Mediaboss Marketing

The Trump campaign accused CNN Tuesday of censorship for refusing to broadcast a paid advertisement highlighting President Trumps achievements.

Today, CNN provided further proof that the network earns this mistrust every day by censoring President Trumps message to the American people by blocking our paid campaign ad, said Michael Glassner, executive director of Donald J. Trump for President Inc. Clearly, the only viewpoint CNN allows on air is CNNs.

The commercial says Democrats are obstructing the presidents agenda, and the media are attacking him.

The presidents enemies dont want him to succeed, the ad states. But Americans are saying Let President Trump do his job.

CNN refused to air a previous Trump campaign ad in May after the campaign declined to change a reference in the commercial to fake news. Mr. Trump again called the network fake news Monday in a showdown with a CNN reporter at the White House.

Mr. Glassner said one reason so many Americans support Mr. Trump is because of their complete mistrust of the mainstream news media, and the presidents refusal to allow their biased filter to interfere with his messages.

While CNNs censorship is predictable, this will not stop or deny our message that President Trumps plan is working for the American people, he said.

Read the original post:
Team Trump accuses CNN of censorship - Washington Times

Independence Day is an occasion to celebrate freedom from a colonial regime that not only cast chains of economic and political bondage upon Indians, but also fettered their freedom to think, dissent, and express themselves without fear. Demands for a right to free speech, and for an end to political, cultural and artistic censorship, were at the heart of our freedom struggle, and which culminated in the celebrated Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Last week, however, two events revealed that 70 years after Independence, the freedom of speech still occupies a fragile and tenuous place in the Republic, especially when it is pitted against the authority of the State. The first was the Jharkhand governments decision to ban the Sahitya Akademi awardee Hansda Sowvendra Shekhars 2015 book, The Adivasi Will Not Dance, for portraying the Santhal community in bad light. And the second was an order of a civil judge at Delhis Karkardooma Court, restraining the sale of Priyanka Pathak-Narains new book on Baba Ramdev, titled Godman to Tycoon.

Neither the ban on The Adivasi Will Not Dance, nor the injunction on Godman to Tycoon, are the last words on the issue. They are, rather, familiar opening moves in what is typically a prolonged and often tortuous battle over free speech, with an uncertain outcome. Nevertheless, they reveal something important: censorship exists in India to the extent it does because it is both easy and efficient to accomplish. This is for two allied reasons. First, the Indian legal system is structured in a manner that achieving censorship through law is an almost costless enterprise for anyone inclined to try; and second, the only thing that could effectively counteract this a strong, judicial commitment to free speech, at all levels of the judiciary does not exist. Together, these two elements create an environment in which the freedom of speech is in almost constant peril, with writers, artists, and publishers perpetually occupied with firefighting fresh threats and defending slippery ground, rather than spending their time and energy to transgress, challenge and dissent from the dominant social and cultural norms of the day.

The Jharkhand governments ban on The Adivasi Will Not Dance followed public protests against the writer, with MLAs calling for a ban on the book on the ground that it insulted Santhal women. The legal authority of the government to ban books flows from Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which, in turn, was based upon a similarly worded colonial provision). Section 95 authorises State governments to forfeit copies of any newspaper, book, or document that appears to violate certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code, such as Section 124A (sedition), Sections 153A or B (communal or class disharmony), Section 292 (obscenity), or Section 295A (insulting religious beliefs). Under Section 96 of the CrPC, any person aggrieved by the governments order has the right to challenge it before the high court of that State.

The key element of Section 95 is that it allows governments to ban publications without having to prove, before a court of law, that any law has been broken. All that Section 95 requires is that it appear to the government that some law has been violated. Once the publication has been banned, it is then up to the writer or publisher to rush to court and try and get the ban lifted.

The CrPC is therefore structured in a manner that is severely detrimental to the interests of free speech. By giving the government the power to ban publications with the stroke of a pen (through a simple notification), the law provides a recipe for overregulation and even abuse: faced with political pressure from influential constituencies, the easiest way out for any government is to accede and ban a book, and then let the law take its own course. Furthermore, litigation is both expensive and time-consuming. Section 95 ensures that the economic burden of a ban falls upon the writer or the publisher, who must approach the court. It also ensures that while the court deliberates and decides the matter, the default position remains that of the ban, ensuring that the publication cannot enter the marketplace of ideas during the course of the (often prolonged and protracted) legal proceedings.

