Mediaboss Marketing

Anticipating federal elections in September, Germanys Minister of Justice has proposed a new law aimed at limiting the spread of hate speech and fake news on social media sites. But the proposal, called the Social Network Enforcement Bill or NetzDG, goes far beyond a mere encouragement for social media platforms to respond quickly to hoaxes and disinformation campaigns and would create massive incentives for companies to censor a broad range of speech.

The NetzDG scopes very broadly: It would apply not only to social networking sites but to any other service that enables users to exchange or share any kind of content with other users or make such content accessible to other users. That would mean that email providers such as Gmail and ProtonMail, web hosting companies such as Greenhost and 1&1, remote storage services such as Dropbox, and any other interactive website could fall within the bills reach.

Under the proposal, providers would be required to promptly remove illegal speech from their services or face fines of up to 50 million euros. NetzDG would require providers to respond to complaints about Violating Content, defined as material that violates one of 24 provisions of the German Criminal Code. These provisions cover a wide range of topics and reveal prohibitions against speech in German law that may come as a surprise to the international community, including prohibitions against defamation of the President (Sec. 90), the state, and its symbols (Sec. 90a); defamation of religions (Sec. 166); distribution of pornographic performances (Sec. 184d); and dissemination of depictions of violence (Sec. 131).

NetzDG would put online service providers in the position of a judge, requiring that they accept notifications from users about allegedly Violating Content and render a decision about whether that content violates the German Criminal Code. Providers would be required to remove obvious violations of the Code within 24 hours and resolve all other notifications within 7 days. Providers are also instructed to delete or block any copies of the Violating Content, which would require providers not only to remove content at a specified URL but to filter all content on their service.

The approach of this bill is fundamentally inconsistent with maintaining opportunities for freedom of expression and access to information online. Requiring providers to interpret the vagaries of 24 provisions of the German Criminal Code is a massive burden. Determining whether a post violates a given law is a complex question that requires deep legal expertise and analysis of relevant context, something private companies are not equipped to do, particularly at mass scale. Adding similar requirements to apply the law of every country in which these companies operate (or risk potentially bankrupting fines) would be unsustainable.

The likely response from hosts of user-generated content would be to err on the side of caution and take down any flagged content that broaches controversial subjects such as religion, foreign policy, and opinions about world leaders. And individuals inside and outside of Germany would likely have minimal access to a meaningful remedy if a provider censors their lawful speech under NetzDG.

The proposal is also completely out of sync with international standards for promoting free expression online. It has long been recognized that limiting liability for intermediaries is a key component to support a robust online speech environment. As then-Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Frank La Rue, noted in his 2011 report:

Holding intermediaries liable for the content disseminated or created by their users severely undermines the enjoyment of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, because it leads to self-protective and over-broad private censorship, often without transparency and the due process of the law.

The Council of Europe has likewise cautioned against the consequences of shifting the burden to intermediaries to determine what speech is illegal, in conjunction with the report it commissioned in 2016 on comparative approaches to blocking, filtering, and takedown of content: [T]he decision on what constitutes illegal content is often delegated to private entities, which in order to avoid being held liable for transmission of illegal content may exercise excessive control over information accessible on the Internet.

Shielding intermediaries from liability for third-party content is the first of the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, a set of principles supported by more than 100 civil society organizations worldwide. The Manila Principles further caution that Intermediaries must not be required to restrict content unless an order has been issued by an independent and impartial judicial authority that has determined that the material at issue is unlawful. It is a mistake to force private companies to be judge, jury, and executioner for controversial speech.

CDT recommends that the German legislature reject this proposed measure. It clearly impinges on fundamental rights to free expression and due process. The challenges posed to our democracies by fake news, hate speech, and incitement to violence are matters of deep concern. But laws that undermine individuals due process rights and co-opt private companies into the censorship apparatus for the state are not the way to defend democratic societies. Governments must work with industry and civil society to address these problems without undermining fundamental rights and the rule of law.

Go here to see the original:
German Proposal Threatens Censorship on Wide Array of Online Services - Center for Democracy and Technology (blog)

Censorship is long proclaimed as one of the worst moral crimes against the press or the peoples voice. Oppressive, in fact. But where is the line drawn on what is and what is not censorship? I argue that censorship only occurs when the platform being controlled is a public platform.

