The Economist | Despite censorship, China has some cool bookshops The Economist Yet around China, privately owned bookstores continue to defy both competition from online booksellers and heavy-handed censorship (recently curbs are reported to have been imposed on the number of foreign children's books allowed to be published). |
Read more here:
Despite censorship, China has some cool bookshops - The Economist
Lost in the Labor Day weekend news about North Korea and DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) was a dismaying new poll released by VCU. It showed how much the campaign against fundamental liberties has made inroads among the general public.
Conducted by the Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, the poll shows that half of Virginians think colleges and universities should place more emphasis on protecting people from discrimination, even if that infringes on the right to free expression. Only 40 percent thought colleges and universities should guarantee freedom of expression even if that means some groups face discrimination.
Discrimination is wrong. Its also illegal. But the legal prohibitions apply to discriminatory actions, such as turning down a job applicant because of her race. Laws against discrimination dont infringe on the right to free speech (except possibly in those cases where the speech is so abusive and persistent that it creates a hostile work environment).
The kind of discrimination at issue in higher education more often concerns the expression of viewpoints that deviate from liberal orthodoxy on questions of race and gender, or being subject to microagressions such as when an Asian student is asked where shes from, or not receiving sufficient praise (were not making that up).
Those forms of discrimination might be obnoxious, but they do not trump fundamental constitutional rights and it is disturbing that so many Virginians think they should.
Ironically, many colleges and universities practice overt discrimination today. For instance, they do so in admissions: Asian students must score far higher on standardized tests to have the same chance of gaining acceptance as black or Hispanic students. Many schools also offer race-based housing for affinity groups i.e., people of the same ethnic background.
Colleges and universities should dismantle those very real forms of discrimination instead of policing what students and faculty say and think.
Read more:
Editorial: Too many Virginians want a safe space for censorship - Richmond.com
The Russian government has persuaded many of its citizens to avoid websites and social media platforms that are critical of the government, a new study has found.
Researchers analyzing a survey of Russian citizens found that those who relied more on Russian national television news perceived the internet as a greater threat to their country than did others. This in turn led to increased support for online political censorship.
Approval of the government of President Vladimir Putin amplified the impact of those threat perceptions on support for censorship, according to the study.
The success of the Russian regime in persuading citizens to self-censor their internet use has troubling implications, said Erik Nisbet, co-author of the study an associate professor of communication at The Ohio State University.
This is actually more insidious. The government doesnt have to rely as much on legal or technical firewalls against content they dont like. They have created a psychological firewall in which people censor themselves, Nisbet said.
People report they dont go to certain websites because the government says it is bad for me.
Nisbet conducted the study with Olga Kamenchuk, a visiting assistant professor, and doctoral student Aysenur Dal, both from Ohio State. Their results appear in the September 2017 issue of the journal Social Science Quarterly.
The researchers used data originally collected by VCIOM (Russian Public Opinion Research Center) for the Internet Policy Observatory at the University of Pennsylvania Annenberg School for Communication.
For that project, researchers surveyed 1,601 Russian citizens during May 2014 about their internet and media use, risk perceptions about the internet, support for online political censorship and support for the Putin government.
Ohio States analysis of the survey responses showed that people who relied most on the official government TV news were more likely than those who used other media sources to see the internet as a threat. These viewers were more likely to agree that the internet was used by foreign countries against Russia and that it was a threat to political stability within the country.
Not surprisingly, those who saw the internet as a threat were also more likely to support online censorship.
Support for Vladimir Putin significantly strengthened the relationship between seeing the internet as a risk and supporting online censorship, the study found.
Government authorities have convinced many Russians that censoring content labeled as extremist protects the population from harm, while at the same time failing to mention that this label is often applied by authorities to legitimate political opposition or opinions that run counter to government policies, Kamenchuk said.
The Russian regime uses its official news outlets, particularly television, to spread fear about anti-government sites. The regime often uses graphic metaphors to sensationalize the risk of some internet content, according to the researchers.
For example, the government has compared some websites it opposes to suicide bombers and tells citizens its response would be to use internet control and censorship to create a bulletproof vest for the Russian society.
Kamenchuk said Russians dont have to rely on these official government news sources.
There is opposition TV, radio and newspapers in the country that are not blocked. People can find them freely. But our studies show that many deliberately choose to ignore those outlets, she said.
Even blocked websites can be accessed through technical solutions that arent difficult to find in the country, even if they are illegal, Nisbet said.
But it is tougher to circumvent that psychological firewall than it is the legal or technological firewalls. How do you circumvent the mindset that censorship is good? he said.
Russia isnt alone in persuading citizens that the internet can be dangerous. Many authoritarian governments, such as Turkey, have labelled opposition websites and social media platforms as a threat, the researchers said.
Despite the importance of self-censorship in countries like Russia, most studies have overlooked the issue, Nisbet said.
Much of the academic research on the subject comes from the United States, where there is a lot of support for free expression and internet freedom, he said. But the U.S. is an exception in this regard, and not the norm. Much of the world is much more supportive of censorship than is the U.S.
These results also mean that the United States needs to adjust how it pursues its goal of increasing internet access and freedom around the world. The U.S. State Department has allocated millions of dollars to promote internet freedom, primarily in the areas of technology for getting around censorship.
