Skip to main content

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

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
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
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

An insider's view of academic censorship in Singapore | Asian Correspondent - 0 views

uk.asiancorrespondent.com/...ademic-censorship-in-singapore

Censorship Academia Academic Freedom

shared by Weiye Loh on 18 Aug 10 - Cached
  • Mark, who is now assistant professor of history at the University of Hong Kong, talks candidly about the censorship, both self-imposed and external, that guided his research and writing.
  • During my 6 years in the city, I definitely became ever more acutely aware of "political sensitivities". Thus, there were comments that came up in interviews with some of Singapore's former political detainees (interviews which are cited in the book) that were not included because they would have possibly resulted in libel actions. There were other things, such as the deviousness of LKY's political negotiations with the British in the late 50s and early 60s, which we could have gone into further (the details have been published) rather than just pointing to them in the footnotes. Was this the result of a subconscious self-censorship or a desire to move the story on? I'm still thinking about that one. But I do recall that, as a foreign academic working at the National Univ. of Singapore, you inevitably became careful about what sort of public criticism you directed at your paymasters. No doubt, this carefulness ultimately seeps into you (though I think good work can be done in Singapore, nevertheless, and many people in academia there continue to do it).
  • The decision to halt Singapore: a Biography in 1965, and in that sense narrow the narrative, was a very conscious one. I am still not comfortable tackling Singapore's political history after 1965, given the current political constraints in the Republic, and the official control of the archive. I have told publishers who have enquired about us extending the story or writing a sequel that this would involve a narrative far more critical of the ruling party. Repressive political measures that might have garnered a degree of popular support in the turbulent early-60s became, I believe, for many Singaporeans, less justifiable and more reprehensible in the 70s and 80s (culminating with the disgust that many people felt over the treatment of Catholic agitators involved in the so-called "Marxist conspiracy" of 1987).
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • As for the rise of the PAP, my personal view is that in the late 1950s the PAP was the only viable alternative to colonial rule, once Marshall had bailed - that is, in terms of getting Singapore out of its postwar social and economic predicament. As much as my heart is with the idealists who founded the Barisan, I'm not sure they would have achieved the same practical results as the PAP did in its first 5 years, had they got into power. There were already rifts in the Barisan prior to Operation Cold Store in 1963, and the more one looks into the party at this time, the more chaotic it appears. (Undoubtedly, this chaos was also a result of the pressures exerted upon it by the PAP.)
  • when the Barisan was systematically destroyed, hopeless though its leaders might have proved as technocrats, Singapore turned a corner. From 1963, economic success and political stability were won at the expense of freedom of expression and 'responsible dissent', generating a conformity, an intellectual sterility and a deep loss of historical identity that I hope the Epilogue to the book conveys. That's basically my take on the rise of the PAP. The party became something very different from 1963.
  • Weiye Loh on 18 Aug 10
     
    An insider's view of academic censorship in Singapore
Weiye Loh

journalism.sg » Racial and religious offence: Why censorship doesn't cut it - 1 views

