Mediaboss Marketing

WHY do some people take to the streets over a film they deem as insulting to their value system, beliefs, principles and way of life?

Simon Jenkins in his article Rated L for lies said , ...films appeal to inner fears and chauvanist prejudice... (Sunday Star, Jan 27).

It is precisely because of this that the Tamil film Vishwaroopam which opened on Thursday to packed houses has been withdrawn from cinemas following a directive from the Home Ministry after the Penang Muslim League president Datuk Najmudeen Kadeer demanded a review of the film as it portrayed Islam in a negative light. (The Star, Jan 26).

The protest probably followed the ban on the film by the Tamil Nadu government in India after it created unhappiness among Muslims in that state.

Going by the slogan of Rakyat Di Dahulukan, the Home Ministry has directed the Malaysian Film Censorship Board to review it.

The issue before us as a civilised society is where do we draw the line whether a film is seen as touching on ones religious or socio-politico sensitivities?

If we want to scrutinise every films, then we can make a mountain out of a molehill for almost every film touching on ones sensitivity.

To some, like film director Kathryn Bigelow, who when commenting on her film Zero Dark Thirty which depicted gruesome scenes of CIA waterboarding in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, said it is just a movie not a documentary and pleads her First Amendment right to create works of art and speak her conscience..(Sunday Star, Jan 27). Prior to 1980, films were seen as entertainment and viewed for its cinematic appeal.

Classic films such as Ben Hur, Spartacus, The Bible, Ten Commandments, The Fall of the Roman Empire, King of Kings, Jesus of Nazareth, Cleopatra, Doctor Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia, were never an issue.

Today, any film with a Christian theme must have a crawler warning Muslims that these films are for non-Muslims only to prevent any issues arising from it, by some individuals or NGOs.

Read more:
Film censorship board walking a tightrope

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba -- Someone else besides the judge and security officer sitting inside the maximum-security court here can impose censorship on what the public can see and hear at the Sept. 11 trial, it was disclosed Monday

The role of an outside censor became clear when the audio turned to white noise during a discussion of a motion about the CIAs black sites.

Confusion ensued. A military escort advised reporters that the episode was a glitch, a technical error. A few minutes later, the public was once again allowed to listen into the proceedings and Army Col. James Pohl, the judge, made clear that neither he nor his security officer was responsible for the censorship episode.

If some external body is turning the commission off based on their own views of what things ought to be, with no reasonable explanation, the judge announced, then we are going to have a little meeting about who turns that light on or off.

His comments appeared to be aimed at the Pentagon prosecution team. Attorney Joanna Baltes, representing the Justice Department on secrecy matters in the case, advised the judge that she could explain what other forces have a hand in censoring the court proceedings. But not in open session.

The alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his four accused conspirators were sitting in court, listening to everything that was being said from the part that the public was forbidden to hear to the judges demand for an explanation. Three of the defendants adorned their traditional white tunics with camouflage, an attire option they won from the judge to appear at trial as self-styled soldiers.

The strange censorship episode occurred as attorney David Nevin, defending Mohammed, was advising the judge that defense lawyers had wanted to argue a motion in court to preserve whatever remained of the CIAs secret overseas prison network. Prosecutors had filed a classified response to the request, and the judge asked the two sides if they would let their motions speak for themselves. Nevin was explaining why not.

Defense lawyers argue the alleged 9/11 conspirators were tortured in the so-called black sites, and that the U.S. government has lost its moral authority to seek their execution. The CIA set up the sites during the Bush administration, reportedly in Poland, Romania, Thailand and elsewhere. President Barack Obama ordered them closed.

The lawyers want the judge to order the government to preserve whats left of them, six years after Mohammed and his co-defendants were moved to Guantnamo for trial. This is a familiar role for Pohl, who was the judge in the 2004 trials of U.S. soldiers for detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and declared the prison in Iraq a crime scene, forbidding its demolition.

Unclear so far in these hearings is whether the judge knows where the black-site prisons were and whether any of them remain. Although he has a special security clearance to hear the 9/11 case, the CIA has not yet released classified information to the court because the defense and prosecution are still haggling over a protective order.

