Censor Much? Who's Shutting Down Whom

[quote]CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts – Internet censorship is spreading and becoming more sophisticated across the planet, even as users develop savvier ways around it, according to early results in the first-ever comprehensive global survey of internet censorship.

The internet watchdog organization OpenNet Initiative is compiling a year’s worth of data gathered by nearly 50 cyberlaw, free-speech and network experts across as many countries, whose governments are known internet filterers.

The study systematically tested if, when, how and by whom thousands of controversial websites are blocked in each nation.[/quote]
wired.com/news/technology/0, … wn_index_2

I’m glad someone is doing this kind of study for real instead of just talking out of their asses.

The article will lead to this link:
rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19603
to find who the real baddies are.

HA! And the Reporters Without Borders site won’t allow you to copy and paste! How friggin ironic is that!?

But some cool stats:

China has 17,000,000 bloggers! Yet the gov’ment does a good job in shutting their minds down so that they don’t even post anything remotely antigov’ment. :bravo: Way to go boys. Way to go.

Saudi Arabia is so hip with its brainwashing that its own people send URLs to the gov’ment to get MORE sites blocked! :bravo:

Vietnam does lipservice to the “No sex sites” motto is propounds, but actually does more to block opposition party websites. :bravo:

Iran also censors “immoral” websites. That’s right, there will be no filthy websites or discussion about RELIGION in Iran letmetellya! And sites that are dealt with most harshly these days? Women’s rights. :bravo:

Lots more in ways of linkage on these two sites.

Enjoy, and in the spirit of openness and free speech: God is dead; the women are smarter; porn prevents rape; abortion prevents crime; democracy is the worst political system in the world, except for all the others; people who blow themselves up are not cowards; people who shoot people who want to blow themselves up are not monsters; people who don’t invest in the stock market are ignorant; people who don’t have private health insurance in Taiwan are foolish; politics is economics, dummy; the Dalai Lama is out of touch; Taiwan beer sucks; Religion makes boring people interesting; reading is freedom; not everyone deserves to be happy; children do NOT need to be raised by a village, Hillary; youtube is the best thing to happen to the world since MTV; graphic Novels rock; raising a kid is fun, not hell; revenge IS sweet; THOUGHT comes cheap, but delivering it is not.

Peace, or go to Hell. Whichever applies.

jds
:rainbow:

I blame U.S. President George W. Bush.

(…just wanted to be te 1st to post that)

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]I blame U.S. President George W. Bush.

(…just wanted to be te 1st to post that)[/quote]

Try Al Gore. He started it all. :laughing:

Right after he wrote “Love Story.”

“Reporters without Borders” is a front, and it’s “everyone does not deserve to be happy”, not “not everyone deserves to be happy”. :unamused: That’s it, you’re on ignor…
*

Hey! Who’s censoring me! You can’t do th…
*

:taz:

No offense, JD, but that’s old news and I don’t believe anyone would be the least bit surprised by the findings. High levels of govt censorship occur online (as well as off) in countries such as Iran, Saudia Arabia, China, Vietnam, North Korea. There have been various govt efforts to censor the Net in developed, Western nations, too, but there’s no question the level of censorship is infinitely greater in more repressive Muslim, Communist and totalitarian regimes.

Notwithstanding the above, the US Govt has repeatedly attempted to censor the Net and continues to do so.

[quote]In February of 1996, the [b]Communications Decency Act /b was enacted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. CDA sought to protect minors from harmful material online by criminalizing internet transmission of “indecent” materials to minors. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union that CDA was an unconstitutional restriction on the Internet. . . Because only obscenity is regulable, the regulations would effectively reduce the constitutionally protected material available to adults “to only what is fit for children.” The unique characteristics of Internet communications (its ready availability and ease of use) were integral to the decision. Because it is possible to warn viewers about incipient indecent content (unlike radio, where warnings fail to protect all potential listeners), and because alternatives exist, at least in theory, the CDA’s provisions cast a “far darker shadow over free speech which threatened to torch a larger segment of the Internet community than [any] speech restrictions previously encountered.” . . .

