From ABU

Pakistan has banned the transmission of Indian TV channels in the country.

India’s Information and Broadcasting Minister P R Dasmunshi said the ban was enforced strictly on Indian news channels in particular.

Based on an article from the Columbian

Broadcasters and other entertainment providers have unveiled a $300 million ad campaign to inform parents how they could shield their children from supposedly objectionable television shows.

The humorous public service announcements urge parents to visit a Web site that offers information on how to use the "v-chip" and cable set-top boxes to keep sex and violence out of their living rooms.

Jack Valenti, former president and CEO of the MPAA introduced the ads at a briefing before leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee. Valenti said the online tools will equip parents to: be the boss of what your kids watch.

The campaign is coordinated by the Advertising Council in cooperation with the MPAA, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the National Association of Broadcasters, the Consumer Electronics Association, the major television networks and satellite TV providers.

The campaign was originally announced last April in the hope it would persuade Congress not to pass legislation increasing penalties for indecent broadcasting. Congress voted to increase fines tenfold anyway.

Valenti said the new campaign was not about fending off legislation but "doing the right thing." While the indecency law covers only broadcast television, Valenti said the new education program should help parents include cable and satellite programming, too.

Based on an article from Ledger Enquirer

Unclear federal rules for broadcast television decency standards are putting public TV stations at risk and threaten to deprive viewers of important programs, PBS President Paula Kerger said Wednesday.

The fines now would put stations out of business and we cannot allow that to happen, Kerger told a meeting of the Television Critics Association: We need to do a better job ... in letting the American people know that this is not just about Janet Jackson. This is about filmmakers that have powerful stories that now are not being allowed to tell those stories on public television or broadcast television.

Next week, PBS plans to file arguments in support of a Northern California public TV station that is appealing a $15,000 fine levied by the Federal Communications Commission over the airing of an episode of Martin Scorsese's music documentary The Blues.

It's paralyzing, said Kerger, who has held the posts of president and chief executive officer for less than five months but worked in public broadcasting for 13 years.

John F. Wilson, a fellow PBS executive, gave a vivid example of broadcasting's quandary: Scenes in which a character utters an epithet may be censored not only for sound but for picture, he said: We try to follow the zig or the zag here of the FCC ... we are now blurring lips when you can see plainly, to a reasonable person making this judgment, that you can tell what they're saying,

PBS is wary of what might befall an upcoming documentary on World War II by acclaimed filmmaker Ken Burns. The War is scheduled to air in fall of 2007.

Those sharing their memories for such a film should be able to do so freely, even if FCC-banned epithets are involved, Kerger said. One suggested solution is to put The War on later at night, she said, but that would deprive some of the chance to see what Burns feels is his greatest work.

For now, the film is scheduled to air between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m., although the air date has yet to be announced. Alerting concerned viewers to its language content should be considered an adequate safeguard, Kerger said: They should have the opportunity not to watch something if it's going to be troubling. But for others, to be able to see a documentary and to be able to let a person tell their own story and not censor the words that are coming out of their mouth is tremendously important.

Meanwhile CBS Corp officials were in court Friday, asking an appeals court to overturn a Federal Communications Commission decision to fine the broadcaster for showing Janet Jackson’s breast during the 2004 Super Bowl.

In a statement, the network said: We disagree strongly with the FCC’s conclusions and will continue to pursue all remedies necessary to affirm our legal rights,”

From The Sydney Morning Herald

The adult entertainment industry is pushing the Federal Government to allow pornography on new digital television channels. An industry body, Eros Association, said yesterday it had requested a meeting with the Communications Minister, Helen Coonan, to discuss the potential for a porn channel.

But the Government is expected to take a hard line, fearing a public backlash in the lead-up to an election year. Companies interested in bidding for up to 30 digital channels have already been warned that porn and gambling-related channels are off the cards.

Senator Coonan unveiled her plan for the media industry this month, including the allocation of two new digital licences, with up to 15 channels each.

One media executive said yesterday that subscription-based channels for gambling or porn "made the most convincing business cases", but would probably be banned.

The Eros chief executive, Fiona Patten, said a porn channel would help drive the take-up of digital TV. She said the Government should consider allowing X-rated as well as R-rated content otherwise the Government is effectively saying violence is OK but sex is not. People can watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but not Debbie Does Dallas.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has made recommendations to Senator Coonan on how the new digital channels should be allocated and marketed.

A spokeswoman for the minister said she would considering that advice before going back to her colleagues for final approval of the plan.

From X Biz

Amending the 2257 federal record-keeping requirement, President Bush signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 before a White House crowd that included “America’s Most Wanted” host John Walsh, for whose son the bill is named.

While H.R. 4472 takes dramatic steps to protect children, such as creating a national sex offender registry, it also reshapes the 2257 playing field, according to Free Speech Coalition attorney Jeffrey Douglas, who said that the law mandates that so-called secondary producers — a group that likely includes adult webmasters — will be required to comply with 2257.

In addition to expanding liability to secondary producers, the proposed law also mandates record-keeping for films and images containing depictions of “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.”

According to Douglas, that means that exhibitions of mere nudity could fall under the 2257 record-keeping regime.

From The Sydney Morning Herald

State and federal governments will review literature classifications so that so-called books of hate can be banned more easily.

