Mediaboss Marketing

A century ago last month, America came close to formally empowering government censorship of the modern news media. That might seem like ancient history, but the censorship monster rises anew whenever a president finds himself under intense scrutiny and seeks to stifle coverage he doesnt like.

Donald Trump is waging a particularly angry campaign to harness press freedoms, including implied advocacy of violence against the fake news media, threats to yank reporters credentials and increasing bans on live TV coverage of White House press briefings.

The 1917 Espionage Act was an effort by Congress, supported by President Woodrow Wilson, to block any accidental or deliberate revelation of national security secrets as the United States fought the First World War. The original version explicitly outlined executive powers to censor newspapers prior to publication. Luckily, more reasonable minds prevailed and press censorship provision was withdrawn before the bill passed.

Even so, Wilson insisted, Authority to exercise censorship over the press is absolutely necessary to the public safety. This newspaper had solidly backed Wilson on other national issues, but our editorials then match our position today: The president was as wrong as he could be.

The Supreme Court has consistently viewed prior restraint of the press as unconstitutional, a position most notably affirmed when President Richard Nixons administration sought to prevent The New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers in 1971, citing the 1917 Espionage Act.

The concern in 1917 was that reporters covering the war might come across secret information about troop movements, intelligence and strategies that could make it into print. Those were all valid concerns.

But several months into World War I, this newspaper noted, there had not been a single case of secret information being divulged, either accidentally or deliberately. Reporters and editors were capable of performing their jobs and being patriots at the same time, a June 1917 Post-Dispatch editorial said. Autocracies thrive when the press is muzzled, it added.

These issues have arisen anew in recent years as government leakers like Edward Snowden and Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning stole top secret electronic files and dumped them on reporters. News organizations awkwardly had to self-censor, deciding which items were too sensitive for publication.

Trump seems less concerned about publication of classified information than about being embarrassed by reports of his own actions and words. Prior restraint is banned because such extraordinary powers cannot be entrusted to presidents under news media scrutiny.

The public might not always like what the news media reports, but the freedoms we enjoy in this country would be a shell of what they are today if the original Espionage Act, as embraced by Wilson, had become law.

See the rest here:
Editorial: A century after Espionage Act, censorship temptation remains - STLtoday.com

Kolkata: National Award winning filmmaker Suman Ghosh plans to release his censorship controversy-mired documentary on Nobel laureate Amartya Sen online in a "couple of months" in its entirety, including four words that the Indian censor board has objected to.

Amartya Sen. News 18

The Argumentative Indian, originally scheduled for a 14 July release, was refused the green signal by the Indian censor board over the use of the words "cow", "Gujarat", "Hindu India" and "Hindutva", by Sen.

The hour-long documentary, structured as a free flowing conversation between Sen and his student and Cornell economics professor Kaushik Basu, has already been screened in New York and London. It had a special screening in Kolkata on 10 July.

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) officials in Kolkata verbally asked Ghosh to mute at least four words, including "cow" and "Gujarat", from Sen's interview in the film.

"I will do that (release the film online). I have some screenings organised abroad so I can't release it before that. It will take a couple of months. It will be there in its entirety," Ghosh told IANS in an interview

Ghosh unveiled a link to a 141-second trailer of the documentary on Friday via his Facebook page. The trailer link was posted on YouTube earlier in July. However, it is being reported that CBFC chief Pahlaj Nihalani has termed the trailer post "illegal".

"I have to find out though... if he (Nihalani) is objecting to the trailer... whether a new law has been created in India where online content also has to be certified, so I have to find those out. But definitely I can release it all over the world," the filmmaker said, adding the trailer was prepared much in advance, before the documentary came under the CBFC's scanner.

Noted for films like Footsteps (winner of two National Awards) and Nobel Chor, Ghosh's features have had screenings in prestigious film fests such as Busan, Karlovy Vary and London, among others.

Asked about the CBFC's reaction to the trailer, Ghosh said, "I saw that (media report on Nihalani terming the trailer illegal)... I don't know why. I made six feature films and I know a lot of filmmakers.. all of them said that on YouTube, one need not necessarily certify. If I play the trailer on TV or in theatres, then I need a censor certificate."

In the aftermath of the censor trouble, Ghosh has had no dialogue yet with the censor board. "No. I am waiting for them to send me some official letter and I believe because of this controversy and everything, they are also scrutinising it. I will get an official letter from them, what they have told me verbally they will write and give it to me officially... that is the next step," he said.

As for as discussing the matter with Sen himself, Ghosh avers the steps being taken are completely his prerogative as a filmmaker.

A still from The Argumentative Indian. Twitter

The CBFC, which has stoked controversy in recent times by recommending a whopping 12 cuts in Madhur Bhandarkar's forthcoming Indu Sarkar, as also by wielding its scissors on films like Lipstick Under My Burkha and Jab Harry Met Sejal, drew all round flak after its latest decision.

