# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Media within North Korea - known officially as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea - are among the most tightly controlled in the world, and fall under the governance of the Korean Workers' Party or, according to some - until his death - the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il himself.

The regime bombarded the population with flattering reports about Kim Jong-il and his daily agenda, with radio and television reports often leading on Kim's guidance visits to industrial, agricultural or military sites, where he was often photographed and filmed offering advice to local workers or servicemen.

North Korea's economic hardships or famines are not reported to the domestic audience, which is instead informed of technological advances as a result of the Leader's revolutionary thinking.

The internet is still not readily available within the DPRK, but mobile phones have appeared on the streets of the capital after a ban was lifted in 2008.

Tight control on radio, TV

Press freedom organisation Reporters Without Borders often cited Kim Jong-il as a "predator of press freedom", with only Eritrea ranked below North Korea in its 2010 press freedom index. While state media remain tightly controlled, the NGO noted that that there had been an increase in the flow of news and information into the North thanks both to foreign radio stations and organisations which send multimedia content across the border.

Korean Central Television is the state-run TV channel seen by North Koreans. The network carries news programmes, documentaries and other programmes praising Kim Jong-il and his father Kim Il-sung. It also reports on authoritative statements from the North Korean government, party and military. In addition, it carries revolutionary dramas, operas and other entertainment programmes.

Pyongyang also operates a number of national and local radio networks, including a station intended for servicemen stationed on the contentious border with the South. Newspapers, such as the official party mouthpiece Rodong Sinmun, are all owned by the state.

Radio and TV sets in North Korea are supplied pre-tuned to government stations and radios must be checked and registered with the police. According to reports from dissident and defector groups, some North Koreans purchase a second radio set that is not registered, enabling them to listen to foreign broadcasts.

One radio network is wired into most residences and workplaces. This carries news and commentary that is considered too sensitive for consumption outside North Korea, such as criticising economic activities that are inconsistent with national policy.

Reports from refugees say that there are also those who take the risk of opening the preset radios in order to be able to tune in other frequencies. A number of radio stations operate from the South, but it is difficult to find out how successful they are at reaching their intended audience.

Internet use remains restricted

Internet access in North Korea is restricted to a small section of the elite who have received state approval, and to foreigners living in Pyongyang. The only option, in the absence of a broadband network, is through satellite internet coverage, which is available in some tourist hotels.

Mobile phone use was banned in 2004, but a service was re-introduced in 2008, jointly operated by the Egyptian Orascom company and the state-owned Korea Post and Telecommunications Corporation. According to the Daily NK website, the new service, despite its cost, has proved popular among affluent party members in Pyongyang.

Domestic users are said to be able to access the official Uriminzokkiri web portal via the 3G mobile phone network.

Despite limited access within its borders, North Korea has become increasingly active on the internet for global users, opening official pages on YouTube, Twitter, photo-sharing website Flickr and Facebook.

The main North Korean news agency KCNA launched a new website in late 2010, replacing a previous text-only site that had operated from Japan. The new site, apparently operating from within the DPRK, offers its readers news reports, photographs and video in five languages, including English and Spanish.

BBC Monitoring selects and translates news from radio, television, press, news agencies and the internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages. It is based in Caversham, UK, and has several bureaux abroad.

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Media within North Korea are among the most tightly controlled in the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BANGKOK - The film "Beauty and the Beast" will open next week in Malaysia despite earlier objections from the country's Film Censorship Board over a brief scene described as an "exclusively gay moment," two major cinema companies said Tuesday.

Walt Disney Studios had refused to cut the scene to appease Malaysian censors. The cinema companies announced they would begin showing the movie on March 30.

Officials from the censorship board could be not reached late Tuesday to explain their apparent reversal.

The board's decision had drawn condemnation internationally and in Malaysia. Among those objecting to it was Tourism Minister Nazri Aziz, who last week called the decision "ridiculous."

"You don't ban a film because of a gay character," he said, according to The Malay Mail. "All these years even without the gay character in the 'Beauty and the Beast,' there are also gays in the world. I don't think it is going to influence anyone."

The censorship board had ruled that a shot involving two male characters dancing in a ballroom must be cut from the movie, on the ground that it promoted homosexuality. The sequence is said to be 3 seconds long.

Celeste Koay, head of marketing for TGV Cinemas, one of two major companies that will show the film in Malaysia, said the company was notified by Disney that it had permission to release the film.

"I can understand why they wanted it to remain intact, as cutting it compromises the experience," she said.

The film, starring Emma Watson and Dan Stevens and costing $300 million to make and market, is a live-action remake of Disney's 1991 animated blockbuster of the same name.

Ms. Koay said the controversy had now spread to the new "Power Rangers" movie, a Lionsgate film that was set to open Thursday in Malaysia.

The film had been approved by the censors. But after news reports suggested that the yellow ranger character might have a lesbian moment, the board delayed the opening so it could review the film once more.

"There was concern that was she was a lesbian," Ms. Koay said. "Now they are watching it again."

She said the cinema company hoped to learn in the next 24 hours whether it could show the film as scheduled.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Malaysia to Show 'Beauty and the Beast' With Gay Scene, Exhibitors Say (Published 2017)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BANGKOK - The film "Beauty and the Beast" will open next week in Malaysia despite earlier objections from the country's Film Censorship Board over a brief scene described as an "exclusively gay moment," two major cinema companies said Tuesday. Walt Disney Studios had refused to cut the scene to appease Malaysian censors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The seven dirty words are seven English-language curse words that American comedian George Carlin first listed in his 1972 "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" monologue. The words, in the order Carlin listed them, are " shit", " piss", " fuck", " cunt", " cocksucker", " motherfucker", and " tits".

At the time, the words were considered highly inappropriate and unsuitable for broadcast on the public airwaves in the United States, whether radio or television. As such, they were avoided in scripted material and bleep censored in the rare cases in which they were used. Broadcast standards differ in different parts of the world, then and now, although most of the words on Carlin's original list remain taboo on American broadcast television. The list was not an official enumeration of forbidden words, but rather were compiled by Carlin to flow better in a comedy routine. Nonetheless, a radio broadcast featuring these words led to a Supreme Court decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation that helped define the extent to which the federal government could regulate speech on broadcast television and radio in the United States.

During a performance in 1966, comedian Lenny Bruce said he had been arrested for saying nine words: "ass", "balls", "cocksucker", "cunt", "fuck", "motherfucker", "piss", "shit", and "tits". In 1972, comedian George Carlin released his fourth stand-up album Class Clown. One track on the album, "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television", was a monologue in which he identified these words and expressed amazement that they could not be used regardless of context. In a 2004 NPR interview, he said:

I don't know that there was a "Eureka!" moment or anything like that. [...] On these other things, we get into the field of hypocrisy. Where you really cannot pin down what these rules they want to enforce are. It's just impossible to say "this is a blanket rule". You'll see some newspapers print "f blank blank k". Some print "f asterisk asterisk k". Some put "f blank blank blank". Some put the word "bleep". Some put "expletive deleted". So there's no real consistent standard. It's not a science. It's a notion that they have and it's superstitious. These words have no power. We give them this power by refusing to be free and easy with them. We give them great power over us. They really, in themselves, have no power. It's the thrust of the sentence that makes them either good or bad.

Carlin was arrested for disturbing the peace when he performed the routine at a show at Summerfest in Milwaukee in 1972. On his next album, 1973's Occupation: Foole, he performed a similar routine titled "Filthy Words", dealing with the same list and many of the same themes. Pacifica station WBAI broadcast this version of the routine uncensored on October 30 that year.

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation

John Douglas, an active member of Morality in Media, claimed that he heard the WBAI broadcast while driving with his then 15-year-old son and complained to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that the material was inappropriate for the time of day (approximately 2:00 p.m.).

Following the lodging of the complaint, the FCC proceeded to ask Pacifica for a response, then issued a declaratory order upholding the complaint. No specific sanctions were included in the order, but WBAI was put on notice that "in the event subsequent complaints are received, the Commission will then decide whether it should utilize any of the available sanctions it has been granted by Congress." WBAI appealed against this decision, which was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 2-1 decision on the grounds that the FCC's definition of "indecency" was overbroad and vague and thus violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The FCC in turn appealed to the Supreme Court. As an independent federal agency, the FCC filed the appeal in its own name. The United States Department of Justice intervened in the case, supporting Pacifica's argument that the FCC's declaratory ruling violated the First Amendment and that it also violated the Fifth Amendment in that the FCC's definition of "indecency" was too vague to support criminal penalties.

