Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Cyber Warfare, Sony Pictures & Censorship

Sony Pictures has chosen to pull its planned debut of the movie The Interview in the face of threats of a terrorist attack at theaters showing the movie and after the North Korean regime apparently hacked into Sonys internal computers, unearthing unseemly emails. The movie depicted a plot to assassinate the leader of North Korea.

I do not pretend to know anything about how cyber warfare works, or how it can be prevented. But, the hysteria this episode has unleashed with impassioned cries for artistic freedom and dark fears of moviegoers shot in the dark seems devoid of any serious perspective. I will grant that censorship has rarely been deployed in such an extravagant fashion, but the concern is not new and the stakes are less stark than many imagine.

It takes a lot to offend my sensibilities, so I did not flinch when the ads for The Interview began airing and the key elements of the plot were divulged. I do not fantasize about the assassination of anybody, but fantasies come in many flavors. And, it struck me as refreshing that someone, anyone, recognized that humor had something to tell us about the North Korean regime. No one should be indifferent to the sufferings of the North Korean people, but there is something, well, laughable about talking heads and experts trying to discern what the North Korean regime will do next when there is more than a little craziness at work in Pyongyang, and it is not easy to know what crazy people will do next. Still, you do not need to be a brain surgeon to have anticipated that they would be upset by a movie in which their leader is killed.

Censorship is born of a natural, even humane source, the desire to protect our own from influences that will harm them. This moral concern often, and quickly, becomes quite coarse. And, it always, with equal speed, comes into conflict with another moral concern, the desire of others not to be circumscribed in their freedom of expression. These two moralities collide and the debate over censorship is ignited.

Catholics of a certain generation will be familiar with these issues if they are old enough to remember the Legion of Decency, founded in 1934, to render moral judgment on movies. Catholics across the country were encouraged to sign the Legions pledge not to go to movies the Legion condemned. The pledge was signed in duplicate, with the parishioner keeping one copy and the pastor the other. Hollywood, trying to pushback against government censorship, welcomed the involvement of the Catholic Church. Church leaders testified before Congress in opposition to government proposals for censorship, fearing that Protestant concerns would always trump Catholic ones in any governmental system of review, and the movie producers submitted scripts and final versions to Joseph Breen, a Catholic layman who was chosen to head the Production Code Administration. The rules were simple: bad guys had to lose in the end, no gratuitous sex, and passion could never be used to stimulate the lower and baser elements, as the Code read.

Breen was powerful. The post-coital scene between Rhett and Scarlett in Gone with the Wind was cut if half. The 1937 film You Cant Have Everything starred Gypsy Rose Lee, but concerned that her burlesque reputation would taint the industry, Breen demanded, and Twentieth Century Fox agreed, to advertise the star by her given name, Louise Hovick. Breen rejected Howard Hughes 1943 film The Outlaw, because too much of Jane Russells bosom was displayed. Hughes appealed the decision, and brought a mathematician to the appeals board review to demonstrate that no more of Ms. Russells bosom was shown than had been on view in other, approved films. The review board approved the film, but the Legion condemned it, and Hughes withdrew it. Feeling like he wanted to challenge the Legions prudishness, the film was released three years later with an ad campaign built on the controversy: Not a scene cut! the ads read. What are the TWO reasons for Janes rise to stardom? The movie, a rather mediocre affair, was a hit, but the ad campaign violated the industrys advertising code, and the PCA withdrew it approval. 85 percent of movie theaters declined to show the flick. Hughes, after unsuccessfully trying to bribe a cleric, made further adjustments, and the film was finally approved and re-released in 1949, six years after it was finished.

We look back at the Legion of Decency and Joe Breen and can easily side with their critics: Their desire for an idealized depiction of human reality was not very realistic. But, realism is not the only criterion for cinematic genius. True, few nuns look like Ingrid Bergman. But, Thor and Superman did not return to earth a few years back either. The concerns of the Legion may have been prudish and even silly but they are no more arbitrary to the creation of art than are the on-going financial concerns of a films underwriters. Hollywood is a business, not an art school. There is something a little cloying about the protests about artistic freedom from the Hollywood set. I would note, too, that in this litigious society of ours, there are all sorts of producers who alter their products, who engage in self-censorship, on account of extrinsic concerns.

I am concerned about the apparent ease with which the North Korean regime infiltrated Sonys computer systems. If they could infiltrate, say, the traffic signal systems in New York City, they would cause real harm. The Department of Defenses computers contain the potential for grave harm if the wrong modems get hooked up to them. All sorts of trade secrets in industry and diplomatic secrets in government are best not seen by the public. We pay a large price for our open society: It exposes us to such interventions by malevolent people and regimes. But, it is that same openness that, ultimately, leads me to think The Interview will someday be playing at a theater near you. And, like Jane Russell in The Outlaw, I am sure the advertisers will make as much hay as possible out of this controversy. But, artistic freedom is not jeopardized forever by Sonys decision to pull the film anymore than it is jeopardized everyday by concerns about the bottom line. Relax everyone and hope that our cyber warriors will prove themselves as capable as the North Koreans. There are graver dangers in this episode than not seeing a movie.

