Mediaboss Marketing

A senior Chinese official has spoken out against his countrys repressive internet censorship measures in a rare show of defiance.

Luo Fuhe, a technology adviser to Chinas parliament, said that Communist officials should un-ban some of the thousands of websites currently blocked by the so-called Great Firewall.

Web censorship has become more severe in the years since Xi Jinping became president, with hundreds of news sites blocked, as well as most social networks.

But Luo spoke out against Chinas determination to control its peoples internet access over the weekend, saying that academic sites should be removed from the filter.

He said continued censorship will have a grave impact on our countrys socio-economic development and scientific research, theSouth China Morning Postreported.

He cited examples of state filtering software slowing the internet down to an unusable pace.

Pages hosted by the UN could take 20 seconds to load, while sites hosted by foreign universities are so heavily vetted they can take more than half an hour, he warned.

Luo belongs to one of Chinas non-Communist political parties, and works for theChinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference, which advises their parliament.

His criticism is exceptionally outspoken given the commitment of the Communist party, which dominates Chinas political culture, to the policy.

Notably, Luo stuck to uncontroversial academic examples and the economic costs of web censorship, rather than focusing on personal freedom.

He left out the social penalty suffered by the Chinese people, unable to access huge chunks of the internet which are freely available in the West.

The repressive outlook earned China the worst score in the world in a recent ranking of government internet policies by the Freedom House watchdog organization.

But is unlikely to be taken on board by leading figures of the Chinese politburo, who are headed in the opposite direction.

View original post here:
Chinese Official Dares to Challenge Repressive Government Internet Censorship - Heat Street

One step back, two steps back.

Here we go again.

If youve been keeping up with stories pertaining to Indian censorship, youll know how arbitrarily regressive some of the decisions tend to be. Words aretaken out of contextor even misheard by the Central Board of Film Certification, leaving producers little choice beyond bowing to their whims. You can catch up on all my articles on the history and progress (or lack thereof) when it comes to censorship here(including my frustrating interview with the head of the CBFC), though something I havent yet touched on in detail is the boards outright refusal tocertify, as has recently been the case with Alankrita Shrivastavas Lipstick Under My Burkha.

Its a somewhat loaded title for a sexually conservative nation so divided by religious conflict, though only a tad more inflammatory than its Hindi original (Lipstick Ke Sapne, meaning dreams of lipstick), because the issue the board seems to have isnt strictly religious. But dont take my word for, lets hear what the CBFC hasto say:

"Reasons for Certificate Refused to the film:

The story is lady oriented, their fantasy above life. There are containious sexual scenes, abusive words, audio pornography, and a bit sensitive touch about one particular section of society. Hence film refused under guidelines 1(a), 2(vii), 2(ix), 2(x), 2(xi), 2(xxi) and 3(i)."

Oh boy.

Im not one to judge the English skills of somebody who doesnt speak it natively, but even looking beyond the apparent errors, theres a fair amount to unpack right from the opening statement: The story is lady oriented. No matter what language you speak, that right there sends a very clear message about why a film has been outright banned from cinemas. To give you a clearer picture of what kind of movie it is, heres a look at the trailer:

If that video doesn't work for you, try this one:

Doesnt that look delightful? Lipstick Under My Burkha is a tale of the little victories that make up everyday rebellion in a society like Indias, where notions of culture and values are tied to the suppression and control of female sexuality. With that in mind, the censorship situation takes on an even more sinister connotation.

After Shrivastavas film was sent to a revising committee to determine its rating, she was called into the darkened theatre and told outright by CBFC head Pahlaj Nihalani that there had been a unanimous decision to stop it from being seen theatrically. Despite the films success at festivals in Mumbai, Tokyo, Glasgow, andthis past week in Miami, a regressive, bigoted government body and the short tempered yes-man at its apex stopped her from sharing her art with the public. Even better, Lipstick won the Oxfam Award for Best Film on Gender Equality at the Mumbai Film Festival, mere miles from where Nihalani sits. Thats what the CBFC is inadvertently opposing. Gender equality.

