Mediaboss Marketing

Not fit for family viewing! Sounds like the quotes Ive been reading from Gov. Ron DeSantis and his Republican colleagues in the Legislature. Theyve been warning us of dangers to children if the little ones catch glimpses of drag queens dancing and waving at them from floats in Florida pride parades.

But the above quote isnt recent. It dates way back to 1954. Ed Sullivan was reacting to requests that he book 21-year-old Elvis Presley on his variety show. Just as with our governor today, Sullivan was deeply concerned about the unhealthy effects some of Elvis dance moves might have on the sexual development of Americas children.

Eventually Sullivan did book Elvis. To limit possible damage to children viewing at home, CBS directed its cameras to censor any shots of The Kings gyrating hips. But, as with the recent Drag Queen Christmas Show at Orlandos Plaza Live, children were not banned from the studio audience. So they could see it all. Fortunately, no long-term damage was reported.

Clive Thomas Orlando

Legislators who authored the bill to cap contributions by city-owned utilities to city budgets in the interest of fairness to customers who live outside municipal boundaries could have three possible motives:

Political Pulse

Weekly

Get latest updates political news from Central Florida and across the state.

First could be an impulse to be fair to customers outside the city, who do not benefit directly from city amenities or services. However, many from outlying areas visit or work in the city that owns the utility serving them, and enjoy them while there. Capping contributions could raise taxes on residents to cover shortfalls while having neither benefit nor penalty for non-residents. Fairness sounds good, but much recent legislation lacks fairness entirely.

Second, the motivation could be both economic and political. Developers may choose a city-owned utility for new neighborhoods because rates are reasonable, service dependable, and the city willing to connect. For-profit companies would be happy to service these customers instead. With the cap in place, the city might not be as willing a partner. Did for-profit actors contact legislative friends for help?

Third would be a baldly political motive. Since cities often vote Democratic, punishing them by punching holes in their budgets, forcing higher taxes on their blue-aligned residents, would fit the regrettable current of Florida politics.

City-owned utilities generally have good track records and satisfied customers both inside and outside city limits. Unlike for-profit companies, they must answer directly to local officials rather than stockholders in other states. Follow the rule of If it aint broke, dont fix it and bury this bill.

Robert S. Carr Orlando

A commentary that appeared in Sundays Orlando Sentinel (LGBTQ+ students face terrifying reality as school boards get partisan) is alarming and very accurate. The student who wrote it, Will Larkins, is telling the truth when it comes to this sinister group of charlatans. The Christian right has seemingly been empowered by the Republican Party to strike down and erase what they dont like in public schools. None of what they do has anything to do with protecting children but has everything to do with pushing their narrative and religious beliefs on others. Does this sound familiar? Dont let this happen to your kids. Stop the madness, stand up and push back. Your public schools need your help now more than ever.

PJ Whelan Orlando

Continued here:
Drag shows only the latest unnecessary censorship | Letters - Orlando Sentinel

The Union Government, on April 6, 2023, promulgated certainamendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, a piece of delegated legislation under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Through these amendments, inter alia, social media intermediaries or SMI (such as Twitter, Facebook, etc.) are now obligated under Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules to inform their users, through internal rules, regulations and other policies, to not host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information which is identified as fake or false or misleading by [a] fact check unit of the Central Government in respect of any business of the Union government.

In a situation where SMIs fail to carry out this obligation, they will be exposed to potentially losing their immunity from any civil or criminal liability as intermediaries for any third-party content hosted on their platforms. This situation arises due to the legislative framework manifested in the IT Rules. Section 79 of the Act reads that intermediaries are immune from hosting third-party data, information, or communication, provided that they observe due diligence while discharging [their] duties under the Act which are provided under the IT Rules.

If an intermediary fails to do so, then the immunity from any liability under Section 79 will not extend to such a person. This is also reiterated under Rule 7 of the IT Rules. This development raises some important questions of constitutional law, which shall be discussed in this essay.

By way of the amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v), the Union government now possesses the authority to necessitate SMIs carry out the due diligence and moderate information and communications of third-parties on their platforms (unless they wish to lose their immunity under Section 79) in accordance with the version of events circulated by a fact check unit of the Union government.

