Mediaboss Marketing

Chinese filmmakers must fight censorship even if it means removing their name from their own work, one-time banned Chinese director Lou Ye told AFP in an interview ahead of this month's Asian Film Awards in which his crime thriller "Mystery" has been nominated in six categories.

Banned in 2006 from filming in China for five years, Lou's latest picture tackles the subject of a new breed of wealthy and middle income men in post-socialist China for whom taking a mistress is the norm, in a practice that harks back to imperial China.

With nominations including best film, best director and best actress for Hao Lei's portrayal of a betrayed wife, "Mystery" begins with a violent death and tells the story of one man's double life.

"The film is about a very small group of people. It is about what happens between two women, the double life that this man leads, but through this I get to talk about things that happen in wider society," he said in Paris where the film was shown as part of a China programme at the city's Forum des Images in February.

"What is important to me is the way in which we see that all the protagonists are linked to the death of this young girl, the way that no-one can say this has nothing to do with me," he said.

According to Lou, having a mistress is now commonplace in China for anyone with sufficient means.

"Currently we see this way of life in particular among people who have money," he said adding that it was seen as a status symbol for men while a woman acting in the same way would be stigmatised.

The film is his second since the end of the ban imposed after he took his love story "Summer Palace", set around the taboo subject of the 1989 pro-democracy Tiananmen Square protests, to Cannes without official approval.

Lou responded by continuing to work, filming his next feature "Spring Fever" in secret using a handheld camera as well as "Love and Bruises" which came out after the ban expired.

Although now able to film in China again, Lou remains the subject of unwanted attention from censors.

More:
Keep up censorship fight, urges Chinese filmmaker

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