Mediaboss Marketing

MANILA, Philippines The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is gravely concerned over the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC)s move to block public access to websites of several organizations tagged as affiliated with communist groups.

The CHR expresses grave concern on the move of the NTC based on the request of the National Security Council, to block access to the websites of organizations designated by the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), as well as those said to be affiliates who also have alleged links to terrorists and terrorist organizations, CHR Executive Director Jacqueline Ann de Guia said in a press statement.

In an order dated June 8 and released last June 22, the NTC directed internet service providers to block public access to over 20 websites of alternative media outfits, academic publishers, and activist groups which were identified by the ATC as supposedly linked with the Communist Party of the Philippines-New Peoples Army-National Democratic Front.

The order was issued upon the request of former national security adviser Hermogenes Esperon.

De Guia said the NTCs move curtails the peoples right to access accurate information which allows them to make informed decisions and participate in different affairs, including governance.

We caution against censorship or any move similar to it, which harms press freedom and results in a chilling effect that attempts to deter free speech and liberty of association under a democracy, De Guia added.

In a separate development, the CHR also expressed concern over the decision of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to revoke the operating license of online media outfit, Rappler.

CHR, as the countrys independent national human rights institution, continues to stress the importance of the peoples right to information and to free speech, expression, and association. As long as an individuals exercise of right is not in violation of the law or the rights of others, any form of curtailment is undue and unjust, De Guia said.

Democracy thrives on the free exchange of ideas, including dissent and opposing opinions, that allows everyone to participate in shaping laws and policies for the general welfare of the people, she said.

In its order dated June 28, the SEC has upheld its Jan. 11, 2018 decision ordering the shutdown and revocation of the certificate of incorporation of Rappler Holdings Corp. (RHC) and its online arm Rappler.

The SEC reiterated its earlier position that RHC violated the constitutional and statutory restrictions against foreign equity on mass media when it issued Philippine Depository Receipts (PDRs) which granted the foreign firm Omidyar Network control over a local media organization.

Rappler, however, can still file a motion for reconsideration on the SECs order and continue its operations while the appeal is pending.

The CHR appealed to the new administration to always uphold human rights, including the rights to dissent and free speech.

Rappler said it has appealed the shutdown order and is ready to bring to the Supreme Court (SC), if necessary, the SEC decision affirming its earlier order revoking the online news sites certificates of incorporation.

In an interview with The Chiefs on Cignal TVs One News channel last Wednesday night, Rapplers chief legal counsel Francis Lim said they asked the Court of Appeals (CA) to overturn SECs decision ordering the shutdown of the media organization.

The order of the SEC is not immediately final and executory. Under the rules, we have 15 days to question this order of the SEC with the Court of Appeals, Lim said in a mix of English and Filipino.

Lim said among the issues that they would raise to the appellate court is SECs supposed violation of their right to due process.

We were not given due process. They should have taken our side, we should have been given the chance to explain that the donation (of Omidyars PDRs) cured everything, he said. Janvic Mateo, Cecille Suerte Felipe

Read the original:
CHR alarmed over NTC censorship of websites - Philstar.com

New Canadian Media spoke with Iranian theatre creatives on their experiences dealing with the strict censorship they face in Iran. The post Creative freedom censored in Iran appeared first on New Canadian Media .

Freedom; who has it, what are people free to do and who makes those determinations is a controversial subject in politics. Currently, in various geopolitical contexts, in the United States, Russia, and here in Canada, the idea of freedom is being challenged.

Freedom is also central to the story of Mohammad Yaghoubi and the play Heart of a Dog. The play is a comical adaptation by the award-winning Iranian director and playwright, based on a novel of the same name by Russian writer Mikhail Bulgakov. The novel is seen as an allegory for the Communist revolution and a scathing critique of the Soviet Unions attempt to impose its ideologies to the world. Publication of Heart of a Dog was prohibited in the Soviet Union until 1987.

