these parties should have protected speech does not mean that I feel that they should be above the law. Its really just a matter of free speech, press and assembly. If these particular parties actually commit acts of hate than that's another story.

Seems we've stumbled upon a semantics debate. It really comes down to what you view censorship as. For me, censorship is the restriction of speech, press etc. committed by a 2nd party to a specific group or persons against their will. Pro believes censorship can be an act of voluntarism.

<"Being a federal crime generally excepts the ideal principal that the vast majority see's it to be wrong"

It actually reflects the fact that the government see it as wrong; Governments create laws, not the general public.

<"because this action is done out of the will of the vast majority of people, it would not be considered censorship because of its highly undemocratic characteristic."

Anything a democratically elected government does is technically democratic, including censorship.

___

<"I feel it's the wrong approach by a government to blacklist an ideology."

No ideology is blacklisted by UK hate speech laws, (see sources in debate I linked above,) it's legal to be a bigot, it's only when you start encouraging others to perform violence that you break the laws. Con wants politicians speech protected, but would this still be the case if a party openly preached a doctrine of murder or genocide?

Free speech laws don't and shouldn't protect those who commit fraud through verbal dishonesty, those who shout out "bomb!" in a crowded airport, or those who incite violence and hate.

___

<"Seems we've stumbled upon a semantics debate. It really comes down to what you view censorship as. For me, censorship is the restriction of speech, press etc. committed by a 2nd party to a specific group or persons against their will. Pro believes censorship can be an act of voluntarism."

The definition we have is indeed a very broad one. Suppression of harmful material by the government would clearly include child porn etc., while "media outlets" suggests it covers voluntary self-censorship.

Since Con supplied the definition himself and is in favour of both of these forms of censorship, it seems he has conceded his position as Con towards the resolution. If he wanted to limit the debate to exterior, enforced censorship of legal activity, he should really have made it clear at the outset.

Thanks.

See the article here:
Debate Issue: Censorship | Debate.org

ENTERTAINMENT

December 19, 2013 | By Hector Tobar

This week, the Kids' Right to Read Project, a group that monitors book censorship, said the number of challenges to books reported to the group increased by 53% in 2013. Project coordinator Acacia O'Connor told Shelf Awareness that she could not explain the increase, but that many involved writers of color, including Sherman Alexie, Toni Morrison and Alice Walker. (All three also appear regularly on American Booksellers Assn. lists of challenged books.) Whether or not patterns like this are the result of coordination between would-be censors across the country is impossible to say, O'Connor told Shelf Awareness.

ENTERTAINMENT

July 17, 2013 | By Julie Makinen

BEIJING -- Chinese authorities said Wednesday they would relax some restrictions on film, TV and radio productions, though the immediate impact of the changes was unclear and several prominent movie directors said they did not believe the reforms were game-changers. Chinese filmmakers will now be allowed to shoot ordinary content movies after only submitting a synopsis to censors rather than a full script, according to an announcement from the State Council, China's cabinet. But the finished products will still have to be screened for censors before they are approved to be played in theaters.

ENTERTAINMENT

June 26, 2013 | By Alexander Nazaryan

Eight years ago, a New York journalist named Peter Braunstein, then 41, forced his way into the apartment of a 34-year-old Manhattan woman by pretending to be a firefighter. He proceeded to drug the woman, a former colleague, and sexually assault her for more than 12 hours. Now, as he serves a lengthy prison sentence in upstate New York, Braunstein is apparently upset that corrections officials there are not allowing him to read Jaycee Dugard's A Stolen Life, the 2011 memoir of a young woman's kidnapping and 18-year imprisonment by a California couple, Phillip and Nancy Garrido, which ended in 2009.

WORLD

April 12, 2013 | By Janet Stobart, This post has been corrected. See note below.