Advertisement

Advertisement

However, it is not clear under the IT Rules how this would be achieved. One possible way of doing so, inevitably, would be to censor the content which is contrary to the fact-checked version of the government. This is so because Rule 3(1)(b)(v) requires a SMI to cause the user to not host certain kinds of information. To cause means to produce a positive effect towards the achievement of a desired result (per Blacks Law Dictionary (Bryan Garner Ed., 2009), at 250).

Another way to do so would be to flag content as deceptive or incorrect for the benefit of other users accessing such content (the way, for example, Twitters manipulative media policy ostensibly operates). Therefore, the visible objective of amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) is to mandate SMIs to moderate content by not allowing users or, at least, disincentivising them to communicate information which is contrary to the Governments version of events in respect of its business.

In this regard, the United States Fourth Circuit Courts decision inZeranv. America Online, Inc.(1997) is important in the context ofSection 230 of the Communication Decency Act (which Section 79 of the Act is based on). In this case, the appellant filed a lawsuit of defamation against America Online, Inc.s (AOL) website for third-party content circulated on its website.

While dismissing the appeal, the court observed that the purpose of Section 230 (which granted AOL immunity for third-party content) was to catalyse the dissemination of diverse speech on the internet, and that the imposition of any liability on the intermediary would be simply another form of intrusive government regulation of speech.

It further noted that an intermediary, if at the risk of incurring any kind of liability or losing its legal immunity, is de facto bound to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted. In addition, it is but natural for the Government to only impose its version of the truth which is otherwise unsuitable for the ruling political dispensation.

Therefore, while immunity under Section 79, as opposed to Section 230 of the CDA, is explicitly subject to due diligence conditions, the implications of introducing a fact check mechanism under Rule 3(1)(b)(v) are clearly stated in Zeran: the problem becomes one of the State exercising a Hecklers veto, andcausing a chilling effecton freedom of speech, at its convenience.

Understood this way, the amendment prima facie espouses a chilling effect on speech being disseminated on SMI platforms.

The validity of the amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) would, therefore, have to be judged on the anvil of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. While Article 19(1)(a) guarantees simply the right to freedom of speech and expression, decisions of various courts have expanded its purview beyond the provisions language.

Decisions of the high courts of Delhi (Srishti School, 2011) and Bombay (Anand Patwardhan, 1996) have rejected the idea of the state possessing monopoly over the true portrayal of an event. Building on the ideas of J.S. Mill (here), Justice Muralidhar presciently noted inSrishtithat the right of the viewer to think autonomously while reacting [], and to make informed choices,without being controlled by the State, alsoconstitutes an integral partof the freedom of speech and expression.

As Gautam Bhatia has demonstrated elsewhere, these decisions showcase a distaste towards legal paternalism and the states ability to deem its version of the truth as the universal truth.

However,SrishtiandPatwardhanconcerned a directlis between the state and its citizens, and did not involve a private intermediary moderating content at the directions of the state. It is yet only speculative how SMIs will eventually promote the governments version of events over others circulating online.

Moreover, the chilling effect doctrines application too seems a difficult at this point. In Anuradha Basinv. Union of India(2020), one of the petitioners newspaper could not be circulated owing to internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir. Accordingly, they sought for the Supreme Court to declare such shutdowns as unconstitutional, in violation of Article 19(1)(a).

While the court accepted the chilling effect test as applicable under Article 19(1)(a), the question of what standard must be applied to test such regulations on speech was left open for discussion in a future case. Further, the court had also held that constitutionally testing the chilling effect of a regulation cannot be purely speculative, unless evidence is brought before the court to enable it to give a clear finding.

Therefore, for now, in the absence of evidence to showcase the amendments actual impact on free speech, any conclusion as to its constitutional validity is practically difficult to arrive at, even though it may seem prima facie unconstitutional.

The issues posed by the amendment are a unique legal development. Indian courts have not yet substantively dealt with legal cases where online speech of private citizens is sought to be controlled by the government by obligating intermediaries to carry out the due diligence of moderating content online in accordance with the governments version of the truth.

As opposed to much more explicit guarantees of free speech against the moderation by non-state actors (such asArticle 13(3) of theAmerican Convention on Human Rights), Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution does not provide any immediate answers of how valid such (indirect) censorships or chilling effect on speech may be.

If and when the amendment is challenged eventually in courts, the relationship between social media platforms, their users, and the states power to insinuate its authority over the citizens right to freedom of speech and the prevailing version of truth will be further shaped.

