Mediaboss Marketing

Datuk Kamil Othman said most censorship boards elsewhere are parked under a ministry that is arts and culture-centric, or security-centric. Picture by Choo Choy MayPETALING JAYA April 30 Malaysias controversial Film Censorship Board (LPF) might progress faster if it were moved out from under the Home Ministrys purview, a ministerial advisor suggested.

Datuk Kamil Othman, creative industries advisor to the Communications and Multimedia Ministry, said that most censorship boards elsewhere are parked under the arts and culture ministry or its equivalent.

Whereas here [its] under Ministry of Home Affairs, so because its Home Affairs, obviously they are more concerned with security and bigger picture and all that.

So the right way is one day hopefully, if enough of us managed to say that look perhaps the situation lies more in putting the Censorship Board under the right ministry, maybe thats the answer, he told a public forum on censorship last Thursday night.

Kamil was responding to a question on whether it would be helpful to have people from the film industry sitting as independent members of the LPF.

While the LFP is a government body filled with government servants in its current set-up, Kamil said there are specialists among its board members who understand the need for flexibility even as they must consider local sensitivities when approving movies for Malaysian mass consumption.

At the end of the day, its about reviewing the law. Reviewing the law is not as difficult as it seems, provided theres enough momentum, he said.

The Censorship Act is not like something from the Holy Quran or from the Bible or the other holy scriptures which cannot be changed. It is man-made, so anything that is man-made I believe can only come with a proper engagement process and education as a tool, Kamil said.

For change to happen, he said there must be enough public momentum to push federal lawmakers to act.

However, he said the Malaysian film industry is not a top priority locally compared to other countries due to its low level as an economic generator, and gave as example, the 2015 award-winning Western movie The Revenant starring Leonardo DiCaprio that supported 15,000 jobs.

What do the Brits do?

To Kamil, the UK experience and shift in attitude towards censorship also offers some worthwhile lessons to Malaysia.

Originally called the British Board of Film Censorship, it is now known as the British Board of Film Classification. While its board members still propose cuts, their main task today is to act as examiners and decide the appropriate ratings of a film for mass consumption.

In the UK too, different local councils have great leeway in deciding what films are suitable and how they should be screened in their area. As the licensing authority for cinemas in their areas, the town councils have the final word and can even change the ratings of a movie or bar its screening locally.

Kamil later told Malay Mail Online after the forum that the LPF might have a different positioning if a decision on the board's direction is made after proper engagement with the public.

He also noted there are some who are still concerned about the communications aspect of films rather than just seeing them as pure entertainment.

Founder and MD of Red Communications and Red Films, Lina Tan agrees that local censorship laws should be amended. Picture by Choo Choy MayTech and the law

Film producer Lina Tan, who was also one of the forum speakers, agreed that local censorship laws should be amended.

To her, technology has made censorship outdated; it is also a game-changer, particularly for independent filmmakers who have more options and who can now bypass censors and reach a wider audience directly through the internet.

But she noted that commercial filmmakers would still follow the traditional route of working within legal limits because they had business and financial considerations, as well as obligations to safeguard their employees livelihood.

The unorthodox online screening of Absent Without Leavedirected by Sitiawan-born Lau Kek Huat for a week at the end of February this year generated much buzz among Malaysians after the LPF banned its theatrical release, especially when the award-winning film had been shown at film festivals abroad.

Absent Without Leave was made available on the Internet to local viewers for free. Picture via Facebook/Absent Without LeaveResponding to a question over the regulation of films viewed offline and online in Malaysia, Kamil said that the MSC Bill of Guarantees in the 1990s promising no censorship of the internet still stands, but the government had introduced the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to regulate cyber content as it was well aware that such freedom is a double-edged sword.

As it was never defined what can or cannot be shown online, the internet regulator will act whenever it receives public complaints, he explained.

Lawyer Syahredzan Johan says such a broad scope is outdated and the Film Censorship Act needs a review. Picture by Choo Choy MayReigning in overly-broad powers

What many may not know is that the Film Censorship Act is worded broadly enough to be used against online content, including videos shared through social media platforms like WhatsApp, if the authorities wished, civil liberties lawyer Syahredzan Johan said.

