Mediaboss Marketing

Ren Hang, the controversial Bejing photographer, has died at 29 of suicide.

Always provocative and often surreal, Hang featured his friends (and later his fans) nude. While his work was controversial in conservative China, it was revered worldwide. Like Ai Wei Wei, Ren Hang was on the front lines for expression in art in a China. The battle wasn't easy, and he was often censored and arrested for his explicit photographs.

Much of Hang's work is explicit (featuring erections, urine, and sexual acts), but on a broader spectrum he explored youth, sexuality, and nature in beautiful ways. Dwarfing nude human forms against monstrous Beijing architecture, or juxtaposing a sullen subject against milky waters, his work often feltethereal. While the focus of his critics was always been the explicit quality, he wasn't interested in discussing sex and gender. After being pressed on why he so heavily featured penises in a VICE interview, he responded: "Gender isnt important when Im taking pictures, it only matters to me when Im having sex.

Hang's perhaps most endearing quality was his humility and bluntness. He wasn't pretentious by any stretch of the imagination, casually shrugging off his controversies. I dont really view my work as taboo, because I dont think so much in cultural context, or political context." he said. "I dont intentionally push boundaries, I just do what I do."

In addition to being an acclaimed photographer, Ren Hang was also a poet. He documented his long-fought battle with depression on his website, sharing poems and stream-of-consciousness musings.

Ren Hang's arrests came from violating China's obscenity laws, shooting his subjects nude outside. He faced resistance throughout his career from arrests, his exhibitions in China getting cancelled, and his website being shut down twice.

His most recent collection spanning his entire, albeit brief, six year career was released just last month via Taschen. His long-time parter,Jiaqi, is featured on the cover.

See more here:
Ren Hang, one of China's most influencial and controversial photographers, has died at 29. - Daily Beast

The European Parliament is introducing a new rule set to curb hate speech, cutting live debate feeds and removing video/audio traces of offensive remarks. A fierce backlash from press and MEPs has critics accusing the EU Parliament of censorship.

The new rule would let the chair of a debate cut a live feed from the parliament in the case of defamatory, racist or xenophobic language or behavior by a member, also imposing a $9,500 fine on the offender. Remarks deemed offensive could also be erased from the audiovisual record of proceedings.

The step apparently aims to tackle racist remarks by far-right members of the EU parliament. For instance last year, Eleftherios Synadinos, an MEP for Greece's far-right Golden Dawn party, was expelled from the parliament after calling Turks dirty and polluted and comparing them to wild dogs.

Read more

Some MEPs agree that far-right rhetoric can go over the top at the parliament.

There have been a growing number of cases of politicians saying things that are beyond the pale of normal parliamentary discussion and debate, said Richard Corbett, a UK MEP who backed the new rule, according to AP.

What if this became not isolated incidents, but specific, where people could say: Hey, this is a fantastic platform. It's broad, it's live-streamed. It can be recorded and repeated. Let's use it for something more vociferous, more spectacular, he added.

The latest step wasnt made public and triggered a massive backlash by the press representatives and MEPs, with many of them questioning if the latest measure could amount to censorship.

This undermines the reliability of the Parliament's archives at a moment where the suspicion of fake news and manipulation threatens the credibility of the media and the politicians, Tom Weingaertner, president of the Brussels-based International Press Association, told AP.

Many journalists and MEPs took to Twitter to vent over the latest development.

It should be noted that the issue was on the table as early as last December. Back then Gerolf Annemans, an MEP from Vlaams Belang, Belgium's Flemish independence party, voiced his concern that the measure could be abused by those who have hysterical reactions to things that they qualify as racist, xenophobic, when people are just expressing politically incorrect views, as cited by AP.

Some of the MEPs voiced more balanced views, with German deputy Helmut Scholz saying that EU lawmakers are chosen to speak out on the state of Europe, adding that one can't limit or deny this right. At the same time, he said a tool was needed to tackle Nazi shouts and racists remarks.

We need an instrument against that, to take it out of the record, to stop distribution of such slogans, such ideas, Scholz argued.

Original post:
Critics accuse European Parliament of censorship over 'kill switch' to cut racist remarks - RT

... a nefarious assault by left-wing technocrats ...

