Mediaboss Marketing

NICOLAS ASFOURI/AFP/Getty Images

Thailand's internet has become increasingly censored in recent years, and now the country is threatening Facebook.

The social media giant has been ordered by Thai authorities to remove all posts deemed illegal in the country by next Tuesday, failing which legal action will be taken, reports Bangkok Post. The order came from Thailand's National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) and the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (DE).

The popular social networking platform was requested by the Thai Internet Service Provider Association (TISPA) to block 600 pages last Thursday, of which 309 are blacklisted by the Criminal Court. While TISPA noted yesterday that most of these pages have been removed, 131 remain accessible in the country.

The move comes as part of the country's tightening grip on cyberspace. Thailand has been ramping up control of content posted online and began a new campaign last month to clamp down on websites with content it considers undesirable.

Freedom House noted the country has been restricting freedom on the internet over the last few years and highlighted its net status as "Not Free" in 2016, eventually prompting censorship concerns. In December last year, Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha shrugged off the concerns, saying this is meant to fight "those who violate the law."

Facebook is perhaps Thailand's most popular social networking platform -- a Thai artist engraved its logo onto a statue dedicated to the country's late king last month, only to have had to remove it following protests from the ground.

Thai authorities did not immediately respond to CNET's request for comments.

Facebook declined to comment.

Special Reports: CNET's in-depth features in one place.

Technically Literate: Original works of short fiction with unique perspectives on tech, exclusively on CNET.

See the article here:
Facebook gets legal threats from Thailand over e-censorship - CNET

The Federal Communications Commission has let it be known it is deciding whether to levy a fine on Stephen Colbert for making a vulgar joke about President Trump during a monologue on May 1. Furthermore, last week, Code Pink activist Desiree Fairooz was convicted of laughing during January confirmation hearings for Attorney General Jeff Sessions. And on Tuesday, May 9, reporter Dan Heyman was arrested for shouting questions at Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price at the West Virginia Capitol in Charleston.

From an essay by the Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei that appeared in Sundays New York Times: At first glance ... censorship seems invisible, but its omnipresent washing of peoples feelings and perceptions creates limits on the information people receive, select and rely upon. ... Censoring speech removes the freedom to choose what to take in and to express to others, and this inevitably leads to depression in people. Wherever fear dominates, true happiness vanishes and individual willpower runs dry.

P.S. A few more pre-presidential mentions of Trump in the media, this one in our very own Chronicle: In 2005, when Carolyne Zinko profiled Cypress Semiconductor founder (then-CEO and president) T.J. Rodgers, he mentioned that his favorite TV shows didnt include The Apprentice. The way I feel about Donald Trump is the way priests, ministers and rabbis feel when they look at Jimmy Swaggart, he said. In the view of Rodgers, a corporate titan, Trump prostitutes the profession.

Furthermore, in 1998, filmmaker Tom Bullock worked on a never-released indie comedy acted and directed by John Broderick, onetime member of the San Francisco Mime Troupe. In the movie, set in Ukraine, a hotel maid suggests a scheme involving taking her beautiful girlfriend to the U.S. Well marry her off to someone like Donald Trump, and well all get rich, right? An American tourist responds, They never give up! The Russians never give up!

P.P.S. What a difference a year makes. Janice Hough notes that while much has been made of the age difference between French President-elect Emmanuel Macron, 39, and his wife, Brigitte, 64, no ones said very much about the ages of Trump, 70, and Melania, 46.

Following up:

That house on 14th Street, with the sign inviting passersby to vote on paint colors, was owned by the beloved art dealer Ruth Braunstein, who died last year. Its now owned by her daughter, jewelry designer Marna Clark, who writes that there were 100 votes and many comments. The best, she says, was a commenter who circled 20 votes and wrote Fake Votes next to the circle. The house will be up for rent soon.

Many readers wrote that BEAR DWN, on a license plate that mystified Eileen Denny Alexander, refers to the official slogan of University of Arizona athletic teams. The name of the campus gym is Bear Down, writes Scott McKinzie; Bear Down, Arizona! is the fight song, and the crowd at sporting events chants Bear Down. The football and basketball teams, however, are the Wildcats.

The bear in Bear Down, is not a noun but a verb. According to university legend, an auto accident in 1926 put the football teams quarterback on his deathbed. When his coach came to visit him, the stricken quarterback told him to tell the team to bear down.

A third of the San Francisco Giants players are working out wearing tDCS headsets that deliver a weak electric current to the brain to improve performance. This treatment is called transcranial direct current stimulation. This was confirmed early this week by Geoff Head, official sports scientist of the Giants.

But, with homage to Herb Caen, its not his name thats the item. Combined with training, this gizmo which retails for $749, but Im assuming the Giants get a discount is said to accelerate improvements in muscle memory, strength, explosiveness, and endurance.