Syahredzan who was also one of the forum panellists that night said such a broad scope is outdated and needs a review.

He also pointed out the ridiculous nature of the current provisions of the Film Censorship Act which replaced a 1952 law where even owning a film without the boards approval would be considered a crime.

Just from the point of view of technology, it has moved away from 2002 when this law was first enacted, so it doesnt make sense. Why is it that we are accepting that these people have power over us to even record something, have something in possession, circulate it? he asked.

Syahredzan proposed several changes to the Film Censorship Act, including removing the requirement for the Film Censorship Boards approval to screen films that are not for commercial use, while also giving the ratings system more prominence for films that have to go through LPF before screening in cinemas.

The LPF doesnt have to give approval, they can give classifications or ratings, he said.

But he suggested the board should retain the power to specifically ban certain films such as those that promote hate speech, if screening them posed a real threat to public order or national security.

I personally dont agree we need to censor or prohibit, but maybe an argument can be made if you have a film that the objective is to spread hatred against another race group for example.

So you can have residual power to ban, but not prior approval from the board to do anything, he said.

He also said the law must also be amended to enable the courts the power to review decisions by the Films Appeal Committee.

Section 23 of the Film Censorship Actstates that the Films Appeal Committee has the power to either affirm, vary or reverse LPFs decisions and that the committees decision shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law.

The panellists were speaking at Thursday nights The Future of Cinema and Censorship in Malaysia, which was jointly organised by Pusat Komas, the Society for the Promotion of Human Rights and the Freedom Film Network.

* Editors note: The article has been updated on May 1, 2017.

Continue reading here:
Which direction should film censorship in Malaysia go? - Malay Mail Online

With the controversies over campus lectures coming to a head this spring, academic liberals are finally beginning to vocalize their substantive defenses of censorship.

In the New Republic, a Colby College professor argued that keeping conservative speakers off campus is necessary to the process of curating knowledge of value for impressionable students. On Monday, New York University Vice Provost Ulrich Baer defended so-called "snowflakes" in the pages of the New York Times, dramatically thanking them for "keeping watch over the soul of our republic."

"The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks," Baer wrote. "It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community."

Baer uses the example of transgender rights to claim "the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing."

In fact, the opposite is true.

When I was in school, progressive students attempted to shut down my Young Americans for Freedom chapter because we opposed mandatory sensitivity training on transgender pronouns. We objected primarily to the idea of mandating political training, not the use of pronouns. But because we exercised our right to speak out, our campus engaged in a productive conversation about the merits of "mandatory sensitivity training," which is a reasonable discussion on the proper roles of university authorities. All participants emerged from the experience enriched by its lessons.

Baer would have that conversation stifled for preventing transgender people from being "recognized as fully human," despite both sides' emphatic efforts to speak with the utmost respect and compassion for members of that community.

But no matter how many times conservatives make those efforts, progressives obsess over every syllable we utter to argue that we are denying the humanity of any given marginalized community. There is nothing we can do short of agreeing with the Left to satisfy their standards. Even if our group on campus had objected to the use of transgender pronouns, is it not possible to argue that point, or, say, argue against Black Lives Matter, without denying people their humanity? If any new idea is automatically immune from rigorous debate simply because the opposition is deemed harmful to people, where does that standard lead us?

Consequently, serious discussion has become impossible on campuses. When mainstream conservative thought is equated with white supremacy or hate speech, only one side is afforded the right to express itself.

Like the Colby professor, Baer also argues that students no longer need to hear from campus speakers to be exposed to dissenting opinions because they enjoy access to the internet. It's true that any student on a campus where Charles Murray or Ann Coulter has been banned is able to watch another lecture on YouTube or pick up their books. But that's not what happens. At campus lectures, interested students who both agree and disagree often bring less interested friends to the event who would never otherwise seek out the information.

The lectures broach new ideas that would never otherwise find an audience in the classrooms of most liberal professors. And they give students the opportunity to engage directly with those speakers, allowing them to ask questions about issues specific to their campus or their personal lives. It is not something that can be replicated.

When I hosted a lecture by a prominent conservative on my campus, a liberal student stepped up to the microphone during a question and answer session to challenge the speaker on religious liberty. The speaker's answer, measured and calm, left the student speechless. She eventually retreated from the microphone after tilting her head and saying, "I guess I never thought of it in that way before."