The most noteworthy thing about the Karkardooma civil judges injunction on Godman to Tycoon is that it was granted without hearing the writer or the publisher (Juggernaut Books). In an 11-page order, the civil judge stated that he had given the book a cursory reading, and examined the specific portion produced by Baba Ramdevs lawyers in court which he found to be potentially defamatory. On this basis, he restrained the publication and sale of the book.

In this case, it is the judicial order of injunction that is performing the work of Section 95 of the CrPC. Effectively, a book is banned without a hearing. The book then stays banned until the case is completed (unless the writer or publisher manages to persuade the court to lift the injunction in the meantime). Once again, the presumption is against the rights of writers, and against the freedom of speech and expression.

In fact, the Karkardooma civil judges injunction order is contrary to well-established principles of free speech and defamation law. Under English common law which is the basis of the Indian law of defamation it is recognised that injunctions, which effectively amount to a judicial ban on books, have a serious impact upon the freedom of speech, and are almost never to be granted. The only situation in which a court ought to grant an injunction is if, after hearing both sides in a preliminary enquiry, it is virtually clear that there could be no possible defence advanced by the writer or publisher. The correct remedy, in a defamation case, is not to injunct the book from publication on the first hearing itself, but to have a full-blown, proper trial, and if it is finally proven that defamation has been committed, to award monetary damages to the plaintiff.

In 2011, the High Court of Delhi held that this basic common law rule acquired even greater force in the context of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and reiterated that injunctions did not serve the balance between freedom of speech and a persons right to reputation. The high court reaffirmed the basic principle of our Constitution: that the presumption always ought to be in favour of the freedom of speech and expression. In this context, the Karkardooma civil judges order granting an injunction before even hearing the writer and publisher is particularly unfortunate.

While the banning of The Adivasi Will Not Dance reflects the structural flaws in our criminal law that undermine the freedom of speech, the injunction on Godman to Tycoon reveals a different pathology: even where the law is relatively protective of free speech, it will not help if judges who are tasked with implementing the law have not themselves internalised the importance of free speech in a democracy.

The first problem is a problem of legal reform. The solution is obvious: to repeal Sections 95 and 96, take the power of banning books out of the hands of the government, and stipulate that if indeed the government wants to ban a book, it must approach a court and demonstrate, with clear and cogent evidence, what laws have been broken that warrant a ban. The second problem, however, is a problem of legal culture, and therefore, a problem of our public culture. It can only be addressed through continuing and unapologetic affirmation of free speech as a core, foundational, and non-negotiable value of our Republic and our Constitution.

Gautam Bhatia, a Delhi-based lawyer, is the author of Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Speech Under the Indian Constitution

Visit link:
The architecture of censorship - The Hindu

This article first appeared on The Conversation.

Mandelas Last Years, written by retired military doctor Vejay Ramlakan, has become a sought-after commodity since the publisher, Penguin SA, withdrew it from the shelves in July. Ramlakan was the head of the medical team that looked after Nelson Mandela until his death in 2013.

The withdrawing and pulping of a book represents a huge expense for a publisher, as well as a source of some embarrassment. So why did the publisher do it?

Soon after the book was published, members of the Mandela family, led by his widow Graa Machel, threatened legal action. It must be admitted that the basis for any legal action wasnt clear, although it was probably linked to defamation. The book, Machel argued, constituted an assault on the trust and dignity of her late husband.

Soon afterward, the authors employer, the South African National Defence Force, distanced itself from the book, suggesting that it may have contravened doctor-patient confidentiality.

The publisher bowed to this pressure and withdrew the book, stating that no further copies would be issued out of respect for the family. This is almost unprecedented, anywhere, and needs to be teased out more fully. After reading the book, Ive considered how and why the publisher may have come to this decision.

REASONS FOR PULPING A BOOK

The decision-making process for a publisher in a case like the Mandela book revolves around balancing the potential costs against reputational damage. The costs can be extensive - in publishing, all costs relating to editing, design, production, printing and distribution are made up front. It is relatively easy to make a decision to withdraw a book after publication when it may have contravened the law, mostly due to defamation of character.

Books may also be withdrawn after allegations of plagiarism, or because the accuracy of the content has been called into question. Publishers sometimes cancel contracts with their authors based on the standard waivers dealing with defamation and inaccuracies.

Publishers try to avoid these kinds of situations by performing due diligence to see if manuscripts contain anything defamatory or that breaches privacy. They employ fact checkers to avoid inaccuracy. And they require authors to warrant that their work is original and accurate.

