Al Jazeera is Middle Eastern news service based in Qatar that competes with the likes BBC World News. It
seems to provide a balanced view of world news, perhaps modelled on the BBC, as opposed to the more propaganda based services along the lines of RT from Russia.
Balanced reporting on Middle Eastern affairs doesn't seem to go down well in Middle Eastern countries, who clearly would prefer something a little more under their control. So these other countries are putting a lot of pressure on Qatar to silence
The latest example of such censorship pressure is that the social network service, Snap has been censored in Saudi Arabia over its inclusion of Al Jazeera in its Discover App.
Snap has now complied with Saudi censorship demands to remove news outlet Al Jazeera's curated content from its Discover Publisher Channels in Saudi Arabia. Discover is Snap's digital media selection of content tailored to a young audience.
Al Jazeera is less than thrilled. Acting Director-General Mostefa Souag said in a statement:
We find Snapchat's action to be alarming and worrying. This sends a message that regimes and countries can silence any voice or platform they don't agree with by exerting pressure on the owners of social media platforms and content distribution
companies, This step is a clear attack on the rights of journalists and media professionals to report and cover stories freely from around the world.
SYRIZA MEP Stelios Kouloglou has filed a complaint with the European Parliament President Antonio Tajani claiming that several sketches by Greek cartoonists will not be allowed to go on display in an exhibition that is being organized by the Greek
politician and French MEP Patrick Le Hyaric, celebrating 60 years of the European Union.
According to Kouloglou, Greek cartoonists were censored, as 12 out of 28 their sketches were rejected because they allegedly violated European Union rules that prohibit offensive material appearing in EU exhibitions.
It has emerged that an MEP involved in the organisation of the event, the British MEP Catherine Bearder, has rejected 12 of the drawings which are critical of the project. The not so Liberal Democrat member representing the south east of England
is the Quaestor - Members of Parliament who deal with administrative matters directly affecting MEPs - in charge of the exhibition.
Mother! is a 2017 USA horror mystery thriller by Darren Aronofsky.
Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem and Ed Harris.
A couple's relationship is tested when uninvited guests arrive at their home, disrupting their tranquil existence.
'A film review on the Catholic News Service writes:
What's all too apparent, however, is that the film's treatment of religion -- one of the major themes it seeks to address -- is relentlessly negative and briefly sacrilegious.
The author's celebrated work is clearly meant as a stand-in for the Bible. But those on the receiving end of his revelation misunderstand and misuse it.
After a pregnancy troubled by the disorder surrounding her, moreover, Lawrence's title character gives birth to a son whose fate recalls the death of Jesus. In depicting his version of the Passion and the Eucharist, though, Aronofsky grotesquely
Viewers who shun Mother! on that basis will also be sparing themselves a two-hour ordeal and quite a bit of head-scratching.
The film contains blasphemous images, a negative portrayal of religion, much strong and sometimes gory violence, semi-graphic marital lovemaking, a glimpse of full nudity and occasional profanity and rough language. The Catholic News Service
classification is O -- morally offensive.
Harry Dean Stanton, the veteran American actor who ballasted generations of independent and cult films, has died aged 91. The subject of the late critic Roger Ebert's Stanton Walsh Rule -- No movie featuring either Harry Dean Stanton or M Emmet
Walsh in a supporting role can be altogether bad -- Stanton was famed for his ability to project his hangdog, laconic charm into minor roles, which ensured he worked continuously for over six decades. Directors who cast him include David Lynch,
Sam Peckinpah, Ridley Scott, Alex Cox and Wim Wenders, but he was never nominated for an Oscar or any of the other principal acting awards.
Alex Cox's Repo Man was inspirational to this website, by cining the term 'melonfarmer' as an overdub for 'motherfucker' in a TV edit of the movie. The video clip shows Harry Dean Stanton being 'flipped' over by his boss.
Companies including Google and Facebook could face repressive legislation if they don't proactively remove illegal
content from their platforms that is deemed illegal. That's according to draft EU censorship rules due to be published at the end of the month, which will require internet service providers to significantly step up their actions to address the
In the current climate, creators and distributors are forced to play a giant game of whac-a-mole to limit the unlicensed spread of their content on the Internet.
The way the law stands today in the United States, EU, and most other developed countries, copyright holders must wait for content to appear online before sending targeted takedown notices to hosts, service providers, and online platforms.
After sending several billion of these notices, patience is wearing thin, so a new plan is beginning to emerge. Rather than taking down content after it appears, major entertainment industry groups would prefer companies to take proactive action.
The upload filters currently under discussion in Europe are a prime example but are already causing controversy .
The guidelines are reportedly non-binding but further legislation in this area isn't being ruled out for Spring 2018, if companies fail to address the EU's demands.
Interestingly, however, a Commission source told Reuters that any new legislation would not change the liability exemption for online platforms. Maintaining these so-called safe harbors is a priority for online giants such as Google and Facebook
203 anything less would almost certainly be a deal-breaker.
The guidelines, due to be published at the end of September, will also encourage online platforms to publish transparency reports. These should detail the volume of notices received and actions subsequently taken. The guidelines contain some
safeguards against excessive removal of content, such as giving its owners a right to contest such a decision.
Susan Calman has sparked outrage by daring to do what all female competitors
have done on all 14 previous series of Strictly Come Dancing -- dance with a man. The problem, or outrage, such as it is, is that Calman is openly gay.
When she was paired with Kevin Clifton, one of the show's most popular professionals who has come second in the competition four times in a row.
That was enough for Calman to be branded a traitor to the gay cause. Never mind that she gave a shout-out to her wife in her first interview, never mind that she has spent her whole career campaigning for LGBT rights.
Calman was forced to defend her decision to have a male partner. I've worked tirelessly for LGBT equality my whole life and right now I would like to dance and bring entertainment to people by dancing on a Saturday night. Dancing's not necessarily
about sex, it's acting.
Meanwhile 28 people have campaigned to Ofcom about a gag on The Great British Bake Off where a time check was called by a presenter from inside a fridge and then having the door closed on him.
Viewers took to social media to blast the show's producers for being irresponsible and setting a bad example to children. Shocking. So dangerous. How could this get onto a family programme. Wouldn't happen on the beeb, said one.
The film makers have announced that a Director's cut for the box office success, IT, is on the way It will feature on home
video and it's expected to include at least 15 minutes of extra footage.