That is the value of a campus lecture.

Professors do not give voice to alternative viewpoints, often presenting their perspectives as unimpeachable fact, thereby discouraging young people from even thinking to investigate the issues further. As a consequence, students graduate with worldviews that have never been subject to constructive criticism.

"It has been regrettably easy for commentators to create a simple dichotomy between a younger generation's oversensitivity and free speech as an absolute good that leads to the truth," Baer contended.

To some extent, I have to agree. For instance, I'm glad Baer published this op-ed because conservatives (understandably) have developed a reflex to issue outrage and mockery over the actions of "snowflakes" without understanding how the material professors like Baer teach in the classroom informs their behavior.

The crux of Baer's argument, however, is that these "snowflakes" are not oversensitive they are reasonably sensitive. He argues that if a speaker denies a marginalized community their humanity per the judgment of those privileged enough to hold power on college campuses (liberals) they are rightfully silenced. But it is doubtful that if a conservative student objected to a liberal speaker on the basis that their message is psychologically harmful to the humanity of, for instance, people of faith, they would be taken seriously.

This strikes me as similar to feminists' complaints about relinquishing power over women's rights to the "patriarchy." How can institutions dominated by one group who cannot understand another be trusted to protect it?

The problem with imposing qualifications on free speech, especially in higher education, is that they inevitably require the liberal academic bureaucracy to make judgments on what constitutes reasonable insight.

That will never ensure academia provides students with the balanced and challenging educations they are paying tens of thousands of dollars to receive.

The best answer to these questions is always to facilitate more speech, not less.

Emily Jashinskyis a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Read the original post:
NYU professor defends censorship and 'snowflakes' amid lecture ... - Washington Examiner

Russia will host the Confederations Cup this summer as they prepare for the 2018 World Cup.

German Football Association (DFB) president Reinhard Grindel has backed the Bild newspaper over claims of Russian censorship ahead of this summer's Confederations Cup.

Bild, Germany's most popular paper, has said it will boycott this summer's Confederations Cup in Russia if journalists are not given freedom to report as they please.

Print journalists attending the event -- which serves as a warm-up for the 2018 World Cup in Russia -- have been informed that they will be restricted in their travelling and reporting.

The guidelines issued to journalists working in print media with approved accreditation for the tournament stipulate that they "will solely cover the FIFA Confederations Cup 2017 and related events," with their reporting limited to the "territory of the host cities and cultural sites located nearby."

If media want to report from other territories, or cover events unrelated to the Confederations Cup, a separate visa issued by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is required. That stipulation is not included in the guidelines for broadcasters with approved accreditation.

On Tuesday, Bild made those stipulations public and announced a boycott of the Confederations Cup as long as "censorship" remained in place.

The paper claimed that FIFA is aware of the restrictions and views them as "a relief."

Bild was backed by DFB president Grindel, who promised to address the issue at the next FIFA Council meeting in May.

Grindel told the paper: "At the next FIFA Council meeting on May 9, I will advocate for free coverage for accredited journalists at the Confederations Cup. It would be an important signal for the 2018 World Cup if the Russian Organising Committee, right from the dress rehearsal, made it clear there are no restrictions of the freedom of press."

Ralf Stegner -- a vice president of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the smaller partner in Germany's grand coalition -- told Bild: "Just as we don't think it's right that U.S. President [Donald] Trump attacks the 'fake media,' we can't accept it when [Russian President Vladimir] Putin or FIFA restrict freedom of press."

Stephan Uersfeld is the Germany correspondent for ESPN FC. Follow him on Twitter @uersfeld.

Read the original here:
DFB backs Bild's Russian censorship claims - ESPN FC

Published time: 26 Apr, 2017 15:00

There is a desperate effort to block the truth which pervades all Western media, near total censorship of events occurring in Syria, claims Virginia State Senator Richard Black.

The president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Pedro Agramunt, has landed himself in trouble for visiting Syria and meeting President Assad. Agramunt appeared before a hearing after some members demanded a vote of no confidence.

Pedro Agramunt apologized for the trip during the first day of PACE's spring session in Strasbourg on Monday.