Advertisement - story continues below

Left-wing technocrats have begun a nefarious assault on the First and FourthAmendment rights of conservative and right-wing media outlets. In truly cowardly fashion, socialist technocrats are now using divide and conquer methods to single out, and then gang up and try to destroy anyone or any website they disagree with. This is accomplished by essentially pulling the plug on targeted Internet content and potentially prioritizing news search content supporting the narrative in the news cycle that the leftists favor in their sole discretion. Of course all of this is certainly plausible given the political leanings of the people who run and, for the most part, work at Google.

Take, for, example, Natural News, which was recently delisted from the Google News index.

The website bills itself as a science-based natural health advocacy organization led by activist-turned-scientist Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.

The key mission of Natural News is to empower consumers with factual information about the synthetic chemicals, heavy metals, hormone disruptors and other chemicals found in foods, medicines, personal care products, childrens toys and other items.

Google techies have sought cover for delisting Adams popular website by alleging Natural Newsutilized a mobile application that was not approved. Their action essentially removed public access from thousands of pages of information and opinion via the Internet. Adams has complained that his site was delisted without any warning, and if true, this could be determined to be a violation of civil law and tortious business interference, and a violation of his FourthAmendment rights.

Advertisement - story continues below

Google, in what might seem as a plausible basis and defense for itsunilateral action, might seek to claim it hadsome form of user agreement in place with Adams and his enterprise. However, no agreement thatpurports to usurp the constitutional rights of any American is valid. In America, the last time I checked, nobody (including Google) can separate a citizen from his or herconstitutional rights via any contract or agreement, and any such agreement or contract determined to bedoing so shouldbe struck down in part or in its entirety by the courts.

Google initiated the assault on Natural News, which is extremely concerning given that millions of online articles and Facebook and Twitter posts also use links shortened with a Google technology that is also monitored and controlled by the company. And this could allow Google, in its sole discretion, to disable any such shortened links, or possibly worse, redirect those links to data that conflict with any published article, as opposed to supporting the article as intended by its author. This is a very serious concern for all media outlets regardless of political sway, since this same technique could be used at any time by anyone or group against any position or opinion expressed in any article on any website.

As an opinion writer and architect of one of the Internets first complex algorithms used for online greeting cards, I understand the ramifications of Googles actions, which must be immediately called into question by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Advertisement - story continues below

Added to the ploy of delisting the pages of any site that Google, in its sole discretion, deems to violate rules italleges as cover for itsactions in this case, Google may have further modified its News search algorithm to give priority to leftist and Democratic-supporting websites and articles. The search algorithm mighthave not only delisted Natural News pages, but also integrated select meta data terms related to negativity toward the site, resulting in a News search result that is top-heavy with attacks on Adams and Natural News.

In fact, as I searched Google News for information about the delisting of Natural News, the top stories that appeared in the search results were all from leftist websites who condemned Adams and the content on Natural News. The search result seemed to have stacked all of the anti-Adams stories on top, a programming trick that can also be time-enabled for a day to two and then suddenly disappear once the news cycle has been dominated (tainted) with the desired narrative, in this case, berating and disparaging Adams and Natural News. Regardless of what his opinions are, and whether or not anyone agrees with him or not, nobody has the right to muzzle his FirstAmendment rights, especially not Google.

Some articles I found using Google News search were going as far as to allege that Natural News and Mike Adams made claims for medical treatments and cures that were false, as well as posing many different conspiracy theories. That said, Adams has like most other websites that offer medical opinions (WebMD, etc.), conspiracy theories, far-ranging religious beliefs, etc. a disclaimer on his pages thatcovers the statements and or claims and opinions that are expressed at his site:

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind.

This seemingly prioritized attack by many leftist bloggers seems cooperatively timed and executed with Googles claim that Natural News employed some sort of illicit mobile application.

Any company such as Google, operating on a public domain (the Internet), should not be allowed to unilaterally and arbitrarily interfere with any other private enterprise operating over the Internet without public oversight. That power should reside only with the oversight of an independent publicly governed watchdog, as we have with the Federal Communications Commission and the Consumer Protection Agency, not Google, Facebook or Twitter.