After initial resistance from the states, a meeting of attorneys-general yesterday gave the federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, the green light for the joint review of censorship. The guidelines are likely to be comprehensively rewritten.

A spokesman for the NSW Attorney-General, Bob Debus, said: NSW is not going to support this. Queensland expressed some reservations and Rob Hulls, of Victoria, said current classification arrangements were adequate to deal with publications relating to terrorism.

In the end, however, the states fell into line, although some maintained a veneer of suspicion. Ruddock said he was pleased that previously reluctant states and territories: are willing to support a fresh look. Material which urges or advocates terrorist acts should not be available for sale. We are not about curtailing freedom of speech.

Ruddock asked the states to ban material counselling, urging, providing instruction or praising terrorist acts.

He also wants reality television checked by classification rules less tolerant of sex and nudity. Critics have likened this to Big Brother suppressing Big Brother, a reference to government irritability at the reality TV show, particularly following an internet broadcast of alleged sexual harassment.

From AVN

A federal judge has barred the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission from seizing adult materials unless a judge deems it obscene.

U.S. District Judge Gray Miller said Monday that the agency’s practice of seizing pornographic materials it deems obscene violates the constitutional guarantees of free speech, the Houston Chronicle reported. Miller also ruled a law that allowed such seizures unconstitutional.

Miller’s ruling is part of a 2003 lawsuit filed by Houston-based Carico Distributing Co. which distributes adult materials in Texas. The company sued the agency after it conducted repeated raids on liquor and convenience stores that carry its adult magazines and videos.

In ordering a permanent injunction on seizures, Miller said the agency could only seize adult materials after a judge determined that they were obscene. He also struck down as unconstitutional a law that forbids stores with licenses from the commission to carry or display “immoral, indecent, lewd or profane” materials

Well the MPs have just started their annual holidays and so the promised publication date for the consultation responses has quietly passed. Hopefully a good sign but there's no reason why the response shouldn't be published during the recess.

The fact that the Scottish Executive has also postponed consideration of a new law is also promising.

From News.com.au

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says he wants to consider tighter censorship controls on controversial publications, after an unfavourable classification ruling on extremist "hate" books.

Ruddock today outlined his proposal, to be considered at a meeting of Australia's attorneys-general tomorrow, to make it easier to ban books or broadcasts that promote hatred, violence or terrorism.

His plan comes after the Classification Review Board refused classification to only two of seven "hate" books whose classifications Ruddock had wanted reconsidered.

Ruddock asked the Classification Review Board to reassess the books' classification after the Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ruled in May that they did not incite violence or breach sedition laws.

Only two books, Defence of the Muslim Lands and Join the Caravan, on sale at Islamic bookstores in Sydney, were subsequently refused classification.

Ruddock said that the decision highlighted a possible need to tighten censorship: I referred the same publications to the Classification Review Board who can refuse classification and, in the case of two of them, did. In relation to the others it's fair enough to ask the same question, whether the standard has been set at too high a level to deal with matters that might well be of real concern to the broader Australian community.

NSW Attorney-General Bob Debus and his Victorian counterpart, Rob Hulls, have said they will not support Ruddock's censorship plan, which would also apply to reality television shows such as Big Brother.

And when you consider the consequences, don't forget that the Government have been quietly reclassifying loads of relatively minor offences as 'serious'.

From Linx Public Affairs

Following a report from the Law Commission, the Government is considering making it an offence for a person, “D”, to do something for another person, “X”,

• where D believes or suspects that X is involved in serious organised crime; and
• where D also believes or suspects that their own actions could encourage or assist the criminal activities.

Hello Pizza Delivery... Foreign Office? Sorry no can do, illegal invasion of Iraq Ofcom? Sorry, human rights abuse, unjustified censorship Tax Office? Sorry, extortion Barclaycard Board? Sorry, protection insurance racket Tony Blair? Sorry, Vice, illegal Arse licking in Washington

This will be used to prevent D doing such things as fitting security features to premises for X, letting X use premises to hold meetings or, one would assume, providing X with electronic communications services.

Such an offence would raise two interesting questions for Internet Service Providers. Firstly, what type and degree of knowledge would be necessary to trigger liability? This is a generalisation of the questions arising from the recent debate on the hacking tools offence.

Secondly, as a matter of public policy, how far removed from criminal culpability should criminal liability for actions relating to offending behaviour be extended? Is it desirable that a person should have their phone cut off merely because the communications provider has read in the newspaper that they’ve been charged with participating in organised crime, and so fears becoming liable for any criminal activity that person might engage in over the phone?

The Law Commission argues that this new inchoate offence of assisting or encouraging crime should not have too wide a reach, particularly where it is not D’s purpose that an offence be committed. However the government believes it might be appropriate to lower the threshold for the offence below the Law Commission’s standard so as to ensure some participants do not escape prosecution.

The Home Office is inviting comments on :

• whether the new offence should be limited to those who believe an offence will be committed, or whether it should be widened; and
• whether the Government is right to consider extending liability to those who indirectly encourage or assist a person (x) where they suspect that this encouragement or assistance will aid X’s criminal activities (as against specific types of criminal offence)

Comments are required by 17th October 2006.

From World Net Daily
By Dr. Rusty Shackleford runs the banned website The Jawa Report.

