Mediaboss Marketing

If you click around Facebooks Government Request Report, youll notice that, for many countries, Facebook enumerates the number of content restrictions the company has fulfilled. This is a sanitized term for censorship.

For example, Facebook restricted access to three items of content on its site to comply with Brazilian court orders. Facebook restricted access to 15 pieces of content to comply with Israeli laws banning Holocaust denial. Facebook restricted access to 3,624 pieces of content in Turkey and another 5,832 pieces of content in India, all under a variety of nefarious censorship laws.

But if you click over to the United States, Facebooks home country, youll find that the content restrictions category is conspicuously missing.

This is odd, considering that Facebook has been suspending the accounts of inmates in the U.S. for at least four years at the behest of prison officials. Facebook even had an easy and confidential Inmate Takedown form corrections officers could fill out to make the profiles disappear.

We know for a fact that Facebook processed 74 requests for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation alone in 2014. Between California and the state of South Carolina, we also know Facebook processed more than 700 takedown requests over the last four years. We could file public records requests in all 50 states to learn more, but since Facebooks system allowed prisons to file these requests without creating a paper trail, only Facebook knows how many requests it has complied with nationwide. We believe it may reach into thousands.

In direct response to Facebooks secrecy, as well as inconsistencies in Facebooks explanations of the takedown process, we have added a new category to Who Has Your Back?, our annual scorecard that evaluates how companies handle government requests. To earn a star in the category for Disclosing Government Content Removal Requests, companies do not have to reject government requests, but just be transparent about how they handle these requests.

As we write in the report, Twitters transparency report is a particularly good example; not only does the company produce the data, but it publishes an interactive map that users can explore to review details about content removal requests. Google also provides data about government requests to remove content, including dozens of examples with information on the nature of the request and the outcome.

Facebook is somewhat unique when it comes to prisoner takedown requests. Based on information we have received through public records requests filed in several states, inmates are more often caught using Facebook than any other service. But this isnt just about prisoner accounts. The fact that Facebook has not been reporting these takedown requests raises larger questions about what other kinds of censorship Facebook has been hiding.

In its report, Google gave examples in the U.S., such as a request from a law enforcement officer asking the company to remove a link to a negative news story from its search results and a request from a government agency to remove an allegedly defamatory video about a school administrator. (Google complied with neither request, but included both in its transparency report.)

If Google received requests to takedown this kind of content, then we believe it is highly likely that Facebook has received them as well. In the coming months, we may even see more direct evidence of this through crowdsourced reports at OnlineCensorship.org, an alpha-stage project co-founded by EFF Director for International Freedom of Expression Jillian York.

In preparing 2015s Who Has Your Back? report we gave Facebook multiple opportunities to come clean about government requests to suppress content. Although the company did overhaul its inmate takedown process, it still refuses to release top line numbers for the United States.

Its too late for Facebook to earn a star in this category for 2015, but theres still time for Facebook to establish trust with its users. We urge Facebook to publish the data and show U.S. government agencies that censorship shouldnt happen in the dark.

See original here:
Why Facebook Failed Our Censorship Test | Electronic ...

Not a good look.

Image: Laurent Hamels/getty

Get ready for your head to explode.

In the middle of TEDxBrussels talk on March 5 that focused on censorship, a male event organizer walked onto the stage and physically dragged the female presenter off. And the kicker? The theme of the entire TEDx event was Brave New World as in, yes, the Aldous Huxley book about a dystopian future wherein an all-powerful state controls the lives of its citizens.

And it only gets worse from there.

According to the TEDxBrussels website, the presenter, artist Deborah De Robertis, was in the middle of a piece addressing past censorship of her artwork. The forcible removal of her from stage was so absurd, reports the Netherlands newspaper NRC Handelsblad, that audience members initially applauded thinking it was a statement about censorship.

It wasn't.

This was made clear by a statement TED staff posted to their blog.

"Today at TEDxBrussels, an independently organized TEDx event, speaker and performance artist Deborah De Robertis was forcibly removed from the stage by one of the events organizers, who objected to the talks content," the group notes. "We have reviewed the situation and spoken with the organizer. While we know there are moments when it is difficult to decide how to respond to a situation, this response was deeply inappropriate."

What was so allegedly objectionable that in the eyes of organizers it merited force to silence? Why that would be De Robertis projecting photos of one of her past works, which included nudity. NRC Handelsblad reports that she was in the middle of doing this when she was organizers lost it. And in a truly messed up moment of painful irony, the man who grabbed her and pulled her across the floor appeared to remove the artist's shirt exposing her breasts in the process.

TED's response was swift. "We are immediately revoking the TEDxBrussels license granted to this individual," concluded the TED staff statement.

But this was not enough for De Robertis, who tweeted several statements following the incident demanding a chance to present her talk in full.

Clearly, the event organizers have a lot to learn about censorship and art. Maybe they should attend a conference addressing that very issue... oh, wait.

