Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Zhao Bandi’s party crashed by censorship at the Ullens Center in Beijing – Art Newspaper

Zhao Bandi's Night View includes the words China Dream, president Xi Jinpings signature propaganda slogan

On 21 July, the UCCA's director Philip Tinari posted on Twitter: While we're on the topic of the Beijing Culture Bureau (Bieber), see these #ZhaoBandi paintings they banned for import for our upcoming show, along with the original images depicting surveillance cameras and a neon sign saying China Dream. Part of the Uli Sigg collection, the works were not authorised to re-enter the mainland.

Surveillance is a popular subject matter for Chinese artists, from dissident Ai Weiwei to establishment yet incisively observant artists like Xu Bing and Song Dong. The China Dreampresident Xi Jinpings signature propaganda slogan for the first few years of his administrationremains as unavoidable yet unmentionable as Beijings smog.

Zhao Bandi's Scenery with Cameras was also censored

UCCA at least kept the party going by finding a creative workaround, and reproducing the offending works. They joined works from Zhaos early career including Nursery Rhyme, a 1994 and 2017 sculpture of a flower made of 10 RMB notes immersed in a vase of blood, and 1990s Butterfly of a woman posing for a photograph at Tiananmen, a year after that iconic location took on a heavy new meaning.

Zhao Bandi is best-known though for his incorporation of pandas, the beloved and adorable national animal providing cover for Zhaos social commentary. China Party includes his 2005 video One Mans Olympics, in which a toy panda toting Zhao runs as a torchbearer during a performance of an imaginary opening ceremony in Bern, Switzerland. Like the China Dream, the 2008 Beijing Olympics were ubiquitous in the state media but taboo to comment upon.

Though projects like his panda fashion shows are usually more playful than provocative, Zhao has been a bellwether before. His early series of public service posters, featuring him talking to his toy panda about locally delicate issues such as environmental protection, AIDS prevention, unemployment, and the dangers of smoking, signaled a new era of openness when they were allowed to be publicly displayed on Shanghai streets and its airport in 2000.

Read the original:
Zhao Bandi's party crashed by censorship at the Ullens Center in Beijing - Art Newspaper

Keep the Internet’s Backbone Free From Censorship – Bloomberg

Wanting to ban the haters is understandable.

It was inevitable that the fallout from violent protests in Virginia organized by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups would extend to the virtual world of the web. The internet is our modern commons. But the past few days have shown how fast we can glide down the slippery slope to web censorship.

Facebook and Twitter were perfectly within their rights, legally and ethically, when they banned accounts of certain hate groups and their leaders. These are private companies enforcing their own rules about how their services and platforms can be used. Providers of web infrastructure, however, must be held to a stricter standard since they act as choke points that can prevent an individual or group from being able to express themselves online.

Soon after the Charlottesville events, domain name registrars GoDaddy and Google separately decided to no longer serve the Daily Stormer after the neo-Nazi site wrote a disparaging story about Heather Heyer, the woman who died after being struck by a car while protesting the Charlottesville rally. Registrars act as a sort of phone book for the internet by turning a raw IP address -- like 62.23.150.94 -- into a line of text, like "Bloomberg.com." Without GoDaddy or Google, it would be impossible for people to find the Daily Stormer online. Shortly afterwards, CloudFlare, which offers firewall services for websites to help them ward off attacks, kicked the Daily Stormer off its servers.

In a refreshingly candid email to his employees and blog post, CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince admitted that his decision was "arbitrary" and "dangerous," and departed from years of maintaining strict neutrality about the content of the sites his company protected. As Prince told Gizmodo: I think the people who run The Daily Stormer are abhorrent. But again I dont think my political decisions should determine who should and shouldnt be on the internet.

It's hard not to cheer Prince's courage and his motives. But his decision and those of the registrars have big implications for the debate over how the internet should be regulated. To reach web users, publishers of content small and large rely on a complex machinery of web hosts, domain registrars, transit providers, platforms, proxy servers and search engines.

While the companies that provide the back-end services of the web are less well known than the Facebook and Snapchats of the world, they're indispensable to its smooth functioning; they are effectively the plumbing that allows the whole system to function. When they take sides, everyone loses.

Many may be happy to see the Daily Stormer pushed into web oblivion, myself included, but we probably wouldn't feel the same way for publishers of content we agreed with. What if a dissident politician or a corporate whistle-blower got similar treatment?

