Mediaboss Marketing

The Indian Censor Board or the Central Board of Film Certification has a very polarising effect on people. Although filmmakers have learnt to live with some of the seemingly bizarre decisions that the board has takenover the years, there are a few filmmakers who just cannot stand the thought of having to deal with the people running the censor board.

PTI

And for good reasons. Over the years, a number of great films have actually been ruined because of censorship. Now, we are not simply referring to the instances when the censor board recommended some major edits, and cuts in a film to let it pass.

Rather, we are looking at instances when the censor board played some games with issuing a certificate, or sometimes went a step further and indulged in some nefarious means, allegedly.

Balaji Motion Pictures

Here are 5 films that got screwed by the censor board in India, in some really nefarious ways.

IMDb

We know that Paanch was ultimately banned from public screening in theatres and on television. What many people do not know, is that it came very close to a release, albeit with an A certification. After about a year and half of being submitted, the board gave the filmmakers a list of changes that needed to be made to make the film feasible. The list of the changes was so exhaustive, that the films producer, Tutu Sharma, couldnt cough up the additional money required to make the changed. Remember, Rs 2-3 crores was a humongous amount, back in 2003, and Sharma had already invested that money in the film. There was no chance that he could invest any more. Of course, Anurag Kashyap, the films director wasnt happy.

Balaji Motion Pictures

The war between Anurag Kashyap and the CBFC is a long, and well documented one. However, the incidents that took place with Udta Punjab is on a different level. First, the censor board refused a certificate, unless a few banal changes were made. Kashyap took the CBFC to court, and surprisingly, he won. This is where things get interesting. The Bombay High Court, on the 13th of June, 2016 ordered the CBFC to give the film an A certificate and let it release as per schedule, i.e.on the 17th of June. On the 15th of June, two days prior to the day of release, the film was leaked on the internet, where it was picked up by a number of torrent websites. The leaked copy of the filmhad the words "FOR CENSOR" on the top-left corner of the frame. The producers of the film alleged that someone from the censor board leaked the film online. The leak hit the business prospects of the film hard. What was being built up as a Rs 100-200 crore film, barely managed to get across Rs 90 Crores.

Vice

Imagine making a documentary on Indian politics and being told, not to use the name, nor feature any political party, or a political figure, without written consent from the individual and the party involved. An Insignificant Man followed the 2012-2013 Delhi Elections, focusing on Arvind Kejriwal. The film was scheduled to get a release in 2015. However, the Censor Board refused to issue a certificate and told the filmmakers to get a NOC from the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, the then Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, and several other people. The filmmakers refused and filed an appeal at the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, which decided in their favour. The film was finally allowed to be released in 2017, about two years after it was scheduled.

Kaleidoscope Entertainment

Shekhar Kapoors Bandit Queen was first screened at the Cannes Film Festival in May of 1994, and received a resoundingly positive response. Many people considered that this would change how the world saw Indian Cinema. However, at home, the film did not sit well. The film was submitted to the CBFC in August 1994. After about a year, and several rounds going back & forth, the filmmakers were advised to make over 100 changes. They refused and approached the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the film as it was. The film was finally allowed a release in January 1996 but was taken down by the Delhi High Court after someone made an objection. After several cuts and tweaks, it was finally allowed to be re-released by the Supreme Court, in the form that the FCAT allowed it.

White Lion Entertainment

After some major hiccups during the making of the film, the film was finally ready for a release in 2012, which, due to some issues, eventually got pushed back to 2015. When it was finally submitted to the CBFC for a certificate, the board straight away banned the film. Upon appeal, the FCAT instructed the filmmakers to make 10 changes and resubmit the film for consideration. The filmmakers took the CBFC to court, and after two year-long battle, were finally allowed to release the film. Prior to the official submission to the censor board, the film also got leaked on the internet, where it was picked up by torrent websites.

There are several other films, which got mangled up badly when the CBFC took their proverbial scissors to them. However, as bad as they were, they were at least allowed a timely and proper release. Imagine how well Udta Punjab would have done, had it not been subjected to the internal politics of CBFC.

Photo: Balaji Motion Pictures (Main Image)

Read the original here:
5 Bollywood Movies That Were Ruined (Almost) By The Indian Censor Board - MensXP.com

Many foreign websites are blocked in China. This is no secret to many, especially citizens; but for some Chinese students back home as their campuses shut due to COVID-19, they could be in for an unexpected shock when they sign into their classes virtually.

According to an analysis by the Harvard Law Schools Berkman Center for Internet and Society, several university websites are blocked in China for displaying or facilitating views contrary to the People Republics values. This covers pro-democratic political discussions and opposition against communism or the Communist Party of China, in particular.

