Mediaboss Marketing

This spring, the Open Campus Initiative was formed to explore the limits of free speech on Harvard's campus by inviting controversial speakers across the ideological spectrum, starting with Jordan B. Peterson. In response to Petersons statements on gender nonconformity and reports of harassment from his previous lectures, many students took issue with his invitation, echoing the backlash to Harvard Financial Analyst Club's invitation of Martin Shkreli this February. Although we have qualms with the mission statement of OCI and disagree with Petersons statements, we nonetheless recognize OCIs potential value and the difference in the two groups purposes and processes.

As we have previously argued, since HFAC never provided any justification for Shkrelis invitation, it seems that they invited him simply for the sake of publicity. Under the guise of valuing free speech principles, HFAC gave Shkreli a platform to praise himself, all while censoring questions regarding his controversial legal and financial decisions and impeding the press from reporting on the event. Rather than informing the campus discussion, HFAC used the controversy to indulge in Shkrelis oversized persona. The difference in intellectual weight between Shkreli and Peterson aside, OCI displayed much more respect for campus discourse. Not only did OCI moderate the discussion wellwith the event moderator continually pressing Peterson and rejecting simple talking point answersbut they also allowed attendees to ask questions directly, as protesters silent through the talk ultimately did.

OCIs understanding of First Amendment principles therefore comes off as much more genuine. Freedom of speech is valuable because it allows individuals from across the ideological spectrum to engage with one another. The resultant clash strengthens and advances our best ideas, and prevents our campus from becoming an echo chamber. If OCI continues to properly moderate controversial speakers, substantially engaging with and scrutinizing them, they will have enriched campus discourse and helped move towards the ideal of free speech that informs their mission.

Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that the benefits of broadened discourse come with an uneven distribution of cost. Petersons comments regarding gender nonconformity, seen as inconsequential or valid among some students, are direct attacks on the identities of others. Regardless of one's personal view about the necessity of engaging with uncomfortable ideas, everyone should recognize the potential emotional burden that students bear in countering these proposals.

This is not to say that students should be insulated from concepts with which they disagree or even that such debate is unimportant. The better informed that students are, the better they will be able to engage with contrary viewpoints once they exit Harvard. Refusing to debate speakers who we find uncomfortable is unproductive, and including them in a conversation does not necessarily validate their views. As OCI has shown, it is possible to frame such speech so that we may confront it, placing it on an operating table rather than an oratory lectern.

Nonetheless, the backlash to Petersons comments highlights the need for support in these debates. Free speech is too often championed for more privileged members of discourse, making unqualified support of it tone-deaf to those who potentially have a part of their identity at stake. Those who have the privilege to do so should help shoulder that burden and debate against ideas which are more targeted at marginalized individuals.

To reach the truth, we must consider all ideasnot just ones that we are comfortable with. Organizations that invite controversy in the name of free speech should use that controversy to further campus discourse rather than to simply garner publicity. We commend OCI for leaving a positive first impression, but it is crucial to continue to hold that speech accountable through proper moderation and engagement, lest we celebrate regressive speech where we should instead challenge it.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

On-Campus Interview Participation Drops

The program, which brings employers on campus for full-time job and summer internship interviews, saw a 13 percent drop in sign-ups compared to last year.

Students Welcome Earlier On-Campus Interviews

A combination of faculty pressure and student demand brought about the shift in the timing of OCIs first week, which is traditionally marked by a high concentration of interviews with financial firms.

'A Quiet Place' Overcomes Constraints

Plays often rely on elaborate lighting, lavish costumes, and richly decorated sets to entertain; A Quiet Place featured none of these. But, in spite of some elements that made the play feel unfinished, this 80-minute production was never boring.

Islamophobia, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Islamophilia

Rather than shrouding Islam with implicit speech regulations, why not debate it?

With Provocative Speakers, New Group Aims to Test Free Speech Values

Here is the original post:
Moderation Over Censorship | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson - Harvard Crimson

Screen glitches occurred on IRIB's Shabakeh Khabarbroadcast when the reporter mentioned the candidate registration of Hamid Baghaei, the former Vice President and close confidant of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Screen capture from a Fars News tweet of the broadcast.

In an unusual broadcasting flub this week, Iran's official state medianetwork cut off the live video feed of a reporter in mid-sentence when she mentioned the name of presidential hopefulHamid Baghaei, one of the more controversial politicians who has filed to run for president next month.

Baghaei served as vice president to former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both represent a frequently contested hardline political position, and both men now have registered to run for president in Iran's May 2017 elections.

The broadcast, which aired on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcaster's Shabakeh Khabar channel, featuring a reporter identified as Ms. Nouri, was shot on location from the Ministry of Interior on Wednesday as prospective candidates filed their registration forms.