Director Andrés Muschietti describes two scenes where the extra material will slot in:
[ Spoilers! hover or click text ]
One of the main additions to the IT director's cut will be a longer version of the quarry scene. After the spitting contest it escalates into something that is completely weird and irrelevant to the scene but is so funny. Jack Grazer, who
plays Eddie, does something that is completely bonkers.
There's a great scene, it's a bit of a payoff of the Stanley Uris plot which is the bar mitzvah, where he delivers a speech against all expectations... it's basically blaming all the adults of Derry [for the town's history of deadly accidents
and child disappearances], and it has a great resolution...Maybe it will be in the director's cut!
TV and internet censors Ofcom have introduced the concept of reduced fines for those censorship rule breakers who admit their guilt. Ofcom
On 28 June 2017, following consultation, we published new Enforcement guidelines for regulatory investigations. Among other things, these documents set out a new process for settlement of an investigation falling within the scope of the
Guidelines and the Procedures. Settlement is a voluntary process in which the regulated body admits it has breached relevant regulatory requirements and accepts that the remainder of the investigation will follow a streamlined administrative
procedure. In successful settlement cases, Ofcom will apply a discount to the level of the penalty in light of the resource savings involved in following a streamlined administrative procedure.
Australia's Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) will investigate complaints made about an lamb marketing campaign that has angered the easily offended.
Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) launched an amusing advert featuring actors portraying Jesus, Lord Ganesh, L. Ron Hubbard and Buddha.
So far the ASB has received about 30 complaints about the ad. An ASB spokesperson told SBS World News most people who complained about the ad cited discrimination and vilification on the grounds of religion.
MLA Group marketing manager Andrew Howie explained the advert:
Lamb is the meat that brings people together. Our 'You Never Lamb Alone' campaigns have promoted the value of unity and inclusivity. This latest campaign instalment is no different,
Our intent is never to offend, but rather acknowledge that lamb is a meat consumed by a wide variety of cultures and capture how the world could look if people left their differing views at the door and came to the table with open arms, and
Howie also pointed out Ganesh was sitting across the table from Buddha, another vegetarian. Neither of them are eating meat or drinking wine but they were willing participants at the party which we would hope everyone can come together and
celebrate their difference.
Not all deities were represented at the dinner table. To save offending muslims with a depiction of Mohammed, he was conveniently unable to make the dinner party.
Hindu Council of Ausralia spokesperson Balesh Dhankhar said they were very hurt and angry about this ad campaign. The reason being the Hindu community cannot imagine their deity, Lord Ganesh in this case, as eating meat. Dhankhar said most people
who follow Hinduism were vegetarians and seeing Lord Ganesh in this manner was very insulting. He said the Hindu community was one of the fastest growing in Australia and seeing the deity depicted in this manner went against the country's values.
The High Commission of India in Canberra said it had made a demarche to three Australian
government departments. It also urged Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA) to withdraw the advertisement because many people considered it offensive and hurting their religious sentiments.
A number of community associations have also registered their protest with government of Australia and Meat and Livestock Australia, the high commission said in a statement.
Eternal whinger Rajan Zed has called for a ban of the Meat & Livestock Australia lamb advert.
Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, said that it was highly irresponsible of MLA to continue with this ad despite the clear expression by Hindus that it was very inappropriate and hurt their feelings.
Rajan Zed also urged Australia Advertising Standards Bureau to act urgently on the various complaints received by it regarding this ad.
Besides withdrawing the ad immediately, MLA Board Chair Dr. Michele Allan and Managing Director Richard Norton should resign for apparently working against the interests of the organization by upsetting consumers instead of charming them, and
using cheap tactics to attract attention instead of seriously attempting to prevent consumers from reducing their lamb consumption, Rajan Zed indicated.
Zed had sought ban on You Never Lamb Alone video ad, which seemed to make fun of Lord Ganesha. Zed pointed out that Lord Ganesha was highly revered in Hinduism and he was meant to be worshipped in temples or home shrines and not to be used in
selling lamb meat for mercantile greed. Moreover, linking Lord Ganesha with meat was very disrespectful and highly inappropriate, Zed added.
Fight of Gods is no longer available for purchase from within Thailand on Steam. This item is currently unavailable in your region,
notes the entry in Steam's online store.
After the game was released, Buddhist officials in Thailand expressed outrage. Booncherd Kittitharangkoon, the director of a state agency that governs monks and temples, told reporters that the game could damage Buddhism.
Booncherd said he had asked the Culture of Censorship Ministry to send a complaint to Taiwanese game developer Digital Crafter. He warned that Thai authorities could take legal action if some characters were not removed.
A spokesman for British developer, PQube acknowledged that Thailand has formally demanded that the game be removed from sale in their territory.
EFF opposes the Senate's Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act
( S. 1693
) ("SESTA"), and its House counterpart the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act ( H.R. 1865
), because they would open up liability for Internet intermediaries--the ISPs, web hosting companies, websites, and social media platforms that enable users to share and access content online--by amending Section 230's immunity for user-generated
content ( 47 U.S.C. § 230
). While both bills have the laudable goal of curbing sex trafficking, including of minor children, they would greatly weaken Section 230's protections for
online free speech and innovation
Proponents of SESTA and its House counterpart view Section 230 as a broken law that prevents victims of sex trafficking from seeking justice. But Section 230 is not broken. First, existing federal criminal law allows federal prosecutors to go
after bad online platforms, like Backpage.com, that knowingly play a role in sex trafficking. Second, courts have allowed civil claims against online platforms--despite Section 230's immunity--when a platform had a direct hand in creating the
illegal user-generated content.
Thus, before Congress fundamentally changes Section 230, lawmakers should ask whether these bills are necessary to begin with.
Why Section 230 Matters
Section 230 is the part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that provides broad immunity to Internet intermediaries from liability for the content that their users create or post (i.e., user-generated content or third-party content).
Section 230 can be credited with creating today's Internet--with its abundance of unique platforms and services that enable a vast array of user-generated content. Section 230 has provided the legal buffer online entrepreneurs need to experiment
with news ways for users to connect online--and this is just as important for today's popular platforms with billions of users as it is for startups.
Congress' rationale for crafting Section 230 is just as applicable today as when the law was passed in 1996: if Internet intermediaries are not largely shielded from liability for content their users create or post--particularly given their huge
numbers of users--existing companies risk being prosecuted or sued out of existence, and potential new companies may not even enter the marketplace for fear of being prosecuted or sued out of existence (or because venture capitalists fear this).
