Mediaboss Marketing

We have been critical of Wikipedia's approach to censorship in the Middle Kingdom. In a recent piece, I lamented the loss of Wikipedia in China. The encyclopedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, reached out to us and agreed to publish our unedited exchange on the difficult nature of dealing with censorship in China.

With every passing day, we're being moved further down the road towards a totalitarian society characterized by government censorship, violence, corruption, hypocrisy and intolerance, all packaged for our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national security, tolerance and so-called "government speech."

John W. Whitehead

Attorney, President of The Rutherford Institute, and author of 'Battlefield America'

Positing the blame solely on a vocal, but still small group of individuals who voice these concerns, calling this a "movement" in order to fan the flames of reaction, and slapping them with a dismissive label only makes matters worse.

College should indeed be a safe space, but not in the sense of being safe from upsetting images or ideas. College should be a place where it is safe to explain what you believe and to disagree with others.

Student journalists at East Lansing High School will now have editorial control of the school newspaper, Portrait, after last year's policy of prior administrative review that students said led to censorship.

The article likens free speech advocates (like me, I assume) to "gun nuts," claims that campus speech codes have mostly been repealed (which is completely false), then bizarrely questions if people can believe in a diversity of belief. Those of us who are big fans of the concept of pluralism found the latter particularly mystifying.

Greg Lukianoff

President, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Education is not about being taught more and more reasons about why we alone are right and everyone else is wrong. Rather, it is a process of being given more and more air, a wider perspective that affords us a grander, more Olympian sweep of everything.

This kind of crime deeply saddens us, but, what's worse, it spreads fear. As ordinary Mexicans, we deserve better. We deserve to see justice delivered. We are not going to be left blinded, silent and in the dark.

Four years after the Arab Spring, is it still possible to imagine that an ultra-repressive regime is the best defense against instability? Must we turn a blind eye to this regime's human rights violations because of its "secular" nature?

The issue of censorship is one that we as Americans often associate with images of backwards political bodies in third world nations, mass protests dripping with the sweat of revolution and the historical burning of books, magazines and other literary works during the early 20th century.

Neel Swamy

Student and editor-at-large, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor

In the real world people face their accusers in court. This might be a little Beach Boys of me, but wouldn't it be nice if Facebook was like that? Instead of anonymous accusations and handed-down judgments, make someone reporting "offensive content" own up to their action.

If Kasich makes it onto the ticket, the election will take place two weeks shy of the 10th anniversary of his guest host interview on "The O'Reilly Factor" in which he did the bidding of an ex U.S. Attorney I criticized in my HarperCollins investigative book "Triple Cross."

Peter Lance

Peter Lance is a five-time Emmy winning former correspondent for ABC News now writing books for HarperCollins website http://www.peterlance.com

When speaking out means sacrificing privacy, we lose points of view, and the quality of our democracy suffers. That should give all of us something to truly fear.

Brynne O'Neal

Brynne O'Neal is a Research and Program Associate at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

When LinkedIn decided to create a China-hosted version of its website in February, 2014, it made a decision to compromise the company's values in the pursuit of the dollar.

If the display or broadcasting of creative works were reliant on a virtue rubric, then our museum walls would be nearly empty, our radio waves and streaming would run rather silent, our bookshelves would be quite bare....or chock full of posted disclaimers....?

At the heart of the Muzzles is a simple but powerful idea: "Congress" -- and all levels of government, thanks to the 14th Amendment -- "shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Dan Kennedy

Associate professor, School of Journalism, Northeastern University; author, 'The Wired City'

Go here to see the original:
Censorship - The Huffington Post

Censorship is the suppression of statements or information for ideological reasons. Current examples of censorship include:

Political censorship involves a government preventing information from reaching its citizens. Perhaps the best-known contemporary example of this is China's censorship of the Google search engine, known as the "Golden Shield Project", which prevents Google from displaying search results of some human rights websites, websites promoting Tibetan independence, references to the 1989 Tianamen Square protests, and others. A famous example in fiction is George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the main character works as a civil servant in the department responsible for altering or destroying historical information which the government wishes to keep secret. The rationale behind political censorship is that the political party in power can protect itself from revolution if the public is kept uninformed.

The term censorship derives from censor, the title of the Roman official who conducted the census and supervised public morality.

In the United States, the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens national security. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing libel, or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur after publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public morality; under US law the first amendment does not protect material considered legally obscene. The definition of obscenity has and continues to vary, with the current Supreme Court definition being the Miller test. In practical terms, this allows harmful material such as pornography to be criminalized without violating the First Amendment.

