Mediaboss Marketing

Sandy Hook Video Censorship
FAIR USE EDUCATIONAL CRITIQUE

By: Rachel abomb

More here:
Sandy Hook Video Censorship - Video

PBS reports on OC Register censorship
Learn more at http://www.SaveAnaheim.com

By: SaveAnaheim

Visit link:
PBS reports on OC Register censorship - Video

In a test case that could have significant implications for Google throughout Europe the company faced off against the Spanish data protection authority in the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg. One could frame the case as privacy vs. censorship.

From the Spanish governments point of view its data protection authority is simply vindicating the recently articulated right (of individuals) to be forgotten to have content or data about them removed from the search index upon request. From Googles perspective, if the court agrees with Spain, the outcome would be tantamount to granting individuals the right to censor Google.

A concise statement of the underlying facts of the case is provided by Reporters without Borders:

The AEPD rejected Costejas complaint against the newspaper on the grounds that the publication of the information was legal and was protected by the right to information but, with extraordinary inconsistency, upheld his complaint his complaint against Google, ordering the search engine to eliminate about 100 links from all future searches for Costejas name.

Google refused to accept the ruling and filed an appeal . . .

As Google indicated in its blog post, there are roughly 200 cases like this pending in Spain featuring individuals seeking to have content about them removed from search results.

As the factual summary above indicates, Spanish authorities decided that newspapers are protected from these individual takedown requests by a right to information or expression (free speech). However, Google is not being given the same treatment. This is true despite the fact that in earlierdecisions, Google was labeled a publisher for purposes of libel laws.

Google thus gets the liability treatment of a publisher without the corresponding freedom of expression protections accorded to newspapers.

Speaking with someone with knowledge of the European Court proceedings yesterday, I was told that the judges expressed skepticism about at least some of Spains arguments in the case. For example, Spain wants Google to remove the disputed information not just from its Spanish index but from all Google results globally.

I was told that a ruling may not come down for several months. And, like the US Supreme Court, the European judicial body could narrowly rule on the particular facts or broadly articulate principles around the right to be forgotten that might apply across Europe.

Original post:
Privacy Vs Censorship: Google, Spanish Government Face Off In European Courts

Even the most open, democratic governments have sought laws and new forms of surveillance that many see as a new wave of censorship -- and that includes the United States.

The U.S. government asked Google for data on its users more than 31,000 times in 2012 alone, for example. And the government rarely obtained a search warrant first, Google recently revealed; in nearly all cases, the company ended up turning over at least some data.

Some argue that heightened surveillance, restrictions on Internet freedom and even censorship are necessary to protect intellectual property rights, prevent cyberespionage, fight child pornography, and protect national interests such as nuclear power plants from hackers. And here the U.S. is far from alone.

"A number of democratic states have considered or implemented various restrictions in response to the potential legal, economic, and security challenges raised by new media," notes the Freedom House report "Freedom on the Net 2012."

Anxiety over online theft and cyberattacks is not unwarranted. Virtually every major U.S. company and media outlet has been a victim. Google was attacked back in 2009. Facebook, Apple and Microsoft revealed this month that hackers had breeched their defenses. And The New York Times and Wall Street Journal have fought off Chinese hackers for months. Indeed, dozens of countries have their own online hacking groups -- so-called cyber or asymmetrical warfare divisions.

- Freedom House report Freedom on the Net 2012

"It's been going on in China since at least May 2002," said Alan Paller, founder of the SANS Institute, an information security and training firm.

Consequently, lawmakers -- even President Obama in his State of the Union address -- have been motivated to take steps to stem the hacking tide. However, the road to better security could also stifle free speech.

When the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) met in Dubai in December, some 89 member countries including Russia, China, Cuba and Iran, supported a treaty that would give individual governments more control over the Internet's infrastructure.

Sensing a thinly veiled attempt to suppress dissent, 55 countries -- including Canada and the U.S. -- said no.

Go here to see the original:
BIG BROTHER? US Linked to Censorship, Surveillance on Internet

China's new leaders have inherited a rigorous system of censorship. There are few signs of change under the new leadership, although it is becoming increasingly difficult for the state to control information.

For readers, the New Year edition of the weekly magazine Nanfang Zhoumo was more of the same.

The lead article greeted them with the headline "Dreams are our commitment to do what is necessary." It also contained a quote from new Communist Party leader Xi Jinping: "The great revival in China has always been the great dream of the Chinese people."

Chinese newspapers are full of headlines and quotes like these. But editors at Nanfang Zhoumo were surprised when they saw the magazine in print. They had actually submitted another story for publication with a headline that read "The Chinese dream is a constitutional government."

Turning point?

Headlines like that one are hard to find in Chinese publications, if not impossible. The censor had changed it overnight.

But this time, the editorial team wasn't willing to accept the censorship and went on strike in protest.

"Censorship has become increasingly sophisticated in recent years," said Chang Ping, editor of the exile magazine iSun Affairs and a journalist at DW. Chinese authorities give detailed instructions to editors of how and what to report, he notes. With warnings and sanctions, they also try to prevent critical stories from being published. If journalists decide to publish such stories, they risk being fired, together with their editor.

Chang speaks from experience. He was a former editor-in-chief of Nanfang Zhoumo before he had to vacate his position after publishing a report that was critical of authorities.

Chang doesn't think anything will change in Chinese censorship under the new generation of leaders. "There's currently a lot of talk in China and abroad about a 'tipping point,'" he said. Despite this, Chang, is quick to add, there's also no clear evidence of this happening.

Read this article:
The long arm of Chinese censorship