Twitter and Facebook have both taken part in a campaign against fake news. Twitter has been much quieter about this, preferring to kick back and prevent certain hashtags from trending. Mr. Zuckerberg from Facebook, on the other hand, has proposed solutions such as attaching warnings to posts that other have flagged as false.

Are either of these situations censorship? If Twitter was a right to all people, or if all stories were constitutionally protected to be published, then probably yes, it would be censorship. But that is not the case.

It turns out, Twitter owns Twitter and Facebook owns Facebook, and they have the right to allow content and users to participate in their networks as they see fit.

As Americans, we tend to not like when someone prevents us from saying what we want. We need to make sure we had a right to use that platform in the first place.

Colleges around the country have blocked speakers, including more conservative speakers like Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos, from giving lectures to students. Ignoring all the implications of blocking speakers, the colleges who do so are usually private, and do have a right to do so.

Censorship can only occur on public platforms because it is only government who is truly wrong to pick and choose which ideas as acceptable.

During the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic establishment charged Martin Luther with heresy for his criticisms of the Catholic church.

Another instance comes from an interview of a Saudi Arabian ambassador to the UN, Abdallah al-Mouallimi. He states that it is subversive for an atheist to go out into public and tell others that he does not believe in God, and that the atheist could be a terrorist.

In both cases, the government is forcing out any ideologies that do not align with itself. Clearly censorship.

Among other things, censorship has been generalized as part of the sharpening of the blade which divides the nations ideology. However, a case by case study woul be the best way to be honest about what is and is not censorship.

The rest is here:
The student voice of Mines since 1920 - The Oredigger Newspaper

Vladimir Putin has defended Chinas online censorship, declaring that the internet cannot be a place of excessive quasi-freedom, Russian news agency Interfax has reported.

We should not criticize what China is doing, the Russian president said when a blogger asked whether Moscow should follow or condemn Beijings strict regulations online. Thats 1.5 billion people. Go ahead and try to govern them for a bit.

Chinas so-called Great Firewall of measures, which restricts users from accessing websites such as Facebook and YouTube, is one of the most prohibitive national internet policies in the world. Authorities have also announced a crackdown, to be implemented over the next year, on users who disguise their Internet Provider address in order to circumvent the wall.

However, Putin said that Chinas desire to strongly filter online information access to its people is part and parcel of its wider development.

What was it that Napoleon said? China is sleeping and may she sleep longer still, Putin said, alluding to the legendary Corsican commander-in-chiefs warning that China will one day grow to global influence. China has long since awoken and it is with these processes that it needs to govern, the Russian leader added.

Putin said Russia would follow its own path instead of implementing Chinas policies, but added that regulations in general should correspond to the level of development of a society.

Callous quasi-freedom on the internet does not exist anywhere anymore, he added. All countries in the world have certain content limitations. We have limitations and they are known. They are propaganda for suicide, child pornography, propaganda for terrorism, distribution of narcotics and so on. In my view, these limitations are enough at the moment.

Despite Putins reassuring turn of phrase, Russia has moved closer to the Chinese model of internet policing in recent years. In 2014, lawmakers approved legislation demanding that companies handling the private data of Russian citizens base their relevant servers inside Russia. This allows security forces to inspect and raid server facilities and also gives Moscow a greater ability to censor unwanted content.

The same year, at the annual forum in Petersburg, Putin called the internet at large an invention of U.S. intelligence agencies and promoted Russian equivalents of Google and Facebook as alternatives for Russians to use.

Read more here:
Vladimir Putin Defends China's Internet Censorship - Newsweek

This month, the rulers of Pakistan stepped up a campaign against blasphemy, frightening news from an Islamic nation where insulting the official religion is a capital crime.

From an American perspective, this would merely be another, distant nations horror if it werent for one aspect of the story.

As part of the crackdown, Pakistani leaders have asked executives of Facebook and Twitter to help them help root out people who post blasphemous material on social media sites from anywhere in the world.

In response, Facebook said in mid-March that it planned to send a team to Pakistan to discuss the governments request. Really?

And this week, Pakistans interior ministry claimed Facebooks administrators have been blocking and removing blasphemous content from the site. Really?!

Its heartening to read that Facebook said in a statement that, in considering government requests, it keeps in mind the goal of protecting the privacy and rights of our users.

However, the situation calls for stronger assurance that Facebook will do its part to defend the basic human values of free thought and free expression.

