Mediaboss Marketing

At a glance.

The New York Timesreportsthat US authorities are investigating an apparent leak of sensitive information concerning plans for US support of Ukraine. The files have been circulated in Twitter and Telegram by Russian accounts. A significant fraction of the information seems genuine (although some at least of that could be inferred from publicly known open sources), and genuine enough to prompt an investigation. Other data, notably casualty estimates, appear to have been falsified in the Russian interest (with Russian casualties understated, and Ukrainian casualties exaggerated) and these seem to represent an admixture of disinformation, which may be the principal point of their publication. Ukraine characterized them as "Russian disinformation," the Telegraphreports. US Newsdescribesthe Russian reaction, which is to publicly denounce the leaks as US disinformation designed to peddle a false story of Ukrainian unreadiness, designed to lull Russian forces into a false sense of security. And, citing analysts at Mandiant, SCreportsreasons for thinking that the leaked files, whatever their source, have been altered in the Russian interest. Altered or not, the Pentagon is treating them as apparently genuine, officialstellthe Washington Post.

And for the most part the leaks appear to be authentic. The US Departments of Defense and Justice areboth investigating, but neither Department is so far providing much in the way of information on the investigations. The material appeared to considerable clat last week in Russian social media channels, although at least some it may have been in low-key circulation in fringe sites for some weeks: the Wall Street Journalreportsthat it "began among a small group of posters on a messaging channel that trafficked in memes, jokes and racist talk."

The Washington Post has investigated the Discord Papers, as they're now being called, by going to the obvious place: the Discord group where the intelligence documents were first posted. The leaks came through a small, invitation-only clubhouse (Thug Shaker Central") established on Discord in 2020. Its members were apparently looking for fellowship and diversion during the pandemic, and found it among a collection of military wannabes who shared a willingness to engage in casual, low-grade racist humor and fantasies about conspiracies.

The leader of the clubhouse, a young man with the derivative handle "OG," is described as a "young, charismatic gun enthusiast who shared highly classified documents with a group of far-flung acquaintances searching for companionship amid the isolation of the pandemic." OG told his followers, who seem to have been disproportionately teenage boys, that he worked on a "military base" that he declined to identify, and that he spent his days working with classified material in a secure facility. The two youths with whom the Post spoke (one of whom they interviewed with the permission of his mother, which indicates how young the members of the group are) say they know OG's real name, the state in which he works, and that he's in his early-to-mid twenties.

NBC News reports that the incident is prompting the US Government to review the way it monitors social media for security threats. The intelligence community is now grappling with how it can scrub platforms like Discord in search of relevant material to avoid a similar leak in the future, said [a] congressional official." How that might be accomplished is under study; the solution isn't obvious.

Russia's attempts to normalize the occupation and annexation of Ukrainian territory continue. "On 5 April 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin chaired a full session of Russias Security Council, the first such event since October 2022," the UK's MoD reported Sunday. "The main report was presented by Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev, and discussed reconstruction, law enforcement and public order in the illegally-annexed areas of Ukraine. The choice of Kolokoltsev as the main speaker is likely an attempt by the Kremlin to portray the situation in those territories as being normalised. In reality, much of the area remains an active combat zone, subject to partisan attacks, and with extremely limited access to basic services for many citizens."

The Russian cyber auxiliary KillNet claimed it had conducted a massive attack on NATO infrastructure this past weekend.It claimed responsibility for alleged DDoS attacks on various organizations in the energy grid on itsTelegrampage today. Along with the DDoS attack it alsopublisheda list of usernames and passwords for two Nato commands on its website.KillNet wrote The personnel are using super secret passwords: the incredibly complex - 123456, and the more complex 12345678.If the passwords are legitimate it shows that at least two people didnt take their Cyber Awareness training seriously enough.As if that wasnt enough, a KillNet member also posted an image of an unnamed news source explaining that KillNet had signed 150 unnamed Nato personnel up for various dating websites in Ukraine and Moldova. (The image looks bogus, so interpret it simply as a claim by KillNet.) The affected "NATO infrastructure" appears to be NATO School Oberammergau, an instructional facility in southern Germany, and not any operational or high-level administrative organization. The CyberWire wrote to NATO asking for comment, and a NATO official responded as follows:

Cyberspace is contested at all times, and we face malicious cyber activity on a daily basis. NATO takes this very seriously. We remain vigilant and continue to adapt to evolving threats. NATO and Allies are strengthening our ability to detect, prevent and respond to such activities.

We are currently experiencing Denial of Service attempts against a number of NATO websites, and our experts are responding. NATOs classified networks are not affected and there is no impact on NATO operations.

Thus claims that KillNet had disabled some 60% of NATOs electronic infrastructure seem vastly overstated. NATO School Oberammergau, the most commonly mentioned victim of DDoS, is not, we note, an operational command.

