Mediaboss Marketing

A Chinese man has received a nine-month prison term for selling virtual private network (VPN) software designed to evade the governments repressive internet restrictions.

Deng Jiewei of Guangdong province was recently convicted and sentenced for providing software and tools for invading and illegally controlling the computer information system, the South China Morning Post reported Monday, citing documents published by the Supreme Peoples Court.

China imposes some of the worlds strictest internet censorship laws and for years has targeted commercially available VPNs, one of the easiest methods for bypassing its Great Firewall and accessing regionally banned websites such as Google, Facebook and YouTube.

Deng, 26, began selling software in October 2015 that let users visit foreign websites that could not be accessed by a mainland IP address, the verdict said.

He was apprehended by authorities the following August and was formally sentenced in March, but court documents concerning his case only began circulating Saturday, the Post reported.

Along with an unidentified business parter, Deng allegedly earned nearly 14,000 yuan, or about $2,136, before being busted, according to the report.

Millions of Chinese residents and citizens use VPN software and similar technologies to circumvent the governments repressive internet restrictions in order to access any of the thousands of websites barred by regulators, and the subject of Dengs arrest dominated discussions afterwards on Weibo, a regional blogging website, the Post reported.

If selling a VPN means a conviction for providing software and tools for invading and illegally controlling the computer information system, then everyone here who uses a VPN to evade the Great Firewall can also be convicted of illegally invading or illegally controlling the computer information system, right? one Weibo user asked, the report said.

I am scared we could all be arrested now, wrote another user, the Shanghaiist reported.

Bloomberg reported in July that Chinas three largest state-run telecommunication providers have been ordered to ban all VPNs effective February 2018, but the Ministry of Industry and Information has since called the claim into question. Apple, meanwhile, recently removed dozens of VPN apps from its regional App Store amid pressure from Chinese authorities.

Read the original:
Chinese software vendor sentenced for helping circumvent online censorship: Report - Washington Times

The SPLC's chief trial counsel Morris Dees / Getty Images

BY: Juan LeonSeptember 5, 2017 3:27 pm

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a liberal, Alabama-based legal advocacynonprofit and civil rights watchdog, recently refused to designatethe radical leftist movement known as "antifa" as a "hate group," despite acknowledging that its members use violence andoppose free speech.

The SPLC's president, Richard Cohen, told the Washington Examiner over the weekend that his organization condemns antifa as "wrongheaded" for using violence and opposing free speech

"We oppose these groups and what they're trying to do. We just don't think anyone should be able to censor someone else's speech," Cohen said. "We think they are contributing to the problem we are seeing. We think it's likely to lead to other forms of retaliation."

However, Cohen refused to label antifa a "hate group" since its members do not discriminate on the basis of race, sexual orientation, or other categories protected by anti-discrimination law.

"There might be forms of hate out there that you may consider hateful, but it's not the type of hate we follow," he said.

The FBI and Department of Homeland Securityhave been warning state and local authorities since early 2016 that antifa had become increasingly violent,describing itsmembers as "anarchist extremists."DHS formally classified their activities as "domestic terrorist violence."

The SPLC on its website defines the criteria for being designated as a "hate group":

"All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."

The nonprofit organization, which came under fire last week after the Washington Free Beacon reported that it transfers millions of dollars to offshore entities as part of its business dealings, has been criticizedfor placing mainstream conservative and peaceful Christian organizations in the same category as racist and violent groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. The SPLC publishes an annual "hate map"and claims 917 hate groups are actively operating in the United States at present.

Here are some of the organizationsthe SPLChas previously decided to designate as "hate groups":

The Singing Nuns in Spokane, Wash.

In 2013, the pastor of Mount St. Michael, Rev. Casimir Puskorius, told the Spokesman-Reviewthat he thought the SPLC's designation of his church as a hate group was "very unfair." Puskorius said he believed the SPLC's label was politically motivated to target a conservative Christian group. At one point, Mount St. Michael weighed a lawsuit.

"We considered suing them, some years ago, but they have more resources than us," Puskorius said.

Family Research Center (FRC)

In August 2012, a man walked into the Christian pro-family, non-profit Family Research Center's headquarters with the intention of killing "as many as possible" and smearing "Chick-fil-A sandwiches in victims' faces." He found the organization through the SPLC's online listing of "anti-gay groups, which includes FRC because of its traditional marriage views.