This doesnt mean that errors dont sometimes slip through. But it is very unusual for a book to be withdrawn simply because its controversial. In fact, publishers usually support controversial titles because they create publicity, and publicity generally leads to sales.

So, what happened in this particular case?

The first set of questions would relate to the credibility of the author, and the publishers relationship with him. Ramlakan was the head of Mandelas medical team and had unique access to the former president over a long period of time.

This means that he certainly had the access and authority to write the book, and as far as I know, nobody is questioning its accuracy.

This is important, because truthfulness is one of the main defences against defamation, as is the issue of public benefit or interest. It seems highly unlikely that a publisher would allow a nonfiction title to include material that is patently untrue or that would harm the reputation of a man like Mandela. Is there really still a need to protect the reputation of a man of such global stature?

FAMILY PERMISSION

Linked to the question of authority is whether the work was authorised. The author has repeatedly claimed he wrote the memoir at the request of family members, and with their permission. In such a large family, it would be difficult to obtain permission from every family member, and it is quite common for family members to protest their treatment in a biography of a famous public figure.

Family members often argue that there has been a breach of privacy or that embarrassing private details have been made public. But the truth is that their authorization is not actually necessary. Many authors write unauthorised biographies or memoirs, and while they may prove controversial, they certainly do not contravene the law. The broad variety of books already available on Mandela shows that there is ongoing public interest. It seems unlikely that each one of them was authorised by the family.

What complicates this scenario is that, as a medical doctor, Ramlakan is also expected to uphold ethical standards that an ordinary writer wouldnt be subject to. I am not an expert in medical ethics, but there are very few medical details in the book that are not already in the public domain.

In fact, one of the purposes of the book was to counter the rumours and speculation around Mandelas medical condition in the last years and months of his life. It does this by quietly countering inaccurate statements and setting out the bare facts. It appears that the author made a deliberate effort to avoid breaching confidentiality, and ended up writing a very respectful book.

Some have suggested that the publisher and author were simply attempting to cash in on the Mandela legacy. Whatever their motives, they shouldnt be the basis for withdrawing a book from public circulation. Taste and motivation are not legal issues.

CENSORSHIP

Given that there is no apparent material basis for a legal attack on the book, its withdrawal reveals self-censorship on the part of the publisher. South Africa no longer has censorship laws in place, but an influential family can bring pressure to bear that amounts to the same thing. But also given that the book was already on the market, it should be asked what the effect of the withdrawal will be.

While fewer copies will be sold in bookshops, and fewer people will have access to it, its not possible to entirely withdraw a book from the online market. The book reviews already mention all of the most controversial parts of the book, and the action of withdrawal only serves to highlight them. The best course of action would be to allow the book to circulate freely and to stand - or fall - on its own merits. Anything else is censorship.

Beth le Roux is an Associate Professor, Publishing, University of Pretoria

More:
[OPINION] Withdrawal of Mandela book nothing short of censorship - Eyewitness News

When the Chinese government wanted to keep its users off Facebook and Google, it blocked the entire country's access to the U.S. companies' apps and sites. And when citizens started using third-party workarounds like Tor, proxiesand VPNs to get around those blocks, it moved to quash those,too.

So a handful of researchers came up with a crazy idea: What if circumventing censorship didn't rely on some app or service provider that would eventually get blockedbut was built into the very core of the internet itself? What if the routers and servers that underpin the internet infrastructure so important that it would be impractical to block could also double as one big anti-censorship tool?

It turns out, the idea isn't as crazy as it might seem. After six years in development, three research groups have joined forces to conduct real-world tests of an experimental new technique called "refraction networking." They call their particular implementation TapDance, and it's designed to sit within the internet's core.

In partnership with two medium-sized U.S. internet providers and the popular app Psiphon, they deployed TapDance for over a week this past spring to helpmore than 50,000 users around the world access the free and open internet the first time such a test has been done outside the lab, and at such a large scale.

The researchers announced the test in a paper presented at the annual USENIX Security conference earlier this week.

"In the long run, we absolutely do want to see refraction networking deployed at as many ISPs that are as deep in the network as possible," said David Robinson, one of the paper's authors, and co-founder of the Washington-based tech policy consulting firm Upturn. "We would love to be so deeply embedded in the core of the network that to block this tool of free communication would be cost-prohibitive for censors."

The concept of refraction networking which has also been called decoy routing has been around since at least 2011, and was independently developed by research teams at the University of Michigan, the University of Illinoisand Raytheon BBN Technologies. In 2015, with a research grant from the U.S. State Department, they formed a coalition to deploy TapDance within an ISP.

