Mediaboss Marketing

The New York Times reports that Russia has begun censoring the Internet inside its borders, acting on a law that was passed back in November.

The intention of the censorship act is to prevent easy access to information that could potentially harm children or that contravenes the law.

Facebook, for example, was asked by Russia's regulators to take down a page that they were concerned promoted suicide. The social network had until Sunday to comply, and did so, having decided that the page was not in the interest of general public health.

Twitter is also said to have complied with some requests to block local access to some posts.

Critics of the law say the censorship mechanisms are easy to abuse, and that the government could use them to oppose dissent.

Microsoft recently reported government requests for user data, and the figures indicated monitoring of activists in Russia.

China, well known for aggressive Internet censorship, was in the news recently when an analysis revealed the amazing speed of Chinese human censors for the first time.

[Image: Flickr user Ed Yourdon]

Read the original:
Russia Internet Censorship Begins

BP hasnt finished watching the ThaiPBS series on the monarchy so havent got around to blogging about it yet, but see that tonight at the FCCT there is an event on this subject. Below is the blurb:

Media Censorship and Self Censorship: What Is the Role of Thailands Public Broadcasters? A panel discussion

8pm, Thursday March 28, 2013

(Please see pricing and reservation procedure below)

First it was a soap opera Nua Mek 2 on Thailands channel 3 that was yanked off the air after its 9th episode (there were 12 in all), as was quoted in the press the content of the show had violated the Broadcast and Telecommunications Operations Act. In particular it was Section 37 which bars broadcast content that seeks to overthrow the constitutional monarchy, threatens national security or morality, constitutes profanity or harms peoples mental or physical health. Social media buzzed with speculation to political interference while audiences were left with a real life cliff hanger.

Just a few months, later the popular Thai talk show Tob Jote Prathet Thai or roughly translated to Answering Thailands Issues on Thai PBS held a 5 episode week long discussion about the role of the constitutional monarchy in Thailand. Featuring several well known figures, it was heralded as a breakthrough for open discussion about a topic that is seen as the most sensitive issue in the Kingdom. When Thai PBS pulled the 5th installment of the program, which it later aired, more drama ensued with the police now combing the series for any lese majeste content. Small protests took place outside of Thai PBS and underscore just what a flashpoint continues to be.

Join us for a panel who will discuss the role of Thai pubic broadcasters and whether their mission is to serve the public by providing factual information and room for debate, upholding the prevailing ideology of the country and its laws, or a combination of the two.

On the panel are:

Supinya Klangnarong, a Thai media rights advocate who is also on Thailands National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC). The Commission oversees all public and private media outlets.

Vornai Vanijaka, a print and TV social and political commentator

Visit link:
FCCT Event tonight : Media Censorship and Self Censorship : What Is the Role of Thailand’s Public Broadcasters?

Washington Post fights censorship accusations

By: RTAmerica

Excerpt from:
Washington Post fights censorship accusations - Video

Washington Post fights censorship accusations (RTAmerica)
Don #39;t forget to to subscribe to my Alternative Account, nanashinoappuri89 Follow me on Twitter @chaotixjoe Who made the vids? You might find out here: http:/...

By: Junnosuke Kawagoe

Read more:
Washington Post fights censorship accusations (RTAmerica) - Video

Index on Censorship opposes recommendations for the statutory underpinning of press regulation

Index urges that there is a serious, considered debate about Lord Justice Levesons recommendations. The free speech organisation opposes the statutory underpinning of press regulation proposed by Lord Justice Leveson.

Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship said:

We consider that the statutory-voluntary approach to independent press regulation would undermine press freedom in the UK. However, we support the proposal for cheap, effective arbitration, which would help victims get swift redress to their complaints.

Index welcomed the response of the Prime Minister to the Inquirys findings. In a statement to parliament, David Cameron said that he had serious concerns about passing legislation in relation to the press, which he rightly said would be an enormous step.

Kirsty Hughes said: We share David Camerons concerns that statutory underpinning would undermine free speech, and could be the start of a slippery slope of government interference in the media.

Indexs response to Lord Justice Levesons main recommendations are:

Statutory underpinning of an independent regulatory body: Statutory underpinning of an independent and voluntary regulator is a contradiction in terms. Any law which sets out the criteria that the press must meet, by definition introduces some government or political control of the media. Politicians of all hues have an interest in getting the most positive media coverage they can. Keeping print media independent of government so journalists can report on political debate and decision-making, robustly and without fear, is fundamental. Even light statutory regulation could easily be revisited, toughened and potentially abused once the principle of no government control of the press is breached.

Arbitration service: Index welcomes Lord Justice Levesons proposal for cheap, effective arbitration.

Read the original here:
Index on Censorship ’s response to the Leveson report