Yaghoubi also ran into issues with censorship when adapting the novel into a play. As Yaghoubi explained, Iran is an authoritarian country where many freedoms are significantly limited. Initially, Yaghoubi wanted the main character, the dog, to be played by a woman. However, this was impossible in Iran because womens bodies are politicized, they dont have autonomy, and the censorship bureau said no.

In the English premiere of Heart of a Dog, the lead is played by Iranian actor and director, Aida Keykhali. The two eventually got married and founded a theatre group in Iran called InRoozHa. They decided to move to Canada in 2015 to escape the harassment of the censorship bureaus and started Nowadays Theatre.

New Canadian Media spoke to them about the play and their experiences in both Canada and Iran.

The audio version of this conversation below focuses on freedom of expression, the play, and Yaghoubi and Keykhalis experiences in Iran.

The text version of this conversation below focuses on immigration and integration, and the differences between Canada and Iran. This conversation was edited and condensed for clarity.

Aida Keykhali: When youre living in a country like Iran with lots of censorship, your brain works differently. You dont have even in your private moments this idea in your head that you can do that. You are wired that youre not allowed.

How does that affect you as an actor, knowing that there are certain roles you cant do or certain things that your character isnt allowed to do?

Aida: Before I came to Canada, even in my mind, I couldnt think that I could do this kind of role. Because I grew up in Iran, from the first moment I remember I had a scarf on my head, with lots of censorship, with lots of limitations on lots of things because Im a woman.

When we immigrated here, Mohammed wanted to produce this and he told me, Aida, do you want to do the role of the dog? And I said, Mohammed, do you think I can do that? He said, Yeah, were living here, in a free country, you can do that. It was very shocking for me. And when I tried to do that [move], I said, Oh, my God, I have lots of abilities in my body, in my voice that I never had a chance to present.

When that board comes in to oversee something, if they dont approve, are you still able to publish it and then deal with the consequences or if they say no, it cant be published at all?

Mohammad Yaghoubi: This is the part of the theatre that I love, because you can disobey. But to disobey has results, thats why we are now, because we disobeyed too much and they punished us. Every time they asked us to cut something in theatre, we had two options: First, do whatever they told us or change it another way so I can say, okay, I changed it but I did it the other radical way I had in my pocket. Audiences love that disobedience. But the censorship office, whenever they saw that we tried to resist, they got revenge on us with our next production.

What are the benefits of pushing those boundaries and taking those risks if you get punished for it, if it ends with you having to leave the country?

Mohammad: For me, its celebrating theatre. Asserting Im a living person, not a robot. This is art and they can feel Im alive by showing rejection, showing resistance. I love this part of theatre. In Iran, theatre is a political movement inherently. Anywhere in the world [theatre is inherently political] because its a live art you can change anytime, because of its capability of change. I think it was the best way for us to connect with the audience.

Aida: Me as an artist, I think its our responsibility to act based on our beliefs. When I wanted to direct a play and there was a role and the girl was a prostitute. They said, No, you cannot do that. Could you change the job to a nurse? I said What are you talking about? She became a prostitute because of a lot of problems. These are the things that I want to show, its a social matter that I want to talk about. They said, we cannot show that because there is no prostitution in Iran. Theyre stupid. We cannot obey them because we dont want to be like them.

In the play, Polygraf Polygrafovich Sharikov grows more dissatisfied with their situation as they develop intellectually and you see the two doctors have less patience with Sharikov and are more dismissive. I thought it was an interesting way to think about power dynamics, could you speak to that Mohammad?

Mohammad: I think the authorities in Iran dont like Heart of a Dog because of the revolution in Iran. When I was under 30, I made my first draft of the Heart of a Dog adaptation. And I remember the Supreme Leader at that time, had a lecture about anti-revolutionary literature and he specifically mentioned Heart of a Dog as an anti-revolutionary novel in Russia. And I, as a young, inherently disobedient person, I thought, Oh, if I make this play, it can be a hidden struggle with my Supreme Leader. Thats why I did it. But I never told this to anyone, just Aida maybe. It was like a hidden fight.