A video clip of the incident has gone viral on social media.The video plainly shows that within less than a second of the the reporter mentioning Hamid Baghaei, the broadcast feed abruptly cuts and goesback to the anchor in studio. As the anchor waits to resume the report, Nouri's voice can be heard asking her producers, I shouldn't mention Baghaei?

Shabakeh Khabardid not give their reporter the permission to announce the registration of Hamid Baghaei as a candidate.

The hashtag, translating into the Nouri's question, I shouldn't mention Baghaei? started trending amongst Iranians remarkingon the broadcasterscensorship.

IRIB gets more shameless everyday. A broadcaster with lies, broken screenings, and censorship. There is a lot missing #I_shouldn't_mention_Baghaei

Candidate registration for the 12th Presidential elections of the Islamic Republic of Iran began on April 11 andwill last for five days, followed by a period when the registrants will be screened for their political and Islamic qualifications by the hardline and religious body tasked with vetting, the Guardian Council. The Council typically disqualifies the majority of registrants.

The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcaster (IRIB) is known as a mouthpiece forIran's hardline conservatives, echoing the concerns and opinions of this establishment. The IRIB's director is a position directly appointed by the country's highest power, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

When it comes to reporting on elections, the IRIB's decisions about who to mention and who to omit are often seen as areflection of internal sentiment aboutthe prospective candidates. The interruption of Nouri's report isa sign that Baghaei may be disqualified from the running.

It is unknown whether Nouri already knew not to report on Ahmadinejad's registration as well, or if she wasdeterred post-facto.

Former controversial populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announces his intention to run for President today in the May Iranian Presidential elections. He is flanked by Hamid Baghaei to the left, and Mashaei to the right Photo shared on Twitter, by Mohammad Ali Marizad.

Wednesday's registrations made headlines as former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, flanked by his close confidants formerVice President Baghaei andformer Chief of Staff Esfandiar Mashaei, stopped by the Ministry to announce that he and Baghaei hadregistered.

This is a change in course for Ahmadinejad, who inSeptember 2016 announced he would not join the race, after being warned by the Supreme Leader that his candidacy would cause polarization and harmful divisions in Iranian society. While also banned in 2013 from running for reelection, Ahmadinejad campaigned for the candidacyof Mashaei, whoultimately failed to win the Guardian Councils approval.

The IRIB is known for inserting bias an censorship into election reporting. During the 2013 presidential campaigns, several of the candidates remarked on the IRIB's unfair coverage and use of censorship. Rouhani accused the state broadcaster of defaming prominent figures during an interview on 27 May 2013, while the reformist candidate Mohamad Reza Aref's campaign accused the IRIB of cutting his campaign appearances in an inappropriate manner.

While the broadcaster is watched by millions of Iranians, it is notorious for not giving airtime to those who do not fall in linewith Khamenei and the clerical establishment, and for serving the interests of Iran's intelligence agencies, sometimes going so far as to air forced confessions of political prisoners under duress.

Continued here:
Censorship Undressed: Iranian State TV Cuts Broadcast Mid-Sentence - Global Voices Online

Last Thursday, Twitter sued the federal government. At issue was a demand from the Department of Homeland Security that Twitter reveal the user(s) behind an account critical of the Trump administration. The government withdrew its request the next day, and the issue seemingly drew to a close.

But this is not the end.

The DHS request came on the heels of another Trump administration move that could be viewed as hostile to internet freedom. On April 2, President Trump signed a bill passed last month releasing internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon and AT&T from having to protect consumer data, in effect jeopardizing peoples privacy and opening them up to surveillance. And FCC Chair Ajit Pai is planning to weaken net neutrality rules, which would allow ISPs to create fast lanes for preferred internet traffic while slowing other traffic sources.

If we dont have net neutrality, the ISPs could slow people who are talking about, for example, going to a rally, says Kate Forscey, associate counsel at Public Knowledge, a free speech organization. Its not just about streaming Netflixits about fundamental engagement in a democratic environment. Against this backdrop, the DHSs attempt to strong-arm Twitter looks less like a defeat and more like a testing of the waters.

These developments dont on their own spell internet censorship. Rather, they lay the groundwork for it: They create the conditions that allow a regime, whether its headed by Trump or another administration down the line, to squelch dissent. Its part of a broader trend around the world, in which numerous governments are whittling away at internet freedoms.

On a global level social media platforms have been facing growing censorship over the past year, says Jessica White, an analyst at Freedom House, an independent watchdog organization. Twitters lawsuit put an end to one attempt by the Trump administration to undermine free online expression, but it is unlikely to be the last. It is just the freshest in a long string of ploys by governments around the world to solidify their power over online communities.