LONDON -- The British Broadcasting Corp. faced a dilemma Friday: Would it play "Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead" when everyone knows the song has become a biting reference to the late Margaret Thatcher? The network's solution: turn the song into a sound bite. Amid divisive reactions to the death of the former prime minister on Monday, anti-Thatcher protesters have campaigned to bring the song from the 1939 film "The Wizard of Oz" to the top of the charts in time for a BBC program Sunday night that counts down the current top hits.

WORLD

January 9, 2013 | By Barbara Demick and David Pierson, Los Angeles Times

GUANGZHOU, China - Like wedding guests separated across the aisle, the protesters assembled on either side of a gated driveway at the headquarters of the embattled Southern Weekly newspaper. To the right, several dozen supporters of the newspaper staff waved banners calling for an end to censorship of the Chinese press. "Freedom!" they chanted. "Democracy!" "Constitutional rights!" To the left, beneath fluttering red Chinese flags and hoisted portraits of Mao Tse-tung, a battalion of mostly older men shouted into a microphone, trying to drown out their ideological rivals.

WORLD

January 8, 2013 | By Barbara Demick

GUANGZHOU, China -- Communist Party officials appear to have defused a potential crisis over media censorship in Guangzhou with a compromise that persuaded journalists at a maverick newspaper to publish Thursday as planned. The journalists at Southern Weekly, one of China's boldest and most popular publications, had threatened to strike in protest over a New Year's editorial on political reform that was watered down by propaganda officials. The exact terms of the deal were not released, but it appears that the journalists agreed to refrain from airing their grievances in public about Tuo Zhen, the propaganda chief for Guangdong province accused of the heavy-handed censorship that sparked the standoff.

See the original post here:
Articles about Censorship - latimes

Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut

Freedom of speech, the press, association, assembly, and petition: This set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. It is the foundation of a vibrant democracy, and without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither away.

The fight for freedom of speech has been a bedrock of the ACLUs mission since the organization was founded in 1920, driven by the need to protect the constitutional rights of conscientious objectors and anti-war protesters. The organizations work quickly spread to combating censorship, securing the right to assembly, and promoting free speech in schools.

Almost a century later, these battles have taken on new forms, but they persist. The ACLUs Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project continues to champion freedom of expression in its myriad formswhether through protest, media, online speech, or the artsin the face of new threats to free speech. For example, new avenues for censorship have arisenalongside the wealth of opportunities for speech afforded by the Internet. The threat of mass government surveillance chills the free expression of ordinary citizens, legislators routinely attempt to place new restrictions on online activity, and journalism is criminalized in the name of national security. The ACLU is always on guard to ensure that the First Amendments protections remain robustin times of war or peace, for bloggers or the institutional press, online or off.

Over the years, the ACLU has frequently represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. Thats because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if theyre going to be preserved for everyone.

