Mediaboss Marketing

Amazons recent removal of Ryan T. Andersons book When Harry Became Sally is an attack by a major corporation on free speech. This restriction reinforces our duty to allow free speech to thrive in the pursuit of truth in our own social and academic spheres without letting our bias blind us to unintended social censorship.

After Amazon removed Andersons book without warning and then refused to explain its action, Sens. Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, Mike Braun and Mike Lee demanded that Amazons CEO Jeff Bezos explain this political censorship. Amazon responded on March 11, stating that Amazon has chosen not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness. Ryan Anderson claims that his book does no such thing.

The debate rages on.

There stand the facts of controversy surrounding When Harry Became Sally. My concern lies with those of the Republican senators: what does the removal of this book mean for free speech?

Last interterm at the University of Dallas, I had the opportunity to re-read and study When Harry Became Sally under Andersons guidance in his Natural Law and Public Affairs class. Both times I read it, I found the book to be what Anderson claims it to be: a well-articulated, compassionate and well-researched critique of the continuing discussion over transgenderism.

Regardless of where you fall on the transgenderism discussion, Andersons book is a valuable source of exposure to one side of the conversation.

Amazons decision to pull this book from its cyber-shelves silences a valid and widely held opinion on an extremely important social issue and could prove to be devastating to American society.

Silencing people because they do not agree with us is a tragic error that damages our ability to discover what is actually true. If we allow this sort of behavior to continue unchecked from corporate giants like Amazon, we are beginning to concede our right to free speech.

I would be equally outraged if Amazon had removed a pro-transgenderism book of the same caliber as Andersons from its inventory. Regardless of your opinion or identity, we all share the same humanity, and we should be able to have a full and inclusive discussion encompassing both sides of the argument.

Since most of us do not have the information or time to research these questions to their full extent, we rely on scholars to present us with the facts and details so that we may draw conclusions based on our understanding of ourselves and the truth. Always, this discernment requires treating both sides of an issue with equal care.

Not only must we maintain this openness in a public and corporate sphere, we must also do so in our immediate culture and society. How can we expect respect and openness in a large sphere if we cannot maintain it on a small and personal one?

By nature of UDs religious and political orientation, we tend to attract Catholic, conservative students. With this demographic, the prevailing opinion on campus tends to be conservative. I challenge UD to open the door wider.

UD prides itself on being an institution that creates independent thinkers. We are lucky to have this haven of intellectual freedom where non-woke opinions can be engaged. But if we claim to be independent thinkers, we must live it out.

Let us encourage conversation from the students who do not hold the popular beliefs on campus. Let us welcome dissenting opinions. Let us engage with the other side of the conversation.

This openness to challenge and dialogue does not mean that UDs catholic identity will be compromised. UD can maintain its mission of being a Catholic university while simultaneously living up to its claim of producing independent thinkers.

The university does not have to endorse ideologies or opinions that are inconsistent with its mission or catholic doctrine. It does not need to codify these dissenting opinions in its institutional policies or procedures. UD can and should continue to stand up for what it believes is the truth.

I am not advocating for a compromise of UDs explicitly expressed values and beliefs (which I happen to share). I am simply pointing out that UD has a duty to its students, faculty and larger community to be a platform where the truth can be challenged and wrestled with.

The UD community should actively support conversations on campus that deal with both sides of any given issue. We students should be willing to listen to those who disagree with us in a respectful and attentive manner. If all we ever encounter on campus simply reaffirms existing beliefs, how can we call ourselves independent thinkers?

Willingness to discuss both sides of an issue reinforces the validity of our personally held opinions. Lack of exposure or simple refusal to have these conversations signifies that we are either afraid of being proven wrong or content to live in ignorance.

I do not get that impression from either UD or its students.

The independent, truth-seeking spirit of UD is becoming more important than ever, and we need to rise to that challenge as a community.