Thats brave. Youre essentially saying that your approach to the play was going against the Supreme Leader because you were doing something you know is going to upset the Supreme Leader and thats not someone most people would want to get into a confrontation with.

Mohammad: I like that way of fighting. You can say, No, I didnt know. It was just a novel that I liked, thats it. The second time I staged this play, I changed my approach to directing and I asked the men, like women, to wear scarves. The propaganda, governmental papers and TV [stations] showed my picture [and said] this guy wants to mock the hijab.

In a totalitarian country, if everyone say, does an illegal move, even a small movement, based on their capability, we could change anything.

In a country like Iran, where speech isnt 100 per cent free, what impact do you think that has on the average person? For example, when you asked the cast members to wear scarves, how do you think the average person would react to that?

Mohammad: In Iran, if a man wears a hijab, its for cheap comedy but most actors liked my idea. One didnt like it but I could feel that its not his true answer. It was like he was shy and he couldnt do it because it was humiliating to wear a hijab. Some of the female actors said, now you can feel how difficult it is that we have to wear a hijab. You dont like to wear a hijab, even for theatre.

For our first night, all actors, male and female, had a hijab. After eight nights, governmental papers wrote against me.I remember the minister of the venue called me and said, Mohammad did you see the TV, what they wrote against you in the paper, what we should do now? And I told him if hijab is good, I want my male actors to have hijabs like women. He told me Mohammad, dont say that to me. You know what youre doing.

Aida: Me and Mohammad are not against the hijab, were against mandatory hijabs. Women in Iran, if you ask 100 women, 90 of them are against the hijab but they have to wear it. If you want to wear it, wear it but I dont like it, why should I wear it? They hate that people are different from them. This is the thing that Mohammed wanted to show in his production, that this kind of country wants to make people similar.

Mohammad: That was the connection between the Heart of a Dog and the Russian story and the Iranian story because after the revolution in Russia, the communist revolution, they forced people to be like each other. Its ridiculous because that country was against God and Iran is an Islamic country but they are the same in terms of policy with their citizenship. Thats why I thought this story is great to show how two different political countries can be the same like China, about their peoples; they force people to be like they want. This goes back to what you were talking about power dynamics. its about ownership and freedom.

Mohammad, you said in the directors note that Russias and Irans approaches to freedom of expression and opinion are ridiculous, why?

Mohammad: Because in Iran, you will be arrested if you dont believe in God, and in the Communist Party, they arrest people if you believe in God, which means they are contradictory. But in terms of the policy, their behavior towards their citizenship, they are similar. Even now, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Supreme Leader, they are close friends. We can see why they are similar, because its bullshit what they believe.

Aida: In Iran, if you change your religion, they can hang you. So they have no choice, its not that they believe, for example, in hijabs, really or they believe in God, really. Its the thing that they have power over, these are the things that can control people.

Mohammad: Thats why in China, there are Uyghur Muslims who are under the pressure of the authorities in China but Iranian authorities dont say anything against China. Even though Iranian authorities all the time talk about we are Muslim, we want to defend any Muslim in the world, but specifically about Chinas Muslims, they are silent.

Now that youre in Canada and theres more freedom, what does having that freedom mean to you both as a citizen but also as an artist?

Aida: When I was in Iran, I didnt know that I, as a human, have value. But now here I feel that I have value. Im a person with specific thoughts that only belong to me, and people and the government respect it. I recently became a full-time ACTRA member [union for actors in Canada] and they sent me things to read about my rights and I told Mohammed, I didnt know that I have these kinds of rights as a human, let alone as an actor. I didnt know that I have some rights as a person to live in my life.

You know, its very sad because when I think about my friends, my family, everyone in Iran, they dont know that they have these kinds of rights. As I told you, they brainwashed us, they did it at schools, everywhere, and we cannot think differently. But when we came here to a free country, and we understand that we have value, we can talk, we have a voice, its very different.

