Mediaboss Marketing

The Trump campaign is calling it censorship pure and simple that CNN is refusing to air their ad celebrating the first 100 days of Donald Trumps presidency.

Trumps team put out a statement earlier today blasting CNN as fake news again when the network wouldnt let the ad run on their airspace. CNNs public relations division responded by saying that they took issue with the commercial for featuring a graphic decrying them and other news agencies as fake news:

The Trump camp took notice of this, and they offered this response:

In response to a claim today by CNN that it refused to run a TV ad by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. because the mainstream media is not fake news, executive director, Michael Glassner said, This is censorship pure and simple. By rejecting our ad, CNN has proven that it supports censorship is biased and fears an opposing point of view. President Trumps loyal supporters know the truth: The mainstream media mislead, misguide, deceive, and distract. CNN epitomizes the meaning of fake news and has proven it by rejecting our paid campaign ad.

And theyre now promoting the video as the ad CNN refuses to air.

[Image via screengrab]

>> Follow Ken Meyer (@KenMeyer91) on Twitter

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Read the original post:
Trump Campaign Accuses CNN of 'Censorship' in Rejecting Ad: 'Epitomizes' Fake News - Mediaite

Turkey on Saturday blocked access to all content of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, the latest squeeze on information access in the country.

Turkey Blocks, an organization that monitors internet censorship, said an administrative order blocked all language versions of the online encyclopedia.

Several major internet operators had complied with the order.

"The loss of availability is consistent with internet filters used to censor content in the country," Turkey Blocks said.The organization added that an administrative order was usually followed by a full court order.

Turkey's Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) said the administrative measure was taken after "technical analysis and legal consideration on Law Nr. 5651."

The 18-page Law Nr. 5651 deals broadly with "fighting crimes" published on the internet.

More sophisticated and prepared internet users were still able to access Wikipedia using virtual private networks (VPN).

Wikipedia seeks "outside counsel" with Turkey mum over block

No reason was given for blocking the world's fifth most popular website, but critics on social media speculated it may have to do with this month's controversial constitutional referendum or an entry about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Turkey's private NTV television network, which itself has come under criticism for censoring anti-government content, said access to Wikipedia was blocked for content supporting terrorism. It also said the block was implemented due to entries "placing Turkey on the same level as the 'Islamic State'" despite requests to remove the content.

NTV said the block would be lifted after the US-based Wikipedia implemented four demands: opening a representative office in Turkey; complying with court orders; acting in line with international law; and refraining from taking part in "operations to denigrate" Turkey.

In response to a Deutsche Welle inquiry, the Wikipedia Foundation saidthat it is "committed to ensuring that Wikipedia remains available to the millions of people who rely on it in Turkey. To that end, we are actively working with outside counsel to seek judicial review of the decision affecting access to Wikipedia. We hope the issue can be resolved promptly."

Surveillance softwareused?

A volunteer at Turkey Blocks told DW he suspected Turkish authorities used "Deep Packet Inspection" (DPI) software used by some countries for surveillance and censorship to block Wikipedia. "Normally http websites are easily blocked, but https websites such as Wikipedia are not as easy. As a result, when blocking a more advanced technique is used," she said.

"My guess is that a DPI was used to block Wikipedia. We know the Turkish state boughtDPI software before, so there is a high likelihood they use this software for censorship and intelligence," she added.

Following the block, Wikipedia was the top trending hashtag worldwide and in Turkey.

Turkish authority's move to block the hugely popularwebsite is likely to add to concerns over the deterioration in the rule of law, democracy and basic freedoms in the country.

Turkey has in recent years temporarily blocked access to numerous websites, most notably Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Blocking or throttling internet access has become commonduring terror attacks, mass protests or in response to the internet companies' failure to remove content.

Authorities often ask social media and internet companies to cooperate in removing content for defamation or broadly defined terrorism, particularly related to Kurdish militants.

Hundreds of websites critical of the government are blocked in Turkey.

Read more here:
Turkey blocks Wikipedia, expanding censorship - Deutsche Welle

Following a damning report over the weekend by Chinas state-run broadcaster, China Central Television, alleging the proliferation of vulgar content through popular live streaming apps, authorities in Beijing met yesterday with the operators of three popular apps, ordering them to fully submit to rectification, or zhenggai a term that refers in Chinese to an overhaul of operations, possibly involving the removal or reshuffling of management staff.

The three app operators were reportedly invited to discussions with the Beijing municipal office of the Cyberspace Administration of China and ordered to immediately desist from unspecified violations of Chinese regulations.

