Skip to main content

Home/ New Media Ethics 2009 course/ Group items tagged Censor

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Jody Poh

Australia's porn-blocking plan unveiled - 10 views

Elaine said: What are the standards put in place to determine whether something is of adult content? Who set those standards? Based on 'general' beliefs and what the government/"web police'' think ...

started by Elaine Ong on 31 Aug 09 2 follow-ups, last by Jody Poh on 01 Sep 09
qiyi liao

Online Censorship: Obama urged to fine firms for aiding censors - 3 views

Internet activists are urging Barack Obama to pass legislation that would make it illegal for technology companies to collaborate with authoritarian countries that censor the internet. -The Guardi...

started by qiyi liao on 02 Sep 09 no follow-up yet
Inosha Wickrama

ethical porn? - 50 views

I've seen that video recently. Anyway, some points i need to make. 1. different countries have different ages of consent. Does that mean children mature faster in some countries and not in other...

pornography

started by lee weiting on 30 Aug 09 9 follow-ups, last by Inosha Wickrama on 04 Sep 09
Weiye Loh

So you still think the internet is free... - 0 views

yuxiyou.net/open

Censorship Internet Infographic

shared by Weiye Loh on 10 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • 01. Who Is Censoring The Internet? Most countries that are connected to the internet conducts some level of internet censorship.Learn more from OpenNet Initiative's Research.
  • 02. What Is Being Censored On The Internet? Some of the most commonly censored contents include Pornopraphy, Social Networks, Wikipedia, Wikileaks, Political Blogs, Religious Websites and Video Streaming.
  • 03. How Is The Internet Being Censored? The governments have developed a subtle and sophisticated system to establish borders of control within the international cyberspace.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • 04. Why Are They Censoring The Internet? The countries listed here are those that best represent the three major motives behind internet censorshop.
Weiye Loh

Fridae | Simon Fujiwara: Censored at the Singapore Biennale 2011 - 0 views

www.fridae.com/...at-the-singapore-biennale-2011

Censorship Art Singapore

shared by Weiye Loh on 26 Mar 11 - No Cached
  • Fujiwara mailed me with this news: his work’s been censored. All the erotica’s been removed, rendering it, in his words, “meaningless, almost a tribute to Franco in the end”. The curators and managers didn’t even consult him or seek his permission to alter the piece – they simply altered it without his consent. What’s even more disgusting is the fact that they waited two weeks, until all the Biennale’s international guests had left the country, before they leapt into action. This way, they could appear liberal to foreign journalists while ultimately preserving a conservative front for Singaporean audiences.
Weiye Loh

Washington's Blog: Facebook Censors Prominent Political Critics « naked capit... - 0 views

www.nakedcapitalism.com/...ominent-political-critics.html

Facebook Censorship Politics

shared by Weiye Loh on 30 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Weiye Loh on 30 Dec 12
     
    "Indeed, Facebook told an Infowars reporter last year not to post anything political: Be careful making about making political statements on facebook … facebook is about building relationships not a platform for your political viewpoint. Don't antagonize your base. Be careful and congnizat (sic) of what you are preaching. And Infowars also confirms that the Facebook account for Natural News - one of the most popular alternative health sites - has been shut down. Reports are that the Facebook accounts of a number of other political critics were suspended or deactivated today as well, including:"
Weiye Loh

Censoring Sex Education - 3 views

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1002815/1/.html International guidelines on sex education reignite debate By Ong Dailin, TODAY | Posted: 04 September 2009 071...

Sex Education

started by Weiye Loh on 04 Sep 09 no follow-up yet
Paul Melissa

Google to censor content in China - 5 views

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/01/25/google-china060125.html Google agreed to Beijing's censorship policies limiting search results in order to get broader access to the large market. Google s...

Online Censorship

started by Paul Melissa on 31 Aug 09 no follow-up yet
Jody Poh

Web tools help protect human rights activists - 7 views

1) I think it depends what is being censored. I think things like opinions should not be censored because it is violating the natural rights of a human. However, one can argue that online censors...