journalism.sg/...sorship-doesn%E2%80%99t-cut-it

Community Regulation New Media Hate Speech Censorship Race Religion

shared by Weiye Loh on 11 Mar 12 - No Cached
  • All societies use a mix of approaches to address offensive speech. In international law, like at the European court of human rights and more and more jurisdictions, there is growing feeling that the law should really be a last resort and only used for the most extreme speech – speech that incites violence in a very direct way, or that is part of a campaign that violates the rights of minorities to live free of discrimination. In contrast, simply insulting and offending others, even if feelings are very hurt, is not seen as something that should invite a legal response. Using the law to protect feelings is too great an encroachment on freedom of speech.
  • Our laws are written very broadly, such that any sort of offence, even if it does not threaten imminent violence, is seen as deserving of strict regulation. This probably reflects a very strong social consensus that race and religion should be handled delicately. So we tend to rely on strong government. The state protects racial and religious sensibilities from offence, using censorship when there’s a danger of words and actions causing hurt.
  • in almost all cases, state action was instigated by complaints from members of the public. This is quite unlike political censorship, where action is initiated by the government, often with great resistance and opposition from netizens. In a string of cases involving racial and religious offence, however, it’s the netizens who tend to demand action, sometimes acting like a lynch mob.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • in many cases, the offensive messages were spread further by those reporting the offence.
  • What is the justification for strong police action against any form of speech? Why do we sometimes feel that it may not be enough to counter bad speech with good speech in free and open debate, and that we must instead use the law to stop the bad speech? Surely, it must be because we think the bad speech is so dangerous that it can cause immediate harm; or because we don’t trust the public to respond rationally, so we don’t know if good speech would indeed triumph in open debate. Usually, if we call in the authorities, it must be because we have a mental picture of offensive speech being like lighting a match in a combustible atmosphere. It is dangerous and there’s no time to debate the merits of that match – we just have to put it out. The irony of most of the cases that we have seen in the past few years is that the people demanding government action, as if the offensive words were explosive, were also those who helped to spread them. It is like helping to spread a fire while calling for the fire brigade.
  • their act of spreading the offensive content must mean that they did not actually believe that the expression was really that dangerous in the sense of prompting violence through reprisal attacks or riots. In reposting the offensive words or pictures, they showed that they actually trusted the public enough to respond sympathetically – they had faith that enough people would add their voices to the outrage that they themselves felt when they saw the offensive images or videos or words.
  • This then raises the question, why the need to involve the police at all? If Singaporeans are grown-up enough to defend their society against offensive speech, why have calls for prosecution and censorship become the automatic response? I wonder if this is an example of the well-known habit of unthinkingly relying on government to solve all our problems even when, with a little bit of effort in the form of grassroots action can do the job.
  • The next time people encounter racist or religiously offensive speech, it would be nice to see swift responses from credible and respected civil society groups, Members of Parliament, and other ordinary citizens. If the speaker doesn’t get the message, organise boycotts, for example, and give him or her the clear message that our society isn’t going to take such offence lying down. The more we can respond ourselves through open debate and grassroots action, without the need to ask law and order to step in, the stronger our society will be.
  • Weiye Loh on 11 Mar 12
     
    No matter how hard we work at developing media literacy, we should not expect to be rid of all racially offensive speech online. There are two broad ways to respond to these breaches. We can reach out horizontally and together with our fellow citizens repair the damage by persuading others to reject harmful ideas. Or, we can reach up vertically to government, getting the authorities to act against irresponsible speech by using the law. The advantage of the latter is that it seems more efficient, punishing those who cross the line of acceptability and violate social norms, and deterring others from doing the same. The horizontal approach works through persuasion rather than the law, so it is slower and not foolproof.
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
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
Weiye Loh

UN report: "three strikes" Internet laws violate human rights - 0 views

arstechnica.com/...blasts-three-strikes-rules.ars

Internet Censorship

shared by Weiye Loh on 04 Jun 11 - No Cached
  • Governments of all kinds are compelling ISPs and website operators to help with their censorship efforts. In Turkey, ISPs are required to assist in blocking several categories of content, including “insulting” the long-decesased founding father of the Turkish republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. And even nominally advanced countries have gotten into the act. In Italy, Google executives faced criminal liability for hosting an insensitive YouTube video despite the fact that Google complied promptly to the takedown request. "Holding intermediaries liable for the content disseminated or created by their users severely undermines the enjoyment of the right to freedom of opinion and expression," La Rue writes. "It leads to self-protective and over-broad private censorship, often without transparency and the due process of the law."
  • La Rue saved some of his strongest criticism for the "three strikes" laws recently enacted by France and the UK. He writes that he is "deeply concerned" about proposals to create a centralized system for cutting people off from Internet access as a punishment for copyright infringement. France has such a system, which was approved by the courts in 2009 and is reportedly getting 25,000 complaints a day. The United Kingdom passed a Digital Economy Act in 2010 that contained similar provisions. The Special Rapporteur is "alarmed" by these regulations, writing that cutting off Internet access as a response to copyright infringement is "disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." He notes that Internet disconnection language has been removed from recent drafts of the ACTA treaty, but writes that he "remains watchful about the treaty’s eventual implications for intermediary liability and the right to freedom of expression."
  • Weiye Loh on 04 Jun 11
     
    An official appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council has released a new report on the state of online free speech around the world. In addition to calling attention to long-standing censorship problems in China, Iran, and other oppressive regimes, the report devotes a surprising amount of attention to speech restrictions in the developed world-and it singles out recently enacted "three strikes" laws in France and the United Kingdom that boot users off the Internet for repeated copyright infringement.
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.
Weiye Loh