Amazons recent removal of Ryan T. Andersons book When Harry Became Sally is an attack by a major corporation on free speech. This restriction reinforces our duty to allow free speech to thrive in the pursuit of truth in our own social and academic spheres without letting our bias blind us to unintended social censorship.

After Amazon removed Andersons book without warning and then refused to explain its action, Sens. Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, Mike Braun and Mike Lee demanded that Amazons CEO Jeff Bezos explain this political censorship. Amazon responded on March 11, stating that Amazon has chosen not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness. Ryan Anderson claims that his book does no such thing.

The debate rages on.

There stand the facts of controversy surrounding When Harry Became Sally. My concern lies with those of the Republican senators: what does the removal of this book mean for free speech?

Last interterm at the University of Dallas, I had the opportunity to re-read and study When Harry Became Sally under Andersons guidance in his Natural Law and Public Affairs class. Both times I read it, I found the book to be what Anderson claims it to be: a well-articulated, compassionate and well-researched critique of the continuing discussion over transgenderism.

Regardless of where you fall on the transgenderism discussion, Andersons book is a valuable source of exposure to one side of the conversation.

Amazons decision to pull this book from its cyber-shelves silences a valid and widely held opinion on an extremely important social issue and could prove to be devastating to American society.

Silencing people because they do not agree with us is a tragic error that damages our ability to discover what is actually true. If we allow this sort of behavior to continue unchecked from corporate giants like Amazon, we are beginning to concede our right to free speech.

I would be equally outraged if Amazon had removed a pro-transgenderism book of the same caliber as Andersons from its inventory. Regardless of your opinion or identity, we all share the same humanity, and we should be able to have a full and inclusive discussion encompassing both sides of the argument.

Since most of us do not have the information or time to research these questions to their full extent, we rely on scholars to present us with the facts and details so that we may draw conclusions based on our understanding of ourselves and the truth. Always, this discernment requires treating both sides of an issue with equal care.

Not only must we maintain this openness in a public and corporate sphere, we must also do so in our immediate culture and society. How can we expect respect and openness in a large sphere if we cannot maintain it on a small and personal one?

By nature of UDs religious and political orientation, we tend to attract Catholic, conservative students. With this demographic, the prevailing opinion on campus tends to be conservative. I challenge UD to open the door wider.

UD prides itself on being an institution that creates independent thinkers. We are lucky to have this haven of intellectual freedom where non-woke opinions can be engaged. But if we claim to be independent thinkers, we must live it out.

Let us encourage conversation from the students who do not hold the popular beliefs on campus. Let us welcome dissenting opinions. Let us engage with the other side of the conversation.

This openness to challenge and dialogue does not mean that UDs catholic identity will be compromised. UD can maintain its mission of being a Catholic university while simultaneously living up to its claim of producing independent thinkers.

The university does not have to endorse ideologies or opinions that are inconsistent with its mission or catholic doctrine. It does not need to codify these dissenting opinions in its institutional policies or procedures. UD can and should continue to stand up for what it believes is the truth.

I am not advocating for a compromise of UDs explicitly expressed values and beliefs (which I happen to share). I am simply pointing out that UD has a duty to its students, faculty and larger community to be a platform where the truth can be challenged and wrestled with.

The UD community should actively support conversations on campus that deal with both sides of any given issue. We students should be willing to listen to those who disagree with us in a respectful and attentive manner. If all we ever encounter on campus simply reaffirms existing beliefs, how can we call ourselves independent thinkers?

Willingness to discuss both sides of an issue reinforces the validity of our personally held opinions. Lack of exposure or simple refusal to have these conversations signifies that we are either afraid of being proven wrong or content to live in ignorance.

I do not get that impression from either UD or its students.

The independent, truth-seeking spirit of UD is becoming more important than ever, and we need to rise to that challenge as a community.

View original post here:
Amazon's censorship reminds us of UD's need to protect free speech - University of Dallas University News

PAYETTE COUNTY Nine weeks into the 2021 Idaho Legislative Session, the total number of bills that have been introduced this year has now reached 551 between the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The latest topics to be included among House legislation include transportation funding, public art, drivers education and even social media censorship. In the Senate, retail wine establishments, unemployment benefits and abortions have caught their attention.