In October 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), the “sequel” to CDA. COPA establishes criminal penalties for any commercial distribution of material harmful to minors. . .

In February 1999, the federal district court in Philadelphia issued an injunction preventing the government from enforcing COPA. That court held that COPA was invalid because there is no way for Web speakers to prevent minors from harmful material on the Web without also burdening adults from access to protected speech. . .

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on June 22, 2000, finding that COPA was unconstitutional on a different ground. “Because of the peculiar geography-free nature of cyberspace, [COPA’s] community standards test would essentially require every web communication to abide by the most restrictive community’s standards.” . . . [/quote]

epic.org/free_speech/copa/

Private industries also threaten to censor the Net:

[quote]AOL Censors Gay Video Titles, Finds “Buns” Acceptable but “Studs” Too
Sleazy

AOL customers won’t be surprised to hear that the AOL censors are at it
again. AOL has long had a policy of screening certain “dirty words” from its
public bulletin boards and chat groups. Last week, The Boston Globe reported
that AOL had banned the word “breast.” The company agreed to reverse the
policy after “several days of on-line protests by irate breast cancer
patients.” . . . [/quote]
epic.org/free_speech/censors … orship.txt

The above are just a few representative examples. Yes, censorship is greatest in the world’s most repressive regimes, but concerned citizens should remain vigilant in the West also.

There is evidence to suggest that perhaps porn really does prevent rape: How the Web Prevents Rape

Another US govt attempt at Internet censorship that was struck down as unconstitutional was a federal law, whose name I don’t recall, banning not only online child pornogaphy, but simulated child pornography.

In other words, if I post photos online of myself having sex with my adult wife dressed in schoolgirl clothes, sucking on a lolipop, with her hair in pigtails, I could be arrested for creating simulated child porn. Such photos might be offensive on various other grounds, but the idea of banning simulated child porn (no children actually depicted) is ludicrous.

By analogy, if the portrayal of simulated murder was banned, Hollywood would have to shut down. Fortunately, as I said, I’m fairly sure the courts had the common sense to strike down that law.

No, who says …

[quote=“RSF”] List of the 13 Internet enemies in 2006 published

The online demo is also accessible on a miror Web site, for those who cannot access www.rsf.org

The list of 13 Internet enemies

Three countries - Nepal, Maldives and Libya - have been removed from the annual list of Internet enemies, which Reporters Without Borders publishes today. But many bloggers were harassed and imprisoned this year in Egypt, so it has been added to the roll of shame reserved for countries that systematically violate online free expression.

Countries in alphabetical order :

Belarus

The government has a monopoly of telecommunications and does not hesitate to block access to opposition websites if it feels the need, especially at election time. Independent online publications are also often hacked. In March 2006, for example, several websites critical of President Alexandre Lukashenko mysteriously disappeared from the Internet for several days.

Burma

The Burmese government’s Internet policies are even more repressive than those of its Chinese and Vietnamese neighbours. The military junta clearly filters opposition websites. It keeps a very close eye on Internet cafes, in which the computers automatically execute screen captures every five minutes, in order to monitor user activity. The authorities targeted Internet telephony and chat services in June, blocking Google’s Gtalk, for example. The aim was two-fold: to defend the profitable long-distance telecommunications market, which is controlled by state companies, as well as to stop cyber-dissidents from using a means of communication that is hard to monitor.

China

China unquestionably continues to be the world’s most advanced country in Internet filtering. The authorities carefully monitor technological progress to ensure that no new window of free expression opens up, After initially targeting websites and chat forums, they nowadays concentrate on blogs and video exchange sites. China now has nearly 17 million bloggers. This is an enormous number, but very few of them dare to tackle sensitive issues, still less criticise government policy. Firstly, because China’s blog tools all include filters that block “subversive” word strings. Secondly, because the companies operating these services, both Chinese and foreign, are pressured by the authorities to control content. They employ armies of moderators to clean up the content produced by the bloggers. Finally, in a country in which 52 people are currently in prison for expressing themselves too freely online, self-censorship is obviously in full force. Just five years ago, many people thought Chinese society and politics would be revolutionised by the Internet, a supposedly uncontrollable medium. Now, with China enjoying increasing geopolitical influence, people are wondering the opposite, whether perhaps China’s Internet model, based on censorship and surveillance, may one day be imposed on the rest of the world.