Chinese City Builds Censorship-Free Internet Zone … For Foreigners | The Utop... - 0 views

utopianist.com/...e-internet-zone-for-foreigners

Censorship Internet China Capitalism Democracy

shared by Weiye Loh on 30 Jun 11 - No Cached
  • The state-of-the-art data centers, meant to make Chongqing a big player in the cloud computing game, might attract business, but the locals certainly aren’t too happy about it [via IT World]: That has sparked an uproar among some Chinese Internet users, because the unfiltered Web access will be available only to foreign companies, according to the reports. People commenting on social-networking sites have slammed the zone as a throwback to the days of “No dogs and no Chinese allowed,”a reference to how local Chinese were prohibited in the early 20th century from entering certain foreigner communities
  • Weiye Loh on 30 Jun 11
     
    people keep assuming that the forces of globalization and capitalism will somehow politically transform China into a democracy. Surely the need for foreign businesses to work in China would force the Chinese government to do away with things like internet censorship? Hmm, not so much. The city of Chongqing has gotten around this problem by building a development zone with unrestricted internet access-for foreign businesses, that is.
Reseena Abdullah

China Requires Censorship Software on New PCs - 3 views

The article talks about the software that the Chinese government has legislated to be installed on all PCs from July 1st onwards. The software is designed to "filter out pornography and other 'unhe...

censorship surveillance

started by Reseena Abdullah on 07 Sep 09 no follow-up yet
Jody Poh

Iran blocks access to YouTube.com - 5 views

online censorship ethics access

started by Jody Poh 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

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

Wk 4 Online censorship & digital access: Mormon Church Attacks Wikileaks - 6 views

WIKILEAK RELEASES SECRET CHURCH DOCUMENTS! The First Link is an article regarding Wikileaks releasing a 'copyrighted' and confidential Church document of the Mormons (also known as the Church of J...

Mormons Scientology Wikileaks Copyright Censorship

started by guanyou chen on 31 Aug 09 1 follow-up, last by Weiye Loh on 31 Aug 09
Weiye Loh

Censorship of War News Undermines Public Trust - 20 views

I posted a bookmark on something related to this issue. http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC090907-0000047/The-photo-thats-caused-a-stir AP decided to publish a photo of a fatally wounded young ...

censorship PR

started by Jude John on 31 Aug 09 2 follow-ups, last by Weiye Loh on 06 Sep 09
Weiye Loh

Humanist census posters banned from railway stations | UK news | The Guardian - 0 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...humanist-census-posters

Freedom of Speech Atheism Religion Capitalism Censorship Market Censorship

shared by Weiye Loh on 05 Mar 11 - No Cached
  • The posters, bearing the slogan "If you're not religious, for God's sake say so", have been refused by the companies that own the advertising space, which say they are likely to cause offence.
  • The British Humanist Association (BHA), which published the posters, said it was astonished that such an everyday phrase should be deemed too contentious for public display. "It is a little tongue-in-cheek," said the BHA chief executive, Andrew Copson, "but in the same way that saying 'bless you' has no religious implication for many, 'for God's sake' is used to express urgency and not to invoke a deity.
  • "This censorship of a legitimate advert is frustrating and ridiculous: the blasphemy laws in England have been abolished but we are seeing the same principle being enforced nonetheless."
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • The posters ask those who are not religious to tick the "no religion" box when they fill in forms for the 2011 census."We used to tick 'Christian' but we're not really religious. We'll tick 'No Religion' this time. We're sick of hearing politicians say this is a religious country and giving millions to religious organisations and the pope's state visit. Money like that should go where it is needed," says one of the banned posters.
  • The ban followed advice from the Advertising Standards Authority's committee of advertising practice that the advert had the potential to cause widespread and serious offence.The poster display company involved also said it did not want to take adverts relating to religion.
  • British Humanist Association has amended the campaign slogan on the adverts to read simply: "Not religious? In this year's census say so." The posters are being displayed from this weekend on 200 buses in London, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Birmingham, Cardiff and Exeter.
  • Weiye Loh on 05 Mar 11
     
    The posters, which encourage people to tick the 'no religion' box if they do not believe in God, were judged too likely to offend
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?
Meenatchi

Top Internet Threats: Censorship to Warrantless Surveillance - 4 views

Article Summary: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/wireds-top-inte/ The article talks about several Internet threats comprising government surveillance and the loss of users' privacy throu...

Surveillance privacy DPI behavioral advertising

started by Meenatchi on 08 Sep 09 no follow-up yet
Chong Yi Ting

Self-regulation or self-censorship? - 6 views

shttp://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/STIStory_334426.html Summary: The article centres on the Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) Lui Tuck ...

started by Chong Yi Ting on 02 Sep 09 no follow-up yet
1 - 20 of 69 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page