Following are examples of legislation introduced since March 5. Actions listed are accurate as of Friday afternoon.

House Bill 298 by the Education Committee would require school officials to give certain information to parents, including exemptions, when they are asked about student immunizations.

Exemptions for preschool through grade twelve students exist in Idaho code 39-4802, its statement of purpose states. With the addition of this legislation, any notifications to parents or guardians regarding vaccinations must include a verbal description of their right to exempt their child.

Introduced March 5, the bill has been filed for a third reading.

Idahoans who appreciate public art may be interested in House Bill 311 by the Revenue and Taxation Committee; It would establish provisions for approval of property tax expenditures on such projects.

The purpose of this legislation is to adopt higher standards to fund public art display projects with taxpayer dollars, according to its statement. It will allow the public to be more involved in the decision-making process of taxpayer funded public art displays in their communities.

Introduced Monday, it has been recommended for placement on the General Orders canvas as of Thursday.

The ways and Means Committees revised House Bill 314 would amend Idaho Code 40-720 to increase the sales tax used to bond for the Transportation Expansion and Congestion Mitigation program from 1% to 4.5, with no less than $67 million to be put towards roads and bridges.

Its fiscal note states the move would allow the Idaho Transportation Department to bond at least $670 million for related projects, all the way up to $1.34 billion, without raising taxes already being paid.

The bill was introduced Tuesday and filed for a second reading with a Do-pass recommendation Thursday.

Pay attention, student drivers: House Bill 320 by the State Affairs Committee would replace mandatory drivers education law with these new provisions:

- Learners 14 years of age will need a learners permit and 50 hours of supervised driving experience by a licensed parent or guardian who is at least age 21.

- Learners 16 years of age will be able to apply for an intermediate license, conditioned upon passing the state driving exam and including rules for graduated drivers licenses.

[The rules] have been proven to be safer and more effective than drivers education classes, its statement reads.

No changes would be made to laws for drivers 17 years of age or older.

It was introduced Wednesday for a Thursday printing.

As social media companies crack down on user-generated content, House Bill 323 is giving some pushback against it.

This legislation protects against wrongful censorship by social media websites; providing definitions; providing that the owner or operator of a social media website is subject to a private right of action by certain social media users in this state under certain conditions; providing for damages; authorizing the award of reasonable attorney fees and costs; providing exceptions for the deletion or censorship of certain types of speech, according to its statement.

The bill was posted for a first reading by the State Affairs Committee Thursday.

For parents whose kids are just entering kindergarten, House Bill 331 aims to fund optional full-day Kindergarten so school districts and charter schools will have flexibility in paying for such without having to rely on student tuition and supplemental levies.

The bills impact on the general fund is expected to not exceed $42.1 million in fiscal year 2022 and will be ongoing. It was introduced for a first reading Thursday.

The bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, and Sen. Carl Crabtree, R-Grangeville.

Senate Bill 1171 aims to define a brewery, a retail wine establishment and clarify when a minor can be in a retail wine establishment and to make technical corrections.

Introduced March 5 by Sen. Chuck Winder, R-Boise, the bill has been filed with a do-pass recommendation for its second reading as of Wednesday.

Following a year of COVID-19 related strain on the State Unemployment Insurance Fund, Senate Bill 1182, introduced Monday by Sen. Christy Zito, R-Hammett, would adjust how funds are paid out to ensure the funds solvency. Payouts would still be tied to the overall health of the economy, but benefits would be reduced from 26 weeks to 20.

There is no direct cost to the State General Fund. However, there should be a net benefit to the State Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund, which has been pushed to the limit in the past year, even with a large influx of federal funding, its fiscal note states. By paying out fewer weeks of unemployment benefits, particularly during a good economy, the State Trust Fund will see a net reduction in spending.