In 1978 the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the FCC's declaratory ruling did not violate either the First or Fifth Amendments, but in so ruling it limited the scope of its ruling to the specific broadcast that gave rise to the declaratory ruling and declined to consider whether the FCC's definition of indecency would survive a First Amendment challenge if applied to the broadcast of other material containing the same or similar words which had been cited in Pacifica's brief (e.g., works of Shakespeare - "pissing conduits," "bawdy hand of the dial on the prick of noon"; the Bible - "he who pisseth against the wall"; the Watergate Tapes). It noted that while the declaratory ruling pertained to the meaning of the term indecency as used in a criminal statute (18 USC 1464), since the FCC had not imposed any penalty on Pacifica for the broadcast of words that came within the FCC's definition of "indecent", it did not need to reach the question as to whether the definition was too vague to satisfy the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment.

This decision formally established indecency regulation in American broadcasting. In follow-up rulings, the Supreme Court established the safe harbor provision that grants broadcasters the right to broadcast indecent (but not obscene) material between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am, when it is presumed few children would be watching. The FCC has never maintained a specific list of words prohibited from the airwaves during the time period from 6 am to 10 pm.

The seven dirty words have been assumed to be likely to elicit indecency-related action by the FCC if uttered on a TV or radio broadcast, and thus the broadcast networks generally censor themselves with regard to many of the seven dirty words. The FCC regulations regarding "fleeting" use of expletives were ruled unconstitutionally vague by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on July 13, 2010, as they violated the First Amendment due to their possible effects regarding free speech.

The original seven words named by Carlin are:

In subsequent routines, Carlin would frequently deconstruct the list, proposing additions or deletions based on audience feedback, or sometimes on his own whims. For example, a man asked him to remove motherfucker because, as a derivative of fuck, it constituted a duplication: "He says motherfucker is a duplication of the word fuck, technically, because fuck is the root form, motherfucker being derivative; therefore, it constitutes duplication. And I said, 'Hey, motherfucker, how did you get my phone number, anyway?'"

He later added it back, claiming the bit's rhythm does not work without it. In his comedy routine, Carlin would make fun of each word; for example, he would say that tits should not be on the list because it sounds like a nickname of a snack ("New Nabisco Tits! ... corn tits, cheese tits, tater tits!").

Carlin performed the routine many times and included it, in whole or in part on several of his records and HBO specials. Parts or all of the performance appear on the following releases:

The Carlin at Carnegie version can be heard as "An Incomplete List of Impolite Words" on the 1984 album Carlin on Campus (but not in the HBO special, Carlin on Campus). That version of the list features over 300 dirty words and phrases in an effort to stop people telling him that he left something off the list. Four days after Carlin's original Class Clown recording, the routine was performed again for students at the University of California, Los Angeles. This would be months before its first official release. The recording was restored in December, 2013 and uploaded to YouTube by archivists at UCLA and could be accessed free of charge, but is no longer available due to a claim of copyright infringement.

The FCC ruling is referenced in "Offensive Language" from the album Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics and HBO special Doin' It Again, both 1990 recordings of the same performance; however, the routine that follows is entirely different.

The Class Clown version can also be heard on the vinyl/cassette only release Indecent Exposure (1978). The Occupation: Foole version can also be heard on Classic Gold (1992). Both versions were re-released again as part of The Little David Years (1971-1977).

U2 singer Bono said on live television that his 2003 Golden Globe award was "really, really fucking brilliant!" Despite complaints, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) did not fine the network. In apparent reaction, on December 8, 2003, Rep. Doug Ose (R-California) introduced House Resolution 3687, the "Clean Airwaves Act", in Congress to designate a derivative list of Carlin's offensive words as profane in the U.S. Code. The stated purpose of the bill was "To amend section 1464 of title 18 of the United States Code, to provide for the punishment of certain profane broadcasts." In the text of the bill, the words shit, piss, fuck, cunt, asshole, and the phrases cock sucker, mother fucker, and ass hole are specifically listed. The bill was not enacted.

The FCC obscenity guidelines have never been applied to non-broadcast media such as cable television or satellite radio. It is widely held that the FCC's authorizing legislation (particularly the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996) does not enable the FCC to regulate content on subscription-based services, which include cable television, satellite television, and pay-per-view television. Whether the FCC or the Department of Justice could be empowered by the Congress to restrict indecent content on cable television without such legislation violating the Constitution has never been settled by a court of law. Since cable television must be subscribed to in order to receive it legally, it has long been thought[by whom? ] that since subscribers who object to the content being delivered may cancel their subscription, an incentive is created for the cable operators to self-regulate (unlike broadcast television, cable television is not legally considered to be " pervasive", nor does it depend on a scarce, government-allocated electromagnetic spectrum; as such, neither of the arguments buttressing the case for broadcast regulation particularly apply to cable television).

Self-regulation by many basic cable networks is undertaken by Standards and Practices (S&P) departments that self-censor their programming because of the pressure put on them by advertisers - also meaning that any basic cable network willing to ignore such pressure could use any of the Seven Dirty Words. All of the words on Carlin's list have come into common usage in many made-for-cable series and film productions.

1. ^ Carlin, George. Linder, Doug (ed.). "Filthy Words by George Carlin". Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. Archived from the original on 2011-01-23. The following is a verbatim transcript of "Filthy Words" (the George Carlin monologue at issue in the Supreme Court case of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation) prepared by the Federal Communications Commission...

2. ^ Carlin, George (November 1, 2004). "Comedian and Actor George Carlin". National Public Radio (Interview). Interviewed by Terry Gross.

3. ^ "Boca Man Forever Linked To George Carlin". WPEC. June 23, 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-06-28.

4. ^ Samaha, Adam. "The Story of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (and Its Second Life)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-04-19.

5. ^ "Seven words you can never say on television"... but which are said on the Internet. A lot. - A survey on the prevalence of the Seven Words in political blogs". Archived from the original on 2007-03-03.

6. ^ Puzzanghera, Jim. ""FCC indecency rule struck down by appeals court", Los Angeles Times, July 13, 2010". Sltrib.com.

7. ^ Puzzanghera, Jim; James, Meg (2010-07-14). "FCC indecency rule struck down by appeals court - Los Angeles Times". Latimes.com.

8. ^ Edward Wyatt (July 13, 2010). "F.C.C. Indecency Policy Rejected on Appeal". The New York Times.

9. ^ Carlin, George. On Location: George Carlin at Phoenix (DVD). HBO Home Video.

10. ^ "Congressmen introduces bill to curb profanity in broadcasting". Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. 8 January 2004.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The seven dirty words are seven English-language curse words that American comedian George Carlin first listed in his 1972 "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" monologue. The words, in the order Carlin listed them, are " shit", " piss", " fuck", " cunt", " cocksucker", " motherfucker", and " tits".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Trailer for Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War has seen significant changes. In China the trailer was even banned entirely. A single second of footage from the Tiananmen protests in 1989 led to Activision releasing a new, shortened version of the Trailer.

The publisher had been keeping the players busy over the last weak by leading them on a wild goose chase with cryptic hints and teasers for the new Call of Duty game. After solving the puzzles last week the community was rewarded with the announcement trailer for Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War.

CoD trailer censored globally

Initially the trailer was around two minutes long and showed historical footage from the Cold War. On August 21 Activision re-released a shorter video, replacing the earlier version.

However the "new" video was not another trailer. Instead it only contained a shorter version. The initial trailer has been set to private as of now.

China had blocked and then banned the trailer for the new CoD entirely, after many fans recognized the footage and started discussing it on social media.
The clip in question was footage from the protests on the Tiananmen square in central Beijing, which were suppressed by the Chinese military on June 4 1989.

This is not the first time the Call of Duty-franchise ran into trouble in China. In 2018 Black Ops 2 was banned from internet cafés as within the story of the game a Chinese city was bombed.
It remains to be seen if the edited trailer will also affect the reveal scheduled for tonight, August 26.

-

What do you think of Activision's handling of the situation? Join the discussion on social media or ourDiscord!
You can also submit direct feedback to improve our website!

Image Credit: Activision

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War Trailer censored due to Tiananmen scenes - | eSports.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Trailer for Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War has seen significant changes. In China the trailer was even banned entirely. A single second of footage from the Tiananmen protests in 1989 led to Activision releasing a new, shortened version of the Trailer. The publisher had been keeping the players busy over the last...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Media within North Korea - known officially as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea - are among the most tightly controlled in the world, and fall under the governance of the Korean Workers' Party or, according to some - until his death - the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il himself.

