LoL Unnecessary Censorship
Completely, absolutely, unnecessary Censorship. We actually made this video almost a year ago, and just now have the nerve to post. ign.com ign.com shootmania.ign.com http facebook.com http://www.youtube.com youtube.com youtube.com youtube.com twitch.tv twitch.tv http://www.twitch.tv
By: IPLLoL
See the article here:
LoL Unnecessary Censorship - Video
China's censorship of the micro-blog account of Frank Hsieh, a prominent Taiwanese politician, leads to mainland soul searching.
Within twenty-four hours of registration, Sina Weibo (China's equivalent of Twitter) deleted the micro-blog account of Frank Hsieh, former premier of Taiwan's pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Ironically, Hsieh's last tweet before he lost the ability to post on Weibo was this: "Whether or not there is freedom of speech does not depend on how freely you speak when you criticize high officials or people in power, but whether you lose your freedom after you speak."
Hsieh's post prompted an interesting response from mainlandChinese netizens: they criticized the Chinese government for infringing on freedom of speech, expressing concerns that such a display of intolerance would antagonize Taiwanese people and diminish prospects for cross-straits reunification.
Yet some Taiwanese officials, in turn, have used this incident to highlight the incompatibility between Taiwan and the mainland, and toemphasizethe need for Taiwanese independence. In a television interview broadcast by Taiwan's United Daily News Group, Su Tseng-chang, current chairman of the DPP (and who lost the 2012 DPP presidential nomination to Frank Hsieh) stated: "From this incident, you can see how precious and praiseworthy a free, democratic, and open Taiwan is, and what differences exist between Taiwan and China. Taiwanese people must treasure their own land and country. We must not have false hopes toward China."
In the same interview, Hsieh stated that he created the Weibo account in an effort to better understand the Chinese public and to share his own thoughts and experiences with them. When asked why his account was deleted, he replied, "I don't know." He then added jokingly, "Maybe there were some 'hackers.'"
Some Taiwanese netizens echoed Su's view, openly displaying their contempt for China. In response to a China Times article reporting on this topic, Web user @ commented, "The two places' basic values have so many differences--how can we ever talk about reunification?" Another user @ wrote, "If Taiwan falls into the hands of the Communist party, Taiwanese people will be like Li Houzhu (renounced poet and the final Southern Tang ruler)--we will wash our faces with tears every day, then drink ourselves to death."
Still others rebuked Frank Hsieh, accusing him of trying to curry favor with the Chinese people. In response to an article written by Taiwan's Central News Agency (CNA), Web user @ commented, "The party that shouts 'Taiwan Independence' every day goes and sets up a Weibo account -- gaining popularity by selling Taiwan and seeking shelter from the Mainland?" Another user called @hungyk5 wrote, "Hsieh tried so hard to gather 'fans' by washing his Weibo account with sensational comments, but he went too far...as a result his account got blocked. It serves him right!"
A few Taiwanese traditionalists seized this opportunity to call for the unification of Mainland and Taiwan -- under the Republic of China's rule. User @9527 commented on the same CNA article, "Fellow Mainland brothers -- rise and revolt for your freedom of speech, throw yourself into to the arms of the legitimate, free, democratic Republic of China."
In Taiwan, opinions toward the cross-strait relationship split not only between DDP and the pro-reunification Kuomintang (KMT), its competitor, but also within the DDP itself. Last October, when Frank Hsieh privately visited top government officials in Beijing , some DDP members praised Hsieh's efforts to improve the party's ties with Beijing, while others maintained that Hsieh's political views and actions do not necessarily represent those of the entire party. As DDP's chairman Su Tseng-chang acknowledged, "The DPP's position [on its China policy] remains unchanged despite there being different opinions in the party."
The belligerent and divergent reactions toward the news of Hsieh's day-long Weibo career show that more than 60 years after the 1949 Civil War, the question of cross-strait relationship -- and reunification -- remain controversial as before.
View original post here:
In Face of Mainland Censorship, Taiwanese Revisit Reunification Question
Freedom to Read Week begins on Feb. 24, bringing with it the perfect opportunity to kick the tires of democracy and make sure the old jalopys still running as she should.
Whats that you say? The bumper fell off when you touched it? The engine wont turn over? Thats not so good. Better look under the hood.
We like to think of censorship as something that happens over there, in the faraway places where men break into houses at night to smash computers, or arrive in classrooms to remove books they dont like. Not in lovely, calm, respectful Canada. Here we dont necessarily notice freedoms being eroded slowly, grain by grain, like sands through the hourglass, if youll allow me to quote from Days of Our Lives.