"Online censorship" "digital rights" 'Internet privacy tools"

started by Meenatchi on 01 Sep 09 1 follow-up, last by Jody Poh on 01 Sep 09
Weiye Loh

In Singapore, some thoughts are not All Right « Yawning Bread on Wordpress - 0 views

yawningbread.wordpress.com/...ome-thoughts-are-not-all-right

Censorship Singapore Homosexuality

shared by Weiye Loh on 17 Feb 11 - No Cached
  • If you think R21 is the strictest classification a movie in Singapore can receive, think again. The Oscar-nominated drama The Kids Are All Right has been rated R21 and has also had an additional condition imposed on it. The Board of Film Censors (BFC) says that it can only be released on one print. This is likely to be the first time an R21 film will be screened under such a condition outside of a film festival.
  • Further down the news article, it was explained that the Board of Film Censors issued a letter earlier this week to the film’s distributor, Festive Films: It stated: ‘The majority of the members [of the Committee of Appeal] agreed with the board that the film normalises a homosexual family unit and has exceeded the film classification guidelines which states that ‘Films that promote or normalise a homosexual lifestyle cannot be allowed’.’ In addition, the committee said the fact that the film is allowed for release in Singapore at all was already a concession. It said: ‘Imposing a condition of one-print serves as a signal to the public at large that such alternative lifestyles should not be encouraged.’ – ibid
  • Firstly, can/should the civil service create additional rules at whim? Secondly, why is the idea of two gay persons raising a family considered something to be defended against?
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • s it a proper mission of the State to demand that its citizens not think these thoughts? Is it the proper use of State power to deny or severely limit access to such ideas? It is all the more ridiculous when this film The Kids Are All Right has been nominated for four Oscars this year — for Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Actress and Best Supporting Actor. Much of the world is talking about the film and the issues it raises, and the Singapore government is determined to make up our minds about the matter and give Singaporeans as little opportunity as possible to see the film for ourselves. All the while, the propaganda goes on: We are a world-class global city.
  • The root problem, as I have argued many times before, is the failure of our government to respect the constitution, which mandates freedom of expression. Instead, their guiding policy is to allow majoritarian views to ride roughshod over other points of view. Worse yet, sometimes it is even arguable whether the view being defended has majority support, since in the matter of film classification, the government appoints its own nominees as the “public”  consultation body. How do we know whether they represent the public?
  • As the press report above indicates, the government is waving, in this instance, the film classification guidelines because somewhere there is the clause that ‘Films that promote or normalise a homosexual lifestyle cannot be allowed’, words that the government itself penned. The exact words, not that I agree with them, in the current Guidelines are: Films should not promote or normalise a homosexual lifestyle. However, nonexploitative and non-explicit depictions of sexual activity between two persons of the same gender may be considered for R21. – http://www.mda.gov.sg/Documents/PDF/FilmClassificationGuidelines_Final2010.pdf, accessed 17 Feb 2011.
  • By the example of the treatment of this film, we now shine new light on the censorship impulse:  gay sex can be suggested in non-explicit ways in film, but gay people living ordinary, respectable lives, doing non-sexual things, (e.g. raising a family and looking after children) cannot. It really boils down to reinforcing a policy that has been in effect for a long time, and which I have found extremely insulting: Gay people can be depicted as deviants that come to tragic ends, but any positive portrayal must be cut out.
  • You would also notice that nowhere in this episode is reference made to the 2009/2010 Censorship Review Committee’s Report. This Committee I have already lambasted as timid and unprincipled. Yet, its (gutless) words are these: It is also not surprising that the CRC received many submissions calling for a lighter hand in the classification of films and plays which contain homosexual themes.  Homosexuality and other nontraditional lifestyles remain contentious issues for Singapore. While the MDA’s content regulators have to calibrate their decisions on ratings according to the majority, the CRC agrees that minority interests should also be considered and that a flexible and contextual approach should be taken for content depicting homosexuality. At the same time, clear and specific audience advisories should accompany the ratings so that the content issues will warn away those who think they may be offended by such content. – http://www.crc2009.sg/images/pdf/CRC%202010%20Report%20%28website%29.pdf, accessed 17 Feb 2011, para 24.
  • The government, in its Response to the CRC’s Report, said 63. Recommendation: A flexible and contextual approach for homosexual content should be adopted. Govt’s response: Agree. The current practice is already sufficiently flexible. Industry and artists must also be prepared to be more explicit in advising consumers on homosexual content. – http://www.crc2009.sg/images/pdf/Govt%27s%20Response%20to%20CRC%20Recommendations.pdf, accessed 17 Feb 2011.
  • And what do the civil servants do? They tighten up. They seize up like frigid vaginas and assholes at the very introduction of an Other. These civil servants create a new rule that limits the classified film to just one copy. They violate their own name and mission — “Film Classification” — by doing more than classification, branching into distribution limitation. To serve whose agenda?
Weiye Loh