In the end, they actually settled on two Merit Network, a regional ISP in Michigan, and the University of Colorado Boulder.

The technique works like this: A user in a country where internet filtering exists uses a special piece of software in this case, a special test version of the app Psiphon to browse the web. To access a site that's otherwise blocked, the software first sends a request to an unblocked site that's likely to be routed through TapDance along the way.

An explanation of how TapDance works. (https://refraction.network)

The user's circumvention software tags this innocuous request with a little extra data basically a secret flag the censor can't see that says "Hey, I actually want this request to go somewhere else." The TapDance software in an ISP's infrastructurekeeps watch for this secret flagand, when detected, re-routes the user's connection to the blocked site instead.

The user gets to where they want to go, everything's taken care of behind the scenes, and the censor is none the wiser in theory.

In the near future, the researchers hope to deploy TapDance within more ISPs to test their approach on an even larger scale. But a still unanswered question is whether censors can tell when TapDance is in use.

It's a problem that's preoccupied PhD student Cecylia Bocovichand professor Ian Goldbergat the University of Waterloo, in Ontario.

"We believe that it is within the capabilities of more powerful censors to detect and blockTapDancetraffic in its current form," wroteBocovichin anemail, but nonetheless called the deployment "really exciting news."

The pairhave been working on an alternate approach to refraction networking called Slitheen that's designed to resist detection, but the trade-off is that it'smore difficult for an ISP to implement.

Instead of re-routing or refracting traffic, Slitheen actually hides censored content inside requests for images and videos from unblocked sites effectively swapping blocked data for what the censor believes is allowed. Hidden content is made tolookas close as possible to the original content's traffic pattern as it travels across the network, making the ruse extremely difficult to detect.

Even the TapDance papers' authors admit that they don't yet know how resistant to detection TapDance is in practice, given the limited amount of time their test was run. But if TapDance sensors are ever deployed as widely as its developers hope, it may not matter.

"If we have enough of them out there, the odds of going past a TapDance site increases," Robinson said.

And if enough of those sites happen to be within the heart of the internet, the cost of blocking them all would the researchers hope be too high.

Read more:
In fight for free speech, researchers test anti-censorship tool built into the internet's core - CBC.ca

President Trumps reelection campaign saidTuesdaythat CNN has denied its offer to buy air time for a campaign ad, marking the second time the network has refused to run a pro-Trump campaign spot.

The ad, called Let President Trump Do His Job, accuses the media of attacking our president and briefly displays pictures of news anchors from several news outlets, including CNN anchors Jake Tapper, Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper.

The presidents enemies dont want him to succeed, the ad states. Let President Trump do his job.

One of the many reasons that so many millions of Americans support President Trump is because of their complete mistrust of the mainstream news media, and the presidents refusal to allow their biased filter to interfere with his messages, Trump campaign executive director Michael Glassner said in a statement.

Today, CNN provided further proof that the network earns this mistrust every day by censoring President Trumps message to the American people by blocking our paid campaign ad, he continued. Clearly, the only viewpoint CNN allows on air is CNNS.

A spokesperson for CNN said the network asked for changes to make the ad "factually accurate" and that the Trump campaign declined.

"CNN would accept the ad if the images ofreporters and anchors are removed," a spokesperson said. "Anchors and reporters dont have 'enemies,' as the ad states, but they do hold those in power accountable across the political spectrum and aggressively challenge false and misleading statements and investigate wrong-doing."

Earlier this year, CNN refused to run a Trump campaign ad because it cast the mainstream media as fake news.

Trump and CNN are locked in an increasingly personal feud that has pitted the White House against the networks top on-air talent.

CNNs chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, has gained prominencefor his entrenched opposition to Trump.

Acosta has infuriated conservatives, who view him as a grandstander whose chief goal is buildinghis personal brand through viral clips of heated exchanges with White House spokespeople.

At a press conferenceon Monday, Acosta, who was representing the media through the press pool, shouted a question at Trump, who responded: Youre fake news.

Havent you spread a lot of fake news yourself, sir?Acosta shot back.

CNN has run its own ads with footage of anchors lecturing White House officials and talking about whether Trump will be impeached.

The network has attracted criticism for its relentless hostility toward the president. A Harvard study found that CNNs coverage of Trump was negative 93 percent of the time over the course of his first 100 days in office.

CNN's ratings are up, although the networkstill trails rivals Fox News and MSNBC.

- This story was updated at 1:06 p.m.

View original post here:
Trump campaign accuses CNN of censorship - The Hill