Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

It’s high time to jump from film censorship to classification – Times of India (blog)

It is time to revamp the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The problem is not just with its current illustrious chief rather, the problem is with the entire body.

While the name of this statutory body suggests that its job is to certify films, its guidelines mandate it to act a censor. It does not take more than a glance to appreciate the total inanity of the guidelines, drawn up, clearly, by someone who lacks any understanding of cinema or the arts in general.

The current controversy over two films Lipstick Under My Burkha and Ka Bodyscapes, both of which have been denied certification stems from the illiberal and anti-constitutional right of the state to censor films. This should change. What we need is certification, to guide people to avoid wrong choices for juvenile audiences.

The guidelines call upon the CBFC to make sure that a film being cleared for exhibition offers clean and healthy entertainment; artistic freedom and creative expression are not unduly curbed; does not depict abuse of children; does not deprave the morality of the viewer; etc.

Clearly, the author of the guidelines either has no conception of the role of art in society or does not think of cinema as art. Films are just for entertainment, of the clean and healthy variety, a criterion that even a Tom and Jerry cartoon might well fail in these times of politically correct squeamishness over violence.

If the guidelines are to be observed strictly, no film can engage with the harsh reality of life in unequal, hierarchical, misogynist India.

Only vacuous, singsong melodrama would pass muster. The government should follow the recommendations of the Benegal committee, give up the mission of censorship and merely classify films as regards their suitability for particular age groups.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

View original post here:
It's high time to jump from film censorship to classification - Times of India (blog)

Feminism Around the World: Alankrita Shrivastava Fights Censorship of Her Film – The Mary Sue

}r8F3"+#nd-neR.J$elsgG' ){fF 4Fh~so0/s-oW^~sG Phd/<'r,={MQc#:}]v3>>X]l.zD&cU@0t- `]((rz=EZ6!L*E1i" #h^NL)(:W|BJqZ$vBPy1J0+v~5Q0bb%Y"#j{@rxVUAt*Fjg!RYM~/F%-PGL"RTm'zsYhIg/;Y"*kQ{-[zn^}S K(-X/X``LlZY4~;Z#&gg