In the US, social media companies have abided by an uneasy truce with the government, cooperating in criminal investigationsalbeit reluctantlyby handing over user data. What makes Twitters most recent case noteworthy, however, was that the account in question, @ALT_USCIS, broke no laws and only used Twitter to voice dissent. The handle is a reference to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, an office within DHS, and its tweets were supposedly the voice of current and former federal employees disillusioned with the Trump administration. After news of the lawsuit broke, the government withdrew its request and Twitter dropped the suit.

Yet attacks on free expression, particularly on social media, have been on the rise, at the same time as countries around the world are experiencing record-breaking protests. In March, for example, Russia saw its largest protests in five years after word of them spread on social media and messenger apps. The government responded by arresting hundreds of activists, in particular the people who had led the resistance movement online, charging them with extremism and organizing unlawful meetings. But even relatively more open governments are feeling the pressure to corral social mediatake Brazil, for example, which temporarily blocked WhatsApp three times last year for not handing over user information.

Controlling dissent through censorship is a tried-and-true tactic of authoritarian governments, which have a long history of cracking down on newspapers, radio, and TV. Social media got a pass at first because its new, and people who run these regimes are old, says Joshua Tucker, a politics professor at New York University who specializes in Russian and Slavic studies. Now, he says, restrictive governments recognize that it is important to control because of its importance for protest.

Tucker and his colleagues recently analyzed the tactics authoritarian regimes use to control their countrys social media and found that governments often struggle to adopt effective measuresat least at first. Chinas infamous Great Firewall, the surgically precise, vast technical and legal apparatus that many people think of when they think of internet censorship, was established in 1997, in the internets early days. Outside China, however, the internet developed freely, making technically sophisticated filtering operations like Chinas virtually impossible without the same aggressive investments in infrastructure. During the failed coup in Turkey in 2016, for example, the government attempted to shut down Facebook and Twitter, primarily through DNS blocking and traffic throttling. But because the Turkish government does not have centralized control over the internet and relies on ISPs to carry out its orders, these measures were relatively easy to circumvent.

After trying and failing to restrict access to content, Great Firewall-style, governments are instead resorting to one of two approaches. Online, they are engaging on social media to try steer the narrative, either through their own posts or using bots and trolls. Offline, they are taking legal actions that change who is held liable for certain kinds of language.

Changes to legal infrastructure are a big deal, Tucker says. By changing who is responsible for content, you can change the ownership structure of and access to online space.

In Russia, for example, the government reportedly preferred a strategy of engagement on social media until roughly 2012, when Putin returned to power amid massive protest. Then the government pivoted to focus on the second strategy, attempting to control social media through legislative actions: It passed anti-extremism laws restricting access to content related to political opposition under the guise of fighting terrorism. The change in approach prompted Freedom House to revise its designation for Russia from partly free in 2014 to not freeand one of the most locked down in the world.

The same transition is now under way in Zimbabwe, where the internet is still classified as partly free. Robert Mugabe, 90, has been experimenting with ways to restrict social media access since the summer, when the country saw the largest protests in the dictators 30 year rule, organized primarily through WhatsApp. In January, Mugabe tried raising mobile data rates, putting internet access out of reach for the vast majority of the population. The move backfired, affecting government officials as much as ordinary citizens, so the rate hike was reversed days later. The battle is not yet over, says Nhlanhla Ngwenya, director of the Zimbabwe chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa. The government already has an arsenal of legislative instruments to impinge on my rights online.

A bill passed in 2015, for example, gives Zimbabwes government access to user data collected by ISPsnot too far off from the USs new ISP bill and the DHSs Twitter meddling. Now the Zimbabwean legislature is considering a bill that redefines cyber terrorism to include any language critical of the state, while also making ISPs liable for the content they host. If the bill passes, the government will have the authority to order ISPs to take down any material it finds objectionable.

This is coming up not only in places like Zimbabwe, but also in Europe and the US, White says. There are legitimate reasons for trying to regulate speech online, such as banning harassment and hate speech, which are not protected under the First Amendment. But laws that dictate what speech is acceptable and what is not are often dicey, and can be a slippery slope to censorship, Tucker says. Germany and Italy are both contemplating bills that would criminalize fake news. California recently tried the same. Says White: In terms of creating legal provisions criminalizing fake news, thats very tricky.

Whether the goal is restricting online extremism or the spread of fake news, the legal framework is largely the same. When democratic countries start implementing similar provisions its very problematic, White says. One of the key questions is who gets to decide whats true or not. To create a centralized body thats gets to decide what is fake news or not, that doesnt seem like a great idea.

In 2016, Freedom House ranked the US as having one of the most free webs in the world. Trumps first 100 days are likely to knock it down a few rungs. Specific steps have been taken that provide us with reasonable grounds to consider downgrading the US, says White, although at this point they cant tell by how much. Now Freedom House lists the US under countries to watch, along with Zimbabwe, the Philippines, and Denmark. With countries around the world reconsidering their internet freedoms, democracy falters.

