Mediaboss Marketing

By Justus Leicht 24 March 2017

Under the pretext of combatting fake news and hate speech on the internet, Justice Minister Heiko Maas (Social Democratic Party, SPD) is planning a massive attack on free speech.

On March 14, Maas presented a draft of a so-called network enforcement law (NetzDG), which imposes extensive surveillance and censorship responsibilities on commercial social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. If the draft becomes law, such sites will be required to react immediately to complaints and block obviously illegal content within 24 hours. Other illegal content must be erased within seven days.

The corporations will have to decide on their own what is illegal and, to this end, they will have to set up a contact office in Germany. The law would turn them into investigators, judges and executioners over free speech, as the platform Netzpolitik.org writes.

If they do not live up to their duty to delete content, they are threatened with draconian fines of up to 50 million. These fines are left to the discretion of the Federal Office of Justice and can be imposed even in the case of a single offense, regardless of whether it is intentional or the result of negligence.

The law would apply to social networks that have at least 2 million users registered in Germany. However, the definition of a social network is so broadly formulated that, in addition to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, other services such as Whatsapp and Skype, and even larger email providers and file hosting sites, could fall under its purview.

The providers would be required not only to delete content, but also all copies of it, and would have to prevent it from being uploaded once again. At the same time, the content would have to be saved, possibly indefinitely, for evidentiary purposes.

The provider would be required to inform the user about the deletion and would be required to justify the decision, but a multiple choice justification form would suffice. If the user does not agree with the deletion, he would have to spend months, or even years, on costly legal proceedings. During this time, the deletion would remain in force.

The draft legislation includes more than a dozen clauses whose violation would lead to deletion. In addition to open calls to commit crimes and related offenses, it lists libel, defamation, slander, disparagement of the German president, and insults to religious communities.

As the Berlin law professor Niko Hrting remarked, the law is about unlawful and not punishable content. He insists that this is an important difference. Hrting fears that the law will lead to a situation in which the scope of criminal prohibitions will be expanded considerably, and that the new law will make it much easier to forbid certain statements.

Whether a statement is insulting, disparaging or defamatory has often been the object of a lengthy process of legal dispute. Not infrequently, charges and court actions have been employed in an effort to criminalize and silence personal and political opponents. The Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe has repeatedly, though not always consistently, come to decisions that emphasized the value of free speech.

A well-known example is a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court in 1995. It decided that the statement by the German-Jewish journalist, satirist and writer that soldiers are murderers does not constitute libel, and it authored a decision to this effect. The legal dispute over the poem by the satirist Jan Bhmermann about Turkish President Erdogan is ongoing.

The extremely short inspection period combined with the threat of draconian fines makes it likely that corporations like Facebook or Google will react to reports of supposedly criminal content by erring on the side of caution and deleting it. Every sharp, critical, polemic, ironic or satirical post on a social network would vanish in no time.

The internet and the social networks on which people publicly voice and exchange views independently of the official political institutions, parties and media, have long been a thorn in the side of the ruling elite, which views the right to freedom of speech as a threat.

The draft legislation addresses this quite openly. Hate criminalityaccording to this law almost everythingthat cannot be combatted and pursued effectively, threatens peaceful coexistence in a free, open and democratic society, it says. Then the American election is openly invoked as an example: After the experience in the US election, the combatting of punishable false reports (fake news) has also won high priority in Germany.

To this end, corporations valued in the billions will be tasked with suppressing disagreeable statements and opinions. A lengthy court process, in which a decision in favour of free speech might be reached once again, will be replaced with a short process: a report, followed by deletion and justification by multiple choice.

Several critical journalists have also noted that the real concern of the Justice Minister is the suppression of free speech and criticism. Harald Martenstein wrote an article for Tagesspiegel, Where the government decides what is truth and what is fake, we are in despotism. But precisely now, while we are still excited about Erdogan, Erdogan methods are being prepared here in this country. Justice Minister Heiko Maas has presented draft legislation that reads as though it came from the novel 1984.

On the other hand, representatives of the two ruling parties, the SPD and the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), welcomed the planned legislation. Moreover, in the view of the Green Party, which is an opposition party to the government, the law does not go far enough.

Green Party parliamentary representative, Renate Knast, who is the president of the Parliamentary Committee for Law and Consumer Protection, told the German radio station Deutschlandfunk that it is a problem that the draft legislation only covers punishable content! She also wants to suppress free speech that is explicitly not punishable.

Knast left no room for doubt that for her the point of the law is to silence oppositional voices in the population: With 30 million Facebook users in Germany, all of this vulgar behaviour, even when it is not punishable, has an impact on real and virtual life. It has an influence. Even mayors are resigning because they are being molested.

In addition, she advocated viewing social media providers like newspapers and radio stations, which are made directly responsible for the content they bring to the public. This would lead in effect to a comprehensive review of all content and self-censorship in advance of publication rather than afterwards.