This massive legal exposure would dramatically change the Internet as we know it: it would not only thwart innovation in online platforms and services, but free speech as well. As companies fall or fail to be launched in the first place, the
ability of all Internet users to speak online would be disrupted. For those companies that remain, they may act in ways that undermine the open Internet. They may act as gatekeepers by preventing whole accounts from being created in the first
place and pre-screening content before it is even posted. Or they may over-censor already posted content, pursuant to very strict terms of service in order to avoid the possibility of any user-generated content on their platforms and services that
could get them into criminal or civil hot water. Again, this would be a disaster for online free speech. The current proposals to gut Section 230 raise the exact same problems that Congress dealt with in 1996.
By guarding online platforms from being held legally responsible for what thousands or millions or even billions of users might say online, Section 230 has protected online free speech and innovation for more than 20 years.
But Congress did not create blanket immunity. Section 230 reflects a purposeful balance that permits Internet intermediaries to be on the hook for their users' content in certain carefully considered circumstances, and the courts have expanded
upon these rules.
Section 230 Does Not Bar Federal Prosecutors From Targeting Criminal Online Platforms
Section 230 has never provided immunity to Internet intermediaries for violations of federal criminal law --like the federal criminal sex trafficking statute (
18 U.S.C. § 1591
). In 2015, Congress passed the SAVE Act, which amended Section 1591 to expressly include "advertising" as a criminal action. Congress intended to go after websites that host ads knowing that such ads involve sex trafficking. If these
companies violate federal criminal law, they can be criminally prosecuted in federal court alongside their users who are directly engaged in sex trafficking.
In a parallel context, a federal judge in the Silk Road case
correctly ruled that Section 230 did not provide immunity against federal prosecution to the operator of a website that hosted other people's ads for illegal drugs.
By contrast, Section 230 does provide immunity to Internet intermediaries from liability for user-generated content under state criminal law . Congress deliberately chose not to expose these companies to criminal prosecutions in 50
different states for content their users create or post. Congress fashioned this balance so that federal prosecutors could bring to justice culpable companies while still ensuring that free speech and innovation could thrive online.
However, SESTA and its House counterpart would expose Internet intermediaries to liability under state criminal sex trafficking statutes. Although EFF understands the desire of state attorneys general to have more tools at their disposal to combat
sex trafficking, such an amendment to Section 230 would upend the carefully crafted policy balance Congress embodied in Section 230.
More fundamentally, it cannot be said that Section 230's current approach to criminal law has failed. A
earlier this year and a recent
article both uncovered information suggesting that Backpage.com not only knew that their users were posting sex trafficking ads to their website, but that the company also took affirmative steps to help those ads get posted. Additionally, it has
been reported that a federal grand jury
has been empaneled in Arizona to investigate Backpage.com. Congress should wait and see what comes of these developments before it exposes Internet intermediaries to additional criminal liability.
Civil Litigants Are Not Always Without a Remedy Against Internet Intermediaries
Section 230 provides immunity to Internet intermediaries from liability for user-generated content under civil law--whether federal or state civil law. Again, Congress made this deliberate policy choice to protect online free speech and
Congress recognized that exposing companies to civil liability would put the Internet at risk even more than criminal liability because: 1) the standard of proof in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt," whereas in civil cases it
is merely "preponderance of the evidence," making the likelihood higher that a company will lose a civil case; and 2) criminal prosecutors as agents of the government tend to exercise more restraint in filing charges, whereas civil
litigants often exercise less restraint in suing other private parties, making the likelihood higher that a company will be sued in the first place for third-party content.
However, Section 230's immunity against civil claims is not absolute. The courts have interpreted this civil immunity as creating a presumption of civil immunity that plaintiffs can rebut if they have evidence that an Internet intermediary
did not simply host illegal user-generated content, but also had a direct hand in creating the illegal content. In a seminal 2008 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com
held that a website that helped people find roommates violated fair housing laws by "inducing third parties to express illegal preferences." The website had required users to answer profile questions related to personal characteristics
that may not be used to discriminate in housing (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, and the presence of children in the home). Thus, the court held that the website lost Section 230 civil immunity because it was "directly involved with
developing and enforcing a system that subjects subscribers to allegedly discriminatory housing practices." Although EFF is concerned with some of the implications of the
decision and its potential to chill online free speech and innovation, it is the law.
Thus, even without new legislation, victims of sex trafficking may bring civil cases against websites or other Internet intermediaries under the federal civil cause of action (
18 U.S.C. § 1595
), and overcome Section 230 civil immunity if they can show that the websites had a direct hand in creating ads for illegal sex. As mentioned above, a
article both strongly indicate that Backpage.com would not enjoy Section 230 civil immunity today.
SESTA and its House counterpart would expose Internet intermediaries to liability under federal and state civil sex trafficking laws. Removing Section 230's rebuttable presumption of civil immunity would, as with the criminal amendments, disrupt
the carefully crafted policy balance found in Section 230. Moreover, victims of sex trafficking can already bring civil suits against the pimps and "johns" who harmed them, as these cases against the direct perpetrators do not implicate
Therefore, the bills' amendments to Section 230 are not necessary--because Section 230 is not broken. Rather, Section 230 reflects a delicate policy balance that allows the most egregious online platforms to bear responsibility along with their
users for illegal content, while generally preserving immunity so that free speech and innovation can thrive online.
SESTA opens websites up to civil suits over user posts that promote sex trafficking. "What you're going to end up seeing is mass
lawsuits," said Julie Samuels of Engine Advocacy, a nonprofit organization perhaps best known for its work around patent reform. She expressed concern that the lawsuits would sweep up legitimate good actors and end up crushing small startups.
It's obvious why companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter would fear SESTA. But most tech companies have been circumspect about their opposition to the bill, choosing to voice their concerns by proxy through trade groups like the Internet
Association , which includes Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and Twitter among its members.
The problem, of course, is that they're taking a stand against a bill that purports to fight sex trafficking. "Obviously no one supports human trafficking," said Samuels. "But you're going to start to play with fire when you play
with how the internet works."
Matilda is a 2017 Russia historical biography by Aleksey Uchitel.
Starring Michalina Olszanska, Lars Eidinger and Luise Wolfram.
In the twilight of Imperial Russia, prima ballerina Matilda Kshesinskaya becomes the mistress of three Grand Dukes.
Any attempts to exert pressure on cinemas over the screenings of Matilda , a movie describing the love story of last Russian emperor Nicholas II and a ballet dancer, are censorship and lawlessness, Russian Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky
said on Wednesday. He told TASS:
Any intentions of 'initiators' on the ground to ban the screenings, any attempts of pressure against private or municipal cinemas are pure lawlessness and censorship, which is directly against the Russian Constitution.