"The SPLC's reckless labeling has led to devastating consequences," FRC president Tony Perkins told the Examiner. "Because of its hate group' lists, a deadly terrorist had a guidemap to FRC and other organizations. Our staff is still reeling from the attack, and the chilling effect this could have on organizations that are simply fighting for their values is outrageous."

Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)

CIS executive director Mark Krikorian wrote a Washington Post op-ed earlier this year in which he argued against the SPLC's designation of his Washington, D.C. think tankas a "hate group."

"The wickedness of the SPLC's blacklist lies in the fact that it conflates groups that really do preach hatred, such as the Ku Klux Klan and Nation of Islam, with ones that simply do not share the SPLC's political preferences," he wrote. "The obvious goal is to marginalize the organizations in this second category by bullying reporters into avoiding them, scaring away writers and researchers from working for them, and limiting invitations for them to discuss their work."

American College of Pediatricians

The SPLC has accused the socially conservative organization of pediatricians and health care professionals of defaming "gays and lesbians in the name of protecting children."

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

On the "Hate Watch" section of its website, SPLC justifies its inclusion of FAIR on its list of hate groups:

FAIR doesn't "just" research "the facts" about immigration policy. It is a lobbying organization. This is no secret. On its own website, under "Our Objectives," FAIR said it seeks "to influence public policy directly by lobbying (to the extent permitted by our tax status) and by protecting the citizens' rights in the courts." Its "mission," in part, is to "advocate immigration policies that will best serve American environmental, societal, and economic interests today and into the future."

So there's that.

And then there's the "facts" FAIR puts out there, the alleged "truth" that, you say, is so disliked by the "other side."

Sometimes FAIR's "facts" are true. More often, they're debatable, culled as they are from dubious sources like FAIR's sister organization, theCenter for Immigration Studies.

The bottom line is, FAIR doesn't peddle facts; it peddles hate.

SPLC then argued that FAIR exploits "racial tensions and economic anxieties" by promoting more strict immigration policies.

FAIR released a 25-page PDF guide in response to SPLC's charges, defending its legitimacy:

FAIR is also one of the very few charities in the United States certified by the Better Business Bureau as meeting all of its giving standards for a charitable organization, highlighting management, honesty, and responsibility. By contrast, the SPLC has been singled out as an organization that fails virtually every standard for accountability as a charitable nonprofit corporation.

FAIR also has a reputation of transparency, objectivity, and credibility with the national news media. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and National Public Radio are several examples of the elite news organizations that rely on FAIR for information, commentary, and analysis.

Link:
Southern Poverty Law Center Won't Call Antifa a 'Hate Group' Despite Violence, Censorship Efforts - Washington Free Beacon

Kent Chan,Bright Lights (better life later) (2016), neon bulbs, acrylic sheet (image courtesy the artist)

Weng-Choy Lee is president of the Singapore section of the International Association of Art Critics. Malaysian-born, Lee spent his youth in Manila, followed by a decade in the US. In 1992, he moved to Singapore, where, among other things, he co-ranThe Substation,an arts center and mainstay of the local art scene. Lee and I first crossed paths while I was co-organizing an event in Phnom Penhs art gallery and resource center,SA SA BASSAC, for which he presented remotely. After I published an article on Singapores Art Stage early this year, we began to discuss art writing more seriously.

Singapore, so foreign to me, was Lees home for decades, and he is currently working on a book of essays on artists who mostly hail from his adopted country. Our previous conversations about the meaning of home, art criticism in the region, and learning to listen to a place have been extremely generative to me, so I was delighted by the opportunity to more formally discuss these and other issues with him.

* * *

Weng-Choy Lee: Lets start with me asking you a question. In your Hyperallergic article, Everything Points Inward: Capitalism and Its Discontents at an Art Fair in Singapore, you wrote about working for SA SA BASSAC at this years Art Stage. What was the feedback like?

Ben Valentine: While I received a few positive reactions, investigating further on social media, I noticed a lot of negative responses, especially from Singaporeans. These seemed to be more in reaction to the predictability of me a liberal white American helicoptering into the island city-state to decry human rights violations and unfettered capitalism. I was aware of this trope and had tried to counterbalance it by grounding my writing in personal experiences, such as my discomfort with the fancy shoes I had to wear as part of my costume for working at Art Stage, and my wifes brief detainment at immigration. Upon reflection, though, it seems fair to say I did not succeed.