The Central Board of Film Certification is colloquially referred to as the censor board, though they insist what they do isnt censorship. In terms of the process, they inform artists of what they do or dont deem permissible for public viewing (even for films with an A or Adult certificate goodbye Moonlights beach scene), and if producers have a problem with this, they can go through the arduous process of appeal after appeal until the decision is made by the courts, often leading to the hemorrhaging of legal fees and a wrench being tossed into the theatrical rollout.

Theres a strange hypocrisy to the boards censorship that you've probably picked up on by now and make no mistake, it iscensorship no matter how many times Nihalani defaults to the just doing our job excuse. Their concern for the protection of women leads them to demand words like bitch and whore be muted regardless of context, but when it comes to women expressing their own stories, fantasies and struggles, they bring down their fascist gavel and ban a movie before insisting it isnt a ban. I dont think I need to tell our American readers that when a court needs to reverse a decision like this, its a ban no matter how much you deny it.

The problem isnt limited to the laws, of course. In the year since I wrote about the cultural roots of Indian censorship, the conversation has gotten louder, but it hasnt really changed. Hell, it wasnt until I sat down with Nihalani that I learned the laws hadnt changed either (despite being brought up in Parliament!) because information on the proceedings is harder to come by than it should be. But were the rules to change, it would still only be a first step towards changing how the culture approaches disagreement on art.

Take for instance the set of the upcoming Padmavati, which a local Rajput group trashed before attacking director Sanjay Leela Bhansali over the depiction of the eponymous queen. Not only was this over an anachronism in a film they hadnt seen (apparently, an intimate scene with ruler Alauddin Khilji, whose obsession with Padmavati is the films main focus), but the ahistorical sequence that had them so riled up seems to itself have been a fabrication. According to the director, there is no such scene in the film.

Physical attacks on artists are far from the norm in India, but the react first, be informed later mindset that leads to this violence is still the status quo. The idea that all art needs to be agreeable, inoffensive and in line with the abstract notions of culture creates an intellectual vacuum, one that exists symbiotically with the CBFC and the Cinematograph Act of 1952. Both of these things are in need of radical revamp, as is the hypocrisy surrounding the protection of women from subjects concerning their experience, especially when its their voices being suppressed in the process. If thats the case, women arent the ones these laws protect. The only things being protected are the fragile egos of men who cant deal with female autonomy, and a culture that refuses to be challenged by a more inclusive society.

In the directors own words:

"Shouldnt the voices of women be encouraged and given more space? Instead we have a situation where a small film that dares to tell a story from a female point of view is being silenced. We are being told that our voices do not matter. We are being told it is better to shut up and comply.

As a woman, and as a filmmaker, I have decided that I will not shut up. I refuse to be silenced. I will not be discouraged. I will fight to ensure that Lipstick Under My Burkha is released in cinemas in India. And I will continue to make lady-oriented films as long as I can."

Now that we're here, let's keep the discussion "lady oriented." What are your favourite films by and/or about women? What experiences or perspectives do they articulate? Sound off below, completely uncensored. We'll let you know if and when Lipstick Under My Burkha makes it to Indian cinemas.

Excerpt from:
A New Low For Indian Censors: Banning Lady Oriented Films - Birth.Movies.Death. (blog)

In general, censorship in India, which involves the suppression of speech or other public communication, raises issues of freedom of speech, which is protected by the Indian constitution.

The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of expression but places certain restrictions on content, with a view towards maintaining communal and religious harmony, given the history of communal tension in the nation.[1] According to the Information Technology Rules 2011, objectionable content includes anything that threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order".[2]

In 2017, the Freedom in the World report by Freedom House gave India a freedom rating of 2.5, a civil liberties rating of 3, and a political rights rating of 2, earning it the designation of free. The rating scale runs from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free).[3] Analysts from Reporters Without Borders rank India 133rd in the world in their 2016 Press Freedom Index,[4] In 2016, the report Freedom of the Press by Freedom House gave India a press freedom rating of "Partly Free", with a Press Freedom Score of 41 (0-100 scale, lower is better).[5]