The Chinese governments strict internet limitations were flagged as an online learning challenge on Inside Higher Ed in April. Despite using virtual private networks (VPNs), students still face difficulty accessing learning materials on their university portal.

Foreign internet giants such as Facebook is banned in China. Even Google was shut down in 2010 after censorship disputes. Instead, Baidu is the countrys main search engine while Weibo and WeChat dominate social media.

China has domestic-owned alternatives to popular worldwide apps, including WeChat as the main messaging app over WhatsApp. Source: Martin Bureau/AFP

The Chinese government blocked access to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology mit.edu domain as early as 2002. Harvard highlighted that MITs Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Libraries, and alumni pages have been banned.

The reason? Speculations suggest it is to prevent Chinese users from reading or participating in uncensored political discussions.

Here are other university sites blocked in China:

The government has also banned several auxiliary university sites, including The Stanford Daily Online Edition and Wellesley College Library.

Paramilitary police officers stand guard in front of a poster of late communist leader Mao Zedong on a street south of the Great Hall of the People during the opening session of the National Peoples Congress (NPC) in Beijing on May 22, 2020. Source: Greg Baker/AFP

Ben Edelman from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society told CBS News (also banned) that university sites that are blocked in China often host campus pro-democracy groups. In addition, MIT hosts scrambling software that sneaks e-mails past government censors.

Besides CBS, news outlets that report heavily on Chinas disputes with Hong Kong or Taiwan are also blocked from Chinese citizens. This includes ABC and Reuters. Pro-democracy organisations such as Amnesty International USA are not welcome on Chinas web too.

So if you are having trouble accessing any of the university websites above, now you know why. As higher education institutions are meant to be bastions of free speech especially in the US its no wonder many are banned in a country that stringently controls the information its citizens consume.

In fact, universities that have been censored by China often continue discourse and exploration of the matter to understand its implications in a digital future.

Over at Columbia University, the Center for Spatial Research has turned this ban into an interesting project. Jumping the Great Firewall visualises censorship and online expression on the Twitterlike microblogging platform Weibo, particularly posts uploaded and deleted in September 2013.

What is the future of Chinese students in Australia?

How China mastered the art of academic censorship

Here is the original post:
Why are these university websites blocked in China? - Study International News

Fox News host Tucker Carlson expressed dismay at YouTubes removal of certain videos during the coronavirus pandemic and wondered, "How long before this show is censored?

Carlson made the comments during a Tuesday evening segment of his show, in which he began by showing a video of Dr. Knut Wittkowski, former head of biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design at Rockefeller University.

A video of Wittkowski criticizing social distancing and speaking out against lockdowns because of the need for people to build herd immunity to COVID-19 was reportedly removed from YouTube. Rockefeller University has since distanced itself from Wittkowski, noting in an April statement that his views do not represent the institution and that he never held the title of professor at Rockefeller.

Carlson said that as the United States battles the coronavirus pandemic, diverse opinions are needed to guide how the country proceeds through unprecedented times.

Keep in mind that no one in history has ever attempted mass quarantines, Carlson said. We had no idea what would happen once we did. So what we really need is a vigorous and informed debate about potential outcomes.

Carlson said the video of Wittkowski was censored like many other videos in which doctors dare to criticize the lockdown. Why is that? There is only one reason. Google decided that disagreeing with the government is forbidden."

What will happen when that standard is applied to other issues? How long before this show is censored? Before youre censored? Carlson wondered aloud. Do you want to live in a place like that? Thats where were going fast.

Civil rights attorney Harmeet Dhillon joined the show and said the removal of videos is really truly chilling the extent to which the government is now working with our Big Tech overlords to silence our speech on various important issues.

This is the most un-American thing I can imagine. I think it is the most direct threat to our liberties that Ive seen in my 51 years, Carlson said at the close of the segment. Theyre going to try to censor Fox News next, you watch.

Read more here:
'Theyre going to try to censor Fox News next': Tucker Carlson rails against behavior of 'Big Tech' companies - Washington Examiner

By Elliot Leavy, former editor of the technology and innovation magazine maize and editor of culture magazine BOZO. He has written for numerous publications around the world focussing on technology, belief systems, and culture.

The webpage archive service Wayback Machines decision to additionally label already-deleted articles as disinformation is internet history revisionism that comes at a time when critical thinking is desperately needed.

Earlier this month, Wayback Machine took heed of MIT Technology Reviews protests that they are breathing life into debunked coronavirus hoaxes, and took to retroactively labelling past web pages and content removed from their original pages with warnings decrying the information presented as false.

The pages in question come from popular platforms such as Medium which, in theory, were launched to allow users to create content without it being editorialised by the powers that be. By redefining content after it has already been removed, Wayback Machine is adding a level of editorialisation atop of another adding insult to injury by obfuscating original messages and overlaying them with a warning of disinformation. Disinformation being defined as misleading information that is spread deliberately to deceive.