WCL: I empathize. My first essay on Singapore was the same: I too decried capitalism and the lack of human rights. One reason I appreciated your piece is because you didnt just write from your American perspective, you drew upon your experiences in Cambodia. Also, while you at first recoiled from the pungent capitalist spectacle of it all, I thought your point was about moving past that and listening to your surroundings and to artists like Kent Chan, who was part of a curated platform at the fair.

When I arrived in the 90s, I sought out some local professors. One senior academic told me, with a straight face, that Foucault was completely irrelevant here. I dont ever want to forget the shock of that encounter. But after a couple of decades, one can get complacent. It bears repeating that one must remain critical and not allow problems to become normalized.

BV: So lets talk censorship and self-censorship. What are the limitations of Singapores art-criticism scene?

WCL: The situation in Singapore is more complex than most people might assume. In 1993, the governments Censorship Review Committee came out with a report that basically endorsed the status quo with a few minor tweaks. Its recommendations were generally welcomed without much objection by the arts community. Ten years later, though, the next Censorship Review was met with strong criticism by an organized group from the arts. We distinguished between censorship and regulation (e.g., ratings for mature content)recommending the latter and completely rejecting the former.

In 2002, The Straits Times newspaper invited me to write a piece on censorship. The editor consulted me about some minor changes, to which I agreed. When printed, however, they changed the crux of my argument without telling me. I argued thatcensorship is always arbitrary;they changed it to censorship is sometimes arbitrary thus proving my point. Today, censorship is not always about controlling content. Yes, certain topics remain taboo: Dont cast aspersions on the judiciary or incite racial antagonism, film remains under tight control, and so on. But censorship here is also about singling out and pressuring certain individuals, thereby intimidating the arts community as a whole.

Over the years, independent art publications have tested boundaries, been met with government pushback, and continued to operate. In many cases, lack of funding was the reason for closing shop. The government will withhold funding on content they dislike, but again, this isnt applied absolutely rigorously but arbitrarily. If you can fund it yourself, then you can say it, to a large degree. With regards to criticism, the challenge isnt only direct censorship but also the poverty of public intellectual debate, which is a consequence of living in a censorship regime.

BV: You seem to suggest that the bigger issue is a failure to find ways to move beyond the obvious problems, while not ignoring them.

WCL: Historically, weve had a weak appreciation of what the public is or can be. And I believe a healthy public discourse is necessary if we are to become better listeners as an arts community.

Singapores first biennale, in 2006, was created to be the anchor cultural event for the World Bank and IMF meetings hosted that year. The Substation wanted to organize a street party well after the meetings. We explicitly said to the authorities there would be no speeches; we just wanted to bring together local arts and civil society groups in public to celebrate as a community. The authorities denied us permission.

The following year no biennale, no IMF meetings we tried for a tunnel party (next to The Substation is a tunnel). We wanted to organize a commercial flea market and booths for arts and civil society groups. Again, no speeches, just live music. We did get permission for the flea market and music, but they said no to arts and civil society. Equally disappointing was that on the day itself, the arts and civil society groups who all dutifully came to the planning meetings were mostly absent. Since they were no longer formally a part of the event, maybe they didnt feel the need to show up. Although some things have changed: Todays annualPink Dot gatherings are an example of a strong commitment to public space that we were perhaps missing back in 2007.

But let me ask you: What are some of your experiences in finding a way to speak from your present location in Cambodia? As noted, Singapore is my adopted home. Becoming local and being located isnt about some essentialist precondition often its very much about learning to listen.

BV: This is an issue very much on my mind, and one I believe Ill always be navigating. Im beginning to wonder if a masters degree in art history about the region or about Cambodia is necessary for me. Ive been diving into books and texts on the history here, but the context remains incredibly foreign.

The article I wrote about my early time in Cambodia would be so different today. The fundamentals wouldnt change ask a lot of questions, dont come to artworks or artists with my own agenda, and be willing to put aside my Western art history education in favor of local context but I still have a long way to go.

Although Im far from fluent, learning the language has been invaluable for developing trust, respect, and a deeper insight. No doubt, subtle cultural differences have resulted in miscommunication and confusion. But I suppose the big adjustment is that here I trust my first reads of art much less, and I rely more heavily on interviews and conversations with the artists than I would in contexts with which Im more familiar. Really taking time is the key for empathy, not to mention accurate, thoughtful art writing.

