Mediaboss Marketing

Approach 1: The Internet is a revolutionary leap forward for the exchange of ideas and free markets. Direct or indirect censorship could stifle this great resource. No single creation has revolutionized the human existence the way the Internet has.

For the first time in human history, we live in an era of true knowledge. In this modern-day Library of Alexandria , there exists instant access to a vast wealth of knowledge on virtually any subject, available to any individual who seeks it.

We have the opportunity to be informed in a variety of mediums previously unavailable. From text to video, laypeople to experts, this revolutionary presence of information is the essential foundation for the presence of an informed global population.

We are now a single civilization, no longer separated by geographic concerns, united on a digital plane in a manner unprecedented in human history. The Internet allows for a truly flat world; individuals in China may be communicated with just as easily as texting a next-door neighbor.

And this age of immediacy demands more from every participant of this global civilization. The Internet calls for information to be more thorough, more accurate, more eloquent and easily understood. It demands that the information of tomorrow be available today and hails those who deliver our needs.

Most importantly, however, the Internet is the first truly interactive medium of information. Just as our knowledge may be instantly updated, we have the opportunity to immediately respond to its authors and to our peers. The knowledge we keep on the Internet has the opportunity not only to be published, but to be consistently and persistently responded to, altered and viewed in new lights.

The global economy may be built on a free exchange of goods, but global knowledge the Internet is built on the free exchange of ideas, where any mind may come and freely discuss any number of subjects.

To allow a governing force to mandate what may and may not be present on the Internet is to inherently quiet the uncensored exchange of ideas it allows.

Any form of censorship, whether from special-interest groups, concerned citizens or an appointed group, destroys the most valuable characteristic of the Internet.

Without censorship, any voice, any thought, any mind has an equal opportunity to be recognized, to be heard, to be understood. To place restrictions on what may be published on the Internet is for us to decide that some minds are less valuable than others, that some voices do not deserve to be so loud.

Go here to see the original:
Censorship would hinder the Internet revolution

Photo from an Off-Broadway production of Stitching. Banned in Malta in 2009, the play was staged with a 14 rating in the UK.

Teodor Reljic

Though the death of theatre censorship as we know it was signalled by Minister for Culture Mario de Marco as early as January, the long-awaited decision to strip the Police of all matters related to classification of film and theatre was finally passed in its second reading in parliament yesterday, which signifies broad agreement on its contents from both sides of the House.

The act officialises a proposal to transfer all laws regulating the classification of film and theatre productions from the Police to the Ministry for Culture.

The move comes in the wake of an often-torturous censorship debate which was sparked more than once on the island over the last couple of years, impacting more than just the theatrical scene.

Pia Zammit and Mikhail Basmadjan

It was the landmark 'Stitching' case that brought the issue to public attention, however, after local drama company Unifaun Theatre attempted to stage the UK drama -penned by Anthony Nielson, and staged in Edinburgh with a '14' rating -in 2009, only to be banned by the Film and Classification Board at the time.

READ MORE: Censored no more what is the future of Maltese theatre?

The Board itself has since been dissolved in favour of a system of self-regulation - as proposed by de Marco in the original draft law calling for a relaxation on censorship laws -however this particular proposal remains to be formalised.

Read more from the original source:
Theatre censorship set to be a thing of the past

HONG KONG It didnt take long for the Chinese government to try to take control of the conversation about Mo Yan.

Days after the 57-year-old novelist thrilled his country by winning the Nobel Prize for literature, Chinas central censorship organ issued a directive to media companies instructing them to strictly police online discussion for anti-party chatter or mentions of two other Chinese-born Nobel winners.

China Digital Times has atranslationof the leaked directive:

To all websites nationwide: In light of Mo Yan winning the Nobel prize for literature, monitoring of microblogs, forums, blogs and similar key points must be strengthened. Be firm in removing all comments which disgrace the party and the government, defame cultural work, mention Nobel laureates Liu Xiaobo and Gao Xingjian and associated harmful material. Without exception, block users from posting for ten days if their writing contains malicious details.

Liu Xiaobo, a human rights activist and author, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010, but he remains in prison in China. Gao Xingjian won the Nobel Prize for literature in 2000 after giving up his Chinese citizenship in 1996.

More from GlobalPost: Kernels of truth in "China bashing"

Official media has also been trying to steer the public toward acceptable lines of thinking about Mo Yan. In the state-run Peoples Daily, an editorial urges people to adopt one of three mentalities about Mo Yan that can be considered correct.

These prescribed perspectives are: seeing his victory as a blessing for those in China who have long had the Nobel Prize complex; seeing it as a good thing that should not be over-interpreted; and rejecting those who criticize his work.

