Mediaboss Marketing

Ukrainian emergency employees and volunteers carry an injured pregnant woman from the maternity hospital, damaged by shelling, in Mariupol, Wednesday. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov dismissed the claims of an attack on a functioning hospital as lies and propaganda. [AP]

In a liberal country, the state does not even censor the banners suspended by soccer fans. For example, we dont know what one batch of PAOK hooligans meant with their recent banner reading Hang in there brothers, but we can certainly guess. Yes, the banner unfurled in the PAOK stadium should have been taken down. But not by the police or a judicial official who have no such authority. It should have been taken down by the stadiums owner, which is PAOK itself.

By the same token, the European Union has no business censoring Russian President Vladimir Putins propaganda in Europe. The plug should not be pulled on the online versions of Russia Today and Sputnik, even though, to paraphrase, the first casualty of this war has been lies. If anything, it would have given us a laugh to read Putins continued claims of feeling threatened by the Ukrainians.

We mention the online versions specifically because radio waves are something quite different. The electromagnetic spectrum is a very valuable resource, with specific and limited broadcasting frequencies and wavelengths. It is also a public commodity. And just as a state has a duty to ban the use of its airspace by the aggressors bombers, so it is well within its rights to forbid the use of any of its public resources for anything its democratic society considers detrimental. Banning certain broadcasts is not censorship, in the sense that it is not forbidding the propagation of a specific message. It is simply ensuring that the state is not enabling the dissemination of, say, fake news.

A liberal state does not forbid a message, even one the majority may regard as harmful, but it does not help propagate it either

In other words, a liberal state does not forbid a message, even one the majority may regard as harmful, but it does not help propagate it either. It is this fundamental principle that gives the National Broadcasting Council its legitimacy. It is an independent authority whose task it is to manage our public property by setting certain rules and limitations.

But the council has absolutely no authority over the internet or print media, whose producers use private resources to get their message across. The responsibility of dealing with the kind of propaganda and fake news that has been spread for years by the Putin regime lies with civil society.

In this sense, the European Union may decide that there is no room on the public radio waves of its member-states for the kind of Putin nonsense and poison disseminated by Russia Today and Sputnik, just as it may decide to ban Nazi propaganda. The Commission, however, has absolutely no authority over online networks and cable channels none whatsoever.

Freedom of information is a fundamental European value, and it must not be undermined, not even in times of war.

Go here to read the rest:
Propaganda, censorship and the limits of authority - Kathimerini English Edition

In celebration of Read Across America Day, schools and libraries championed favorite books in a giant celebration of all things reading. Among the participants on social media was the New York State Education Department. Several employees had their photos taken with a book they love, alongside a short statement of why they encouraged people to pick up those titles.

One of those tweets was quickly picked up by a Twitter account notorious for reposting content to its right-wing following and encouraging them to harass the person in question. This account was the reason behind the removal of a 3rd grade teacher from her classroom in the fall because she shared LGBTQ+ books on her personal TikTok account available to her students (she was later reinstated).

The response was swift and immediate. Followers of the above account began to ask the New York State Education Department. The tweet, as well as the Facebook post, were deleted.

The story here isnt (yet) what has or has not happened to Moore. Its the fact that the State Eduction Department, where Moore is State Librarian, failed to defend her choice in a book thats been making censors angry for the last year. Rather than double down on their choice to run the tweet and defend the right to read rather than even note that accusations about the book being child pornography are wrong the Department removed the tweet and rendered themselves complicit in active censorship. It was and remains a victory for right-wing groups like this one, further emboldening and empowering them to continue pushing for silence.

In Reading Color Newsletter

A weekly newsletter focusing on literature by and about people of color!

Thank you for signing up! Keep an eye on your inbox.

Compare this to stories of quiet censorship and see that where an institution of power like the above quietly pulls and buries its story while individual librarians whose jobs and livelihoods may be on the line by speaking out about the right for people to read whatever theyd like to read, and its impossible not to wonder what the Department was doing and who that Department is working for.

Its certainly not the students.

Its the bullies from which the State Eduction Department should be protecting those students.

Emily DeSantis, spokesperson for the New York State Eduction Department told The National Desk that,[NY]SED was not aware of the graphic nature of the contents of the book, which is not apparent from its title. Once we became aware, we immediately removed the post. SED is investigating the circumstances under which this title was selected and posted.

Its unclear what graphic nature DeSantis and the rest of the team deemed unfit for promotion Gender Queer is an award-winning book appropriate for teen readers but what is clear is that the priority isnt intellectual freedom and the freedom to read for people in New York state.

As of writing, no reputable news site has followed up on this, and the previously public LinkedIn account for Lauren Moore has been deleted.

Frank Strong has put together an incredible resource for Texans: The Book-Loving Texans Guide to May 7th School Board Elections. This voters guide offers a look at school districts where board elections will be on the ballot in May, along with whose running, their beliefs, and where energy is really needed right now to ensure censorship doesnt win at the voting booth. Youll see clear lines of where money and support comes from for many of these candidates, as well as short histories of those communities and their ties to book removal agendas.