The Atlantic Counciloffers some contextfor reports of Russian public opinion about the war. It's difficult to gauge. "A ruthless clampdown has made it increasingly difficult and dangerous for dissenting voices to be heard. Nevertheless, opposition figures continue to question the true levels of public backing for the invasion, while insisting that large numbers of Russians are either opposed or indifferent. The real situation within Russian society is certainly far more complex than the Kremlin would like us to believe, but todays suffocating atmosphere means there is little reason to expect an increase in visible anti-war activity any time soon." The piece assesses support for President Putin and his war as broad, but more tepid than Moscow represents it. There is a prominent minority of ultra-nationalists, represented most obviously by the milbloggers. Within the armed forces, themselves, however, morale is seen as shaky.

Internet censorship within Russia has been extensive, which serves both to control news and to inhibit coordination among dissenters. A new VPN service,Amnezia VPN, is apparently proving more difficult for the authorities to block. WIREDreportsthat the service enables users to establish their own servers, obviating any need for traffic to pass through centralized servers, which is the common practice among most VPN providers.

Elon Musk, Chief Executive of Twitter (among other things) was interviewed by the BBC this week. He talked about the pain and stress involved with his acquisition of, and subsequent responsibility for running, Twitter. "It's not been boring. It's been quite a rollercoaster," Musk said. His tweets have from time-to-time attracted more notoriety than he might have wished. He poked some fun at himself, saying in reference to tweets he's made, "Have I shot myself in the foot with tweets multiple times? Yes." Shooting from the hip sometimes results in shooting oneself in the foot. He noted that tweeting around 3:00 AM may not be the best idea.

Go here to read the rest:
The effects of the Discord Papers, considered as influence. KillNet's ... - The CyberWire

Censorship is still a prevalent issue in modern society. UK civil servants, for example, are not permitted to have any contacts with the media unless authorised in advance by the relevant Minister. Even the general principle of free speech has exceptions. For example, it is a criminal offence to use threatening or abusive language intending to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Obviously, Linekers comments were not criminal in any way, however, as someone contracted by the BBC ( a public sector organisation) , should he refrain from direct comments on political matters? He is, after all, paid through a form of tax ( the BBC license fee). Regardless of your opinion, the suspension of Lineker by the BBC and the reaction that it provoked strongly indicates that issues surrounding free speech and censorship are highly controversial and ultimatley unresolved. However, the BBCs backing down after the boycott of sports programming across the network is suggestive of the fact that popular opinion is more in favour of openness rather than censorship, especially within the media.

We all hope for a sense of neutrality from the presenters and the BBC management, and perhaps the key to this is the separation of personal views and their professional roles. Agree with him or not, Lineker has at least kicked off an important discussion of freedom of speech.

See the rest here:
CROSSING THE LINE?: CENSORSHIP IN THE UK, Conor O'Shea ... - This is Local London

Heres the Full Text of an ALA Release:

The American Library Association (ALA) today announced a national day of action to protect libraries and the freedom to read, designating April 24, the Monday of National Library Week, as Right to Read Day. Right to Read Day also marks the first anniversary of the ALA-founded Unite Against Book Bans campaign, a public-facing advocacy initiative to empower readers everywhere to stand together in the fight against censorship.

Right to Read Day is a national day of actionnot just acknowledgement, said ALA President Lessa Kananiopua Pelayo-Lozada. ALA calls on readers everywhere to show our commitment to the First Amendment by doing something concrete to preserve it.

The fight against censorship is too big for one person or library or organization to take on alone. And we dont have to. Thats why ALA created Unite Against Book Bans: to be a collective voice in defending the right to read.

Since the movement was launched in April 2022, Unite Against Book Bans has created and curated a set of free advocacy resources and provided direct support to community organizers. Local advocates have used and adapted these resources to fight censorship in communities like Llano County and League City, Texas, and in states like Missouri and Louisiana. ALA and its Unite Against Book Bans partnersindividuals, authors, publishers, educators, advocacy groups and library organizations of all stripesare calling on readers to take action on Right to Read Day and beyond.

Suggested Right to Read Day actions include:

Right to Read resources, including social media assets, are available athttps://uniteagainstbookbans.org/right-to-read-day/

Readers who think, this will never happen in our community, need to think again. More than half the states have legislation proposed or passed that would take library books off the shelves, punish library workers who dare to make books accessible and silence the voices of LGBTQ, BIPOC and other authors. Speaking up and raising our voices now can stop censorship where its happening and prevent censorship where its just getting started.

In addition to the call to action, Unite Against Book Bans partners will host Protecting Free Expression and the Right to Read, a virtual conversation with partners from ALA, PEN America and National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) prompted by Forever Judy Blume, the new documentary about renowned author and right to read advocate Judy Blume. ALA President Pelayo-Lozada, PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel and NCAC Executive Director Christopher Finan will sit down with the documentarys co-directors to discuss Judy Blumes trailblazing work and the unprecedented surge of censorship sweeping across the country.Registrationis required for the free virtual event, which will take placeMonday, April 24, at 7 p.m. ET / 4 p.m. PT.

The Monday of National Library Week also includes the release of ALAs annual State of Americas Libraries report, which includes a list of thetop 10 banned booksof 2022.

