Mediaboss Marketing

All religious literature would be subject to censorship, sharing beliefs would be banned, adults wanting to study faith abroad would have to notify Religious Affairs officials, and 500 adult citizens in one location would be required to apply for registration if parliament adopts Religion Law amendments.

Full state censorship of all religious literature published, distributed or photocopied in Kyrgyzstan or imported into the country, as well as a ban on sharing beliefs in public particularly from door to door could soon become law. Proposed amendments to the 2009 Religion Law are due to have their first reading in the Zhogorku Kenesh (Parliament) in the capital Bishkek tomorrow (1 June).

The amendments were prepared by the State Commission for Religious Affairs (SCRA), which has been headed since 13 February by Zaiyrbek Ergeshov.

Other provisions in the proposed amendments include a rise in the number of adult citizens living in one place required before a religious community can apply for registration from 200 to 500, as well as a requirement that even adults who travel abroad for religious education have to inform the state where they are studying.

Punishments have not yet been set out for those violating all these provisions.

In addition to the new proposed restrictions, the amendments do not propose removing any of the restrictions on exercising freedom of religion or belief in the current Law. Existing provisions which violate Kyrgyzstan's international human rights commitments include a ban on exercising freedom of religion or belief without state registration (see Forum 18's Kyrgyzstan religious freedom survey http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2013).

Deputies told Forum 18 the amendments could be adopted before parliament's summer break, or after parliament returns in September.

Many provisions of the proposed amendments are close to provisions proposed in 2014. They were strongly criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (see below).

The SCRA's amendments

The proposed amendments were prepared by the SCRA. They were approved by the government on 11 April and sent to Parliament. The text of the draft was published in April on several government websites, including those of the Justice Ministry and the SCRA.

On 16 May Parliament's International Affairs, Defence and Security Committee approved the proposed amendments.

At a hearing on 29 May, the Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee also approved it. SCRA's Director Ergeshov spoke up in the Committee in support of the amendments.

In a demonstration of the wide backing for the proposed new restrictions, the Committee invited to the hearing the Interior, Justice, Foreign, Education and Culture Ministers, the head of the secret police and the General Prosecutor.

Also invited were Chief Mufti Maksat Toktomushev and Russian Orthodox bishop Daniil (Kuznetsov). (The Chief Mufti gained religious education in Pakistan and the bishop in Russia.)

Muftiate representatives backed the amendments, according to the parliamentary website. "Everyone must adhere to their own faith," one insisted. "Cases arise when there are followers of different movements in one family, Muslims and Baptists. This leads to conflicts."

Committee member Ryskeldi Mombekov "supported the amendments in Committee and will speak up in support of them tomorrow in parliament", his assistant told Forum 18 from parliament on 31 May.

Three Committee members opposed the amendments, Committee member Yevgeniya Strokova told Forum 18. One of them, Tazabek Ikramov, described the draft as "unfinished" and called on it to be sent back for further work, according to the parliamentary website.

The proposed amendments have been included in Parliament's agenda for a first reading on 1 June, according to the parliamentary website. The draft will require three readings in parliament before being adopted. It would then be sent to the President to be signed into law.

How soon?

Many previous proposed laws or amendments about religion have failed to be adopted or have been approved by Parliament but not signed into law. Many observers therefore remain unsure whether these amendments will be adopted and, if so, when.

Religious studies expert Galina Kolodzinskaya acknowledges that deputies could adopt the amendments before Parliament's summer break at the end of June, particularly as she believes they have strong political support from leading state figures and agencies.

"If there is no unified voice from civil society and religious communities, the amendments might move through parliament quickly," Kolodzinskaya told Forum 18 from Bishkek on 31 May. "Sadly, religious communities are fragmented and are unlikely to work together on this."

"But it's quite possible they will be postponed until after the presidential elections now scheduled for 15 October," Kolodzinskaya added. "If that is the case, all will depend on what attitude the new president will take, as religious policy is in the hands of the president."

Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Natalya Nikitenko, who has concerns about some provisions in the draft amendments, says that ten days should separate the three readings at minimum. "But the initiators could speed up the adoption of the amendments," she told Forum 18 from Bishkek on 31 May.