Censorship may also be directed at religious ideas, as in the Saudi Arabian prohibition on preaching Christianity, liberal restrictions on public expressions of religion, or the Roman Catholic Church's now-recinded Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be accepted in American television and even less acceptable in conservative Muslim countries.

Contrast with:

Link:
Censorship - Conservapedia

What is Censorship in America? Censorship in America is the act of altering, adjusting, editing, or banning of any or all media resulting from the presumption that its content is perceived to be objectionable, incendiary, illicit, or immoral by the Federal Government of the United States. The ideology, methodology, and measures or determination regarding media subject to Censorship in America varies; in conjunction to the precepts expressed within the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, unless the nature of the media in question is in direct violation of American legislation, its Censorship in America will typically undergo judicial review. Media Censorship in America The nature of the term media is subject to substantial variation - the classification of which may be reliant on time period, applicable legislation, and the technological means enacted for its respective disbursement. The following are some examples of varying natures of media with regard to both their respective structures, as well as their subjection to prospective Censorship in America: Public Media Censorship in America A Public Media Broadcast is defined as the transmission of media on the part of a single individual or group via electronic recipients called receivers within wired circuitry responsible for delivering the picture to individual televisions and radios. A radio broadcast is transmitted over amplitude or frequency modulated airwaves, while a television broadcast is transmitted over basic cable or specified television stations. Public Broadcast A Public Broadcast is defined as a transmission of media through the usage of transceivers and/or receivers belonging to the public and regulated by the Federal Government. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the governmental branch that is responsible for the regulation of content expressed through media disseminated through the use of publically-owned airwaves; the regulations and stipulations undertaken by the FCC are responsible for the oversight of Censorship in America. Private Broadcast A Private Broadcast is a method of Broadcasting in which the media being transmitted is neither sanctioned, nor regulated by a governmental agency. A vast array means for private broadcast exist with regard to subscription-based media channels and avenues, cable television, Internet Satellite Radio, and private websites on the Internet.Guidelines for Censorship in America Violence and Censorship in America Media involving the promotion or undertaking of criminal activity, threat, malice, or the promotion of illegal and damaging ideas with the intent to cause harm; although there exists a vast amount debate with regards to the depiction of criminal activity for entertainment purposes in contrast to those media outlets that are deemed to glorify that same activity, the law enforcement agencies are responsible for the regulation and classification of such media. Activities Sexual in Nature and Censorship in America Media including pornographic images depicting minors, children, or individuals below the age of 18 is considered to be a very serious offense; this criminal activity is not only applicable to those parties responsible for the release of this nature of media, but also to those individuals in ownership of that material: Furthermore, pornographic images depicting sexual acts involving animals, violence, injury, and simulated relationships illicit and unlawful in nature are also considered to be illegal and subject to Censorship in America Comments

comments

See the article here:
Censorship In America - Censorship | Laws.com

For clarification of my quote, "Anything posted of REAL (mind the emphases on REAL) activity of illegal actions that would be considered a federal crime such as child pornography isn't really in the realm of being censored or not, it's simply not even within the question.", the reasoning behind this is that of which it is a federal crime. Being a federal crime generally excepts the ideal principal that the vast majority see's it to be wrong and without question filtered. However, because this action is done out of the will of the vast majority of people, it would not be considered censorship because of its highly undemocratic characteristic.

Now, my opponent brings into the light of how the UK has treated certain kinds of hate speech causing him to rather agree with their actions. First of all, I hypocritically applaud the UK for banning Michael Savage and his arrogant racist bigotry. Unfortunately I feel it's the wrong approach by a government to blacklist an ideology. Even IF that said ideology was racist, hateful, and outright false. I guess this would be a reflection of me living in my country as well. You see we have a party here in our country that is hateful and outright false all the time but we as a nation do nothing to restrict there speech because we feel it is their democratic right, to speak their minds. I'm talking of course about the republican party. (zing)

Needless to say that just because I feel these parties should have protected speech does not mean that I feel that they should be above the law. Its really just a matter of free speech, press and assembly. If these particular parties actually commit acts of hate than that's another story.

Seems we've stumbled upon a semantics debate. It really comes down to what you view censorship as. For me, censorship is the restriction of speech, press etc. committed by a 2nd party to a specific group or persons against their will. Pro believes censorship can be an act of voluntarism.

<"Being a federal crime generally excepts the ideal principal that the vast majority see's it to be wrong"

It actually reflects the fact that the government see it as wrong; Governments create laws, not the general public.

<"because this action is done out of the will of the vast majority of people, it would not be considered censorship because of its highly undemocratic characteristic."

Anything a democratically elected government does is technically democratic, including censorship.

___

<"I feel it's the wrong approach by a government to blacklist an ideology."