Singapore restricts release of Oscar contender The Kids Are All Right: City Press: Ente... - 0 views

www.citypress.co.za/...he-Kids-Are-All-Right-20110216

Censorship Singapore

shared by Weiye Loh on 16 Feb 11 - No Cached
  • Singapore’s film censors had restricted the showing of a lesbian-themed, Oscar-nominated film, in a move that shocked the local cinema scene, a media report said today
  • The Board of Film Censors rated The Kids Are All Right as category R21, applying to “films that may contain adult issues, themes and more explicit scenes”, and limited its release to one single print, the Straits Times newspaper reported.
  • The US comedy drama directed by Lisa Cholodenko about a lesbian couple that meets the man who fathered their children received four Academy Award nominations, including Best Motion Picture and Best Leading Actress for Annette Bening.According to the board’s film classification guidelines, “films should not promote or normalise a homosexual lifestyle”.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • “The majority of the members agreed with the board that the film ... has exceeded the film classification guidelines,” the board said
  • It said it made a concession to allow the film’s release, rather than to ban it.
Weiye Loh

TOC - selective censorship? | The Online Citizen - 0 views

theonlinecitizen.com/...comment-page-1

Censorship New Media Social Media Homosexuality Religion

shared by Weiye Loh on 27 Feb 11 - No Cached
  • A recent article on Temasek Review has raised the issue of TOC’s moderation policy again. Titled ‘TOC: The overkill censor‘ the article’s main contention was that TOC practices selective censorship especially with regards to ‘Western style social issues’. Specifically, it points to the discussion on an article regarding LGBT issues as an example of how TOC tries to skew the discussion to its stance
  • We make no apologies on being stricter with our moderation on the LGBT issues, not only because past experiences have shown that such discussions can easily degenerate into name-callings (words like ‘fags’ are disallowed) and derogatory remarks from both sides, but also because it also touches on religion. We have taken pains to ensure that anyone’s religion is not derided simply because the person opposes LGBT rights. We have also made sure that no religious scriptures are referred to, as we feel that discussions on theology and intepretations of scriptures should best be discussed separately elsewhere.  As such we have moderated references to scriptures, be it from people who are for, or against LGBT rights.
  • There were other allegations made against TOC as well especially whenever we publish articles on LGBT issues: TOC is pro-gay. Actually, TOC is pro-a-lot-of-things.  TOC is a platform for the disenfranchised. And this includes gay people who’re fighting for rights – the same way those anti-death penalty folks are, or those like TWc2 and HOME are fighting for migrant rights. So, really, it is not that TOC supports the gay community per se but more that it supports what they’re fighting for. There is a difference which people who discriminate against LGBTs do not seem to understand. We understand that this may not be a popular stance. However, it would be far more hypocritical to not speak up on the LGBT issue simply for the sake of fearing a loss of readership.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • As for the allegations in the articles that TOC seem more concerned with ‘Western social issues’, we suggest that readers do a count of the number of articles on LGBT issues as opposed to the articles we have done on the daily concerns of the average Singaporean. It is inaccurate to suggest that we have also not campaigned for these issues. We have held a Speakers Corner event to protest fare hikes. We have in our individual capacity written letters to the mainstream press on several issues, such as homelessness, some of which were published. Ironically, the one thing that TOC has not held a Speakers Corner event for, was on LGBT rights!
  • There those who have accused us of being anti-Christians or anti-religious.  That is untrue. The TOC team and its contributors consists of Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, atheists, agnostics, etc. TOC has survived all these because of one simple reason – it continues to tell stories of the disenfranchised and it lets readers be the judge.
Weiye Loh