Nikitenko hopes consideration of the draft will not be rushed. "There must be time to consider this properly, hopefully in the autumn after parliament has had a proper chance to listen to people's views in public hearings."

Proposed new restrictions: religious censorship

A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 22 would introduce full state censorship of all religious literature produced, copied or distributed in Kyrgyzstan or imported into the country. Only registered religious organisations are identified as being allowed religious literature and only "commensurate with their needs" (which are undefined).

Individuals would be allowed to acquire only "individual copies" of religious books and materials and only "in line with procedures established by the government".

All religious literature in print or digital form and other materials would be subject to compulsory prior state censorship by the SCRA. The amendments specifically ban the printing or publication of any works without its express permission.

SCRA Deputy Director Zakir Chotayev denied that this would represent censorship. "It is the same as in the current Law," he claimed to Forum 18 from Bishkek on 31 May. However, while the current Law allows the SCRA to censor religious literature it does not mandate it.

Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Strokova supported the religious censorship. "I'm not against freedom," she claimed to Forum 18. "But there must be limits."

But fellow Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Nikitenko warned that the proposed state religious censorship would increase the powers of the SCRA. "There is no control over what the SCRA does," she complained to Forum 18. "It's not a transparent organisation."

Proposed new restrictions: ban on sharing faith

A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 5 widens the ban on sharing faith. "Illegitimate proselytism, going round flats or homes with the aim of spreading religious views is banned, as is any illegal missionary activity. Those guilty of violating this provision bear responsibility under the Code of Administrative Offences."

A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 3 defines "illegitimate proselytism" as "actions directed at attracting to one's own faith followers of other faiths by means of psychological and physical pressure, threats and violence".

The current Article 5 bans only "insistent actions" aimed at sharing faith, though it does ban "illegal missionary activity".

Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Strokova defended this restriction. She complained that "religiously illiterate people" share their faith and argued that this has to be stopped.

"Anyone could say they are doing this, but there's no guarantee they're professing the faith that they should profess," she told Forum 18. "You don't allow unqualified people to talk about medicine the same goes for religion. We need to prevent spiritual violence." Asked whether adults are incapable of making up their own mind about any views they hear on religion, she responded: "You're deliberately twisting my words."

Proposed new restrictions: Further registration obstruction

Religious communities which want to gain state registration will find it even harder if the amendments are adopted. A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 8 would require not 200 adult citizens as at present but 500 to apply to register a religious community. The amendment also implies that these 500 adult citizens must live in one region of the country.

SCRA Deputy Director Chotayev insisted to Forum 18 that the suggestion for 500 adult citizen members in one location came from a "public consultation". He declined to say who had proposed this or why it had been included.

Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Nikitenko told Forum 18 she sees no need for the number of required members to be increased. She fears this could harm "law-abiding religious communities", including smaller communities such as of Jews or Buddhists. Fellow deputy Strokova told Forum 18 of her similar concerns.

However, another proposed amendment to Article 8 would allow the creation of a centralised religious organisation to religious organisations from a minimum of seven of the country's nine regions. Under the current Law, organisations have to be present and registered in all nine regions before they can apply for a centralised religious organisation.

The proposed amendments at least in theory remove one of the obstacles for local communities to apply for formal registration (known in Russian as "uchetnaya registratsia"). Previously this required local keneshes (councils) to approve such applications, but the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled in September 2014 that this was illegal. However, officials have so far ignored this ruling and many local communities struggle to get such registration (see F18News 11 November 2016 http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2230).

Proposed new restrictions: State notification to study religion abroad

A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 6 requires anyone wishing to study in a foreign religious educational establishment to notify the SCRA of where they intend to study. The amendments do not say whether the SCRA is empowered to withhold permission for an individual to study their faith abroad.

Another proposed amendment to Article 6 would ban private teaching of religion. The current Law bans the private teaching of "religious studies".

Proposed new restrictions: SCRA's warning, liquidation powers

A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 26 would allow the SCRA greater powers to warn, halt or seek to liquidate religious organisations that conduct activity "contradicting the goals" of an organisation or "not specified in the statute". A warned or halted religious organisation can challenge the SCRA's decision in court. The SCRA would have to seek liquidation of an organisation through the courts.

