Censor Watch

Netflix has said it may have to to pre-emptively remove movies and TV shows from its UK library to avoid breaching new internet censorship laws being introduced by the British government.

UK ministers are pushing for the internet censor, Ofcom, to be able to censor streaming services in a similar way to which it already does for traditional broadcasters.

The Media Bill states that major streamers must consider impartiality in the context of contemporary events, pointing specifically to current public policy and matters of political or industrial controversy.

In a submission to UK Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Netflix addressed the plans to introduce due impartiality rules, calling the draft legislation nebulous and potentially onerous for services to enforce. There were still a number of areas where it would welcome greater clarity.

Netflix said staying on the right side of the proposed rule would require it to keep its giant catalogue of content under continual review, ensuring that it is removing titles on a regular basis regardless of when a show or film premiered.

The range and variety of Netflix's content, generally considered a strength of our offering in terms of maximising choice for British viewers, could equally become a potential source of risk from a compliance perspective if it fell within Ofcom's remit, it said.

Without considerably greater clarity around the scope and application of these provisions, it would inevitably be easier to remove content pre-emptively from our UK catalogue than risk an onerous compliance burden and potential liability.

Google has banned a controversial game called Slavery Simulator (Simulado de Escravidao) from its app store, after it caused a bit of an outrage in Brazil.

The game, which allowed players to buy and sell slaves, was launched by Magnus Games on 20 April. The game was downloaded about a 1,000 times before it was banned.

In a description of the game, the developer boasted that users could exchange, buy and sell slaves. It also allowed players to inflict various forms of torture on them. According to images of the game, users were offered a choice to either liberate the enslaved characters or use slaves for your own enrichment.

Social media users in Brazil expressed their 'fury' over the game, and a number of prominent politicians urged officials to hold tech companies to a higher standard. Brazil's Ministry for Racial equality said it had arranged a meeting with Google to help build anti-racist content moderation policies. It added that the developers would be held legally responsible.

Monty Python stars John Cleese and Eric Idle have been woring on new scenes and plotlines for a stage show based on the classic 1979 film Life Of Brian .

Cleese, the prime mover in the revival, said:

I think Life Of Brian is our best film. We are going to do it in London in the second half of next year and I've changed certain things.

One exchange which has had to come out is the discussion between People's Front of Judea members Stan (played by Idle) and Reg (Cleese). Stan says that he wants to be known as Loretta and to have babies. It's every man's right to have babies if you want them, says Stan. Reg counters: But -- you can't have babies. At which Stan responds: Don't you oppress me.

Cleese told an audience at his one-man show last week that when the scene (co-written with the late Graham Chapman) was performed at a read-through for the new show in New York last year, doubts emerged:

At the end, I said to the American actors: 'What do you think? And they said: We love the script, but you can't do that stuff about Loretta nowadays.

So here you have something there's never been a complaint about in 40 years, that I've heard of, and now all of a sudden we can't do it because it'll offend people. What is one supposed to make of that? But I think there were a lot of things that were actually, in some strange way, predictive of what was actually going to happen later.

The stage show will open with a scene written by Palin which never made it into the movie.

 

Offsite Comment: The neutering of Monty Python

25th May 2023. See article from spiked-online.com

Trans activists are even more censorious than fundamentalist Christians.

Beau Is Afraid is a 2023 Canada/Finland/US comedy horror drama by Ari Aster
Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Parker Posey and Amy Ryan

Following the sudden death of his mother, a mild-mannered but anxiety-ridden man confronts his darkest fears as he embarks on an epic, Kafkaesque odyssey back home.

Update: Thanks to Ben:

I saw the film at an early/preview screening in the UK with a BBFC 15 black card etc. It seems uncut to me. All the following possible cut scenes in your entry were included on-screen.

[ Spoilers! hover or click text below]

• drinking paint

• building-jump suicide (implied - it cuts straight to the aftermath of a corpse - seems a directing choice though)

• extended/strong sex scene with a decent amount of nudity

• 3 uses of cunt

The extra 50s could be distributor logos - given all the above, the UK version seems uncut.

Thanks to Scott:

The IFCO have passed the film with a running time of 178m 52s, practically the same as the NZ OFLC's 178m 50s. The BBFC have it at 178m 2s. It almost certainly is cut. The BBFC's website still doesn't list any cuts, however this could be a similar case to The Invisible Man in 2020 where cuts info was only added to the site once the film had been released.