Currently there are no U.S. laws or regulations to prevent web infrastructure providers from taking such actions. Under federal law, private corporations can deny service to groups or individuals, as long as it's not because of their race, religion or sexuality. Nor does the principle of "net neutrality" really apply since that just calls for broadband providers like Verizon or Comcast to treat all data equally.

We may need new rules in the U.S. that specifically bar web infrastructure providers from cutting off services to publishers based on their content. This would limit firms like GoDaddy's ability to use their terms of service to silence people with controversial views.

Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more.

Share the View

It would be preferable to keep efforts to eradicate hate speech at the platform level and not among the providers of internet infrastructure services. After long resisting, platforms like Facebook and Twitter now acknowledge that they bear some responsibility for what people post.Since they are governed by local laws where they operate, they fall under the jurisdiction of elected officials with the legitimacy to regulate. Just look at Germany's tough new law that levies fines up to 50 million euro ($58.5 million) if social networks don't remove hate speech promptly.

Regulators will make mistakes and may even overreach. But they have more standing to make tough calls on free speech than the internet's plumbers.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Leila Abboud at labboud@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Therese Raphael at traphael4@bloomberg.net

Go here to see the original:
Keep the Internet's Backbone Free From Censorship - Bloomberg

Judge Napolitano: ‘FB Can Do Whatever They Want, But Censorship Is A Very Dangerous Business’ – The Daily Caller

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said private industry has a right to censor opinions but its a very dangerous business.

The First Amendment restrains the government. It reads Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Congress has now been interpreted [that] to mean no government shall abridge the freedom of speech, Napolitano said during a Fox and Friends interview Thursday. And Facebook and the other high tech companies are not owned by the government so they are free to censor. They can do whatever they want, but censorship is a very dangerous business.

They will lose market share, they will lose a lot of customers. They will lose their identity as a marketplace for ideas and then these hateful ideas will go somewhere else.

Napolitano argued that although hate speech is detestable and wrong, its better to suffer through it than to sacrifice the right of free expression.

Which is worse in the American icon of values? Hate speech or censorship? I would argue that censorship is worse, he said. The remedy for hate speech is not censorship. Its more speech. Its speech to challenge and expose it.

He added he doesnt believe it will be easy to change the minds of those who peddle hate speech, but its preferable to driving them into hiding and obscuring the threat.

I am not naive. I dont think that we could all stand on a street corner and talk to a bunch of haters and change their minds. Some of them, a legion of angels coming from heaven telling them theyre wrong would not change their minds, he said. But it is better we know who they are, where they are, and what they say, than they be driven underground.

Once we get into the censorship business it will just keep getting worse. So if they can censor something that I say because its hate to them, it might be music to your ears, he concluded.

You can Follow Nick on Twitter and Facebook

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected]

See more here:
Judge Napolitano: 'FB Can Do Whatever They Want, But Censorship Is A Very Dangerous Business' - The Daily Caller

Vegas radio station apologizes to Golden Knights for censorship – Yahoo Sports

The Vegas Golden Knights announced in April that Lotus Broadcasting would be the official radio broadcast partner and radio home of the NHL expansion team for the next few seasons.

This meant they opted not to go with CBS Radio Las Vegas, home to six highly-rated stations including CBS Sports 1140am. Which did not set well with Tony Perlongo, senior vice president and market manager for CBS Radio in Vegas, who instructed everyone on air not to ever mention the hockey team, going forward.

From Perlongo, in an email published by Ron Futrell:

A decision has been made that effective immediately, there are to be no further mentions of the Las Vegas Golden Knights hockey team on any CBS/LV radio stations or any of our social media platforms. This includes, but not limited to, on sale ticket mentions, player/coaches interviews, plugging locals to sing national anthem, TV broadcast schedule, etc. It is now the responsibility of the Golden Knights chosen radio partner to help accomplish their goals, not ours.

Now, you may ask yourself how a Las Vegas sports radio station intended to ignore the inaugural season of the first major professional team to play in the city, and honestly we dont have a clue. Other than that its hockey, which means its probably not being discussed on an American sports talk radio station to begin with.

Anyway, Futrell reached out to Perlongo to find out if this giant crybaby act-as-professional guidelines thing was in fact accurate, and he confirmed that it was.