Link:
The Amendments to the IT Rules Approach Censorship But Are More Complicated Than Apparent - The Wire

When we previously wrote about the talk of banning TikTok which would be blatantly unconstitutional on its own we did not anticipate the scope of the absolutely awful legislation that would soon pick up steam in Congress.

The RESTRICT Act the bill purportedly intended to facilitate a TikTok ban does not stop at TikTok. It gives the executive branch broad discretion, with little to no judicial review, to ban or restrict communications technologies from any country on an open-ended list of foreign adversar[ies]. Its incredible that a single elected official would think the bill could pass Constitutional muster but it appears to have significant bipartisan support.

Journalists routinely use TikTok and other foreign-owned technologies to gather and report news and communicate with sources. Sources from foreign adversaries often possess highly newsworthy information for foreign policy journalists. The ways the government could abuse the RESTRICT Act to stifle investigative reporting and public discourse during times of conflict are truly horrifying to contemplate.

That doesnt mean that somehow exempting journalists would fix the bill far from it. Free speech is not just for journalists. But the bills impact on press freedoms serves to compound its trampling on the First Amendment as a whole.

Broad and unchecked censorship authority

It is well-established that the government is required to show a grave, imminent danger to national security before imposing a prior restraint on speech. But the bill contains no such requirement. It allows the government to issue explanations for its actions but only if it deems doing so practicable and in the interests of national security.

All it requires is a unilateral determination, by non-elected officials, that the technology poses an undue or unacceptable risk. What does that mean? Whatever the government wants. The kinds of risks permitting invocation of the RESTRICT Act include, among other things, steer[ing] policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States. Then the bill tacks on a catch-all for other risks to national security or the safety of United States persons.

The language is broad enough to encompass platforms hosting content that might persuade someone to oppose U.S. policy or even information that just embarrasses officials. The First Amendment entitles Americans to access even false foreign propaganda if they so choose. But the RESTRICT Act would empower the government to ban, restrict and surveil platforms that host true information they would prefer Americans not know about.

No one in their right mind would ever suggest a similar legislative scheme for banning foreign newspapers, broadcasters or mail. But, for whatever reason, politicians seem unable or unwilling to apply analog precedents to digital times.

Had the RESTRICT Act (and the internet) existed during the Nixon administration, does anyone doubt it would have tried to ban foreign platforms hosting opposition to the Vietnam War, just as it sought to enjoin the Pentagon Papers? Could the government invoke the RESTRICT Act to ban Wikileaks? You might assume the government would never declare Iceland (where Wikileaks is based) an adversary. But the bill also allows restrictions on companies that adversaries direct or in which they have an interest. Is it that much of a stretch that the government might claim Wikileaks is directed by Russia?

Draconian penalties for common newsgathering methods

And what if a journalist, or anyone else, attempts to access a restricted platform through commonplace technologies like a VPN? Under the RESTRICT Act, they could spend 20 years in prison or pay up to a million dollars in fines. Thats especially disturbing to Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), where we often assist foreign journalists concerned about VPN restrictions by repressive regimes.

As FPF Principal Researcher Dr. Martin Shelton put it:

And the bill not only permits imprisonment of VPN users themselves but of people who aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, procure, permit, or approve their conduct (or other prohibited conduct). Publishers and editors beware.

Government: Just trust us

Sure, the bills sponsors, including Sen. Mark Warner, have disclaimed any intention to fine or imprison VPN users. But courts consider the words on the page over legislators intentions. The drafters of the Espionage Act could not have anticipated, let alone intended, that it would be used to charge someone like Julian Assange. Yet here we are.

Our current president insists on prosecuting Assange for routine newsgathering. Our last one wants journalists imprisoned and assaulted. The one before set records for whistleblower prosecutions. And a likely 2024 candidate wants to bankrupt his critics with litigation.

But those behind the RESTRICT Act say we should trust future administrations to use broad powers to silence dissent responsibly. Of course we shouldnt. Especially when even the supposed responsible use of the bill banning a platform used by half of the U.S. based on speculation is already an unprecedented act of mass censorship.

There is far more wrong with the bill than the censorship powers it creates. Its allowance of secret evidence in legal proceedings raises alarming due process concerns. The surveillance it would enable, including by allowing the government to broadly demand that any company it is investigating hand over information, has led some to call it the Patriot Act for the digital age. Its ironic that concerns about Chinese access to American user data ultimately prompted a bill that would grant our own executive branch surveillance authority reminiscent of Chinas.