US parental guide sites mention that the film contains several suicide scenes, including someone drinking paint and another person jumping from a building, with their head smashing open upon landing - the BBFC don't mention suicide at all in their short insight, so quite possibly this is what's been cut. The sex scene responsible for the Aussie R18+ sounds quite strong too, yet the BBFC have buried the mention of it in the middle of their short insight, so this is another candidate for cuts. Additionally, the film apparently contains several uses of the c-word, however the BBFC haven't mentioned very strong language in the short insight - it could be that they didn't have space for the phrase very strong given how much else is listed, which previously happened with Promising Young Woman, although this is very rare.

When the BBFC publishes its extended insight the situation will become clearer, but at the moment this looks to be a proper 90-style hack job, cut to bits for no reason. If it really is missing almost a minute I won't be wasting my time seeing it.

Versions

uncut run: 178:52s pal: 171:43s	Ireland	Ireland: A longer version has been passed 16 uncut for Strong violence and language throughout. Graphic injury detail portrayed. Some explicit scenes of a sexual nature. Use of illicit and legal drug and impact portrayed. 2023 cinema release
short version run: 178:02s pal: 170:55s		UK: Passed 15 for strong threat, violence, sex, drug misuse, language, nudity, injury detail: 2023 cinema release

A theatre presentation is causing controversy in London after one performance has been designated as only open to audience members identifying as  black.

The Theatre Royal Stratford East has warned white visitors against attending the July 5 performance of Tambo & Bones - a production which explores 300 years of African American history. The theatre is designating this performance as a Black Out.

Those running the event said they are hosting the one-off Black Out event during the play's month-long run in a bid to create a safe, private space for an all-black-identifying audience to look at race-related issues. Although organisers said on the theatre's website that no one is excluded, it has been made clear on promotional material that white people are not wanted at the production that night.

Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Festus Akinbusoye, Britain's first black PCC, condemned the event, claiming it set a poor and dangerous precedent. Speaking to The Telegraph, Akinbusoye strongly urged organisers to cancel the Black Out event. He said:

Society is richer and stronger when an understanding of each other's cultures and stories are shared and heard. However I believe the Black Out concept runs contrary to this education and enrichment ethos.

Former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips described the Black Out as completely lawful. He said:

I think it's fine, for several reasons. There is not a 'ban on white attendees. It's completely lawful. It is one night out of many. There are other performances designated for specific audiences.'

The Kerala Story is a 2023 India historical drama by Sudipto Sen, Vipul Amrutlal Shah
Starring Adah Sharma, Yogita Bihani and Sonia Balani

A converted Muslim woman Fatima Ba narrates her ordeal of how she once wanted to become a nurse but was abducted from her home and manipulated by religious vanguards, turned into an ISIS terrorist and landed in Afghanistan jail.

The Indian film Kerala Story got mysteriously pulled from UK cinema websites and all the tickets bought were refunded after it failed to get classified by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) in time for its release. It was due to be released in Hindi and Tamil in 31 cinemas in the UK and Ireland on May 12. But out of the blue on Friday all UK cinemas stopped allowing sales of tickets from their websites and all shows were cancelled.

The BBFC said:

The Kerala Story is still going through our classification process. Once the film has received a BBFC age rating and content advice, it will be available to be screened in UK cinemas.

British Indians took to Twitter, eg:

Surely BBFC is not delaying as part of its move to appease the extremists? t

Suresh Varsani, director of the movie's UK distributor 24 SEVEN FLIX4U said:

It is very concerning. I gave them the film on Wednesday and there were three versions -- Hindi, Tamil and the Malayalam version. They watched one on Wednesday and the other two Thursday. Age classification is normally done on the day. He has been emailing the BBFC since Thursday and all they keep telling him is that compliance is reviewing it. On Friday he called them and they confirmed it won't get classified that day. I am very suspicious that they have not given a valid reason. Why do they need more time when they have had three days? I have never come across a situation like this where a film has not been classified when it is meant to be released.

USA, India, Australia and Canada and Ireland have all passed it.