Link:
Censorship Is Always Arbitrary: An Interview with an Art Critic in Singapore - Hyperallergic

It is what Trumps victory said so clearly about the MSMs inability to influence public opinion and, by extension, the outcome of elections. What has also remained unspoken is the medias desperate and dangerous reaction to this waning influence.

As a 25 year media-watcher, I have never seen anything close to the propaganda campaign the national media launched to defeat Donald Trump last year. It was 24/7, it was coordinated across every news outlet, it was all-hands-on-deck. And Trump still won. Which can only mean that the medias influence has eroded to a point where, despite hurling every kitchen sink available, they suffered a humiliating loss last November.

Before I get into the grit of the nit, it is important to keep in mind that our media is nothing more than the communication branch of the Democrat Party. When you look at everything the media does the lying, the campaigns of personal destruction, the fake news, the focus on stuff like Melanias shoes this explanation is the only one that makes sense. The media is a full-blown leftwing political operation run, for the most part, by former Democrat operatives like Jake Tapper, George Stephanopolous, and Chuck Todd, as well as those related to Democrat operatives.

Knowing that, and knowing the long history of leftwing regimes (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Chavez, Castro), we know what a leftwing political operation does when its influence begins to diminish. Because their ideas are so unappealing and are proven failures, the left ultimately has no choice but to embrace violence and censorship. This truth is as old as the Bolshevik Revolution, and this is exactly what we are seeing unfold today in our own country. Rather than politicians, though, it is our media that has turned dangerously militant.

Rush Limbaugh is absolutely correct, the Democrat party is dead. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, the partys two supposed leaders, are non-entities. From top-to-bottom, the party is a feckless pile of incompetence. Knowing this, the media has told Schumer and Pelosi to hold their beer as they seize the levers of power in the leftwing cause. As a result, the media has used billions of corporate dollars to launch a propaganda campaign to unseat Trump and to keep the divisive issue of identity politics thriving.

Naturally, this rabid pursuit of so-called social justice is meant only to serve what has always been the overriding goal of leftwing tyrants: control of our lives through a centralized government.

Nevertheless, this represents the least of our medias sins.

The media campaign to censor and silence the political right, most especially on the college campus and online, is being waged on two fronts: through the ever-expanding definitions of hate speech and the alt-right, and through large corporations.

At this point, pretty much every conservative position on abortion, homosexuality, border security, the police, affirmative action, immigration, terrorism, etc., has been labeled as hate speech by the establishment left and many in the media. Moreover, the holding of these beliefs makes you an automatic member of the alt-right, which aligns you with white supremacists.

Now that this phase is in place, now that mainstream conservative and Christian beliefs have been toxified as hate, whether they are already aligned with the media or because they have been bullied by the media into joining the cause, the mega-corporations that now control our primary means of communication the public square that is the Internet are instituting a wave of censorship.

Hiding behind the medias absurdly expanded definition of hate (or fake news), Americas Googles, Facebooks, Twitters, advertisers, and Web servers are blacklisting conservatives, banning populists, and outlawing their ideas. People are being disappeared from the public square or, out of fear of being disappeared, they no longer feel comfortable to speak freely.

The violence comes, of course, from the medias personal army of Brownshirts, the leftwing terrorists in Antifa. Just like Hitlers henchmen, Antifa spreads out across the country to violently silence speech that the left does not want heard. And it is not only against neo-Nazis in Charlottesville. Almost all of the chaos, rioting, and violence waged by Antifa over the past two years has been against everyday Trump supporters, everyday Republicans.

To encourage Antifas wave of violent suppression, our media either ignores and downplays their crimes, promotes their cause as righteous, blames their violence on Trump and his supporters, compares them to heroic World War II soldiers, or in the case of NBCs Chuck Todd, attempts to legitimize this violence against the political right.

Now, does anyone have any more question about why the media is so desperate to take away our Second Amendment rights?

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC.Follow his Facebook Page here.

See more here:
As Its Influence Wanes, Increasingly Militant MSM Promotes ... - Breitbart News

Google censored Catholic Online's Daily Readings.

Censorship is a growing problem in cyberspace. Media outlets and content producers across the web are learning the hard way that if Goolge and Facebook disagree with your opinion, you will be silenced and run out of business. It is time to regulate social media to protect free speech.

Censorship by Google and Facebook is stifling free speech in America.

LOS ANGELES, CA (California Network) -- In some countries, posting a meme that is critical of the government will get you arrested and put in jail. What happens after that depends on where you live. You could walk free after a short time, or you could be put to death.