The regime bombarded the population with flattering reports about Kim Jong-il and his daily agenda, with radio and television reports often leading on Kim's guidance visits to industrial, agricultural or military sites, where he was often photographed and filmed offering advice to local workers or servicemen.

North Korea's economic hardships or famines are not reported to the domestic audience, which is instead informed of technological advances as a result of the Leader's revolutionary thinking.

The internet is still not readily available within the DPRK, but mobile phones have appeared on the streets of the capital after a ban was lifted in 2008.

Tight control on radio, TV

Press freedom organisation Reporters Without Borders often cited Kim Jong-il as a "predator of press freedom", with only Eritrea ranked below North Korea in its 2010 press freedom index. While state media remain tightly controlled, the NGO noted that that there had been an increase in the flow of news and information into the North thanks both to foreign radio stations and organisations which send multimedia content across the border.

Korean Central Television is the state-run TV channel seen by North Koreans. The network carries news programmes, documentaries and other programmes praising Kim Jong-il and his father Kim Il-sung. It also reports on authoritative statements from the North Korean government, party and military. In addition, it carries revolutionary dramas, operas and other entertainment programmes.

Pyongyang also operates a number of national and local radio networks, including a station intended for servicemen stationed on the contentious border with the South. Newspapers, such as the official party mouthpiece Rodong Sinmun, are all owned by the state.

Radio and TV sets in North Korea are supplied pre-tuned to government stations and radios must be checked and registered with the police. According to reports from dissident and defector groups, some North Koreans purchase a second radio set that is not registered, enabling them to listen to foreign broadcasts.

One radio network is wired into most residences and workplaces. This carries news and commentary that is considered too sensitive for consumption outside North Korea, such as criticising economic activities that are inconsistent with national policy.

Reports from refugees say that there are also those who take the risk of opening the preset radios in order to be able to tune in other frequencies. A number of radio stations operate from the South, but it is difficult to find out how successful they are at reaching their intended audience.

Internet use remains restricted

Internet access in North Korea is restricted to a small section of the elite who have received state approval, and to foreigners living in Pyongyang. The only option, in the absence of a broadband network, is through satellite internet coverage, which is available in some tourist hotels.

Mobile phone use was banned in 2004, but a service was re-introduced in 2008, jointly operated by the Egyptian Orascom company and the state-owned Korea Post and Telecommunications Corporation. According to the Daily NK website, the new service, despite its cost, has proved popular among affluent party members in Pyongyang.

Domestic users are said to be able to access the official Uriminzokkiri web portal via the 3G mobile phone network.

Despite limited access within its borders, North Korea has become increasingly active on the internet for global users, opening official pages on YouTube, Twitter, photo-sharing website Flickr and Facebook.

The main North Korean news agency KCNA launched a new website in late 2010, replacing a previous text-only site that had operated from Japan. The new site, apparently operating from within the DPRK, offers its readers news reports, photographs and video in five languages, including English and Spanish.

BBC Monitoring selects and translates news from radio, television, press, news agencies and the internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages. It is based in Caversham, UK, and has several bureaux abroad.

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Media within North Korea are among the most tightly controlled in the world.

# data[].attributes.headline
How bad is internet censorship in your country?

# data[].attributes.subject
How bad is internet censorship in your country?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/freedom-on-the-net-2016-where-are-social-media-users-under-pressure/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a sweeping victory for free speech rights in cyberspace, the Supreme Court struck down the Communications Decency Act in Reno v. ACLU in June 1997. The Court granted the highest level of First Amendment protection to the Internet, and cyber-activists are still dancing in the streets.

But is cyberspace really safe from the censors?

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, states are busy crafting censorship laws at home. At least thirteen states have passed legislation since 1995. This year, New Mexico has already passed a draconian censorship law, and bills are pending in 10 other states.

The ACLU succeeded in striking down three of these state laws so far, but the larger task lies ahead: to secure free speech online in each and every state where this right is threatened.

Our state lawmakers need to understand the Internet -- not gag it.

This year the ACLU is fighting bills in the following states:

State Bills Pending in 1998
California
Assembly Bill 1793, sponsor Assembly Member Runner. Requires all public libraries that receive state funds to adopt a policy to prohibit minors from accessing harmful matter on Internet terminals at the library. Illinois
Assembly Bill 2568, sponsor Assembly Member Novak. Makes it a felony to disclose on "an adult obscenity or child pornography site the name, address, telephone number, or e-mail address of a person under 18." Kansas
Senate Bill 670, sponsor Senator Huelskamp. Requires the mandatory use of blocking software by all users on Internet terminals at state-funded public libraries, school districts, and state and local educational institutions, colleges and universities. Kentucky
Senate Bill 230, sponsor Senator Karem. Requires the mandatory use of blocking software on Internet terminals at public schools. Missouri
Senate Bill 850, sponsor Senator Kenney. Requires the mandatory use of blocking software by all users on Internet terminals at public libraries. New York
Assembly Bill 5395, sponsor Assembly Member Mazzarelli. Criminalizes engaging in sexually explicit conversation with minors over the Internet.

Assembly Bill 6453, sponsor Assembly Member Klein. Requires all public libraries to establish a policy to restrict minors' Internet access to obscene materials. Ohio
House Bill 565, sponsor Rep. Terwilleger. Criminalizes the dissemination of material on the Internet that is "harmful to minors." Rhode Island
Senate Bill 2864, sponsor Senator Cicillino. Makes it a felony to transmit by computer "any notice, statement, advertisement, or minor's name, telephone number, [or] place of residence . . . for the purpose of engaging, facilitating, encouraging, offering, or soliciting unlawful sexual conduct and/or any felony or misdemeanor." Tennessee
House Bill 3353, sponsor Rep. Burchett. Requires the mandatory use of blocking software by all users on Internet terminals at public schools and libraries. Holds Internet service providers strictly liable for the dissemination of "obscene material, child pornography, or pornographic materials harmful to youth." Virginia
House Bill 348, sponsor Rep. Marshall. Requires the mandatory use of blocking software by all users on Internet terminals at state-funded libraries. Imposes criminal penalties for communicating online material at libraries that is "harmful to minors."
State Laws that Regulate Speech on the Internet
California
Assembly Bill 132, enacted 7/97.
Sponsor: Rep. Bladwin.
Requires schools to adopt an Internet access policy regarding student access to sites with material that is harmful to minors. Connecticut
House Bill 6883, enacted 6/95.
Sponsor: House Committe on Judiciary.
Creates criminal liability for sending an online message "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person." Florida
Senate Bill 156, enacted 5/96.
Sponsor: Sen. Burt.
Amends existing child porn law to hold owners or operators of computer online services explicitly liable for permitting subscribers to violate the law. Georgia
House Bill 1630, enacted 4/96.
Sponsor: Rep. Don Parsons.
Criminalized the use of pseudonyms on the Net, and prohibits unauthorized links to web site with trade names or logos. Overturned, in ACLU v. Miller

House Bill 76, enacted 3/95.
Sponsor: Rep. Wall.
Prohibits online transmission of fighting words, obscene or vulgar speech to minors, and information related to terrorist acts and certain dangerous weapons. Kansas
House Bill 2223, enacted 5/95. Expands child pornography statute to include computer-generated images. Minnesota
House Bill 575/Senate Bill 585, enacted 7/97 (as part of the compromise education bill). Directs the Commissioner of Education to recommend computer software products to schools in order to block Intgernet access to speech that is indecnet or intended to promote violence. Montana
House Bill 0161, enacted 3/95. Expands child pornography statute to prohibit transmission by computer and posession of computer-generatged child pornographic images. New Mexico
Senate Bill 127, enacted 3/98. Criminalizes the transmission of communications that depict "nudity, sexual intercourse or any other sexual conduct." The ACLU has vowed to file a legal challenge to the law before it becomes effective on 7/1/98. Nevada
Senate Bill 13, enacted 7/97. Creates an action for civil damages against persons who transmit unsolicited advertising over the Internet. New York
Senate Bill 210E, passed 7/96.
Sponsor: Sen. Sears; Rep. DeStito.
Criminalized the transmission of "indecent" materials to minors. Overturned, in ALA v. Pataki Oklahoma
House Bill 1048, enacted 4/95.
Sponsor: Rep. Perry.
Prohibits online transmission of material deemed "harmful to minors."