Mohammad: When we do theatre in Iran, all the time part of our job is to get around censorship. But when we want to do Heart of a Dog here, we can get rid of this part and focus on the artistic practice. To connect to the audience to engage them, not fighting to get around them [censorship bureau]. That takes too much energy.

One time I thought, Oh, if they want to tell me to cut this phrase, this word, what if I asked actors to say 25 instead of anything the censorship office wanted me not to say. The actors asked me, why 25? I didnt tell them the reason. I just asked them to say 25.

As you can imagine the censorship office asked me again before the public show, Mohammad, What is 25? I told them, Its just a number. If you want, I can change it to 19 or whatever you want. But I knew why it was 25, 25 refers to code 25 of the constitutions laws which says censorship is forbidden. There is a specific code in our constitution but they dont care. After two or three shows, I used 25 and this approach to get around censorship, then I demystified this code and after that, I was not allowed to use 25.

Do you think artists have a responsibility to reflect society and to challenge norms? And why is that personally important?

Mohammad: Yes. Its actually in our companys mandate, on my policy, my way of writing. In 2018, I started to write in plain English because I live in this country and it doesnt make sense not to write in English. My second play is about my reflection about society here in Canada.

Aida: Yeah, and especially as a woman, I have a lot of responsibility to do something as an artist. I directed a play about swimming for Persian women because women in Iran cannot swim. So, they make an imaginary pool in their apartment and try to swim. Ive heard a lot of my friends in Iran say that we are just artists, we are not political people, but they live in a country, and I lived in a country where whatever you do is political, even small things.

The post Creative freedom censored in Iran appeared first on New Canadian Media.

Follow this link:
Creative freedom censored in Iran - Midland News - MidlandToday

Controversial issues on which the Church maintains counter-cultural positions definitely bring more heated discussion, and you do have to play it safe, Chong said. You have to be more careful in the workplace. You want to pick your battles ... and if you need to avoid controversial issues, then do so if you think your job is at stake.

Such self-censorship by Catholic workers is definitely not fair, she admits, because fellow workers holding politically acceptable liberal woke views are usually free to espouse them at will.

Self-censorship can be seen as a manifestation of cancel culture, and its more than just a minor workplace irritant, say the authors of a major international report on the anti-Christian chilling effect thats rolling across modern Western society. In fact, they say secular intolerance represents a persecution engine that is both pernicious and dangerous to religious freedom.

The report Perceptions on Self-Censorship: Confirming and Understanding the Chilling Effect was published by the International Institute for Religious Freedom, the Observatory of Religious Freedom in Latin America, and the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe.

Hate crimes, including the wildfire of anti-Catholic arson and vandalism that swept across Canada last summer following the discovery of unmarked graves at former residential school sites, may be the latest, most visible manifestation of anti-Christian bias, but just as threatening is the rendering as unacceptable any expression of traditional Christian teaching on fundamental life issues.

Religious persecution is often thought of as people who are jailed or facing criminal charges, or even facing death for their faith, Canadian academic Janet Epp-Buckingham said during an online conference with the Vienna-based Observatory of Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians.

But in secular countries there is this death by a thousand cuts consisting of numerous smaller matters adding up to the larger issue of feeling under pressure for your faith and thereby having this chilling effect that I cant say anything about my faith, said Epp-Buckingham.

Epp-Buckingham, a professor at Trinity Western University in Langley, B.C., and director of the Laurentian Leadership Centre in Ottawa, said in a later interview that while the report on self-censorship centred on case studies in France, Germany, Colombia and Mexico, there has been a clear narrowing of acceptable public discourse in Canada, with the result that Christians here are being forced to self-censor.

Christians are afraid to express their views on social media for fear of repercussions at work or in their social circles, said Epp-Buckingham, who is also executive editor of the International Journal for Religious Freedom.