The bill had its first reading Thursday. If passed, the bills sunrise provision would not put it into effect until July 1, 2022.

Senate Bill 1183, the Fetal Heartbeat Preborn Child Protection Act, would amend existing law to prohibit an abortion following detection of a fetal heartbeat.

A detectable heartbeat is a key indicator, in law and medical practice alike, of the existence of life, according to its statement. This legislation becomes effective upon the issuance of any decision upholding a restriction or ban on abortion of a preborn child with a heartbeat by any United States appellate court.

The bill was introduced by the State Affairs Committee for a first reading Friday.

Following are examples of bills which have seen significant action since March 5.

House Bill 216 by the Appropriations Committee, which provides an additional $369,764,100 to allow the Division of Medicaid to pay bills due in the current fiscal year under the current law, was signed by Little on Thursday after passing the House 37-31-2 on Feb. 25 and the Senate 29-5-1 on March 4.

Senate Bill 1137 by the Judiciary and Rules Committee, which would give justices of the Idaho Supreme Court a pay raise of 1.6%, for a new annual salary of $160,400 each, passed the Senate 33-0-2 on March 4. On Wednesday, it was filed for a second reading with a do pass recommendation.

See the rest here:
Immunizations, social media censorship on list of bill topics - Ontario Argus Observer

Although the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting brought all OTT platforms and digital news websites under its ambit in November 2020, the content streamed on these platforms remained out of its regulatory purview. This would now change with the news of the ministry working on a specific legislation, which reportedly would follow a three-tier mechanism the first two being self-regulation on the part of the platform and the third rumoured to be an inter-departmental committee established by the ministry for hearing grievances.

Most content generators, expectedly, believe that the backlash that followed the political drama series Tandav where Amazon Prime Video made voluntary cuts and apologised for unintentionally hurting anybodys sentiments had already blurred the line between self-regulation and censorship. In the absence of any regulation governing the OTT industry, this move by the makers of Tandav joins the thwarting-freedom-of-expression-and-creative-liberty list.

While there is a good reason for producers and artists to complain, but just how much does creative brilliance to depict reality, or latent rage amongst the masses, genuinely depend on, for want of a better term, shock value? To show real characters also means showing how they exist in reality. However, at times, this need transforms into something else as filmmakers argue that unless characters abuse or do something shocking, the narrative wont seem organic.

Many years ago, Dr Rahi Masoom Reza was criticised for repeatedly resorting to cuss words in his seminal Aadha Gaon (Half a Village), set around Indias Partition. It is believed that Reza lost out on popular awards because of the abusive text, but the author felt that people swore on the streets, and he drew his characters from real life.

Some of the greatest Hindi films that depicted societal rage in some form or the other such as Satyakam (1969), Namak Haram (1973), Garam Hava (1973), and Zanjeer (1973), rarely showed the protagonist abusing. Its ironic that Salim-Javeds Angry Young Man (AYM) character that set a new benchmark when showing onscreen rage never let go completely. Zanjeer is considered a precursor to not only the AYM seen in 1980s films like Arjun, remade in Tamil as Sathyaa (1988) or Meri Jung (1985), which was also remade in both Telugu and Tamil, but also art-house films like Ardh Satya (1983).

Unlike today, some of the greatest romantic or erotic moments on the silver screen rarely showed skin Nargis and Raj Kapoor in Awaara (1951) or Robert Redford and Meryl Streep in Out of Africa (1985). Forget the past, the success of Scam 1992 on the OTT platform has spun the entire argument surrounding the two significant tenets of the freedom of expression debate on OTT shown that abusive language or showing skin on its head.

Gautam Chintamanigautam@chintamani.orgFilm historian and bestselling author

Read more from the original source:
Of creative liberty and censorship - The New Indian Express

By Calvin Freiburger(Life Site News)

While Democrats dominate the federal government, state governments are taking the lead to combat anti-conservative censorship online, with several attorneys general detailing their efforts so far Wednesday.