The SCRA is empowered to conduct inspections of religious organisations to ensure that they are abiding by the law either at its own initiative, at the initiative of state agencies or in response to complaints.

UN comments ignored

The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee commented on the Religion Law and possible plans to amend it in March 2014 Concluding Observations (CCPR/C/KGZ/CO/2) to its consideration of Kyrgyzstan's record under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It noted that "the Committee is concerned about the restrictions incompatible with provisions of the Covenant [ICCPR] contained in the current law, including with respect to missionary activities, registration procedure and dissemination of religious literature" (see F18News 1 April 2014 http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=1944).

The Committee stressed that the then planned amendments to the Religion Law should "remove all restrictions incompatible with Article 18 of the Covenant, by providing for a transparent, open and fair registration process of religious organizations and eliminating distinctions among religions that may lead to discrimination" (see F18News 1 April 2014 http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=1944).

However, many provisions of the current proposed amendments are similar to those proposed in 2014.

SCRA Deputy Director Chotayev dismissed the UN's stated views. "We live in Kyrgyzstan and have our own procedures," he told Forum 18. "We're an independent state." When Forum 18 reminded him that Kyrgyzstan is a member of the UN and has acceded to the ICCPR he put the phone down.

Religious communities mostly no comment

While Muftiate leaders have been vocal in their support for the proposed restrictions, leaders of most other faiths have remained silent. Forum 18 could find no leaders of other faiths prepared to express their views publicly.

Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Nikitenko said she had seen no comments from other communities. "Our Committee was not given any comments," she told Forum 18.

Nikitenko acknowledged that many communities are afraid to come forward with comments. "There is fear among the population, which is a limit on freedom of speech. But parliament must hear the voice of the people that's why we are calling for public hearings in parliament on the proposed amendments."

Privately, a number expressed concerns over at least parts of the draft. One spoke of the "onerous registration requirements which make registration for minority religions virtually impossible", adding that the "total ban" on sharing faith is also a concern.

"After the SCRA published the draft in April, most religious leaders preferred not to lodge official comments," a religious activist told Forum 18 from Bishkek. "This was because of the negative response last time around, when their comments were used to make the draft even harsher. In effect they were revealing their Achilles heel." (END)

For more background information see Forum 18's Kyrgyzstan religious freedom survey at http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2013.

More reports on freedom of thought, conscience and belief in Kyrgyzstan can be found at http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?query=&religion=all&country=30.

A compilation of Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) freedom of religion or belief commitments can be found at http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1351.

A printer-friendly map of Kyrgyzstan is available at http://nationalgeographic.org/education/mapping/outline-map/?map=Kyrgyzstan.

Twitter: @Forum_18

Follow us on Facebook: @Forum18NewsService

All Forum 18 News Service material may be referred to, quoted from, or republished in full, if Forum 18 is credited as the source.

Read the original post:
KYRGYZSTAN: Religious censorship, sharing faiths ban? - Forum 18

The new Netflix adaptation has young readers (and their parents, and their teachers) casting a curious eye at Jay Ashers Thirteen Reasons Why and if the suicide of its main character is likely to influence real-life tragedies. A librarian tackles this subject for Book Riot, pointing to an instance in Colorado where the book was briefly banned from a high school campus in the wake oflosing several students to suicide.The pain ofsuch an incident overwhelms the reason of even the most reasonable adult, creating the ideal conditions for censorship: In response, we become desperate to do something. Thats good, writes Amy Diegelman. The trouble, though, is that we want something to do now and there are no fast or easy answers. She goes on to list some of the other steps a community can take to ensure that the needs of its young people are taken care of.

By handing its Best Director award to Sofia Coppola, the Cannes Film Festival seems to have set a new standard for representation in the film world, but according to Jessica Chastain, ifyou watch all the movies themselves, you might get a different impression. Speaking out asthe eventconcluded, the actress (and festival judge) offered a grimdiagnosis, having just watched twenty movies in ten days: The one thing I really took away from this experience is how the world views women from the female characters that I saw represented. And it was quite disturbing to me to be honest. (She did note there were some exceptions.) The article also points out that, despite Coppolas historic win and an overall increase of films directed by women, they still only made up 15.8% of the competition. While these moments of progress are definitely something to celebrate, this is hardly the time to start feeling complacent.