Watching or possessing pornographic materials is apparently legal, however distribution of such materials is strictly banned.[6] The Central Board of Film Certification allows release of certain films with sexual content (labelled A-rated), which are to be shown only in restricted spaces and to be viewed only by people of age 18 and above.[7] India's public television broadcaster, Doordarshan, has aired these films at late-night timeslots.[8]Films, television shows and music videos are prone to scene cuts or even bans, however if any literature is banned, it is not usually for pornographic reasons. Pornographic magazines are technically illegal, but many softcore Indian publications are available through many news vendors, who often stock them at the bottom of a stack of non-pornographic magazines, and make them available on request. Most non-Indian publications (including Playboy) are usually harder to find, whether softcore or hardcore. Mailing pornographic magazines to India from a country where they are legal is also illegal in India. In practice, the magazines are almost always confiscated by Customs and entered as evidence of law-breaking, which then undergoes detailed scrutiny.

The Official Secrets Act 1923 is used for the protection of official information, mainly related to national security.[9]

The Indian Press currently enjoys extensive freedom. The Freedom Of Speech, mandated by the constitution guarantees and safeguards the freedom of press. However, the freedom of press was not always as robust as today.[citation needed] In 1975, the Indira Gandhi government imposed censorship of press during The Emergency. It was removed at the end of emergency rule in March 1977.[10] On 26 June 1975, the day after the emergency was imposed, the Bombay edition of The Times of India in its obituary column carried an entry that read, "D.E.M O'Cracy beloved husband of T.Ruth, father of L.I.Bertie, brother of Faith, Hope and Justica expired on 26 June".[11] In 1988 defamation bill introduced by Rajiv Gandhi but it was later withdrawn due to strong opposition to it .[12]

On 2 October 2016 (see: 2016 Kashmir unrest) the Srinagar-based Kashmiri newspaper, Kashmir Reader was asked to stop production by the Jammu and Kashmir government. The ban order, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Srinagar Farooq Ahmad Lone cited that the reason for this was that the newspaper contains material and content which tends to incite acts of violence and disturb public peace and tranquility[13] The ban came after weeks of unrest in the Kashmir valley, following the killing of the militant Burhan Wani. Journalists have decried this as a clampdown on freedom of expression and democracy in Kashmir, as a part of the massive media censorship of the unrest undertaken by the central government. Working journalists protested the ban by marching to the Directorate of Information and Public Relations while the Kashmir Editors Guild(KEG) held an emergency meeting in Srinagar, thereafter asking the government to revoke the ban immediately, and asking for the intervention of the Press Council of India.[13] The move has been criticised by a variety of individuals, academic and civil groups in Kashmir and international rights groups, such as Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society(JKCCS), Kashmir Economic Alliance(KEA), the Kashmir Center for Social and Developmental Studies(KCSDS) and Amnesty International, among others. Most of the major Kashmiri dailies have also rallied behind the KR, while claiming that the move represented a political vendetta against the newspaper for reporting events in the unrest as they happened on the ground. Hurriyat leaders, known to champion the cause of Kashmiri independence, also recorded their protests against the banning of the newspaper. Amnesty International released a statement saying that "the government has a duty to respect the freedom of the press, and the right of people to receive information,"[14] while criticising the government for shutting down a newspaper for opposing it. The journalists associated with the paper allege that, contrary to the claims of the J&K government, they had not been issued a notice or warning, and had been asked to stop production suddenly, which was only one manifestation of the wider media gag on Kashmir. Previously, the state government had banned newspapers for a few days in July, calling the move a temporary measure to address an extra-ordinary situation,[13] only to deflect the blame onto the police upon facing tremendous backlash, and thereafter asking the presses to resume publication. As of October 5, 2016, the ban has not been revoked and local journalists continue to protest against what they see as a breach of the freedom of the press and freedom of speech in Kashmir, with no official meeting forthcoming with government functionaries.

The Supreme Court while delivering judgement in Sportsworld case in 2014 held that "A picture of a nude/semi-nude woman... cannot per se be called obscene".[12]

The Central Board of Film Certification, the regulatory film body of India, regularly orders directors to remove anything it deems offensive, including sex, nudity, violence or subjects considered politically subversive.[15]

According to the Supreme Court of India:[16]

In 2002, the film War and Peace, depicting scenes of nuclear testing and the September 11, 2001 attacks, created by Anand Patwardhan, was asked to make 21 cuts before it was allowed to have the certificate for release.[17][18] Patwardhan objected, saying "The cuts that they asked for are so ridiculous that they won't hold up in court" and "But if these cuts do make it, it will be the end of freedom of expression in the Indian media." The court decreed the cuts unconstitutional and the film was shown uncut.