Branding the CBFC's moves as "authoritarian", Ghosh notes these diktats put India in a bad light internationally. "This is definitely an authoritarian gesture for sure to beep out certain things in my film, Madhur's film.. but the way the media took this issue up, nationally and now this has become international news also, we can just hope that better sense will prevail on them because they have been criticised for this even internationally," Ghosh said, referring to the coverage in The Washington Post and BBC.

"It puts India in such a bad light. Why is the government so insecure to mention even (the) truth (of) what is happening in the country... what has happened in the country... why is the government insecure about these things," he wondered.

"This is not only in films...in other areas too lot of things are happening... not an isolated issue... censorship issue is one spoke in the wheel," Ghosh remarked about the CBFC's "intolerance".

He also believes all the hue and cry that has been generated as a consequence of the censor board's recommendations is "counter-productive" for it. "They want to shut out any oppositional voice, but this is counter-productive for them," he quipped.

Looking forward to the release of his next feature outing Mi Amor in December, Ghosh said even if filmmakers apprehend fronting sensitive topics, in the wake of censorship issues, what is remarkable to note are the voices of dissent that have risen up.

"If all of us cow down (because), in future, we might be blacklisted or targeted -- then it's like accepting whatever they are saying without any voices raised... I am not such a person... we will see what the future holds. The voice that has been raised... that's why its so important that the youngsters are also not demoralised by these events," he added.

As for the implementation of the recommendations submitted by a Shyam Benegal-led panel to revamp the CBFC, Ghosh expressed doubt on its smooth progress. "Now it (censorship) has become a political issue. I hope it happens, but I doubt whether it will be smooth sailing," he said.

Read more:
Amartya Sen's documentary, The Argumentative Indian, to now release online after censorship row - Firstpost

An ACLU letter sent to Kansas Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook, 10th District, has resonated with at least one Gardner resident. Wes Rains, Gardner, recently sent a letter to Lee Moore, Gardner councilman, requesting Moore unblock his ability to post to Moores official city councilmans Facebook page.

Lee Moore

Recently, a more famous public official (state Senator) has practiced the same form of censorship that you have, and she now has been asked by the ACLU to cease this behavior, Rains said in his e-mail. I believe this to be a similar situation, and am considering writing to the ACLU myself to appeal to your better nature and judgement, but before I do that, I am asking you myself as a Gardner citizen and constituent and voter. Rains attached the American Civil Liberties Union July 5, 2017, letter to Sen. Pilcher Cook in his email to Moore. According to the ACLUs letter, blocking opposing views violates citizens well established First Amendment rights to criticize elected officials and express opinions of public concern. Censoring a constituents viewpoint violates the First Amendments Speech Clause. According to Moores response received by Rains and supplied to The Gardner News, I am not required by ordinance or by statute to maintain an official Facebook page. Therefore, my social media activity, all of it, is a completely private endeavor. In fact, all of the content I place on my page, is licensed to Facebook by virtue of the EULA they make you sign when you create the account. In fact, because they own the platform, they may even elect to censor me, should they so desire. So, to make the argument that I can somehow violate your First Amendment rights from within a platform that I do not own or otherwise have any authority over, beyond that licensed to me by the owner of the platform, and that I am not even legally obligated to use for official business is absolutely laughable. I mean, what are you going to do if Facebook bans you for violating their terms of service? Will you claim that is also a violation of your First Amendment right? Thanks for the laugh. You may engage with me anywhere you find me in public, over the phone, and through my official email just like constituents who have no access to Facebook. You may also share content from my page on CFG and engage me there. Until I am required by statute to maintain an official public social media presence, I will reserve the right to control the content associated with my name. That said, I think you were banned only because you were backing the opposition and got obnoxious with me when I was running for office and this page was servingas my campaign page. However, I checked and you are not even banned and have not been banned for a very long time. If I do ban you in the future, maybe all it takes is asking me nicely instead of threatening me. Enjoy your weekend. Cheers, Lee According to Doug Bonney, Kansas legal director for the ACLU, Social media has become an essential tool of communications between elected officials and their constituents, and blocking someone from an officials Facebook page violates the First Amendment and the well-established right of the public to criticize elected officials. On July 5, we sent a letter to Senator Pilcher-Cook outlining these concerns and requesting that she cease censoring the comments on her page and reinstate those who have been blocked. In an e mail to The Gardner News, Moore said there was not anyone currently blocked on his social media page, although he admits Rains was temporarily blocked during Moores election campaign two years ago. He also says he is unclear when Rains was unblocked. Nobody is currently blocked from posting comments on the Lee Moore Gardner City Councilman Facebook page, Moore wrote. However, he indicates that he reserves the right to limit abusive or harassing language and makes note that the social media platform is not required nor government owned. Moore says he will not be bullied, but that he will not try to use his Facebok page to silence opposing opinions. Thus, Mr. Rains email to me and the rest of the Governing Body was received by me as an ignorant, ill-conceived, and unprovoked threat, he writes. Although, the ACLU is an organization which holds no authority over me or the City of Gardner. Nevertheless, I will not be bullied. Likewise, I cannot and will not try to use my Facebook page as a tool to silence people who hold opposing opinions. However, I will also not tolerate comments from people who are unable or unwilling to maintain civility and basic relevance to the topic being discussed. The complete text of his response is adjacent to this story. Since the ACLUs letter was sent, it appears the problem with censorship is more widespread than originally thought, said Bonney, ACLU. Theres a lot more of this than I realized, he said. The core first amendment right is to speak and be heard by your elected officials, Bonney continued. When elected officials censor those voices, they are violating the First Amendments core principle. If elected officials dont voluntarily comply by allowing constituents to comment, Bonney said other options will be considered. We will evaluate our options, Bonney said. At this point, there are no individual lawsuits anticipated, but it may become necessary to file a lawsuit. ACLUs around the country are looking at this, Bonney said. Currently, there is at least one ACLU branch preparing a lawsuit. The American Civil Liberties Unions website says, Last month, we were contacted by a constituent of the 10th District of Kansas who had been blocked from the official Facebook page of Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook, the state senator representing her district. The constituent was blocked after leaving comments on the page expressing opposition to the policy stances taken by Senator Pilcher-Cook, which were also subsequently deleted. The ACLUs letter to Pilcher-Cook is available online at: https://www.aclukansas.org/en/news/aclu-letter-senator-pilcher-cook-regarding-facebook-page-censorship As of July 11, Rains said his posts to Moores page were still blocked.