Go here to read the rest:
TEDxBrussels censors presenter mid anti-censorship talk

The role censorship plays in governing people is truly something one must grasp to understand contemporary international and domestic politics.This sample research paper reflects how government leaders and organizations have continued to use censorship in an effort to control people more effectively.

Conservative views are a group of beliefs that have not experienced much in the way of change. Through the censorship of modern thought, expression and belief, conservative minds have been able to preserve their noticeably closed minded way of doing things. Censorship dates back as far as the age of antiquity and further with Socrates being one of the first notable figures to perish at its hands. Some have come to view the government as a savior for censoring what they consider wrong, while others see the government as overly authoritative in its attempt to pass judgement upon what is right or acceptable for the masses. While censorship is often viewed as a relatively moralistic venture, throughout history, it has actually been one of the key tools by which governments have maintained their control.

Over the years the fight for censorship has proven to be dangerous for those who oppose it. History has shown that even though the government was created to help people, their views of what they consider "corrupt" or "profane" have frequently been called into question. According to BeaconForFreedom.org:

Perhaps the most famous censorship in ancient times is that of Socrates, sentenced to drink poison in 399 BC for his corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities.(Newth).

Many think that the government hides the truth behind the guise of protecting the innocence of youth, while others believe that the world is safe from the true evils that surrounds them. Some decisions that governments have made have left endless questions about why censorship ever came into existence. While government policies still insist that freedom of expression is an inherent human right, it seems to feel that it can place limitations upon how far this freedom extends. Whether it is music, newspapers, or media, the government will always play a hand in the extent to which free expression can be exercised, though the view of its use in America has changed as time has passed.

While the censorship of music has cause the greatest stir in modern history, the age of censorship first appeared in print. In early years of the mass marketed press, owners wallowed in defeat if their newspapers were censored, often experiencing a shutdown of their businesses if censorship was employed. In America, the freedoms granted by the 1st amendment to the Constitution are often called into question by censorship. Though many elements of censorship have changed where the free press is involved, not all views of what should be shared is taken lightly. The censorship of the printed word doesnt just affect newspapers read around the world. High school press papers are well known examples of censorship, due to the perceived "fragility" of young minds. This "preservation of youthful innocence" has long been a shield behind which the supporters of censorship have hidden. The decisions made may not be acceptable or fair to those who oppose them, but the protection of the innocence of youth will always be what is most important for many.

One example of censorship and the question of academic freedom was in the case of Hazelwood School District vs Kuhlmeier. Students who worked for the school paper at Hazelwood East in 1983 thought that it would be a noble idea to dedicate certain parts of the paper to students who:

Once the schools principal, Robert Reynolds, read the proofs of the articles, however, he wanted them removed from the paper. With this decision being made, the students in charge of the paper were outraged, accusing the principal of censorship of freedom of press. Even though the students who were interviewed in the articles were not named, the principal still felt that it was too much of a risk to take in allowing the newspaper be read by other students and teachers. Reynolds feared that the students who were talked about in these articles would be discovered and that it would have been a matter of time before harm came to them.

Music has long been a target of censors and continues to be one in the 21st century. For many, censorship represents all that is wrong with the world and that secrets and hidden truths are concealed behind the walls of government. For many parts of the world, the eyes of the people are closed to the secrets carried in their government due to censorship which has been attributed to the concealment of:

Still other atrocities remain hidden behind the veil of censorship, keeping the public ignorant to them. For some, censorship can either hurt a community or raise its values to higher standards. However, censorship does protect the innocence in situations where safety can be compromised. In the Hazelwood School District case, it is conceivable that protection was needed due to harm that could have come to the students that were discussed in the school paper. The newest target of censorship is understandably the internet. There has long been a cry to the government to impose regulations on content available online.

Censorship may not always be fully understood or appreciated by those it is designed to "protect", but it is sometimes needed for the building of the core values of youth. Like any new policy, law, or rule, there are elements that are not liked or respected. Boundaries will always be tested with censorship, because some believe that no one, particularly the government, should be the judge of what is right and what is wrong beyond established law. Figures of authority will eternally strive to "protect the innocent" that they feel cannot judge or fend for themselves. However, there will always be those who stand in opposition. Certainly, it can be said that there are some things that we probably should not know or see due to its graphic nature and ability to disrupt the emotional well-being of our otherwise happy lives. The question that remains, however, is who gets to decide this?

Newth, Mette. The Long History of Censorship. 2010. Norway.< http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/liste.html?tid=415&art_id=475>.

Zeinert, Karen. Free Speech: From Newspapers to Music Lyrics. New Jersey. Enslow, 1995.

This blog post is provided free of charge and we encourage you to use it for your research and writing. However, we do require that you cite it properly using the citation provided below (in MLA format).

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Essay on Censorship." Ultius Blog. Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services, 19 May 2013. Web. < https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-essay-on-censorship.html >

Thank you for practicing fair use.

This citation is in MLA format, if you need help with MLA format, click here to follow our citation style guide.