Link:
Strange censorship episode at Guantánamo enrages judge

Censorship, on CNN Piers Morgan Show posts 2013.01.26
Posts that mention the website or contain the Rage Shooting Factors are censored. This is the comment that is censored: Piers, why is this censored? Rage Shooting Factors Q. Piers, can you tell me why there is only one website that documents rage shooting factors and the cause of these? Psychological Harassment Information Association And why a human rights defender is attacked by both Police false allegations and organized crime, powerful radar aimed at inflicting bone marrow damage and other deadly cancers, threats that organized crime members are going to shoot him when he is defenseless, gun control, and that he has to "turn" aka be subjugated in Canada?

By: BullyingNewsVideos

Continue reading here:
Censorship, on CNN Piers Morgan Show posts 2013.01.26 - Video

Flawless Filmers - Censorship is Awesome!
In this video, Phu Cat will be talking to you about why we censor the profanity in our videos and why we censor inappropriate sights of things like the middle finger. Subscribe to us and subscribe to the hero of filmers~ Phu Cat #39;s YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com Choa The Lion #39;s YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com Check out the latest blog: phucatblogs.blogspot.com The Gaming Channel: http://www.youtube.com Audio file(s) provided by http://www.audiomicro.com

By: FlawlessFilmers

Link:
Flawless Filmers - Censorship is Awesome! - Video

Burma (Myanmar) announced that it has dissolved the press censorship board which was officially known as Press Scrutiny and Registration Division (PSRD), the state-run New Light of Myanmar said Friday. The termination of PSRD has been approved during Thursdays cabinet meeting, the newspaper said.

The division under the Printing and Publishing Enterprise has stopped functioning since 20 August, 2012 to pave ways for freedom of press, according to the report. However, in place of PSRD, Copyrights and Registration Division will be shaped under the Information and Public Relations Department, NLM newspaper said.

Looking back through the past, the first 1947 constitution of Burma had promised citizens the right to enjoy freedom of expression and opinions. It made Burma the extraordinary status in South-East Asia region for embracing press freedom. During 1948-1962 period, the then Prime Minister U Nus government had no press censor board office similar to PSRD. Journalists and reporters were even allowed to enter the PMs office and parliament without any limitation.

Journalists protest demanding 'Stop Killing Press' on 5 August 2012, in Rangoon, Burma. (Pic: AP)

But after the 1962 military coup, press freedom had no place in Burma. Many writers and journalists were thrown into infamous prisons under the emergency security act created by the then military junta. Over the last fifty years, Burmese writers and journalists have called the PSRD censorship office the media secret-police.

In the 1950s, Burma was at the vanguard of press freedom in Southeast Asia. The country had the benefit of a free press without a censorship office. As many as three dozen newspapers, including English and Chinese dailies, existed between 1948 and 1962 under the civilian government. Even the prime ministers office was never closed to journalists in those days. They were also free to set up relations with international news agencies.

The situation changed in 1962, when the military seized power. All newspapers were nationalized by the then junta led by Gen. Ne Win. The junta established a Press Scrutiny Board to enforce strict censorship practices on all forms of printed matter, including advertisements and obituaries. The Printers and Publishers Registration Law was introduced shortly after the 1962 military-coup that brought Gen Ne Win and his self-styled Socialist Party to power by force.

Since then, the military juntas censorship and self-censorship have been commonplace, and have severely restricted political rights and civil liberties. The Press Scrutiny and Registration Division is a major oppressive tool of the then military regime. Not surprisingly, Burma downgraded from a free state to a prison state. No printed matter could be published without the PSRDs authorization. Photos, cassette tapes, movies and video footage also needed the censors stamp before reaching the people.

One recent remarkable event occurred on 1 August last year. Ninety-two journalists from Myanmar Journalists Association (MJA), Myanmar Journalists Network (MJN) and Myanmar Journalists Union (MJU) held a meeting at the Royal Rose Garden in Yangon and released a press statement. A number of journalists wearing black T-shirts decorated with the catchphrase STOP KILLING PRESS launched a demonstration in the former capital Rangoon protesting against the suspension of two journals the Voice Weekly and the Envoy Journal.

In their press statement, the journalists declared that if the government endorsed a Press Law without seeking advice from the stakeholders in the press, they would not accept any outcome concerning the new bill. Media watchdog groups have been urging the Burmese authorities to dump the unethical laws governing freedom of expression, especially the 1962 Printers and Publishers Registration Act and other oppressive laws.

Read the original:
Burma dissolves censorship office, but needs to do more for press freedom