Not everyone wants the movie released. OK Ki Report tweeted:

Never screen this film, it is actually made to spread mischief, its purpose is to spread hatred against Muslims for political gains.

Pornhub is fight back against Utah's new law requiring visitors to porn websites to verify their age by dangerously identifying themselves before being able to watch adult content..

Pornhub began totally blocking Utah-based internet connections' from access to its content when the law took effect May 3. The site redirects visitors to a video message of adult film actress Cherie DeVille explaining that the company disabled access over concerns that the law is not the most effective solution for protecting our users and in fact will put children, and your privacy, at risk.

The Free Speech Coalition, a group representing the adult entertainment industry, also sued to block the law's enforcement that same day, making a similar argument about the trade-off regarding safety, privacy, and adults' freedom to browse the web as they wish.

The group has also vowed to sue over unsafe age-verification measures set to take effect soon in other states.

On Deadly Ground is a 1994 US action film by Steven Seagal.
With Steven Seagal, Michael Caine and Joan Chen.    

The BBFC inflicted significant category cuts for a 15 rating to all UK releases to date. Uncut in the US.

Summary Notes

Mystical martial artist/environmental agent takes on a ruthless oil corporation.

Cutting Edge

Steven Seagal: The Complete Cuts

Versions

uncut run: 101m pal: 97m		US: Uncut and MPAA R Rated for: 1999 Warner R1 DVD via UK Amazon and via US Amazon From Graeme, May 2013: A couple of weeks ago on ITV4 the film was shown in its uncut version. This signals that the film would now be passed uncut by the BBFC if submitted again
category cuts cut: 1:09s run: 100:21s pal: 96:20s		UK: Passed 15 after substantial BBFC cuts for: 2010 Warner R2 DVD 2000 Warner R2 DVD 1994 Warner VHS 1994 cinema release The BBFC cuts summary: Rumble in the Bar has been cut in several places to remove a head being slammed into a jukebox, two kicks to the groin, a wrist snap, and arm break. A torture sequence has been greatly reduced. We no longer see a pipe cutter being used on a man's leg. The raid on the wilderness cabin has lost a few violent moments: a bullet impact/blood spurt as a thug is dispatched with a shotgun, a thug being clubbed with a piece of ivory. A women crashes her car into an oil tanker causing it to explode: we no longer see her - dazed and bloodied - struggling to get out. A beating of a henchman as Seagal breaks into the oil refinery has been cut to remove him breaking an arm and kicks to the chest. The stand-off between Seagal and a group of hired thugs has been toned down: two blows to the head with a piece of lead pipe have cut, a close-up of a knife protruding from a face has been trimmed. Thanks to Scott. The detailed BBFC cuts list reads Reel 1 - Reduce violence by hero in bar room brawl, as follows: Remove sight of man's head smashing through jukebox, resuming on reaction shot of two men looking down (sound of breaking glass to be laid over reaction shot) Remove sight of hero kicking black man in crotch and flooring him Remove crunching sound of man's arm being broken as he is thrown to ground After the line "Don't go fucking with the oil workers" remove sight of first man's arm being broken and second man being kicked in crotch and falling back Remove all sight of man in green shirt having arm broken and then being turned and thrown through window with two shots of window smash Reel 2 In torture sequence, after breaking of second finger, reduce old man's screaming face and remove entire scene suggesting amputation of genitals with pipe cutter, resuming on old man's final scream as camera tilts up to window (merging sound of screams) Reel 4 In shoot-out in cabin, remove bloody impact shot as man is hit in crotch by bullet fired up through floor Remove sight of hero hitting man in green jacket across face with tusk In final battle in refinery, after hero tapes large Coke bottle around barrel of handgun, remove personalising of violence by cutting close-up of victim's face as he walks to door before being shot (sound of gun to be dubbed over rear view of man being shot) Reduce violence in struggle between hero and long-haired man by removing impact against wall, kick to face and kick to stomach, removing all sounds of bones breaking in remaining struggle Reel 5 When vehicle crashes into helicopter, remove emphasis on woman driver's terror as she fails to escape before petrol ignites After man shouts "Get the fuck out of here!" as hero ignites petrol, remove shot of men being incinerated, retaining only wide shots of refinery bursting into flames After man with hat is floored, remove shot of downwards blow with pipe onto face and following slow-motion shot of another man being floored by sideways blow with pipe Remove shot of stabbed face being slammed against wall so that knife emerges through back of head The cuts were decided by James Ferman himself.

