Mediaboss Marketing

A screenshot of a page from the Virtual Museum of Censorship featuring banned books.(photo bycensorshiplebanon.org)

Author:Florence Massena Posted June 6, 2017

What is censored more often in Lebanon: sex or politics? It depends on the timing, according to the Virtual Museum of Censorship, an online database tracking banned and censored material since Lebanese independence in 1943.

Having become familiar with some of the material, Gino Raidy, the vice president of MARCH, the nongovernmental organization (NGO) behind the museum, told Al-Monitor, Different trends could be observed according to the decades. In the 1940s, it mostly involved mentioning Israel.

Raidy said, In the 1950s-1960s, sexual explicitness was tolerated, but not political discussions. In the early 2000s, there was strong opposition to heavy metal. People would be arrested in the streets for wearing a heavy metal band T-shirt as many thought it was satanic. What stood to be censored became clearer after the Syrian army left in 2005, mostly focusing on sectarian and politics-related material. Nowadays, we note that LGBT art and events are getting targeted more and more.

The virtual museum aims to identify not only what has been banned and censored, but also the reasons behind it, in an effort to present the big picture when it comes to limits on freedom of expression in Lebanon. The database launched on May 24, with an event at Phoenicia University, in Mazraat al-Daoudiyeh, in the south. An exhibition of panels and blackboards with words and names of individuals redacted to symbolize information omitted through censorship was followed by a discussion among free speech experts and activists. Participants included lawyer Hussein el-Achi, photojournalist Hussein Baydoun, author and activist Joumana Haddad, journalist and activist Luna Safwan and graffiti artist Omar Kabbani.

In 2013 in Beirut, MARCH had organized Censorship in Lebanon, An Uncensored Look, a panel discussion on freedom of expression. Looking ahead, the team hopes to organize others in Tripoli after the end of Ramadan and maybe in the Bekaa Valley.

We believe that getting out of Beirut is important not only to inform people about censorship but also to have more discussions, address a different crowd living in rural areas and see what they think about the issue, said Raidy, who is also a blogger. Virtually, anyone can see what cultural material has been banned and censored, as well as what journalists and activists have been through when it comes to the expression of certain issues. We also invite people to submit entries if they hear about something new.

Control over every cultural product in Lebanon is based on a law or decree, as detailed in Censorship in Lebanon: Law and Practice, a 2010 study by Nizar Saghieh, Rana Saghieh and Nayla Geagea, who are lawyers and members of The Legal Agenda, an NGO that follows socio-legal developments in Lebanon and the broader Middle East.

Censorship of films in Lebanon is based on four very vague principles: respect for public morals, respect for the reputation or status of state authorities, respect for the sensitivities of the public and avoiding sectarian or religious incitement, and resisting calls that are unfavorable to the interests of Lebanon, Ghida Frangieh, a lawyer with The Legal Agenda, told Al-Monitor. If the General Security, which is a security agency, wants to ban a film, it must refer it to an administrative committee, which reviews the film and gives its recommendation to the Ministry of Interior, which will make the final decision. The procedure is not transparent, and most of the time, the reason why a film is censored or banned is not given.

To this, Raidy added, From the data we collected, the two main organizations asking General Security for censorship are first the Catholic Information Center and then Dar al-Fatwa, the leading Sunni religious institution in the country.

For example, in Nadine Labakis filmWhere Do We Go Now (2012), a scene with a priest and a sheikh speaking to the public through the local mosques loudspeaker was cut. More recently, a Druze cleric's apparition was masked by a black dot in Philippe Aractingis 2017 filmListen /Ismaii. Both decisions were supposedly based on concerns of sectarian incitement.

The Boycott Bureau for Israel also made sure that the name of Steven Spielberg, who has donated money in Israel, would be removed from posters and films, although we can watch them. This was silly, Raidy said. They also asked that Wonder Woman be banned because the lead actress is Israeli.

Two filmmakers recently challenged censorship decisions before the State Council: Danielle Arbid, for her filmBeirut Hotel (2011), and Reine Mitri, for the banning of her documentary In This Land Lay Graves of Mine (2015), about people displaced during the Lebanese civil war. Arbid lost her challenge, with the State Council deciding that censorship was justified because the filmattacked the reputation of the authorities in regard to the investigation of Prime Minister Rafik Hariris assassination in 2005. The censors had disapproved of a scene that referenced a USB memory stick with documents on it about Hariri's death.