Just ask Canadas government scientists. Oh wait, you cant ask them, because theyve got duct tape over their mouths (metaphorical duct tape, but hey its still painful). This week the University of Victorias Environmental Law Clinic and Democracy Watch asked federal Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault to investigate claims that scientists are being prohibited from speaking freely with journalists and through them, the public.
In a report called Muzzling Civil Servants: A Threat to Democracy, the UVic researchers present some chilling findings: Scientists are either told not to speak to journalists or to spout a chewed-over party line, rubber-stamped by their PR masters; the restrictions are particularly tight when a journalist is seeking information about research relating to climate change or the tar sands; Environment Canada scientists require approval from the Privy Council Office before speaking publicly on sensitive topics such as climate change or protection of polar bear and caribou.
You wouldnt want the average citizen to learn too much about caribou, now. Who knows how crazy he could get with that kind of information? It could lead to panel discussions about Arctic hares, town halls on ptarmigans. The report states that government scientists are frustrated, which is hardly surprising. Its like hiring Sandy Koufax and never letting him pitch.
The other thing that the report makes clear is how deliberate this strategy is: The federal government has recently made concerted efforts to prevent the media and through them, the general public from speaking to government scientists, and this, in turn, impoverishes the public debate on issues of significant national concern.
This is not an issue thats going away. The Harper governments heavy-handed control of scientists research has raised concerns across the world for a few years, including condemnation from such bastions of Marxism as Nature magazine.
A couple thousand scientists from across the country marched on Parliament Hill last July to protest cuts in research (many in the highly sensitive area of environment and climate change) and restrictions on their ability to speak freely about their work. They created what might be the best chant in the history of political protest: What do we want? Science! When do we want it? After peer review!
Last week, Margaret Munro of Postmedia News reported that a University of Delaware scientist was up in arms over a new confidentiality agreement brought in by Canadas Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Im not signing it, Andreas Muenchow told the reporter. What does this mean for bilateral co-operation on research? Nothing good, thats for sure.
Continue reading here:
Censorship is alive and well in Canada – just ask government scientists
China's top media regulator will expand pre-broadcast censorship to cover television documentaries, in an apparent boost to an already formidable control apparatus, a newspaper said on Friday.
China's State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) told TV stations and producers that all documentaries would have to be approved in advance of being shown, the Beijing Morning Post reported.
The notice would bring censorship of TV documentaries into line with requirements on non-fiction films, it said.
A notice posted on SARFT's website on Monday said that TV production companies including joint Chinese-foreign co-productions should report documentary topics in advance.
The notice did not detail topics which would be censored, but said the move would "promote the healthy development of television documentaries".
Previous censorship guidelines released by SARFT have outlawed films which "distort" China's history, or contain "murder, violence, horror, evil spirits and devils and excessively terrifying scenes".
A range of political topics are also blocked by censors, from allegations of high-level corruption to calls for multiparty democracy and works challenging state-approved narratives of historical events.
China is home to a vibrant community of independent documentary makers who bypass officialdom and screen their work at independent film festivals, in bars and at universities, post them online or distribute them on copied DVDs.
People watch the London Olympics at a fast food restaurant in Beijing last August. China's top media regulator will expand pre-broadcast censorship to cover television documentaries, in an apparent boost to an already formidable control apparatus, a newspaper said on Friday.
Egypt's communications ministry is asking citizens to report web pages showing blasphemous content.
The Egyptian government is now crowdsourcing censorship efforts. A new web page created by the country's National Telecommunications Registry Agency, allows citizens to report blasphemous websites (Arabic-language links). According to Alix Dunn of tech activism blog The Engine Room, the site is designed to help find pages showing a controversial anti-Islam film. The film, a low-budget American effort called The Innocence of Muslims, portrays Mohammed in extremely negative ways and sparked violent riots worldwide.
Visitors to the National Telecommunications Registry page are instructed to leave the offending URL on a page with a CAPTCHA link; government bureaucrats then review the page and block it if it leads to blasphemous content. This service follows on the heels of a failed attempt to ban YouTube in Egypt because of numerous uploaded copies of The Innocence of Muslims.
The film itself was directed by an Egyptian-American Christian with previous fraud and methamphetamine arrests; actors in the movie were apparently unaware of what they were being filmed for and anti-Islamic dialogue was overdubbed in post-production. YouTube banned the video in Egypt and Libya earlier this year in response to widespread public outcry in those two countries.
[Image: Flickr user gr33ndata]
Original post:
Egypt Crowdsources Censorship