Source

Filed under: Associations and Organizations, Companies (Publishers/Vendors), Libraries, National Libraries, News

Follow this link:
ALA Calls For National Day of Action to Protect the Freedom To ... - LJ INFOdocket

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nico Perrino is executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and host of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast.

Read more:
College campuses are censoring speakers, and it's taken a ... - Los Angeles Times

The threat of Hollywood studios censoring movies to appease the Chinese Communist Party has long been a bipartisan talking point for U.S. lawmakers, including Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.).

Last week, Gallagher, chairman of the House Select Committee on China, took a tour of California, where he met with business leaders including Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Bob Iger and Apples Tim Cook to discuss their business with China.

Those meetings which also included talks with movie producers and filmmakers whove worked in or with China did little to assuage Gallaghers worries, he told The Times in a Monday interview.

My concern about censorship remains as strong, if not stronger than ever, Gallagher said. Its unquestionably happening. Everyone was completely candid about that. Its a major problem.

Gallagher is pushing studios to be more transparent about their experiences with Beijing and censorship. Studios have long tweaked their movies in order to gain access to the worlds second-largest box office market, where the government keeps tight controls on what people there can see.

He was among the members of Congress who signed Sen. Marco Rubios (R-Fla.) 2020 letter to Disneys then-CEO Bob Chapek criticizing the Burbank company for cooperating with China to shoot part of the live-action Mulan despite the countrys persecution of Uyghurs.

The congressmans California tour occurred amid a push by Republicans and Democrats to either ban or force a sale of Chinese-owned video app TikTok, in order to ease worries that parent company ByteDance will have to share user data with the authoritarian regime.

Gallagher said his meetings with the entertainment and tech companies did not generate any specific policy proposals or recommendations to address concerns of censorship. However, he said he hopes the meetings would create more dialogue around the issue and provide insight into what he believes is an ideological competition with China.

Hollywood studios have faced criticism for altering movies for China over the years.

Top Gun: Maverick caught flak for a trailer that removed the Taiwanese and Japanese flags from Tom Cruises jacket. (The flags were later restored in the final cut.) In 2019, Universal-Dreamworks Abominable was pulled out of Vietnamese theaters because it portrayed a map that showed China having ownership over disputed territory in the South China Sea.

Studios have defended these practices in the past, arguing that such changes to movies are simply meant to expand their global reach. But censoring movies in China affects what stories are told because of the nations global power, Gallagher said.

It can promote anti-American messages, he said. What we dont want, but what the CCP ultimately wants, is for the CCP-approved version of the movie to become the only version and thats a bright red line that we should work to enforce.

Actors have also faced backlash when weighing in on China. In 2021, John Cena pledged his respect for China and apologized for calling Taiwan a country while promoting his film, F9.

In 2019, the star of Disneys Mulan remake expressed support for Hong Kong police who were cracking down on pro-democracy protests, which led to some consumers boycotting the film.

Controversy was fueled further when it was revealed that Disney filmed part of the movie in Xinjiang, where its estimated that more than 1 million Muslims have been forced into indoctrination camps.

Disney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some studio executives in recent years have started to rethink their self-censorship for China as U.S. movies struggle to reach the box office heights that they once did in the market. Chinas box office is increasingly dominated by productions from Chinese studios, with the support of the government.

Hollywood movies in China have recently represented a small portion of the box office in China. In 2021, U.S. movies and imports from other countries represented 15.5% of Chinas ticket sales, compared with 36% in 2019, according to advisory firm Artisan Gateway.

Even Disney has struggled to secure China release dates for its popular Marvel Studios movies. The Black Panther sequel, Wakanda Forever, and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, were the first Marvel Studios superhero movies to be released in China since 2019.

Still, Gallagher said hes concerned about changes studios are making at the early stages even before the content raises an issue with the CCP.

Youre obviously going to censor on the front end so you can get access to the market, and we heard story after story about how the CCP dangles market access in front of Hollywood moviemakers so that they self censor what movies already been made in the first place, Gallagher said. Theres virtually no CCP villains in any major American movie .

Gallagher said some Hollywood and Silicon Valley executives still hold onto the idea that more American engagement with China, with more Disney-branded theme parks and American movies, will encourage China to be less aggressive.

To me this idea that just somehow we engage harder, that somehow the relationship is going to improve, I think thats already been proven false, Gallagher said.

Gallagher did not provide policy proposals of his own to address the Hollywood-China relationship.

He said Congress doesnt want to dictate what types of movies the companies can or cant make. In the past, the House Armed Services Committee has considered denying studios access to Department of Defense resources in movies that agree to Chinese censorship, which Gallagher said seems fair to him.

In Silicon Valley, Gallagher said one area for potential legislation is to control American capital or investment in Chinese artificial intelligence, quantum and biotech companies. We dont want to be funding our own destruction, Gallagher said.

See the rest here:
A Disney meeting didn't change this lawmaker's mind on Chinese censorship - Los Angeles Times