House Concurrent Resolution 1097, passed 5/96.
Sponsor: Rep. Paulk
Directs all state agencies, including educational institutions, to remove all illegal obscene materials from their computer systems. Virginia
House Bill 7, enacted 3/96.
Sponsor: Rep. Marshall.
Prohibits any government employee from using state-owned computer systems to send or access sexually explicit material. Overturned, in Urofsky v. Allen

Senate Bill 1067, enacted 5/95.
Sponsor: Sen. Calhoun
Expands existing statute to criminalize electronic transmissions of child pornography.
Like the CDA, these state bills raise serious free speech concerns. They all overlook the unique nature of the online medium, and many censor speech that is protected by the Constitution for adults and older minors.

Laws that try to keep adult materials away from minors end up reducing all online content to that which is suitable for children -- the Supreme Court delclared this outcome unconstitutional in Reno v. ACLU. Similarly, the use of blocking software at libraries prevents both adults and teenagers from getting access to valuable speech like sex education materials, abuse recovery discussions, and speech about lesbian and gay issues.

The draconian effect of state censorship bills doesn't stop at state borders. A message you post to the Internet today in New York City could travel the fifty states and the globe by tomorrow. You'd better be careful that the message isn't "indecent" in Oklahoma, "annoying" in Connecticut, or "vulgar" in Georgia.

These state laws pose a cumulative threat to online speech that may be even more powerful than the CDA, because every online user must comply with every state law -- or risk prosecution if their speech is accessed in a state that makes it illegal.

In addition to violating the First Amendment, many of these state censorship laws violate the Constitution's Commerce Clause because they criminalize online conversations that occur entirely outside the state's borders and burden interstate commerce. Earlier in this century, the Supreme Court struck down burdensome state laws that regulated the length of railway trains.

As the court recognized when striking down the NY censorship law in ALA v. Pataki, the Internet is much like the railroad system, because it is used to transport speech and information all over the country. The New York law, like similar state laws, violated the Commerce Clause because it would have required a Texan who posts a web page or message to abide by New York standards, even if no one from New York ever saw the page or read the post.

The court in ALA v. Pataki held that internet users must be protected from "inconsistent legislation that, taken to its most extreme, could paralyze development of the Internet altogether."

The ACLU's nationwide network of local affiliate offices is ready and willing to counter state attacks on your right to speak freely online.

ACLU Victories in the Courts
ALA v. Pataki: In a precedent-setting opinion, the court struck down a New York State online "indecency" law because it violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits states from regulating speech wholly outside their own borders and from imposing inconsistent state burdens on speakers. ACLU v. Miller: This case struck down on free speech grounds a Georgia state law that made it a crime 1) to communicate anonymously or using a pseudonym on the Internet; 2) to create links to Web sites that use tradenames, trademarks, or logos. Urofsky v. Allen: This case struck down a Virginia law that forbade state employees -- including university professors -- from using state-owned computers to access or transmit sexually explicit material.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a sweeping victory for free speech rights in cyberspace, the Supreme Court struck down the Communications Decency Act in Reno v. ACLU in June 1997. The Court granted the highest level of First Amendment protection to the Internet, and cyber-activists are still dancing in the streets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These new resolutions are in violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 recognizes that all individuals "have the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The non-profit organization, Reporters Without Borders classified Cuba as No. 168 out of 180 countries in the world ranking of Press Freedom in 2019- meaning there are only 12 countries (such as North Korea and Iran that have more restrictions).

Other recent Cuban government resolutions ban the hosting of Cuban websites on international servers- such as Google and Amazon, and give the Cuban Armed Forces and Interior ministries, fundamental control over what the Cuban government now calls the "computerization of society."

www.ADNCUBA.com was placed on the Cuban government's blacklist to silence the independent press by blocking access to news sites such as 14yMedio, CiberCuba, Tremenda Nota, El Estornudo, Diario de Cuba, Cubanet, and Martí Noticias.

Since the expansion of Internet access in Cuba, many more Cubans were beginning to access a much more diverse information landscape than the one presented by Cuba's official media, with its heavily controlled and censored outlets. The blocking of access to ADN Cuba and the new resolutions about "computer security" clearly appear to be the efforts of a government trying to keep its monopoly over information in a world of new technologies.

According to Ms. Martinez, Cuban citizens have been complaining that the Cuban government is trying to make independent media such as ADN Cuba and the others on the black list self-censor and violate journalistic values in favor of echoing the propaganda of the Communist Party that still rules Cuba.

To circumvent this kind of censorship, ADN CUBA has been encouraging its followers in Cuba to keep abreast of news and to see videos from Cuban correspondents in Cuba via the Telegram app by following the link: https://t.me/ADNCUBA. ADN Cuba has also been recommending use of the "Opera" browser for people living inside countries that censor the internet, and activating the Opera browser's integrated free VPN tool for iOS and Android systems. (meaning the free virtual private network tool allowing access from inside censored countries to apple and android phones.

For more information about the Cuban government's efforts to censor ADN CUBA visit:
https://adncuba.com/noticias-de-cuba/gobierno-cubano-bloquea-el-acceso-revista-audiovisual-adn-cuba
About ADN Cuba
ADN Cuba - is an audiovisual, social and participatory magazine with correspondents in Cuba, Spain and the United States. It was founded in 2017 with the aim of showing Cuba's diversity and serves as a portal and platform for video documentaries work on LGBT issues, Human Rights, Economics, Racial Integration, and Entrepreneurship.
More than a test of cubanidad (rather than promoting a particular version of who is a true Cuban), it is a place of coexistence and meeting; a way to exchange questions and visions, images and sounds, with the contribution of many people who live in Cuba with the millions of Cubans in the diaspora who want to maintain a link with their home land and culture. ADN Cuba's commitment is to stand for human rights and freedom of the press in Cuba, and to not be bullied by those in power. ADN Cuba will continue to portray the full diversity that characterizes Cuba and its 11 million inhabitants, and to promote the rights of all Cubans to the free flow of information.

FOR MORE INFORMATION visit:
https://adncuba.com and its social networks:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ADNCuba
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/CubaAdn
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adncuba
YouTube Video: https://youtu.be/qdQP0WSARRk

Contact: Gelet Martínez,
Founder and Manager: ADN Cuba
[email protected]

SOURCE ADN Cuba

Related Links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These new resolutions are in violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 recognizes that all individuals "have the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cuba internet access still severely restricted

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite recent improvements, internet access remains severely restricted in Cuba, as the BBC's Emilio San Pedro reports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
North Korea Tech and the internet censorship of the most wired country on Earth | NK News.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's considered essential reading for North Korea watchers, regularly cited by international media and academics hungry for information about the world's most secretive country. But for more than a year, North Korea Tech, a San Francisco-based blog that covers IT developments inside the isolated dictatorship, has been banned in South Korea.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/08/cubas-internet-paradox-how-controlled-and-censored-internet-risks-cubas-achievements-in-education/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Better Call Saul - False Defendant at the Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To mark the World Day against Cyber Censorship on 12 March, here are six things you should know about free speech, the internet and online censorship in Cuba.

The re-establishment of diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba in December 2014 brought renewed hope for an end to the US economic embargo, which has had a dire impact on the human rights of ordinary Cubans. But while tourists flock to the island to experience its romantic, old-world charm before it "changes", less romantic is its history of restricting freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, still shown in the authorities' determination to stifle dissent.

1. Freedom of expression can land you in jail in Cuba.

Graffiti artist Danilo Maldonado Machado, known as "El Sexto", found this out when he was for most of 2015 for painting the names of Raúl and Fidel - the names of the Castro brothers who have been in power since 1959 - on the backs of two live pigs. He had planned to release the animals as part of an artistic performance but, before he could, he was accused of desacato (contempt) and thrown in prison for 10 months. He was never formally charged or brought before a judge.

2. The state has a virtual monopoly on print and broadcast media.

The Cuban Constitution recognizes freedom of the press but expressly prohibits private ownership of the mass media. While independent journalists and bloggers have emerged in recent years, the authorities continue to prevent journalists critical of the government from doing their jobs. On International Human Rights Day 2015, journalists at - established by prominent cyber activist Yoani Sanchez - were prevented from reporting on a protest coordinated by human rights groups The Ladies in White and TodosMarchamos. According to one journalist, state security agents blocked the door to the building they worked in and told him: "Today you are not going out."