Exasperated by slow legal progress in porn censorship, Emmanuel Macron's government has confirmed that it will attempt to bypass the courts to force the porn websites comply with a controversial, vaguely worded 2020 age verification law.

Macron's government is clearly frustrated with the legal challenge mounted by lawyers for Pornhub, Tukif, xHamster, XVideos and Xnxx. The lawyers presented requests to nullify the proceedings and order a stay of the proposed block. The tribunal then gave itself until July 7 to make a decision.

The French Minister Delegate for Digital Jean-Noël Barrot announced the government's intention to empower ARCOM to order, without needing to go through the courts, the blocking and delisting of adult sites that do not prevent minors from accessing their content.

Le Monde reports that the extra-judicial gambit will be part of a new bill intended to secure and regulate the digital space. Barrot intends to present the bill to the Council of Ministers on Wednesday, and expects it to be examined in the Senate over the summer and by the National Assembly by the start of the school year.

The bill will also empower government regulator ARCOM to stop the dissemination on the internet of media banned in the European Union.

Mark Steyn
GB News, 4 October 2022, 8pm - 2am

This programme included an interview between presenter Mark Steyn and a guest, Dr Naomi Wolf. During the interview, Naomi Wolf made serious claims about the Covid-19 vaccine, including that its rollout amounted to a pre-meditated crime – mass murder – and was comparable to the actions of doctors in pre-Nazi Germany .

Ofcom received 422 complaints that alleged these comments were dangerous and included misinformation that went unopposed.

Ofcom investigated under Rule 2.1 of the Code which states that

Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services…so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.

We took into account that Naomi Wolf was presented as a figure of authority, with particular knowledge and expertise in the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines. We considered that this would have lent greater credibility to her claims that amounted to the promotion of a serious, unchallenged conspiracy theory. We were particularly concerned about the significant and alarming claim that mass murder was taking place through the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccinations. We found that comments made by Naomi Wolf had the potential to impact on viewers’ decisions about their health and were therefore potentially harmful.

We were concerned that Naomi Wolf was given the opportunity to present her claims without challenge or other contextualisation, for example through other contributions in the programme or by the presenter who appeared to support many of her comments. There was also no scrutiny of the evidence she claimed to hold to support her claims. We concluded that the programme did not provide adequate protection to viewers from the potentially harmful content, in breach of Rule 2.1 of the Code.

Ofcom has made clear that, in line with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters are free to transmit programmes that include controversial and challenging views about any topic, including Covid-19 vaccines or conspiracy theories. ...HOWEVER..., alongside this editorial freedom, the Code imposes a clear requirement that if the broadcast of any content – an unchallenged conspiracy theory, in this case – has the potential to be harmful, the broadcaster must ensure that its audience is adequately protected.

This breach of Rule 2.1 of the Code follows another recent breach also involving potential harm to viewers (under Rule 2.2). Ofcom is requesting that GB News Ltd attends a meeting to discuss its compliance approach in light of these two significant Code breaches.

Ireland is closer to being the latest country to pass authoritarian legislation on so-called hate speech.

The Lower House (Dáil Éireann) passed the Criminal Justice Bill 2022 titled the Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offenses.

The bill makes it a crime to incite violence or hatred against a person, condoning, denial or gross trivialization of genocide, and preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or hatred against persons on account of their protected characteristics. Protected characteristics include race, nationality, religion, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and disability.

It adds that someone violates the law if they displays, publishes, distributes, disseminates, shows or plays the material, or makes the material available in any other way including the use of an information system like social media.

The bill has a controversial provision that makes it an offense to possess material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or group. More concerning is that the burden of proof lies on the person accused (they have to prove that their intention was not to spread hate), rather than the age-old idea of the burden being on the prosecution to prove their case. The government's proposal is the opposite of this: guilty until proven innocent.

The bill is headed for the upper house (Seanad Éireann), which will be the seventh stage of 11 before it becomes law.

 

Update: Ireland's new thoughtcrime bill is shockingly draconian

2nd May 2023. See article from spiked-online.com by Fraser Myers

You could soon be sent to jail just for possessing offensive material.

