Mediaboss Marketing

June 30, 2017 BerlinGerman lawmakers approved a bill on Friday aimed at cracking down on hate speech on social networks, which critics say could have drastic consequences for free speech online.

The measure approved is designed to enforce the country's existing limits on speech, including the long-standing ban on Holocaust denial. Among other things, it would fine social networking sites up to 50 million euros ($56 million) if they persistently fail to remove illegal content within a week, including defamatory "fake news."

"Freedom of speech ends where the criminal law begins," said Justice Minister Heiko Maas, who was the driving force behind the bill.

Mr. Maas said official figures showed the number of hate crimes in Germany increased by over 300 percent in the past two years.

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter have become a battleground for angry debates about Germany's recent influx of more than 1 million refugees, with authorities struggling to keep up with the flood of criminal complaints.

Maas claimed that 14 months of discussion with major social media companies had made no significant progress. Last week, lawmakers from his Social Democratic Party and Chancellor Angela Merkel's center-right Union bloc agreed a number of amendments to give companies more time to check whether posts that are flagged to them are illegal, delegate the vetting process to a third party, and ensure that users whose comments are removed can appeal the decision.

But human rights experts and the companies affected warn that the law risks privatizing the process of censorship and could have a chilling effect on free speech.

"This law as it stands now will not improve efforts to tackle this important societal problem," Facebook said in a statement.

"We feel that the lack of scrutiny and consultation do not do justice to the importance of the subject. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure safety for the people on our platform," the company said, noting that it is hiring 3,000 additional staff on top of 4,500 already working to review posts.

Aside from the hefty fine for companies, the law also provides for fines of up to 5 million euros for the person each company designates to deal with the complaints procedure if it doesn't meet requirements.

Social networks also have to publish a report every six months detailing how many complaints they received and how they dealt with them.

Among those cheering the law was Germany's main Jewish organization, which called it a "strong instrument against hate speech in social networks."

Germany has long had a law criminalizing Holocaust denial a response to the country's Nazi-era history of allowing racist ideas to become genocidal policy.

"Jews are exposed to anti-Semitic hatred in social networks on a daily basis," the Central Council of Jews said. "Since all voluntary agreements with platform operators produced almost no result, this law is the logical consequence to effectively limit hate speech."

The nationalist Alternative for Germany party, which has frequently been accused of whipping up sentiments against immigrants and minorities, said it is considering challenging the law in Germany's highest court.

Here is the original post:
Germany passes censorship law to fight online hate speech - Christian Science Monitor

If you tried to search for Emma Watsons Wikpedia page in Iran in 2013, you wouldnt have been able to find it; the article was one of 963 blocked by the government. This tidbit about the Harry Potter actress is found in a 2013 University of Pennsylvaniareport on Irans censorship of Wikipedia. Researchers at Harvards Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society recently built on this publication by analyzing censorship of the site in 15 countries since 2014. In a report published in May, they found that censorship of Wikipedia has declined since then due to the sites new security measures.

In fact, they discovered that only three countries blocked access to parts of Wikipedia during the duration of the study: China and Uzbekistan were blocking the Chinese- and Uzbek-language versions of Wikipedia (read more coverage of censorship in China, and its use of fake social media posts to influence public opinion). Thailand had once blocked the Yiddish versionmost likely a weird misconfiguration, says Justin Clark, a software developer at the center and the principal author of the report. They derived their results partly by analyzing data from the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedias parent organization) that showed when people load Wikipedia articles, and partly from 41 servers located in different countries around the world that tried to load Wikipedia and could determine if the website was blocked.

Clark says there are multiple reasons for the changing levels of censorship. The first is Wikipedias transition from HTTP to HTTPS. HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol) guides the way a websites data is sent to a browser. Because the connection is unencrypted, however, other people can intercept that connection and see the data being sent. In HTTPS, the s stands for secure; the major difference between the two protocols is that HTTPS encrypts the data being communicated.

Wikipedias transition affected the way countries could block access, Clark explains. With HTTP, a country could block an individual Wikipedia article. But with HTTPS, the country needs to choose between blocking every article or none. Countries are choosing the latter. As the report states: Russia once again blacklisted Wikipedia over a single cannabis-related article, but the ban was reversed less than 24 hours later.

Monitoring censorship of Wikipedia matters because Wikipedia is one of the most prominent, and most important, sites out there, says Rob Faris, the research director at the center, who also worked on the report. How countries treat Wikipedia, he continues, is indicative of how important Internet freedom is not only to them, but also to the rest of the world. Clark adds that understanding the information controls imposed on the Internet is important for allowing an informed citizenry to emerge.