The idea of censorship by Big Tech is one thats reached national proportion, Media Research Center (MRC) President Brent Bozell said at the online press conference. In at least 18 states, there is now activity taking place in one degree or another.

Organized by MRC, which hastaken a lead rolein the grassroots campaign against Big Tech, the conference featured Attorneys General Ken Paxton of Texas, Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, and Lynn Fitch of Mississippi, each of whom detailed their concerns about Big Tech and the actions theyve taken in response.

Unless we address this soon, we may lose our ability to address it, warned Paxton, who isleading a lawsuitagainst Google for abusing its monopoly status to eliminate competition and control ad pricing. He also discussed thecivil investigative demandshis office issued to Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon Web Services, and Apple regarding their comment moderation practices particularly as it pertains to those companiesclaims that inadequate comment moderation was their justification for deplatforming alternative social network Parler.

In response to concerns about fines potentially being an insufficient deterrent to censorship, Paxton argued that a $10,000 fine per violation can add up, even to a company like Google.

Bozell then interjected to note that such enforcement actions are valuable not just for whatever direct deterrent effect they have, but also as evidence to bring before Congress to show that these arent objective platforms, but subjective publishers, and as such should lose their federal liability immunity and face antitrust action.

In addition to investigation, Rutledge explained that she has taken proactive action byintroducing legislationthat would hold the likes of Facebook and Twitter in violation of the states Deceptive Trade Practices Act and potentially be liable for damages if they take action against a user that is selectively enforced, in violation of their terms of service, or otherwise not made in good faith.

These social media platforms are the new town squares, and so we must protect freedom of speech and encourage the sharing of ideas, Rutledge said. We want to make sure that Arkansans thoughts and opinions are not edited out.

They choose to silence us just because they can, Fitch said of Big Tech. This affects everyone.

Fitch relayed her own recent experience of seeing ananti-human trafficking videoshe posted flagged by Twitter as potentially sensitive content. The minute-and-a-half-long video was taken down just 37 seconds after publishing, meaning a human could not have watched it in its entirety to fully assess its content.

Fitch, who has also joined legal action against Google, shared that her office is collect[ing] human stories that put a human face on censorship via[emailprotected].

The problem of online censorship and discrimination has steadily grown over the past four years, largely in response to the belief that former President Donald Trumps 2016 victory was due in part to his effective use of Twitter. Over the past year it has sharply accelerated, citing the twin pretexts of medical misinformation over COVID-19 and inflammatory political rhetoric. It is expected to intensify further still over the next four years, based onreportsthat the Biden administration wants to partner with Big Tech to clamp down on chatter that deviates from officially distributed COVID-19 information.

Even so, Bozell expressed optimism for the future. This thing is growing, he said. It is going to be a forest fire against Big Tech in no time at all. I think you are going to see all fifty states emerging, because this is going too far.

See the original post here:
Conservative AGs lead the charge against Big Tech censorship: 'This thing is growing' - The Jewish Voice

More and more countries are blocking undesired websiteson their networks or specifically searching internet traffic for critical and oppositionvoices.

When the internet becomes a state-controlled intranet, users run into problems: They can then no longer access the website of Deutsche Welle or other free media, for example. Social media platforms on which opposition activists had arranged to protest just a short time before are suddenly offline.

Read more:Tor, Psiphon, Signal and Co.: How to move unrecognized on the internet

Whenever a regime censors the internet in a crisis, many users in their helplessness resort to the simplest solutions. These are often virtual private networks (VPNs).

VPNs were developed to allow companies in different locations to connect their internal networks (intranets) via encrypted channels through the internet. But VPNs can also be used to connect a private computer from within a non-free government-controlled network to a server on the free internet, using exactly the same principle.

Read more:OONI: An app for detecting Internet censorship

The website of Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is not the only one that Chinese authorities have blocked.

VPNs are now readily available to everyone. Corresponding programs are available free of charge. VPN apps even top some charts. But users usually don't think about the risks in this situation.