Read more:
Sample Essay on Censorship - Blog | Ultius

Yes, were back at CPAC, and, as always, with a panel that addresses one of the most urgent issues of the day:

Suppression of Conservative Views on Social Media: A First Amendment Issue

Major social media platforms such as Google, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube have created the new town square, having become the primary portals through which Americans receive news today. On these platform, the Left has a monopoly. The social media giants are moving actively to erase and hide any viewpoint or person that does not conform to the progressive values for which they stand.

This has resulted in massive losses of readership and revenue for conservative sites, and endangers the very freedom of our Republic by allowing only one point of view to be aired. The social media corporations today hold more power over the public discourse than any totalitarian regime ever held. They do not just target voices with whom they disagree, but they make sure that those voices are unable to sustain themselves.

This panel will discuss the magnitude of this phenomenon, and discuss ways that the power of these Leftist social media outlets can be limited, such that voices that dissent from the hard-Left agenda can again be freely heard.

February 23, 2018, 3:00 pm Chesapeake B-C

Panelists will include:

James Damore, Google whistleblower

Harmeet K. Dhillon, renowned free speech attorney

Dan Gainor, Vice President for Business and Culture, Media Research Center

Pamela Geller, Editor and Publisher, Geller Report, President, American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and author of Fatwa: Hunted in America

Jim Hoft, Editor-in-Chief, Gateway Pundit

James OKeefe, Project Veritas

Marlene Jaeckel, Tech entrepreneur

America, the worlds first government based on individual rights and personal liberty, should be on the forefront of the defense of freedom of speech across the world, the light among nations, the shining city on a hill. Instead, social media giants, run by uniformly leftwing corporate managers, have become the new totalitarians. This evokes the worst totalitarian regimes in the history of the world. Never in modern history has such immense power been in the hands of so few.

Panelist James OKeefe added: Social media giants in Silicon Valley have quickly become the worlds most powerful media gatekeepers, even more powerful than the mainstream media.We exposed Twitter forsilencing and shadow banning people they do not agree with, and propagated their preferred views for political and financial purposes.

Panelist Dan Gainor said: Tech/social media companies are vastly more powerful than their old media predecessors in print and TV ever were. Weve already seen some of the dangers of what happens when that power is abused. This isnt just a panel discussion about what might happen. This is a wake-up call for the entire conservative movement.

Another panelist, Jim Hoft, observed: 2016 was the first election where conservatives fled the liberal mainstream media. After decades of smears and abuse they found the truth in conservative media online. Today there are forces working to make sure this does not happen again. Its time to stand up before its too late.

This groundbreaking panel discussion follows on the heels of Cant We Talk About This? The Islamic Jihad Against Free Speech, our shocking new film detailing the concerted effort by international organizations to compel the U.S. and other Western countries to curtail the freedom of speech and criminalize criticism of Islam.

This issue the suppression of the freedom of speech on social media affects all of us on the right. In fact, it is the most critical issue of the day: if we are stripped of the means to communicate with one another, its all over. It was free people speaking freely on social media, outside of the reach of the media establishment, that got Donald Trump elected President of the United States. When the left lost the election, they lost their mind.

We must not allow the left to strip us of the weapons we used to win that victory. Thats what well be fighting for at CPAC.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of The Geller Report and author of the bestselling book, FATWA: Hunted in America, as well asThe Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administrations War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on TwitterorFacebook.

Follow this link:
GELLER: Social Media Censorship Panel at CPAC James Damore ...

[FACT comments: Readers should be aware that Thailands MICT is continuing its plan to consolidate the current ten international Internet gateways (IIG) into a single gateway to facilitate monitoring and censorship.

Even worse, the official Thai government documents leaked by TNN show that MICT is implementing plans to compromise encrypted SSL Internet transactions to pursue Thailands Great Firewall strategy.

If this still does not worry the ordinary person who relies on the Internet every single day, SSL is what makes online banking secure, among many other sorts of Internet transactions and all online commerce possible.

Put away that credit card!]

Single Gateway .... SSL

Thai Netizen Network: May 26, 2016

https://thainetizen.org/2016/05/single-gateway-back-ssl-censorship/

20 ...

7 SSL (Secure Socket Layer) Public-key encryption

7 public-key encryption

SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) TLS (Transport Layer Security) https

... (..) .. . 19 2559 (.) 20 [ 15 20 (4)] 15 [ 9 15] SSL public-key encryption 15

20 ...

15

163/2557 ( . () 12/2557 19 .. 2557) (SSL : Secure Socket Layer)

163/2557 4 1. (SSL : Secure Socket Layer) 2. (International Internet Gateway)

163/2557

Man-in-the-Middle Attack

15

(url) (block list) https:// https://www.facebook.com/thainetizen https://www.facebook.com https://www.facebook.com/thainetizen https://www.facebook.com

... (.) 2559 . 2 3

http://chn.ge/1U9aVzS

5 ...

%MCEPAS%MCEPASTEBIN%

Download (PDF, 3.35MB)

mict-computer-crime-rational-slides-201605

Like Loading...

Read more from the original source:
FACT - Freedom Against Censorship Thailand ...