In 2002, the Indian filmmaker and former chief of the country's film censor board, Vijay Anand, kicked up a controversy with a proposal to legalise the exhibition of X-rated films in selected cinemas across the country, saying "Porn is shown everywhere in India clandestinely ... and the best way to fight this onslaught of blue movies is to show them openly in theatres with legally authorised licences".[15] He resigned within a year after taking charge of the censor board after facing widespread criticism of his moves.[19]

In 2003, the Indian Censor Board banned the film Gulabi Aaina (The Pink Mirror), a film on Indian transsexuals produced and directed by Sridhar Rangayan. The censor board cited that the film was "vulgar and offensive". The filmmaker appealed twice again unsuccessfully. The film still remains banned in India, but has screened at numerous festivals all over the world and won awards. The critics have applauded it for its "sensitive and touching portrayal of marginalised community".[20][21][22]

In 2004, the documentary Final Solution, which looks at religious rioting between Hindus and Muslims, was banned.[23][24] The film follows 2002 clashes in the western state of Gujarat, which left more than 1,000 people dead. The censor board justified the ban, saying it was "highly provocative and may trigger off unrest and communal violence". The ban was lifted in October 2004 after a sustained campaign.[25]

In 2006, seven states (Nagaland, Punjab, Goa, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh) have banned the release or exhibition of the Hollywood movie The Da Vinci Code (and also the book),[26] although India's Central Board of Film Certification cleared the film for adult viewing throughout India.[27] However, the respective high courts lifted the ban and the movie was shown in the two states.

In 2013, Kamal Haasan's "Vishwaroopam" was banned from the screening for a period of two weeks in Tamil Nadu.[12]

The Central Board of Film Certification demanded five cuts from the 2011 American film The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo because of some scenes containing rape and nudity. The producers and the director David Fincher finally decided not to release the film in India.[28]

In 2015, the Central Board of Film Certification demanded four cuts (three visual and one audio) from the art-house Malayalam feature film Chaayam Poosiya Veedu (The Painted House) directed by brothers Santosh Babusenan and Satish Babusenan because the film contained scenes where the female lead was shown in the nude. The directors refused to make any changes whatsoever to the film and hence the film was denied a certificate.[29][30][31][32][33]

In 2016, the film Udta Punjab, produced by Anurag Kashyap and Ekta Kapoor among others, ran into trouble with the Central Board of Film Certification, resulting in a very public re-examination of the ethics of film censorship in India. The film, which depicted a structural drug problem in the state of Punjab, used a lot of expletives and showed scenes of drug use. The CBFC, on 9 June 2016, released a list of 94 cuts and 13 pointers, including the deletion of names of cities in Punjab. On 13 June 2016, Udta Punjab was cleared by the Bombay High Court with one cut and disclaimers. The court ruled that, contrary to the claims of the CBFC, the film was not out to "malign" the state of Punjab, and that it wants to save people[34] Thereafter, the film was faced with further controversy when a print of it was leaked online on a torrent site. The quality of the copy, along with the fact that there was supposedly a watermark that said "censor" on top of the screen, raised suspicions that the board itself had leaked the copy to spite the filmmakers. It also contained the only scene that had been cut according to the High Court order. While the censor board claimed innocence,[35] the lingering suspicions resulted in a tense release, with the filmmakers and countless freedom of expression advocates taking to social media to appeal to the public to watch the film in theatres, as a conscious challenge against excessive censorship on art in India. Kashyap himself asked viewers to wait till the film released before they downloaded it for free, stating that he didn't have a problem with illegal downloads,[36] an unusual thing for a film producer to say. The film eventually released and grossed over $13 million[37] finishing as a commercial success.