IKF.OS#S"vnWr#jCvJG11TFEA{[Um,h9;$,B7 ,@_H/bx>ZT2/gqa?:+_ &?=iv`@SK~JkG-Jf ^E 3Ec([LyJm|5"fR8ZyaDc3+JKo mY +)u0nFbfm&bc#rtnby[!JS/p,>HS$?DNQrp~ 2 vK_ x4Y)4Afn2Yeq6Qol&Fn7zh *-zsAwkoy#_4*Ly5^9U Q_*?Mn&?A X>;_ d'oZi4%T:+ `iL2(T0{#Cv(Ph]K/e~y~D"{O>:``h~PE*Zl$sWV+`ZR(frQ+` q_FAR(Vzoz@HskF 'x`V+;0bP gb8Ma<)xtMV+zq*F8?Sfe5UexXqUcOF+(ZS"rT_%v#OAB6ZOujk}~K!lw3s'5L\1&i*J"o=~aLm{*VL3088?xyYo@"qC$B%~,a3>%sml$H7i#[+@deU~ wz&m! >qU5v9nm`uvOVznm=toi%q7$fRco! ~}AxPo1Slf>iBohXQv%K{qDG"v$!9L[!K`YJ3V5hSsIsx6l|N#GX]~XW"{C1:CX%` ~i1t50$o =8/PnfV]=R;Z-!DyHg6O%ot6:OxD~ZIGb5q{=/D'q*e>]!;lJ=u@QMkp3/VH_;?@g2>P)mb!zjN2x[z-3}+e.!57AV(}k3Gg0`DoCGW[KU~-m6Z7e_E{]n^&nIL!#g{f#V?hc, f @{L>f 7Z+"1{.C/1ltGjB6/'jsT4X2dj_7 pk_clO[c7+mw#U,eenDUTGt"wkBFanuCk$m:jJ~Jtly)JMR=mVrrkc:0% #H3/XkU'R6oE y#!c+# '[([+jPqr;=wgoz7s~pv;xrmVv9"q[rN{rV*/8pJW |7oh)GFAAJLEho6B[TtE`SPcS@mzGtVyj*lOeT0YdLW8L czh7CJ76rB {0eLwyAN#X"3FuIL*5H?:BT;Uu5/V_JOZXC:pt-!` xSL1T>"x$!wC^MH+aOp(pWDqQ#tecdEQ$!H*e}h(.!YF%iTRP(l$)?eaBu/m1F'6FD^J* nG>Jty@*u0);_QH)V3a_;6E8<*OTL8r@"0]r4K""fR ZqzT +!}5X ^`!o@y52xA_nbXsQV,On#!O1Z?mj~a<,+M](TDO=rqgHA"?;_;WI2~LV6@-8"P:]WS)EJ.t/Mn@j-h57VTa)4%-jn#xS%X2 D-pQ/U hU#[IH?P2IWCLA):v@}]g7hBSLdG=x"+}XkV1V28tPI/jq~}-X2ikofq{b]`KIt.H'lXA~^[ pDe9+Bx)'{Fi?H,P*E$JE9(3mXc C,"sp%KHVg4U0i@J- _csUeU|th6hP!L]9.^B#<^c^BBtlZ&dd2cFti[*)-I,dlHQ`mv9dZYd=;;G>tpX8m${tK-rxVx4G=*Owns8s^MnY:b@L0vo X{ZXr0o0W5+cs&cCXGFk9Tf /uROR26,bLAPR6cb}cP =F' L"+OE/_IeY)"]gKatGg=SD)i[`vHPb BA~jXaow_bht>LxI$yfcloN*A:H)s )UTT3K6/#|.aeF~x'=Z;9#MeO bBL}iWvk&]uh4Z;wS,ZvFhuJ9]>{a|z.cW=q|J|%`z!kyv*nSA;uK'HbU $904R' cq qqVqRCV'{t2p,V,fV_`gRzM5^XqNW9"hUr*#Q8["'OThMZQNAFvdA 8tU"}/|!001`_p~.`IGY3n_<~ r`=[3eFQKU!=6,lYkR,]IIy}K)CaW[ Ckr!q|JV]*CX_^*>Jd(RkzdfaC~3F'wy; TPV74||G coxVs AO|- iWAC@jHwdml(5* 0^/V|Mf 6 pV#7l%J4)h?:/pE$)r:)e/qZ+#E_f!9')+x*BB4n2`k{/cydmfRRYfyTdh/0)f b.enTR%rVCJ"|(`HH%/)%KM*"D>+I(c8zr)30 X2fJbZ0FP:|W_9M$$scKS;z)&J=<'UW%($ %{Ua8e6,]E,w-E0{CFGfc};*&4>h5'-cl;6mq S]Jg.k JJ-iGnr}i FrLV]Q-BM*)F:`h("]w2}L8"IksU}`B(Cr5t`^0)U8^PL0rp$: a6'#^fp5="):&oOC3I0'Ha;B h6LqN1+( 3(AaALGF}@"G3.e{@XqD"@b /P"E4J}"N~p"2I,I(9z`8/$s06V /`,$I``|YD;%@i`/{FQ|@t.wGq&=q3KUQ'GdH$H+,q #!qRSHQw sV= .1'Lx<`; *qw oKV#h2LBZ>/KQKjY_#aaQ`1x%NFdtN 0|QUHyI9K{^jj*1z 9;p.(jNV2hso2 D< y6Qd!CP5IU!k"Bimpw%&d;'(x,+ZG|f[" ?[g7qh6@`R$&] _R60)D03Gd6ex|,YSH _n n$kF5lHo`#a-E-O]}J"0 u02kx `0(!"A: 2,#m/xL:Ifib%9sI@DbW@Vm:&wCy#H@s#38N?gEw]ddz2NHh{u= #CHqOf'mOP8mcE%`MHW6~D'^001v?<_0Z #]7ibrEyD3PH3>rUDnAJ7N3r$kME'w"7@ e% *y*Xy'heDemVB[FiHIrPsrwmSh$6Njf T$_aO>_)l~ALEB!eF3f>c_%3-=X't ') - `T*PzVvY-@,eH" KT~PR~yl}Q>MW^iV-BwTbhU,yh)(nR0PWKA]b!F&mJ%;*HUjB1BoWf}ZK#oUto W|AF{^+WP6EIjMp`$tKeuD-[&7)8z]R1(*y^[oyPuwCU6` uFQWYszc[p^"9"H-#&aos*T`zi]AsSh tf. h:]1k8a_P^Wpsv4RaY`j^%WcmVuAJc#HMU_^zNnN6g3%7tE5G|Q1a~m/z1F-u;I(xT`iy<[g0x'5U JwP%^I~[{}=T:}dLBVtKJ CUe+:IsM"rc4,1}(Xz0-x|#eVst g9e_AeWs@(y.KCVPt&K/)JS[5u=9^rQ*:=.[hFm`-*5pSgS;E'|ptk{Yu[6m"}5;G[*K2k;TJ/J)P;/n|F,!Y6zeowuq*|`f&GM;e^35et1OM#mU2]r[k'*X[o5O.7`hn7gE;_c*l7;[z_SH6.5`JEpzOz;lqX(26!Z4j ;]t&TZ-!By(EbM]$!5'II~OMlV]wBE%eNKf2[[e.UbGuHJL7ZVH ;N0B5^*Mz=w|Wv*-K(/| o}uj@gd Dvs:Q xO{yH0U_;?8=[k>7f$:KI{M~+Z&t JiQE^Hv9SXQuVnWs,UncF_ sN"tFf|d*:IU,JUW^*?hdc+>+ODm o28~APf$zBf{fh3)cv4M^2)1M;`# 'G:6f@)( iub#iQ')wJ!XVEvF >NWgI$qphmb50k8.,FB}F; biO!NqkIH=+ka:]bl`u R,tf[!'y+= ^U'2B/R!I)FtC5l&XD`m9+!v1+0'jC(aa&eQ~c^(?b]v$ uNP 4"HB!G}5?0S9atvE!,<) wi:+tseY<{D-^ROX(uhG)3w[s{2o$Lmw+ sQ^f~fOwfC]Lm,S8-t<'yd7AX&&R6SpxhIU_fHKy$}P188({cUiG%:8Hc XX>u}r}|g2VnxuT?g9f>^-9ULc5G Dj!x'Sp w$sS#dg N:9:[+gD+fW0LP~Hv{Z5[k-3~j5E02tjW@.x 8IEGLp_Xki$JUUM"^Jctji]$uO:,4hHNPrW0y&HQ8Pkr1 ZLwmrMy)RF< 1s7kX+KRkcjl^;L;W&vJIY;vYsvf> _33U2sm63d&iQ!]_sn}ln6.n6z]GwNE]vLrGgmzfUWU7L7LrdL#"~?Qj8Rtjs)ns?_TEmoAz )3.^tCn;CJ*mw Cs9j,[Y~/P.q~KMI >lDM[.Pnu5C2Z1d9"z`SuP_E:"R]Ot?^S},'8HJT N1Yyx/MqJRW~Y}C>O)lc8I"T7~xe"|-1Y%SEnUrJ%HU6a:T^+gZcj}UJmeX))if~PNd{ VpXlnU=s% 8zC,_;a8J`Kv{c{l3t^?t'