The Culture Ministry allows the screenings at cinemas in line with legal procedures, Medinsky explained. The law strictly describes the grounds for any refusal. There are none of them in case with Matilda. We are guided by the law, not private
The minister called on Russian law enforcement agencies to ensure the rule of law in the situation with Matilda and curb any pressure on the state and cinema business from activists with their socially dangerous methods of imposing their views.
Violence by orthodox christians has started in anticipation of the film's release on 26th October. A number of activists including MP Natalia Poklonskaya, Crimea's former prosecutor, have launched a campaign against the film calling for its
release to be cancelled and claiming that it will insult the feelings of Orthodox believers. On Monday night, two cars were set ablaze outside the office of Uchitel's lawyer, Konstantin Dobrynin, in downtown Moscow. The attorney posted photos of
the charred automobiles and notes left at the scene saying Burn for Matilda on his Facebook page.
A group calling itself Christian State, Holy Russia sent nearly a thousand letters with threats to movie theater owners across Russia, urging them to drop the screening of Matilda.
Plac zabaw is a 2016 Poland thriller by Bartosz M Kowalski.
Starring Michalina Swistun, Nicolas Przygoda and Przemyslaw Balinski.
Final day of school in a small Polish town. It's the very last chance for a 12 year old Gabrysia to tell her classmate that she had fallen in love with him. She sets up a secret meeting and blackmails the boy to show up. But what was supposed to
be an intimate talk spins out of control and leads to an unexpected ending.
A film has been okayed for screening at the Sydney Film Festival that depicts the murder of a toddler by 2 boys along the lines of the 1993 James Bulger murder in Liverpool.
The scene in a Polish movie called Playground has been approved for a festival showing by the Australian Classification Board. Festival director Stefan Popescu said the Board had granted an exemption to the festival to screen unclassified
films - including several depicting graphic sex and violence - without asking to view any of them.
Popescu noted that Playground has no extreme close-up gore, blood spurts or manic chainsaw scenes but noted that the murder scene prompted viewers to walk out of a screening of the movie at a Spanish film festival last year.
Kuso is a 2017 USA horror drama by Flying Lotus.
Starring Hannibal Buress, George Clinton and David Firth.
Events unfold after a devastating earthquake in Los Angeles.
The Sydney Underground Film Festival will also screen Kuso , a film depicting an abortion, bodily functions, and graphic scenes of mutilation and sexual violence. Popescu noted:
It's got near every possible offensive thing in the film, so I guess there is a real chance that the censors would get up in arms about it.
Think of every potential trigger-warning and this film has it covered.
Described as the grossest movie ever made, Kuso prompted viewers to walk out when it was screened at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year.
A cockroach emerging from a body orifice, actors fornicating with puppets and animated characters, and scenes awash with bodily fluids - presented with deadpan humour - are among the tamer episodes in Kuso .
Destiny is a 2017 shared world shooter video game developed by a company called Bungie.
The game has caused a little outrage for a rather complex allusion to an alt-right fictional flag itself alluding to Nazi symbology whilst not actually containing well known Nazi symbols.
The reference comes on a pattern on an optional gantlet available for characters. The pattern on the sleeve resembles part of a fictional Kekistan flag.
Kekistan is a fictional nation invented in 4chan's political board. It rose to prominence after being promoted by a handful of anti-feminism YouTubers.
The Kekistan flag is based on a Nazi battle flag, and was created to allow far rights groups to identify and acknowledge one another using a symbol of Nazism that isn't identified as such by ordinary people. The flag was reported sighted at recent
troubles in Charlottesville.
Bungie CEO Pete Parsons apologised:
Our deepest apologies. This does NOT represent our values, and we are working quickly to correct this. We renounce hate in all forms.
Facebook touts its partnership with outside fact-checkers as a key prong in its fight against fake news, but a major new Yale University
study finds that fact-checking and then tagging inaccurate news stories on social media doesn't work.
The study , reported for the first time by POLITICO, found that tagging false news stories as disputed by third party fact-checkers has only a small impact on whether readers perceive their headlines as true. Overall, the existence of disputed
tags made participants just 3.7 percentage points more likely to correctly judge headlines as false, the study said.
The researchers also found that, for some groups--particularly, Trump supporters and adults under 26--flagging bogus stories could actually end up increasing the likelihood that users will believe fake news. This because not all fake stories are
fact checked, and the absence of a warning tends to add to the credibility of an unchecked, but fake, story.
Researchers Gordon Pennycook & David G. Rand of Yale University write in their abstract:
Assessing the effect of disputed warnings and source salience on perceptions of fake news accuracy
What are effective techniques for combatting belief in fake news? Tagging fake articles with Disputed by 3rd party fact-checkers warnings and making articles' sources more salient by adding publisher logos are two approaches that have received
large-scale rollouts on social media in recent months.
Here we assess the effect of these interventions on perceptions of accuracy across seven experiments [involving 7,534 people].
With respect to disputed warnings, we find that tagging articles as disputed did significantly reduce their perceived accuracy relative to a control without tags, but only modestly (d=.20, 3.7 percentage point decrease in headlines judged as
Furthermore, we find a backfire effect -- particularly among Trump supporters and those under 26 years of age -- whereby untagged fake news stories are seen as more accurate than in the control.
We also find a similar spillover effect for real news, whose perceived accuracy is increased by the presence of disputed tags on other headlines.
With respect to source salience, we find no evidence that adding a banner with the logo of the headline's publisher had any impact on accuracy judgments whatsoever.
Together, these results suggest that the currently deployed approaches are not nearly enough to effectively undermine belief in fake news, and new (empirically supported) strategies are needed.
Presented with the study, a Facebook spokesperson questioned the researchers' methodology--pointing out that the study was performed via Internet survey, not on Facebook's platform--and added that fact-checking is just one part of the company's
efforts to combat fake news. Those include disrupting financial incentives for spammers, building new products and helping people make more informed choices about the news they read, trust and share, the spokesperson said.
The Facebook spokesman added that the articles created by the third party fact-checkers have uses beyond creating the disputed tags. For instance, links to the fact checks appear in related article stacks beside other similar stories that
Facebook's software identifies as potentially false. They are powering other systems that limit the spread of news hoaxes and information, the spokesperson said.
YouTube's algorithms, which are used to censor and demonetize videos on the platform, are killing its creators, according
to a report.