Speaking of female directors, Patty Jenkins may have achieved the impossible with her newWonder Woman adaptation, which is already a hit with the critics. Unlike so many of the superhero movies that have preceded it, Jenkinss Wonder Woman required very few reshoots (which means there are almost no deleted scenes), nor did we change the order of one scene in this movie from the script that we went in shooting with. In the age of action films that end up mostly being made (and re-made) in the editing room, this is a terrific accomplishment. Just dont expect to see a teaser about the sequel in the closing credits, because so far no one (including Jenkins) has any idea what happens next.

David Sedaris has opened some of his diaries to the public in the new bookTheft by Finding, but the author claims thatanythinghe found while diggingthrough these old records is somewhat outshone by the material thatsnotably absent. Sedaris explains how growing up in the pre-digital era putlimits on what he was willing to commit to paper: I think thats one of the reasons that Ive never written about sex. Because early on you had to worry that someone was going to find your diary, so its bad enough to be writing like Joan Didion, but writing like Joan Didion about sex acts youd performed with somebody you had known for twenty minutes, thats a bit worse. So I would write in my diary, I met J. and we had sex five times last night. But I would never write about what we did. Now Id give anything to know what I did. Id give anything to know!

More:
The Case Against School Censorship of 'Thirteen Reasons Why' - Signature Reads

Just would like to thank the Southside Fire Department and all the emergency management companies that responded so quickly and professionally after the tornado touchdown on Wilmington Island. We do appreciate them.

Does anybody out there know if Georgia shrimp season is open yet? My mouth is watering for some fresh-caught, local Georgia wild shrimp. [Editors note: The season opens June 1.]

Would somebody please explain to me what Xfinity is supposed to mean? This Comcast guy keeps talking about Xfinity and is so excited by it. Im sick and tired of hearing it.

I wish I didnt have to ride the CAT buses because they sure are filthy.

We need censorship of the language on TV again. It is ridiculous!

And for eight solid years before the election of Donald Trump, it totally revealed the rights hate.

Trump, who denigrated a Gold Star family during his campaign, should be banned for life from the sacred grounds of Arlington National Cemetery. How dare this five-time draft dodger pose and posture at the Grave of the Unknowns, at the hallowed ground where my Navy Korean War hero father-in-law is buried? Where my husband, a Vietnam War helicopter door gunner, will rest one day?

In regards to global warming, Mr. David Kyler might want to read a new research paper by Patrick Michaels from the Cato Institute. The data is refreshing and should help people living on the coast relax. Or they could both be wrong and what is or isnt happening could just be a natural process that we have to adapt to like our ancestors.

A suggestion for traffic control to Tybee Island: Instead of having officers sit on the side of the road with engines running, have several of them drive back and forth with the traffic. This will encourage lawful participation in speed limits and awareness.

I keep getting pulled over for driving much faster than my cruise control says, then being given warnings when I tell them I was on cruise. Ive had the dealership check my speedometer twice. Do the police claim you were driving faster than you were just to see if youll accept it as fact?

See the original post:
Vox Populi: 'We need censorship of the language on TV again.' - Savannah Morning News

Verbal attacks by right-wing groups and politicians in Beer Sheva are threatening both NGOs and the local university.

By Daniel Beller

A meeting at Multaqa-Mifgash, the only joint Arab-Jewish group operating in Beer Sheva. (Negev Coexistence Forum)

Over the past year various entities, including right-wing movements, have been trying to close down a joint Jewish-Arab cultural institution in the southern Israeli town of Beer Sheva. The Multaqa-Mifgash Center, founded by the Negev Coexistence Forum (NCF), operates out of a municipal bomb shelter and stages activities and events focused on coexistence. Its a unique institution in Beer Sheva, and aside from Ben-Gurion University is the only place in the city that holds discussions on fundamental, sensitive issues within the local community.

Actions taken against the NCF have included sabotaging attempts to host a panel discussion on conscientious objection featuring members of Breaking the Silence, as well as the screening of a Palestinian-Dutch film, which were canceled following threats from right-wing political activists and warning noises from the Beer Sheva municipality.

Furthermore, the municipality has previously tried to cancel a Multaqa-Mifgash film screening, prompting the councils legal advisor approached by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel to spell out that banning political activities harms freedom of expression.