Read this article:
Free Speech - Censorship | American Civil Liberties Union

US internet censorship mirrors China's 5/5/2015 - Of the world's great powers, China, is perhaps the most restrictive when it comes to freedom of speech and expression. That said, it should come as little surprise, then, that the Communist Party leadership of China works overtime to monitor, control and censor what the Chinese people are allowed to... Facebook is deliberately censoring alternative media, pushing globalist agenda 10/30/2014 - Increasingly, Facebook is being accused of censoring material that users post on the world's largest social media website, prompting outrage and confusion from many who see hypocrisy in the site's rules. In one recent instance, as reported by InfoWars.com, multiple users of the site have complained... Freedom of the press vanishing from student newspapers across America 12/9/2013 - Most of us don't pay attention to student newspapers. Yet, these publications are where many budding journalists get their feet wet for the first time. It's exciting to learn to craft a story that your peers will read. Knowing the paper is sure to be read by teachers and school administrators, too,... Google reports 'alarming' rise in government censorship requests 6/23/2012 - In what may be the most ironic thing to happen all year, tech giant Google - a serial privacy violator - says the company is experiencing what it describes as an "alarming" increase in the number of censorship requests being received by Western (in particular, the U.S.) governments. Seems the Leviathan... At least 7,000 websites black out their homepages in protest of SOPA and PIPA internet censorship bills 1/19/2012 - On January 18, 2012, thousands of websites from around the world came out in protest of two pieces of legislation that threaten to censor the internet as we know it. Google, WordPress, Wired.com, Wikipedia, Tumblr, The Daily Paul, reddit, NaturalNews, and thousands of other websites censored portions... FDA censorship of nutritional science threatens health of all Americans 9/9/2010 - Concerned about breast cancer? There are three nutrients that virtually eliminate your risk of the disease, even if you carry "breast cancer genes." Wondering how to cure arthritis? A combination of four different nutrients virtually eliminates arthritis symptoms. Afraid of diabetes? Five different... Google calls for end to internet censorship 8/9/2010 - Testifying before a Congressional panel, Google's director of public policy, Alan Davidson, called for firm action to end censorship of the Internet. "The growing problem for Internet censorship is not isolated to one country or one region," Davidson said before the Congressional-Executive Commission... FDA defeated in federal court over censorship of truthful health claims 6/4/2010 - Health freedom has just been handed a significant victory by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which ruled last week that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) violated the First Amendment rights of a nutritional supplement company when it censored truthful, scientifically-backed... GMO alert: U.S. attempting global censorship of GMO food labeling 5/4/2010 - I received an urgent alert from Jeffrey Smith today about a dangerous situation taking place right now at the international CODEX conference. The U.S. is attempting to push its agenda to censor all GMO labeling of foods everywhere around the world. This would result in a global GMO cover-up as consumers... FDA tyranny and the censorship of cherry health facts (opinion) 5/2/2006 - In the past, I jokingly said that broccoli might someday be banned as soon as the public begins to learn about the potent anti-cancer chemicals found in the vegetable. Thats because, as I jested, the FDA wouldnt want people treating their own cancer with the anti-cancer medicines found in cruciferous... See all 102 censorship feature articles. Corruption: Prescription drugs: Dangerous drugs: Drug companies: The FDA: Pharmaceutical companies: Drug racket: FDA: Big Pharma: Ethics: Vioxx: Drug safety: Sodium: America: Medicine: Drugs: Today's Top Stories on NaturalNews

Today | Week | Month | Year

See All Top Headlines...

CounterThink Cartoons are free to view and download. They cover topics like health, environment and freedom.

The Consumer Wellness Center is a non-profit organization offering nutrition education grants to programs that help children and expectant mothers around the world.

Food Investigations is a series of mini-documentaries exposing the truth about dangerous ingredients in the food supply.

Webseed.com offers alternative health programs, documentaries and more.

The Honest Food Guide is a free, downloadable public health and nutrition chart that dares to tell the truth about what foods we should really be eating.

HealingFoodReference.com offers a free online reference database of healing foods, phytonutrients and plant-based medicines that prevent or treat diseases and health conditions.

HerbReference.com is a free, online reference library that lists medicinal herbs and their health benefits.

NutrientReference.com is a free online reference database of phytonutrients (natural medicines found in foods) and their health benefits. Lists diseases, foods, herbs and more.

Original post:
Censorship news, articles and information:

Why is music censored? and who are the censors? A general introduction to the issues of music censorship.

01 January 2001

In countries like Sudan, Afghanistan and China, violations of musicians rights to freedom of expression are commonplace. In the USA and Algeria, lobbying groups have succeeded in keeping popular music off the concert stage, and out of the media and retail. In ex-Yugoslavia musicians are often pawns in political dramas, and the possibility of free expression has been aversely affected.

WHY IS MUSIC CENSORED?

You may wonder why music is being censored. Why have musicians been tortured, jailed, exiled and even killed. Why have certain forms of music been silenced?

Music is a free expression of the ideas, traditions and emotions of individuals and of peoples. It may express musicians hopes and aspirations, their joys and sorrows, their very identity as a culture. Yet these expressions may conflict with those of people in power. The ideas themselves may simply be unpopular or outside the current thinking or practices of a regime or special interest group. For there are those the world over who are threatened by the very nature of a free exchange of ideas. There are those who will stop at nothing to stifle them.