The State Council even ruled that General Security can exercise prior censorship of film plots itself, which is a very broad interpretation of the law and an infringement on freedom of expression, Frangieh said. But it hasnt yet ruled on Mitris film, and we hope that the ban will be overturned in the end. Giving a voice to the victims of displacement during the civil war cannot be viewed as inciting sectarian tensions. It is very important for a Lebanese artist to have access to her or his main audience in Lebanon.

According to Raidy, the social impact of censorship in Lebanon is clear. People arent allowed to speak about very important and unsolved things, he said.

About the taboo on discussing the war and displaced people, he said, This is reality. It is silly to forbid people to talk about it. Plus, the country is very proud of its freedom of speech, and maybe it is not as bad as in the other countries, but not as good as it could be.

Raidy also warned against the dangers of self-censorship, stating, Journalists just dont investigate anymore for fear of getting in trouble. Even local filmdistributors dont procure a filmthat could be a problem for the General Security.

Indeed, many things must remain unsaid in a country that is proud of its liberty.

Read More: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/06/lebanon-censorship-museum-freedom-of-expression.html

Read this article:
Online database gives uncensored look into Lebanon's censorship - Al-Monitor

CRAIG F. WALKER / GLOBE STAFF

The Johnston Gate at Harvard Yard.

An Ivy League course on the consequences of dumb and offensive behavior on the Internet just played out at Harvard. And for at least 10 kids who had already been admitted to the university, the fallout of sharing offensive images among themselves were profound and potentially life-changing.

By now, the story is well known: The teens were part of a larger Facebook group chat where they posted the vile images as Internet memes. When the university discovered the content, it rescinded their admission.

Advertisement

A debate about free speech has ensued, pitting Harvard as the ruthless censor clamping down on kids goofing off. But thats the wrong way to look at the controversy. Like all universities, Harvard has wide discretion in its admissions process. Had the school discovered the memes before the students were accepted at the school, its safe to guess that Harvard would have denied them admission, period, without triggering a free-speech brouhaha. The college admissions process is inherently subjective. There are many considerations, including that of judgment, character, and ethics, and sharing puerile and offensive posts is generally not the path to the Ivy League.

Needless to say, Harvard reserves the right to rescind admission at any time before enrollment, for many reasons, including whether the prospective student engages in behavior that brings into question their honesty, maturity, or moral character. Its tough luck for the admitted applicants, perhaps, that they werent yet officially Harvard students when the images were discovered. If they were, the universitys response might have been different; student-athletes who were recently caught writing offensive, sexually charged lists about classmates were not expelled from the school.

Get Arguable with Jeff Jacoby in your inbox:

Our conservative columnist offers a weekly take on everything from politics to pet peeves.

Its likely the meme-sharing students, who had been admitted to the class of 2021, were trying to impress each other, engaging in the type of silly, provocative one-upmanship that teens gravitate toward. Its not likely that the students, who included the daughter of a major Harvard donor, were going to start committing hate crimes when they arrived in Cambridge. But they did show a marked lack of judgment. Among the posts: a suggestion that child abuse was sexually arousing; sexual jokes about the Holocaust; and an image that poked fun at suicide and Mexicans with a piata.

Did the school miss an opportunity to educate those students about their foolish actions? Perhaps, although the incident remains a teachable moment for the kids nonetheless. And Harvards swift response sends a reassuring message of the importance of principles, civility, and standards for the rest of the university community.

For many young people, memes the wild variety of funny captions over memorable images are a second language.

Censorship, this is not. The students remain free to express themselves with any offensive or provocative memes they choose. And should the students choose to reapply to the college someday, they should be able to write quite an essay about learning lessons the hard way.

See the original post here:
A teachable moment, but not censorship, at Harvard - The Boston Globe

NEW YORK (AP) President Donald Trump may be the nation's tweeter-in-chief, but some Twitter users say he's violating the First Amendment by blocking people from his feed after they posted scornful comments.

Lawyers for two Twitter users sent the White House a letter Tuesday demanding they be un-blocked from the Republican president's @realDonaldTrump account.

"The viewpoint-based blocking of our clients is unconstitutional," wrote attorneys at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in New York.

The White House didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The tweeters one a liberal activist, the other a cyclist who says he's a registered Republican have posted and retweeted plenty of complaints and jokes about Trump.