See more here:
ACLU may sue over censorship of social media pages by elected officials - Gardnernews.com

Karen Cook

As with most things these days, people do not agree.

I have lived in West Peoria for 43 years, having participated in the Fourth of July parade in various capacities and watched it many times. If the spirit of the Fourth of July stands for anything, it's for the freedoms we enjoy in America. Freedom of speech is No. 1.

I certainly hope the parade does not become censored because there are some groups I would like to see banned. That's not where freedom should lead us. The kids aren't much interested in antique cars, politicians, the pro-life movement or Planned Parenthood, but they are all part of the parade. That's America. I doubt any kids even noticed or understood the float.

The parade is always a fun event. Please don't force it to become a battleground.

Karen Cook

West Peoria

Follow this link:
Letter: No censorship in West Peoria parade - Peoria Journal Star

Denouncing Censorship Photo Internet users mourning Mr. Liu posted images of an empty chair, an echo of the way the Nobel Prize committee honored him in 2010. Credit Weibo

As censors sprung into action after Mr. Lius death, internet users found creative means to convey their opinions. One popular motif was a picture of an empty chair, echoing the way the Nobel Prize committee honored Mr. Liu at the 2010 ceremony. Another common image was a black backdrop accompanied only by the text 1955-2017, the years of Mr. Lius life.

Chinese journalists, lawyers and activists denounced government efforts to erase mentions of Mr. Liu. He is now relatively unknown in China, despite his fame overseas, and the mainland Chinese news media has largely not reported his death. To evade censors who were patrolling the internet for uses of Mr. Lius name, some users instead referred to him as Wang Xiaobo, or Teacher Liu.

The censors were quick to react, blocking searches of several code words. A viral essay on Mr. Lius death titled A Night That Cant Be Discussed was quickly deleted.

Mr. Lius famous phrase I have no enemies and no hatred was widely quoted among his admirers in the hours after his death. He had planned to make the remark at his sentencing on charges of inciting subversion of state power in 2009, but the court forbade him from doing so. Since then, the quotation has become a mantra of hope for pro-democracy activists in China and a reminder of Mr. Lius commitment to nonviolence.

I have no enemies and no hatred. None of the police who monitored, arrested and interrogated me, none of the prosecutors who indicted me, and none of the judges who judged me are my enemies, Mr. Liu wrote in a prepared statement in 2009.

As they grappled with his death, Mr. Lius admirers quoted his writings and poetry. Some remembered his days helping student protesters gathered in Tiananmen Square in 1989. They posted photographs of a dimly lit square, a portrait of Mao blurry in the background.

You are the martyr of freedom, wrote one user. The executioner will never be forgiven.

Iris Zhao, Zoe Mou and Ye Fei contributed research.

Continue reading here:
Chinese Citizens Evade Internet Censors to Remember Liu Xiaobo - New York Times