We have a lot of other things to cover, the Knights dont work into our coverage, said Perlongo. We support their (the Golden Knights) success in the marketplace, but that will depend on their partnership that theyve already developed.

This censorship lets call it what it is went more viral than an off-the-strip motel pool, and the backlash was harsh.So Perlongo informed the Washington Post on Wednesday evening that the Golden Knights will in fact be mentioned and discussed on his sacred airwaves:

With six radio stations in Las Vegas we have always prided ourselves on informing, educating and entertaining listeners and supporting the local communities we serve. However, we missed the mark in an internal email that instructed our stations to no longer report on certain aspects of the Golden Knights, the citys first and only major league sports team, Tony Perlongo, CBS Radio Las Vegas senior vice president and market manager, said in a statement provided to The Post. This was an error in judgement on our part and we deeply regret it. We will of course cover the team, first and foremost on Sports Radio 1140 and on our music and news/talk stations as it makes sense for those formats and audiences. We apologize to the Golden Knights, their fans and our listeners and look forward to rooting the team on when the puck drops in a few weeks.

And an apology to boot!

Look, this idiotic decision was bound to be short-lived, but we didnt expect it to have the lifespan of your average White House Communications Director.

The swift reversal of policy speaks to three things: That ignoring a local team, especially one with that new car smell, is bad business; that public shaming for said idiocy is a handy way to affect change; and that we wish hockey fans would take a lesson from this and realize that if you arent happy with the amount of coverage your sport gets from a given station in a given market, let your voices be heard.

It may not forceJimbo and The Goofball to stop talking about LaVar Ball or whatever long enough to preview the Stanley Cup Playoffs, but it could annoy the program director just enough to carve out a little time for our beloved sport here and there. And thats a start.

Greg Wyshynskiis a writer for Yahoo Sports. Contact him atpuckdaddyblog@yahoo.comorfind him on Twitter.His book,TAKE YOUR EYE OFF THE PUCK,isavailable on Amazonand wherever books are sold.

MORE FROM YAHOO SPORTS

See the original post here:
Vegas radio station apologizes to Golden Knights for censorship - Yahoo Sports

FCC Censorship Rules Vary for Broadcast, Cable, and Streaming – Variety

Its about halfway through the fifth season of Orange Is the New Black when Elizabeth Rodriguezs recently un-incarcerated, always opinionated Aleida sums up the plight of female-forward broadcast television writers everywhere with one simple, well-crafted exchange.

Can I say bitches? she asks a local newscaster and then, when she gets the green light, immediately and involuntarily exclaims, s. The journalist, played by Thea McCartan, responds she cant say that, to which Aleida replies, What kind of fing bulls rule is that?

Although the writers may have simply been trying to show that Aleida was not as media savvy as she was street smart in this episode, which was written by co-exec producer Lauren Morelli, in a lot of ways, were all like Aleida, says writer-producer Carolina Paiz.

After years of working on broadcast TV, Paiz understands Aleidas frustrations. On network shows, she notes, Were constantly censoring or told to self-censor. Even before the FCC has a way to weigh in, Standards and Practices is all over us.

Paiz recounts her frustration from working on one unidentified show that had plenty of violence, but required the writers to go back and forth and come up with 20 different racial slurs to see which one was more acceptable than the other. She was also on ABCs Greys Anatomy earlier in its run when writers were told that they couldnt say vagina on a medical show but penis was OK thus resulting in terms like vajayjay entering our lexicon. (A representative for ABC confirmed to Variety that vagina is now acceptable language.)

Ron Simon, curator of TV and radio at the Paley Center for Media, notes that since 1934 over-the-air television and radio has been regulated, including a safe harbor period between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Although the First Amendment prohibits outright censorship or interference with broadcasters right to free speech, during these hours content the FCC deems indecent material may not be broadcast because kids are arguably most likely to hear it.

Simon says most of the recent viewer complaints have come from live events, such as CNNs decision to air the audio of Donald Trumps Access Hollywood hot mic interview during the election or Stephen Colberts late-night monologue where he claimed to know the only thing the president is good for. Neither were within the FCCs jurisdiction.

It seems very arbitrary, if you look at the complaints, Simon says. Hes not sure how much the average viewer has made a distinction between what is and isnt regulated by the FCC.