No ideology is blacklisted by UK hate speech laws, (see sources in debate I linked above,) it's legal to be a bigot, it's only when you start encouraging others to perform violence that you break the laws. Con wants politicians speech protected, but would this still be the case if a party openly preached a doctrine of murder or genocide?

Free speech laws don't and shouldn't protect those who commit fraud through verbal dishonesty, those who shout out "bomb!" in a crowded airport, or those who incite violence and hate.

___

<"Seems we've stumbled upon a semantics debate. It really comes down to what you view censorship as. For me, censorship is the restriction of speech, press etc. committed by a 2nd party to a specific group or persons against their will. Pro believes censorship can be an act of voluntarism."

The definition we have is indeed a very broad one. Suppression of harmful material by the government would clearly include child porn etc., while "media outlets" suggests it covers voluntary self-censorship.

Since Con supplied the definition himself and is in favour of both of these forms of censorship, it seems he has conceded his position as Con towards the resolution. If he wanted to limit the debate to exterior, enforced censorship of legal activity, he should really have made it clear at the outset.

Thanks.

More here:
Debate Issue: Censorship | Debate.org

ENTERTAINMENT

December 19, 2013 | By Hector Tobar

This week, the Kids' Right to Read Project, a group that monitors book censorship, said the number of challenges to books reported to the group increased by 53% in 2013. Project coordinator Acacia O'Connor told Shelf Awareness that she could not explain the increase, but that many involved writers of color, including Sherman Alexie, Toni Morrison and Alice Walker. (All three also appear regularly on American Booksellers Assn. lists of challenged books.) Whether or not patterns like this are the result of coordination between would-be censors across the country is impossible to say, O'Connor told Shelf Awareness.

ENTERTAINMENT

July 17, 2013 | By Julie Makinen

BEIJING -- Chinese authorities said Wednesday they would relax some restrictions on film, TV and radio productions, though the immediate impact of the changes was unclear and several prominent movie directors said they did not believe the reforms were game-changers. Chinese filmmakers will now be allowed to shoot ordinary content movies after only submitting a synopsis to censors rather than a full script, according to an announcement from the State Council, China's cabinet. But the finished products will still have to be screened for censors before they are approved to be played in theaters.

ENTERTAINMENT

June 26, 2013 | By Alexander Nazaryan

Eight years ago, a New York journalist named Peter Braunstein, then 41, forced his way into the apartment of a 34-year-old Manhattan woman by pretending to be a firefighter. He proceeded to drug the woman, a former colleague, and sexually assault her for more than 12 hours. Now, as he serves a lengthy prison sentence in upstate New York, Braunstein is apparently upset that corrections officials there are not allowing him to read Jaycee Dugard's A Stolen Life, the 2011 memoir of a young woman's kidnapping and 18-year imprisonment by a California couple, Phillip and Nancy Garrido, which ended in 2009.

WORLD

April 12, 2013 | By Janet Stobart, This post has been corrected. See note below.

LONDON -- The British Broadcasting Corp. faced a dilemma Friday: Would it play "Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead" when everyone knows the song has become a biting reference to the late Margaret Thatcher? The network's solution: turn the song into a sound bite. Amid divisive reactions to the death of the former prime minister on Monday, anti-Thatcher protesters have campaigned to bring the song from the 1939 film "The Wizard of Oz" to the top of the charts in time for a BBC program Sunday night that counts down the current top hits.

WORLD

January 9, 2013 | By Barbara Demick and David Pierson, Los Angeles Times

GUANGZHOU, China - Like wedding guests separated across the aisle, the protesters assembled on either side of a gated driveway at the headquarters of the embattled Southern Weekly newspaper. To the right, several dozen supporters of the newspaper staff waved banners calling for an end to censorship of the Chinese press. "Freedom!" they chanted. "Democracy!" "Constitutional rights!" To the left, beneath fluttering red Chinese flags and hoisted portraits of Mao Tse-tung, a battalion of mostly older men shouted into a microphone, trying to drown out their ideological rivals.

WORLD

January 8, 2013 | By Barbara Demick

GUANGZHOU, China -- Communist Party officials appear to have defused a potential crisis over media censorship in Guangzhou with a compromise that persuaded journalists at a maverick newspaper to publish Thursday as planned. The journalists at Southern Weekly, one of China's boldest and most popular publications, had threatened to strike in protest over a New Year's editorial on political reform that was watered down by propaganda officials. The exact terms of the deal were not released, but it appears that the journalists agreed to refrain from airing their grievances in public about Tuo Zhen, the propaganda chief for Guangdong province accused of the heavy-handed censorship that sparked the standoff.

See the original post:
Articles about Censorship - latimes