Cuba

With less than 2 per cent of its population online, Cuba is one of the most backward Internet countries. An investigation carried out by Reporters Without Borders in October revealed that the Cuban government uses several levers to ensure that this medium is not used in a “counter-revolutionary” way. Firstly, it has more or less banned private Internet connections. To surf the Internet or check their e-mail, Cubans have to go to public access points such as Internet cafes, universities and “youth computer clubs” where their activity is more easily monitored. Secondly, the computers in all the Internet cafes and leading hotels contain software installed by the Cuban police that triggers an alert message whenever “subversive” key-words are spotted. The regime also ensures that there is no Internet access for dissidents and independent journalists, for whom communicating with people abroad is an ordeal. Finally, the government also relies on self-censorship. You can get 20 years in prison for writing “counter-revolutionary” articles for foreign websites. You can even get five years just for connecting to the Internet illegally. Few Internet users dare to run the risk of defying the regime’s censorship.

Egypt

Aside from a few sites linked to the Muslim Brotherhood’s religious movements, Egypt does little online filtering. But President Hosni Mubarak, who has been in power since 1981, displays an extremely disturbing authoritarianism as regards the Internet. Three bloggers were arrested in June 2006 and were held for two to three months for calling for democratic reforms. Others have been harassed, such as Coptic blogger Hela Hemi Botros, who was forced to close down her blog in August under pressure from the police. Finally, a Council of State administrative court recently ruled that the authorities could block, suspend of close down any website likely to pose a threat to “national security.” This could open the way to extensive online censorship.

Iran

Repression of bloggers seems to have declined in 2006. Whereas around 20 were imprisoned in 2005, only Arash Sigarchi is in jail at the moment. But Internet filtering has stepped up and Iran today boasts of filtering 10 million “immoral” websites. Pornographic sites, political sites and those dealing with religion are usually the ones most targeted. But since the summer of 2006, the censors have concentrated on online publications dealing with women’s rights. The authorities also recently decided to ban broadband connections. This could be explained by a concern not to overload the very poor-quality Iranian network, but it could also be motivated by a desire to prevent the downloading of Western cultural products such as films and songs.

North Korea

Like last year, North Korea continues to be the world’s worst Internet black hole. Only a few officials are able to access the web, using connections rented from China. The country’s domain name - .nk - has still not been launched and the few websites created by the North Korean government are hosted on servers in Japan or South Korea. It is hard to believe this is simply the result of economic difficulties in a country which today is capable of manufacturing nuclear warheads. The North Korean journalists who have found refuge in South Korea are very active on the Internet, especially on the www.dailynk.com website.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia does not hide its online censorship. Unlike China, where website blocking is disguised as technical problems, Saudi Arabia’s filters clearly tell Internet users that certain websites are banned. Censorship concentrates on pornographic content, but it also targets opposition websites, Israeli publications, or sites dealing with homosexuality. Blogs also pose a problem to the Saudi censors. Last year they tried to completely block access to the country’s biggest blog tool, blogger.com. But they backed off a few days later and now they just block the blogs that are deemed unacceptable. In June of this year, for example, the intimate diary of “Saudi Eve,” a young woman who dared to talk about her love life and criticise government censorship, was added to the blacklist.

Syria

Syria is the Middle East’s biggest prison for cyber-dissidents, with three people currently detained for criticising the authorities online. They are systematically tortured and subjected to inhumane conditions. The government bans access to Arabic-language opposition sites and sites dealing with Syria’s Kurdish minority.