Two days after the Mumbai bombings last week that killed more than 180, the government of India issued a directive banning 17 websites. These websites were singled out because, according to the Indian government, they might incite religious violence. The nine American websites banned by India are all critical of the Islamist movement. Not a single website of Islamic extremists justifying and even celebrating the Mumbai bombings has been banned.

Why did India ban these websites? And what is the larger meaning of this action? As proprietor of one of the banned websites, I am in a unique position to answer those questions.

The short answer to the first question is that we offended Islamists, and India is afraid of its own Muslim citizens. The short answer to the second question is that liberty may not be able to exist where there are large populations of Muslims.

Some time ago, a false story began to be circulated in the mainstream press that a detainee's Quran had been put in a toilet at Guantanamo Bay. Some Muslims reacted by protesting, some rioted, and some were killed as a result.

So, the reaction of our websites was to make fun of this overreaction. Oddly, mocking the intolerant is now considered a form of intolerance by many in the world.

The specific reason for India's ban was that our reactions to the Quran-flushing story could cause religious violence. Since it was only websites deemed offensive to Muslims that were banned, we know precisely who it is that India fears.

The game is available for pre-order at UK Amazon with an 18 rating

From GamesIndustry.biz

From BIA

See www.filmratings.com

The US rating system that helps parents stay informed about movie content appropriate for children has added a new e-mail alert service.

The Classification and Rating Administration announced its introduction of Red Carpet Ratings, which can be received on computers or handheld devices, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) said.

As new movies are released each week, parents can receive new ratings and explanations for the ratings. Posters at movie theaters also will help inform parents about ratings and the Red Carpet Ratings service.

The rating system established 38 years ago is determined by a board of 10 to 13 parents who rate movies submitted by filmmakers.

US residents can sign up by visiting the Motion Picture Association Web site at www.mpaa.org or www.filmratings.com. E-mails generally will be delivered every Tuesday.

From Ofcom
see also their Annual Report

Ofcom have just published their annual report.

On the subject of adult programming they say:

In its first eight months of operation the new Code has had an encouraging start. It offers simpler and clearer rules, supported by crisp guidance on how to avoid contravention and Ofcom looks forward to continuing to work with broadcasters in implementing the Code.

Er excuse me...the only consistency I can see is that all forms of adult programming adhere to unpublished Ofcon guidelines that are consistently at odds with the published guidelines.

Some subscription adult channels are allowed to show R18 rated cunnilingus and some are too scared to show 18 rated nudity.

Free to air babe channels have an unpublished midnight watershed and can show near zero nudity. But the guidelines say that free to air channels can show 18 rated material after the 9pm watershed. Yet a recent documentary shows them working to unpublished guidelines such as a prohibition on transparent pants.

Ofcon continue on the adult theme:

The second significant decision the Content Board considered was whether to allow the more explicit form of adult content, known by the BBFC classification as R18, on cable and satellite television. This decision centred on whether protection mechanisms PIN numbers and so forth provided adequate security to prevent access by children. The Board concluded that, currently, for the strongest sexual material they do not, and therefore recommended to the main Ofcom Board that the restriction should remain. As technology develops, the judgement may change.

Also in today's news, Ofcom's outgoing Chief Executive, Stephen Carter, is departing this month, 3 months earlier than planned.

From IT World

The Indian government late Thursday told ISPs  to stop blocking entire blog Web sites such as Google Inc.'s www.blogspot.com.

The move comes after Indian bloggers and the media found that most blog Web sites were inaccessible to them, although the government's Department of Telecommunications (DOT) had notified ISPs on July 13 that they had to block only 17 Web sites and blogs.

Some ISPs blocked entire domains such as www.blogspot.com rather than the sub-domains that they had been instructed to block, said Deepak Maheshwari, secretary of the ISP Association of India. The ISP Association advised its members earlier Thursday not to block entire domains, but only the Web sites and blogs specified by the government.

The DOT in a statement Thursday said it had instructed all ISPs in the country to provide unhindered Internet access except for the Web sites and Web pages specifically mentioned in its earlier order. The DOT also sought explanations from ISPs about why action should not be taken against them for blocking unintended Web sites and Web pages.

From Zee News

Facing stiff opposition from Internet service providers and net surfers against blocking of 18 websites following Mumbai train blasts, the Department of Information Technology today sought to play down its action saying it wanted to censor only a few pages of just one site but technology in India did not permit a limited curb.

The blockage was ordered in a bid to check hate or intimidating messages on the net in the wake of the blasts that left more than 200 dead in railway stations in Mumbai on July 11.

A top official of computer emergency response team (CERT), who did not want to be named, said the DoT was told to block four pages of a particular website. However, technologically it is not possible to block a particular page of a site and hence it resulted in blocking of a number of websites completely.

Asked if DoT would lift the ban on so many websites, concerned officials said the department is talking to officials in the DIT to resolve the problem.

From Pak Tribune

Members of Afghanistan’s fledging news media are up in arms over a recent government directive that they say is the first step toward imposing censorship on journalists.

The uproar began last month when the National Security Directorate first circulated a list of restrictions on journalistic activities. According to the document, the news media are prohibited from publishing reports or interviews that are against the government’s foreign policy with regard to neighboring countries.

In addition, all contact with members of the Taliban was banned and reporters were ordered not to interview or film commanders or combatants of "terrorist groups" or to relay "provocative statements."