Heavy metal band Slayer's 2006 album Christ Illusion was banned in India after Catholic churches in the country took offense to the artwork of the album and a few song titles and launched a protest against it. The album was taken off shelves and the remaining catalog was burnt by EMI Music India.[38]

In 1999, Maharashtra government banned the Marathi play Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy or I, Nathuram Godse, Am Speaking[39] The Notification was challenged before the Bombay High Court, and the High Court Bench consisting of B. P. Singh (Chief Justice), S. Radhakrishnan, and Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud allowed the writ petition and declared the notification to be ultra vires and illegal, thus rescinding the ban.

In 2004, Eve Ensler's The Vagina Monologues was banned in Chennai. The play however, has played successfully in many other parts of the country since 2003. A Hindi version of the play has been performing since 2007.

In 1961, it was criminalised in India to question the territorial integrity of frontiers of India in a manner which is, or is likely to be, prejudicial to the interests of the safety or security of India.[40]

Freedom House's Freedom on the Net 2015 report gives India a Freedom on the Net Status of "Partly Free" with a rating of 40 (scale from 0 to 100, lower is better). Its Obstacles to Access was rated 12 (0-25 scale), Limits on Content was rated 10 (0-35 scale) and Violations of User Rights was rated 18 (0-40 scale).[56] India was ranked 29th out of the 65 countries included in the 2015 report.[57]

The India country report that is included in the Freedom on the Net 2012 report, says:[58]

India is classified as engaged in "selective" Internet filtering in the conflict/security and Internet tools areas and as showing "no evidence" of filtering in the political and social areas by the OpenNet Initiative in May 2007.[59] ONI states that:

As a stable democracy with strong protections for press freedom, Indias experiments with Internet filtering have been brought into the fold of public discourse. The selective censorship of Web sites and blogs since 2003, made even more disjointed by the non-uniform responses of Internet service providers (ISPs), has inspired a clamour of opposition. Clearly government regulation and implementation of filtering are still evolving. Amidst widespread speculation in the media and blogosphere about the state of filtering in India, the sites actually blocked indicate that while the filtering system in place yields inconsistent results, it nevertheless continues to be aligned with and driven by government efforts. Government attempts at filtering have not been entirely effective, as blocked content has quickly migrated to other Web sites and users have found ways to circumvent filtering. The government has also been criticised for a poor understanding of the technical feasibility of censorship and for haphazardly choosing which Web sites to block. The amended IT Act, absolving intermediaries from being responsible for third-party created content, could signal stronger government monitoring in the future.[59]

A "Transparency Report" from Google indicates that the Government of India initiated 67 content removal requests between July and December 2010.[60]

Here is the original post:
Censorship in India - Wikipedia

The Great Firewall of China is famed for the restrictions it places on what Chinese citizens can access online. If a site provides access to news from the west, conflicts with state propaganda, or criticizes China or its ruling Communist party in any way, it is blocked. But some officials are now suggesting that it's time things changed.

The impetus is not a sudden softening of the political agenda, but a suggestion from the leading advisory body the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference that censorship is damaging China's progress in terms of the economy and science.

Vice-chairman of the body, Luo Fuhe, has taken the unusual -- and potentially dangerous -- step of speaking out against the internet restrictions put in place by the Chinese government. With the government not only blocking access to key websites (including making it near-impossible to circumvent restrictions), but also actively monitoring what citizens are posting online and engaging in barely-concealed state propaganda, Luo says that researchers in China have a difficult time accessing the sites they need.

As reported by the Guardian, as well as censoring sites completely, the Great Firewall of China also makes using the internet prohibitively slow:

From within China, attempting to visit to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization or a lot of foreign university website is very slow. Opening each page takes at least 10-20 seconds and some foreign university sites need more than half an hour to open.

Although China has taken steps to block the use of VPNs that could be used to get around restrictions, Luo says: "Some researches rely on software to climb over the firewall to complete their own research tasks. This is not normal."

Proponents of free speech might laud Luo's stand against the government, but there are issues. Firstly has not proposed that anything other than scientific websites be allowed to make their way through the Great Firewall. Secondly, he is doing nothing to question what the Chinese government is doing controlling general internet usage so powerfully.

Image credit: BeeBright / Shutterstock

Read this article:
Officials say it's time for the Great Firewall of China to ease up on censorship - BetaNews

Twitter introduced new safety measures this week meant to crack down on online harassment and protect people from viewing offensive material, but some free-speech advocates are concerned the changes could lead to censorship of unpopular ideas.

