Mediaboss Marketing

Provisional Irish oval censor handstamp in English only - used September 1939

The site now hosts an array of Civil Censorship and Military Mail information mostly related to World War II but adding material from other periods as collectors provide covers to show and as other information comes to hand.

Click on "What's New" to see latest additions

The British based Civil Censorship Study Group is now the foremost group studying civil censorship since it was started in 1972. It was founded to fill the gap between the two societies dealing with military mail and the AGZ that studied both military and civil mails

A wide range of examples are here for you to see the censorship and military mail items collectors like to included in their collection

Current displays include WWI Finland, WWII Germany & DEI

These examples have been made available by the generosity of some dedicated collectors who want to share their material with others - thank you

POW - WWII

NATO

Korean War 1950-1953

Suez Crisis 1956

St Lucia Censorship

CCSG Bulletin Index

The more than 350 members of the British based Forces Postal History Society study all aspect of worldwide military mail since it was founded in 1952

Civil censorship is the censorship of mail, that can include opening, reading or marking of mail emanating from or sent to civilians primarily during war time or periods of unrest though occasionally during other times too

The Dublin Censor Office

The Military Postal History Society, previously the War Covers Club, is based in the United States and concentrated on US military mail but now has a worldwide outlook

Mail from military forces can include mail during war time or during military campaigns as well as regular military postal markings as applied at APO's and FPO's onto mail to and from of military personnel, as well as Peacekeeping Missions of the United Nations, and does not always include censorship by opening or reading of the mail

This section has covers sent in by collectors who need like help to identify the markings

Can you identify the marks on this cover?

SITE MAP

See more here:
Welcome the Postal Censorship Site

Comparison between the cut British DVD rated BBFC 12 and the uncut Australian DVD.

In November 2006 a new Bond movie was released. In spite of initial skepticism by the popular press and some fans, too, Daniel Craig could convince both critics and the audience in the graver and more serious Casino Royale, after the incredible stunts of his predecessor. Daniel Craigs introduction became the most successful Bond in history and topped Die Another Day easily.

The new toughness, rediscovered after Licence To Kill by the film makers, caused some problems for the movie, eventually leading to the release of 3 different versions of the movie in different parts of the world. While the previous movie only had a ridiculous and harmless sex scene being an overkill only for the USA, Casino Royale had a difficult time once again at its British home.

On the informative homepage of the British Censorship Board BBFC BBFC, whose censors were able to watch the movie prior to its premiere so that the movie makers could know how close they were to the desired "12 A" rating, one could learn about a torture scene which had to be cut for the English version.

It didnt take long to make clear that the cuts would be permanent for the English version of the movie, causing justified concerns that other countries would receive the same censored version. Fortunately that didnt happen. The censored version was only shown in English cinemas and was only released there on DVD. In Australia the scene remained intact.

The USA received a cut version of their own. There the torture scene turned out to be without difficulty for the important PG-13 rating but what usually is too much for Americans of this age bracket is realistic violence.

Exaggerated and cartoon-like violence hardly disturbs the MPAA or the American public than a realistic and matter-of-factly presented battle for life or death.

Of all things Casino Royale wanted to distinguish itself from the previous movies in that category in order to win back the adult audience which often doesnt like too much fantasy and extravagance in action movies anymore. Two scenes - the stylish black-and-white fight in the bathroom and the confrontation in the staircase - had to be mitigated considerably.

Interesting in this connection is that, besides the deletion of several scenes, there are some individual shots which are missing both in the English and in the Australian version. Whether these shots were deleted because of censorship reasons in the different countries or that they were added into the US version to compensate the deleted scenes (to get the desired PG-13 rating) and to keep the editing rhythm is unknown.

2 deleted und 1 alternative scenes in the English version with a total difference of 13 seconds.

Read the original here:
James Bond 007 - Casino Royale (2006) - Movie-Censorship.com

A controversial film that accuses the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of covering up the link between vaccines and rising autism rates has been pulled from the Tribeca Film Festival after its inclusion sparked outrage andopponents called it intellectually dishonest and propaganda.

A day after he defended the decision to screen the documentary Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe, festival co-founder Robert De Niro announced in a statement Saturday that he reversed course after reviewing the film with colleagues and experts.

My intent in screening this film was to provide an opportunity for conversation around an issue that is deeply personal to me and my family, the statement said. But after reviewing it over the past few days with the Tribeca Film Festival team and others from the scientific community, we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for.

Deadline Hollywood reported that filmmakers have accused Tribeca officials of engaging in censorship.

To our dismay, we learned today about the Tribeca Film Festivals decision to reverse the official selection of Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,' director Andrew Wakefield and producer Del Bigtree said.

It is our understanding that persons from an organization affiliated with the festival have made unspecified allegations against the film, the statement continued. We have just witnessed yet another example of the power of corporate interests censoring free speech, art, and truth. Tribecas action will not succeed in denying the world access to the truth behind the film Vaxxed.'