Today only 25 per cent of Cubans use the internet, while only five per cent of homes are connected.
Amnesty International

3. Cuba is one of the least connected countries in the Americas.

Until 2008, the government banned ownership of computer and DVD equipment in Cuba. Today only 25 per cent of Cubans use the internet, while only five per cent of homes are connected. Internet access is still prohibitively expensive for most, and far from accessible to all. Cuba has said it will double access in the next five years, with public Wi-Fi hot spots starting to open since March 2015, but it remains the most disconnected country in the Americas.

4. Internet access in Cuba is censored.

With access to internet so limited, online censorship is not that sophisticated in Cuba. Authorities frequently filter and intermittently block websites that are critical of the state. Limiting access to information in this way is a clear breach of the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive and impart information.

5. Communicating with Cuban human rights activists from overseas is difficult.

Amnesty International, along with many other independent international human rights monitors, including UN Special Rapporteurs, are not allowed to access Cuba. The landline, mobile and internet connections of government critics, human rights activists and journalists are often monitored or disabled. In the lead-up to Pope Benedict's three-day visit to Cuba in September 2012, a communications blockade prevented Amnesty International and other international organizations from gathering information on a wave of detentions that were taking place. Communicating with Cuban human rights activists remains challenging, particularly at times when the authorities are arresting people based on their political opinion.

6. Cubans are savvy about how to circumvent censorship and government restrictions to internet access.

From underground Wi-Fi, to creating apps, to harnessing the power of USBs, Cubans are finding ways to share information and avoid cyber censorship. World Day against Cyber Censorship is a time to show solidarity with Cuban dissidents, activists, journalists andtheir struggle.
Amnesty International has joined with AdBlock on the World Day Against Cyber Censorship to raise awareness about the crackdown on free speech across the world. AdBlock is a tool that helps web users to block unwanted ads, and on 12 March 2016 it will replace banner ads with content censors in certain countries wouldn't want people to see. Further Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To mark World Day against Cyber Censorship on 12 March, here are six things you should know about free speech, the internet and online censorship in Cuba.

# data[].attributes.headline
The abusive censorship in Southeast Asia

# data[].attributes.subject
The abusive censorship in Southeast Asia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Advertisement
The number of blocked sites, as documented by independent internet monitors, is on the rise in nearly every Southeast Asian nation, part of a wider downturn in freedom of information across the region. What started out as a move to limit access to certain "illicit" sites, such as those hosting pornography or copyrighted content, has morphed into broad, unchecked power by each country's internet governing agencies to block access to sites with little, if any, oversight, and increasingly, arrest citizens for what they post on social media.

"Censorship is on the rise and internet freedom is declining in Southeast Asia," said Madeline Earp, Asia research analyst with Freedom House. "We [are] seeing that with some specific tactics - website blocking, arrests, cyber attacks, other rights violations."

According to Freedom House's most recent Freedom on the Net report , released at the end of 2017, the scores of seven of the eight Southeast Asian nations included in the survey fell. Now, only the Philippines remains ranked as "mostly free" due to limited censorship, but its score still declined due to a rise in the use of "opinion shapers" to push pro-government rhetoric, along with targeted attacks on journalists and activists, such as the murder of lawyer Mia Manuelita Mascarinas-Green in February. The biggest disappointment, in many ways, was Myanmar, which saw its rating fall even after the country's first open election brought the National League for Democracy (NLD) and Aung San Suu Kyi to power. The culprit - fake news and, more recently, arrests of journalists .

"There are more journalists facing charges now as compared with the record of the Thein Sein government [which ruled from] 2011-2015," said Ed Legaspi, the executive director of the Southeast Asian Press Alliance.

Diplomat Brief

Weekly Newsletter
N Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific.

Low scores are the norm in Southeast Asia's more autocratic states - Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Singapore - but even there the situation is getting worse due to ever-growing government control and increases in arrests of people for posting content on social media. Even the one country to improve its score, Malaysia, left a lot to be desired, as the rise was solely due to the growth in internet access.
Worse in Context
"This was a year in Malaysia where we saw news websites censored, at least one prison sentence for Facebook comment, and several more ongoing prosecutions," said Earp. "It was not a good year for Malaysia,"

The Malaysian example exemplifies the real tragedy - that this rise in censorship and online threats is happening right as internet access grows across the region, with millions of new web users coming online in 2017. The web they are accessing is one that is more filtered and less open than ever before, which could have dire consequences for information access and democracy - and the future equitable development of the region.
Advertisement
It was only a few years ago that Southeast Asia seemed to be an emerging model region for the world, with several growing economies, stability, and a functioning regional entity, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Democracy was slowly expanding, and there were several strong social movements, for example, against corruption in Indonesia, for clean elections in Malaysia, in support of garment workers rights in Cambodia, or against coal-fired power plants in the Philippines. The internet was playing a key role in helping these movements grow and build power.

"A few years ago, we were seeing the human rights community, civil society, and the media really embracing the internet," said Earp. "There were a lot of really interesting and encouraging grassroots movements that took advantage of the internet in [places like] Malaysia, Singapore, Cambodia."

Now, democratic progress has stalled across the region. Those social movements are faltering, and now have to face powerful, conservative, pro-government forces online, something Legaspi sees across the region.

"Conservative or pro-establishment groups in many countries are not only potent channels of propaganda, they are also actively threatening and harassing netizens who are critical of the government," said Legaspi.

One thing that bears watching is the role of the region's massive neighbor and largest trading partner - China, ranked the by Freedom Watch for a third consecutive year. China has made massive strides in censorship, and is coming close to perfecting its internet surveillance system. Over the past year, shocking stories published in world's worst abuser of internet freedom Buzzfeed and The Wall Street Journal documented an ever-pervasive system of monitoring , whether it is via the ubiquitous , or through a growing network of artificial intelligence-enabled cameras that are being rolled out, especially in restive regions such as Tibet or Xinjiang.

The country in the region, according to Earp, that is most closely emulating China is Vietnam. While the country has never performed highly on any press or internet freedom ranking, the rise in arrests of bloggers and social media activists , alongside the growing use of more sophisticated censorship technology, is worrying.
Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month. What's Next
"Vietnam is replicating the tactics used by China, and this sets a troubling tone for the region," said Earp. "We are seeing prison sentences of a decade or more for bloggers who criticize the government."

The rise in fake news, and the growing use of the internet to, for example, spread hoaxes has dangerous real world consequences. In Indonesia this past September, a rumor that a meeting being held at a local non-profit related to the still-banned Indonesian Communist Party led to the office being attacked by a mob that, without police intervention, could have turned violent. Violence has been far too common in Myanmar, where blatantly racist, anti-Islamic rumors and fake news played a key role in last year's massive anti-Rohingya purges.

The response, though, may be worse than the problem. Much misinformation spreads through social media, and the region's governments are increasingly using existing laws to control online content.
Advertisement
"Worryingly, many governments and their supporters have taken advantage of existing mechanisms in social media to help block 'illegal' content by simply citing existing laws against unacceptable sites," said Legaspi. Thailand's lese majeste law, the Sedition Act in Malaysia, and the Blasphemy Law in Indonesia have all been used to curtail online speech.

This is being done with the quiet acquiescence of social media companies, whose role cannot be understated. Products from global companies including Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, along with chat apps such as Line, WhatsApp, and WeChat are the main source of information for many Southeast Asian netizens. Unfortunately, their role in promoting free expression seems to be diminishing.

"Only four or even three short years ago, social media provided a refuge for critics and activists, enabling them to continue to send their message out to circumvent URL blocking," said Legaspi. "Today, social media companies have only been too compliant to follow take-down or blocking requests from governments based on violations of local laws."

Even with more and more users being arrested for posting content on these platforms - or, in one instance, merely being tagged to someone else's post - the fact that none of the companies are making moves to protect users from the state shows where their priorities lie.

This year's elections in the region will be the key to truly understanding the effects of censorship and fake news. While two of the polls - Cambodia's now opposition-free race, and Malaysia's heavily gerrymandered one - are unlikely to result in much change, Indonesia's regional races, set to take place across about half of the archipelago this June, bear watching. They will be the first test since a fake news and rumor-filled campaign doomed Jakara's once popular ethnic Chinese-Christian governor, Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama, in January. Indonesia, like Myanmar, is a country that is defying expectations and trending in the wrong direction.

"Indonesia had the biggest decline in Asia in the 2017 report," said Earp. "The decline was across a number of indicators... censorship, attacks, arrests, violence."