Music censorship has been implemented by states, religions, educational systems, families, retailers and lobbying groups and in most cases they violate international conventions of human rights.

Video about music censorship

Read more:
About music censorship | Freemuse

One of the early nicknames for the Internet was the "information superhighway" because it was supposed to provide the average person with fast access to a practically limitless amount of data. For many users, that's exactly what accessing the Internet is like. For others, it's as if the information superhighway has some major roadblocks in the form of Internet censorship.

The motivations for censorship range from well-intentioned desires to protect children from unsuitable content to authoritarian attempts to control a nation's access to information. No matter what the censors' reasons are, the end result is the same: They block access to the Web pages they identify as undesirable.

Internet censorship isn't just a parental or governmental tool. There are several software products on the consumer market that can limit or block access to specific Web sites. Most people know these programs as Web filters. Censorship opponents have another name for them: Censorware.

While there are some outspoken supporters and opponents of Internet censorship, it's not always easy to divide everyone into one camp or another. Not everyone uses the same tactics to accomplish goals. Some opponentsof censorship challenge government policies in court. Others take the role of information freedom fighters, providing people with clandestine ways to access information.

In this article, we'll look at the different levels of Internet censorship, from off-the-shelf Web filters to national policy. We'll also learn about the ways some people are trying to fight censorship.

We'll start off by looking at Internet censorship on the domestic level.

Excerpt from:
How Internet Censorship Works - HowStuffWorks

Adam Berry/Getty Images News/Getty Images

Protecting a Person's Privacy

This is probably the least controversial form of media censorship.

When a minor commits a crime, his identity is concealed to protect him from future harm -- so he isn't turned down from getting a college education or a job. That changes if a minor is charged as an adult, like in the case of violent crime.

Most media outlets also conceal the identity of rape victims, so those people don't have to endure public humiliation. That was not the case for a brief period at NBC News, when it decided in 1991 to identify the woman accusing William Kennedy Smith (part of the powerful Kennedy clan) of raping her. NBC quickly reverted to the common practice of secrecy.

Avoiding Graphic Details and Images

Every day, someone commits a heinous act of violence or sexual depravity. In newsrooms across the country, editors have to decide whether saying a victim "was assaulted" suffices in describing what happened.

In most instances, it does not. So a choice has to be made on how to describe the details of a crime in a way that helps the audience understand its atrocity without offending readers or viewers, especially children.

It's a fine line. In the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, the way he killed more than a dozen people was considered so sick that the graphic details were part of the story.

That was also true when news editors were faced with the sexual details of Pres. Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky and the accusations of sexual harassment Anita Hill made about then-U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas. Words that no editor had ever thought of printing or a newscaster had ever considered uttering were necessary to explain the story.

Those are the exceptions. In most cases, editors will cross out information of an extremely violent or sexual nature, not to sanitize the news, but to keep from offending the audience.

Concealing Security Information

The U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic operations function with a certain amount of secrecy. That confidentiality is regularly challenged by whistleblowers, anti-government groups or others who want to remove the lid on various aspects of U.S. government.

In 1971, The New York Times published what's commonly called the Pentagon Papers, secret Defense Department documents detailing the problems of American involvement in the Vietnam War in ways the media had never reported. The Nixon administration went to court in a failed attempt to keep the leaked documents from being published.

Decades later, WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange are under fire for posting more than a quarter million secret U.S. documents, many involving national security. When The New York Times published these U.S. State Department papers, the U.S. Air Force responded by blocking the newspaper's website from its computers.

These examples show that media owners face a difficult relationship with the government. When they approve stories containing potentially embarassing information, government officials often try to censor it.

Advancing Corporate Interests

Media companies are supposed to serve the public interest. Sometimes that's at odds with the conglomerate owners who control traditional media voices.