Good luck to the Giants, and I suppose its good that theyre getting some help. But I cant understand why, if doping isnt allowed, this sort of treatment is OK.

P.S. In other sports news: The biggest victory on Monday, May 8, writes Dan St. Paul, was not the series-ending beatdown by the Warriors over the Jazz. It was the in-your-face shot block of Sally Yates on Ted Cruz. Standing O!

Leah Garchik is open for business in San Francisco, (415) 777-8426. Email: lgarchik@sfchronicle.com; Twitter: @leahgarchik

Public Eavesdropping

Yes, its a difficult conversation to have. But that doesnt mean we have to have it.

Young woman on cell phone, overheard on McAllister Street by Kary Schulman

More here:
Policing the language and the laughter: Is it censorship? - San Francisco Chronicle

Mashable

Donald Trump Jr. accuses Twitter of censorship over 'Obamacare' tweet Mashable Donald Trump Jr.'s Instagram post Thursday morning included the hashtags: #obamacare, #censored, #twitter, #freespeech, and #thought. Why all the hashtags? Well, Trump Jr. seems to believe Twitter is censoring him on the platform. To summarize, this is ...

Go here to see the original:
Donald Trump Jr. accuses Twitter of censorship over 'Obamacare' tweet - Mashable

Matilda is already the most controversial Russian film of the year, and there are still six months before its cinema release in October. And the political and media rows surrounding it are only strengthening a burgeoning resistance to cultural conservatism.

The film is a historical drama looking at the affair between Russias last emperor, Nicholas II (Lars Eidinger) before he married Alexandra Fedorovna or was even crowned as tsar and a famous ballet dancer, Mathilde Kschessinska (Michalina Olszaska). Since Nicholas II has been canonised as a saint in the Russian Orthodox Church, religious activists claim that the portrayal of his affair and the erotic scenes in the film insult religious feelings, which is a criminal offence in Russian federal law.

Trailer for Matilda (in Russian)

'Experts' describe her as "in no way good-looking by classical European and Russian standards of beauty; resembling a mouse or a rat

Tsar Nicholas II

The row started after the first trailer for the film was published online last year when it was revealed that the central story of the film is not just the affair but the love triangle between Kschessinska, Nicholas and his rival Count Vorontsov (Danila Kozlovsky). Various priests from the Orthodox Church have called the film slanderous and the apotheosis of vulgarity. Leading the crusade against the film is Natalya Poklonskaya, the former Prosecutor General of Crimea and current MP in the State Duma, who has filed several applications to the Prosecutor Generals office with calls for an investigation into the film. An initial check of the film found no signs of blasphemy. Then, a group of religious activists tried to get the film banned from cinemas by sending anonymous letters to cinema chains claiming that cinemas will burn if they dare to show Matilda. The threats were condemned by just about everyone, including government officials from the presidents administration.

Another expert report commissioned by Poklonskaya concluded that the film insults religious feelings and falsifies historical facts. It specifies that the portrayal of Nicholas II is negative because in the film he chooses Kschessinska, who is disgusting and ugly in both physical and others senses; in no way good-looking from the point of view of classical European and Russian standards of beauty; resembling a mouse or a rat. The full text of the expertise, which is based on just two trailers and the script of the film, comprises 39 pages and was shared by news site Meduza. The Ministry of Culture promptly confirmed that the expertise commissioned by Poklonskaya will not be considered when the decision on the films cinema release will be made as the authors hadnt actually seen the film.

Still from Matilda. Image: Youtube

Lars Eidinger as Nicholas II in Matilda. Image: Youtube

Michalina Olszaska as Matilda Kschessinska in Matilda. Image: Youtube

Daniil Kozlovsky as Count Vorontsov in Matilda. Image: Youtube

Still from Matilda. Image: Youtube

Matildas director, Alexey Uchitel, has filed a complaint to the Prosecutors Office, claiming Poklonskaya is slandering the film, and to the ethics committee of the State Duma, suggesting that she might be overstepping her ethical code as an MP. News site Znak recently reported that Poklonskaya might have been banned from public speeches by her party United Russia for being too scandalous, after she failed to make several scheduled appearance; the party itself later claimed this was not true.

While the bureaucratic battle continues between Orthodox activists and Uchitel, its worth noting that the film itself is not typical fare for censorship. More traditional scapegoats are Leviathan-like indie art-house films about which claims of Russophobia are easy to digest. Matilda, though, is a Hollywood-esque blockbuster with a star-studded cast (including heartthrob Danila Kozlovksyand I, Olga Hepnarovand The Lurestar Michalina Olszaska). And Uchitel is a well-known pro-government figure: in 2014 he was among the signatories of the letter in support of the Russian governments position on the conflict in Ukraine and Crimea.