They include Toutiao (), an app that offers automated selection of news stories, and Volcano Live () and Pepper Live (), both social platforms for live video streaming. Toutiao was apparently included in the action against live streaming services because it began providing regular links to live streamed shows last year.

Pepper Live. Photo: Pepper Live website screenshot.

The discussions reportedly involved the municipal public security bureau as well as the Administrative Law Enforcement Corps of the Culture Market (), which often spearheads local campaigns in China against obscene or pornographic content.

The Administrative Law Enforcement Corps has already opened investigations against the above-mentioned live streaming services, state media reported, and will refer criminal cases against individual live broadcasterspresumably meaning users of the servicesto the police.

The next step, according to media reports, is for the three official agencies to take up the issue of content violations with Apple Inc., demanding that it strengthen review procedures for live streaming services offered through its AppStore.

See also:In Pictures: China live streaming Would-be internet stars boost a billion-dollar market

Live streaming apps emerged in China during the second half of 2015, developing rapidly. By the end of 2015, the country had close to 200 live streaming platforms in operation. The emerging industry experienced tremendous growth in China in 2016, reaching an estimated 344 million users by years end.

But live streaming apps have also come under intense scrutiny. Earlier this month, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), the internet control body created by President Xi Jinping in 2014, announced that it had shut down 18 live streaming apps operating illegally, saying anchors, or individual program hosts, had spread illegal content, dressed in military or police uniforms or were scantily dressed and acted flirtatiously.

The online behaviour of the anchors violated relevant internet information service or live streaming laws and regulations, offended socialist core values, and brought negative impact to the healthy growth of the young and teenagers, the CAC said.

The Cyberspace Administration of Chinas website. Photo: Website screenshot.

The agency has so far blacklisted close to 2,000 anchors it said had severely violated relevant regulations, preventing them from registering new accounts on live streaming platforms.

While the report from CCTV and campaigns against live streaming have emphasised the need to restrict indecent content for the benefit of Chinese youth, it is also clear that tightening restrictions are part of a broader effort to assert control over all forms of content finding space through these new services.

Back in January, an article in the Peoples Tribune, published by the official Peoples Daily, noted that streaming platforms made it difficult to control guidance of speech (), a reference to the overarching goal of social and political control through the media. The article also said some content on live streaming platforms disadvantaged the correct channelling of public opinion, a term denoting the Partys control and manipulation of information.

Owing to the fact that online anchors do not require examination of credentials to start working, it said, some anchors lack political literacy and media integrity. They take a shallow view of problems and wantonly criticise political events, inciting the sentiments of the people and demonising public figures.

Their inflammatory and severe language disadvantages correct channelling of public opinion, harms the development of general political literacy, and even unleashes irrational and extreme patriotic behaviour, doing damage to society.

Soon after news of the discussion with the three apps went public yesterday, one of the companies concerned, Pepper Live, posted a notice online in which it thanked CCTV for its attention to and monitoring of the live streaming industry, and pledged to improve its oversight, helping to clean up the live streaming environment.

Noting that it already had 600 internal staff dedicated to content review on a 24-hour basis, the platform said it would further expand the intensity of oversight in light of line-balls a reference to media content that falls just out of bounds or pushes the envelope.

See also:Chinese authorities order overhaul of video site that posted footage of Tiananmen car incident

As an industry that is still very young, live streaming is in a period of rapid development, and a number of problems have emerged in this process, read the notice from Pepper Live.

As we strengthen our internal controls, we also call on our colleagues in the live streaming industry to respect national laws and regulations, strengthening the oversight and management of live streaming content, and building a green and healthy live streaming environment.

Comments

View original post here:
Chinese authorities strike against live streaming apps: Morality or censorship? - Hong Kong Free Press

Datuk Kamil Othman said most censorship boards elsewhere are parked under a ministry that is arts and culture-centric, or security-centric. Picture by Choo Choy MayPETALING JAYA April 30 Malaysias controversial Film Censorship Board (LPF) might progress faster if it were moved out from under the Home Ministrys purview, a ministerial advisor suggested.

Datuk Kamil Othman, creative industries advisor to the Communications and Multimedia Ministry, said that most censorship boards elsewhere are parked under the arts and culture ministry or its equivalent.

Whereas here [its] under Ministry of Home Affairs, so because its Home Affairs, obviously they are more concerned with security and bigger picture and all that.

So the right way is one day hopefully, if enough of us managed to say that look perhaps the situation lies more in putting the Censorship Board under the right ministry, maybe thats the answer, he told a public forum on censorship last Thursday night.

Kamil was responding to a question on whether it would be helpful to have people from the film industry sitting as independent members of the LPF.