If youre not in Texas, this guide is still for you. Can you help out with an election there by donating or spreading the word? How can you adapt this guide to your own state? Its an incredible and collaborative tool.

For more ways to take action against censorship, use this toolkit forhow to fight book bans and challenges, as well as this guide toidentifying fake news. Then learn how and why you may want touse FOIA to uncover book challenges.

Read the rest here:
Why Didnt The New York State Education Department Defend Its State Librarian?: This Weeks Boo... - Book Riot

The Chinese government is scrubbing the countrys media of sympathetic or accurate coverage of Ukraine and systematically amplifying pro-Putin talking points about Russia's invasion of Ukraine..

Why it matters: Chinas wide use of its propaganda and censorship muscle helps insulate Beijing from a domestic backlash against its support for Putin and leaves its citizens with an airbrushed, false version of events, similar to whats seen in Putins state-controlled Russia.

What's happening: Chinese media outlets were told to avoid posting "anything unfavorable to Russia or pro-Western" on their social media accounts, and to only use hashtags started by Chinese state media outlets, according to a leaked censorship directive.

But the Chinese government made a miscalculation in the early days of Russia's invasion, according to a new analysis published by Doublethink Lab, a Taiwan-based organization that researches online disinformation suggesting that Beijing underestimated Europe's resolve.

"They tried to depict the U.S., the West and NATO as not trustworthy, and people in Taiwan as delusional to think the U.S. will protect Taiwan at all," Doublethink Lab CEO Min Hsuan Wu told Axios.

Yes, but: Censorship means that opposing viewpoints are muted, making it seem like anti-west, pro-Russia sentiment is more ubiquitous among Chinese people than may actually be the case.

Go deeper: Governments around the globe hold upper hand online

Read more:
China is censoring the invasion of Ukraine - Axios

Almost two weeks into Russias invasion of Ukraine, Russian authorities have already banned over 200 websites, 300 foreign companies have pulled out of the country and fears are growing that the government may move towards disconnecting Russia from the global internet.

The Kremlin has cracked down on independent media by bringing in a new law making dissemination of "false information" punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Simply referring to the Russian invasion as a "war" instead of a "special military operation" is enough to fall afoul of these new rules.

To circumvent the censorship bearing down on the country, Russians are increasingly turning to VPNs - or virtual private networks - to keep channels open to information from outside Russia.

VPNs are a kind of software that creates an encrypted tunnel between the user and a remote server, changing the users unique IP address in the process and concealing where in the world their IP address is originating from.

"If a website is trying to block Russian traffic, you no longer appear to be Russian. It looks like you're coming from London or from Paris or anywhere in the world," Simon Migliano, head of research at Top10VPN, told Euronews Next.

VPN apps rose to the top of the App Store and Google Play in Russia last week as the government blocked social media sites.

According to data from Top10VPN, search traffic originating from Russia related to VPNs rose 633 per cent week-on-week.

At the time of writing, it is still possible to access banned social networking sites via VPNs in Russia but Migliano cautions that even while using VPNs, there are ways that states can still try and block websites.

"The Russian government will be desperately trying to block VPNs. It is possible to identify VPN traffic at the network level and block it. And what that means is that your VPN will stop working," said Migliano.

What happens in this instance, Migliano says, is that the biggest, paid VPN providers with lots of budget end up constantly hiding the traffic and performing what is known as "obfuscation".

"This is what works in China. This is why there are VPNs that still work in China, despite China being the most advanced nation on Earth when it comes to censorship," he explained.

"Russia is a long way behind China. But as you know, they are ever more closely allied with China, and I'm sure they'll be sharing information."

According to Migliano, while a VPN itself is completely secure, it is possible for a VPN provider to be compromised or for a government to pose as a VPN provider.

They can then access all of your traffic, he added.

Miglianos advises people to be judicious when selecting a VPN and recommends paying for one where possible because you do get what you pay for.

Some of the VPNs Migliano recommends for Russians to download are Proton VPN, Astrill and PrivateVPN.

[Note: Proton, Astrill and PrivateVPN are not main partners of Top10VPN but the website receives customer referral fees if users sign up to a paid subscription plan and have clicked through from their site]

Beyond that there are a few trustworthy free VPNs, but research is recommended.

Make sure you choose a provider that is well known, that has plenty of information about them already online and isn't a no-name provider, [one] that might be top of the VPN download chart at any given time, he said.

See more here:
Russians turn to VPNs to stay connected as online censorship tightens over Ukraine war - Euronews

In India, there is constant struggle between freedom of expression and reasonable restrictions especially in the field of entertainment.

