Mediaboss Marketing

Editor:

Is the City of Edmonds censoring speech?

Yesterday the city Facebook page posted a nice picture of the waterfront center. To which I commented:

Going to be lovely once they get that highrise hotel built nextdoor

Which drew a quick private message response from the city.

Just so you know, no highrise commercial building of any kind is allowed on the waterfront. The Council simply added hotel to the existing list of the many commercial uses allowed in that zone (including offices, restaurants, retail, marine-oriented uses, etc.), all of which are limited to a maximum of 30 in height.

Seemed strange they didnt respond on the page. Another person had also made a comment to which they received a private message. He responded on the Facebook page that he was not interested in a private conversation and wished to continue on the public page. Some reasonable back and forth went on between the city, me and the other person, which has since been deleted. This is one of them from the city I was able to save before it was deleted:

Jim Fairchild We encourage and allow comments directly related to our posts. We do not wish to hide comments, but do so when they are off-topic or for other reasons listed in our About section.

I was able to save one of my two replies before it was deleted:

City of Edmonds Community and Government fair enough but the counsel just voted to allow hotels in that area or transformation of existing structures. First step. So I feel it is relevant. Feel free to block me or remove my comments it is what I would expect you to do in your attempt to limit free speech.

This is the last private message received from the city.

The first usage policy for the Citys FB page is this: 1. Is not topically related to the particular City-posted content or does not contribute to the intent of the posted content. Your statement about highrise hotels is both inaccurate and noncontributory to the intent of the post simply to showcase the new Waterfront Center.

To which I replied.

Again please feel free to block me or delete my post if you dont think it is appropriate I disagree.

How is my thought of the waterfront center being lovely with a potential future highrise next to it inaccurate or noncontributory?

I think my original comment is still up. But all the other comments including all from the other person have been deleted.

I can only conclude that the city only wants favorable comments and is unwilling to offer a space for reasonable discourse which is in violation of the first amendment. The city either needs to allow reasonable civil discourse or turn off the ability to comment.

I think a public apology is in order from the city. But I doubt it will be forthcoming.

Jim FairchildEdmonds

Read more:
Letter to the editor: Censorship on the city's Facebook page? - My Edmonds News

One of the main missions of DW is to advocate for freedom of expression and free access to information around the world. One of the growing threats to these tenets is internet censorship. Countries are increasingly blocking access to news sites like DW that provide reliable information and social media platforms that foster dialogue.

In order to allow users in these countries access to DW and other blocked content, DW has been working with Psiphon, a commercial provider in Canada, to create censorship-bypass tools for the needs of free media.

Psiphon offers apps and computer programs that offer different censorship-avoidance mechanisms and utilize a variety of servers, proxy servers and VPN technologies. DW now offers different means for users to utilize Psiphon technology to access content that has been censored.

Since 2020, Psiphon software has been integrated into the DW app for iOS and Android and makes DW content available in countries with limited internet access. With a click of a button, users in Iran and China where DW is blocked can access DW content by activating the Proxy setting in the app.

To do so, click on the menu button at the top left of the DW app, click on "Proxy" and then click on "Activate Proxy" (see image).

Users will find the Activate Proxy button by clicking on the Proxy setting

Please be aware that the proxy uses various technologies that may affect the apps loading speed and that the use of the proxy may violate laws in some countries. The DW app can be downloaded from the Apple App Store (iOS) or the Google Play Store (Android).

Download the DW app.

It is becoming more common for governments to block social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and other sites as a means of stifling expression. DW has also been working with Psiphon to provide a tool for access to other content and platforms that are being blocked by internet censors.

For a download link, send a blank email to dw-w@psiphon3.com

If you are experiencing such problems, consider using thePsiphonapp. To add the app to your phone (iOS/Android) or desktop, send an email to dw-w@psiphon3.com for a download link. If you use Psiphon via DW, you will first be redirected to DW's website. From there, you can continue onward to any other website.

Continue reading here:
Using DW and Psiphon to circumvent internet censorship - Deutsche Welle

The English version of Final Fantasy Legend 2 on the Game Boy was forced to rename opium, so the localizers decided to switch it with bananas.

TheFinal Fantasyseries has had its fair share of censored content, but none are as strange as the banana smuggling operation fromFinal Fantasy Legend 2on the original Game Boy. The first six mainlineFinal Fantasygames were released on Nintendo systems, and they faced some strict content guidelines.

The first threeFinal Fantasygames were limited in the kinds of stories they could tell, due to the limitations of the NES' hardware and cartridges. Once the series reached the SNES era, Square Enix (then known as Squaresoft) was able to tell more expansive stories. The only problem was that Nintendo had strict rules for the games that appeared on its consoles, especially in the era when violence in video gameswas a hotly-debated topic. This was part of the reason why Square Enix brought theFinal Fantasyseries to PlayStation systems, as Sony let the company go further than it ever could before in regards to adult storytelling in games.

Related:Why Final Fantasy 12 Was Censored In Japan (But Not In The West)

The most common form of censorship theFinal Fantasyseries has faced is covering up bare skin, as well as recoloring blood effects, both of which make sense for games that are trying to avoid high age ratings. There is one bit of censorship from theFinal Fantasyseries that is completely ridiculous, and feels like an attempt by the localizers to make fun of a change that was imposed upon them.

InFinal Fantasy Legend 2on the Game Boy, the player can visit a town called Edo. It's here that they will encounter a banana smuggling ring, as well as people who are addicted to bananas. If this doesn't make any sense, it's because it was a purposely comedic localization. According toLegends of Localization,the people of Edo were supposed to be addicted to opium, but it was changed to bananas, likely due to Nintendo mandating that alcohol/drug references couldn't be made in its games. A similar change happened inPokmon RedandBlue, where the drunk old man in Viridian City was changed to needing a cup of coffee.