This row perfectly embodies recent fights over culture and censorship in Russia, where religious activists make frequent calls for exhibitions, theatre performances and films to be banned

This row perfectly embodies recent fights over culture and censorship in Russia, where religious activists make frequent calls for exhibitions, theatre performances and films to be banned. But unlike many other similar instances, the Matilda controversy edges further into surreal territory; the protests are so punitive and illogical that in response even the most conservative government circles turn progressive and officials release statements calling for censorship to be scaled back. It might be a case of the frog in boiling water phenomenon: while a lot of milder forms of censorship thrive in Russia, this time an inexperienced MP might have turned the heat up far too high. A conspiracy theory enthusiast could even hypothesise that this campaign was actually designed to make the rest of the Russian political elite look liberal and progressive by comparison. Others might suggest that were witnessing the most elaborate marketing campaign ever designed for a film, nearing the level of satirical performance art on the theme of state interference in culture.

MP Natalya Poklonskaya carries an icon with the image of Nicholas II, canonised by the Russian Orthodox Church, during a Victory Day parade in Moscow. Image: NTV.ru

Still from Matilda. Image: Youtube

Still from Matilda. Image: Youtube

Still from Matilda. Image: Youtube

Still from Matilda. Image: Youtube

But whatever the actual goals of the anti-Matilda cause, its now obvious that it has started the biggest truly public, mainstream discussion yet of censorship in Russia. Previous government targets were a bit too niche, like Novosibirsks Tannhauser operaor Andrey Zvyagintsevs Leviathan, which were significant cultural events but nowhere as huge as this grand costume epic with its love triangle and international cast. In the wake of the dispute, the Civic Chamber has prepared a law proposal that would protect cultural organisations from religious activists, and various unions and public figures have published open letters in support of the film. All of these consequences might seem logical but they are in fact very unusual for modern Russia, where the majority and the elites almost always side with the accuser in cases attempted censorship.

Another unexpected consequence of the row, of course, is that its most likely going to make the filmmakers a hefty sum, regardless of the quality of a film that is now destined to be a box office hit. Matilda has been enjoying the Streisand effecton a huge scale, getting media coverage for a year before its scheduled release, with every tiny story concerning the film like the new poster being unveiled now covered extensively. In the future, Russian filmmakers who like to draw attention to the fact that domestic films struggle to compete with Hollywood in terms of ticket sales might want to make sure that their films are noticed by Poklonskaya and other activists: a sure path to free publicity.

More here:
Matilda: the historical blockbuster reigniting the censorship debate in Russia - The Calvert Journal

Four major television networks ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN have come under fire from the Trump camp for censorship after refusing to air a political ad over its reference to fake news.

Jamestown Associates, which produced the 30-second spot touting President Trumps record during his first 100 days in office, said Friday that the networks decision to reject the paid ad is unprecedented.

No matter your ideology, the notion of censorship should send a chill up your spine, said the Republican political consulting firm.

The First Amendment is first for a reason no right is more fundamental and inherently American than freedom of speech, said the Jamestown statement. Yet, CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC decided you cannot see it on their airwaves. To our knowledge, this has never happened before.

Presidential daughter-in-law Lara Trump, a consultant for Donald J. Trump for President, which paid for the ad, denounced the move as an unprecedented act of censorship in America that should concern every freedom-loving citizen.

Apparently, the mainstream media are champions of the First Amendment only when it serves their own political views, said Ms. Trump, who is married to the presidents son Eric. Faced with an ad that doesnt fit their biased narrative, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC have now all chosen to block our ad.

At issue is a clip showing five prominent television news personalities overlaid with the words FAKE NEWS.

The voice-over says that America has rarely seen such success, but you wouldnt know it from watching the news.

Two networks NBC and CNN released statements saying that they would run the ad only if the phrase fake news were removed. CBS declined a request for comment.

Consistent with our policies, we have agreed to accept the ad if the inaccurate graphic which refers to journalists as fake news is corrected, said an NBCUniversal spokesperson.

In its statement, CNN said that the mainstream media is not fake news, and therefore the ad is false. Per our policy, it will be accepted only if that graphic is deleted. Those are the facts.

The ad ran afoul of ABCs guidelines prohibiting ads that include personal attacks and requiring political ads to be sourced and verified.

We rejected the ad because it did not meet our guidelines, said an ABC spokesperson. We have previously accepted Trump ads and are open to doing so in the future.

The five personalities shown in the ad MSNBCs Andrea Mitchell and Rachel Maddow, CNNs Wolf Blitzer, ABCs George Stephanopoulos and CBS Scott Pelley are among Mr. Trumps most visible critics in the media.

Fox News has aired the ad, said Jamestown creative director Len Khodorkovsky.

The $1.5 million television and digital ad campaign launched Monday.

Originally posted here:
Networks accused of 'censorship' for refusing to air pro-Trump ad over 'fake news' jab - Washington Times