See the original post here:
Internet Censorship Is Advancing Under Trump - Backchannel

Indian censorship of film continues apace.

The Central Board of Film Certification in India under is commonly referred to as the Censor Board. A quick glance at some of its heavily debated recent decisions will elucidate why. While primary role of the CBFC is to provide certification for different categories of films, it is also entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that films do transgressone of the express restrictions of free speech in India. This has meant that from time to time, the CBFC has withheldpermission for the screening of films or requested specific cuts and changes to the story. More recently, this has become commonplace rather than the exception.

The biggest theme that the CBFC under Chairperson Pahlaj Nihalani appears to be at war against depictions of sexuality. Recently, the film The Danish Girl was denied the required certification to be aired on TV as its topic was declared as overly sensitive and accordingly requiredtoo many cuts. The film looks at sex reassignment and gender dysphoria. Ka Bodyscapeswas similarly denied certification as it apparently glorified homosexual relationships and contained vulgarity, depicted Hinduism in a derogatory manner, and also depicted a Muslim woman masturbating.

This war is not just against depictions of desire among sexual minorities, as evidenced by the CBFCs halt on the screening of Lipstick Under My Burkha. The stated reason for this ban was that the film was too lady-oriented and had abusive words, audio pornography, and was potentially sensitive to some sections (implying the Muslim community). These bans and others have been banded together as evidence that the CBFC is extremely skittishabout depictions of sexual desire. Adding to the fray, kissing scenes are routinely cut out of the television screenings of movies, and abusive words are muted even in films about verbal violence or abuse.

This trigger-happy censorship environment has a larger context in the specific demands of cultural groups and morality crusaders. While the CBFC seems happy to lead by example, political parties, cultural representatives, and religious groups add to this growing trend towards censorship. The film Parched for instance faced opposition for depictions of female nudity inUdta Punjab, which discussed drug abuse,faced opposition for its use of language and violence and its portrayal of the state of Punjab. Alleged distortion of history is another common theme cultural groups draw upon while calling for these bans as in the case of the trouble faced by the films Bajirao Mastani and Padmavati, both of which depicted Hindu-Muslim inter-religious romances in the lives of historical rulers or leaders.

In each of the above cases, specific criticism has been levied against the ban, but collectively they allude towards a dangerous trend where existing taboos are solidified and a certain narrative of history alone is tolerated. Sexuality in some forms is accepted typically when it adheres to the male gaze, fictional license is allowed for historical movies that merely attempt to create a larger than life narrative, which does not discomfit existing understandings of power and villainy.

Prominent directors and actors, both new and veteran, have spoken out against this trend both on mainstream media and social media, but the enemy they wish to take down is not singular. While much of the anger may be directed against the CBFC, and rightfully so, the source of the CBFCs mandate comes from the public. For as long as public sentiments continue to be inflammable in the face of art, and fragile narratives of masculinity, social order and historical narrative are threatened, the lurking demon of censorship cannot be defeated.

Original post:
Sex and Sensibility: India's Censor Board and Overreach | The ... - The Diplomat

The ACLU has been fighting against censorship for nearly a century. April is National Poetry Month, so weve been thinking about a free speech case from sixty years ago that involved a small but powerful book of poetry.

Sixty years ago,ACLU of Northern California staff attorney Al Bendich defended City Lights Books publisher Lawrence Ferlinghetti, who was accused of obscenity for publishing Allen Ginsbergs poem Howl.

Over 500 freshly-printed copies of Howl and Other Poems were seized by the government, rather than allowed to exist as thought-provoking literature. The trial against City Lights Books made its way to the California State Superior Court in 1957, where Judge Clayton Horn ruled in favor of Ferlinghetti and the ACLU.

Judge Horn found that the poem was not obscene for referencing sex, drugs, and rock and roll, and instead held redeeming social importance.

Excerpt from Howl by Allen Ginsberg

Howl and other free speech cases like it laid the groundwork for the rights we exercise today. But we still need to stay vigilant against attempts to stifle free expression through censorship.

Last month,The ACLU of Northern California advocated on behalf of high school students who were censored by their school after writing an article on Black Lives Matter for their high school yearbook. The principal, fearing controversy, removed every reference to Black Lives Matter and edited their article beyond recognition. We sent a demand letter to the school district, and the students won.

Just as its illegal for the government to censor a poem because some might find it offensive, its illegal for a school to remove Black Lives Matter references from school publications because the school is afraid of robust conversation.

Gigi Harney is the Creative Strategist at the ACLU of Northern California.

More:
Fighting Censorship: Victories in 1957 & 2017 #ACLUTimeMachine - ACLU of Northern California (blog)