On May 11, 2017, the municipality sent the NCF a letter in which it claimed that the NGO had violated the contract under which it has been using the shelter to hold Multaqa-Mifgash events since 2006. A few days later, an Association for Civil Rights in Israel attorney, Dan Yakir, responded to the municipality and rejected its claims.

A few days later, on May 14, Beer Sheva council member Ortal Perlman Shmueli announced that she and fellow city councilors from Shas, Yisrael Beitenu and LIkud would be seeking to ban the NCF from using the municipal shelter. Later on, Shmueli posted on Facebook that the goal had been achieved and that the organization had been removed from the shelter. The Beer Sheva municipality stated afterwards that the only thing which had been requested was a clarification of the groups activities.

NCF CEO Haia Noach explained that the shelter used by Multaqa-Mifgash is the only one out of 60 assigned to NGOs that is used for shared Jewish-Arab activities We demand that the municipality immediately step back from canceling the assignment of the shelter [to us], and we intend to fight with every tool we have in order to guarantee Multaqa-Mifgashs can continue.

The NCF is not alone: on Wednesday, Jewish Home MK Bezalel Smotrich summoned an emergency debate in the Knessets Education Committee on Ben-Gurion University and its president, Professor Rivka Carmi. Smotrich claimed that the university supports BDS, pointing at a series of statements made by the academic staff and conferences he alleged had been held on its premises.

Jewish Home MK Bezalel Smotrich at a Knesset committee hearing, November 28, 2016. (Photo by Miriam Alster/Flash90)

The debate featured a broad spectrum of participants, including representatives from the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, the Justice Ministry, Ben-Gurion University, the Council for Higher Education, the Anti-Defamation League, student organizations, and a range of different government departments, including the Prime Ministers Office. Carmi, who received a tidal wave of criticism from Beer Sheva residents, was forced to respond to the allegations thrown at her by Smotrich and members of far-right group Im Tirtzu. (It should be noted that the committee of university heads fiercely condemned Carmis summons to the hearing.)

Ben-Gurion University seems, over the last few years, to have become a greenhouse for people who delegitimize the IDF and the State of Israel, Smotrich wrote prior to the debate. In particular, there is a growing discourse among faculty members against the State of Israel. Professor Neve Gordon, for example, said that the most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state. And Dr. Eyal Nir, who said: I call on the world to come and break the necks of these bastards (right-wing activists).

Professor Carmi read out her response during the hearing. The current debate held under a baseless and degrading heading and accompanied by wild and violent online incitement against me does no credit to its initiator, she said. Carmi detailed contributions by the university and its faculty to the fight against the boycott of Israel, and described hers and her staffs appearances in support of Israel at international forums. The hearing occasionally resembled those of the McCarthy era.

This is the third year in a row of attempts to attack the university in the same week as the meeting of its board of governors. Time and again futile claims are made and rehashed that have no relation to facts, reality, or truth. The same few academic staff who have expressed individual political opinions and signed petitions as is appropriate in a democratic state are, again and again, singled out from a faculty of over 850. They are not doing so in the name of the university, which is a pluralistic institution with many different opinions just like any other organization in Israel and the world.

Daniel Beller is a journalist, blogger and radio broadcaster based in Beer Sheva. This post was originally published in Hebrew on Local Call, where he is a blogger.

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

Read the original post:
Creeping censorship in a southern Israeli town - +972 Magazine

With nearly 2 billion users, Facebook reaches nearly a quarter of the people on the planet. And while its broadcasting power can be used for promoting good causes and unleashing viral cat videos, it can also be used to distribute hateful and violent content. This has put Facebook in the uncomfortable position of making judgment calls about whether the millions of posts flagged by its users as objectionable each week should be allowed to stay, flagged to other users as disturbing, or removed completely. Its an unprecedented responsibility at this scale.

The range of issues is broadfrom bullying and hate speech to terrorism and war crimesand complex, Monika Bickert, Facebooks head of global policy management, recently wrote in an op-ed. To meet this challenge, she said, our approach is to try to set policies that keep people safe and enable them to share freely.

Once Facebook sets these rules, it relies on 4,000 human content moderators to apply them to individual flagged posts.