VPN apps are plentiful, and the providers' promises are great. If you install their software on your cell phone, you can go online particularly securely, they say. And they promise that your personal data can no longer be accessed by potentially malevolent forces. What is clear: If the VPN works, you can use streaming services from other countries, bypass government censorship and access blocked websites.

A VPN establishes an encrypted tunnel from your smartphone or computerto a remote VPN server. From this endpoint, you enter the public internet. When you surf the web, it looks to the operators of the websites you're visitingas if your computer was the VPN server.

If, for example, you are using a computer or smartphone in Germany but your VPN server is located in Japan, then the operators of websites you visit will thinkyou're in Japan. This game of hide-and-seek is based on the fact that you do not appear with your own IP address, but with that of the VPN server.

Basically, regimes that control internet traffic are able to detect when someone is using a VPN. However, they cannot detect what someone is doing with it, i.e. what data is flowing back and forth in the VPN tunnel.

Some dictatorships have banned VPN use for this reason. Such regimes then block access to VPN servers abroad or, in rare cases, even persecute the users individually. But governments usually cannot take blanket action against every VPN, because many foreign companies also rely on VPNs for their internal company communications.

So as long as governments do not list the IP addresses of foreign VPN servers in their firewalls, and thus block them, it is possible to use them to circumvent censorship.

Here lies the second weak point: All your data makea detour via the VPN provider. But do you really know the company and what it's about? Essentially, you will have to trust your provider to maintain data privacy.

Because the provider operates the tunnel, the company can also seewhich websites you access, when and how often. The provider may also be able to see the non-encrypted content of your communications, such as simple e-mails.

This data can be stored, and especially the data about surfing behavior can also be sold for marketing purposes. For VPN providers, this can be a successful business model. They take money from the customer for VPN use in a subscription model. At the same time, they sell data about web usage to the advertising industry.

In the worst case, however, they also sell or supply data to government authorities. Even if the provider promises not to sell the data, it is already a risk that the data is stored at all. Not a day goes by without a new data leak being reported, whether due to poor security or criminal hacker attacks.

It's better if no data is collected in the first place. If a VPN provider promises it won't do that, I have to trust him. Buta system that does not collect any data in the first place is even more secure.

This is what Tor can do.Tor builds a triple tunnel directly through the Tor Browser. With Tor, you actually don't talk about tunnels, but onion layers, hence the name: Tor = The Onion Routing.

The good thing is that none of these onion layers know your identity and destination at the same time. Which web pages you access, when and how often, cannot be stored anywhere because this information is not available at all. The whole thing is therefore called "Privacy by Design".

Tor is a non-profit project run and financed by many volunteers. It is free of charge for users. But there is one small drawback: The internet connection can sometimes be jerky. Unfortunately, this much privacy comes at a price in terms of speed and convenience.

If you want to be able to surf the internet quickly with your browser, with a foreign IP address, and do not need the utmost protection of privacy, you should use a VPN provider that you can trust as much as possible. It is, therefore, better not to rely on VPN comparison portals that rate any provider well.

These are often not independent, butcontain sponsored links of the VPN providers. Instead, it is better to ask trustworthy digital security experts or read current VPN reviews from reputable trade journals.

Read more:DW websites accessible via Tor Protocol

Under this link you can access DW news via Tor

When computers communicate with each other on the internet, IP addresses are always exchanged. No IP address no World Wide Web. However, the possibilities of identifying individuals based on their IP addressare often overestimated, because IP addresses are rarely firmly tied to individuals.

The situation is similar with cookies. The user can turn these off and cookies have long since ceased to be of great importance to internet giants such as Facebook and Google. This is also reflected in Google's recent announcement that they no longer want to collect 3rd party cookies in their Chrome browser.

Moreover, internet users can now be identified much more precisely via so-called fingerprinting processes. That meansbrowsers collect relevant information such as the time zone, the keyboard layout, installed plug-ins and properties about the creation of graphic elements.