RT:You've been to Damascus several times and have just returned from Syria. What prompted you to go? Do you think Mr. Agramunt had similar motives?

Read more

Richard Black: I am very anxious to achieve peace in the Middle East. The US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have promoted war in Syria for six years now. Because of those nations actions we have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people and disturbed one of the most peaceful countries in the Middle East. I thought that was very interesting, I looked at the Charter for the Council of Europe. And part of it includes freedom of expression in the media. And here we have Mr. Agramunt going over there and communicating and doing exactly what the Council prescribes - which is to express things freely, to have journalistic interaction. And here he is being threatened with being fired. There is globally nearly total censorship of events occurring in Syria. And there is a tremendous desire to bar people from hearing the truth of what is going on in Syria. It doesnt take long for anyone who visits the country to recognize that you have two sides: the popularly elected government of Syria fighting against the terrorists. The terrorists are supplied with US anti-tank missiles with money from Saudi Arabia, with trade from TurkeyThere is this bizarre situation of censorship, and I think President Agramunt made a mistake he should have been totally unapologetic. His view was to help find a solution to the war and to avoid further refugee crisis. That is it. There is nothing to apologize for. Everybody is so afraid of this global force, and I simply refuse to be a part of it. And people dont quite know how to deal with me because of that.

RT:After returning from Syria, you and fellow politician Tulsi Gabbard criticized American policy on Syria. Do you think Western officials worry that more people would understand the Syrian government's position if they go there?

RB: I think there is a very deep concern. And if you look at the recent gas event in Khan Sheikhoun, I have defied anyone on the planet to answer this question: if President Assad felt so desperate that he had to use sarin gas, why didnt he use it on enemy soldiers, why would he go out and simply decide Lets just grab a group of people walking down the street with babies, lets attack them. We dont have time to attack the immense fortifications, the tens of thousands of terrorists who are holding trench positions. The notion is so absurd that a three-year-old child should be able to see through the whole thing What you see is a desperate effort to block the truth, and it has pervaded all Western media

Kamal Alam, military analyst, told RT that "there is an established narrative in the West which means there is no dialogue with Damascus or the Syrian government."

"Anyone who goes to find out what is happening is dimmed as a rebel or persona non grata. This has been the case from the beginning of this war. That is what led to these problems. Ever since the embassies shut down, there have been no eyes or ears on the ground that can verify all that is happening. Anyone who tries to is ostracized as soon as they go there," he added.

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

Read the original post:
'There is global censorship over Syria' RT Op-Edge - RT.com - RT

Several countries have interfered with or banned access to the social networking website Facebook, including[1]China,[2]Iran,[3] and North Korea.[4] Use of the website has also been restricted in other ways in other countries. As of May 2016, the only countries to ban access around the clock to the social networking site are China, Iran, and North Korea. However, since the vast majority of North Korean residents do not have access to the internet, in reality China and Iran are the only Countries where access to Facebook is actively restricted in a wholesale manner.

Bangladesh (like Iran, China and North Korea) has banned Facebook - the Bangladeshi ban operated for a short period of time[when?]. The Awami League-led government of Bangladesh announced a countrywide ban on Facebook and other social-network websites. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina (in office from 2009) proposed the establishment of an Internet monitoring committee with the help of Bangladesh's intelligence services. Previously the government had blocked websites. Right-wing political parties and groups in Bangladesh protested against bloggers and others they consider "blasphemous"; at the time of the proposal. Extremists in the country had murdered eight secularists , including atheist blogger Ahmed Rajib Haider, who was fatally stabbed in February 2013. National riots over the country's war-crimes trials resulted in the deaths of 56 people between 19 January 2013 and 2 March 2013.

On 18 November 2015 the same Awami League government banned Facebook again on the eve of the final judgement of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami leader Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid and Bangladesh Nationalist Party leader Salauddin Kader Chowdhury. Both the politicians and previous minister have been issued a death sentence by the War Criminals Tribunal and the review board of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has finally given their judgement in favour of the previously given one.

The Bangladesh government lifted the ban on 20 December 2015 after about 22 days.

In 2017 the Bangladeshi government proposed blocking Facebook for 6 hours nightly.