Tunisia

In 2005, Tunisia had the honour of hosting the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a big UN event about the Internet’s future. Yet President Zine el Abidine Ben Ali’s Internet policies are among the most repressive in the world. All the Internet cafes are state-controlled. They filter web content and are under close police surveillance. It is, for example, impossible to access the Reporters Without Borders website from inside Tunisia. The security services also constantly harass independent bloggers and opposition website editors to ensure that self-censorship prevails. One cyber-dissident, Mohammed Abbou, has been imprisoned since March 2005 for criticising the president in an online newsletter.

Turkmenistan

With less than 1 per cent of the population online, this is one of the world’s least connected countries. President Separmurad Nyazov is a central Asian Kim Jong-Il, wielding total control over the media. Not only is the Turkmen Internet censored, it is also forbidden territory for the vast majority of the population.

Uzbekistan

Official censorship seems to have become even tougher since the bloody crackdown on the pro-democracy protests in Andidjan in May 2005. The iron-fisted government led by President Islam Karimov blocks access to most independent websites dealing with Uzbekistan, which are usually hosted on servers in Russia, and to NGO websites that criticise its human rights violations.

Vietnam

The Vietnamese government is negotiating its admission to the World Trade Organisation and is in the uncomfortable position of being squeezed by the international community. Unlike neighbouring China, it is unable to completely ignore the demands of foreign diplomats. It therefore seems to be tending to soften its control over news and information, and hesitates to crack down on dissidents. Several cyber-dissidents, the most famous of whom was Pham Hong Son, were released in 2005 and 2006. This relative forbearance seems to have breathed new life into Vietnam’s pro-democracy movement, which is making admirable use of the Internet to organise and circulate independently-sourced news domestically. A group calling itself “8406" even launched an online petition in the summer of 2006, signed by hundreds of people using their real names, calling on the government to begin political reforms. This use of the Internet by young democrats alarms the authorities, who are still often ready to use force to silence these cyber-dissidents. Ten people have been arrested this year for what they said on the Internet. Four of them are still detained.

Countries removed from the list

Libya

Reporters Without Borders confirmed, during a fact-finding visit, that the Internet is no longer censored in Libya. Furthermore, no cyber-dissident has been detained since Abdel Razak Al Mansuri’s release in March 2006. Reporters Without Borders nonetheless still regards President Muammar Gaddafi as a press freedom predator.

Maldives

No cyber-dissident has been imprisoned in the Maldives since Fathimath Nisreen, Mohamed Zaki and Ahmad Didi were released between May 2005 and February 2006. President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom is still viewed by Reporters Without Borders as a press freedom predator but his policies towards the Internet no longer justify keeping his country on the list of Internet enemies.

Nepal

Reporters Without Borders has observed a marked improvement in freedom of expression since King Gyanendra backed down and democratic rule was restored in May 2006. The Internet is no longer censored and no harassment or arbitrary detention of any blogger has been reported.[/quote]

rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19603

damn! It’s my PC censoring me! wtf!

I’ve been experiencing the same problem, but I believe it’s my employer’s entire system. :fume:

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]No offense, JD, but that’s old news and I don’t believe anyone would be the least bit surprised by the findings. High levels of govt censorship occur online (as well as off) in countries such as Iran, Saudia Arabia, China, Vietnam, North Korea. There have been various govt efforts to censor the Net in developed, Western nations, too, but there’s no question the level of censorship is infinitely greater in more repressive Muslim, Communist and totalitarian regimes.

Notwithstanding the above, the US Govt has repeatedly attempted to censor the Net and continues to do so.

[quote]In February of 1996, the [b]Communications Decency Act /b was enacted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. CDA sought to protect minors from harmful material online by criminalizing internet transmission of “indecent” materials to minors. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union that CDA was an unconstitutional restriction on the Internet. . . Because only obscenity is regulable, the regulations would effectively reduce the constitutionally protected material available to adults “to only what is fit for children.” The unique characteristics of Internet communications (its ready availability and ease of use) were integral to the decision. Because it is possible to warn viewers about incipient indecent content (unlike radio, where warnings fail to protect all potential listeners), and because alternatives exist, at least in theory, the CDA’s provisions cast a “far darker shadow over free speech which threatened to torch a larger segment of the Internet community than [any] speech restrictions previously encountered.” . . .

