Mediaboss Marketing

LANSING -- A pair of bills pending before the Senate Education Committee would mandate lessons on American history during "Constitution Week" and would prohibit any restrictions on or censorship of America's "founding documents" by school administrators or teachers.

The bills, Senate Bill 120 and Senate Bill 121, will be up for discussion during a committee hearing Wednesday afternoon.

Senate Bill 120 would create a new section of Michigan's school code preventing school boards from prohibiting the reading or studying of "documents that contributed to the foundation or maintenance of America's representative form of limited government, the bill of rights, our free-market economic system, and patriotism."

The bill also prohibits school boards and employees from attempting to "censor or restrain instruction in American history or heritage or Michigan state history or heritage based on religious references in original source documents, writings, speeches, proclamations, or records."

Some conservative commentators, including Phyllis Schlafly, have expressed concern about references to God being "removed" from the Declaration of Independence.

Senate Bill 121 would establish "Constitution Week" as the week between Sept. 11 and Sept. 17 each year to recognize the Sept. 17, 1787, adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Schools would be required to provide instruction on key figures in American history, "limited government," the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the development of the American flag.

Both bills were introduced by Sen. Patrick Colbeck (R-Canton) in late January and referred to the committee.

Brian Smith is the statewide education and courts reporter for MLive. Email him at bsmith11@mlive.com or follow him on Twitter or Facebook.

More here:
Banning censorship of historical documents in schools to be considered by Michigan Senate committee

A US judge has given a lawsuit by pro-democracy activists against Baidu and the People's Republic of China new life, even after the country invoked its authority as a sovereign nation to block the censorship case.

US District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan said the activists were entitled to serve their lawsuit on Baidu's lawyer in New York, without infringing China's sovereign protections.

Saying the issue had never been analyzed in detail, Furman on Friday night rejected Baidu's contention that allowing service would turn the part of the Hague Convention that China invoked into a "dead letter" by letting a court circumvent it.

The convention is a multilateral treaty that makes it easier to serve court papers internationally.

In their May 2011 lawsuit, eight New York writers and video producers had accused Baidu and China of conspiring to suppress their political speech from Baidu's search engine, the country's most widely used.

The plaintiffs said the content could be found via search engines such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's Bing, and Google's YouTube. They sought millions of dollars in damages for alleged violations of their First Amendment rights and human rights law.

Furman had dismissed the lawsuit on March 25 but put the dismissal on hold to let the plaintiffs propose another means to serve Baidu.

In giving the plaintiffs another chance to pursue their case, Furman said the Hague Convention was designed to ensure "sufficient" notice to recipients abroad of court documents.

Allowing service in the United States "in a manner that does not call upon China to effect service (in that country) does not override its invocation of its own sovereignty and security; to the contrary, it honors that invocation," the judge wrote.

Carey Ramos, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan representing Baidu, declined to comment.

Follow this link:
Baidu censorship lawsuit gets new life in US

A U.S. judge has given a lawsuit by pro-democracy activists against Baidu Inc. and the People's Republic of China new life, even after the country invoked its authority as a sovereign nation to block the censorship case. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan said the activists were entitled to serve their lawsuit on Baidu's lawyer in New York, without infringing China's sovereign protections. Saying the issue had never been analyzed in detail, Furman on Friday night rejected Baidu's contention that allowing service would turn the part of the Hague Convention that China invoked into a dead letter by letting a court circumvent it. The convention is a multilateral treaty that makes it easier to serve court papers internationally. In their May 2011 lawsuit, eight New York writers and video producers had accused Baidu and China of conspiring to suppress their political speech from Baidu's search engine, the country's most widely used. The plaintiffs said the content could be found via search engines such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's Bing, and Google's YouTube. They sought millions of dollars in damages for alleged violations of their First Amendment rights and human rights law. Furman had dismissed the lawsuit on March 25 but put the dismissal on hold to let the plaintiffs propose another means to serve Baidu. In giving the plaintiffs another chance to pursue their case, Furman said the Hague Convention was designed to ensure sufficient notice to recipients abroad of court documents. Allowing service in the United States in a manner that does not call upon China to effect service (in that country) does not override its invocation of its own sovereignty and security; to the contrary, it honors that invocation, the judge wrote. Carey Ramos, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan representing Baidu, declined to comment. Furman gave the plaintiffs 30 days to serve the complaint to Baidu's U.S. lawyer, and 120 days to serve China through diplomatic channels. Stephen Preziosi, a lawyer for the activists, said he intends to meet those deadlines. In terms of fairness and procedurally, the court got it right, Preziosi said. The lawsuit was filed one year after Google Inc. pulled its search engine out of China after hitting censorship issues. China has also blocked YouTube and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