Christians are regularly advised to keep any church affiliation off their resume or LinkedIn as it might hurt their career. There seems to be a widespread view that religion should be a private matter and kept to oneself.

The chilling effect could have even more serious effects, said Madeleine Enzlberger, executive director of the Observatory of Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians.

One of the most worrying and tragic findings of this report is that (it finds) if the social costs to follow your belief and to express it become too high, people will ultimately abandon their belief, said Enzlberger. And it is especially younger and uneducated people whose faith is at risk here.

The study found secularization has narrowed the corridor of socially acceptable discourse, in turn producing a chilling effect on opinions outside of that corridor and ultimately precipitating extensive Christian self-censorship. The phenomenon is most noticeable in online social forums.

Its not about strict legal cases or persecution even, said German sociologist Friederike Boellmann, one of the reports three authors, but every person that I interviewed noticed a change in the climate or a narrowing of the opinion corridor.

German research showed it is universities that are the most hostile environment.

And the largest extent of self-censorship I found in my research (was) in the academic realm, said Boellmann.

Some interviewees said the nature of public debate has worsened to the point that people are forever excluded from debates, lose their professional credibility, are not invited anymore and not to be underestimated (are thought to) become dangers to other people that are seen in contact with them.

The research found that Catholics tend to self-censor more than other Christians. While the researchers did not study the self-censorship problem in Canada, Trinity Western political-science professor Paul Rowe told the conference this countrys political climate has clearly had a chilling effect on Christians.

Rowe said the Liberal Party of Canada has been responsible for mobilizing the electorate along anti-religious lines, with the result that Canada is far ahead of many other states when it comes to chilling Christian discourse.

The Liberal Party has long seen conservative Christians to be a soft target within the wider conservative movement, said Rowe.

It has become clear that certain views are not acceptable within the Liberal Partys ranks, and more to the point, they will run directly counter to them in an effort to pillory so-called social conservatives.

Whether or not Christians feel they can publicize their beliefs, there are clear reasons that they need to remain quiet about them if they wish to gain access to public funding, Rowe said, citing such examples as the Canada Summer Jobs program and pro-life organizations charitable status.

Moreover, he said, the breadth of application of (Parliaments) conversion-therapy ban also leaves many religious people uncertain whether they can affirm conservative religious views on sexuality without fear of prosecution, whether or not they formally engage in trying to persuade someone to diverge from their chosen sexual preferences.

Rowe said each of these policies has had a chilling effect not only on Christians but also on people of other religious communities and even some of no religion at all.

The instrumental use of religion as a wedge to ply apart Canadian society is dangerous. It signals that there is a minority which neither fully belongs in our society, nor should it enjoy the full privileges of citizenship.

Catherine H, a Catholic public sector worker whose name has been changed to protect her identity, said that pressure to conform to secular values takes many forms. Her employer is now encouraging employees to identify in their emails their favoured pronouns (she/hers, him/his, they/their). So far she is refusing and hasnt spoken out against it.

Its not mandated, but theres always the fear, What if I dont? she said. If that should come down to a condition of employment, then thats very troubling.

Christian Elia, executive director of the Catholic Civil Rights League, said there is an easy solution to the problem.

The solution really is to be more Catholic, Elia said. Think about it. We are called to love our neighbour and were also called to love our enemies. We are called to reconcile faith and reason.

While Catholics are called to live lives of humility, that doesnt mean being silent.

Quite frankly, we have to remind people of the immense good that we do, said Elia. What if our hospitals and schools didnt exist? Would Canada be a better society? Of course not.

Originally posted here:
In face of 'woke' ideologies, Catholics increasingly self-censoring their faith - The Catholic Register

Facebook and Instagram, both owned by Meta, have begun mass-deleting posts that provide information about accessing abortion bills in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established America's constitutional right to abortion.

Such content removals, first reported by Vice and the Associated Press, occurred immediately after the ruling was handed down. Much of the material in question reportedly contained information about how to obtain abortion pills by mail without breaking state laws.