Many fear that attempts by the Indonesian government to counter the rise in Islamism and - such as the July 2017 move to expand the ability of the state to disband groups that " that work to undermine the Indonesian state " - could be used by any right-wing politicians that win future elections to clamp down on even legitimate NGOs or minority leaders.

The worse-case scenario is that growing ability of the state to capture and control the internet will limit the ability of the opposition, the media, and activists across the region, entrenching existing ruling parties and entities like the military. This could have the side effects of increasing corruption, further delegitimizing minority groups, and exacerbating inequality.

For now, it looks like 2018 will resemble 2017 in many ways - more censorship, more pro-government commentators, and more fake news spreading through social networks - a sad turn of events for a region many hoped could be a leader in the 21 st century.
Nithin Coca is a freelance writer and journalist who focuses on cultural, economic, and environmental issues in developing countries. Follow him on Twitter @excinit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Rapid Rise of Censorship in Southeast Asia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Advertisement The number of blocked sites, as documented by independent internet monitors, is on the rise in nearly every Southeast Asian nation, part of a wider downturn in freedom of information across the region.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Months of unrest in Hong Kong have caused concern in mainland China, where news about the pro-democracy protests has been carefully filtered out of social media.

It's common for social media companies in China to remove content that is perceived to be threatening to social stability or the ruling Communist Party.

Beijing-based journalist and writer Karoline Kan says that because people can get into trouble with the authorities by posting sensitive words, some users have found creative ways to get around the censors.
Listen to Karoline Kan's interview in full on the Video journalist: You can follow BBC Trending on Twitter @BBCtrending, and find us on Facebook. And you can listen to Trending on the BBC World Service. All our stories are at bbc.com/trending Marco Silva BBC Trending podcast.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Months of unrest in Hong Kong have caused concern in mainland China, where news about the pro-democracy protests has been carefully filtered out of social media. It's common for social media companies in China to remove content that is perceived to be threatening to social stability or the ruling Communist Party.

# data[].attributes.headline
The important place of censorship in South Korea

# data[].attributes.subject
The important place of censorship in South Korea

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The blocking of information, the suspension of online services such as social media platforms, blogs or messaging apps, surveillance over what users do online and consequently the violation of privacy are characteristic of countries with strong authoritarian regimes.

South Korea, however, comes as an exception: It is a country with a rather healthy democracy that insistently seeks to censor content and websites as well as violates user's privacy. While other democratic countries with similar freedom indexes have attempted to do the same, South Korea has gone beyond most of its peers in terms of censorship.

Photo Credit: AP / TPG Images
A member of the Korean Veterans Association holds up a card showing images of U.S. President Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in, right, during a rally to welcome a visit by Trump, in Seoul, South Korea.

A History of Corrupted Leadership

The country's tendency towards censorship can be explained with its long history of corrupted politicians manipulating information and public opinion. Since 1988, after the end of Chun Doo-hwan (全斗煥)'s dictatorship, all democratically elected presidents became involved in scandals, mostly related to corruption and controlling online opinions (or at least having unrestricted access to them).

Roh Tae-woo (盧泰愚), the president between 1988 and 1993, was involved in a slush-fund scandal; and Roh Moo-hyun (盧武鉉), who served as president between 2003 and 2008, committed suicide while under investigation for bribery. Meanwhile, the current South Korean President Moon Jae-in (文在寅), elected with a discourse of moralizing politics, was caught in the middle of denunciations against allies from within his personal circle and silencing critics of his policies towards North Korea.

With North Korea as its threatening neighbor, South Korea also has the perfect excuse for internet censorship: national security. It ends up being an overused argument to promote a crackdown on "fake news" and the blocking of websites that are accused of being pro-North Korea.

Photo Credit: AP / TPG Images
Korea Internet and Security Agency in Seoul, South Korea

Vague Definition of "Harmful" Content

The South Korean government is not particularly tolerant of criticisms against its politicians and certain ideologies, with bloggers risking arrest for expressing their opinions. Content deemed "harmful" or "subversive" is often censored, echoing China's restrictive measures to prevent millions of citizens from freely expressing themselves online.

Often the definition of what might be harmful or subversive is not clear, sometimes even impossible to grasp, leaving room for all types of obscure censorship measures manipulated by politicians to target their opponents.

The global control over content by both governments and tech giants gives South Korea another reason to limit content consumption. Facebook, for example, imposes strict policies on any pornographic content, censoring anything deemed suggestive, including the female nipples. In addition to censoring images, Facebook also decided to remove users whose ideologies do not seem to fit for the platform, leading to yet another debate on freedom of speech.

Since 2008, search engines operating in South Korea, including foreign-owned companies, are forced to verify age for keywords deemed inappropriate for minors. In February, the government decided to ban access to 895 porn websites and impose heavy penalties for taking or distributing pornography. Sexually offensive writings and drawings can also be grounds for punishment.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

Stricter Censorship Measures in 2019

According to Reporters Without Borders' 2012 Internet Enemies Report, South Korea is considered a "country under surveillance." Internet freedom has only been further limited since then, with stricter measures introduced by the government this year.

In February, South Korea's government decided to expand its site-blocking measures with SNI eavesdropping, in other words, the government and track and block access to HTTPS websites in order to prevent piracy and access to gambling and porn websites among other reasons.

Internet users could easily circumvent previous measures of censorship, such as DNS filtering, by using a different DNS server or by visiting the HTTPS version of any website. Now, the censorship has become more sophisticated. Though online users can still access blocked websites with a VPN, not everyone knows how to use one. The safest providers are also not free, therefore preventing more people from freely accessing internet content.

Then, in March, Korea Communications Commission announced a plan to give the government authority to shut down any domestic operation of foreign internet-related companies, as well as making it mandatory for foreign firms to have a domestic partner in South Korea, therefore subjected to South Korean jurisdiction.

Photo Credit: Sipa USA via AP / TPG Images
Gagged people protesting against the Spanish Citizen Security Law, also known as Gag Law, demanding the abolition of the law in 2016.

South Korea's Online Censorship Reflects a Global Decline of Internet Freedom

South Korea's move towards a more restricted internet environment is evident in other democratic countries. In Spain, for example, the Gag Law prevents police officers from being recorded and photographed, even if they commit violent acts or repress protests. Media outlets or individuals who publish such material can be severely fined. Using social media to rally friends to join an unauthorized demonstration also became illegal.

In the United States, the 2018 FOSTA-SESTA bills targeting online sex trafficking imposed blurry guidelines that would penalize websites with adult content that might not actually involve prostitution, affecting popular websites like Reddit and Craigslist. Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the proposed Digital Economy Act that requires pornography websites to carry out age verification is delayed due to public criticisms. Internet users in the U.K. are worried about the violation of data privacy since these websites cannot verify a user's age without obtaining his or her identity information.

According to the Freedom on the Net 2018 report, digital authoritarianism is on the rise, with governments around the world using "fake news" and other claims to suppress dissent. The reported stated that 26 out of the 65 assessed countries have experienced a decline in internet freedom since 2017, and almost half of the declines were related to elections.

For many democracies, censoring the internet costs less than preventing demonstrations and other forms of expression of discontent. Internet censorship, along with constant user surveillance, can facilitate the anticipation and the subsequent control of social movements as well as maintaining constant vigilance over oppositions.

In a world that is not only globalized, but also increasingly online, internet control has become an important agenda even for the most established democracies.

READ NEXT: South Korea Lags Behind Taiwan on LGBT Rights

TNL Editor: Daphne K. Lee (@thenewslensintl)
If you've enjoyed this article and want to receive more story updates, please be sure to like our Facebook page below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Internet Censorship is Part of South Korea's Democracy Package - The News Lens International Edition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The blocking of information, the suspension of online services such as social media platforms, blogs or messaging apps, surveillance over what users do online and consequently the violation of privacy are characteristic of countries with strong authoritarian regimes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some social media users are calling out at an Iranian music site that appeared to censor nearly all female artists from their own album covers.

Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, and Lana del Rey were just a few of the female artists who were obscured or completely removed from their album covers.

Others, including Lady Gaga and Lana del Rey, were removed while male figures on their album covers appeared otherwise unedited.

Visit Insider.com for more stories.

Angry fans of some of music's top female artists took to Twitter to voice their confusion and disappointment over an Iranian music streaming site erasing the faces of female artists from their own album covers.