View post:
Censorship Lawsuit Against Baidu, China Gets New Life in US

The Prime Minister's office has accused the West Australian Government of "outrageous political censorship" after a Labor fundraiser featuring British comedian Ben Elton had to be relocated with only a day to spare.

The event, featuring a Q and A session with Julia Gillard and Elton, was to be held at John Curtin College of the Arts in Fremantle, with tickets costing up to $250.

But the school cancelled the event yesterday, with the Education Minister saying his department had only just become aware it was a Labor fundraiser.

The event, which will now be held at Fremantle Victoria Hall, is a fundraiser for local Labor MP Melissa Parke.

"This is an extraordinary political intervention that displays a pettiness at the heart of the Barnett Government," she said.

"The Barnett Government may think it runs a police state here in WA, but we're not going to let them suppress a perfectly legitimate Fremantle political event.

Ms Parke says there was never any attempt to disguise the event's political nature.

"We've been absolutely upfront, it's been in our advertising, it's been on our website," she said.

"We've got a written statement from the Minister of Education's office that they had no problems with the event."

"The fact is that the school principal was put under enormous pressure by the Barnett Government to cancel, and this is an extraordinary political intervention that displays a pettiness at the heart of the Barnett Government."

Read more from the original source:
WA accused of political censorship after Gillard-Ben Elton fundraiser moved from school

In 1984, Brahma Chellaney was a 27-year old correspondent for the wire service, Associated Press. He had managed to defy the media blackout in the summer of 1984 to stay on in Amritsar, becoming the only foreign correspondent to cover Operation Blue Star.

His story, front-paged in major international publications like The Times of London on June 14 that year, reported that over 1200 people militants, civilians and security personnel had died during the operation. This was double the official figures. Mr. Chellaney also highlighted the presence of sophisticated weapons in the arsenal of the militants.

But the second element which angered the establishment was the claim in the report that several young Sikhs had been shot, with their hands tied behind their backs. The report quoted medical sources, who had conducted the post-mortem.

Mr. Chellaneys report was used only in the foreign press, and AP claimed that given the censorship, it had taken steps to ensure that the report did not appear in Indian media. Similar reports were to be published in India Today and the Indian Express, among others, in the following weeks and months.

But the government was furious. It slammed preliminary charges of sedition, inciting communal discord and hatred, and violating press censorship on Mr. Chellaney. The police issued a warrant, searched his home, and visited AP offices. His passport was impounded, and press credentials not renewed. The case went to the Supreme Court, which instructed the police not to arrest him but asked Mr. Chellaney to cooperate in the investigations. He was to remain on temporary bail through the period, but was subjected to over 35 hours of interrogation. He was pressured to reveal his sources, which he refused to do, citing journalistic ethics and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press.

There was a backlash, both domestically and internationally. The AP Managing Editors Association asked the government to cease all proceedings, underway and contemplated against their correspondent, adding responsible Indian officials had corroborated the news dispatches. In an editorial, Truth on Trial, in October that year, The New York Times said Mr. Chellaney had provoked displeasure by doing his job too well, and what was at issue was not just censorship, but vindictiveness. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) protested the continued harassment of Mr. Chellaney.

In September 1985, the government finally dropped the charges, and renewed Mr. Chellaneys passport and press credentials. The New York Times lauded the decision, saying then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had written the right ending to the case where Mr. Chellaneys only offenses were enterprise and accuracy. Fresh revelations in a new documentary have only vindicated his story. He was travelling outside the country and did not offer comments on how he looked back at the episode, 29 years later.

Mr. Chellaney moved on from journalism to academia, and is now a well-known strategic affairs analyst.

Original post:
Defying censorship, the reporter who exposed the killings