Of course networks have their own rights to self-censor and Paizs experience with broadcast Standards and Practices is not unique. Museum of Broadcast Communications television curator Walter J. Podrazik says he has seen a desire not to offend from the business side since the days of Lucy and Ricky Ricardo, and Rob and Laura Petrie, sleeping in separate beds. He points to a scene in a televised production of the play No Time for Sergeants that aired in 1955 during The United States Steel Hour as an example. In the play, Andy Griffiths character, Will Stockdale, is on latrine duty and decides to make all the toilet seat covers stand at attention and flush when his superior walks though. But the gag was deemed inappropriate for television audiences, so an orchestra played instead. Even by 1971, Podrazik says, it was a big deal when audiences heard a toilet flush in one of the first scenes of All in the Family.

What is offensive or what is an imposition has sort of changed over the years, Podrazik says. But he adds that writers and directors are crafty enough to get around it and convey it without having to say the words.

Foxs Empire only used the most derogatory word for a gay man in the pilot (in 2015), since becoming more creative when reaching for terms an old-school music mogul might use to hurt his gay son. ABCs Modern Family made light of an emotional situation in 2012 by bleeping the tirade of f-bombs that the young Lily (Aubrey Anderson-Emmons) unleashes during a wedding ceremony. But this year NBCs The Carmichael Show aired the n-word unedited during primetime albeit with a parental advisory notice appearing ahead of the broadcast. These examples all serve the argument that words can be hurtful, but hearing them can add to the authenticity of characters, diminish their shock potential and reclaim their ownership.

ABCs anthology drama American Crime, which ended with its third season this year, was never gratuitous with foul language, but it did incorporate it into the show to capture the reality of its characters vocabulary. Its work-around for the FCC? A short cut to black.

Michael J. McDonald, one of American Crimes executive producers, says early viewers thought something might be wrong with their screens, but now, people are used to it, and when you watch it, you just fill in the word. McDonald appreciates that ABC allowed these cutaways because it implies theyre not shying away from the language being spoken. Theyre almost saying, Were censoring this because we have to.

American Crime still had to fight battles for certain terms, though. Lollipop is not an acceptable euphemism for oral sex, according to the ABC S&P, and dick is banned as well, which McDonald says is innately misogynistic, considering you can say bitch as many times as you want in an episode. It is interesting to note, too, that when licensed on Netflix and airing in other countries, American Crime plays its scenes with the words intact.

Cable networks that are not as beholden to advertisers have slightly fewer censorship rules to which to adhere, but most are still selective with their language. Although shows on FX have used the f-word for years, and The People v. OJ: American Crime Story ran the gamut of racist and sexist commentary when depicting the infamous Mark Fuhrman tapes, its 2017 anthology Feud was the first to use the c-word.

Id like to get to the point where theres virtually no censorship, and were pretty close, FX chief John Landgraf told journalists during his executive session at the summer 2015 Television Critics Assn. press tour. Landgrafs policy is to use as few offensive epithets toward women and minorities as possible.

When they are used, they tend to be used in a context where you see theyre used by a character that is doing something wrong, and its pretty clear theyre doing something wrong, he says.

Oddly, this issue is compounded by something for which many networks have been commended: a push for diversity. As series push to include more characters speaking foreign languages, there comes the problem of what is inflammatory in one country isnt in another even if those countries speak the same language, as McDonald found on American Crime. Similarly, Paiz says she once worked on show that had a character named Jesus. S&P was fine with his name if it was used with the Latino pronunciation, but she says they dug in their heels that his friends were not refer to him with the Anglicized one.

I come from Latin America and they censor words that we say in Spanish in ways that make no sense, says Paiz. She was also told that under no circumstances could she use the Latino insult pendejo, which literally translates to pubic hair but can also be used pejoratively to call someone a stupid or contemptible person, because they had gotten complaints about it before.

Paiz understands the reasoning behind these rules, even if they do feel arbitrary, but McDonald points out that an hour on social media on which children spend a great portion of their day can bring up more scathing language than anything available on scripted television. He believes cursing and strong language definitely have their places on television, just not on all shows.

I dont think people are going to be watching American Crime and think, Oh, dear lord. They said the f-word!, McDonald says. You already have chosen to watch our show and know what the subject matter is. I think if you dropped the f-word and the n-word into an episode of The Middle, that might be a little more shocking to a family.

More here:
FCC Censorship Rules Vary for Broadcast, Cable, and Streaming - Variety