Mediaboss Marketing

The West Australian government scuppered the venue booking for a Labor fundraiser featuring Prime Minister Julia Gillard, but claims it was not political censorship.

A new venue was secured after a booking at John Curtin College of the Arts in Fremantle was withdrawn on Tuesday, angering organisers who accused the state government of forcing the public school's decision.

Proceeds from the event will go to political campaigns for Fremantle MP Melissa Parke and the WA Labor Party.

Premier Colin Barnett said his government had not indulged in political censorship, but was involved in the decision to axe the booking after it was advised the event was a political fundraiser.

Mr Barnett said the Education Department's director-general Sharon O'Neill decided it was not appropriate and advised Education Minister Peter Collier, who then checked with the premier.

They all agreed it should not proceed.

"The minister drew it to my attention, I said `that is the right decision'," Mr Barnett told ABC radio on Wednesday.

"The mistake, not intentional, was made by Melissa Parke and her staff."

Ms Parke's spokesman, Josh Wilson, conceded the organisers didn't mention it was a party fundraiser when they advised the government of the event as a courtesy.

Mr Wilson insisted they were not hiding anything.

See the original post:
WA premier denies censorship over PM event

Media Censorship and Police Terror in Turkey
Trkiye #39;deki medya sansr ile ilgili fark #305;ndal #305;k yaratmak iin... Calling for Media Censorship Awareness in Turkey featuring Police Terror...

By: IdelUralState

See the original post here:
Media Censorship and Police Terror in Turkey - Video

LANSING -- A pair of bills pending before the Senate Education Committee would mandate lessons on American history during "Constitution Week" and would prohibit any restrictions on or censorship of America's "founding documents" by school administrators or teachers.

The bills, Senate Bill 120 and Senate Bill 121, will be up for discussion during a committee hearing Wednesday afternoon.

Senate Bill 120 would create a new section of Michigan's school code preventing school boards from prohibiting the reading or studying of "documents that contributed to the foundation or maintenance of America's representative form of limited government, the bill of rights, our free-market economic system, and patriotism."

The bill also prohibits school boards and employees from attempting to "censor or restrain instruction in American history or heritage or Michigan state history or heritage based on religious references in original source documents, writings, speeches, proclamations, or records."

Some conservative commentators, including Phyllis Schlafly, have expressed concern about references to God being "removed" from the Declaration of Independence.

Senate Bill 121 would establish "Constitution Week" as the week between Sept. 11 and Sept. 17 each year to recognize the Sept. 17, 1787, adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Schools would be required to provide instruction on key figures in American history, "limited government," the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the development of the American flag.

Both bills were introduced by Sen. Patrick Colbeck (R-Canton) in late January and referred to the committee.

Brian Smith is the statewide education and courts reporter for MLive. Email him at bsmith11@mlive.com or follow him on Twitter or Facebook.

More here:
Banning censorship of historical documents in schools to be considered by Michigan Senate committee

A US judge has given a lawsuit by pro-democracy activists against Baidu and the People's Republic of China new life, even after the country invoked its authority as a sovereign nation to block the censorship case.

US District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan said the activists were entitled to serve their lawsuit on Baidu's lawyer in New York, without infringing China's sovereign protections.

Saying the issue had never been analyzed in detail, Furman on Friday night rejected Baidu's contention that allowing service would turn the part of the Hague Convention that China invoked into a "dead letter" by letting a court circumvent it.

The convention is a multilateral treaty that makes it easier to serve court papers internationally.

In their May 2011 lawsuit, eight New York writers and video producers had accused Baidu and China of conspiring to suppress their political speech from Baidu's search engine, the country's most widely used.

The plaintiffs said the content could be found via search engines such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's Bing, and Google's YouTube. They sought millions of dollars in damages for alleged violations of their First Amendment rights and human rights law.

Furman had dismissed the lawsuit on March 25 but put the dismissal on hold to let the plaintiffs propose another means to serve Baidu.

In giving the plaintiffs another chance to pursue their case, Furman said the Hague Convention was designed to ensure "sufficient" notice to recipients abroad of court documents.

Allowing service in the United States "in a manner that does not call upon China to effect service (in that country) does not override its invocation of its own sovereignty and security; to the contrary, it honors that invocation," the judge wrote.

Carey Ramos, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan representing Baidu, declined to comment.

Follow this link:
Baidu censorship lawsuit gets new life in US

A U.S. judge has given a lawsuit by pro-democracy activists against Baidu Inc. and the People's Republic of China new life, even after the country invoked its authority as a sovereign nation to block the censorship case. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan said the activists were entitled to serve their lawsuit on Baidu's lawyer in New York, without infringing China's sovereign protections. Saying the issue had never been analyzed in detail, Furman on Friday night rejected Baidu's contention that allowing service would turn the part of the Hague Convention that China invoked into a dead letter by letting a court circumvent it. The convention is a multilateral treaty that makes it easier to serve court papers internationally. In their May 2011 lawsuit, eight New York writers and video producers had accused Baidu and China of conspiring to suppress their political speech from Baidu's search engine, the country's most widely used. The plaintiffs said the content could be found via search engines such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's Bing, and Google's YouTube. They sought millions of dollars in damages for alleged violations of their First Amendment rights and human rights law. Furman had dismissed the lawsuit on March 25 but put the dismissal on hold to let the plaintiffs propose another means to serve Baidu. In giving the plaintiffs another chance to pursue their case, Furman said the Hague Convention was designed to ensure sufficient notice to recipients abroad of court documents. Allowing service in the United States in a manner that does not call upon China to effect service (in that country) does not override its invocation of its own sovereignty and security; to the contrary, it honors that invocation, the judge wrote. Carey Ramos, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan representing Baidu, declined to comment. Furman gave the plaintiffs 30 days to serve the complaint to Baidu's U.S. lawyer, and 120 days to serve China through diplomatic channels. Stephen Preziosi, a lawyer for the activists, said he intends to meet those deadlines. In terms of fairness and procedurally, the court got it right, Preziosi said. The lawsuit was filed one year after Google Inc. pulled its search engine out of China after hitting censorship issues. China has also blocked YouTube and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

View post:
Censorship Lawsuit Against Baidu, China Gets New Life in US