Advertisement - story continues below

What we see with this action against Natural News by Google is little more than a plausible scheme to effectively shut down, without any due process under the FourthAmendment, the livelihood of a mans business and an information/entertainment portal that his millions of readers seem to enjoy, even if some of the opinions and claims are questionable to others.

Google should be taken to task immediately by the attorney general and brought into question as to its action, which sets a very dangerous precedent for the First and FourthAmendment rights of citizens operating websites on the Internet, at least in America.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below.

View original post here:
Internet Censorship: Google and Liberal Media Gang Up On Natural ... - Western Journalism

The EuropeanParliamentis often the stage for political and sometimes nationalist theater.

Beyond routine shouting matches, members occasionally wear T-shirts splashed with slogans or unfurl banners. Flags adorn some lawmakers' desks.

But some MEPs say nationalist rhetoric has recently crossed the line of what is acceptable.

"There have been a growing number of cases of politicians saying things that are beyond the pale of normal parliamentary discussion and debate," said Richard Corbett, a British MEP who backedthe new rule.

"What if this became not isolated incidents, but specific, where people could say: 'Hey, this is a fantastic platform. It's broad, it's live-streamed. It can be recorded and repeated. Let's use it for something more vociferous, more spectacular,'" he told The Associated Press.

Rule 165 of the parliament's rules of procedure allows the chair of debates to halt the live broadcast "in the case of defamatory, racist or xenophobic language or behavior by a member." The maximum fine for offenders would be around 9,000 euros ($9,500).

The new rule, which was not made public by the assemble until it was reported by Spain's La Vanguardia newspaper, offending material could be "deleted from the audiovisual record of proceedings," meaning citizens would never know it happened unless reporters were in the room.

Mr Weingaertner said the IPA was never consulted on that.

A technical note seen by the AP outlines a procedure for manually cutting off the video feed, stopping transmission on in-house TV monitors and breaking the satellite link to halt broadcast to the outside world.

A videotape in four languages would be kept running to serve as a legal record during the blackout. A more effective and permanent system was being sought.

It is also technically possible to introduce a safe-guard time delay so broadcasts appear a few seconds later. This means they could be interrupted before offending material is aired.

Critics say the system would be unwieldy and possibly ineffective.

Read this article:
Censorship concerns as European Parliament introduces 'kill switch' to cut racist speeches - Telegraph.co.uk

On CNNs Reliable Sources this morning, Bret Stephens, the deputy editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, suggested that the media should boycott the Trump White House in retaliation for Trumps censoring of the media.

Stephens also added that what Trump was doing was worse than Nixon.

Stephens comments came during a discussion of Trumps decision to ban the NYT, CNN, Los Angeles Times, BuzzFeed and Politico from a press gaggle, or informalbriefing, at the White House on Friday.

It is thought that Trumps censorship of these outlets was in response totheir reports a day earlier on the White Houses growing efforts to obstruct the Russia investigation.

It was particularly surprising to hear the notion of a boycott come from the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, a conservative publication. Heres Stephens:

I would call it Nixonian, except I think that would be unfair to the memory of President Nixon. This is an attempt to bully the press by using access as a weapon to manipulate coverage. The Wall Street Journal put out a statement that I thought was very clear, if we had known what was happening we wouldnt have participated in that meeting with Mr. Spicer. And I think thats the right attitude for the rest of the press to take. That if the administration is going to boycott certain news outlets, then perhaps we should as news organizations return the favor to this administration.

Add your name to the thousands who aredemandingthe Justice Department appointa special counselto investigate Trumps ties to Russia.

With the election of Donald Trump, AMERICAblogs independent journalism and activism is more needed than ever.

Please support our work with a generous donation.(If you prefer PayPal, use this link.) We dont make much on advertising,we need your support to continue our work. Thanks. Also, check out our Trump Swag store, where you can get your Illegitimate t-shirts and more. Allthe proceeds go to supporting our independent journalismat AMERICAblog.

John Aravosis Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in New York City, and is the cofounder of TimeToResign.com. Bio, article archive.

View post:
Wall Street Journal editor endorses boycott of Trump White House over media censorship - AMERICAblog (blog)