Such was the case when The New York Times reported that executives from MSNBC owner General Electric and Fox News Channel owner News Corporation decided it wasn't in their corporate interests to allow on-air hosts Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly to trade on-air attacks. While the jabs seemed mostly personal, there was news that came out of them.

The Times reported that O'Reilly uncovered that General Electric was doing business in Iran. Although legal, G.E. later said it had stopped. A cease-fire between the hosts probably wouldn't have produced that information, which is newsworthy despite the apparent motivation for getting it.

Cable TV giant Comcast faces a unique charge of censorship. Shortly after the Federal Communications Commission approved its takeover of NBC Universal, it hired FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker who had voted for the merger.

While some denounced the move as a conflict of interest, a single tweet is what unleashed Comcast's wrath. A worker at a summer film camp for teenage girls questioned the hiring through Twitter. Comcast responded by yanking $18,000 in funding for the camp.

The company later apologized and offered to restore its contribition. Camp officials say they want to be able to speak freely without being hushed by corporations.

Hiding Political Bias

Critics often lambast media for having political bias. While viewpoints on the editorial pages are clear to see, the link between politics and censorship is harder to spot.

The ABC news program Nightline once devoted its broadcast to reading the names of more than 700 U.S. servicemen and women killed in Iraq. What appeared to be a solemn tribute to military sacrifice was interpreted as a politically-motivated, anti-war stunt by Sinclair Broadcast Group, which didn't allow the program to be seen on the seven ABC stations it owned.

Sinclair is the same company that a media watchdog group says called more than 100 members of Congress "censorship advocates" for raising concerns to the FCC about Sinclair's plans to air the film Stolen Honor. That production was blasted for being propaganda against then-presidential candidate John Kerry.

Sinclair responded by saying it wanted to air the documentary after the major networks refused to show it. In the end, bowing to pressure on several fronts, the company aired a revised version that only included parts of the film.

Communist countries that once stopped the free flow of information may have largely disappeared, but even in America censorship issues keep some news from reaching you. With the explosion of citizen journalism and internet platforms, the truth will now have an easier way of getting out.

View original post here:
How Media Censorship Affects the News

Subscribe for the latest gaming news

The PlayStation 4 launched in China back in March, but sales haven't been as strong as Sony would have hoped. PlayStation boss Andrew House said in an interview at the Tokyo Game Show this week that China's censorship rules are hurting the sales potential of the PS4 in the country.

"We are still challenged somewhat with a censorship regime that we have to work with," House told Reuters. "This can be time-consuming."

Despite a slow start, House said he still sees huge potential in the China, a country whose gamer population exceeds the entire US population.

"I don't think it has been a kind of a rocket launch start," House said, adding that he envisions "tremendous potential for gaming as an entertainment medium in China." With an estimated population of 1.35 billion and a growing middle-class, China is considered to potentially be the world's largest market for video games.

According to China's censorship rules, nothing that promotes drug use of violence is allowed. All games must be approved by the Shanghai government culture department and the approval process for games is said to take no longer than 20 days. A full list of content that is not allowed in games sold in China is available here.

The Xbox One launched in China in September 2014 and sold around 100,000 units during its launch week. Nintendo has not yet announced specific plans to bring its consoles or games to the market.

According to one Asia business analyst group, the PS4 and Xbox One systems in China may only sell fewer than 550,000 units, combined, in 2015.

See the original post:
PS4 Sales in China Hurt by "Censorship Regime," Exec Says

Welcome to The Censorship Pages. Here you will find information about the freedom of speech and of the press in reference to the written word. These pages provide the resources needed to explore how, and why censorship happens not only in the United States, but all around the world. I hope these pages are helpful and encourage you to get involved.

PLEASE NOTE: These pages were coded over six years ago as a resource for Bannd Books Week. Many of them are now no posted on the web or have moved to a new address. We are trying to correct any like we can and note others that are dead. If you can find the new URL for a dead link, or a substitute page, please let us know.