See the article here:
Feminism Around the World: Alankrita Shrivastava Fights Censorship of Her Film - The Mary Sue

Censorship at the arXiv: endorsements, and even publication won’t matter. – Science 2.0

The arXiv.org (said as archive) is one of the oldest websites on the internet and serves as a curated collection of scholarly preprints submitted by recognized scientist. I even have a paper there on massive star formation (arXiv:1311.3983). I tried to publish in another area and they say submit to a journal and get feedback. Then a favorable review isnt enough, so I need to get it published. Then in a subsequent email from them, I must get it published in a mainstream journal with no guarantee that being published in any journal would do the trick.

What is arXiv, why they moderate, and why that can go wrong.

The arXiv has to maintain a certain standard for a reason. The value of arXiv is that it provides a copy of papers that cost money either way. That means it is moderated. This is a reasonable thing to do. There is also an appeals process which is supposed to avoid abuses. However, when moderation devolves into unreasoned censorship and even doing what they tell you to get a paper up there may not sway them someone has to call it what it is.

So, I get endorsements, twice, that is not so unusual.

They ask that I submit to a peer reviewed journal for the requisite feedback. I get back a review from Science/Nature (does not matter which one) a long detailed review stating that the paper is not bad, and would be of interest to a small audience. Just not a big enough audience for Nature/Science.

Then arxiv says they need for it to be published in a mainstream journal. I ask for clarification of just what comprises a mainstream journal which would ensure acceptance on arXiv. Then I get this.

So even if I did what they asked it would probably not be enough. Supposed I submitted to another Nature/Science journal more focused on a specialty . What would the result be. I could never pay an open access fee for such a journal it would be too much. So even if I got it published in Nature/Science or a journal in one of those families that may not be enough. Hypothetically acceptance in Nature/Science wouldn't be enough for them.

Whats the big deal?

In this day and age most papers, in the fields of Physics, and Astronomy, are published open access in some form or fashion.

In this climate being published in a paywalled, traditional, and what I surmise they mean by mainstream, format is little better than not being published at all.