The social media company announced Wednesday that it would start hiding potentially menacing tweets, even if the tweets or accounts in question hadn't been reported as abusive.

"We're working to identify accounts as they're engaging in abusive behavior, even if this behavior hasn't been reported to us," the company said in a statement announcing the changes. "Then, we're taking action by limiting certain account functionality for a set amount of time, such as allowing only their followers to see their Tweets."

The so-called stealth bans could be placed on accounts, the company's statement said, if a Twitter user sent unsolicited messages to another user who was not following the sender.

Twitter said it would "act on accounts" only when it was confident abuse had taken place, based on the algorithms it uses to identify illicit posts.

This new automated stealth ban capability became a cause of consternation for Suzanne Nossel, executive director of the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, because she said it could easily become a solution "where there is really no problem that needs to be solved."

FILE - A Twitter app on an iPhone screen is shown.

'Mistaken' moves?

"To take action when there hasn't been a complaint raises the concern of whether there will be mistaken blocking of accounts or suspending of accounts," she said. "That raises a risk."

Twitter has been under pressure to address abusive speech and trolling on its platform in recent months after celebrities and others complained of sustained, coordinated abuse campaigns.

Actress Leslie Jones notably swore off the social media service for a brief time last year after she was targeted by online trolls and harassed with racism and death threats. The incident led to a personal meeting between Jones and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and several months later the company began introducing new tools to address online abuse.

Twitter expanded its "mute" feature to allow users to block specific words or phrases from showing up in their notifications. It expanded users' ability to report hateful conduct. And it retrained its support teams on dealing with online abuse.

These types of changes that allow users to have more control over what content they see and whom they interact with are positive steps, Esha Bhandari, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told VOA.

FILE - Twitter's Jack Dorsey is interviewed on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Nov. 19, 2015. The chief executive apologized Thursday, Nov. 17, 2016, after the service let through an ad promoting a white supremacist group.

Control for users

The ACLU encourages companies to focus less on a top-down approach to censorship and more "on tools that allow users to control their experience on the platform," she said.

"Attempts to put the thumb on the scale on the censorship side are prone to error and prone to human biases," Bhandari said.

Newer tools introduced by Twitter, though, give the company a far greater role in controlling what content gets seen.

In February, Twitter began pre-emptively hiding what it called "potentially abusive or low-quality tweets" from conversations on the website. The tweets will still be visible to users, but only to "those who seek them out."

"Our team has also been working on identifying and collapsing potentially abusive and low-quality replies so the most relevant conversations are brought forward," Twitter said in a February statement.

VOA contacted Twitter multiple times for clarification on guidelines used to identify "low-quality" tweets but received no response.

Twitter also introduced a "safe search" feature in February that automatically removes tweets that contain "potentially sensitive content" from search results. A request for clarification on how this content is identified was not returned.

Being a private company, Twitter has no real obligation to preserve free speech on its website. But Twitter has billed itself as a platform for free expression, and on the Twitter rules page, it says it believes in "speaking truth to power."

FILE - The Twitter symbol appears above a trading post on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, July 27, 2016. Twitter, long criticized as a hotbed for online harassment, has been expanding ways to curb the amount of abuse users see.

Global town square

This is a role both PEN America and the ACLU take seriously. Both Nossel and Bhandari referred to the website as a sort of global town square, where everyone's voice has equal weight.

"As a practical matter, decisions made by Twitter have a huge impact on the messages that we receive, and I hope that Twitter and other companies take those responsibilities seriously," Bhandari said.

Nossel noted that Twitter has a financial incentive to be cautious on issues involving the balance between allowing free expression and stopping abuse.

"The power and influence of their platform depends on the free flow of ideas, so I think there are commercial reasons why they would not want to limit [free speech]," she said. "And I think for their users, they do have a kind of softer, implicit contract that they are going to be a platform in which you can express things freely."

Bhandari said it's important to find that balance, because if Twitter "allows a heckler's veto to take over," it will have a chilling effect on speech that's similar to pre-emptively hiding content.

"One of the really important parts of that has to be transparency," she said.

Read the original post:
Could Twitter's New Abuse Crackdown Lead to Censorship? - Voice of America