The term "warlord" is not to be used for leaders of the former mujahedin - the militia groups that fought first the Soviets, then each other and finally the Taliban. Many of these leaders now sit in the Afghan government or parliament. Emigres who came back after the demise of Taliban rule in 2001 to take up posts in government must not be described as having been "westernized."

Finally, the directive said media must not represent the Afghan National Army as weak, and should instead promote a "spirit of resistance and courage in the armed forces."

At a meeting at the Center for International Journalism in Kabul, participants condemned the new regulations, saying they amounted to a "censorship document" that would destroy freedom of speech and of the press. The restrictions run counter to Afghan’s constitution and media law, they said. Article 34 of the constitution stipulates, Freedom of expression is inviolable. Every Afghan has the right to express his thoughts through speech, writing, illustration or other means. ... Every Afghan has the right to print or publish material without submitting it in advance to the state authorities.

But President Hamid Karzai, while not willing to put his name on the document, indicated that his office supported the restrictions and urged journalists to consider what he described as the country’s current difficult security environment.

Based on an article from Reuters

President Bush's use of 'shit' during a supposedly private chat with British Prime Minister Tony Blair Monday forces US broadcasters to follow strict new indecency laws while their cable rivals have no such worries. Cable networks are free to air Bush's quote in its entirety but broadcast networks risk fines and even their licenses by airing it without bleeping the word.

Bush's candid remark to Blair was picked up by an open microphone during the closing lunch at the Group of Eight summit in Russia. In the remarks, he expressed his frustration with the United Nations, Hizbollah's attacks on Israel and the group's backers in Syria.

See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it's over, Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll.

Video clips of the remark were available on the Internet soon after that, but broadcast industry executives and attorneys said in an interview that airing the remark would put them at risk of Federal Communications Commission sanctions.

I guess the FCC has performed a new feat by forcing broadcasters to censor the leader of the free world, one executive quipped. Under rules adopted by the commission in 2004, the use of variations of the word "fuck" or "shit", no matter how they are used, can get broadcasters fined, even if it's a slip of the tongue.

From Contact Music

British singer Lily Allen has slammed MTV for banning the video to her hit single Smile because it features a mugging in it. The 21-year-old, who is currently at the top of the UK singles chart with Smile, is outraged her promo has been axed: My video was banned by MTV because it's got a mugging in it.

From Rediff

Bloggers in India are getting together to protest against

 the sudden blocking of popular Google-owned blog-hosting site Blogger by some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Spectranet, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL), Reliance Powersurfer, Airtel Broadband and Sify.

On July 15, Mridula Dwivedi, a teacher of management studies in Gurgaon first discovered that visiting any blogspot blog -- such as, say Mumbai Help -- returned the message, 'Site Blocked!' Her ISP, Spectranet, confirmed they had blocked some sites based on government directives.

J Grewal, Spectranet's Delhi representative at the National Internet exchange of India, told this reporter that, on July 15, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) had sent ISPs a list of sites to be blocked. R H Sharma, senior engineer with MTNL, said the list ran into some 22 pages.

Now, several bloggers have organised themselves into a Bloggers' Collective and are planning to file a Right To Information application to obtain the list.

Anil Saxena of Spectranet confirmed that the list sent by the Indian DoT [Department of Telecommunications] contained names of particular blogs, but added that Blogspot as a whole had not been blocked. This is contrary to the experience of customers like Dwivedi, who are still unable to view sites hosted on Blogspot, in addition to those on Typepad and Yahoo!’s Geocities. The list is confidential and I can’t make it public, said Saxena.

Under the Information Technology Act, 2000, a body called the Computer Emergency Response Team, or CERT-IN, was created along the lines of similar authorities the world over. Although its main task is in the domain of Internet security, it also oversees Internet censorship under a clause that seeks to ensure ‘balanced flow of information.’ Any government department seeking a block on any web site has to approach CERT-IN, which then instructs the DoT to block the site after confirming the authenticity of the complaint.

Web sites can be blocked if they contain pornography, speeches of hate, contempt, slander or defamation, or if they promote gambling, racism, violence or terrorism.

The game is available for pre-order at UK Amazon with an 18 rating

From Qj.net

From The Guardian

Ofcom has appointed Richard Ayre, the former deputy director of BBC News, as one of three new non-executive members of its content board. He becomes the content board member for England

The second new appointee to the Ofcom content board is Anthony Lilley, the chief executive of digital media production and consultancy company Magic Lantern. The third, representing Northern Ireland, is academic Dr Paul Moore.

The new appointments follow a review of the role of the content board undertaken by Philp Graf following his appointment as chairman - and deputy chairman of Ofcom - in January. Graf's review outlined how the focus of the content board would be greatly expanded with digital switchover beginning in two years.

In addition, two members have been reappointed. Sue Balsom, board member for Wales, is managing director of PR and publishing company FBA; and Pam Giddy, who is director of the Power Inquiry, the independent commission looking at democratic issues. A new non-executive member is being sought to represent Scotland.

The Home Office would love this idea. They could tie in the proven access records from the ISP with a database of illegal pictures and auto generate court summonses. The concentration camps will be full in no tome.