Most of the initial censorship is left to algorithms, [which probably flag that a video should be censored as soon as it detects something politically incorrect], which presumably leads to the overcensorship underpinning the complaints].
Creators complain that YouTube has set up a slow and inefficient appeals system to counter cases of unfair censorship. Ad-disabled videos on YouTube must get 1,000 views in the span of seven days just to qualify for a review.
This approach hurts smaller YouTube channels, because it removes the ability for creators to make money on the most important stage of a YouTube video's life cycle: the first seven days, the report explains. Typically, videos receive 70% or more
of their views in the first seven days, according to multiple creators.
Some of the platform's most popular creators, are saying that the majority of their videos are being affected, dramatically reducing their revenue. Last week, liberal interviewer Dave Rubin, who has interviewed dozens of prominent political
figures, announced that a large percentage of his videos had been demonetized, cutting him off from being able to make money on the millions of views he typically gets, perhaps due to the politically incorrect leanings of his guests, eg Ex-Muslim
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, feminist activist and scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, and Larry King.
YouTube issued a response saying little, except that they hope the algorithms get better over time.
American Assassin is a 2017 USA action thriller by Michael Cuesta.
Starring Dylan O'Brien, Michael Keaton and Taylor Kitsch.
Twenty three-year-old Mitch lost his parents to a tragic car accident at the age of fourteen, and his girlfriend to a terrorist attack just as they were engaged. Seeking revenge, he is enlisted by CIA Deputy Director Irene Kennedy as a black ops
recruit. Kennedy then assigns Cold War veteran Stan Hurley to train Mitch. Together they will later on investigate a wave of apparently random attacks on military and civilian targets. The discovery of a pattern in the violence leads them to a
joint mission with a lethal Turkish agent to stop a mysterious operative intent on starting a world war in the Middle East.
The Hollywood thriller American Assassin has been given an adults only 'A' certificate in India. and that only after cuts.
'Motherfucker' is still a taboo term. It will always be the same, says a CBFC source referring to the word that was ordered out of IT and now American Assassin . The word 'bastard' has also been cut So has a shot of a woman's frontal
So another censorship example that dashes any hopes that India's new film censor may be more willing to treat Indian adults as adults.
US MPAA: Rated R uncut for strong violence throughout, some torture, language and brief nudity.
UK BBFC: Rated 18 uncut for strong sadistic and bloody violence
The video game distribution website, Steam, has been blocked in Malaysia.
Censors at the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) took offence at a game called, Fight of Gods, and took immediate action by denying citizens access to the Steam store.
Apparently Valve, the company behind the Steam website were given the chance to block the offending game from Malaysia gamers but did not respond quickly enough for the authorities. Malaysians who try to access the store get the message in English
This website is not available in Malaysia as it violate(s) the National law(s).
Fight of Gods pits mythological deities, Jesus included, against one another. Promotional material for Fight of Gods reads:
Your prayers have been answered! For the first time ever, gods, holy spirits and mythological characters from around the globe and throughout history will clash in an explosive 2D fighter where the entire world is at stake!
Who will prevail in the ultimate battle of gods? Will Jesus, fresh from ripping himself off the sacrificial cross, smite all his foes with the power of his Punishment Fist?
Can Buddha slap his opponents into submission?
Harness the power of fire, lightning, water, plagues and more as you pit gods and prophets such as Odin, Zeus, Amaterasu, Anubis, Moses and Athena against one another in one of the most unique and outlandish fighters ever created.
The games company debuted a trailer featuring Jesus this week . That caused quite a stir, with mainstream media outlets gleefully reporting Jesus' addition to the game, with his deadpan fight introduction voice-over of I'm back, for the people.
Jesus then rips himself off his cross and uses the remaining wood to beat a variety of opponents. Mohamed is notably missing from the line-up of foes.
Fight of Gods publisher PQube has provided a statement:
Fight of Gods is a video game that takes a humorous approach to religion in the same way that other entertainment formats have -- across television, film, books and theatre.
The game is not promoting any religious agenda and is not designed to offend. The description of the game on the digital platforms through which it is distributed provide clear guidance on the nature of the game and its content so that people can
freely choose whether or not to play it. We fully respect the choice of those who would not wish to play it.
We are disappointed that such freedom of choice is not given to everyone and in particular that the game has been forcibly removed from sale in Malaysia, although no direct communication has been received by us as to the reasons for this.
Manat Chareekote, of the Knowing Buddha Organisation, described his group as a Thai non-profit agency seeking to
protect Buddhist symbols from being subjected to disrespect. In a letter to the gaming company, Manat said:
The Buddha image had been wrongfully appropriated in the game. It desperately saddens us to see the image of our respected father used in such a role in the game like this. It really breaks Buddhists' hearts all around the world. How could you
and your team hurt and offend others' beliefs?
Religious and historical images were meant to be respected. It was inappropriate to use them for entertainment or commercial purposes.
His organisation caused for the games company to cease selling the game in every country where it was distributed.
Eternal whinger Rajan Zed has censured Fight of Gods video game saying that it trivializes some highly revered
Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, pointed out that unnecessarily dragging religious figures into battle, who were greatly revered by the adherents of their respective faiths, to sell video game for mercantile greed was very
disrespectful, highly inappropriate, insensitive and could be disturbing for some faithful.
Rajan Zed further said that Hindus were for free speech as much as anybody else if not more. ..BUT... faith was something sacred and attempts at belittling it hurt the devotees. Video game makers should be more sensitive while
handling faith related subjects, as these games left lasting impact on the minds of highly impressionable children, teens and other young people.
It is a 2017 USA horror drama by Andrés Muschietti.
Starring Bill Skarsgård, Jaeden Lieberher and Finn Wolfhard.
In the Town of Derry, the local kids are disappearing one by one, leaving behind bloody remains. In a place known as 'The Barrens', a group of seven kids are united by their horrifying and strange encounters with an evil clown and their
determination to kill It.
India's new film censor has proven a breath of fresh air to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). On Tuesday, the CBFC's new chairperson, Prasoon Joshi, shocked many and surprised some when he upturned the Examining Committee's (EC)
decision to come down heavily on Andres Muschietti's adaptation of Stephen King's IT .
In a historic decision, all the recommended 12 cuts -- including some profanities -- were restored, and IT has been given an all clear, with an uncut A certificate. A source said the committee had cut out visuals of horror and many profanities,
including words like 'fuck', 'pussy', 'cocks', and most shockingly, 'motherfucker, which was previously strictly forbidden. Apparently the latter has never been allowed in any Hollywood movie before.