Link:
Cyber Warfare, Sony Pictures & Censorship

'The Interview' uproar: Was ditching flick right business call for Sony? (+video)

Lots of people are outraged that Sony Pictures Entertainment is dropping plans to release The Interview, the Seth Rogen comedy that depicts the assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Folks from Hollywood stars to film critics are complaining that pulling the film due to vague threats against theaters scheduled to show it is in essence allowing terrorists to triumph.

For instance, actress Mia Farrow says the bad guys won due to Sonys decision. At Vox, writer Todd VanDerWerff says Sony has committed an act of cowardice.

The move has set a bad precedent thats already affecting future movies, according to Mr. VanDerWerff entertainment company New Regency has now scrapped another North Korea-based film set to star Steve Carroll. Its de facto censorship emanating from Pyongyang, writes Mr. VanDerWerff.

Sony is not an arm of the US government, however. Its a multinational corporation legally accountable to shareholders. Given that context, did it make the correct business decision to cancel the comedy?

The answer to that might be yes.

Most theaters werent going to show the movie to begin with. The big US cinema chains had made it clear that they would not risk any violence in their buildings by screening it, however vague the threats. Going to the movies is supposed to be fun, not an act of personal courage, in their view.

The movie business is already facing stiff competition from the fast rise of streaming services and high-quality television productions. Cinema owners did not want The Interview to give patrons another reason to stay home on the couch. Since most theaters are multiplexes, they feared the controversy could drive down attendance for other movies as well.

Then theres the legal question. The chain which owned the theater in Aurora, Colo., attacked by a gunman in 2012 has defended against lawsuits by saying the incident was not foreseeable. The threats against The Interview might have rendered this defense moot.

Once the hackers threatened physical violence, the films cancellation became almost inevitable, write Brooks Barnes and Michael Cieply in The New York Times.

Plus, the film was not getting great reviews, alleged North Korean threats aside. While that might not bear on the question of censorship, it could play into an executives decision as to whether to absorb the cost of scrapping Sonys investment in the film.

More here:
'The Interview' uproar: Was ditching flick right business call for Sony? (+video)

Loot Crate Is Pro Censorship (ReviewTechUSA) – Video


Loot Crate Is Pro Censorship (ReviewTechUSA)
Why did you remove it rich? Why? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC__Oy3QdB3d9_FHO_XG1PZg Not my video. Will be removed at the request of the owner.

By: Typical Minecraft Kid

The rest is here:
Loot Crate Is Pro Censorship (ReviewTechUSA) - Video

Nafeez Ahmed On Media Censorship, 9/11, And ISIS – Video


Nafeez Ahmed On Media Censorship, 9/11, And ISIS
https://twitter.com/blacktowerradio https://www.facebook.com/pages/Black-Tower-Radio/308157709207443 http://wnrt.worldnewsradio.today.

By: BlackTowerRadio

The rest is here:
Nafeez Ahmed On Media Censorship, 9/11, And ISIS - Video

Inside the Firewall: Tracking the News That China Blocks

By Sisi Wei, ProPublica, Dec. 17, 2014

Every day since Nov. 17, 2014, ProPublica has been testing whether the homepages of international news organizations are accessible to browsers inside China. Of the 18 in our test, 9 are currently blocked. Below are the results. To test, we use GreatFire.org, a censorship monitoring service in China that launched in 2011. Methodology

Hover over the graphic to see dates. Click on a date to see more details.

Our automated tests run shortly after midnight U.S. Eastern Time, which is 1 p.m. in Beijing. They run on up to eight servers in separate locations in China, and can return one of four results:

ProPublica will continue to monitor news sites daily, and may add additional news sites in the future. Know a site we should add? E-mail Sisi Wei at sisi.wei@propublica.org.

Additional design and development by Lena Groeger, Mike Tigas and Yue Qiu.

ProPublica, with permission, used data from GreatFire.org, a free service that anybody can use to test if a website is accessible within China. Its pseudonymous founders are activists who created the site to highlight online censorship in China.

GreatFire.org runs tests only upon request. Historical test results are therefore not necessarily available every day. On Nov. 17, 2014, ProPublica began initiating daily tests for 15 international news sites, and on Dec. 5, we added three more sites for testing. We plan to continue testing and updating this database every day for the foreseeable future.

We chose the 18 sites in our test because of their status as internationally important news sites or because theyve recently run stories that led them to be blocked inside China. We are able to add more sites to the database. If you think you know a site we should be testing, let us know by emailing sisi.wei@propublica.org.

The most accurate test of censorship is conducted inside the censoring country, but doing so comes with a variety of risks. Continual attempts to visit blocked sites are detectable by the local authorities, and can therefore be dangerous political activity. ProPublica has spent the last year attempting to perfect a way to test censorship around the world using computers inside each censoring country. We have not yet found a testing method that would ensure participants safety, though we continue to look for a solution. In the meantime, were using the GreatFire service already available inside China.

Go here to read the rest:
Inside the Firewall: Tracking the News That China Blocks