They say they found themselves blocked after replying to a couple of his recent tweets. The activist, Holly O'Reilly, posted a video of Pope Francis casting a sidelong look at Trump and suggested this was "how the whole world sees you." The cyclist, Joe Papp, responded to the president's weekly address by asking why he hadn't attended a rally by supporters and adding, with a hashtag, "fakeleader."

Blocking people on Twitter means they can't easily see or reply to the blocker's tweets.

Although Trump started @realDonaldTrump as a private citizen and Twitter isn't government-run, the Knight institute lawyers argue that he's made it a government-designated public forum by using it to discuss policies and engage with citizens. Indeed, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that Trump's tweets are "considered official statements by the president."

The institute's executive director, Jameel Jaffer, compares Trump's Twitter account to a politician renting a privately-owned hall and inviting the public to a meeting.

"The crucial question is whether a government official has opened up some space, whether public or private, for expressive activity, and there's no question that Trump has done that here," Jaffer said. "The consequence of that is that he can't exclude people based solely on his disagreement with them."

The users weren't told why they were blocked. Their lawyers maintain that the connection between their criticisms and the cutoff was plain.

Still, there's scant law on free speech and social media blocking, legal scholars note.

"This is an emerging issue," says Helen Norton, a University of Colorado Law School professor who specializes in First Amendment law.

Morgan Weiland, an affiliate scholar with Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society, says the blocked tweeters' complaint could air key questions if it ends up in court. Does the public forum concept apply in privately run social media? Does it matter if an account is a politician's personal account, not an official one?

San Francisco-based Twitter Inc. declined to comment. The tweeters aren't raising complaints about the company.

___

Associated Press writer Jill Colvin contributed from Washington.

More here:
Twitter users, blocked by Trump, cry censorship - CBS46 News - CBS46 News Atlanta

wreg.com

Twitter users, blocked by President Trump, cry censorship wreg.com NEW YORK (AP) President Donald Trump may be the nation's tweeter-in-chief, but some Twitter users say he's violating the First Amendment by blocking people from his feed after they posted scornful comments. Lawyers for two Twitter users sent the ... and more »

Read more:
Twitter users, blocked by President Trump, cry censorship - wreg.com

Episode 168 features the Tinkers-to-Evers-to-Chance of global censorship, as Filipino contractors earning minimum wage delete posts in order to satisfy US tech companies who are trying to satisfy European governments. In addition to Maury Shenk, our panel of interlocutors includesDavid Sanger, Chief Washington Correspondent forThe New York Times, andKaren Eltis, Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa. Even if you think that reducingIslamic extremist proselytizingonline is a good idea, I conclude, thats not likely to be where the debate over online content ends up. Indeed, even today, controls onhate speechare aimed more at tweets that sound like President Trump than at extremist recruiting. Bottom line: no matter how you slice it, the first amendment is in deep trouble.

In other news, I criticize the right half of the blogosphere for not reading the FISA court decision they cite to show thatPresident Obamawasspying illegallyat the end of his term. Glenn Reynolds, Im talking about you!

The EU, in a bow to diplomatic reality, will not bother trying to improve theSafe Harbor dealit got from President Obama. Instead, it will try to get President Trump to honor President Obamas privacy promises. Good luck with that, guys!

Wikimedias lawsuit over NSA surveillancehas been revived by the court of appeals, and I find myself unable to criticize the ruling. If standing means anything, it seems as though Wikimedia ought to have standing to sue over surveillance; whether Wikimedia should be wasting our contributions on such a misconceived cause is a different question.

Chinas cybersecurity law has mostly taken effect.Maury explains how little we know about what it means.

Finally, David Sanger, in his characteristic broad-gauge fashion, is able to illuminate a host of cyber statecraft topics: whether the North Koreans are getting better at stopping cyberattacks on their rocket program; how good a job did Macron really did in responding to Russian doxing attempt; and what North Korean hackers are up to in Thailand.

As always, the Cyberlaw Podcast welcomes feedback.Send an email to[emailprotected]or leave a message at +1 202 862 5785.

Download the 168th Episode (mp3).

Subscribe to the Cyberlaw Podcast here. We are also oniTunes,Pocket Casts, andGoogle Play(available for Android and Google Chrome)!

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.

Link:
Steptoe Cyberlaw Podcast: Globalizing Censorship - Lawfare (blog)