The source says that the board now has clear instructions. If a film gets an adults only 'A' certificate, there will be no visual or verbal cuts.
In a series of rapid developments, over the last week, the CBFC had restored all the cuts ordered by the Examining Committee. Then they got cold feet and revised their decision within 24 hours, asking for three muted words, 'pussy', 'motherfucker'
and 'cunt'. But now the CBFC has revised its stance on the matter once again.
The film has been ordered to censor only one word 'motherfucker'. Says a source, The CBFC agreed to restore all the cuts, except the profanity.
For comparison, in the the UK, the BBFC passed the film 15 uncut for strong horror, violence, language for:
Update: Film makers censored from airing cuts negotiations in public
In a series of rapid developments, over the last week, the CBFC had restored all the cuts ordered by the Examining Committee. Then they got cold feet and revised their decision within 24 hours, asking for three muted words, 'pussy', 'motherfucker'
and 'cunt'. But now the CBFC has revised its stance on the matter once again.
A DNA report claimed on Tuesday that Joshi has introduced new rules for the board, according to which, no information about suggested cuts will be shared with the filmmakers and that the certificate will be the only communication with them.
Earlier, informal communication used to help filmmakers negotiate before they received the certificate, but the new censor was clearly not impressed by the public negotiations about the censorship to Andrés Muschietti's IT so has moved to
ban such discussions in the public sphere.
It seems tha the Indian film censors are not being fully honest about there being just 1 cut to the film for strong language. The censors have also taken offence at the sight of a packet of tampons at a pharmacy. The packet was duly blurred lest
it cause the downfall of civilised society in India.
India's Central Board Of Film Certification on Thursday banned a film, the first to get the treatment after Prasoon Joshi took over as
the chief censor.
The offending film is titled X Zone , produced and directed by Faisal Kapadi. According to CBFC sources, scenes of sex and nudity including, apparently, a frontal nudity shot of actress Hrishita Bhatt were the cause of the ban.
This dashes recent hopes that all films, regardless of content, can be passed with an adults only 'A' rating.
Not so, says a source close to the CBFC, sleaze won't get passed. That won't change.
Blood Feast is a 2016 Germany / USA horror by Marcel Walz.
Starring Robert Rusler, Caroline Williams and Sophie Monk.
Fuad Ramses and his family have moved from the United States to France, where they run an American diner. Since business is not going too well, Fuad also works night shifts in a museum of ancient Egyptian culture. During these long, lonely nights
he is repeatedly drawn to a statue representing the seductive ancient goddess ISHTAR. He becomes more and more allured by the goddess as she speaks to him in visions.
The Blood Feast remake is struggling to get an R rating from the MPAA. The producers have now submitted the film 3 times presumably with ever increasing cuts but the MPAA is still refusing an R rating.
Director Marcel Walz told DreadCentral:
Big, big mess at the MPAA... for the third time Blood Feast didn't pass the MPAA screening. It's horrible. I think the horror fans need to know what's going on. We need an MPAA rating to make Blood Feast available to all main markets in North
America. A friend made a petition
, and any support will be appreciated.
Lipstick Under My Burkha is a 2016 India drama by Alankrita Shrivastava.
Starring Shashank Arora, Plabita Borthakur and Sonal Jha.
Set in the crowded by-lanes of small town India, Lipstick Under My Burkha chronicles the secret lives of four women in search of a little freedom. Though stifled and trapped in their worlds, these four women claim their desires through small acts
of courage and stealthy rebellion.
The award-winning film Lipstick Under My Burkha , which was originally banned in India by film censors opens in U.S. theaters this Friday. It will open in six theaters in California.
Writer and director Alankrita Shrivastava's movie, a dramatic comedy, focuses on four Bhopal women rebelling against long held taboos, many of them sexual, in their tiny conservative town. The independent film came under scrutiny from India's
Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), which kept it from being released in January of this year, citing issues with its sexual nature. In its decision, the CBFC faulted the film for being lady oriented. Shrivastava explained during a panel
They did what they could in their power to stop the film from being exhibited. But what I think is interesting is that when this decision became public, the women of India really stood up. For the first time, I felt that Indian mainstream media
was discussing things like the male gaze and how the portrayal of women has been controlled by men.
After appealing the ban, Shrivastava compromised with the CBFC, volunteering more than 16 cuts to the film. After then being approved for release, the controversy helped the movie and it became a super hit, recovering its production costs four
days after its initial release.
The UK is just about to introduce internet censorship for porn via onerous and economically unviable
age verification requirements. In what may be a godsend for porn companies, a parliamentary group is considering widening the age verification requirements to a wider range of age restricted products sold on the internet. If a wider group of
companies become involved in the requirements it may encourage a more technically feasible and cost effective solution to be found.
XBIZ writes that online companies that sell e-cigarettes, knives, alcohol and pharmaceuticals, which typically would require identification at brick-and-mortar stores, could be regulated under the law, which focused originally on mandatory age
verification for the consumption of commercial adult content.
London attorney Myles Jackman, who also is the legal director of the Open Rights Group told XBIZ that the likely expansion of the Digital Economy Act to include other products and services sold online beyond pornography is predictably inevitable.
In fact, later this month the London-based Digital Policy Alliance, a cross party group of parliamentarians, plans on addressing the wider application of age-gating to other sectors at a formal meeting on September 19.
XBIZ also notes that the U.K. has yet to appoint an official regulator, although fingers have pointed to the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) to assume the role. A decision over the appointment will be announced in coming weeks.
US catholics have become an early victim of newly introduced censorship measure from YouTube presumably because their teaching is considered offensive due to politically incorrect attitudes towards gays and abortion. Catholic Online writes:
More media organizations are criticizing YouTube's increasingly oppressive soft censorship policies which are now eliminating mainstream news reports from the video sharing network. Many content creators on YouTube are losing millions in revenue
as the Google-owned firm reduces and cuts off payments in pursuit of profits and control.
YouTube is censoring content though various indirect means even if that content does not violate any terms of service. The Google-owned firm is removing content that it deems inappropriate or offensive, and is taking cues from the Southern Poverty
Law Center. The result seems to be a broad labeling of content, and the suppression of even mainstream news. Many of Catholic Online's bible readings have been caught up in YouTube's web of suppression, despite containing no commentary or message
other than the reading of the scriptures.