As the first complete empirical deep dive into incidents of the blocking of Wikipedia projects around the world, Faris says, the report will inform future research as other investigators follow its methods. He also notes that accessing Wikipedia server data is novel. Such research paves the way for examining global Internet outages, Clark says, especially those deliberately caused by countries during elections or protests. He adds that after the study concluded, China blocked access to Wikipedia in additional languages spoken there, and Turkey in all languages, so the Berkman Klein Center will continue to monitor Wikipedia around the world.

Originally posted here:
Wikipedia Against Censorship - Harvard Magazine

A country has the right to prevent the worlds Internet users from accessing information, Canadas highest court ruled on Wednesday.

In a decision that has troubling implications for free expression online, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a companys effort to force Google to de-list entire domains and websites from its search index, effectively making them invisible to everyone using Googles search engine

The case, Google v. Equustek, began when British Columbia-based Equustek Solutions accused Morgan Jack and others, known as the Datalink defendants, of selling counterfeit Equustek routers online. It claimed California-based Google facilitated access to the defendants sites. The defendants never appeared in court to challenge the claim, allowing default judgment against them, which meant Equustek effectively won without the court ever considering whether the claim was valid.

Although Google was not named in the lawsuit, it voluntarily took down specific URLs that directed users to the defendants products and ads under the local (Canadian) Google.ca domains. But Equustek wanted more, and the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that Google had to delete the entire domain from its search results, including from all other domains such Google.com and Google.go.uk. The British Columbia Court of Appealupheldthe decision, and the Supreme Court of Canada decision followed the analysis of those courts.

EFF intervened in the case, explaining [.pdf] that such an injunction ran directly contrary to both the U.S. Constitution and statutory speech protections. Issuing an order that would cut off access to information for U.S. users would set a dangerous precedent for online speech. In essence, it would expand the power of any court in the world to edit the entire Internet, whether or not the targeted material or site is lawful in another country. That, we warned, is likely to result in a race to the bottom, as well-resourced individuals engage in international forum-shopping to impose the one countrys restrictive laws regarding free expression on the rest of the world.

The Supreme Court of Canada ignored those concerns. It ruled that because Google was subject to the jurisdiction of Canadian courts by virtue of its operations in Canada, courts in Canada had the authority to order Google to delete search results worldwide. The court further held that there was no inconvenience to Google in removing search results, and Google had not shown the injunction would offend any rights abroad.

Perhaps even worse, the court ruled that before Google can modify the order, it has to prove that the injunction violates the laws of another nation thus shifting the burdent of proof from the plaintiff to a non-party. An innocent third party to a lawsuit shouldnt have to shoulder the burden or proving whether an injunction violates the laws of another country. Although companies like Google may be able to afford such costs, many others will not, meaning many overbroad and unlawful orders may go unchallenged. Instead, once the issue has been raised at all, it should be the job of the party seeking the benefit of an order, such as Equustek, to establish that there is no such conflict. Moreover, numerous intervenors, including EFF, provided ample evidence of that conflicts in this case.

Beyond the flaws of the ruling itself, the courts decision will likely embolden other countries to try to enforce their own speech-restricting laws on the Internet, to the detriment of all users. As others have pointed out, its not difficult to see repressive regimes such as China or Iran use the ruling to order Google to de-index sites they object to, creating a worldwide hecklers veto.

The ruling largely sidesteps the question of whether such a global order would violate foreign law or intrude on Internet users free speech rights. Instead, the court focused on whether or not Google, as a private actor, could legally choose to take down speech and whether that would violate foreign law. This framing results in Google being ordered to remove speech under Canadian law even if no court in the United States could issue a similar order.

The Equustek decision is part of a troubling trend around the world of courts and other governmental bodies ordering that content be removed from the entirety of the Internet, not just in that country's locale. On the same day the Supreme Court of Canadas decision issued, a court in Europe heard arguments as to whether to expand the right-to-be-forgotten worldwide.

EFF was represented at the Supreme Court of Canada and the British Columbia Court of Appeal by David Wotherspoon of MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman and Daniel Byma of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin.

Go here to see the original:
Top Canadian Court Permits Worldwide Internet Censorship - EFF

DETROIT (ChurchMilitant.com) - Twitter, a privately owned social media giant that boasts of more than 300 million users, is censoring a pro-life group's ads, labeling them hate speech.