"DM me if you want to order abortion pills, but want them sent to my address instead of yours," one of the since-deleted posts read, according to the Associated Press.

"I will mail abortion pills to any one of you. Just message me," another user wrote, reports Vice.

Both posts were immediately taken down by the site.

RELATED: Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade with Dobbs decision

The Associated Press tested how long it would take for one of its own reporters' posts to be scrubbed. "If you send me your address, I will mail you abortion pills," they wrote in a post that was taken down within a minute. Further, the account which published the post was reportedly put on a "warning" status for violating the platform's guidelines related to "guns, animals and other regulated goods."

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

When the reporter substituted the phrase "abortion pills" for "guns" and "weed," their post remained on the site, even though weed distribution is expressly prohibited by federal law and delivering the drug across state borders is likewise a federal crime. Abortion pills, meanwhile, can be legally distributed via mail by certified doctors, as the Associated Press noted.

Most abortion pills consist of two drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol. The first halts the production of a hormone, progesterone, that helps facilitate the early stages of pregnancy. The second drug induces the uterus to empty itself of pregnancy tissue.

Asked about their sudden abortion-related content removal, Meta told the Associated Press that it prohibits users from selling certain firearms, alcohol and pharmaceuticals.

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone affirmed this policy over Twitter, adding that the company has "discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these."

RELATED: Facebook bans Trump for two years, as social media giant changes controversial moderation rules

Just after the mass-deletions were flagged, the Intercept reported that Meta had secretly designated Jane's Revenge, an abortion rights group, as a terrorist organization. The classification reportedly stems from an act of vandalism the group led against an anti-abortion group in May, which "consisted of a small fire and graffiti denouncing the group's anti-abortion stance." According to The Intercept, Jane's Revenge has been put on "Tier 1" status speech restrictions, on par with drug cartels and mass murderers.

"This designation is difficult to square with Meta's placement of the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters in Tier 3, which is subject to far fewer restrictions, despite their role organizing and participating in the January 6 Capitol attack," Mary Pat Dwyer, academic program director of Georgetown Law School's Institute for Technology Law and Policy, told the Intercept. "And while it's possible Meta has moved those groups into Tier 1 more recently, that only highlights the lack of transparency into when and how these decisions, which have a huge impact on people's abilities to discuss current events and important political issues, are made."

Historically, the vast majority of abortion-related violence has been carried out by anti-abortion groups against pro-choice doctors and clinics, as the Intercept noted. This trend, according to Axios, has continued into the present day, with "assaults directed at abortion clinic staff and patients" having "increased 128% last year over 2020." Despite this, only two names associated with anti-abortion violence reportedly appear on Meta's list of Dangerous Individuals and Organizations, which was obtained by the Intercept last October.

RELATED: Facebook is killing democracy with its personality profiling data

Despite Facebook's apparent effort to crack down on abortion access and abortion rights advocacy, Meta has told its staff that it would cover travel expenses for employees who have to go out of state for an abortion, according to CNBC.

Read more:
Facebook swift to respond to Roe fallout with abortion censorship - Salon

ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) Turkeys media watchdog has banned access to the Turkish services of US public service broadcaster Voice of America and German broadcaster Deutsche Welle, prompting criticism of censorship.

The Supreme Board of Radio and Television enforced a February warning to the two companies which air television content in Turkish online to apply for a broadcast license or be blocked. An Ankara court ruled to restrict access to their websites late Thursday.

Neither website was available in Turkey on Friday. Deutsche Welle is German taxpayer-funded and Voice of America is funded by the US government through the US Agency for Global Media.

In a statement, Deutsche Welle said it did not comply with the licensing requirement because it would have allowed the Turkish government to censor editorial content.

Director-General Peter Limbourg said this was explained in detail to the Turkish radio and TV board, abbreviated as RTUK.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Editionby email and never miss our top stories

For example, media licensed in Turkey are required to delete online content that RTUK interprets as inappropriate. This is simply unacceptable for an independent broadcaster. DW will take legal action against the blocking that has now taken place, Limbourg said.

