Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Kerala HC dismisses plea by documentary filmmakers challenging denial of censor exemption – The Indian Express


The Indian Express
Kerala HC dismisses plea by documentary filmmakers challenging denial of censor exemption
The Indian Express
The documentary, directed by Shawn Sebastian and NC Fazil, was one of the three short films which were denied censorship exemption by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for screening at the ongoing festival. All three documentaries, which ...
Allow Screenings Of Films On Rohith Vemula, Kashmir And JNU At Kerala Film Festival, Filmmakers Write To Venkaiah ...Outlook India

all 19 news articles »

Read more:
Kerala HC dismisses plea by documentary filmmakers challenging denial of censor exemption - The Indian Express

Wikileaks Documentary Makers Accuse Assange of Censorship – Newsweek

We are the producers of Risk , a documentary film about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

We unequivocally defend WikiLeaks journalistic right to publish true and newsworthy information.

The Trump administrations threats against WikiLeaks and attacks on press freedom are chilling. As Margaret Sullivan recently argued in the Washington Post, prosecuting WikiLeaks under the Espionage Act would set a dangerous precedent for all journalists.

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

We were disturbed, however, to learn that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks sent cease and desist letters to our distributors demanding they stop the release of Risk: We therefore demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of all images of the Named Participants and that you desist from this or any other infringement of the rights of the Named Participants in the future.

In WikiLeaks efforts to prevent the distribution of Risk , they are using the very tactics often used against them legal threats, false security claims, underhanded personal attacks, misdirection and with the same intentions: to suppress information and silence speech.

Filmmaker Laura Poitras speaks as former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor turned whistleblower Edward Snowden is seen on a video conference screen during an award ceremony for the Carl von Ossietzky journalism prize on December 14, 2014 in Berlin, Germany. Adam Berry/Getty

Since 2016, Assange and his lawyers have repeatedly demanded that we remove scenes from the film in which Assange speaks about the two women who made sexual assault allegations against him in 2010 and Swedens investigation which has since been discontinued.

In response to our refusal to remove these scenes, Assange and his lawyers are now claiming that Risk threatens the safety of the staff who consented to being filmed, and furthermore, that we are being sexist by including Assanges own comments about women in the film.

These arguments are not only false, they are a deliberate effort at misdirection.

Risk was filmed over the course of many years, beginning in 2011. Assange and WikiLeaks freely consented to participating in the film, knowing we were making an independent documentary. Neither WikiLeaks nor Assange have any editorial control of Risk. There were individuals who requested from the beginning not to appear in the film, and those requests were respected.

Wikileaks and their lawyers were shown the film before each public screening, most recently inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London on April 1, 2017. Each time, we invited their responses.

WikiLeaks comments have consistently been about image management, including: demands to remove scenes from the film where Assange discusses sexual assault allegations against him; requests to remove images of alcohol bottles in the embassy because Ecuador is a Catholic country and it looks bad; requests to include mentions of WikiLeaks in the 2016 U.S. presidential debates; and, requests to add more scenes with attorney Amal Clooney because she makes WikiLeaks look good.

It is only after we declined to make the changes they tried to impose that WikiLeaks raised objections to Risk . Their attempts to censor the content of the film are an effort to prevent reporting on Assanges own words. They also constitute a saddening break with WikiLeaks own ideals.

Last month, WikiLeaks lawyers published an op-ed saying they object to our editing in the United States. However, Assange has known since 2015 that we were editing in the U.S. In 2016, he signed an agreement to license WikiLeaks own footage to us and raised no objection to mailing a hard drive with footage directly to our editing room in New York City.

WikiLeaks has also repeatedly publicized their participation in Risk , most recently re-tweeting a link to the films trailer on April 10, 2017 (a tweet that has since been deleted), without raising any concerns.

In their cease and desist letter, lawyers for WikiLeaks and Assange state: The unauthorized release of the Film has caused our clients to suffer ongoing irreparable harm, and exponentially increasing damages every time a new viewer sees the Film.

All the participants in Risk agreed for years to be in the film. We have no obligation to seek WikiLeaks or Assanges authorization to release the film. In fact, our rights under the First Amendment are protected precisely because we are engaging in independent journalism. Assange himself has criticized the media for seeking permission from public figures before releasing stories.

Like WikiLeaks, our journalism has been the target of U.S. government investigation, secret grand jury, and threats by elected officials. We fully understand and empathize with the dangers WikiLeaks is facing, and we stand in solidarity with all journalists and publishers around the world currently under attack.

View post:
Wikileaks Documentary Makers Accuse Assange of Censorship - Newsweek

Facebook Aims to Start Debate on Censorship, Fake News – Variety

Facebook is getting ready to explain itself. The social media juggernaut kick-started an effort to more openly debate questions of free speech and censorship, false and misleading news and the impact social media has on democracy Thursday, announcing a series of posts that aims to explain the thinking and internal debates behind some of the companys policies.

As more and more of our lives extend online, and digital technologies transform how we live, we all face challenging new questions everything from how best to safeguard personal privacy online to the meaning of free expression to the future of journalism worldwide, wrote Facebook VP of Public Policy and Communications Elliot Schragein a blog post.

We debate these questions fiercely and freely inside Facebook every day and with experts from around the world whom we consult for guidance, he wrote. We take seriously our responsibility and accountability for our impact and influence.

To start a public conversation around these subjects, and explain Facebooks stance, the company will try to answer what Schrage called hard questions. A first post, also published Thursday, explored how social networks should fight the spreading of terrorist propaganda online. Another post in the pipeline will aim to answer who should decide if a post is false news, or just political speech.