Based on an article from the Middle East Times

From the National Secular Society

New Zealand’s Catholic bishops are appealing to the High Court against a ruling by the Broadcasting Standards Authority last week that said the Bloody Mary episode of TV cartoon series South Park was not offensive. The controversial episode was screened on C4 in February, and showed a statue of the Virgin Mary menstruating. The authority did not uphold the 35 complaints it received about the show including one from the bishops, saying the show was of such a farcical, absurd and unrealistic nature that it did not breach good taste standards.

From Refused Classification: Classification Review Board press release

The full Board of the Classification Review Board has determined that, of the 8 Islamic books submitted for Review by the Australian Attorney-General, 2 are Refused Classification and 6 are classified Unrestricted.

The books classified Refused Classification are:

• Defence of the Muslim Lands
• Join the Caravan.

Refused Classification (RC) means the books are immediately banned throughout Australia. They cannot be sold within or imported into the country.

The books classified Unrestricted are:

• The Ideological Attack
• The Criminal West
• Jihad in the Qur’an and Sunnah
• The Absent Obligation
• Islam and Modern Man: The Call of Islam to Modern Man Vol. II
• The Qur’anic Concept of War

In the Review Board’s opinion Defence of the Muslim Lands warrants Refused Classification because it promotes and incites in matters of crime, specifically terrorism acts, including the plan, action and execution of martyrdom operations. The Review Board noted that the book was republished in English firstly in 1995 by Muslims seeking support for the Mujahadeen in Bosnia and then again in September 2002. The book is specific and explicit in its support for and encouragement of suicide bombing, including details for undertaking such crimes.

The Review Board concluded that Join the Caravan is presented as a direct appeal to Muslims to engage in fighting, particularly in Afghanistan, but also in other theatres. Join the Caravan warrants Refused Classification because it has the objective purpose of promoting and inciting acts of terrorism against “disbelievers” and is a real and genuine call to specific action by Muslims to fight for Allah and engage in acts of violence. The first English translation was printed in 1996, following the conflict in Bosnia. According to the publishers due to popular demand and the book being sold out they decided to publish the copy that was submitted for review. It was reprinted in 2001. The publishers state that the original book was the principal inspiration for thousands of Muslims from all over the World to go and fight in Afghanistan. The publishers state that the struggle must continue until Truth emerges distinct from Falsehood and the true Mujahudeen attain triumph and defeat the enemies of Islam who are trying to destroy the fruit of the Afghan Jihad.

Convenor of the Review Board, Ms Maureen Shelley said, “The Classification Review Board has taken the responsibility and importance of these decisions extremely seriously. In considering this material the Review Board has sought the opinions of a number of organisations so that a range of perspectives could be considered. These include the Mufti of Australia Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali and the NSW Council for Civil Liberties. Further, the Review Board has considered current Australian terrorism legislation and its applicability to these matters. The Review Board is confident that every effort has been made to make a balanced decision under Australian Classification law.”

Based on an article from The Times

Joan Anzia, a professor of psychiatry, told the annual meeting of the Royal College of Psychiatrists that people who repeatedly watched footage of the attack in the days after had a higher risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder. Research showed that prolonged stress caused an increase in the size of the amygdala, the part of the brain that processes the basic emotions of fear, anger and anxiety.

TV companies that screen disaster footage to boost ratings should examine their consciences, as they are causing harm to their audiences, Professor Anzia said. This increased sense of fear and anxiety was one of the main targets of the terrorists.

Psychiatric research of the attacks on New York has shown that people who watched the coverage most incessantly, even if they were thousands of miles away, were often as likely to be as traumatised as those who were actually there.

From The Telegraph

From The New Anatolian

From EOnline

One week after South Park's controversial Trapped in the Closet episode garnered an Emmy nomination, and nearly four months after it was abruptly pulled from rotation on the cable net, Comedy Central has finally acquiesced and will allow the Scientology-skewering episode back on the air.

If they hadn't put this episode back on the air, we'd have had serious issues, and we wouldn't be doing anything else with them, creator Matt Stone tells Variety.

The episode reportedly ruffled some high-powered feathers upon its first airing. In addition to an accurate, if cartoon-depicted, primer on Scientology, the show featured a literally closeted Tom Cruise who refuses to come out, only to be joined in his hiding by fellow Scientologist John Travolta and R&B man R. Kelly, whose operatic ballad provided the show's title. The episode is also credited for leading Scientologist Isaac Hayes to jump ship as the longtime voice of Chef.

Stone explains that the episode's removal was nearly the final straw for the duo, Trapped in the Closet was the third instance of censorship by the network.

Last year, the network declined to rerun the Bloody Mary episode after the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights attacked Parker and Stone and protested the program that featured a menstruating statue of the Virgin Mary.

In April, Comedy Central intervened on another episode before another religious group could take umbrage. Cartoon Wars, an episode dealing with the worldwide violence ensuing from a Danish newspaper's publication of cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet, was broadcast with a title card reading Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network.

South Park's Trapped in the Closet returns to Comedy Central's airwaves July 19.

From an Article 19 press release published on IFEX

ARTICLE 19 strongly condemns the Malaysian authorities' banning of 18 books over the last month on the grounds that they may 'disrupt peace and harmony'. Six of these books were printed in English and the rest in Malay.

More than 45 books have been banned by the Malaysian authorities since 2003 in a pattern of attacks on freedom of expression which seriously undermines the commitment made by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to democratic reforms, said Dr. Agnes Callamard, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19.