As Americans, we have always cherished our right to freedom of expression. It is such an important right, we enshrined it in our Constitution as the First Amendment.

For over two hundred years, the public forum created by the First Amendment has been jealously guarded against all infringement.

But in the past few decades, the public forum has changed. It has moved into cyberspace where private corporations rule. Today, Google dominates the realm of internet searches as well as the advertising market, and YouTube, which it owns. Facebook dominates social media.

Whereas a few decades ago, most people got their news and information via the newspaper and television, today most people consume media on their mobile devices. They use the internet to access Google, YouTube, and Facebook, and this is where they get their news and information.

The problem is that Google and Facebook have started to aggressively censor content across the web. And they're turning to questionable organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center to tell them how to do it. The result is overbearing censorship, particularly of conservative media.

In 2014, as the Islamic State conquered a swathe of territory across Syria and Iraq, the terrorists released a series of gruesome propaganda videos to terrorize the rest of the world. These videos were swiftly censored. Google, YouTube and a host of smaller media providers often removed these videos within minutes to hours of their posting. The justification was that the blood and gore violated their terms of service. They often added they did not want to provide the terrorists with a channel of communication that could be used to promote terrorism.

For some time, censorship was restricted to that kind of content, but within the past two years, it has steadily grown.

Soon, any content critical of Islam or that dealt with terrorism was subject to censorship. The restrictions have since spread further. Today, any kind of content that is considered offensive, hateful, or that could inspire hatred or violence is subject to censorship.

Most of the content facing censorship comes from the right wing of the political spectrum. Neo-Nazi organizations like Stormfront have been booted entirely off the web. But the censorship does not end with Nazis.

Last week, a conservative group, The Liberty Conservative, was ordered to remove a piece that explained the difference between the Alt-Right movement and actual Nazis. Google deemed the piece offensive, and demanded they take it down.

The Liberty Conservative relented and removed the piece. Had they refused, Google would have kept all of their advertising revenue from their Ad Sense account. Ad Sense is Google's advertising platform that pays content providers, such as The Liberty Conservative for displaying ads on their webpages. Many media outlets rely on this money to stay in business.

This is how Google gets away with claiming they are not censoring content. The Liberty Conservative could have kept their piece published, but Google would not have paid them, and in turn, they would not have the money to pay their staff. This would have put The Liberty Conservative out of business. But technically, they could have kept the piece published.

This kind of censorship is known as "soft censorship."

Google also has the power to bury websites it doesn't like in search results.

A similar occurrence took place in the last month on Catholic Online. Google demanded the removal of several daily reading videos from YouTube because they were somehow deemed offensive. These videos were mere Bible readings from the Catholic lectionary. They contained no commentary or editorial. There was no homily or sermon. They were simply passages from the Bible.

Catholic Online was able to compromise and remove advertising from those videos, but the alternative was to either have their entire channel shut down, or be paid nothing from ad revenue as long as the videos were up. This has driven Catholic Online to develop an alternative media strategy for itself, which will be announced shortly.

The problem with these cases is that Google, a private corporation, is deciding what speech is acceptable in the public forum. That's because the public forum has moved from the newspaper and television and into cyberspace, but we have few laws which regulate cyberspace.

It is time for the U.S. federal government to enter cyberspace and set boundaries for Google and Facebook. This is common in other parts of the world where Google and Facebook already censor their content to order. People in countries like China use Google too, but Google censors their results to satisfy the demands of Chinese law.

Google could do the same in the U.S., but in reverse. They could be compelled to censor less content hosted in the United States as long as that content would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. They could be banned from soft censorship.

Google and Facebook are monopolies, much like cable and electric companies. As such, they should be regulated to ensure the service they provide meets the expectations of a free and just society.

Few people like Nazis. Few people care to click into webpages emblazoned with swastikas. However, the same First Amendment that protects hateful content also protects content like daily Bible readings.

We the people ought to decide what is permissible in the public forum of ideas, not some private corporation. It's time to end soft censorship and intimidation by private firms, lest we find ourselves in some kind of Orwellian future where the only acceptable content are cat videos and Google-Southern Poverty Law Center approved propaganda.

---

Pope Francis Prayer Intentions for AUGUST 2017Artists. That artists of our time, through their ingenuity, may help everyone discover the beauty of creation.

Read this article:
Google censoring the BIBLE? Censorship by Google and Facebook growing in the US - Catholic Online