The battle between censorship and artistic freedom had started from early 1970s wherein the Apex Court first examined the question relating to pre-censorship of cinematograph films in relation to the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution[1]. The artistic freedom of a filmmaker is not absolute in India and is subject to restrictions. The courts have interpreted application of Article 19(2) of the Constitution vis-a-vis censorship to include restraints on such content which is against the sovereignty, integrity and security of India or is defamatory, in contempt of Court or leads to incitement of any offence. Any expression in a movie, which hits any of the aforementioned grounds, is censored by the Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

It is imperative to strike a balance between artistic freedom and censorship. Too much freedom and no censorship would result in display of content which is inappropriate for children or may have harmful impact on the society as a whole. On the other hand, too many restrictions in form of censorship may lead to restriction on freedom of expression and narrow the boundaries of creativity.

With the advent of technology and low footfall in theatres in the pandemic world, filmmakers have adopted the OTT Platforms as their favourite medium for release of motion pictures and web-series. This shift can be said to have a major relief for the filmmakers as it is not mandatory for procuring CBFC certification for making movies available on OTT Platforms. With the rising popularity of OTT Platforms and social media which can be said to have been unregulated by law for a certain timeframe, led to the enactment of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (Guidelines). Thus, it is not the case any longer that the content on OTT Platforms is unregulated as such content has to mandatorily comply with the Guidelines.

Though the Guidelines provide for a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism and a person aggrieved by any content available on the OTT Platform has the option to furnish his/her grievance to the self-regulatory mechanism (i.e. Level I of the three-tier grievance redressal mechanism), it appears that the Courts are still being preferred by individual to seek redressal of his/her grievances including seeking directions to ban content on the grounds for excessive obscenity, filthy language, public morality, hurting religious sentiments, etc.

One of the recent instances in relation to the content available on OTT Platform came up before the Honble Kerala High Court whereby it was contented that the language used in the Malyalam film titled Churuli (Film), is filthy and thus, opposed to public order, decency and morality[2]. It is interesting to note that the CBFC was made a party to these proceedings as the Film available on the OTT Platform was not the version that was approved or certified by the CBFC.

This matter drew light on the predominant issue of:

The Honble Kerela High Court has while dealing with the core issue before it, opined that the Court cannot dictate the film maker to use any particular type of slang by the characters in the Film and that the Court can only verify if the Film violates any existing law to ensure public order, decency or morality, bearing in mind the artistic freedom of a film maker. Interestingly, the Court had directed the State Police Chief to constitute a team to watch the Film, for verifying and submitting a report, if there are any statutory violations or any criminal offences made out in the Film. The report submitted by the police team primarily stated that the Film contains foul language which was essential for the Film to be believable to the audience; and no statutory offence or criminal offence has been committed by use of foul language and depiction of obscenity, as these are offences only if committed in a public place.

The Honble Kerala High Court has whilst dismissing the petition:

In relation to the aspect of CBFC certification for content made available on OTT Platforms the CBFC has admitted, and the Honble Court has concurred that CBFC has no role with regards to the films displayed on OTT Platforms. The content on internet cannot be governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952 which relates to theatrical content and from which CBFC draws its powers. Hence, it can be inferred that currently CBFC certification is not mandatory for any content displayed on OTT Platforms unless the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is amended to include the same.

Important Aspects in Relation to OTT Content Censorship:

The Guidelines do not contain any provisions for censorship of the content and OTT Platforms are only required to comply with self-classification of the content with appropriate age classification and content descriptor for each content displayed on the OTT Platforms.

The films/content first released on OTT and subsequently broadcasted on television will need to be in compliance with the Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1995 (CTNA) and the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 (CTNR).

It is however possible, that producers of films by way of abundant caution, may take a narrow interpretation and procure CBFC certificate for the OTT films. However, it is not mandatory to procure CBFC certification for any film/content directly or first released on OTT Platforms

Even though there is no censorship, if any content on the OTT Platforms contravenes Article 19(2) of Constitution, the Government under Section 69A of Information Technology Act and the IT (Blocking Rules), 2009 i.e., Power to issue directions for blocking public access of any information through any computer resource, has the power to remove such content which is objectionable.

Conclusion:

The judgement passed by the Honble Kerala High Court is a landmark judgment as it recognizes and values artistic freedom of the filmmaker in the world where cuss words are heard all around the city, used loosely by people in general and it is not that people learn such abuses only through the film. Nobody can dictate a filmmaker to use only decent language in his film and it is his artistic discretion to choose the language within the reasonable restrictions as provided in Article 19(2). This judgement re-establishes the principle that use of foul language and/or presence of obscenity will not mandatorily lead to restriction on public exhibition of the film as long as the same is used in the context of the film and each film has to be viewed in its entirety to understand this context.

It can be said, this case recognizes that censorship requirements are less for OTT Platforms possibly due to the very nature of this medium itself whereby content can be viewed only by the subscribers. It being understood that the content on OTT Platform is a pull mechanism as against the push mechanism whereby subscribers are well aware of the nature of content they opt to view who make an informed decision basis the classification and description of the content provided on the OTT Platform(s), thereby reducing the need of censorship.

Go here to see the original:
Artistic Freedom versus Censorship in the OTT Age - Lexology