The legislation proposed by Justice Minister Maas and the criticism of it by former Green Party Minister of the Environment Knast are indicative of the attitude to basic democratic rights of a future red-red-green federal coalition government. Such a government would not have the slightest interest in defending democratic principles.

Visit link:
German justice minister proposes internet censorship legislation ... - World Socialist Web Site

A new book by University of Wyoming professor Jeff Lockwood explores the role of corporate wealth in censoring speech and expression, and he got his inspiration from a campus incident several years ago.

Behind the Carbon Curtain: The Energy Industry, Political Censorship and Free Speech, is set to be released in April by University of New Mexico Press. A book launch party is scheduled for 1-3 p.m. April 1 at Second Story Books, 105 Ivinson Ave.

Lockwood directs the UW Creative Writing Program with a joint appointment in the Department of Philosophy. He said he first began considering the ideas central to his book in 2012.

A sculpture called Carbon Sink by artist Chris Drury was installed in 2011 on the UW campus south of Old Main, near the intersection of 10th Street and Ivinson Avenue. The circular, ground-level sculpture consisted of a 36-foot-wide whirlpool of beetle-killed logs, with a charred center.

The sculpture was removed the following year, a year ahead of schedule. In an essay written for WyoFile, Lockwood accused the UW administration of caving to pressure from politicians and the energy industry to have the sculpture removed because it drew a connection between fossil fuels, climate change and the bark beetle epidemic.

I was very concerned with the collusion of corporate power and political power to destroy art, he said.

Emails obtained by Wyoming Public Radio suggest former President Tom Buchanan ordered the sculpture to be removed because of the controversy it generated.

Following his public protest, Lockwood began hearing from residents elsewhere in the state about similar occurrences at museums and institutions of higher education.

The people who were telling me these stories were not often in positions where they had the necessary protection, he said.

Lockwood said his position as a tenured professor gives him an opportunity to tell stories others cant.

I was given the incredible privilege of tenure by the people of Wyoming, and that comes with a very serious responsibility, which is to tell the truth as I understand it, and to do that in a fearless way, he said.

Behind the Carbon Curtain documents those stories, as Lockwood argues the energy industry uses economic pressure to suppress the expression of ideas that run counter to its economic interests.

Lockwood said Wyoming offers a particularly clear lens into the relationship between the energy industry and the government because of the states small size and its dependence on a single industry.

But its not as if its not happening in other places, he said. Its just clearer here.

He points to similar stories in states such as Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

In a broader sense, I make the case that Wyoming is a microcosm of whats happening around the country, Lockwood said.

And its not just a problem of the energy industry, either, Lockwood argues.

The relationship between corporate wealth and political power, to me, is probably the single-most insidious and most dangerous phenomenon in American democracy, he said.

He hopes the book generates concern among readers and spurs them to action. He stressed he doesnt consider his argument to be limited to a single political party. For example, censorship on college campuses has multiple sources.

The First Amendment is fundamental to the health of the future of the country, he said. This is something we all share in.

Lockwood joined the UW faculty 30 years as an entomologist in the College of Agriculture. He has written nonfiction books about philosophy and entomology as well as a crime noir novel.

See the article here:
New book by professor explores censorship - Laramie Boomerang

"We the organizers of Ayam Beirut Al Cinema'iya refuse to accept the censorship of creative art in all its forms and invite you to join us in protest."

With these words, the organizers of Beirut Cinema Days invite everyone to join them in speaking up against censorship in Lebanon. They are calling for a protest and discussion panel at 8 p.m. on Friday, in Metropolis Cinema, Achrafieh.

In a statement posted on their Facebook page, the organizers of the festival explain that the move comes in response to the censorship board enforcing strict regulations on most films that were part of this year's edition.

"During the 9th edition of Ayam Beirut Al Cinema'iya the censor was stricter than in any previous year and did not grant screening permissions for two films Beit El Baher (The Beach House) and Mawlana (The Preacher)."

In the statement the organizers also note that the censor asked many other filmmakers participating in the festival to edit out parts of their films.

"They were not granted screening permissions until the last minute when he decided to grant a one-time cultural screening permit."

Visit link:
A film festival in Beirut is protesting censorship in Lebanon - StepFeed

If you didnt know by now, I go to McMaster University. Recently, they had a guest speaker, Jordan B. Peterson, come to McMaster.

As I reported earlier this week, that event got shut down because protesters played loud music, yelled, and apparently acted a little violent, too McMaster is currently investigating a reported assault.

But the interesting part of this story is how the Dean of the McMaster University, Patrick Dean, responded after the events fallout.

According to the CBC, Patrick Dean said that what occurred was "extremely regrettable and didnt meet the standards of open debate."

That sounds great and all, but when you look at the wider picture, you begin to realize that Patrick Dean might be saying this because the Peterson event got so much media attention.

It wouldnt be surprising, considering that the McMaster administration never stands up to the student union when they censor those who have controversial opinions. I've seen this first hand.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms documents cases of universities censoring free speech and expression on campus, and give them letter grades each year.