While the LFP is a government body filled with government servants in its current set-up, Kamil said there are specialists among its board members who understand the need for flexibility even as they must consider local sensitivities when approving movies for Malaysian mass consumption.

At the end of the day, its about reviewing the law. Reviewing the law is not as difficult as it seems, provided theres enough momentum, he said.

The Censorship Act is not like something from the Holy Quran or from the Bible or the other holy scriptures which cannot be changed. It is man-made, so anything that is man-made I believe can only come with a proper engagement process and education as a tool, Kamil said.

For change to happen, he said there must be enough public momentum to push federal lawmakers to act.

However, he said the Malaysian film industry is not a top priority locally compared to other countries due to its low level as an economic generator, and gave as example, the 2015 award-winning Western movie The Revenant starring Leonardo DiCaprio that supported 15,000 jobs.

What do the Brits do?

To Kamil, the UK experience and shift in attitude towards censorship also offers some worthwhile lessons to Malaysia.

Originally called the British Board of Film Censorship, it is now known as the British Board of Film Classification. While its board members still propose cuts, their main task today is to act as examiners and decide the appropriate ratings of a film for mass consumption.

In the UK too, different local councils have great leeway in deciding what films are suitable and how they should be screened in their area. As the licensing authority for cinemas in their areas, the town councils have the final word and can even change the ratings of a movie or bar its screening locally.

Kamil later told Malay Mail Online after the forum that the LPF might have a different positioning if a decision on the board's direction is made after proper engagement with the public.

He also noted there are some who are still concerned about the communications aspect of films rather than just seeing them as pure entertainment.

Founder and MD of Red Communications and Red Films, Lina Tan agrees that local censorship laws should be amended. Picture by Choo Choy MayTech and the law

Film producer Lina Tan, who was also one of the forum speakers, agreed that local censorship laws should be amended.

To her, technology has made censorship outdated; it is also a game-changer, particularly for independent filmmakers who have more options and who can now bypass censors and reach a wider audience directly through the internet.

But she noted that commercial filmmakers would still follow the traditional route of working within legal limits because they had business and financial considerations, as well as obligations to safeguard their employees livelihood.

The unorthodox online screening of Absent Without Leavedirected by Sitiawan-born Lau Kek Huat for a week at the end of February this year generated much buzz among Malaysians after the LPF banned its theatrical release, especially when the award-winning film had been shown at film festivals abroad.

Absent Without Leave was made available on the Internet to local viewers for free. Picture via Facebook/Absent Without LeaveResponding to a question over the regulation of films viewed offline and online in Malaysia, Kamil said that the MSC Bill of Guarantees in the 1990s promising no censorship of the internet still stands, but the government had introduced the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to regulate cyber content as it was well aware that such freedom is a double-edged sword.

As it was never defined what can or cannot be shown online, the internet regulator will act whenever it receives public complaints, he explained.

Lawyer Syahredzan Johan says such a broad scope is outdated and the Film Censorship Act needs a review. Picture by Choo Choy MayReigning in overly-broad powers

What many may not know is that the Film Censorship Act is worded broadly enough to be used against online content, including videos shared through social media platforms like WhatsApp, if the authorities wished, civil liberties lawyer Syahredzan Johan said.

Syahredzan who was also one of the forum panellists that night said such a broad scope is outdated and needs a review.

He also pointed out the ridiculous nature of the current provisions of the Film Censorship Act which replaced a 1952 law where even owning a film without the boards approval would be considered a crime.

Just from the point of view of technology, it has moved away from 2002 when this law was first enacted, so it doesnt make sense. Why is it that we are accepting that these people have power over us to even record something, have something in possession, circulate it? he asked.

Syahredzan proposed several changes to the Film Censorship Act, including removing the requirement for the Film Censorship Boards approval to screen films that are not for commercial use, while also giving the ratings system more prominence for films that have to go through LPF before screening in cinemas.

The LPF doesnt have to give approval, they can give classifications or ratings, he said.

But he suggested the board should retain the power to specifically ban certain films such as those that promote hate speech, if screening them posed a real threat to public order or national security.

I personally dont agree we need to censor or prohibit, but maybe an argument can be made if you have a film that the objective is to spread hatred against another race group for example.

So you can have residual power to ban, but not prior approval from the board to do anything, he said.

He also said the law must also be amended to enable the courts the power to review decisions by the Films Appeal Committee.

Section 23 of the Film Censorship Actstates that the Films Appeal Committee has the power to either affirm, vary or reverse LPFs decisions and that the committees decision shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law.