On Monday, Tucker Carlson covered this ongoing censorship by Twitter on his show Tucker Carlson Tonight. Live Action is the pro-life group, who's ads are being called hate speech by Twitter and flagged on their social media platform.

Carlson invited on his show Catholic convert Lila Rose, founder and president of the organization, to discuss the issue. On the show, Rose explained exactly what Twitter was objecting to. "The kind of tweets," said Rose, "that they're calling a violation of their hate and sensitive policy show ultrasound images, they're fact checks of Planned Parenthood, they're discussing the prenatal life in its beauty. These are the sorts of tweets that Twitter is trying to block."

Carlson posted a picture of one such ad that Twitter refused to allow on its platform. It was a picture of a baby in utero with the caption, "I AM NOT A POTENTIAL HUMAN. I AM A HUMAN WITH POTENTIAL." On top of the ad is a message by Rose, which reads, "Everyone deserves the right to life! Join me in standing up for human dignity and the least of these."

According to Carlson, Twitter wants Live Action to delete these so-called "sensitive ads" before it will allow the group to buy more ads. Rose points out that Planned Parenthood (PP), the nation's biggest abortion chain, is allowed by Twitter to run ads on their platform, but Live Action, who she calls "the leading pro-life platform for the pro-life movement," is not allowed to do so. She says Twitter is claiming such ads violate their "hate and sensitive policy."

"This is something that they've been kind of keeping a secret, and now we're trying to get this news out that they've been blocking us," said Rose. Carlson responded, "But meanwhile the abortion industry gets to advertise all it wants."

Rose points out that the abortion giant PP has more than a one billion dollar budget and is committing almost 900 abortion every day, yet Twitter ironically says "they're not violating the hate and sensitive policy." She said Live Action is simply "exposing them, talking about the value of preborn life," which she says are messages that a lot of Americans agree with.

She says Twitter has been banning their ads for months now. She relates that Twitter wants them to delete their entire website and create an entirely new website before they can do any more advertising on Twitter. Carlson posted a response from Twitter, which claimed its policy was a set of "clear, transparent rules." Rose denies that the rules are clear because it "took over a year to finally get from Twitter what's wrong with these tweets showing ultrasounds."

Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

Like our work? Support us with a donation.

See original here:
Tucker Carlson Spotlights Twitter Censorship of Pro-Life Group - Church Militant

A voting rights and campaign finance watchdog group is claiming political favoritism and censorship after allegedly being denied the ability to post billboards in Mitchell and McDowell counties.

Democracy North Carolina tried to post billboards calling attention to the ongoing investigation by the State Board of Elections into the campaign finances of state Sen. Ralph Hise, a Mitchell County Republican and chair of the Senate Select Committee on Elections.

The State Board of Elections began investigated Hise has after he allegedly withdrew about $10,000 in excess loan repayments from his campaign and failed to disclose receiving more than $9,000 in donations from political action committees.

Weve been trying to let the voters in Sen. Hises district know about his problems for a month, but the billboard industry seems so worried about making him mad that they are refusing to rent us space for our message, said Bob Hall, executive director of Democracy North Carolina.

Hall said in a press release he was initially encouraged to rent space by sales agents at two companies; he selected billboard locations, submitted the artwork and sent it back with modifications requested by the agents. He signed a contract with Lamar Outdoor Advertising for a billboard in Spruce Pine and a contract with Fairway Advertising for another billboard along I-40 in McDowell County.

In both cases, regional managers of Lamar and Fairway Outdoor Advertising called to cancel the contracts, saying the message proposed for the billboards was political and too controversial or too controversial and could cause problems for the company, according to the press release.

It was very clear in talking with the billboard executives that were the victim of political favoritism and censorship, Hall said. Billboard companies are involved in plenty of controversial and political advertising, but they also have high-priced lobbyists, they want favorable legislation and they dont want to anger a powerful state senator at this crucial time.

Hall claimed in the press release one of the companies has a billboard attacking Muslim on I-40.

Its very disappointing, Hall said. But well continue to shine the light on Sen. Hises campaign violations and expose whatever he is hiding.

At least one of the billboards has been posted on U.S. 19E near the Yancey-Madison county line.

As of press time Hise was more than 50 days past the May 5 deadline set to amend his campaign finance reports.

Link:
Voting rights advocacy group claims censorship - Spruce Pine Mitchell News