The last order presumably targets those in China who reacted to Mos victory with anger. While the overwhelming response was celebratory, a number of reform-minded Chinese knocked Mo Yan for having an apparently cozy relationship with authorities. Mo Yan remains a member of the Communist Party, and the vice chairman of the party-run Writers Association. He also contributed to a book of calligraphy in tribute to Mao Zedong.

Liao Yiwu, a celebrated author who was imprisoned for writing about the Tiananmen Square massacre, called the prize a woeful example of the West's fuzzy morals, in an interview with Der Spiegel in Germany, where he has lived since fleeing China in 2011.

Continue reading here:
China scrambles to censor novelist Mo Yan's Nobel Prize

On Monday, a judge will oversee pretrial hearings for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo prisoners who are accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks. One of the key issues Army Col. James Pohl will decide on is whether or not there will be any public testimony by the prisoners regarding their torture and detention in CIA custody.

Guantanamo pretrial hearings this week weigh in on censorship versus state secrets. (Photo by The U.S. Army via Flickr) The defense lawyers are asking to abolish a "presumptive classification" process that treats any discussion of what happened to the defendants their time in secret CIA detention as a top national security secret. Mohammeds defense attorney, David Nevin, called the war court system a "rigged game, reports the Miami Herald. According to Nevin, attorneys and defendents "are forbidden to discuss between themselves anything from what Mohammed says the CIA did to him to his 'historical perspective on jihad.'"

The ACLU is at the hearings this week and will give a statement arguing that the censorship of torture is a constitutional challenge. In a press release, the ACLU cites the government's most recent filing (PDF):

The government has effectively claimed that it owns and controls the defendants memories, 'thoughts and experiences' of government torture. These chillingly Orwellian claims are legally untenable and morally abhorrent.

"The government has effectively claimed that it owns and controls the defendants memories, 'thoughts and experiences' of government torture."ACLU

The chief war crimes prosecutor, Army Brig. Gen. Mark Martins claims that the defendants' exposure to the CIAs detention and interrogation program is classified to safeguard genuine sources and methods of intelligence gathering that can protect against future attack." In addition to the "presumptive classification," the government is pushing for a related requested of a 40-second delay in the audio feed of the commission proceedings, for censorship purposes.

The ACLU filed their motion (PDF)in May in response to the protective order and proposed audio delay:

The eyes of the world are on this Military Commission, and the public has a substantial interest in and concern about the fairness and transparency of these proceedings. This Commission should rejectand not become complicit withthe governments improper proposals to suppress the defendants personal accounts of government misconduct.

The prisoners were in the custody of the CIA for up to four years before being brought to Guantanamo in 2006. After being captured in Pakistan in 2002-2003 their detention was concealed from the International Red Cross, whose mandate is to monitor treatment of prisoners around the globe. The CIA's own declassified documents disclose that Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in an attempt to get him to give up al Qaida's secrets.

Read this article:
As 9/11 Pretrial Begins, ACLU Calls Out "Orwellian" Censorship of CIA Torture

As the Internet connects more people to one another, religious tensions have become more sensitive than ever before. In some Muslim-majority countries, conservative governments have seized on online censorship as a way to restrict citizens access to global ideas and materials.

But Islam itself is not to blame for this phenomenon. Authors of a recent Freedom House study found that religion and censorship are not so closely linked -- instead, political and developmental differences may be to blame.

Clamping Down

All across the Middle East, the Internet in general and the World Wide Web in particular have recently caused massive changes in a few divergent ways.

In 2010 and 2011, it helped young activists spread information and build bridges between networks, eventually spurring the Arab Spring revolutions that overturned oppressive governments in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Yemen.

In terms of expanding global freedoms, this was a positive outcome -- but it had some detrimental effects. Some governments that were not overthrown, like those of Bahrain and Pakistan, clamped down on Internet freedoms in an effort to prevent further dissent.

Things took a turn for the worse in September, when a YouTube clip produced in the U.S. was dubbed in Arabic and went viral. The video, called "Innocence of Muslims," portrayed Islam's Prophet Muhammad as a buffoon and sexual deviant. Demonstrations erupted in countries as diverse as Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. Dozens died as a result of the protests.

Several Muslim-majority countries banned the film on YouTube, including Egypt, Iran, Libya, and Saudi Arabia. Some governments cited a wish to prevent further violence; others objected to the productions blasphemous nature.

The episode cast fresh doubts on the potential of the Internet to bridge cultures across borders -- especially in conservative Muslim states in the Middle East.

Measuring Up

Excerpt from:
The Surprising Truth About Internet Censorship In The Middle East