Yet some still insist the bill can be rescued through revision. It cant. Nothing good can come of it. We say throw the whole thing out and pass serious digital privacy legislation instead.

Read the original post:
UnAmerican RESTRICT Act would enable mass censorship - Freedom of the Press Foundation

Pearls of wisdom and displays of affection were shared widely on Tuesday afternoon when honorees Judy Blume, Natasha Lyonne, Rosie Perez, Kelly Ripa and Michaela Ja Rodriguez took the stage at Varietys Power of Women New York luncheon, presented by Lifetime, at midtown restaurant The Grill.

While all five women touched on the key lessons theyve learned in life and the importance of those who teach them during the luncheon, hosted by Saturday Night Lives Ego Nwodim, it was iconic YA author Blume who made much of her speech a tribute to public educators and librarians who are trying to protect students rights amid increased government scrutiny and censorship in public education.

Ego Nwodim speaks onstage during Varietys Power of Women presented by Lifetime at The Grill in New York City. (Photo by Dimitrios Kambouris/Variety via Getty Images)Variety via Getty Images

Teachers are under fire, librarians are threatened, said Blume, who was supporting the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) and spoke after an intro from Seth Meyers, host of NBCs Late Night.

Meyers noted that Blumes books have been called dangerous, offensive and corrupt, to the dismay of the crowd. Blume told the audience that the current environment reminds her of the mood in the early 1980s, after Ronald Reagan was elected president.

The desire to censor has a lot to do with fear, Blume said. The threats to art and artists are significant but the danger is also spreading to public servants, she observed.

They are criminalizing teachers and librarians. Its not just that theyre threatening their jobs, theyre threatening them, Blume said. They could go to jail, all because they stand up for the rights of the students they teach. All because they refuse to give in to fear. Ive known librarians who have saved lives by handing the right book to the right child at the right time. And for that one kid, finding themselves in a book can be a lifesaver.

Blume, who also made the point that she was excited to be honored in a group that included two other New Jersey natives (Rodriguez and Ripa), drew the crowds attention to the work of the NCAC. She credited the organization with helping her channel frustration over efforts to ban her works from public school libraries because of her trademark candor about adolescence.

This years Power of Women New York gathering was held on the same day that former President Donald Trump was indicted on charges of falsifying business records a few miles away in a Manhattan courthouse. The timing was the butt of a few jokes from the stage. Im so happy to be here celebrating all of these powerful women, in New York, with Variety. A ladies power luncheon and on the same Tuesday Trump gets indicted, Lyonne said to cheers and laughter in the crowd. This, this right here, its the spice of life.

Honoree Michaela Ja Rodriguez and Sandra Bernhard attend Varietys Power of Women presented by Lifetime. (Photo by Jamie McCarthy/Variety via Getty Images)Variety via Getty Images

Earlier Rodriguez, who selected the Rainforest Alliance as her cause and was introduced by her friend Sandra Bernhard, spoke about attacks on a marginalized group very near to her heart: the transgender community.

We have those who dare to claim that human rights are not universal to those who live in our country, said the Pose alum, who made history as the first transgender performer to win a Golden Globe award and the first to be nominated for an Emmy in a lead category.

One of the greatest privileges that we can grant ourselves as human beings is the blessing to know who we are innately. This isnt something that comes easy. Being a woman comes with a lot. To some, this gift may never come, Rodriguez said before thanking the women in her life who have lifted her up, her mother and her aunts, who were in attendance. You continually change my life and yall were the only people to give me my strengths of womanhood. No one else can take that away from me.

Just as Blume sounded the alarm on the rising tide of censorship, Rodriguez warned the crowd in no uncertain terms about the threat to LGBTQ communities from anti-gay and anti-trans legislative efforts in Florida and other states. She cited a study that found that some 18% of trans youth have considered suicide. They want to extinguish our light, Rodriguez said. Our lives are at stake.

Noting that many of those who advocate for anti-trans restrictions have never met a trans person, she added, I promise you, I do not bite.

Rosie Perez, supporting Heart 9/11, kicked off the afternoon remarks with a heartfelt retelling of her career hurdles as a Latino actress. She also singled out Spike Lee, who cast her in 1989s Do the Right Thing, as one of the people who helped her push forward in an industry that often overlooks women of color.