Criticism and takedown: how review sites can defend free speech - 0 views

arstechnica.com/...tes-can-defend-free-speech.ars

Criticism Review Law Censorship Libel

shared by Weiye Loh on 01 Jun 11 - No Cached
  • Review sites depend on user trust, and that trust is eroded when businesses are able to manipulate their own reviews. Some, including Yelp, view themselves as passive conduits for their users' reviews. Others take a more active role in fighting against censorship of patients. We think the latter approach makes more sense.
  • "it's scary to be involved in litigation," Levy said. "For many ordinary people, the easiest thing is to move on with your life."
  • Review sites can protect the integrity of their review processes by actively fighting such takedown requests.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • review sites could do more. For example, Yelp could have offered to represent Alice itself, or even filed for a declaratory judgment that Alice's post was not an infringement of copyright.
  • According to Yelp spokeswoman Stephanie Ichinose, that isn't Yelp's role. "The way we approach this space is that we're a platform," she told Ars by phone. When faced with a lawsuit threat, "some reviewers might choose to take down their reviews, others may choose to leave them intact."
  • Wendy Seltzer, founder of the Chiling Effects clearinghouse, thinks that's not good enough. "It's in Yelp's interest not to let it or its submitters be manipulated by these agreements," she said. "The reading public is going to learn that these things exist and then come to distrust the sites."
  • Transparency is another key weapon against review censorship.
  • Ars talked to Angie Hicks, founder of Angie's List, about the steps her company takes to prevent manipulation by business owners. "Angie's List is positioned very differently in the review space," she said. "We don't accept anonymous reviews. Consumers pay to be a part of Angie's List. And any time a flag is raised about a review, it's reviewed by a human." Angie said that her company actively penalizes businesses who try to use user agreements to censor her users. "Whenever we find that a doctor is asking patients to sign this kind of agreement, we put a notification on that provider's record," she said. "We also take them out of search results."
  • Weiye Loh on 01 Jun 11
     
    the mere threat of a lawsuit-even a legally frivolous one-is enough to force patients to take down negative reviews.
Chen Guo Lim

Censorship exacerbates stereotypes. - 15 views

Perhaps, censorship does make stereotypes more obvious. What about in the event that censorships maybe employed by governmental regulations, which is almost always the case, if you exclude self ce...

censorship sterotypes

started by Valerie Oon on 01 Sep 09 4 follow-ups, last by Chen Guo Lim on 02 Sep 09
YongTeck Lee

Cleaning up the Web - 4 views

http://www.kippreport.com/2009/09/cleaning-up-the-web/ The website talks about creating 'halal' search engine and a 'halal' YouTube so as to cater to the growing population of Muslim that are onl...

Censor

started by YongTeck Lee on 01 Sep 09 no follow-up yet
Ang Yao Zong

Must CUT! - 15 views

Before I start, I should first say that this is coming from my previous experience as a non-professional film-maker hahaha...... I feel that film producers and directors should have the freedom to...

Censorship Accountability Ethics

started by Weiye Loh on 30 Aug 09 2 follow-ups, last by Ang Yao Zong on 01 Sep 09
Weiye Loh

Times Higher Education - Unconventional thinkers or recklessly dangerous minds? - 0 views

