Censor Watch

The Toolbox Murders is a 1978 US horror by Dennis Donnelly.
With Cameron Mitchell and Pamelyn Ferdin.    

Cut by the BBFC for 1979 X rated cinema release. Banned as a video nasty on VHS in 1983. Cut by the BBFC for VHS and DVD from 2000 until the BBFC cuts were waived for 2017 18 rated DVD and Blu-ray. Uncut and MPAA Unrated in the US.

Thanks to Scott who obtained the BBFC cuts list for the 1980 cinema cuts:

Reel 1

• Remove close-shots of bloody drill as killer advances on his wounded victim and all shots of her being chased around flat with blood oozing from her arm.

Reels 1 and 2

•  Remove two shots of Debbie lying bloody on floor when police photographer is filming at end of Reel 1 and beginning of Reel 2.

Reel 2

• Eliminate all shots of girl victim masturbating in bath before murderer enters.
• Considerably reduce nail-gun murder by deleting most shots of nude victim being chased around flat and the complete section in which she is cornered naked on her bed.
• Implication of girl's death from nail-gun in head may remain, but remove all sight of blood running down her face.
• After girl's death, remove flashback cross-cut shot of her nude and bloody.
• Remove further shot of girl's nude dead body at the end of crosscut sequence.
• Remove sight of bloody girl as police investigate her murder.

Mary Skelter Finale is a 2021 Japan console game by Idea Factory

The game was banned ('Refused Classification' in censor speak) in June 2021 by the Australian Censorship Board. The game is PEGI 16 rated in Europe.

Kotaku Australia revealedl that the game was specifically banned over instances of hypersexualised imagery, including scenes that the Board described as implied sexual violence and exploitative or offensive depictions of minors.

Local Hero is a 1983 UK comedy drama by Bill Forsyth
Starring Burt Lancaster, Peter Riegert and Fulton Mackay

The film has just been uprated from PG to 12A in 2021 with the BBFC citing 'infrequent partial use of strong language (eg "motherfu...")'.

The BBFC changed its strong language policy in 2021 to treat obscured strong language as if it had been fully voiced.

Summary Notes

An American oil company has plans for a new refinery and sends someone to Scotland to buy up an entire village, but things don't go as expected.

UK: Passed 12A uncut for implied strong language, moderate sex references:

• 2021 cinema release

 

Update: Motherfu...ing Stupidity: The BBFC And 'Implied Language'

28th June 2021. See article from reprobatepress.com

The British censor's curious decision to treat implied swearing no differently than if the actual word had been used.

Comment: Disastrous

11th May 2021. See article from bigbrotherwatch.org.uk

Mark Johnson, Legal and Policy Officer at Big Brother Watch said:

The Online Safety Bill introduces state-backed censorship and monitoring on a scale never seen before in a liberal democracy.

This Bill is disastrous for privacy rights and free expression online. The Government is clamping down on vague categories of lawful speech. This could easily result in the silencing of marginalised voices and unpopular views.

Parliament should remove lawful content from the scope of this Bill altogether and refocus on real policing rather than speech-policing.

 

 

Offsite Comment: Online safety bill: a messy new minefield in the culture wars

13th May 2021. See article from theguardian.com by Alex Hern

The message of the bill is simple: take down exactly the content the government wants taken down, and no more. Guess wrong and you could face swingeing fines. Keep guessing wrong and your senior managers could even go to jail.

Content moderation is a hard job, and it's about to get harder.

 

 

Offsite Comment: Harm Version 3.0

15th May 2021. See article from cyberleagle.com by Graham Smith

Two years on from the April 2019 Online Harms White Paper, the government has published its draft Online Safety Bill. It is a hefty beast: 133 pages and 141 sections. It raises a slew of questions, not least around press and journalistic material and the newly-coined content of democratic importance. Also, for the first time, the draft Bill spells out how the duty of care regime would apply to search engines, not just to user generated content sharing service providers.

This post offers first impressions of a central issue that started to take final shape in the government's December 2020 Full Response to consultation: the apparent conflict between imposing content monitoring and removal obligations on the one hand, and the government's oft-repeated commitment to freedom of expression on the other - now translated into express duties on service providers.

The draft Bill represents the government's third attempt at defining harm (if we include the White Paper, which set no limit). The scope of harm proposed in its second version (the Full Response) has now been significantly widened.

See article from cyberleagle.com

 

 

Offsite Comment: The unstoppable march of state censorship

17th May 2021. See article from spiked-online.com

Vaguely worded hate-speech laws can end up criminalising almost any opinion.