Twitter user @IzzRaifHarz was one of the first to post about the edited covers across Melovaz that included several examples where the albums were missing their central figures, including Camila Cabello, Taylor Swift, and Beyoncé, sometimes featuring smoke or blurs in their place.

Others like Lana del Rey's appearance on her album cover was also scrubbed, but the male figure was left seemingly unedited.

-i untuk izzi (@IzzRaifHarz) September 29, 2019

One quick glance over the site shows dozens of male artists featured on the site's homepage unedited, while female artists are missing from the covers of playlists and albums listed under their names.

Well-known covers belonging to some of the year's biggest albums from artists like Billie Eilish, Ariana Grande, and Lizzo were no exception.

After culture news account @PopCrave posted about the uproar, rapper Iggy Azalea quoted the tweet and took a jab at the site, writing that "The jokes on them cause I put a vagina reference in every song so who really won."

-IGGY AZALEA (@IGGYAZALEA) September 29, 2019

The edits are a major symptom of the harsh restrictions on women's self-expression, especially in music, that are institutionalized in Iran under Islamic law. The country maintains under the law that it is illegal under most circumstances for a woman to be seen uncovered, and in this case, that seems to apply to women who don't outwardly practice Islam, and aren't physically in the country.

Azalea's point about the content of her songs going untouched highlights the site's discordant policy on the materials that it allows users to stream and download.

Melovaz did not immediately return Insider's request for comment, but at least dozens of edited album covers remained on the streaming site as of Monday morning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fans are calling out an Iranian music streaming site for erasing women from their own album covers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some social media users are calling out at an Iranian music site that appeared to censor nearly all female artists from their own album covers. Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, and Lana del Rey were just a few of the female artists who were obscured or completely removed from their album covers.

# data[].attributes.body
Museum of Censored Art, temporary museum in front of the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian Art Museum, Washington DC.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the past week, North Korea has allowed some Western journalists into the country to report on its military parade, and government officials have given a handful of rare interviews to international media outlets including The Associated Press, BBC, and Al-Jazeera as tensions escalated with the United States.

But this brief flurry of engagement should not be misinterpreted: North Korea remains one of the most heavily censored countries in the world. Supreme leader Kim Jong Un retains an absolute grip on the flow of public information. All media is state-owned, with the official Central Korean News Agency serving as a government mouthpiece, and the regime metes out harsh punishments for anyone accused of accessing uncensored information or sharing news from countries that it considers its enemies. Its own journalists remain strident propagandists, and advances in technology that could open up channels to independent news are fought with ever-stricter censorship and surveillance measures.

The AP maintains a permanent presence in the country, with a small team of international correspondents and photographers, and a few North Koreans who work primarily as fixers. Eric Talmadge, who has led the bureau since 2013, likens working in Pyongyang to being embedded with the military. "Obviously the context is quite different," he said. "But in practical and psychological terms, I find it very similar to my experiences embedded in Afghanistan and Iraq."

The freedoms granted to the AP reporters are denied to would-be journalists from inside the country, said Kang Cheol Hwan, president of the North Korea Strategy Center. "Journalism in North Korea is run by the state," Kang said.

Jean H. Lee, a former AP reporter who opened its Pyongyang bureau and is now a global fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Wilson Center, said North Korean citizens rarely have access to a daily newspaper, and lack adequate electricity to watch television at home. Instead, most read copies of papers posted on news boards across the city or watch TV in public areas such as Pyongyang's main train station, said Lee, who also teaches a class on North Korean media studies at Yonsei University in South Korea.

Kang said the party elite has access to a secretive newspaper, Chango Sinmun ("Reference Newspaper"), with stories from Voice of America, Russia's TASS agency, China's state-run Xinhua, and NHK in Japan. The average citizen who wants uncensored news either illegally tunes into foreign radio or relies on word of mouth, Kang said.

Advances in communications technology are mitigated by official steps to censor. Lee said the regime's elite can access news via the country's intranet. But access to the internet is highly restricted, with only North Koreans who have a specific task, such as monitoring coverage, granted permission, she said.

In keeping with Kim's efforts to appear that he is at the forefront of technology, North Korea has developed its own smartphones, tablets, and software, including Red Star 3.0, an operating system that mimics iOS, Kang said. "Ultimately, these products were carefully designed to control and monitor information," he said. Red Star 3.0 has surveillance capabilities, and the interface of the intranet, Kwangmyong, is set up to give the impression that the user has full internet access. An analysis of Red Star's capabilities by the tech-focused outlet Fast Company found that its approximately 5,000 web pages mostly contain propaganda. Kang added that the country's Arirang smartphone "looks, feels and uses like a Samsung . . . but lacks the very component that makes a smartphone a smartphone" such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and an internet browser.

When researchers from the German security company ERNW studied Red Star 3.0, they found it contained sophisticated surveillance properties, Reuters reported. This capability is particularly concerning since citizens trade flash drives to access news. The North Korean Strategy Center is among the groups distributing flash drives in an effort to combat censorship. Kang said the content typically includes PDFs of South Korean newspapers, Wikipedia pages translated into the North Korean dialect, guides on how to run businesses, radio programs, and TV shows and films, including some about the foundations of democracy such as "Lincoln."

The use of cell phones has been rising in North Korea thanks to a black market and porous border with China, but the general population is barred from making and receiving international calls, Lee said. The Daily NK reported in March 2014 that North Korea had added new clauses to Article 60 of the penal code-"attempts to overthrow the state"-which include a minimum penalty of five years of "re-education" in a prison camp and a maximum penalty of death for communicating with the outside world, including through cell phone contact. Watching South Korean media or listening to foreign radio can result in 10 years of "re-education."

Even with the availability of censorship work-arounds, Kang said, "Once North Koreans escape and resettle, it's quite difficult for them to come to terms with the influx of information available to them."

Jessica Jerreat is senior editor at the Committee to Protect Journalists. She previously edited news for the broadsheet press in the U.K., including for the foreign desk of The Times of London and at The Telegraph. She has a master's degree in war, propaganda, and society from the University of Kent at Canterbury.

This article is adapted from CPJ's publication Attacks on the Press: The New Face of Censorship, which will be released on April 25.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the past week, North Korea has allowed some Western journalists into the country to report on its military parade, and government officials have given a handful of rare interviews to international media outlets including The Associated Press, BBC, and Al-Jazeera as tensions escalated with the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fake News in North Korea: Censorship, Propaganda, and the Rewriting of History — The World Mind

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Contributing Editor Elizabeth Anderson explains how media is used to control the North Korean population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gravitas: Why China's censors banned Winnie the Pooh

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"In today's networked environment, when anyone can broadcast live or post their thoughts to a social network, it would seem that censorship ought to be impossible," Zeynep Tufekci writes in our special issue about online free speech. But while the social internet gives everyone a voice, it also has countless ways of punishing people for speaking.

An African American writer calls out racist hate speech-and gets suspended from Facebook. A young adult author watches her unpublished novel ignite a firestorm on Twitter before anyone has even read it. A Muslim civil rights attorney self-censors, and then finds herself hoping that a white man will say what she was thinking. A well-known conservative firebrand suddenly becomes one of the biggest targets of far-right trolls. A Google engineer writes a controversial memo, and instantly becomes a villain to one army of online readers and a hero to another.

These are just a few stories-told in the subjects' own words-that capture what it's like to live and post in this, our corrosive, divisive, democracy-poisoning golden age of free speech.

HOLLY O'REILLY
Songwriter and activist On being blocked by Trump, and suing him for it
I had an alert that would go off whenever Trump tweeted, and I would reply to most of his tweets. I think it was a Sunday morning: I posted a GIF of the Pope kind of looking at Trump funny, and my tweet said, "This is pretty much how the whole world sees you."

After that, my phone was very quiet all day. I thought, well, maybe he's golfing. Then I came back to my computer in the evening and saw that he had actually blocked me. And I just laughed. I'm nobody. I can't be more than a gnat to him. I felt incredulous, and then amused, and then concerned, all within moments of each other. Then I started thinking, you know, this is something that shouldn't happen.

The things that I want to say are directed not just to Trump but to the other people who are on his feed. If they're watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh and following Trump's tweets, then Twitter is at least a place where they can get an opposing opinion. But he's blocked people who disagree with him. When you look at his feed now, it's mainly just people who are praising Dear Leader. That's the part that bothers me. So when the Knight First Amendment Institute contacted me, kind of out of the blue, and asked if I would be interested in talking to them about taking part in a lawsuit against Trump, I said sure. Public officials should not be able to block you on social media.