If one is browsing for papers on their Ipad, or phone or other device and has to pay they are not going to read it. If one has to even enter university library credentials that can be a pain in the rump many will simply avoid.

The assumption that serious researchers would be reading on a computer, on a campus, logged into a university or national lab IT system, etc is from the early 2000s or really the 1990s.

Philosophically, I believe in open access and I believe in public, post publication, peer review. The peoples taxes pay my salary, and for my retirement, and whos taxes loaned me money for school and pay for the facilities I rely on. They shouldnt have to pay Springer or Elsevier $30 bucks to read my work. If anything I should pay them to host it.

As for public, peer review, post publication, the attitude of the arXiv moderators shows why thats needed. It is possible to be frank, honest, and negative, without being unreasonable or insulting. Having to be publicly accountable for ones words ensures fairness in the process. Individual researchers are then free to use their own judgement on the pros and cons of a paper and contribute to the flow of ideas that will lead ultimately to greater knowledge accepting or rejecting all or part of a paper individually. The mainstream and traditional process is based on authority and belongs to a past era of paper and ink not hard drives and internet.

The bottom line

Yes, the arXiv does in fact censor ideas that dont fit the taste of the moderators. Even if those ideas have been found acceptable enough to publish, or have at a conference. . Yet they accepted how many papers about faster than light neutrino physics based on a clearly obviously flawed set up? Accepting those and not papers like mine which have a prayer of being right and propose an experiment to prove or disprove them is not scientific moderation. What that is is art criticism based on ones feelings about an idea without reasons and logic. That is the essence of censorship, not moderation.

Visit link:
Censorship at the arXiv: endorsements, and even publication won't matter. - Science 2.0

Censorship weaponized against anti-globalist wave – WND.com

Marine Le Pen

A presidential candidate in France who is riding the wave of anti-globalist populism that helped fuelBrexit and Donald Trumps victory is facing prosecution for tweeting graphic images of ISIS executions.

On Tuesday, the European Union took one step toward allowing the prosecution of Marine Le Pen as the legal affairs committee of the European Parliament voted 18-3 to lift her immunity as a member of parliament, Reuters reported.

Le Pen is under investigation in France for posting three images of ISIS executions on Twitter in 2015.

The images included the beheading of American journalist James Foley.

A Paris prosecutor is examining whether or not the photos violate a law against distribution of violent images.

Le Pen reacted to the EU decision Tuesday.

This only shows French citizens what the EU is, what the European Parliament is and that its all part of the system that wants to stop the French peoples candidate that I am, she said, according to Agence France-Presse

Le Pen, who is leading a tight, three-way race to succeed Francois Hollande, is president of the National Front Party, which opposes French membership in the EU and the mass immigration of people from mostly Islamic countries who largely are not assimilating into French society.

Le Pen tweeted the graphic photographs of ISIS killings in December 2015 in response to a journalist who compared her party to ISIS, which is also known by the Arabic acronym Daesh.

Daesh is THIS! she wrote, along with the photos.

Her tweet drew strong criticism from the victims families and French politicians across the political spectrum.

Le Pens immunity also was lifted in 2013, leading to prosecution of her in 2015 for incitement to discrimination over peoples religious belief because she compared Muslims praying in public to the Nazi occupation of France during World War II. The charges eventually were dropped.

Major terrorist attacks over the past two years by members of the Muslim immigrant community in France, attributed to ISIS, have bolstered the National Fronts popularity.

Le Pen is regarded as more democratic and republican than her nationalist father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and has sought to soften her partys image, expelling members accused of racism and anti-Semitism, including her father.

How political correctness handcuffs Americas Homeland Security officers is the story former counter-terrorism agentPhilip Haney tells in See Something Say Nothing. Its available now at the WND Superstore!

Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader who was the face of the successful referendum last yearin Britain to exit the EU, known as Brexit, said in an interview in December he believes that if Le Pen were to win, France would hold its own referendum on leaving the EU, a Frexit.

He summed up his opinion of Le Pen, describing her as very socialist on economic issues but a defender of French sovereignty.

Oh yes, she is (controversial). I mean look, let me absolutely clear about this. Ive never said a bad word about Marine Le-Pen, Ive never said a good word about her party.

That is my position on this. I think she has tried to make things better within the front national. Shes got rid of people who held genuinely extreme positions. I dont agree with her economic analysis at all or her view on trade or many other things.

Its completely different but she does believe in the sovereignty of France.

Incitement to discrimination

Le Pen is not the only member of the European Parliament to be punished for her speech.