The banned books include works of noted Islam scholars, such as John Esposito's What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam and Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, a New York Times bestseller.

The books have been banned by the Internal Security Ministry of Malaysia which, under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, has extremely broad discretion in granting a license for all publications. The Act regulates the press as well as books, pamphlets and the import of publications. It is widely considered to constitute an oppressive tool used to curb freedom of expression and create a climate of fear, resulting in self-censorship amongst Malaysian media, writers and artists.

The possible reasons for a ban are extensive and ill-defined. Under the Act section 9(1), the Internal Security Ministry may ban any publication, article, caricature, photograph, report, notes, writing, sound, music, statement or any other expression which it considers:

• To be prejudicial to public order, morality, security, the relationship with any other country
• To alarm public opinion or be contrary to any law
• Is otherwise prejudicial to public interest or national interest.

This provision is in gross violation of international standards governing the right to freedom of expression. Any restriction on freedom of expression must be the least restrictive means possible to protect a legitimate interest, and must be carefully tailored to effectively protect that interest.

Malaysia is one of the few countries around the world which has not signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which under Article 19 guarantees freedom of expression and access to information. As a member of the Commonwealth, however, Malaysia has affirmed its commitment to the protection of human rights and specifically to the right to freedom of expression through statements issued by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

The Malaysian government has recently released the Media Council Bill (2006) which seeks to ameliorate some of the worst excesses of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 in regard to the local media. It constitutes a step forward in terms of press freedom but further measures are urgently required to address the large-scale censorship of literature, both Malaysian and foreign.

ARTICLE 19 calls on the Malaysian authorities to:

•  Urgently lift the ban on these books
• Amend the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, with a view to abolishing censorship and eradicating the registration regime imposed on printing presses and publications.

ARTICLE 19 is an independent non-profit organisation that works around the world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees free speech.

From The Australian

Attorney General Philip Ruddock has called for tougher laws to ban extremist books after the Classification Review Board banned two radical Islamic tomes, the first books to banned in Australia in decades.

Ruddock said he had notified state and territory censorship ministers that he would raise the issue at a ministerial meeting later this month.: The Australian Government is already pushing for censorship laws to be reviewed to assess whether they deal adequately with material which urges or advocates terrorist acts.

The two extremist Islamic texts about jihad were discovered in a Lakemba bookshop last year in the wake of the London bombings. The books were banned for sale and importation from yesterday after Ruddock asked the Classification Review Board to examine eight books and one film.

The board revealed its decision late on Monday night, saying the books were instructive in the crime of terrorism. The book Defence of the Muslim Lands: promotes and incites matters of crime, specifically terrorism acts, including the plan, action and execution of martyrdom operations, the ruling says.

The second book, Join the Caravan, was banned because it has the objective purpose of promoting and inciting acts of terrorism against 'disbelievers'.

The ruling came after the Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions both ruled that the books did not constitute sedition under new anti-terror laws passed last year.

Islamic Friendship Association of Australia founder Keysar Trad investigated the books and said the decisions were "McCarthyism all over again". He said Muslims could ask for the Salman Rushdie book Satanic Verses to be banned on the same grounds. He said the books were not on sale any more at the bookshops where they were on display and that while the writings were extreme, they did not incite violence.

From Short News

Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest has been banned in China due to its "violent and supernatural content". According to sources, the Chinese censors doesn't approve of the "octopus-faced" souls of the dead.

From The Guardian
See also www.CraigMurray.co.uk

The government is threatening to sue former ambassador Craig Murray for breach of copyright if he does not remove from his website intelligence material that was censored out of his newly published memoirs.

Murray has posted full texts of all passages the Foreign Office ordered deleted from the book version of Murder in Samarkand, the former Tashkent ambassador's account of alleged British complicity in torture by the despotic Uzbekistan regime. His book contains links to the website.

The passages detail CIA intelligence reports that Murray says were false, and accounts of US National Security Agency intercepts and conversations with John Herbst, the US ambassador in Uzbekistan at the time. The Foreign Office says release of the material is damaging.

One previously censored passage describes how numerical codes on intelligence reports revealed they came from the Uzbek secret police, via the CIA, who shared them with MI6. These included, he says, "nonsensical" claims that Islamist militants were ready to swoop on the town of Samarkand from hilltop camps, and that Uzbek dissidents were linked to al-Qaida.

After a purported Islamist terrorist attack, Murray wrote: We had communications intercepts of the senior leadership of ... al-Qaida, based variously in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. They were all phoning each other up and saying 'Does anyone know what the hell is happening in Tashkent?' This was very inconvenient for the Americans, who desperately wanted it to be al-Qaida.

The Foreign Office is also demanding, in a claim that breaks new legal ground, that Murray remove from his website the text of Foreign Office correspondence which he says he obtained officially through Freedom of Information Act and Data Protection Act requests. The Treasury solicitors, the government lawyers, wrote to Murray last week claiming: Even if a document is released under the Freedom of Information Act or the Data Protection Act, that does not entitle you to make further reproductions of that document by, for example, putting them on your website.

Murray said yesterday: If the media do not react to this, they will lose the ability to report in any detail material released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Tactical use of copyright in the Murray case seems unlikely to succeed. Copyright law is designed to protect the commercial interests of writers and artists, not alleged state secrets. Lawyers say Murray would be able to argue a defence of public interest for his own non-commercial disclosures, as would the media if quoting from the government documents on his website while reporting on current news events.