In China, Facebook was blocked following the July 2009 rmqi riots because Xinjiang independence activists were using Facebook as part of their communications network.[5] Some Chinese users also believed that Facebook would not succeed in China after Google China's problems.[6] The popular Renren social network (formerly Xiaonei) has many features similar to Facebook, and complies with PRC Government regulations regarding content filtering.

As of 20 August 2013, there have been reports of Facebook being partially unblocked in China.[7] But according to the "Blocked in China" website, Facebook is still blocked.[8] However, it is not blocked in Hong Kong, Macao.

Facebook was blocked for a few days in Egypt during the 2011 Egyptian protests.[9]

In July 2011, authorities in Germany began to discuss the prohibition of events organized on Facebook. The decision is based on numerous cases of overcrowding by people who were not originally invited.[10][11] In one instance, 1,600 "guests" attended the 16th birthday party for a Hamburg girl who accidentally posted the invitation for the event as public. After reports of overcrowding, more than a hundred police were deployed for crowd control. A police officer was injured and eleven participants were arrested for assault, property damage and resistance to authorities.[12] In another unexpectedly overcrowded event, 41 young people were arrested and at least 16 injured.[13][14]

In 2015, during the refugee crisis with large numbers of immigrants entering the country unregulated, a broad discussion about the problems of mass immigration and politics of the actual government took place in social media. In this situation a campaign was started to force Facebook to erase right wing hate speech. Early in 2016, a Bertelsmann company called "Arvato" was mandated to erase comments and contents from Facebook.[15] Rules and procedure for that censorship, as well as the juridical base is not clear at the moment (January 2016).

After the 2009 election in Iran, the website was banned because of fears that opposition movements were being organized on the website.[3] However, after four years of the blocking of Facebook website, as of September 2013, the blocking of both Twitter and Facebook was thought to have been lifted without notice.[16] Iranians lost unrestricted access to Facebook and Twitter the next day, leaving many people wondering whether the opening was deliberate or the result of some technical glitch.[17]

Facebook was blocked for a few days in Malaysia during the 2011 Egyptian protests.[9]

The and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA) of Mauritius, ordered Internet Service Providers(ISPs) of the country to ban Facebook on immediate effect, on the 8 November 2007 because of a fake profile page of the Prime Minister. Access to Facebook was restored on the next day.[18][19][20]

On February 5, 2008, Fouad Mourtada, a citizen of Morocco, was arrested for the alleged creation of a faked Facebook profile of Prince Moulay Rachid of Morocco.[21][22]

From April 2016, North Korea starts to block Facebook, for "move underscoring its concern with the spread of online information". Anyone who tries to access it, even with authorization, will be subject to punishment.[4]

The Syrian government explained their ban by claiming the website promoted attacks on authorities.[23][24] The government also feared Israeli infiltration of Syrian social networks on Facebook.[23] Facebook was also used by Syrian citizens to criticize the government of Syria, as public criticism of the Syrian government used to be punishable by imprisonment.[23] In February 2011, Facebook was un-blocked from all ISP's and the website remains to be accessible.

In November 2012, Tajikistan blocked access to Facebook in response to comments posted online, spreading mud and slander about President Emomalii Rahmon and various other officials.[25]

In the United Kingdom on April 28, 2011, the day before the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton, a number of politically motivated Facebook groups and pages were removed or suspended from the website as part of a nationwide crackdown on political activity. The groups and pages were mostly concerned with opposition to government spending cuts, and many were used to organize demonstrations in a continuation of the 2010 UK student protests.[26][27][28] The censorship of the pages coincided with a series of pre-emptive arrests of known activists.[29] Amongst the arrestees were a street theater group planning an effigy beheading performance in opposition to the monarchy.[30]

A Facebook spokesman said the pages were disabled as part of a routine sweep because they were created with fake personal profiles, a violation of the companys term of service. In this case a number of the Facebook personal profile pages represented causes, rather than real people. Facebook "offered to help convert the profiles to pages that are designed to represent companies, groups or causes."[28] The spokesman went on to say that "the Met Police did not ask Facebook to take down this content."[27]

Facebook was blocked in Vietnam for 2 weekends in May 2016 due to protest of dissidents.[31]

See original here:
Censorship of Facebook - Wikipedia