Mediaboss Marketing

Vani Tripathi had a brief but impactful career in films. After featuring in movies like Dushman (1998), Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani (2000) and Chalte Chalte (2003) she transitioned into politics and governance. Being a prominent leader with BJP and a crucial member or the CBFC, today Vani is a key name in India's cultural administration and governance. Speaking to ETimes, Vani explains how OTT regulation works in India right now and what steps need to be taken to ensure the country and its content creators are able to establish a fair and functional regulatory and censorship system. Read on...'OTT regulation is done through a 3-tier system right now''; var randomNumber = Math.random(); var isIndia = (window.geoinfo && window.geoinfo.CountryCode === 'IN') && (window.location.href.indexOf('outsideindia') === -1 ); //console.log(isIndia && randomNumber When on the face of it you look at the OTT regulatory pact, the government has put together a certain level of mechanism for a review whenever a complaint is received. I think its a 3-tier mechanism. The first tier is internal. The second is the industry body. And the third is headed by the joint secretary of the government. But remember that it only pertains to complaints being received whether it is at the level of community feeling sensitive about some content or religion and so on. But the problem is the way the word censorship is misused in India. Let me first tell you that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has got nothing to do with the certification of OTT content. It only looks at the theatrical releases of films.Congratulations!

You have successfully cast your vote

'Audience that feels uncomfortable with nudity, expletives and criminal content is not a minority. Its a very large number'

The audience which feels uncomfortable with frontal nudity, expletives, and criminal content is not a minority. Its a very large number. In the presence of families, these aspects make them feel uncomfortable. I must say that most OTT platforms are sensitive toward age-related classification. I think they need to be further educated on 16+, 18+, and PG guidance, which is given before every show. There are also disclaimers put out by producers which nobody reads. So, I think we still need to cross that bridge. What is for family viewing and what is for adult viewing needs to be thrashed out when youre looking at content. Theres a lot of education that needs to be done which is the responsibility of the streaming service and the audience as well.

I personally get mails and messages because Im also part of the CBFC. People think that I can pay attention to it. The sensitive audience is big in numbers.

'Frontal nudity is not a problem in France but it is an issue in USA, every country has its own cultural identity'

OTT platforms do show information about profanity and nudity. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the person who is also using the streaming service at their home. If it is collective viewing and if it is saying 18+, they should let the minors leave the room or watch it later.

But again, when it comes to responsibility, I dont think formal censorship will help. I think more literacy and attention being paid to age-related classification will be the way forward. I also think that on a lot of platforms, people are going overboard. What can be achieved if 4-5 expletives become 15-20? There are so many scripts where theres very little grammar in sentences; there are only cuss words. Now, youll again start screaming freedom of expression when I say this. But I think there is a certain cultural nuance to this country. For example, in the USA, frontal nudity is a problem and a gangster film is not. But in a uber-liberal country like France, frontal nudity is not a problem but a gangster film is. So, between Francis Ford Coppola and Jean-Luc Goddard, theres a difference that exists in every country with its cultural nuance. India also has one and content creators should understand it. Its non-negotiable.

'Content regulation has to be a collaborative effort between the creator, platform and the viewer'

However hard we work at CBFC, it is not foolproof. You see children in theatre in a UA-certified film. And that is the responsibility of the distributor and theatre owner. And it is not being adhered to. So, yes, the same underage viewer may watch the film online. But again, theres parental guidance and responsibility here. If youre going to hand over a smartphone to a child without having a parental lock on it. Then the responsibility is yours and not of the person creating the content. This is a collaborative process between content creators and viewers.

I always say that the objectification of women by large has stopped in the film industry because people stopped watching that garbage. So, it is a celebratory time for an independent filmmaker who used to struggle all the time to make films, distribute them and exhibit them. Today, that filmmaker has a democratic choice of going to an OTT platform. But the responsibility part cannot be veined away. When you are making content, you are very aware of which section of the audience youre making a film/series for. People who shrug their shoulders and say that its not their responsibility, I would only call them utopian and irresponsible.

'In the USA parents of children between 8 to 18 certify films'

Theres a deeper deliberation and debate required between content creators, streamers, and consumers. I must remind you that in the USA, parents of children between 8 to 18 certify films. So, its a process where people who are actually the consumer base of that content are the ones who certify it for theatrical releases.

In India, if you really want to create a mechanism where theres collaboration, debate, and deliberation, all these industry bodies should speak with the governance structures of the country. But most important is the person who is consuming the content, whatever the audience will respond to will become the norm of the times. You know we have seen decades and decades of similar content whether it was gangster films or love stories. Again, its a give-and-take scenario and a demand-supply business. Today, most films are not working in the theatres. I think the content creators need to take a step back and look at what they are pelting out, maybe the people dont want it.I am again saying that sitting down across the table and discussing what format should go out in terms of observation and reception of content should be the way forward. Just creating another body that starts certifying content will not be the only thing that will create consensus. A lot of the content is adult and it will get an A rating. But will people stop watching it?