Please do not misconstrue my intentions, Perez said at the conclusion of her remarks. All the trials, tribulations, and successes by women who risked their lives and livelihood have changed the world and I wholeheartedly applaud the efforts of the womens movement to move with the timesI just ask folks to consider that we all can do better. The onus to do better is not solely on women. Every single human being on this planet can participate.

Perez finished by citing a bit of meaningful advice that she got from director George C. Wolfe as she waited in the wings to go on stage in a play. Breathe. Then push through your fears and step into your greatness, she recalled.

Ripa, who was introduced by longtime friend Andy Cohen, devoted much of her own speech to gushing about her fellow honorees, thanking Blume for her inspiring written work, and praising Lyonne, Perez, Rodriguez for their recent roles in Poker Face, Your Honor and Loot, respectively. The Live host picked women and children housing foundation Win as her cause.

Support is what all women in every industry could always use more of and will seldom ask for,Ripa said. Offer support to someone who needs it. Encourage others to do the same. Sometimes just being asked is enough.

Ripa got a laugh at the outset by declaring that despite her day job I am not a morning person.

Lyonne, who happened to be celebrating her birthday Tuesday and received on-stage well wishes from her fellow honorees, was feted by her longtime friend, SNL alum Aidy Bryant. Lyonne threw her support behind the Lower Eastside Girls Club. It takes a girls club to change the world, she quipped. Lyonne also got a kick out of noting the connections among with the other honorees, including Rodriguez, who starred with Lyonnes producing partner Maya Rudolph in Loot.

Natasha Lyonne speaks onstage during Varietys Power of Women presented by Lifetime. (Photo by Dimitrios Kambouris/Variety via Getty Images)Variety via Getty Images

Its pretty eccentric to see how much we grow up together in this business and how meaningful it is to stick together along that ride, Lyonne said. The Poker Face star noted through examples like making a production company with Rudolph and co-creating Netflixs Russian Doll alongside friend Amy Poehler so theyd have some place to get existential, I have spent a lot of my adulthood creating places for myself to go. Places to learn, to explore and to connect with other women.

Additionally during the ceremony, TLCs Rozonda Chilli Thomas accepted a Legacy Award on behalf of herself and group members Tionne T-Boz Watkins and the late Lisa Left Eye Lopes, whose story will be featured in Lifetimes upcoming documentary TLC Forever.

Chilli speaks onstage during Varietys Power of Women presented by Lifetime. (Photo by Dimitrios Kambouris/Variety via Getty Images)Variety via Getty Images

When you are a woman of color, its real hard its a huge struggle, Thomas said. Ill always remember when No Scrubs came out and it was actually our first number oneI always wanted to be on the cover of Rolling Stone magazinewe didnt get the cover. I wont say who [got the cover], its OK because he deserved it too but we also did. The message was the last time we had someone Black on the cover, it didnt really sell well.

Before and after the gathering, honorees and attendees alike were thrilled at the chance to meet the legendary author whose work cuts across racial, ethnic and class lines. Every woman and plenty of men born after 1970, it seems, grew up reading Blume books such as Are You There God? Its Me, Margaret and Tales of a Fourth-Grade Nothing.

I wanted to meet Judy Blume so desperately, Ripa told Variety on the white carpet that led into the event. Her books really spoke to an entire generation of young people, who grew up with parents who didnt tell us a whole lot, Ripa explained. Judy Blume gave us that open dialogue. Shes everything.

Minutes later, Ripas dream came true as she gathered for a group photo with fellow honoree Lyonne and presenter Cohen. While the photographers shouted for the trio to look this way and that, they were joined by a surprise guest Blume. Wow! What an honor, Cohen gasped.

DJ Daisy ODell led music supervision for Varietys Power of Women New York event, with Eventique as the event production company.

(Cynthia Littleton contributed to this report.)

See the original post:
Censorship, Human Rights and Compassion Take Center Stage at Varietys Power of Women New York: Our Lives Are at Stake - Variety

Faced with ever-widening censorship at home, Hong Kong filmmakers are increasingly taking their creativity to an international audience, showing an uncut version of their city beyond the reach of a security law criminalizing criticism of the authorities.

"Toeing red lines has never been easy, and less so as they become increasingly vague, bordering on nonexistence," according to the organizers of Hong Kong Film Festival U.K., which screened films by a number of directors who have run afoul of the authorities amid a citywide crackdown on dissent in the wake of the 2019 protest movement.