Throughout the big tech sphere, this is nothing new: censorship by the new arbiters of truth is now the norm. However, with coronavirus in full swing, the mission creep toward mass-censorship has become more of a lurch. We are no longer allowed to critically think for ourselves. Instead we are offered one of three options: information, misinformation or disinformation, with the latter hidden away from view lest we get any bad ideas. Nuance, in effect, is no longer an option.

The obvious problem here is that conflicting information surrounding the virus is as widespread as the virus itself. When the world is full of unknowns, who is to say what is and is not disinformation, and where honest miscalculation or tentative prediction ends and malicious intent begins? Why is it that some opinions are removed, whilst others some proven to be incorrect are not?

For example, at the end of last month, research collated by the paediatric blog Dont Forget The Bubbles, together with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), found that, globally, there is no evidence of children having passed Covid-19 to adults, and that children have much less severe symptoms and often do not have any at all.

Despite this fact, reports across some media outlets in the UK have parroted teacher unions cries that it is Not safe to reopen schools. Contrary to the evidence then, is this not disinformation? The unions of course have an agenda, so why is this information not labelled as disinformation? Or at the bare minimum, misinformation?

Then there is the tweet by the World Health Organisation published in January that stated that there was no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus. Two months later, the WHO declared a global pandemic. At the time of writing, there is still no signalling that this was, in fact, deeply incorrect. Why has it not been removed and/or changed? Was this not disinformation?

The list goes on. In February, Forbes quoted a doctor who claimed that wearing masks would in fact increase the chances of transmitting the virus. If one today uses the Wayback Machine internet archiving service on the Forbes article in question, there lies no mark of shame decrying it as a hoax, which begs the question, why not? It is possible to read this as at least misinformation if you ignore intent; so why the difference in standards? Are the results not the same?

The answer, one must assume, has nothing to do with what is or is not true. Instead, it seems that this censorship presumes nefariousness upon some, whilst assuming ignorance in others. It is not only the content that is being judged else the WHO tweet would have been removed or at least labelled but the author. Gone are the days where we did not shoot the messenger, now both him and the message are fair game.

By towing the censorship line like it has, Wayback Machine which has offered a valuable service up until this point is now complicit. The division and disparity in the enforced rules between different voices reveals that behind the mask lies an agenda.

By tarnishing some but not all voices with the disinformation brush, much of the media, academia, and (predominantly) big tech are putting ideological allegiances before anything else. Now, as ever, is not the time for that. Once we know more, we can evaluate what is wrong and what is right. However, if we continue to censor the past, attaching intent to some but not to others, we will be unable to evaluate anything at all.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Read this article:
What critical thinking? Wayback Machine is now complicit in Big Tech censorship - RT

Screenwriter Zhou Xiaoxuan speaks during an interview with the Associated Press at her home in Beijing, China, on January 16, 2019, detailing her involvement in China's #MeToo movement.

Two years since the #MeToo movementtook offin China, Chinese feminists are battling headwinds in a political environment where the ruling Communist Partys control over the Internet, media and independent activism is tighter than it has been in 30 years.

Chinas party-state has zero tolerance for collective actions, so the countrys #MeToo movement has never been able to manifest in mass street protests. But individual victims have taken their cases to court, demonstrating extraordinary determination and resilience.

Facing intense slut-shaming on Chinese social media platforms and censorship of discussions of her case, University of Minnesota student Liu Jingyao who is suing, in a Minnesota civil court, Chinese billionaire Liu Qiangdong for an alleged rape vowed tonever settleor sign a nondisclosure agreement (prosecutorsdeclined to charge him in the case, and he maintains that the sex was consensual). Similarly, screenwriter Zhou Xiaoxuan who is suing, in a Beijing court, famed state media anchor Zhu Jun for alleged sexual harassment and assault, which hedeniessaid, Even giving me 100 million [yuan], I wouldnt settle.

Under pressure, the Chinese government has made limited improvements. In December 2018, the Supreme Courtadded sexual harassmentto the list of causes of action, making it easier for #MeToo victims to seek redress. Yet China still lacks robust laws against sexual harassment.

Silenced in their home country, Chinese feminists have increasingly found footingoverseas. Utilizing the relatively free and safe space in Western countries, #MeToo activistshold protests, discussions and trainings, and provide support to their counterparts inside China.

In late 2019, authorities detained Huang Xueqin, a journalist and leading figure in Chinas #MeToo movement, for three months for unknown reasons.Upon release, Huang reportedly wrote: This is Xueqin, and Im back. One second of darkness doesnt make people blind.

Amid the vast darkness, nevertheless, Chinese feminists persisted.

Link:
#MeToo in the land of censorship - Human Rights Watch