YouTube is not a government agency but a private platform, so it is free to ban or restrict content as it pleases them. Therefore, their policies, no matter how arbitrary, are not true censorship. However, the firm is practicing what some call
Soft censorship is any kind of activity that suppresses speech, particularly that which is true and accurate. It takes many forms. For example, broadcasting celebrity gossip in place of news is a form of soft censorship. Placing real news lower in
search results, preventing content from being shared on social media, or depriving media outlets of ad revenue for reporting on certain topics, are all common forms of soft censorship.
For some unknown reason, Catholic Online has also been targeted by these policies. Saints videos and daily readings are the most common targets. None of this content can be considered objectionable by any means, and none of it infringes on
YouTube's terms and conditions. It is suspected that anti-Christian bigotry, such as that promoted by liberal extremist organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, are to blame.
The problem for content creators and media organizations is that there are few places for them to go. Most video viewing takes place on YouTube, and there are no video hosting sites as well known and widely used as YouTube. Other sites also
restrict content and some don't share revenues with content creators. This makes YouTube a monopoly; they are literally the only show in town.
The time has come for governments around the world to recognize that Facebook, Google, and YouTube control the public forum. If freedom of speech is to be protected, then these firms must be compelled to abide by free speech rules.
The Ugandan government's obsession with enforcing morality and protecting the country's cultural values has added a new
twist: a nine-member anti-pornographic control committee.
The committee, which was sworn in Kampala in late August, is expected to stamp out pornography by collecting and destroying pornographic materials, and to apprehend and prosecute perpetrators. The committee will have a staff of between 30 and 40
people who will use a high-end 'machine' to detect the sharing of nude materials on mobile phones, computers, and television. This week the porn committee reportedly says messages of a sexual nature, or sexting, will also be defined as porn and
Simon Lokodo, Uganda's ethics minister, the minister, who has repeatedly denounced homosexuality and pornography, said the 'machine' will help stop one of the deadliest moral diseases in this country. Lokodo also claimed pornography was to blame
for the increasing levels of drug abuse among the youth, teenage pregnancies, and abortion, according to the Daily Monitor newspaper. Pornography is now eroding Uganda's human resource, which, he said, will hinder the achievement of our vision.
Irish film censors at IFCO have just released their Annual Report covering 2016. It says very little but mentions that it only received 14 complaints about its classification decisions:
During the year, IFCO received 14 complaints from the public relating specifically to classifications awarded. The largest number was in relation to JASON BOURNE, which was classified 12A with the accompanying consumer advice Strong weapons and
hand to hand combat action consistent with previous films in this franchise.
The correspondence related to the level of violence portrayed and while we felt it was consistent with decisions in other cases, it does highlight a trend which we are aware of and continue to monitor. This trend was the subject of a research
project carried out by Assistant Classifier David Power entitled Ratings Creep & Violence in Films for Young Teens which was presented by him at the International Classifiers Conference held in Dublin Castle in October.
The BBC's Burmese language service has said it was pulling a broadcasting deal with a popular Myanmar television channel citing
censorship as the two partners clashed over coverage of the ethnic cleansing of the Muslim Rohingya minority.
Since April 2014, BBC Burmese broadcast a daily news programme on MNTV with 3.7 million daily viewers. On Monday the BBC said it was ending the deal after MNTV pulled multiple programmes since March this year.
The BBC cannot accept interference or censorship of BBC programs by joint-venture TV broadcasters as that violates the trust between the BBC and its audience, a report on the BBC's Burmese website said.
In a statement MNTV said it began pulling reports to comply with government orders over restricted words. The BBC Burmese program sent news that included wordings that are restricted by the state government, the statement said. A station
official said the problematic word was Rohingya.
A few angry parents have launched an attack against Aldi supermarkets in Australia for stocking a book about transgender children.
Led by mother Kathryn Woolley, the parents have commented on social media accounts of the retailer to chastise its decision to sell the short novel, The Boy in a Dress . Woolley wrote on Aldi's Facebook page:
Aldi 203 we are so very disappointed in your decision to stock a book within your store 203 relating to transgenderism in children!
We would ask that you reconsider your choice to sell it!
Family & children must be protected in times where there are those whose agenda is to groom & sexualise them!
We ask you to have a conscience in this matter!
The book is the debut novel of British comedian David Walliams and aims to promote diversity and challenge gender roles by telling the story of a twelve-year-old who likes to wear dresses and the reaction of his family and friends.
A man who sold VPN software via a website has been sentenced to nine months in prison by China's Supreme People's Court. The decision otes that the
software supplied by the man allowed the public to circumvent China's Great Firewall while granting access to foreign websites.
Back in January, China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology announced that it would take measures to strengthen network information security management and would embark on a nationwide Internet network access services clean-up.
One of the initial targets was reported as censorship-busting VPNs, which allow citizens to evade the so-called Great Firewall of China. Operating such a service without a corresponding telecommunications business license would constitute an
offense, the government said.
Then early July, a further report suggested that the government would go a step further by ordering ISPs to block VPNs altogether. Apple then banned VPN software and services from its app store.
With an effort clearly underway to target VPNs, news today from China suggests that the government is indeed determined to tackle the anti-censorship threat presented by such tools. According to local media, Chinese man Deng Mouwei who ran a small
website through which he sold VPN software, has been sentenced to prison. He set up a website to sell VPNs. Just two products were on offer but this was enough to spring authorities into action.
The Orpheum Theater in Memphis has cancelled its traditional annual screening of Gone With the Wind , apparently in response to the anti-all-things-Confederate sentiment that's seizing the US.
It's the story of Southern belle Scarlett O'Hara, and her evolution from sheltered plantation owner's daughter to impoverished war casualty to scrappy Reconstruction-era survivor and hard-headed businesswoman. It's also a love triangle between
Scarlett, Rhett Butler and Ashley Wilkes. It's set against the backdrop of the Civil War but it's not supposed to be about the war, or slavery.
No, it is not a realistic depiction of the institution of slavery. Yes, the black characters in it are mostly stereotypes. It was published in 1936 and filmed in 1939. Gone With the Wind is dismissed by its critics as romanticizing the Confederacy
and the Old South, when on the contrary, if you look past all the melodrama and hoop skirts and fiddle-dee-dees you can find a strong anti-Confederacy statement.
Gone With the Wind contains strong black characters and staunchly anti-slavery white characters, most notably the character of Ashley Wilkes. My takeaway has always been that it's a scathing indictment of the Confederacy and the hubris of
Confederates who believed they could prevail against the economic and military might of the United States government. Admittedly all this comes across more in the book, but it's there in the film too.