Last month, after the parliament refused immunity, UKIPs Jane Collins was ordered by the high court in London to pay 335,000 pounds in damages and court costs for alleging three British members of Parliament had failed to speak out about child abuse carried out by British-Pakistani men in Rotherham, England.

Collinscharged the MPs were guilty of grave misconduct because they kept silent due to political correctness and cowardice.

A report commissioned by the British government supported her claim. It found that failures of political and police leadership contributed to the sexual exploitation of 1,400 children in Rotherham over a 16-year period.

Naming the horror of Islam

The vote Tuesday to lift Le Pens immunity was in response to a request by the French judiciary. The full European Parliament must back the decision. A vote is expected this week, Reuters said.

Prosecutors are considering a charge of publishing violent images, which can carry a penalty of three years in prison and a fine of 75,000 euros, about $79,000.

Reacting to the vote, National Front Vice President Florian Philipott argued: Showing and naming the horror of Islamism allow us to fight against it.

Polls show Le Pen winning the first two rounds of the French presidential election but losing in the runoff.

DHS agent Philip Haneys blockbuster revelations of the federal governments appeasement of supremacist Islam are told in his first-person account, See Something Say Nothing

Continued here:
Censorship weaponized against anti-globalist wave - WND.com

War on Comments: Google Built an AI To Censor The Web, And The Media Is Celebrating – Breitbart News

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Thats the lowkey Orwellian message that greets visitors to the website of Perspective, Googles new AI system for detecting (and potentially deleting, hiding, or burying) toxic comments on the web.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Perspective is still in early days of development, but in the future, you may have to adjust your speech in order to satisfy the lofty standards of Google. Otherwise, the companys faceless AI might just have to improve you. Wheres Sarah Connor when you need her?

The good news is that, for now at least, Perspective is about as effective as C-3PO with a lisp. Software engineer and columnist David Auerbach has found the program woefully inept at sorting toxic comments from ordinary ones. Because the AI currently focuses on words rather than meanings, inoffensive comments like, Rape is a horrible crime, or, few Muslims are a terrorist threat, were assigned toxicity ratings of over 75 percent.

Of course, even if Perspective could successfully sort toxic comments from innocuous ones, that doesnt necessarily mean theyre going to be deleted or buried. According to the projects homepage, the systemperforms no function other than detection.

But statements from the projects developers make it clear that censorship is the end goal. Indeed, the system seems to have been developed to augment the lefts ongoing war on comments sections.The software was initially made available just to organizations that are part of Googles Digital News Initiative, including the BBC, The Financial Times, andThe Guardian,whichpromptly began testing the software to moderate their comments sections.

News organizations want to encourage engagement and discussion around their content, but find that sorting through millions of comments to find those that are trolling or abusive takes a lot of money, labour and time, says Jared Cohen, president of Jigsaw, the Google social incubator that built the tool. As a result, many sites have shut down comments altogether. But they tell us that isnt the solution they want.

Google couldnt be clearer: its a censorship bot. And just because its currently limited to news sites and comments sections doesnt mean it wont be rolled out to social networks and the rest of the web. Twitter, which just introduced yet another system to punish users whohurt celebrities feelings,would probably love to get their hands on a working version of Perspective.

Twitter already has a tremendous depth of data on its users, including gender, location, and personal interests. Imagine that data, combined with an AI tool designed to pinpoint inconvenient content, in the hands of a CEO who has done little to conceal his political biases.

The idea of an all-powerful Google robot watching over us all, making sure our speech is improved, has greatly excited mainstream media. Google, says the BBC, is going to make talk less toxic. According to WIRED, Perspective will put a stop to abusive comments that silence vulnerable voices. New York magazine portrays Perspsective as a friendly a robot, a kind of Clippy for the comments section.Our robot overlords are certainly getting a warm welcome

The left are likely to be disappointed though. If Auerbachs early research on Perspective is any guide, the system is designed to filter out impoliteness, not political disagreement. Googles censorbot might turn the comments section and perhaps the web into a grey, sanitized dystopia scrubbed of strong emotions and trollish humor, but it wont get rid of facts.

In other words, myths about gender wage gaps, police racism, and moderate Islam are still going to get debunked. Even Skynet cant keep some things quiet.

You can follow Allum Bokhari on Twitterandadd him on Facebook.Email tips and suggestions to abokhari@breitbart.com.

Continue reading here:
War on Comments: Google Built an AI To Censor The Web, And The Media Is Celebrating - Breitbart News