In October 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), the “sequel” to CDA. COPA establishes criminal penalties for any commercial distribution of material harmful to minors. . .

In February 1999, the federal district court in Philadelphia issued an injunction preventing the government from enforcing COPA. That court held that COPA was invalid because there is no way for Web speakers to prevent minors from harmful material on the Web without also burdening adults from access to protected speech. . .

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on June 22, 2000, finding that COPA was unconstitutional on a different ground. “Because of the peculiar geography-free nature of cyberspace, [COPA’s] community standards test would essentially require every web communication to abide by the most restrictive community’s standards.” . . . [/quote]

epic.org/free_speech/copa/

Private industries also threaten to censor the Net:

[quote]AOL Censors Gay Video Titles, Finds “Buns” Acceptable but “Studs” Too
Sleazy

AOL customers won’t be surprised to hear that the AOL censors are at it
again. AOL has long had a policy of screening certain “dirty words” from its
public bulletin boards and chat groups. Last week, The Boston Globe reported
that AOL had banned the word “breast.” The company agreed to reverse the
policy after “several days of on-line protests by irate breast cancer
patients.” . . . [/quote]
epic.org/free_speech/censors … orship.txt

The above are just a few representative examples. Yes, censorship is greatest in the world’s most repressive regimes, but concerned citizens should remain vigilant in the West also.[/quote]

Well, I don’t think it’s on a “ALL censorship is the same” level MT, but I do see your point. IMHO, the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan were censored by the US at the beginning, and they should have been. It makes it too easy for the enemy to find out where the troops are. But now, the media can move pretty much freely, at risk of course to themselves. Censorship can be a useful tool in wartimes.

Censoring porn from the web though is just the latest in the “YOU parents don’t know how to protect/raise your own kids, so we, the Gov’ment will do it for you, for your own good” line of huggy feely bulshit coming downstream. Get out of my house, Hillary.

Turn the damn thing off; don’t allow you kid to have a PC in his/her bedroom; and sit with your kids and monitor them when they are online. I don’t let my son watch TV by himself, or that much even, and there’s NO way in hell I’ll let him go online and surf without netnanny’s on or me close by.

And I’m FAR more worried about the stupidity and violence on youtube and other video forums than porn. An erection vs. wanting to jump off a bridge literally because some other moron did it and lived. :loco:

China lowering the bar.

[quote] China Requires Censoring on New PCs

China has issued a sweeping directive requiring all personal computers sold in the country to include sophisticated software that can filter out pornography and other “unhealthy information” from the Internet.

The software, which manufacturers must install on all new PCs starting July 1, would allow the government to regularly update computers with an ever-changing list of banned Web sites.

The rules, issued last month in a government directive, ratchet up Internet restrictions that are already among the most stringent in the world. China regularly blocks Web sites that discuss the Dalai Lama, the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square protesters, and the Falun Gong, the banned spiritual movement.

But free-speech advocates say they fear the new software could make it even more difficult for China’s 300 million Internet users to obtain uncensored news and information.

“This is a very bad thing,” said Charles Mok, chairman of the Hong Kong chapter of the Internet Society, an international advisory group on Internet standards. “It’s like downloading spyware onto your computer, but the government is the spy.”

Called “Green Dam” — a reference to slogans that describe a smut-free Internet as “green” — the software is designed to filter out sexually explicit images and words, according to the company that designed it. Computer experts, however, warn that once installed, the software could be directed to block all manner of content or allow the government to monitor Internet use and collect personal information. . . .

PC makers who serve the Chinese market, among them Dell, Lenovo and Hewlett-Packard, said they were studying the new rules and declined to comment. But privately, industry executives in the United States said they were unnerved by the new rules, which were issued by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology with no consultation and no advance warning. . . .