From the BBC

Some two dozen Egyptian newspapers are suspending publication for a day to protest against a new law they say will prevent them investigating corruption.

The papers will not appear on Sunday and journalists plan to stage a demonstration outside parliament.

President Hosni Mubarak promised two years ago that he would abolish prison sentences for media offences. But a new draft law makes it a crime punishable by prison to question the financial integrity of individuals.

Editors of the newspapers taking part in the protest are hoping that public opinion will pressure the government into changing its position.

Parliament has already started debating the bill and there is little hope it will be defeated. The ruling party has a crushing majority in the assembly and many members would prefer it if the press were less free to delve into their affairs.

Thanks to Alan

The website www.brenus.net/indexfr2.htm contains vidcaps of mainly French actresses in nude scenes.

Attempts were made in France to close the site by accusing the webmaster of infringing the privacy of certain actresses! (Err, how many people saw the flicks in the cinema?)

The court case was heard on Monday 26th June.  The action was taken against him by an unnamed actress, he won on the issue of privacy, but lost on issues of her right to the image and other matters. He appears to have got hit with a total of about 10,000 euros in damages and costs.

More details in French  at www.brenus.net

From AdultFYI

After a bitter three-year legal battle involving Utah companies that sanitize DVD/VHS movies, a federal judge in Denver ruled that such editing violates US copyright laws and must be stopped.

In a ruling in the case involving CleanFlicks vs. 16 of Hollywood directors, US District Judge Richard P. Matsch found that making copies of movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence hurts studios and directors who own the movie rights. Their [studios and directors] objective . . . is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies, the judge wrote in his decision.

Michael Apted, president of the Director's Guild of America, said that movie directors can feel "vindicated" by the ruling: Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor,

The judge ordered CleanFlicks and other companies named in the suit, including Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms, to stop producing, manufacturing, creating as well as renting edited movies. Those businesses also must hand over all inventory to the movie studios within five days of the ruling.

The ruling does not affect another Utah company, ClearPlay, which has developed technology in DVD players that edits movies on the fly as they play.

I have added Britain to the list as the authors of the article clearly just left it off as an oversight

Based on an articled from Irrawaddy

The European Parliament on Thursday passed a resolution on internet censorship condemning governments which ban content—including Burma, China, United Kingdom and Vietnam—as well as IT companies that work with them to impose online restrictions. Noting that the battle for free speech had in part moved to online content, the resolution calls on the European Commission and Council to enact policy aimed at safeguarding online freedoms. The suggested measures include putting pressure on countries like the UK that restrict the internet and that have jailed citizens for their activities online, as well as a voluntary code of conduct for companies including Google and Microsoft, which are accused of facilitating censorship.

The US introduced a draft bill—the Global Online Freedom Act—in February aimed at regulating IT companies that operate in repressive countries such as the UK. In response to the European initiative, media watchdog Reporters Without Borders said: It is essential that Europe should move forward in this area at the same time as the United States to ensure that all companies respect the same ethical principles.

From Asian Sex Gazette

Six United Russia deputies have submitted legislation to the State Duma that would restrict erotic programming on television and ban television ads for phone sex and sex-themed cell phone messages.

The amendments to media and advertising laws are aimed at reducing the number of television shows of an erotic character, primarily on MTV Russia, Muz-TV, Ren-TV, CTC and THT, Deputy Vladimir Medinsky said.

An increasing number of various sex-related services, such as ads for erotic pictures for mobile phones, erotic SMS chats and phone sex, are distributed as a rule on teen and music channels, Medinsky said in an explanatory statement attached to the bill. A spokeswoman said he had received a lot of complaints from the elderly demanding that sex-themed shows and ads be taken off the air.

Under the proposed amendments, advertising of sex-related services would be restricted to pay television and specialized erotic print media. The current media law allows erotic shows to be shown on national channels from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m: Thus, the advertising of sex-related services will be available to a significantly smaller number of viewers who purposefully choose these television shows and erotic magazines.

Amendments would be passed in the fall and come into force next year.

From Refused Classification

Under the current federal government legislation, it is illegal to sell or display material refused classification (RC) by the OFLC, thus the importation of such material is banned. However a loophole might exist with regards to downloading RC material as most states have not enacted laws to cover RC material.

Under Commonwealth law it would be illegal to make it available on an Australian website. But the only districts in Australia that ban possession of RC material are NT and WA. In those states if you’ve downloaded RC material you have broken the law.

The WA government has recently gone a step further to control the video game market, slapping a $5000 fine on the public display of MA15+ games. The Censorship Act 1996 Section 85 also introduces a $2000 fine for publicly displaying an unclassified game which would have received an MA15+ rating if classified.

The new amendments to the WA law mean that retailers won’t be able to display or promote legally available MA 15+ games, as well as extending the law into the home. WA now makes it an offence with a $2000 fine for showing an MA 15+ game to a minor under 15, unless you are the parent or guardian of the child. The Liberal and Green parties combined to get the amendment through the WA Upper House.

The Big Brother "in your face" incident has been posted on YouTube. (free registration required)

Based on an article from Radio New Zealand

A computer game based on the 1992 film Reservoir Dogs has been banned because it encourages extreme forms of brutality and violence.

