Mediaboss Marketing

Tomorrow in the House of Lords, ministers will try to excise from the Defamation Bill wrecking amendments inserted by peers who are determined to impose on newspapers a draconian version of Lord Justice Levesons proposals for press regulation. If they fail to expunge the amendments, the revised Bill will create in the UK a version of prior restraint censorship before publication that has not existed in this country for 300 years and that is explicitly outlawed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Not satisfied with prior-restraint alone, the wreckers also wish to punish newspapers that do not submit to state-sanctioned regulation by obliging them to pay exemplary damages if defeated in actions for libel or invasion of privacy. Like Sir Brian Leveson, they attach too little weight to the possibility that this might breach Article 10 of the ECHR.

Such restrictions of liberty might please victims of tabloid misbehaviour, such as Max Mosley and Hugh Grant, but it would give the Government no choice but to kill the Bill. This would be regrettable, because it is valuable. Its originator, Lord Lester, an eminent human-rights lawyer, describes it as a charter not for the press but for the public. In fact it is valuable to both groups, which is why it has the support of newspapers and campaigners who wish to open the libel courts to less affluent litigants.

Supporters of the contested clauses claim noble purpose. But, by attempting to hijack Lord Lesters work as a vehicle for state-sanctioned regulation, they have shown that, for them, ends justify means. Their actions reveal something more significant, too. Throughout the phone-hacking scandal, the Leveson Inquiry and the controversy spawned by the Leveson Report, supporters of state-sanctioned newspaper regulation have promoted the idea that they are virtuous servants of the public interest. Their abuse of the Defamation Bill has revealed a less wholesome reality.

The Hacked Off campaign and its supporters should take note: the antics in the Lords have revealed the presence in Parliament of opinions it suits them to pretend do not exist.

Vulnerable to the accusation that a press law, once enacted, might be strengthened rapidly, they say limited statutory backing for a new system of regulation would not be extended to impose tougher controls. They accuse Levesons opponents of imagining the slippery slope down which we believe Britains press laws would slide if his proposals were implemented. The use made of the Defamation Bill by Leveson-supporting peers, such as Lord Puttnam and Baroness Boothroyd, has exposed such views as misguided.

I hope this useful and progressive Bill can be rescued and enacted with the support of both Houses. But whether it lives or dies, it has already performed service to the causes of liberal democracy and press freedom. Britain needs self-regulating newspapers untrammelled by a statutory backstop because there are already in Parliament men and women who believe they are entitled to impose upon others their values and their ideology.

To believe that such well-intentioned meddlers will become less bold in future is wishful thinking. They exist and have made it plain that they could exploit a minimalist piece of legislation to neuter newspapers entirely. We have been warned. Any press regulator supervised or empowered by legislation would give politicians a tool to extend control over the press. Some of them have now shown us how willing they would be to use it.

They would not call it censorship. They would believe they were acting in the public interest. If they shared any of the hubris shown by the peers who amended the Defamation Bill, they might sincerely believe it. Those who consider press freedom and liberty inseparable should not trust them. They need only win once. If we are to preserve liberties that have endured for centuries and made this country a beacon of democracy, we must win every time.

The writer is professor of journalism at the University of Kent and author of the pamphlet Responsibility without Power: Lord Justice Levesons constitutional dilemma

Read this article:
Read between the lines: this is press censorship

CIA Censorship of Guantnamo Military Commissions?
To watch the full interview with Jess Bravin on Democracy Now!, visit owl.li Wall Street Journal reporter Jess Bravin describes how a courtroom audio feed was mysteriously cut during the Guantnamo Bay trial for the men accused of orchestrating 9/11. He has covered the military commissions at Guantnamo for 10 years. His book, "The Terror Courts: Rough Justice at Guantnamo Bay," has just been published. JESS BRAVIN: "And what has characterized this project for its entire history has been conflict between the CIA and the Department of Defense over the access to evidence. And this again, given what happened later with the CIA and their secret prison network and so on, might be surprising, but it turns out, as least from my reporting and talking to CIA officials, is that they were quite comfortable with the existing pre-9/11 setup here in New York. In the Southern District of New York, they #39;re very experienced prosecutors and judges who deal with very sensitive cases, and the CIA had worked with them for years and was comfortable that they could handle very important, classified, national security evidence and still get their trials underway. The CIA had no involvement in setting up military commissions; did not know the military officers involved in them; did not have a high regard for a bunch of unknown, mid-level people, reservists and so forth; and was very uncooperative with military commissions all the way. Colonel Couch and other prosecutors frequently, trying to get ...

By: democracynow

More:
CIA Censorship of Guantánamo Military Commissions? - Video

Iceland Tries Chinese Internet Censorship to Ban Porn
This former MI5 agent explains how this would be catastrophic for internet freedom and lead to an Orwellian existence. A MUST SEE Clip http://www.thepeoplesunderground.com

By: PeoplesUnderground

Read the rest here:
Iceland Tries Chinese Internet Censorship to Ban Porn - Video

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