The film is directed and co-written by Wakefield, a polarizing anti-vaccination activist and onetime gastroenterologist whose medical license was revoked by Britains General Medical Council, according to CBS News. Wakefield is also the author of a widely discounted study published in the medical journal the Lancet, in 1998 that was retracted in 2010. Studies from the independent, nonprofit Institute of Medicine, the World Health Organization and the CDC have discredited the notion that a link exists between vaccines and developing autism spectrum disorder, according to the Huffington Post.

The substantial evidence explains why the decision to screen the film drew intense scrutiny from medical experts.

On Friday, De Niro released a statement explaining his decision to screen the film next month, but he noted that he was not personally endorsing the film and is not anti-vaccination.

Grace and I have a child with autism and we believe it is critical that all of the issues surrounding the causes of autism be openly discussed and examined, the statement said. In the 15 years since the Tribeca Film Festival was founded, I have never asked for a film to be screened or gotten involved in the programming.

However this is very personal to me and my family and I want there to be a discussion, which is why we will be screening the film, the statement added.

The statement set off a new round of debate on the festivals Facebook page, with users leaving thousands of heated comments.

Why shouldnt there be discussion around this? one commenter wrote. This is supposed to be a country of free speech.

To say that discussion has not been ongoing before this obvious bit of propaganda is screened is intellectually dishonest, another said. The discussion has been going on for decades and the answer has remained the same. There is no valid science that backs a vaccine-autism link. None.

To say that discussion has not been ongoing before this obvious bit of propaganda is screened is intellectually dishonest

A trailer for the film begins with ominous music and a single question:

Are our children safe?

Continue reading here:
Filmmakers accuse Robert De Niro of censorship after he ...

The Arango Orillac Building where the Mossack Fonseca law firm is situated at inPanama City. The absence of any prominent US institutions or citizens in the first list of names revealed by the ICIJ has spurred rumours ranging from a conspiracy to media bias. (REUTERS)

From China censoring its social media to the Kremlin alleging a CIA conspiracy, the Panama Papers revelations have caused major ripples through global powers, with implicated world leaders denying allegations of wrongdoing.

The Panama Papers on Monday brought to light the shadowy world of offshore companies and how the rich and the famous hide their wealth from public view, with its first list of names including heads of state, celebrities, prominent businessmen and football stars.

Spearheaded by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), and worked on by over 100 media organisations through the world, the leaks place a Panama-based law firm, Mossack Fonseca, at the centre of the tangled web of shell companies and paper trails.

However, the information, or the blank spaces in between, has led to sharp criticism on social media, with many commenting on the lack of US names or banks in the list. Conspiracy theorists allege a western plot to destabilise Russian president Vladimir Putin, while others raised more serious concerns of media bias.

Corporate media protecting the 1%?

The only direct US link to the Panama Papers so far is that of financial writer and life coach Marianna Olszewski - who allegedly employed a 90-year-old British man as a stand in to mask funds she had confidentially invested in an offshore company.

The lack of any prominent US citizen or institutions name appearing on the list - that too despite the ICIJ listing 617 middlemen that Mossack Fonseca worked with in the United States - has begun to attract conspiracy theories and criticism.

One of the most searing criticisms has been that of Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, and a prominent human rights figure.

In a blog post on Monday, Murray said that German daily Suddeutsche Zeitung had made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results.

In consequence the first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent, Murray wrote.

But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink.

Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished.

Murray points to the US-based ICIJs funders as being a reason why no American politician or public figure has been named so far.

Their funders include the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment, The Rockefeller Family Fund, the WK Kellogg Fund and the Open Society Foundation (Soros) - all significant (and significantly wealthy) industrial and corporate entities.

I know Russia and China are corrupt, you dont have to tell me that, writes Murray. What if you look at things that we might, here in the West, be able to rise up and do something about?

While Murrays points have more substance than, say, conspiracy theorists on social media, its more likely that no United States citizens have been named because of the sheer volume of data that needs to be analysed.

Nonetheless, questions about media bias have been raised onTwitter.

I'm not saying #Putin isn't guilty of any wrongdoing, I'm just pointing out the framing of the #PanamaPapers suggests a clear media bias.

World leaders actually named in the #PanamaPapers but Putin, who is NOT named, is used by all media covering story? pic.twitter.com/nthb26QtTE

These #Panama leaks don't mention Putin once. Yet MSM have somehow found him guilty of multiple crimes. Propaganda overload! ?? #BlamePutin

Read: Panama Papers: N Korea shell companies funding nuclear weapons surface

Its bullshit

Among the most high-profile names implicated in the leaks was Russian president Vladimir Putin. While the Russian leader was not directly named in the Panama Papers, some of his closest associates including Sergei Roldugin, godfather to Putins daughter Maria, and Yuri Kovalchuk, Bank Rossiyas biggest shareholder, were.