Thats not going to help a lot if people agree with the censorship and dont want to use these tools, Nisbet said.
Read the rest here:
Why many Russians have gladly agreed to online censorship - ScienceBlog.com (blog)
COLUMBUS, Ohio The Russian government has persuaded many of its citizens to avoid websites and social media platforms that are critical of the government, a new study has found.
Researchers analyzing a survey of Russian citizens found that those who relied more on Russian national television news perceived the internet as a greater threat to their country than did others. This in turn led to increased support for online political censorship.
Approval of the government of President Vladimir Putin amplified the impact of those threat perceptions on support for censorship, according to the study.
The success of the Russian regime in persuading citizens to self-censor their internet use has troubling implications, said Erik Nisbet, co-author of the study an associate professor of communication at The Ohio State University.
This is actually more insidious. The government doesnt have to rely as much on legal or technical firewalls against content they dont like. They have created a psychological firewall in which people censor themselves, Nisbet said.
People report they dont go to certain websites because the government says it is bad for me.
Nisbet conducted the study with Olga Kamenchuk, a visiting assistant professor, and doctoral student Aysenur Dal, both from Ohio State. Their results appear in the September 2017 issue of the journal Social Science Quarterly.
The researchers used data originally collected by VCIOM (Russian Public Opinion Research Center) for the Internet Policy Observatory at the University of Pennsylvania Annenberg School for Communication.
For that project, researchers surveyed 1,601 Russian citizens during May 2014 about their internet and media use, risk perceptions about the internet, support for online political censorship and support for the Putin government.
Ohio States analysis of the survey responses showed that people who relied most on the official government TV news were more likely than those who used other media sources to see the internet as a threat. These viewers were more likely to agree that the internet was used by foreign countries against Russia and that it was a threat to political stability within the country.
Not surprisingly, those who saw the internet as a threat were also more likely to support online censorship.
Support for Vladimir Putin significantly strengthened the relationship between seeing the internet as a risk and supporting online censorship, the study found.
Government authorities have convinced many Russians that censoring content labeled as extremist protects the population from harm, while at the same time failing to mention that this label is often applied by authorities to legitimate political opposition or opinions that run counter to government policies, Kamenchuk said.
The Russian regime uses its official news outlets, particularly television, to spread fear about anti-government sites. The regime often uses graphic metaphors to sensationalize the risk of some internet content, according to the researchers.
For example, the government has compared some websites it opposes to suicide bombers and tells citizens its response would be to use internet control and censorship to create a bulletproof vest for the Russian society.
Kamenchuk said Russians dont have to rely on these official government news sources.
There is opposition TV, radio and newspapers in the country that are not blocked. People can find them freely. But our studies show that many deliberately choose to ignore those outlets, she said.
Even blocked websites can be accessed through technical solutions that arent difficult to find in the country, even if they are illegal, Nisbet said.
But it is tougher to circumvent that psychological firewall than it is the legal or technological firewalls. How do you circumvent the mindset that censorship is good? he said.
Russia isnt alone in persuading citizens that the internet can be dangerous. Many authoritarian governments, such as Turkey, have labelled opposition websites and social media platforms as a threat, the researchers said.
Despite the importance of self-censorship in countries like Russia, most studies have overlooked the issue, Nisbet said.
Much of the academic research on the subject comes from the United States, where there is a lot of support for free expression and internet freedom, he said. But the U.S. is an exception in this regard, and not the norm. Much of the world is much more supportive of censorship than is the U.S.
These results also mean that the United States needs to adjust how it pursues its goal of increasing internet access and freedom around the world. The U.S. State Department has allocated millions of dollars to promote internet freedom, primarily in the areas of technology for getting around censorship.
Thats not going to help a lot if people agree with the censorship and dont want to use these tools, Nisbet said.
Read this article:
Why many Russians have gladly agreed to online censorship | The ... - The Ohio State University News
XIAMEN, China (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that there was no censorship or official pressure behind the arrest of a film and theater director whose edgy work has angered traditionalists in the Russian establishment.
Russian prosecutors say they suspect the director, Kirill Serebrennikov, of embezzling at least 68 million rubles ($1.17 million) in state funds earmarked for an art project. Serebrennikov, under house arrest awaiting trial, denies the charges.
The case has prompted an outcry among the countrys liberal cultural elite who said they feared the director was being persecuted for his work, which has often poked fun at the authorities.
Putin, in his first public comments after Serebrennikovs arrest, denied any political overtones in his case.
Serebrennikov used to receive state funds - this means there was no censorship, no pressure, he told a news conference after a summit of the BRICS nations in China.
Otherwise, he would simply have not been given state funds, if there had been intentions to rein in his creative activity.
Putin said that there were differing attitudes to Serebrennikovs work, but said it was just a matter of taste.
If authorities earmark funds, it means that at least they view it from a neutral position and allow the artist to perform, to work, he said.
The only question for the investigation is the legality of spending budget funds, he added. Should investigative and auditing bodies see someone violating the law in force, the same methods will be applied to them. And they will also be brought to justice.
Reporting by Denis Pinchuk; Writing by Dmitry Solovyov; Editing by Christian Lowe
Read more from the original source:
Putin: no censorship or pressure behind arrest of prominent director - Reuters