As an example of a just banned book, David Guterson's acclaimed book Snow Falling on Cedars has been banned by the South Kitsap School District in Washington state as an inappropriate and obscene book. Why it was banned is much deeper, as the book is written about the racism and anti-Japanese persecution during and after WW II on the Kitsap Peninsula. The book was banned because Kitsap is still a right wing, racist stronghold and they wish to block any recognition of their bigoted past and present.

Send comments and questions to webmaster@booksatoz.com

Read more from the original source:
The Censorship Pages -- Information on Censorship of the ...

Censorship in all its forms is often unjustifiable and is used simply to stop truths or ideas emerge which draw attention to powerful people or governments, or undermine ideology. This is inexcusable.

When the exercise of the right to free expression clashes with the rights of others or threatens the safety of the nation, legislators face a difficult exercise of drawing lines; is a restriction necessary and how far should it go?

As James Madison, who framed the US Constitutions protection of freedom of expression, wrote, it is often prudent to permit some abuse of freedom of expression in order to ensure that legitimate use of the right is not discouraged:

Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of everything, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press. It ... is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits.

One of the main arguments advanced against licensing of journalists and publications was its indiscriminate nature: denial of a licence is tantamount to a ban on all future articles, without regard to their content.

But what about a statement, whether written or audiovisual, which has already been completed but not yet made public? Should the authorities only impose sanctions after publication, where justified, or should they, in appropriate circumstances, be able to prevent its release?

Prior censorship poses special dangers to freedom of expression. If the authorities are able to suppress publications which nobody has seen, it becomes impossible for others to verify whether the suppression was indeed justified; it is a question of time before such an unchecked power is abused to prevent criticism of government. One partial solution is to make the authorities decision subject to court appeal. But this creates a different problem; control by the authorities of the timing of the flow of information is a considerable power. Challenging a decision to censor information will be an expensive and slow process, which many may not even use. Furthermore, news is a perishable commodity, so that success in court after lengthy proceedings will often prove a pyrrhic victory.

Because of the risk of abuse compared to sanctions after the fact, the American Convention on Human Rights prohibits prior censorship altogether, except to protect children. Article 13(2) of the ACHR states:

The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship

Nevertheless, some courts have been reluctant to rule prior restraints out categorically, mainly because the damage done by a publication may not in all cases be reparable through subsequent sanctions. This dilemma was posed starkly in one American case, after a magazine, The Progressive, had attempted to publish an article explaining in some detail how to construct a hydrogen bomb. The author and publisher argued that they were merely synthesising publicly available documents, with the purpose of raising awareness of the threat of nuclear weapons. The District Judge held:

A mistake in ruling against The Progressive [will] curtail defendants [right to freedom of expression] in a drastic and substantial fashion. [But a] mistake in ruling against the United States could pave the way for thermonuclear annihilation for us all. In that event, our right to life is extinguished and the right to publish becomes moot.

The case did not reach the US Supreme Court. In other disputes, however, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated the following position: Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.

International bodies have echoed this point of view. In a report on the Republic of Korea, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression stated that any system of prior restraint on freedom of expression carries with it a heavy presumption of invalidity under international human rights law. The ECtHR ruled that the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny.

This last case involved the ad hoc application of prior restraint to a specific harmful expression the authorities had gotten wind of the upcoming publication, and had applied to a court to prevent it. Systems of prior restraint whereby publications must be submitted to censors for clearance before being distributed can never be justified for the media, and have for some time now been unknown among democracies.

The position in international law can be summarised as follows: Although the right to freedom of expression does not require an absolute ban on prior censorship, this should be a highly exceptional measure, taken only when a publication threatens grave harm, such as loss of life or serious harm to health, safety or the environment. An article deemed defamatory, blasphemous, obscene or overly critical of the government would rarely if ever meet this threshold. Moreover, a system whereby media content must be officially cleared before it can be released would be unacceptable; its harm to freedom of expression would plainly far outweigh the benefit to its goals.

More:
Censorship, Violence & Press Freedom What we do Article 19