Its understood that social networking companies have a complicated challenge in dealing with an array of cultures and standards of freedom in countries all over the world.

But Facebook and Twitter or any American company facing pressure such as this from Pakistani leaders must bluntly refuse to cooperate in any way with a repressive regimes efforts to forcibly squelch free expression and dissent, even if their refusal means having access to their sites blocked in those countries.

As Michael De Dora, the main representative to the United Nations from the nonprofit Center for Inquiry, said: We do not want to see the people of Pakistan cut off from such a powerful and far-reaching platform as Facebook. But we hope Facebook makes clear that it will not compromise its users safety or freedom through disclosure.

Pakistan is, sadly, far from the only country that doesnt understand the right to free speech that most Americans take for granted.

The Pew Research Center found last year that, as of 2014, 26 percent of the worlds countries and territories had laws or policies against blasphemy (that is, showing a lack of reverence for a god or sacred thing), and 13 percent had laws or policies against apostasy (the renunciation of a religion), the offenses calling for everything from fines to execution. Such laws are most common in the Middle East and North Africa.

But Pakistans policies, and its leaders rhetoric, are worse than most. According to unofficial tallies, since 1990 at least 68 people have been killed there over allegations of blasphemy, including a provincial governor shot dead six years ago by a police guard who accused him of blasphemy after he defended a Christian woman who insulted the Prophet Muhammad; and currently about 40 people are on death row or serving life sentences for blasphemy. Last week, three bloggers were arrested on blasphemy charges.

In Pakistan, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif calls blasphemy an unpardonable offense.

Here, the unpardonable offense would be failing to push back against such backward thing. Facebook and Twitter should help to lead the push.

The Orange County Register (Santa Ana, Calif.)

Visit link:
EDITORIAL: Facebook shouldn't facilitate censorship in Pakistan - Jacksonville Daily News

Two weeks ago, I wrote about how my speech topic for public speaking was rejected. I spoke about how I thought it was unfair and how I think it went against the main principles of what college is for.

Since writing the article, I have had some response, as well as more speech topics that were banned, so I thought I would write an update.

As some of you may have seen in last weeks issue, a response was written to my column. Matt Gaffney wrote about his own paper getting silenced and spoke about how I am owed an apology. I personally do not think Mr. Gaffneys and my situations related to each other; I also dont think I am owed some kind of apology. All I want is for classes and professors to be open to adult discussion rather than treating the students like kids.

I also do not agree with the language in Gaffneys response. To me, it seemed like Gaffney was attacking professors at this school, which was absolutely not my intent. I do not have any ill will toward the communications department at all, nor do I with my own professor.

Although the situation irritates and angers me, all I want is for my professor, and others alike, to be more open to student discussion and respectful debate. Im not in search of gratification or justice for this situation; I want a more open learning environment where discussion is encouraged instead of silenced.

I have also had some positive response from my article. Another communications professor, who also teaches public speaking, reached out to me and requested a meeting. When I met with this professor, he told me he was happy that I wrote what I did, and that in his class, he welcomes more heated topics.

This was reassuring and made clear to me that this issue was with my own personal professor and not the department as a whole. The decision to deny topics is entirely up to the professors discretion, and there are not guidelines set by the department.

This professor and I had a nice discussion about the need for different opinions and talked about current and controversial topics. I was glad to know that not every professor is like mine, and some of them are open to discussion, which is a step in the right direction.

Recently, my class was assigned our final speech of the semester. For those of you who have not taken this class or do not remember, this speech is to persuade the audience to agree with your stance on a topic. This is the perfect opportunity to discuss a riskier topic, but once again, my class was denied this opportunity.

When given the requirements for this speech, my class was handed a sheet with topics that were not allowed for this final speech. This list includes topics such as: climate change, LGBT rights, drunk driving, hazing, pollution, child abuse, capital punishment, religiously oriented topics, politically oriented topics and 15 more restricted topics.

When I saw this list, I was shocked, as were other people in my class. I completely understand if a topic is inappropriate, but most of these topics werent, especially when analyzed in a professional academic setting.

My professor said some of these topics were restricted because they were overdone, which I think is also unfair, but that does not relate to this article as much.

I just could not believe that we are being told we cannot talk about things things that most of the class are passionate about. Things that are current and affect our lives.

I am going to submit a topic for my speech soon, and I will await to see if it passes through this insane list of banned topics.

The rest is here:
Censorship reaction - Standard Online