In addition to explaining Facebooks side, the company also asked users to chime in albeit not publicly. Instead,Schrage encouraged anyone to email questions of comments to a dedicated email address,hardquestions@fb.com arguably an odd choice, given the fact that these very issues are about speech on Facebook.

The initiative is a clear response to growing criticism that Facebook isnt doing enough to fight the spreading of false and misleading news and other types of objectionable content. Facebook first found itself in the defensive over these issues after the election of President Trump, and again after a Cleveland man posted a video of a homicide he had committed on the social network.

Follow this link:
Facebook Aims to Start Debate on Censorship, Fake News - Variety

LETTER: Yearbook censorship is left-wing gone amok – Cherry Hill Courier Post

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

They have taken their cue from the left-wing media, and dictate whatever they choose to show the American people.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

The Courier-Post 2:46 p.m. ET June 15, 2017

Grant Berardo, a Wall High School junior, saw his image digitally altered with a plain black T-shirt in his yearbook. Mike Davis

Wall Township High School junior Grant Berardo's T-shirt was digitally altered in the school's yearbook.(Photo: Courtesy of Joseph Berardo, Jr.)

Thank you, Courier-Post, for publishing the article Teens T-shirt censored in yearbook about Grant Berardo, the Wall Township High School junior who chose to have his yearbook photo taken while wearing a Trump T-shirt. He was very disappointed when it was Photoshopped and shown in the yearbook with the Trump logo removed. He was not breaking any of the schools dress codes.

Wall school superintendent, Cheryl Dyer, said that she was investigating who was responsible. I was pleased to hear that. In this case, it was discovered later that day that the guilty party allegedly was the adviser of the yearbook and has now been suspended. This only demonstrates how emboldened the snowflakes have become. They may feel that it is their privilege to take it upon themselves, fearing no ill consequences for their actions.

They have taken their cue from the left-wing media, and dictate whatever they choose to show the American people. Where has much of our freedom of speech gone? Or is it only for the left? I can see now why President Donald Trump tweets. It is really one of the few avenues left open for the president to get the truth out to the people.

Mickie Shea

Marlton

Read or Share this story: http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/opinion/readers/2017/06/15/letter-yearbook-censorship-left-wing-gone-amok/400807001/

0:55

The rest is here:
LETTER: Yearbook censorship is left-wing gone amok - Cherry Hill Courier Post

National Coalition Against Censorship criticizes Walker for decision … – Minneapolis Star Tribune

Photo credit: Anthony Souffle for Star Tribune

Now that Scaffold has come down andplans for what to do with the wood are underway, several organizations are publicly criticizing the Walker Art Centers actions in the case.

In astatement issued June 9, a group led by the National Coalition Against Censorship took issue with both the outcome and the process by which theWalker agreed to dismantle "Scaffold," which began on Friday, June 2, only seven days after Walker executive director Olga Viso opened public discussion about the sculpture by posting an open letter to the American Indian community.

"The Walkers decision to destroy Scaffold as a way to respond to protests sets an ominous precedent: not only does it weaken the institutions position in future programming but sends a chill over artists and other cultural institutions commitment to creating and exhibiting political, socially relevant work," said the statement from NCAC, which represents more than 50 organizations. The statement also was endorsed by the literary organizationPEN America, the International Association of Art Critics, Observatoire de la libert de cration (France), International Art Rights Advisors, Freemuse defending artistic freedom, Index on Censorship and Stichting In den Vreemde.

Moreover, the statement said, "The hasty decision did not allow for time to obtain meaningful feedback from the broader community or consider various options to respond to the concerns raised by Dakota leaders."

Recognizing theneed for cultural organizations and artists to respond in "creative ways" to such controversies, the coalition had reached out to the Walker, according toJoy Garnett, Arts Advocacy Program Associate at NCAC.

We were in communication with the Walker after the controversy erupted, Garnett said. We decided we might offer our assistance or sounding board we know that these things can be very complex. [The Walker] didnt take our advice to move more slowly. They moved quickly.

The timing of the protests wasinopportune for the Walker, which had planned the sculpture as part of the June 3 reopening of the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden. It made another fast decision: topush back the openinguntil June 10.

Sam Durants Scaffold was a large wooden-and-steel structure composite of the gallows used in seven U.S.-state sanctioned executions, including the abolitionist John Brown (1859), the Dakota 38 (1862), the Lincoln Conspirators (1865), Saddam Hussein (2006), and several others. Facing starvation, a number of Dakota took up arms in 1862 after being forced onto reservations and cheated out of money they were owed. The six-week U.S.-Dakota War cost the lives of an estimated 600 white settlers and soldiers, and 100 Dakota warriors. The Dakota 38 was the largest mass execution in U.S. history.

Protests over the works placement in the Minneapolis Sculpture Gardenbegan on Friday, May 27after Walker Director Olga Viso posted an open letter to The Circle, an American Indian newspaper in St. Paul.The Walkers decision todismantle and remove the sculpturehappenedthe next day, Saturday May 27. One week later, on Friday, June 2,the piece was dismantledin a ceremony with Dakota elders and spiritual leaders.

The Dakota communityhasput a hold on any proposed burning, taking time to reconvene in-person with elders and spiritual leaders from different parts of North America. They willmeet on June 25to decide what to do with the wood, which is being held in an undisclosed location within the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.

Follow this link:
National Coalition Against Censorship criticizes Walker for decision ... - Minneapolis Star Tribune