The panellists were speaking at Thursday nights The Future of Cinema and Censorship in Malaysia, which was jointly organised by Pusat Komas, the Society for the Promotion of Human Rights and the Freedom Film Network.

* Editors note: The article has been updated on May 1, 2017.

Continue reading here:
Which direction should film censorship in Malaysia go? - Malay Mail Online

With the controversies over campus lectures coming to a head this spring, academic liberals are finally beginning to vocalize their substantive defenses of censorship.

In the New Republic, a Colby College professor argued that keeping conservative speakers off campus is necessary to the process of curating knowledge of value for impressionable students. On Monday, New York University Vice Provost Ulrich Baer defended so-called "snowflakes" in the pages of the New York Times, dramatically thanking them for "keeping watch over the soul of our republic."

"The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks," Baer wrote. "It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community."

Baer uses the example of transgender rights to claim "the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing."

In fact, the opposite is true.

When I was in school, progressive students attempted to shut down my Young Americans for Freedom chapter because we opposed mandatory sensitivity training on transgender pronouns. We objected primarily to the idea of mandating political training, not the use of pronouns. But because we exercised our right to speak out, our campus engaged in a productive conversation about the merits of "mandatory sensitivity training," which is a reasonable discussion on the proper roles of university authorities. All participants emerged from the experience enriched by its lessons.

Baer would have that conversation stifled for preventing transgender people from being "recognized as fully human," despite both sides' emphatic efforts to speak with the utmost respect and compassion for members of that community.

But no matter how many times conservatives make those efforts, progressives obsess over every syllable we utter to argue that we are denying the humanity of any given marginalized community. There is nothing we can do short of agreeing with the Left to satisfy their standards. Even if our group on campus had objected to the use of transgender pronouns, is it not possible to argue that point, or, say, argue against Black Lives Matter, without denying people their humanity? If any new idea is automatically immune from rigorous debate simply because the opposition is deemed harmful to people, where does that standard lead us?

Consequently, serious discussion has become impossible on campuses. When mainstream conservative thought is equated with white supremacy or hate speech, only one side is afforded the right to express itself.

Like the Colby professor, Baer also argues that students no longer need to hear from campus speakers to be exposed to dissenting opinions because they enjoy access to the internet. It's true that any student on a campus where Charles Murray or Ann Coulter has been banned is able to watch another lecture on YouTube or pick up their books. But that's not what happens. At campus lectures, interested students who both agree and disagree often bring less interested friends to the event who would never otherwise seek out the information.

The lectures broach new ideas that would never otherwise find an audience in the classrooms of most liberal professors. And they give students the opportunity to engage directly with those speakers, allowing them to ask questions about issues specific to their campus or their personal lives. It is not something that can be replicated.

When I hosted a lecture by a prominent conservative on my campus, a liberal student stepped up to the microphone during a question and answer session to challenge the speaker on religious liberty. The speaker's answer, measured and calm, left the student speechless. She eventually retreated from the microphone after tilting her head and saying, "I guess I never thought of it in that way before."

That is the value of a campus lecture.

Professors do not give voice to alternative viewpoints, often presenting their perspectives as unimpeachable fact, thereby discouraging young people from even thinking to investigate the issues further. As a consequence, students graduate with worldviews that have never been subject to constructive criticism.

"It has been regrettably easy for commentators to create a simple dichotomy between a younger generation's oversensitivity and free speech as an absolute good that leads to the truth," Baer contended.

To some extent, I have to agree. For instance, I'm glad Baer published this op-ed because conservatives (understandably) have developed a reflex to issue outrage and mockery over the actions of "snowflakes" without understanding how the material professors like Baer teach in the classroom informs their behavior.

The crux of Baer's argument, however, is that these "snowflakes" are not oversensitive they are reasonably sensitive. He argues that if a speaker denies a marginalized community their humanity per the judgment of those privileged enough to hold power on college campuses (liberals) they are rightfully silenced. But it is doubtful that if a conservative student objected to a liberal speaker on the basis that their message is psychologically harmful to the humanity of, for instance, people of faith, they would be taken seriously.

This strikes me as similar to feminists' complaints about relinquishing power over women's rights to the "patriarchy." How can institutions dominated by one group who cannot understand another be trusted to protect it?

The problem with imposing qualifications on free speech, especially in higher education, is that they inevitably require the liberal academic bureaucracy to make judgments on what constitutes reasonable insight.

That will never ensure academia provides students with the balanced and challenging educations they are paying tens of thousands of dollars to receive.

The best answer to these questions is always to facilitate more speech, not less.

Emily Jashinskyis a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Read the original post:
NYU professor defends censorship and 'snowflakes' amid lecture ... - Washington Examiner