The leak exposes the offshore holdings of 12 current and former world leaders and reveals how associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin secretly shuffled as much as $2 billion through banks and shadow companies, the ICIJ wrote, while The Guardian on Monday led with how Putins closest friends had operated a network of companies and banks to allegedly create a slush fund for the former-KGB spy.

Read:Journalists working on Panama papers ex-CIA operative: Kremlin

Russia, unsurprisingly, has denied the allegations, with a spokesperson for the Kremlin saying that the leaks were a result of a CIA-backed anti-Putin campaign; a statement which has found vociferous support among Twitter users

Only very naive and stupid people open off-shore accounts in #Panama which is controlled by the CIA. #PanamaLeaks

.

Its obvious the main aim of this dump is our president in the context of parliamentary elections and, in the longer term, presidential elections... Its obvious the barbs of this attack are directed against our country and, personally, against our president, Dmitry Peskov said on Monday, according to RCB News.

The degree of Putinophobia has reached such a level that youre just not allowed to say good things about Russia or about Russias successes. The bad things that you have to talk about, Peskov added.

One of the few other Russian officials to address the sensational claims was Andrei Kostin, the head of state-owned banking giant VTB.

Mr. Putin was never involved. Its bullshit, Kostin said in an interview with Bloomberg on Monday.

Watch | The Panama Papers leak explained

Chinese censorship

Meanwhile, China also appears to be censoring social media posts about the Panama Papers leak which has named several members of Chinas elite, including President Xi Jinpings brother-in-law, Deng Jiagui.

The ICIJ shows Deng as having registered two companies in 2009; around about the same time that Jinping was rising in power.

An investigative report by Bloomberg News in 2012 revealed that Deng and his wife had hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate, share holdings and other assets.

Hundreds of posts on networks such as Sina Weibo and Wechat on the topic have been deleted since Monday morning.

The website Freeweibo.com, which actively tracks censorship on Weibo, listed Panama as the most censored term on the network.

The American angle

Given that the ICIJ has listed 617 middlemen in the US, it would be surprising, to say the least, if American figures were not linked to the growing scandal.

The law firm, which helped its clients (including firms subject to sanctions, such as in North Korea and Syria) set up offshore companies, came into the spotlight after more than 11 million of its internal files were leaked to German daily Suddeutsche Zeitung.

Zeitung then approached the ICIJ, which helped organise a 9-month long global investigation into the leaked files, the results of which were made public on Monday.

Read the original post:
Censorship, CIA and no US citizens: Panama Papers ...

The Israeli Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan has unveiled plans to censor the Internets worldwide social media platforms with the building of an international coalition to counter criticism of Israel.

According to an article in the Times of Israel, Erdans plan calls for developing legislation in conjunction with European countries, most of which are very interested in this idea.

The legislation would have common features, such as defining what constitutes incitement and what the responsibilities of social networks regarding it are, a spokesman for the minister told the Israeli-based newspaper.

Companies that do not comply will find themselves hauled into court, paying a penalty, he added.

According to the plan, the participating countries would be part of a loose coalition that would keep an eye on content and where it was being posted, and members of the coalition would work to demand that the platforms remove the content that was posted in any of their countries at the request of members.

This is a perfectly logical and just project, Erdans spokesperson said. If a hotel was being used as a venue for a hate group, we would demand that the hotel break its contract, and we would lean on other hotels to abstain from hosting them, so that the hate group would not be able to hold its event. This is no different.

Although the Israelis are attempting to disguise the project as a counter to Palestinians posting violence promoting material on the Internet, it is clear that the extension of this coalition has a far wider scope.

Justifying the plan, Erdans office used an example of a Palestinian who allegedly posted up a body chart showing where the best places were to stab someone fatallyapparently a reference to the recent spate of knife attacks on Jews in Israel.

READ Europe Will Kill Itself, Warns Kurdish Separatists as They Reveal Tripped Refugee is Al-Qaeda Terrorist

The number of postings of that nature are, however, tiny in comparison to the volume of material going up on the Internet, and there are already more than sufficient methods in place to deal with such incidents and get them removed.

Nonetheless, Erdans spokesman said the coalition would force the worlds leading social media giants to prevent their platforms from being abused to peddle incitement to terrorism.

The social media giants make millions but claim they are not responsible for content, and that they only provide a platform, a spokesperson for Erdan told the Times of Israel. That is not going to wash. We are planning to put a stop to this irresponsibility, and we are going to do it as part of an international coalition that has had enough of this behavior as well.

BreakingCensorshipFeaturedIsraelJewish HypocrisySocial Media

See original here:
Israel Demands World Internet Censorship - The New Observer