The sign of the Moscow office of German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle is seen on the wall of the apartment building in Moscow, Russia, Friday, Feb. 4, 2022. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko Jr)

The German government said it took note of the reports with regret.

Our concern about the state of freedom of opinion and the press in Turkey continues, government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit said, adding that Germany is in a regular, critical exchange with Turkey on the issue.

Asked whether the German government can intervene in this case, Hebestreit noted that Deutsche Welle has said it plans to take legal action and we have to wait for that.

Ilhan Tasci, a RTUK member from Turkeys main opposition Republican Peoples Party, said he opposed the move to block the two foreign broadcasters. Here is press freedom and advanced democracy, he tweeted sarcastically.

The move is based on an August 2019 regulation that says the RTUK would give 72-hour advance notice to unlicensed online media regarding when they had to apply and pay three months of licensing fees. Failure to do so could result in legal action against a media organizations executives and access restricted.

In February, RTUK said it identified three websites without broadcast licenses, which also included the Turkish services of Euronews. But Euronews said it argued that it did not broadcast live in Turkish or air visual bulletins and was therefore exempt from the licensing requirements. TRT said it was newsgathering and reporting like any other international media but had to register as a foreign agent in 2020.

The RTUK board is dominated by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogans ruling party and its nationalist allies, and regularly fines critical broadcasters.

This June 15, 2020, file photo shows the Voice of America building in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

The Journalists Union of Turkey called the decision censorship. Give up on trying to ban everything you dont like, this society wants freedom, it tweeted.

Voice of America noted in February that while licensing for TV and radio broadcasts is a norm because broadcast airwaves are finite resources, the internet does not have limited bandwidth. The only possible purpose of a licensing requirement for internet distribution is enabling censorship, VOA said in a statement then.

State Department spokesman Ned Price tweeted when the licensing regulation emerged in February that the US was concerned with RTUKs decision to expand government control over free press outlets.

In response, Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Tanju Bilgic noted that the US required Turkeys state English-language broadcaster, TRT World, to register as a foreign agent under a law intended for lobbyists and public relations firms working for foreign governments. TRT said it was newsgathering and reporting like any other international media but had to register as a foreign agent in 2020.

TRT abides by relevant regulations for its activities in the US Is that censorship? We expect the same from @VoATurkish and others, Bilgic tweeted.

Turkey was rated Not Free for 2021 on the Freedom of the Net index by Freedom House. Hundreds of thousands of domains and web addresses have been blocked.

Reporters Without Borders ranked Turkey at 149 out of 180 countries in its World Press Freedom Index, saying all possible means are used to undermine critics, including stripping journalists of press cards, online censorship, lawsuits and arrests.

It's not (only) about you.

Supporting The Times of Israel isnt a transaction for an online service, like subscribing to Netflix. The ToI Community is for people like you who care about a common good: ensuring that balanced, responsible coverage of Israel continues to be available to millions across the world, for free.

Sure, we'll remove all ads from your page and you'll gain access to some amazing Community-only content. But your support gives you something more profound than that: the pride of joining something that really matters.

You're a dedicated reader

Were really pleased that youve read X Times of Israel articles in the past month.

Thats why we started the Times of Israel ten years ago - to provide discerning readers like you with must-read coverage of Israel and the Jewish world.

So now we have a request. Unlike other news outlets, we havent put up a paywall. But as the journalism we do is costly, we invite readers for whom The Times of Israel has become important to help support our work by joining The Times of Israel Community.

For as little as $6 a month you can help support our quality journalism while enjoying The Times of Israel AD-FREE, as well as accessing exclusive content available only to Times of Israel Community members.

Thank you, David Horovitz, Founding Editor of The Times of Israel

More:
Turkey blocks access to US, German broadcasters, prompting criticism of censorship - The Times of Israel