The job isnt straightforward. According to a Guardian report based on thousands of pages of Facebooks content moderator training materials, Someone shoot Trump should be permitted, but not the phrase Lets beat up fat kids. Digitally created art showing sexual activity should be removed, but all handmade erotic art is fine. Videos showing abortions are also permittedas long as they dont feature nudity.

Guidelines like these illustrate the complexity of content regulation, which until social media came around, involved questions that, for the most part, only governments faced at scale. What constitutes dangerous speech? Should some peoplesuch as the presidentbe treated differently when they make criticisms or threats, or hate speech (paywall)? When is it in the public interest to show obscenity or violence? Should nudity be permitted, and in what contexts?

Some of Facebooks answers to these difficult questions mimic content regulation laws created by democratic governments. According to the Guardian, for instance, Facebook tolerates some violent content, unless it gives us a reasonable ground to accept that there is no longer simply an expression of emotion but a transition to a plot or design. This is somewhat similar to how the US views violent content, which tends to be protected unless it incites immediate violence. (Many European countries, meanwhile, have laws that prohibit violent content or hate speech.)

But the process Facebook uses to create and apply these policies has little in common with democratic governments, which have long, often-transparent processes for creating new laws and courts that weigh each case with considerations that arent available to Facebook moderators. Facebook could improve its content moderation policies, some suggest, by also borrowing some of these ideasrelated to process rather than policyfrom democratic governments.

The multiplication of guidelines, says Agns Callamard, the director of Global Freedom of Expression at Columbia University, as well meaning and well written as they may be, cannot be the answer.

Time to a decision: Facebook relies on thousands of content moderators to make decisions about whether to remove, permit, or label specific content as disturbing based on its rules. To deal with the massive scale on Facebook, the company recently said it would hire 3,000 additional people to review posts. It has also invested in artificial intelligence that could reduce the amount of work for human moderators.

For now, according to one report, a typical Facebook content moderator makes a decision about a flagged piece of content about once every 10 seconds (a Facebook spokesperson declined to confirm or deny this number, saying she didnt have the data). Context is so important, Facebooks Bickert told NPR last year. Its critical when we are looking to determine whether or not something is hate speech, or a credible threat of violence, she said. We look at how a specific person shared a specific post or word or photo to Facebook. So were looking to see why did this particular share happen on Facebook? Why did this particular post happen? Those questions take time to evaluate effectively.

Thats one reason why in most democratic countries, Callamard says, content regulation by media regulators and the courts involve decisions that take days or weeks.

Debate: Content moderators on Facebook dont hear arguments for why they should either permit or remove a piece of content. Users whose pages or accounts they remove do have an option to appeal the decision by submitting it for another review (Facebook recommends they remove the violating content first).

Government content regulators usually have more input from opposing sides. [Decisions] will often involve a judicial process, including several parties arguing one side or the other [as well as] judges reviewing the various arguments and making a decision, Callamard says.

Open discussion of rules: Facebook publishes broad guidelines for what it allows and disallows on its site, but, to keep users from gaming the system, the specifics are only shared in internal documents like the hundreds of training manuals, spreadsheets, and flowcharts that leaked to the Guardian.

A Facebook spokesperson says the company consults experts and local organizations to inform its community standards, but the public doesnt know all of Facebooks content moderation rules, nor is it part of creating them.

By contrast, Callamard says, in a democratic government, the laws upon which these decisions are made have been discussed and debated in Parliament by members of Parliament; by government ministers and where they exist by regional inter-governmental bodies. These laws or decrees would have been the object of several readings, and in the best case scenarios, the general public (including those particularly concerned by the law, e.g. the media) would have been brought in a formal consultation process.

Fundamental context: Governments have different goals than Facebook. In a democratic society, fundamental guiding principles include freedom of expression, freedom of political debate, and protecting content related to the public interest. At an advertising business like Facebook, success involves attracting and retaining users, many of whom dont want to visit a website that shows them offensive or dangerous content. This is a fundamental dimension of the way, in my opinion, Facebook always approaches content regulation, Callamard says. It cannot go so far and so as to undermine or weaken a business model based upon, and driven by data and more data (individuals data).

Here is the original post:
Facebook has a government-size censorship responsibility without the structure to handle it - Quartz