A US federal appeals court has dismissed a law suit accusing Twitter of profiting from sex trafficking by not stopping a paying customer from post nude photos of two 13-year-old boys. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals relied on a 1996 federal law that shields tech platforms from liability for content posted by others, a law now under review in the Supreme Court.

The law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, was intended to promote online dialogue and self-regulation by platforms such as Twitter, Google and Facebook by immunizing them from suits over content from their customers, in contrast to publications like newspapers and magazines, which have no such immunity.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero previously ruled that Section 230 shielded Twitter from the families' claims of participating in child pornography and sex trafficking but allowed them to sue the company for allegedly profiting from the traffickers' illegal conduct. The appeals court, however, said such claims were also barred by a Ninth Circuit ruling last fall in a suit against the online network Reddit.

Members of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's party have introduced a bill to criminalize the spread of information deemed false on the internet and through social media that violates Ukraine's national security.

Ostensibly, the bill is targeted at bot accounts coordinated by Russian special services who, as the authors of the bill claim, are conducting informational influence actions against the state interests of Ukraine. But in reality, the language of the bill is so encompassing that anyone could be arrested for posting information that the right-wing nationalist government in Kiev deems misinformation.

Under the proposed bill, lawmakers would have broad powers to arrest anyone who participates in the creation, acquisition, use or sale of accounts, including those containing knowingly false information, as well as the posting and distribution of inaccurate information.

Anyone who spreads so called misinformation with the intention to damage to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability, defense capability, national, state, economic or informational security of Ukraine, or to exert influence on decision-making or taking or not taking actions by state bodies or local self-government bodies, officials of these bodies, would likewise face arrest and imprisonment of 5 to 7 years and the confiscation of personal property.

The Portman Group is a trade body representing the drinks industry. It takes it on itself the job of censoring drinks labels and associated marketing.  It recently investigated the packaging of King William Fortified wine over associations with one side of sectarian politics in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

A complainant stated:

The use of King William of Orange as branding, and the ABV of 16.90% is playing to the sectarian elements which cause societal division particularly in the West of Scotland & Northern Ireland, which are stated to be the target markets.

The Portman Group treaded very carefully amongst the eggshells of identity politics and concluded:

The Panel discussed how the overall impression conveyed by the label was likely to be perceived by communities where sectarianism was prominent. The Panel considered that for those affected by sectarianism, the combination of elements on the label were likely to be divisive and inflammatory and would further fuel division in certain communities where religiously aggravated crime was still prevalent.

Whilst the Panel agreed with the producer that the use of King William in and of himself as a monarch did not cause serious offence, it concluded that the presentation of the packaging, particularly the overt references where the product's ABV had been used to signify a year that linked the product, and King William, to a specific conflict associated with sectarianism was likely to cause serious offence to certain communities. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.3.

The Panel welcomed the producer's offer to work with the Portman Group's Advisory Service to amend the label in order to address the issues presented by the inclusion of 16.90 as a number, as opposed to a factual representation of the product's ABV.

The Guardian newspaper generally sees its writers as the high priestesses of PC but somehow got it a little wrong and published a cartoon that made fun of Jewish stereotypes.

A controversial image by Martin Rowson showed a grinning caricature of Richard Sharp, who recently resigned from the BBC after a damning report about stinky goings ons, with what experts described as a string of antisemitic tropes.

To be fair some of those tropes are not immediately obvious to those unversed in subtle symbology.

The cartoon depicted the former Goldman Sachs banker carrying a box from the bank stuffed with a squid and what appeared to be gold coins. While the squid seemed to be a reference to Goldman Sachs -- once described by Rolling Stone magazine as a great vampire squid -- it is also a common antisemitic motif used to depict a supposed Jewish conspiracy, according to Dave Rich, an author who specialises in antisemitism.

Critics also highlighted that the cartoon appeared to feature a bloodied pig's head and Rishi Sunak portrayed as a puppet. Alex Hearn, co-director of Labour Against Antisemitism, said:

It is extraordinary that so many classic anti-Jewish motifs were squeezed into one cartoon, without The Guardian editors objecting.

Of course it seems perfectly OK to insult Boris Johnson in whatever extremes the Guardian deems fit