'Violence and gore create an impact on impressionable viewers'

One of the other things that bothers me is violence and its impact on an impressionable mind. We often only talk about profanity and expletives and nudity. We often forget that blood and gore are furthermore damaging and the subconscious mind immediately responds to images like that. There are instances in the West where kids were exposed to such content and how they behaved throughout the year was far more damaging.

We have to create a system of equality. It just cant be dark and dense and it cant be just certified and censored. Whats important is to create a mechanism that is a win-win for all. Theres also a section of the audience that likes dark stuff. They should have a choice to watch it. And the ones who want to watch family content should have a choice to watch it.

Continue reading here:
Actress and BJP leader Vani Tripathi explains the OTT censorship rules in India - Indiatimes.com

Moscows Bolshoy Theater has permanently canceled Kirill Serebrennikovs production of Nureyev, a ballet celebrating the Soviet-born star dancer and choreographer. The production has now been dropped from Bolshoys repertoire.

The theaters General Manager Vladimir Urin explained the decision as a response to Russias new law against the so-called LGBT propaganda, which effectively introduced ani-LGBT censorship into all facets of Russian life at the end of last year.

Its only natural that, once the bill was signed into law, the theater made a decision to cancel this show, Urin told TASS.

Last year, Bolshoy had canceled the shows May performances and removed Kirill Serebrennikovs name from the productions Web page and playbills, in connection with Serebrennikovs criticisms of the Russian aggression in Ukraine.

Nureyev had a troubled history at the Bolshoy from the moment of its premier in 2017, postponed by direct order from Russias Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky. TASS reported at the time, citing an informed source, that Medinsky had spotted gay propaganda in the show. The minister himself denied having ever expressed this opinion.

Rudolf Nureyev defected from the USSR to France in 1961. For the final 14 years of his life, he was in a committed (though open) relationship with the American dancer and historian Robert Tracy. Nureyev died of AIDS complications in 1993.

Link:
Bolshoy Theater drops Nureyev ballet from repertoire, bending to Russias anti-LGBT censorship law - Meduza

OAKLAND - An East Bay writer of children's books got the offer of a lifetime a chance for her book to be distributed by publishing giant Scholastic. But it came with a price that she said was too much to pay.

The book is titled "Love In The Library," the story of how Maggie Tokuda-Hall's grandparents met and fell in love while incarcerated along with 13,000 other people of Japanese descent at the Minidoka Relocation Camp in Idaho during World War II.

"And so, I wrote about it for kids," said Tokuda-Hall. "I wanted to provide them with this example of hope and of beauty and the possibility of change, but one that also didn't shy away from the truth of what happened to them."

Click https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfra... for a CBS News video report.

CBS Local Digital Media personalizes the global reach of CBS-owned and operated television and radio stations with a local perspective.

See more here:
East Bay Children's Author Stands Strong In Censorship Battle - Patch

America is experiencing two disturbing simultaneous trends: the rise of mob censorship to shut down speaking events on college campuses, and an attempt to justify it as merely the exercise of more speech.

At SUNY Albany this month, protesters stormed an event, formed an improvised conga line and prevented a lecture ironically, titled Free Speech on Campus from beginning.

In a now notorious incident at Stanford Law School last month, protesters shouted down a federal appellate judges speech.

And in November, hecklers drowned out conservative commentator Ann Coulter at Cornell, playing loud music, chanting, shouting at her and repeatedly preventing her from speaking. We dont want you here, your words are violence, screamed one heckler.

I have defended free speech on college campuses for over a decade. Weve seen waves of shout-downs before. But few defended the disruptions. In fact, they were usually met with near-universal condemnation.

People are also reading

Not so anymore. Some now argue that drowning out and shutting down speakers is an exercise of more speech, not an attempt to carry out a hecklers veto on the speaker. Depressingly, 62% of college students say that shouting down a speaker is acceptable to some degree.

Its called protest, one Stanford student remarked to Judge Kyle Duncan while the judge objected to being shouted down. Its under the 1st Amendment. I thought you knew about the 1st Amendment. Later, after the Stanford administration condemned the incident, a group of protesters papered Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martinezs classroom with fliers reading, We have free speech rights too, and, Counter-speech is free speech.

Apparently, Americas future lawyers and future judges fundamentally misunderstand free speech rights. Shouting down speakers is just like any other form of censorship: Its the few deciding for the many what they can hear. Protesters have every right to engage in peaceful, nondisruptive protest. But they do not have the right to take over someone elses event and make it their own.

This is a basic point, and we understand it in almost every other context. Nobody argues that you have a free speech right to stand up during a Broadway musical and sing along with the actors or to scream at a public library book reading.