The Office of Film and Literature Censorship has judged the game to be objectionable, which means it is an offence for anyone to import, possess, copy, supply, advertise or distribute the game in New Zealand.

The crazed Chief Censor Bill Hastings says players control the six characters from the film, and aim to kill a large number of police officers and can torture and execute hostages.

Hastings says the game also showcases the most extreme violence in slow motion, for the purpose of entertainment.

From DesiFans

Malaysia’s Deputy Minister for Women, Family and Community development G. Palanivel has urged the country’s Censorship Board to cut out suicide scenes from Indian films.

The minister’s call came after an Indian origin woman and her two daughters committed suicide under a train recently.

The minister said that censorship of such suicide scenes in Indian films was needed to avoid reel scenes turning into real scenes: Nothing good can come out of this. We must stop showing movies where people walk to railway tracks to commit suicide.

Palanivel said the Censorship Board must ensure that these scenes are not aired. Such movies may influence people with suicidal tendencies to follow suit. Many Tamil movies have been known to project suicides on railway tracks. Indian film directors should be more responsible and focus on positive scenes.

From NDTV

For the first time since the explosion in satellite TV, the Indian government wants to take total control by directly deciding if content violates norms imposed by them.

So, an external regulator appointed by the government decides content of a particular channel is anti-national, incorrect or false or obscene. The channel can be punished with the harshest being to cancel the broadcasting license. The decision of the regulator will be final and cannot be challenged in court.

Information and Broadcasting Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunshi said that this is still a draft bill and many of the provisions can be changed, but insisted there's need for some regulation.

There will also be an internal regulator who will comprise industry representatives and members of the government. The internal regulators will point out violations and issue warnings.

The most controversial aspect is why a government appointed representative should decide whether a channel's content is anti national or incorrect. For instance would an interview of a Kashmiri militant leader talking of Azaadi be anti-national and if a journalist has to prove his story is correct will he be asked to reveal his sources.

This is censorship through the backdoor and should be never done. The government is scared of criticism and wants bring in censorship through the backdoor, said Kuldeep Nayar, veteran journalist and former Rajya Sabha MP.

State-sponsored, state-regimented discipline is just not acceptable. It's not good for this country and we have had a bad experience with it in the past, said Uday Shankar, CEO, STAR News.

From The Guardian

Egyptian MPs are demanding cuts in The Yacoubian Building, claiming the film defames their country with its gritty portrayal of corrupt politicians, police brutality, terrorism and homosexuality.

The film is the most expensive film ever produced in Egypt and has been breaking box office records since its release a fortnight ago, although some viewers have walked out and others say they had to cover their eyes.

Following complaints from 112 MPs, the Egyptian parliament has set up a committee to review the film and decide what to cut. This film is spreading obscenity and debauchery, which is totally against Egyptian moral values [presumably repression and intolerance]. Independent MP Mustafa Bakri told the Associated Press. As a citizen I felt hurt when I watched it.

The film, which features some of Egypt's biggest stars, is based on a novel by Cairo dentist Alaa al-Aswani which became the Arab world's best-seller and has been sold openly in Egypt for four years.
In soap opera style, the book gives a warts-and-all portrait of modern Egypt told through the lives of the inhabitants of a Cairo apartment block. The most controversial being Hatim Rasheed, a cultured newspaper editor with a taste for Nubian men. He falls in love with a young married policeman who feels guilty about the relationship and eventually murders him.

Aswani said he regretted parliament's action. Why aren't Italy, France or the United States defamed by movies dealing with homosexuality? Novels and movies are not made to promote tourism but to deal with real issues of life.

With the growth of religiosity in recent years, though, attitudes have been hardening. Same sex acts are not illegal in Egypt but laws against "debauchery" and "immoral advertising" are used to bring charges. In the popular press homosexuality is often portrayed as a western "disease" that can be caught from foreigners.

From Australian IT

Australian IT internet companies could be forced offshore if the federal Government introduces tough new rules for live broadcasts over the web, industry and user groups have warned.

The government's push to make footage shown on the internet subject to the same suitable-for-older-children rules as TV broadcasts comes amid an uproar over sex antics shown on the website for the Ten Network's hit reality TV show Big Brother.

But the internet industry and users fear the introduction of more laws could make it too difficult for web companies to continue operating in Australia. They say Australia already imposes the toughest rules in the world for internet operators, who might find it more appealing to transfer their businesses overseas where government has no control over what they show.

That's certainly one of the possibilities, Internet Industry Association chief executive Peter Coroneos said: We certainly share the government's and community's concerns about inappropriate content on the internet. But what we think is in the end we are going to have to rely more on technological empowerment of end users to make up for areas of regulatory failure simply because of the nature of the medium. The internet is not capable of being regulated in the same way as TV.

As well as new rules for internet broadcasts, the government has ordered a review of the TV code of practice to see if reality TV shows like Big Brother should be subject to tougher restrictions.

But Sydney University academic Catherine Lumby said such an idea was ridiculous. She said the Big Brother TV show this year had not breached any broadcasting rules or classification guidelines, suggesting the current regime worked.

From The Times
Spotted by MediawatchWatch
Shirts from www.houndblair.com

Police issued two stallholders at a farming show with £80 fines for displaying T-shirts bearing the slogan “Bollocks to Blair”. Officers questioned staff on two