The festival program included a series of five short films "reimagining the city in a dark and dangerous light ... cast in the shadows of the anti-extradition protests and of the pandemic," as well as work by director Kiwi Chow, one of the few directors who still calls Hong Kong home, despite having his film "Revolution of Our Times" banned from public screenings.

Film censorship had already been seen in the city even before the 2019 protest movement erupted in response to its vanishing freedoms, with movie theaters in Hong Kong suddenly dropping the dystopian short-film compilation "10 Years" as early as 2016.

Since the national security law took effect on July 1, 2020, many more creative offerings have fallen victim to political censorship, including a rap track by Hong Kong artist JB cursing the city's police force for its treatment of protesters in 2019, and Chow's film about the protest movement, which was screened instead at Cannes in 2021.

Obstacles and barriers

Chow told festival-goers in London on March 31 that he has faced barriers to funding, as well as to hiring actors and booking locations in Hong Kong since he made Revolution of Our Times, with actors' agencies refusing to do business with him and major film studios closing their doors to his work.

Location bookings were also affected, with venue owners wanting assurances that the finished film "won't violate the national security law," he said, adding that actors are increasingly being asked to sign promises that they won't take work that violates the law, which criminalizes peaceful political opposition and public dissent.

"One actor tried to protest against this, because they wanted to take part in my film, but his previous co-producer knew he was considering my project and threatened him, saying he would cut all of his scenes from a movie they had shot together," Chow told the forum, titled "Hong Kong's Deteriorating Artistic Freedom."

"So he wound up not being in my movie," he said.

Asked if there is any creative freedom left in Hong Kong, Chow replies: "It's already lost, of course," he said. "Will it get worse? It's hard for me to predict, but the loss has definitely already happened."

"It used to be so free, maybe more so than a lot of Western countries, Chow said, but now it has gone back 20 years.

He appears undeterred, however, and his international success continues despite the restrictions back home.

His segment, "Self-Immolation," from "10 Years" (2015) won the Best Film award at the Hong Kong Film Awards, while "Revolution of Our Times" was invited to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival and won the Best Documentary award at the 58th Golden Horse Awards in Taiwan.

Chilling effect on creativity

Meanwhile, film music arranger Adrian Chow said musicians and singers have also been targeted for political censorship, with event organizers required to answer a slew of questions and guarantee that no anti-government content would be performed before being granted a temporary entertainment license by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department.

Officials wanted to know how organizers would respond if audience members started chanting banned slogans or engaging in "other behavior detrimental to national security," and whether they would cooperate with police if they did, he told the forum.

Such requirements have a chilling effect on creative freedom, Adrian Chow said.

"The government quite openly seeks to influence creative performances and activities, and will make trouble for event organizers, so they will remember not to book politically sensitive performers in future," he said.

"They want to sow fear, so people believe that the government really will take action, and even involve the national security police," Adrian Chow said. "In this way, creative freedom is affected by self-censorship."

Fellow director Lam Sun, who continues to make films about Hong Kong from the U.K., agreed, saying the fear has also recently spread to sports associations, who are being targeted after organizers played out the protest anthem Glory to Hong Kong in error at recent international fixtures, instead of China's national anthem, the March of the Volunteers.

"Hong Kong teachers also have to watch out for potential complaints about their teaching materials," said Lam, whose first solo feature film "The Narrow Road", received the Best Original Film Music at Golden Horse Awards 2022, and the Best Director and Best Actor awards at the 29th Hong Kong Film Critics Society Awards, along with 10 nominations in the 41st Hong Kong Film Awards.

Everyone in Hong Kong has to consider how to face up to this rule of fear, faced with "vaguely defined red lines," he said.

Kiwi Chow called on Hong Kongs creative workers to be tenacious in holding onto their artistic vitality and inner freedom.

"I personally don't care whether the environment I'm in is free or not," he said. "There is still freedom in the struggles that take place in the inner world of a creative person, so I don't focus on the external loss of freedom, but on myself."

"I think Hong Kong filmmakers have very strong vitality, and if they think their movie won't get past the censors, they will take it overseas," he said. "Creativity is about taking risks."

Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.

More:
Hong Kong filmmakers take their movies overseas in bid to evade censorship at home - Radio Free Asia