-As told to Chelsea Leu

LAURA MORIARTY
Young-adult novelist On being deemed "problematic"
Nine months before my fifth novel, American Heart, was published, I got an email saying "There's a discussion happening on Twitter about the problematic white-savior narrative in your novel." I thought that was strange. The only thing that had been released was the publisher's two-sentence description: " American Heart, about a fifteen-year-old girl who lives in a world where detainment camps for Muslim Americans are a reality; when she decides to help a Muslim woman who is in hiding, the unlikely pair set off on a dangerous journey hitchhiking their way through the heart of America, discovering courage and kindness in the most unexpected places."

When I looked on Twitter, there was a raging discussion saying that it was a terrible, white-supremacist novel. Then, in October, Kirkus gave American Heart a starred review. It called the book "a moving portrait of an American girl discovering her society in crisis."

The same people who had been outraged about the description were even more outraged about the starred review. Four days later, Kirkus said it didn't think its review was sensitive enough-even though the reviewer was a Muslim woman. Kirkus retracted the star and asked the reviewer to reflect on her language. So now it says, "It is problematic that Sadaf is seen only through the white protagonist's filter."

I think much of the YA industry is cowed. These are important conversations to have, but someone screams "Racism!" and it's like screaming "Fire!" People just start running and panicking. I've been compared to Milo Yiannopoulos. It's ridiculous.

People said, "You haven't been censored," and I agree. I haven't; the reviewer has been. They censored her.

- As told to Kat Rosenfield

JAMES DAMORE
Former Google engineer On being fired for writing "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber"
Last year I wrote an internal document calling for a more open discussion of Google's diversity policies, citing research on average gender differences between men and women. Before it went viral, responses from coworkers ranged from "I totally agree" to "Is this true?" or " I disagree because ..."

Once it leaked, rational discussion was impossible: Extreme voices got amplified. It was all about "Oh, this sexist pig" or "Those leftists are all stupid." One manager said, "I intend to silence these views; they are violently offensive."

In the real world, you interact with people near you. You might disagree with them, but you still treat them humanely. When you interact with an avatar, that's not a person anymore. People become objectified. I was objectified as all the racism and sexism in the world.

When whole topics become taboo-like the idea that there are gender differences-many issues become impossible to solve.

An environment where employees compete and talk over one another-what I'd argue is a male-normative one-hurts people who prefer to work together and build each other up. That's disproportionately women. Many women (and some men) will feel unheard, excluded, and underappreciated, particularly because they aren't treated as they'd treat others. But people who are unaware of these differences may see employees who don't thrive in this environment as incompetent.

There was definitely a temptation to recant at certain points. But that would be so harmful to this discussion-because I think what I said was valid, and because it would discourage anyone else from speaking up. And that hurts everyone in the end.

- As told to Sarah Fallon

IJEOMA OLUO
Writer, activist, author, So You Want to Talk About Race; Editor at large, the Establishment On being suspended from Facebook
I was in the middle of Montana on a road trip with my two sons, and the only place open was a Cracker Barrel. We were the only black people there, surrounded by Southern Americana that seemed to harken back to a time that maybe wasn't the best for black people. To blow off steam, I made a quip on Twitter wondering if they would let my black ass walk out of there.

The next thing I knew my phone just blew up. It was surreal. Some clickbaity conservative websites were sharing my tweet as this egregious example of racism against white people. People saw that I was on a road trip and said they hoped I would fall off the edge of the Grand Canyon. They hoped my kids and I died in a car accident. People Photoshopped pictures of my head onto the body of a gorilla. I was seeing images of people being lynched. I tried to report what I could. Twitter actually did a really good job, but Facebook was a different story. I started posting screenshots to show people what I was facing.

I was at Disneyland, getting ready to take the kids out for the day, when I found out that Facebook had given me a three-day suspension for posting images of the harassment that I was getting on Facebook. I started bawling. It wasn't even all the hate, but knowing that our most powerful social media engines were complicit. I tried my best to explain it to the kids in a way that wouldn't make them feel like their mom was a target.

After I wrote a post on Medium about it, Facebook called to apologize. But many black activists and writers of color don't have 115,000 followers on Twitter and 53,000 followers on Facebook, like I do, who can be mobilized to force these platforms to do the right thing. It really is the life of a black woman online.

For weeks after, the moment I got any sort of negative commentary, I would panic, my blood pressure would go up, and I'd wonder, oh God, is this going to happen again? To this day, I still get hate messages about Cracker Barrel.

- As told to Nitasha Tiku

BEN SHAPIRO
Cofounder, the Daily Wire; conservative pundit On being the target of anti-Semitic abuse on Twitter
In May 2016, I posted a nice message on Twitter saying we were grateful to God that our son was born. I immediately got a flood of anti-Semitic messages about his birth, ranging from gas-chamber memes of me to talk about cockroaches and the odd racist tweet. The alt-right had been at me since March, when I came out as #NeverTrump. I knew they would come after me when I made political statements on Twitter, but when I'm tweeting out thanks to God for the birth of my baby son? I was taken aback by the insanity of it.

You have a choice when it comes to these things: Are you going to give it more light, more heat? Or do you try to ignore it? At that point the abuse had become so overwhelming that it was like, I can't let go of this anymore. So we wrote about the tweets on the Daily Wire.

I didn't file a complaint with Twitter. I am not a fan of tattling to the referee. If I have to choose between receiving a bunch of garbage on Twitter from evil people and Twitter arbitrarily deciding who to ban, I'll take the evil garbage. What I oppose about Twitter's policies is that Twitter does not make clear what those policies are, and they are not equally applied. If people are making death threats at me from the right, there's a pretty decent chance Twitter will shut it down. If they are doing the same thing from the left, I'm not sure they will.

If I were in charge of Twitter, the standard would be: No threats of violence and no implications that people should do violence. That would probably include "You belong in a gas chamber." Beyond that, have at it.

- As told to Vera Titunik

ZAHRA BILLOO
Civil rights attorney On censoring myself
Years ago, on Memorial Day, I tweeted about how I feel conflicted around the holiday. I wasn't sure how to honor people who I believe died in illegal wars. My tweets got picked up by the far right, and twisted into a narrative about how the Council on American-Islamic Relations, where I work, wanted to cancel Memorial Day. My tweets didn't come close to suggesting that, but Fox News did a story.

It escalated. I got hate mail for days on end. At work, we stopped answering the phone for a week because of the vitriol. Now we get a renewed spate of threats each Memorial Day.

Then, in 2016, at the Democratic convention, Khizr Khan gave a powerful speech. But again I felt conflicted. He was doing incredible work but on a platform that was given to him because his son had fought and died in another illegal war. This time, though, I didn't say anything. I was worried about fallout. I talked to others who felt as I did, but we all hesitated to voice our concerns publicly. I went to bed that night and had this very distinct thought: "I hope Glenn Greenwald will write about the irony of what the DNC was doing." I'm a civil rights lawyer, an American Muslim woman, and I went to bed hoping that a white man would say what I felt I couldn't.

When I was inundated with threats years back, I had been married. Now I was living alone. I look over my shoulder, I make sure all the gates are closed. My apartment complex has security cameras. I live very differently as a single Muslim woman. Some right-wing supporters of the military will say the army men died to preserve my freedom of speech. But if I use that speech, they say they want to kill me.

- As told to Maria Streshinsky

Tech, Turmoil, and the New Censorship: Zeynep Tufekci explores how technology is upending everything we thought we knew about free speech.

"Nice Website. It Would Be a Shame if Something Happened to It.": Steven Johnson goes inside Cloudflare's decision to let an extremist stronghold burn.

Everything You Say Can and Will Be Used Against You: Doug Bock Clark profiles Antifa's secret weapon against far-right extremists.

Please, Silence Your Speech: Alice Gregory visits a startup that wants to neutralize your smartphone-and un-change the world.

The Best Hope for Civil Discourse on the Internet ... Is on Reddit: Virginia Heffernan submits to Change My View.

This article appears in the February issue. Subscribe now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Tales of Censorship in the Golden Age of Free Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"In today's networked environment, when anyone can broadcast live or post their thoughts to a social network, it would seem that censorship ought to be impossible," Zeynep Tufekci writes in our special issue about online free speech. But while the social internet gives everyone a voice, it also has countless ways of punishing people for speaking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Who’s Afraid of Modern Art: Vandalism, Video Games, and Fascism