In 2014 and 2015, McMaster got a B letter grade in policy, but a C in practice, and a D in student union practice."

In other words, McMasters official policy on freedom of speech and expression gets a passing grade but too often, in reality, they allow their student union to run roughshod over other peoples rights.

Its true that other universities have worse scores, but Im focusing on McMaster right now because Im a student there.

Theres a simple way forward, McMaster:

Why dont you follow your own official policy instead of letting leftists ruin the university for the rest of us?

Read this article:
McMaster U. dean calls censorship of Prof. Jordan Peterson ... - The Rebel

IMBD homepage on March 22, 2017.

You would think the First Amendment is a bulletproof defense against censorship of the Internet. But then you are not reckoning with the awesome political power of the Screen Actors Guild.

The union representing Hollywood stars and role players somehow persuaded California lawmakers to enact a law that would bar the popular IMDb website from revealing the ages of actors. Its a law that sounds crazy even by California standards, yet Governor Jerry Brown signed it last fall.

Advertisement

Youve probably heard of the entertainment-focused IMDb. Owned by Amazon.com, it was founded by a British computer programmer and movie buff in 1990, when the Internet was in diapers. Today, its among the worlds most popular websites, with over 250 million visitors every month.

The basic IMDb service is free. Its content, like that of Wikipedia, is crowdsourced. Members love to post information about their favorite movies, directors, stars, and this is the important fact the actors ages.

Get Talking Points in your inbox:

An afternoon recap of the days most important business news, delivered weekdays.

Many stars arent happy about that. Its not just vanity, they say; Hollywood is rife with ageism, and older actors dont want directors to think theyve passed their sell-by dates.

IMDb has a paid version of its service called IMDbPro that has become the Hollywood equivalent of LinkedIn, the social network for business. Actors and others pay about $150 a year to see and be seen by the industry elite, and to hunt for jobs. And a role might be harder to come by if its known that a certain actor is on the far side of 50.

But you cant ban the whole Internet from publishing someones age. Or can you? California legislators figured out a way around that by framing their law as a defense against age discrimination. They wrote a publishing restriction that applies only to a commercial online entertainment employment service provider, allowing paying members to demand that his or her age be deleted from that site.

Advertisement

You wont be surprised to learn that IMDb and IMDbPro are virtually the only sites on earth that fit the criteria described in the law. Sure enough, as of Jan. 1, IMDb had received more than 2,300 takedown requests, including 10 from people whove won Oscars and another 71 whove been nominated for Oscars, Emmys, or Golden Globes.

IMDb hasnt honored a single one of these requests, insisting the law is flagrantly unconstitutional. Besides, it wont work. The same information is usually available elsewhere online, for the price of a quick Google search. And so IMDb argues the law harms its business by driving its users to other sites, without achieving its purpose.

IMDb filed suit against the law in federal court, and in February, US District Court Judge Vince Chhabria issued an injunction against it until the case can be heard.

There is an exceedingly strong likelihood that IMDb will prevail, the judge predicted. Thats putting it mildly.

The IMDb law is merely the nuttiest recent effort by governments here and abroad to censor unwelcome Internet content. Other examples are less ridiculous but equally pernicious.

Google, for instance, is headed to court in France, hoping to fend off a ruinous global expansion of the right to be forgotten. A 2014 ruling of the European Court of Justice held that citizens of the European Union can demand the deletion of embarrassing search results that are no longer relevant to a persons life. For instance, if a Frenchman went bankrupt 10 years ago, he could ask Google not to display this fact when someone ran a search of his name.

Google has complied with over a quarter-million such requests, but only in Europe. The Frenchmans bankruptcy would still come up if someone ran his name through Google in the United States. But in 2015, a French court ruled that Google must wipe embarrassing search results worldwide. Its a radical attempt to force the entire world to play by Europes censorious rules.

Some American lawmakers would be happy to comply. Last month, a couple of New York state legislators filed a bill that would require Internet search services to remove, on request, listings that hurt a persons reputation, and which are no longer material to current public debate or discourse.

Im sympathetic; weve all done things wed like the world to forget. But its no different from trying to block the publication of Brad Pitts age. Thats not the governments job.

Other ongoing disputes over online expression are more complex. Even now, European companies are pulling ads from Facebook and YouTube because users of those services sometimes post racist and anti-Semitic messages that are illegal overseas but protected here.

You cant blame advertisers for fleeing such stuff, even where its legal to publish it. And Internet companies arent bound by the First Amendment. They have every right to bar materials that dont meet their ethical standards, or those of their customers. Websites are also entitled to use their own judgment in flagging stories that might be considered fake news; I might disagree with their decisions, but I dont see it as censorship.

But governments cant ban the online publication of truth, at least not on this side of the Atlantic. Somebody tell the Screen Actors Guild.

Excerpt from:
Internet censorship, Hollywood style - The Boston Globe