Users can usually be recognized with an accuracy of more than 99% through those fingerprints. The method is very popular with large internet companies. Linked to a login, for example,at Amazon or Google, a fingerprint is also directly linked to a true identity.

Incidentally, these fingerprints are not only collected directly on the sites of these internet giants, but also on third-party websites.

For example, if you visit the website http://www.xyz.com and there are elements such as images or JavaScript from a third server on it, then you are just as visible to this server as you are to http://www.xyz.com.

Shortly after winning a major prize at the Cannes Film Festival with "A Man of Integrity," the Hamburg-based director returned to Iran in September 2017. Iranian authorities then confiscated Rasoulof's passport and banned him from directing new films. In July 2019, he was sentenced to a year in prison. He nevertheless managed to shoot "There Is No Evil" (photo), which won the Golden Bear in 2020.

Abdolreza Kahani migrated to France in 2015 after three of his films were banned in the Islamic Republic and he was prevented from submitting them to international festivals. "We are born into censorship. Censorship affects not just literature, music and film. Censorship begins inside the home," he told the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI) in a recent interview.

Getting a screening permit for films that premiered at world festivals can take years: Kianoush Ayari's "The Paternal House," from 2012, was only released in Iran last year after the director agreed to make some edits. But a week later, in November 2019, the film was banned, prompting 200 film personalities to sign an open letter condemning state censorship and calling for freedom of expression.

He is one of the few directors to have won the Oscar for best foreign film twice: "A Separation" (2012) and in 2016, "The Salesman" (photo). Farhadi boycotted the second ceremony, which took place shortly after Trump's "Muslim travel ban." Even though Iranian officials were behind Farhadi's Oscar entries, the filmmaker was among the signatories of the 2019 open call condemning state censorship.

Iranian-Kurdish filmmaker Bahman Ghobadi directed the world's first Kurdish-language feature film, the 2000 "A Time for Drunken Horses" (photo). Following his semi-documentary about the underground indie music scene in Tehran, "No One Knows About Persian Cats" (2009), Ghobadi fled Iran, as intelligence agents repeatedly threatened him and urged him to leave. Those two films won awards at Cannes.

Having permanently left Iran as a young adult, Marjane Satrapi didn't have to deal with Iranian authorities as an author and filmmaker. Her best-known comic book, "Persepolis" (photo) adapted into a film that won the Cannes Jury Prize in 2007, offers a personal depiction of how a teenager can get into trouble with the police by disregarding modesty codes and buying music banned by the regime.

Released shortly before the 9/11 attacks, Mohsen Makhmalbaf's 2001 film, "Kandahar," became a must-see work about the fate of Afghan women. Many of the award-winning director's films are banned in Iran, and he left the country to live in France after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election. His most recent feature film, "The President" (photo) opened the Venice Film Festival in 2014.

The daughter of Mohsen Makhmalbaf is one of the most influential directors of the Iranian New Wave. Her first feature film, "The Apple," which she directed at the age of 17, premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 1998. Two years later, she won the Cannes Jury Prize with "Blackboards. (photo). She then became the youngest person to sit on the jury of festivals such as Cannes, Venice and Berlin.

Winning a Cannes award with his 1995 feature debut, "The White Balloon," Panahi kept receiving international acclaim despite increasing restrictions in Iran. Since 2010, he has been banned from making films and leaving the country, but still managed to secretly direct more works, including the Golden Bear-winning "Taxi" (2015) and "3 Faces" (photo), which won Cannes' best screenplay prize in 2018.

A decade after winning the International Award at the Venice Biennale, the visual artist's feature debut, "Women Without Men" (photo) was also honored at the Venice film festival in 2009. A critic of political injustice, Neshat lives in self-imposed exile in New York. "While I am critical of the West, women artists in Iran still face censorship, torture and, at times, execution," she said.

Author: Elizabeth Grenier

View original post here:
Bypassing censorship with VPNs is that really safe? | DW | 11.03.2021 - DW (English)