Just because the public is invited to attend an event and sometimes to speak during a Q&A period does not make it the publics event to disrupt or transform as it pleases. Your distaste for a speaker doesnt grant you a right to prevent a willing audience from listening to that speaker.

There must be places in a free and pluralistic society where groups can freely associate and share ideas without first seeking approval from a crowd of hecklers. Colleges are such spaces. Its the very reason they exist.

One increasingly common semantic game is to argue that hecklers veto is a legal term and that it applies only when the government steps in to shut down speech in anticipation of a disruptive response. But as a practical matter, the government or on college campuses, those in the administration can end up supporting a hecklers veto through its action or inaction. Besides, hecklers veto has long had a nonlegal, colloquial definition that tracks the plain meaning of the words: hecklers vetoing speech.

In either case, both the hecklers and those in authority who enable them will regret normalizing this sort of response to speech.

In December 1860, Frederick Douglass and a group of abolitionists assembled at a public meeting hall in Boston to discuss how to abolish slavery. No sooner had the meeting begun than it was overtaken by a pro-slavery mob. The police did nothing to prevent the heckling and disruption, and the meeting was eventually shut down. A few days later, Douglass gave an impassioned defense of free speech: To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

The heckling is free speech crowd may argue that the pro-slavery mobs action was wrong because of its message, whereas those engaged in todays disruptions are morally right. But we cant hinge the validity of a hecklers veto on whether the hecklers feel justified in their actions. They always do. Thats why justifications for censorship shouldnt be allowed to outweigh principles of free speech.

While students may succeed today in shouting down speakers they oppose, they should realize that those same tactics could be used tomorrow against speakers they support.

Perrino is executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and host of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast":www.thefire.organd@NicoPerrino.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

See the rest here:
Nico Perrino: Shouting down speakers is censorship that will backfire - Lincoln Journal Star

NEWCASTLE The Lincoln County Democratic Committee will hold its next meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 27 as a hybrid meeting. The n-person meeting will be at the Newcastle Fire Station, 86 River Road or people can attend via Zoom.

The agenda includes a discussion of the recent increase in book challenges and censorship efforts in Maine and across the country. School boards across the state including in Lincoln County have faced an increasing number of book challenges over the past year, which have largely centered around books written by and about LGBTQ+ people and people of color. More than 2,500 book titles were targeted for censorship in the US last year, a 38% increase over the year before, according to the American Library Association.

Now, a bill before the Legislature would escalate these book bans statewide by expanding Maines obscenity law to include schools. Under the current version of the bill, librarians and educators could be charged with a Class C felony if they violate the law.

Wynter Giddings and Savannah Sessions from the Maine Library Association and Karen Silverman from the Maine Association of School Libraries will talk about these censorship efforts and how to address them locally and statewide.

This is the third in LCDCs series on legislative advocacy, and all Lincoln County Democrats and unenrolled progressives are welcome to attend.

Efforts to censor books and other materials in our schools is cause for great concern in any situation, but especially when these efforts seem to be so clearly targeted at books about people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals, said Kelli Whitlock Burton, LCDC chair. We look forward to learning what we can do to support librarians, educators, students and our communities.

Giddings, current president of the Maine Library Association and also serving her first term on the Maine Library Commission, is the manager of technology and training at Curtis Memorial Library in Brunswick and has worked in public libraries for 11 years.

Sessions, in her second term as the chair of the Maine Library Association Legislative Advocacy Committee, also serves on the board of the Charlotte Hobbs Memorial Library in Lovell. She has been a school librarian for nine years, in education for 11 years, and works at a public school in western Maine.

Silverman is chair of the Maine Association of School Libraries Intellectual Freedom Committee and is a member of the MASL board and the Maine Student Book Award board. She has been a librarian for years, the last 10 as a school librarian.

LCDC committee business will include an update on the special election for Maine House District 45, with comments from Democratic candidate Wendy Pieh of Bremen. LCDC members will also elect people for state and county offices, hear updates from Democratic town committees and conduct other business.

Voting members of the LCDC will automatically receive the log on information and reminders by email. Those interested in becoming a voting member must be a registered Democrat in Lincoln County and may make their interest known by indicating such on the meeting registration form, https://lincolncountydemocrats.com/meet, or by emailing info@lincolncountydemocrats.com.

Pre-registration is required for non-voting members to receive Zoom log on and/or phone-in details. Register at https://lincolncountydemocrats.com/meet before Noon the day of the meeting to ensure access. They will also do their best to accommodate last-minute registrations.

Information about the committee, its meetings and other activities may be found at https://lincolncountydemocrats.com or https://www.facebook.com/lincolncountydems/.

The Lincoln County Democratic Committee promotes the ideals, principles, and philosophy we share as Democrats. The nomination and election of candidates who advocate these ideals and principles ensure an effective, democratic government of and for all the people.

More articles from the BDN

View post:
The Lincoln County Democratic Committee to meet with Maine ... - Bangor Daily News