This is not the first time that foreign companies have been enlisted in government efforts to police the Internet. Google already removes politically sensitive results yielded by its popular search engine, Microsoft allows censors to block content on its blog service and Yahoo was widely criticized for turning over information that was used to jail a journalist.

“I would advise dissidents to buy computers before July 1,” said Clothilde Le Coz of Reporters Without Borders. . .

In recent months China has tightened its Internet restrictions, including an “anti-vulgarity” campaign that has closed down thousands of pornographic sites but also nonsexual sites, including some of the most popular bulletin boards and blog hosts. China already employs more than 30,000 censors and thousands who “guide public opinion” by flooding bulletin boards with comments favorable to the Communist Party.

Last week, as the 20th anniversary of the military crackdown on Tiananmen approached, the government blocked a host of Internet services, including Twitter, Microsoft’s live.com and Flickr, a photo-sharing site, though by Monday evening, these sites had become available again. YouTube has been inaccessible in mainland China since March. . . [/quote]
nytimes.com/2009/06/09/world … na.html?hp

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]China lowering the bar.

[quote] China Requires Censoring on New PCs
… said Clothilde Le because of Reporters Without Borders. . .
[/quote]
nytimes.com/2009/06/09/world … na.html?hp[/quote]

Nice one. It’s actually Clothilde le C-o-z. An automatic word substitution for C-O-Z as journo shorthand? Stupid word Nazi strikes again.

So, back on topic: as if China secret police hasn’t got worms installed on everyone’s computers anyway, in or out of China. Nearly as bad as a Microsoft intrusion, that one.

It seems the software doesnt need to be pre-installed. From the wsj it is noted, [quote] The software needn’t be preinstalled on each new PC – it may instead be shipped on a compact disc – giving users some choice. [/quote]

As far as MY computer is concerned, I don’t want any of this type of software within a mile of it. When it comes to kids, there is a legitimate argument for providing a safe environment for them to surf the web. Many programs already exist for this sole purpose.

Besides, its fairly easy to download and install an alternative operating system, which would not come equipped with this “green dam” software. Most likely a manual removal could be done fairly easily too.

Australia too see to be toying with the idea of Internet filtering , and as for monitoring its citizens, the US has Patriot Act, or if it didn’t would would monitor internet activity anyway.

Yup. Using the computer on the kitchen table with mom and dad nearby is probably the best Internet environment for kids

There is evidence to suggest that perhaps porn really does prevent rape: How the Web Prevents Rape[/quote]

I always go to ‘Slate’ for my peer reviewed scholarly assessments of complex psycho-social phenomena. Let’s see what that giant organ of learning had to say this time:

[quote]The bottom line on these experiments is, “More Net access, less rape.” A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes.K, so we can at least tentatively conclude that Net access reduces rape. But that’s a far cry from proving that porn access reduces rape.

Maybe rape is down because the rapists are all indoors reading Slate or vandalizing Wikipedia. But professor Kendall points out that there is no similar effect of Internet access on homicide. It’s hard to see how Wikipedia can deter rape without deterring other violent crimes at the same time. On the other hand, it’s easy to imagine how porn might serve as a substitute for rape.[/quote]

As usual, the hard data says one thing, and imagination fills in what the data failed to demonstrate. Would ‘Slate’ happen to have a liberal slant by any chance?

You know, my sister and her husband does exactly what Maoman describes with thier three daughters, the oldest of which is just 10, lovely kids, and have learned to chat with uncle Mick in Taiwan by skype, which i enjoy very much.

But, like many parents, computers are unfamiliar territory, I suspect my sister and my parents are like this. So, knowing what kind of sites may pop up by just typing in the wrong url, concerns me.

Personally, I dont think Microsoft or Apple or the PC manufactures have done enough to have a simple way for them to create parental control. Some of these images take a second to see, and are not easily put out of mind, and easily stumbled across by mistake, even with a parent supervising, or even if the parent was typing in all urls themselves. It happens.

Is it wrong for China to by default try to create a safe environment, which at the same time seems to be an option to even choose to install?

Very sensible of them too.