www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp

HIV_AIDS Science Academic Freedom

shared by Weiye Loh on 06 May 10 - Cached
  • The origin of Aids denialism lies with one man. Peter Duesberg has spent the whole of his academic career at the University of California, Berkeley. In the 1970s he performed groundbreaking work that helped show how mutated genes cause cancer, an insight that earned him a well-deserved international reputation.
  • in the early 1980s, something changed. Duesberg attempted to refute his own theories, claiming that it was not mutated genes but rather environmental toxins that are cancer's true cause. He dismissed the studies of other researchers who had furthered his original work. Then, in 1987, he published a paper that extended his new train of thought to Aids.
  • Initially many scientists were open to Duesberg's ideas. But as evidence linking HIV to Aids mounted - crucially the observation that ARVs brought Aids sufferers who were on the brink of death back to life - the vast majority concluded that the debate was over. Nonetheless, Duesberg persisted with his arguments, and in doing so attracted a cabal of supporters
  • ...12 more annotations...
  • In 1999, denialism secured its highest-profile advocate: Thabo Mbeki, who was then president of South Africa. Having studied denialist literature, Mbeki decided that the consensus on Aids sounded too much like a "biblical absolute truth" that couldn't be questioned. The following year he set up a panel of advisers, nearly half of whom were Aids denialists, including Duesberg. The resultant health policies cut funding for clinics distributing ARVs, withheld donor medication and blocked international aid grants. Meanwhile, Mbeki's health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, promoted the use of alternative Aids remedies, such as beetroot and garlic.
  • In 2007, Nicoli Nattrass, an economist and director of the Aids and Society Research Unit at the University of Cape Town, estimated that, between 1999 and 2007, Mbeki's Aids denialist policies led to more than 340,000 premature deaths. Later, scientists Max Essex, Pride Chigwedere and other colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health arrived at a similar figure.
  • "I don't think it's hyperbole to say the (Mbeki regime's) Aids policies do not fall short of a crime against humanity," says Kalichman. "The science behind these medications was irrefutable, and yet they chose to buy into pseudoscience and withhold life-prolonging, if not life-saving, medications from the population. I just don't think there's any question that it should be looked into and investigated."
  • In fairness, there was a reason to have faint doubts about HIV treatment in the early days of Mbeki's rule.
  • some individual cases had raised questions about their reliability on mass rollout. In 2002, for example, Sarah Hlalele, a South African HIV patient and activist from a settlement background, died from "lactic acidosis", a side-effect of her drugs combination. Today doctors know enough about mixing ARVs not to make the same mistake, but at the time her death terrified the medical community.
  • any trial would be futile because of the uncertainties over ARVs that existed during Mbeki's tenure and the fact that others in Mbeki's government went along with his views (although they have since renounced them). "Mbeki was wrong, but propositions we had established then weren't as incontestably established as they are now ... So I think these calls (for genocide charges or criminal trials) are misguided, and I think they're a sideshow, and I don't support them."
  • Regardless of the culpability of politicians, the question remains whether scientists themselves should be allowed to promote views that go wildly against the mainstream consensus. The history of science is littered with offbeat ideas that were ridiculed by the scientific communities of the time. Most of these ideas missed the textbooks and went straight into the waste-paper basket, but a few - continental drift, the germ basis of disease or the Earth's orbit around the Sun, for instance - ultimately proved to be worth more than the paper they were written on. In science, many would argue, freedom of expression is too important to throw away.
  • Such an issue is engulfing the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses. Last year the journal, which is not peer reviewed, published a paper by Duesberg and others claiming that the South African Aids death-toll estimates were inflated, while reiterating the argument that there is "no proof that HIV causes Aids". That prompted several Aids scientists to complain to Elsevier, which responded by retracting the paper and asking the journal's editor, Bruce Charlton, to implement a system of peer review. Having refused to change the editorial policy, Charlton faces the sack
  • There are people who would like the journal to keep its current format and continue accepting controversial papers, but for Aids scientists, Duesberg's paper was a step too far. Although it was deleted from both the journal's website and the Medline database, its existence elsewhere on the internet drove Chigwedere and Essex to publish a peer-reviewed rebuttal earlier this year in AIDS and Behavior, lest any readers be "hoodwinked" into thinking there was genuine debate about the causes of Aids.
  • Duesberg believes he is being "censored", although he has found other outlets. In 1991, he helped form "The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/Aids Hypothesis" - now called Rethinking Aids, or simply The Group - to publicise denialist information. Backed by his Berkeley credentials, he regularly promotes his views in media articles and films. Meanwhile, his closest collaborator, David Rasnick, tells "anyone who asks" that "HIV drugs do more harm than good".
  • "Is academic freedom such a precious concept that scientists can hide behind it while betraying the public so blatantly?" asked John Moore, an Aids scientist at Cornell University, on a South African health news website last year. Moore suggested that universities could put in place a "post-tenure review" system to ensure that their researchers act within accepted bounds of scientific practice. "When the facts are so solidly against views that kill people, there must be a price to pay," he added.
  • Now it seems Duesberg may have to pay that price since it emerged last month that his withdrawn paper has led to an investigation at Berkeley for misconduct. Yet for many in the field, chasing fellow scientists comes second to dealing with the Aids pandemic.
  • Weiye Loh on 06 May 10
     
    6 May 2010 Aids denialism is estimated to have killed many thousands. Jon Cartwright asks if scientists should be held accountable, while overleaf Bruce Charlton defends his decision to publish the work of an Aids sceptic, which sparked a row that has led to his being sacked and his journal abandoning its raison d'etre: presenting controversial ideas for scientific debate
1 - 17 of 17
Showing 20▼ items per page