The jump to the PlayStation allowed Square Enix to make drug references in its games, asFinal Fantasy Tacticsincluded references to opium. The people who want to check out the banana smuggling operation can do so on the Nintendo Switch, asFinal Fantasy Legend 2is part of theCollection of SaGa Final Fantasy Legendset, along with the other two games in the series. All three of theFinal Fantasy Legend games are retro in terms of their gameplay design, and that also includes its localization, which comes from a time when drugs had to be switched with fruit.

Next:Did Final Fantasy 7's Aerith Secretly Debut In Final Fantasy 5?

Source: Legends of Localization

Mass Effect Legendary Edition Boss Fights Will Have More Cover, Says Dev

Scott has been writing for Screen Rant since 2016 and regularly contributes to The Gamer. He has previously written articles and video scripts for websites like Cracked, Dorkly, Topless Robot, and TopTenz. A graduate of Edge Hill University in the UK, Scott started out as a film student before moving into journalism. It turned out that wasting a childhood playing video games, reading comic books, and watching movies could be used for finding employment, regardless of what any career advisor might tell you. Scott specializes in gaming and has loved the medium since the early 90s when his first console was a ZX Spectrum that used to take 40 minutes to load a game from a tape cassette player to a black and white TV set. Scott now writes game reviews for Screen Rant and The Gamer, as well as news reports, opinion pieces, and game guides. He can be contacted on LinkedIn.

View original post here:
The Final Fantasy Censorship That Turned Drugs Into Bananas, Explained - Screen Rant

A "free speech champion" could be appointed to fight "unacceptable silencing and censoring" at universities under plans put forward by the education secretary.

The person would investigate potential infringements, such as no-platforming speakers or dismissal of academics.

Gavin Williamson's other proposed measures to protect free speech on university campuses include:

Mr Williamson said: "Free speech underpins our democratic society and our universities have a long and proud history of being places where students and academics can express themselves freely, challenge views and cultivate an open mind.

"But I am deeply worried about the chilling effect on campuses of unacceptable silencing and censoring.

"That is why we must strengthen free speech in higher education, by bolstering the existing legal duties and ensuring strong, robust action is taken if these are breached."

The responses from those in the education sector were mixed.

University and College Union general secretary Jo Grady said: "It is extraordinary that in the midst of a global pandemic the government appears more interested in fighting phantom threats to free speech than taking action to contain the real and present danger which the virus poses to staff and students.

"In reality the biggest threats to academic freedom and free speech come not from staff and students, or from so-called 'cancel culture', but from ministers' own attempts to police what can and cannot be said on campus, and a failure to get to grips with the endemic job insecurity and managerialist approaches which mean academics are less able to speak truth to power."

Hillary Gyebi-Ababio, vice president for higher education at the National Union of Students, said: "There is no evidence of a freedom of expression crisis on campus, and students' unions are constantly taking positive steps to help facilitate the thousands of events that take place each year."

She added: "We recognise this announcement as an opportunity for us to prove once and for all that there is not an extensive problem with freedom of expression across higher education."

The so-called culture war has been bubbling for some time.

As far back as 2018, an official report showed that unpopular and controversial ideas were being opposed or discouraged on campuses across the UK.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights study found numerous attempts at many different locations to shut down such debates rather than confront them.

Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg was at the centre of a fracas in Bristol in February 2018 as he tried to address University of West England politics and international relations students.

Masked protesters hurled abuse at him and tried to disrupt the event before being removed by security.

At the end of last year, Cambridge University also entered the fray after proposals requiring staff and students to be "respectful" of differing views under a freedom of speech policy were overwhelmingly rejected.

The governing body said it would instead emphasise "tolerance" of differing views. Cambridge alumni including Stephen Fry had been among those who had opposed elements of the new policy, which the actor and writer had described as "muddled".

A Universities UK spokeswoman said: "There are already significant legal duties placed on universities to uphold freedom of speech and universities are required to have a code of practice on free speech and to update this regularly."

Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Office for Students, said: "Free speech and academic freedom are essential to teaching and research. Universities and colleges have legal duties to protect both free speech and academic freedom, and their compliance with these responsibilities forms an important part of their conditions of registration with the OfS.

"We will ensure that the changes that result from today's proposals reinforce these responsibilities and embed the widest definition of free speech within the law."

Read more:
'Free speech champion' among proposals to fight 'silencing and censoring' in universities - Sky News

Much has been made by the government that web companies should comply with any order they recieve. In fact, under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, ensuring the protection of human rights requires firms to ensure that their operations do not result in knowing and preventable infringement of rights.

The UN's Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression have also emphasised that web platforms should review the government orders they receive and ensure that measures are lawful, including being necessary and proportionate, before censoring online speech.

And as any news sector business in India would tell you, there are directives received from a range of government agencies that require narrowing and push-back all the time some of which end up as court cases. So why should the situation be so different for online content?

At the minimum, if any of this goes into litigation as a bye-product of the Union governments dispute with Twitter, then there is good ground that the courts should reconsider the initial hope they placed in the governments restraint, in their earlier Shreya Singhal ruling.

But perhaps at a larger level, we need to ask our elected lawmakers and public officials why web censorship orders should be regarded as acceptable in the Indian republic.

If we do believe that these troubling powers might be needed in truly exceptional circumstances, then we need to ensure they are wielded not by bureaucrats beholden to the government, but by judges and in a manner that is transparent and accountable to Parliament. And indeed, their use should be absolutely exceptional not a regular occasion several times in the year.

(Raman Jit Singh Chima is Policy Director at Access Now, an international digital rights advocacy and policy group, and a co-founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the authors own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)

See the rest here:
Why Indias Web Censorship Regime is Rotten & Needs Urgent Reform - The Quint