Mediaboss Marketing

Intellectual embargos and absolute censorship are far less effective than literate intellectualism and sound moral logic in keeping society on a level course, observes Syerleena Abdul Rashid.

The screening of the No Fire Zone movie was disrupted

Every now and then, Malaysian government (or the state) propagates moral crusades against obscene literature, offensive material and anything considered a threat to Malaysian way of life.

It is not uncommon when the powers that be go all the way to ban books and movies. They may even go as far as censoring sensitive words like beer, Allah, drugs and any human reproductive part.

This is nothing but a form of escapism, an easy way out that the government adapts when dealing with anything complex or subjective. It can potentially be a deceptive system to command and force down moral standards accredited by the ruling elite (or coalition).

In general, the rulers of the state (the authorities) consider themselves the custodians of virtue. There is an unmistaken sense of self-righteousness to suppress any threats that may influence or weaken their support. Again, the Malaysian government has systematically eliminated all things considered haram, immoral or politically sensitive even if such material may have scientific evidence or can be proven to be historically accurate.

How effective is censoring literature or articles, where one can obtain an uncensored copy through the Internet?

And how can Malaysians deal with this form of bluenose tyranny namely selective censorship?

Where do we draw the line between artistic freedom and public offence?

How do we define what is morally and culturally acceptable without being smothered by the authorities?

Go here to see the original:
With rise of internet-savvy communities, censorship no longer effective

In January, the US Court of Appeals ruled that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) no longer had to adhere to fairness rules, known as Net Neutrality, when it came to how people connected to websites. The decision has stirred controversy on how it could lead to widespread internet censorship.

As NetworkWorld noted:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit on Tuesday ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to implement the rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web traffic. The FCC passed the net neutrality rules, also called open Internet rules, in December 2010, but Verizon Communications challenged them, saying Congress did not give the agency the authority to regulate broadband providers.

Under the new deregulated environment, ISPs become the gatekeepers on internet access and could charge extra fees for access to certain websites, or even block them completely if their owners refused to pay for more bandwidth. ISPs could also slow or block access to their competitors, or political sites that did not express views they agreed with. Regardless of whether internet traffic is influenced by additional fees or political ideology, it still equates to a form of censorship and discrimination against those who cant afford to pay higher fees to access their favorite websites.

Lawmakers in Washington are divided on what the end of Net Neutrality could mean for the future without a fair and open internet, so on Monday, House Democrats introduced legislation called the Open Internet Preservation Act.

However, the bill has little chance of passing since Republicans support ending Net Neutrality rules.

In the end, the consumer will be on the losing end of pay-for-play internet access speed. Big companies willing to pay more for faster download speeds are likely to pass those costs along to their customers, while smaller start-ups could be relegated to obscurity.

The internet was working and was indeed an information superhighway that connected the globe in a free and open environment.

If Republicans have their way and successfully block the Open Internet Preservation Act, the internet will be restricted to those with enough money to buy what used to be free.

Republicans say they believe in smaller government, but their actions say otherwise. Ending Net Neutrality is about as Big Brother as you can get.

Read more here:
Court ruling on Net Neutrality could lead to internet ...

Castle Miner Z | Response On Censorship And Banning | SUBI
Here it is my response to the actions of the developers of Castle Miner Z. These developers have blanket removed a tonne of negative threads on their forums, including mine and banned me from...

By: TheMaximumDifficulty

Continued here:
Castle Miner Z | Response On Censorship And Banning | SUBI - Video

ISTANBUL: Turkey's prime minister hit back at suggestions that new Internet regulations will limit freedom of expression, ahead of a planned demonstration in Istanbul against the curbs on Saturday.

"These regulations do not impose any censorship at all on the Internet ... On the contrary, they make it safer and freer," Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in Istanbul.

He also denied that the regulations, passed by parliament late on Wednesday, meant that government authorities would have access to Internet users' personal information.

"Never. It is out of the question that people's private data will be recorded," said Erdogan, prime minister since 2003.

The new curbs provoked a storm of protest at home and abroad, with critics saying they were an attempt by Erdogan to stifle dissent and stop evidence of high-level corruption being seen online.

They give the telecoms authority the power to order a webpage blocked without the need for a court order if the content is deemed to infringe someone's privacy or as being offensive.

The timing in particular raised eyebrows because it comes as Erdogan deals with a major and deeply embarrassing corruption probe implicating members of his inner circle.

Human Rights Watch said the restrictions raise concerns that a "defensive government is seeking to increase its power to silence critics and to arbitrarily limit politically damaging material online."

European Parliament chief Martin Schulz called them a "step back in an already suffocating environment for media freedom", while Washington also expressed misgivings.

Erdogan has portrayed the investigation as a plot against him by people within the Turkish police and judiciary loyal to Fethullah Gulen, an Islamic preacher living in the United States.

Read this article:
Erdogan says no Internet censorship in Turkey

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has rejected claims that the countrys newly-adopted cyber law will limit freedom of expression.

"These regulations do not impose any censorship at all on the Internet.... On the contrary, they make it safer and freer," Erdogan said on Saturday.

The Turkish Parliament passed the law late on Wednesday, allowing the Telecommunications Communications Presidency (TIB) to block access to websites deemed to violate privacy or have insulting content without a court order.

The TIB could also request users communications and traffic information from providers with no court ruling.

The Turkish Premier also denied that the law would allow the government authorities to have access to internet users' personal information.

"Never. It is out of the question that people's private data will be recorded," he said. European Parliament chief Martin Schulz described the move as a step back in an already suffocating environment for media freedom."

The new measure came as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogans government has been embroiled in a corruption scandal.

Critics say Erdogans adoption of harsh measures is an attempt to contain the scandal probe involving some of his close allies.

Erdogan has denounced the probe as a plot to undermine his government ahead of the local elections in March, adding that the graft allegations against businesspersons and government officials are hindering the economic growth.

SAB/AB/SS

Link:
No internet censorship in Turkey: PM