Artistic works of decades past should be viewed in the context of the time in which they were created, not censored. It's unfair to hold them to present-day standards.
Instead of being banned, it could be presented in an educational forum discussing the issues surrounding it and how society has changed since the 1930s in its perception of them.
Youtube has been introduced a new tier of censorship designed to restrict the audience for videos deemed to be
inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.
The site is now putting videos into a limited state if they are deemed controversial enough to be considered objectionable, but not hateful, pornographic or violent enough to be banned altogether.
This policy was announced several months ago but has come into force in the past week, prompting anger among members of the YouTube community.
YouTube defines Limited Videos as follows:
Our Community Guidelines prohibit hate speech that either promotes violence or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes. YouTube also prohibits content intended to recruit for terrorist
organizations, incite violence, celebrate terrorist attacks, or otherwise promote acts of terrorism. Some borderline videos, such as those containing inflammatory religious or supremacist content without a direct call to violence or a primary
purpose of inciting hatred, may not cross these lines for removal. Following user reports, if our review teams determine that a video is borderline under our policies, it may have some features disabled.
These videos will remain available on YouTube, but will be placed behind a warning message, and some features will be disabled, including comments, suggested videos, and likes. These videos are also not eligible for ads.
Having features disabled on a video will not create a strike on your account.
Videos which are put into a limited state cannot be embedded on other websites. They also cannot be easily published on social media using the usual share buttons and other users cannot comment on them. Crucially, the person who made the video
will no longer receive any payment.
Earlier this week, Julian Assange wrote:
'Controversial' but contract-legal videos [which break YouTube's terms and conditions] cannot be liked, embedded or earn [money from advertising revenue].
What's interesting about the new method deployed is that it is a clear attempt at social engineering. It isn't just turning off the ads. It's turning off the comments, embeds, etc too. Everything possible to strangle the reach without
As of October 1, 2017, Chinese netizens who have not registered their user accounts with online platforms under a new real name system will not be able to post comments on online content, while bans await trouble-makers.
The Regulation on the Management of Internet Comments was announced by the Cyberspace Administration of China on August 25. The regulation specifies that platforms that provide services for netizens to comment on original content, including
films, posts, online games or news, should force users to provide their authentic identity via an individual user account system before posting. Platform operators should not offer such services to those who have not verified their identity.
The regulation will dramatically reduce space for online comments as large number of unauthenticated users will not be able to write original posts and leave comments. Moreover, many platforms will be unable to bear the burden of the identity
According to Article 2 of the regulation, commenting services refer to websites, mobile applications, interactive platforms, news sites, and other social platforms that allow or facilitate users to create original content, reply to posts, leave
comments on news threads or other items in the form of written text, symbols, emojis, images, voice messages or video.
The responsibilities of comment service operators, according to Article 5, include the verification of user identities, the setting up of a comment management system to pre-screen comments on news, preventing the spread of illegal information and
reporting comments to the authorities.
Controversially, the regulation also specifies in Article 9 that comment service operators should manage their users by rating their social credit, an algorithm to measure a person's overall 'goodness' as a citizen.
Those with low credit should be blacklisted from posting and prevented from registering new accounts to use the service. At the same time, state, province and city-level cyberspace affairs offices will set up a management system to evaluate the
overall social credit of comment service operators on a regular basis.
The Orwellian social credit system for regulating internet users' activities was revealed in 2014 and the Chinese government authorized a number of credit service agencies to collect, evaluate and manage peoples's credit information the following
According to the Chinese government's Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System , the system aims to measure and enhance 'trust' between and among government, commercial sectors and citizens and to strengthen sincerity in
government affairs, commercial sincerity, social sincerity and the construction of judicial credibility. However, the allocation of individual credit is not transparent and the current regulation on comment services indicates that individual
online speech is a key factor in its calculation.
Thus far only national and large-scale social media and content service operators have implemented real name registration and they have not introduced measures to penalize unauthenticated users beyond limiting the circulation of their posts.
The majority of small-to-medium-size local websites and forums have not implemented real name registration because they simply don't have the capital and infrastructure to do so. The new regulation compels such websites to shut down their
Tech-blogger William Long who has discussed the issue with regulators in the past wrote in his blog:
I have discussed with the relevant authorities how small forums and websites can implement real name registration. Their view is, they can either shut the comment section down or ask their users to verify their identity by providing mobile phone
Owners of small websites can only afford a few hundred yuan to hire a server. The cost of mobile verification is RMB 6 cents per message. They would have to spend RMB 6 yuan per 100 comments. If their competitors deliberately overload them by
posting a few thousand comments a day, they will not be able to afford the cost [of verification]. In the end they will be forced to ban comments.
Morality campaigners from Morality in Media (or the National Center on Sexual Exploitation as they like to be called now) are
gushing with praise for a new cable TV programme from HBO. The campaign group writes:
HBO's television series The Deuce continues the premium cable television network's onslaught of programs that glorify and normalize harmful sexual behaviors, particularly acts of sexual exploitation that degrade
women. The show's main themes -- the pornography industry and prostitution -- tee up its producers for gratuitous pornographic scenes and disturbing, graphic sexual content.
Scene where pimps are hanging out on the street getting shoe shines; two little boys are hanging out with them looking at Playboy;
Franco's character is walking down the street, sees a man in a phone booth getting a blow job from a prostitute, you see the man's penis in the scene;
Graphic sex scene between a student and her professor, she's topless throughout;
Franco's character makes the women at the restaurant he manages start wearing black leotards as their "uniform" in order to attract customers;
A group of male teenagers come to Times Square by car to treat their friend (it's his birthday -- presumably his 18 th ) to sex. They are all pooling their funds so that he can have sex.
In another scene, another prostitute appears to be viciously attacked. As she is unlocking the door to her room, a man follows, passes by, but then comes back as she enters the room. He grabs her head and shoves her in the
room, throws her on the bed, slaps her across the face and starts undoing his pants. She's trying to kick him off. It's clear he's going to rape her. The scene ends. Later the show returns to the scene after the attack. He is sitting naked in a
chair, she's on the sitting on the bed, breasts exposed. It becomes clear that the "rape" was a fetishized act that he paid for. Because he was really rough with her, he pays more. He gets up from the chair to get dressed, and his
penis is clearly seen. Also full rear nudity;
Near the end, we see Franco having sex with a woman who works with him from the restaurant. Full rear nudity of Franco. It's a very pornographic scene. When they finish you see the woman's breasts;