 

 

Offsite Comment: Drowning internet services in red tape

 18th May 2021. See article from techmonitor.ai by Laurie Clarke

The UK government has unveiled sprawling new legislation that takes aim at online speech on internet services 203 stretching from illegal to legal yet harmful content. The wide-ranging nature of the proposals could leave internet businesses large and small facing a huge bureaucratic burden, and render the bill impractical to implement.

 

 

Offsite Comment: UK online safety bill raises censorship concerns and questions on future of encryption

24th May 2021. See article from cpj.org

 

 

Offsite Comment: Why the online safety bill threatens our civil liberties

26th May 2021. See article from politics.co.uk by Heather Burns

With the recent publication of the draft online safety bill, the UK government has succeeded in uniting the British population in a way not seen since the weekly clap for the NHS. This time, however, no one is applauding. After two years of dangled promises, the government's roadmap to making the UK the safest place in the world to be online sets up a sweeping eradication of our personal privacy, our data security, and our civil liberties.

 

 

Offsite Comment: Misguided Online Safety Bill will be catastrophic for ordinary people's social media

23rd June 2021. See article from dailymail.co.uk

The Government's new Online Safety Bill will be catastrophic for ordinary people's freedom of speech, former minister David Davis has warned.

The Conservative MP said forcing social networks to take down content in Britain they deem unacceptable seems out of Orwell's 1984.

Davis slammed the idea Silicon Valley firms could take down posts they think are not politically correct - even though it is legal.

See full article from dailymail.co.uk

 

 

Offsite Comment: On the trail of the Person of Ordinary Sensibilities

28th June 2021. See article from cyberleagle.com by Graham Smith

  The bill boils down to what a mythical adult or child of 'ordinary sensibilities' considers to be 'lawful but awful' content.

 

 

Offsite Comment: The Online Safety Bill won’t solve online abuse

 2nd July 2021. See article by Heather Burns

The Online Safety Bill contains threats to freedom of expression, privacy, and commerce which will do nothing to solve online abuse, deal with social media platforms, or make the web a better place to be.

 

 

Google has delayed its plan to block third-party cookies from its Chrome internet browser. These are cookies that track and analyse users' internet activity and allow digital publishers to target advertising.

They are already blocked by a number of Google's rivals, including Apple, Microsoft and Mozilla.

Google was intending to replace third party cookies which allow subscribing companies to analyse people's browsing with a system whereby only Google did the analysis and they passed on the resulting summary of user's interests to advertisers in a supposedly anonymised format. Google clled this scheme The Federated Learning of Cohorts, or Floc.

But critics say Google's ban forces ad sellers to go direct to the tech giant for this information gave it an unfair market control advantage. Google's proposals are already under investigation by the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) which investigates monopolies.

Google's cookie ban had been planned for 2022, but has now been put back until 2023. In a blog , Vinay Goel, privacy engineering director for Google's Chrome browser said:

It's become clear that time is needed across the ecosystem in order to get this right.

Farhad Divecha, founder of digital marketing agency AccuraCast, said the delay was good news for his industry. He said:

We welcome this delay and only hope that Google uses this time to consult with the CMA as well as different parties that will be affected by the changes, including advertisers, agencies, publishers, and ad-tech and tracking solutions providers.

Tourists are being invited to Thailand under a mandatory 14 day covid quarantine scheme, but with innovative idea that the whole of the island of Phuket will be declared as the quarantine zone.

Visitors to Phuket under the Phuket Sandbox scheme will be required to wear a wristband that will track their location at all times. Presumably the system is designed to alert the police of any attempt for the tourists to escape the confinement zone.

Note the term 'sandbox' is a computing term meaning an offline experimentation area where new designs can be tested before going live in the real world system.

The news regarding wristbands was confirmed as officials in Phuket this week began preparing the security protocols that will be put in place for all foreigners arriving on the island from July 1. Thai news site Manager reported on some of the security protocols that will be put in place, which include security checkpoints on the main road leading to the island screening everyone arriving or trying to leave.

The checkpoints will feature facial recognition cameras that will be able to detect any tourist who tries to leave Phuket before the 14 day mandatory quarantine period.

The conditions of entry into Thailand are extremely onerous and require that visitors are doubly vaccinated, pay for a series of 4 PCR covid, tests, book in with state approved quarantine hotels, buy covid health insurance, and apply to the local embassy for permission to travel to Thailand. And of course to take the risk of having their holiday totally written off in detention should they fail a covid test.

And by the way, all bars, discos, and gogos etc are currently closed due to a coronavirus lockdown.

Officials ludicrously said they expect approximately 129,000 foreigners to visit Phuket under the Sandbox scheme. The scheme is unlikely attract any tourists as at all, but may appeal to visitors who have business or family in Thailand who may prefer to spend their 2 weeks quarantine on the beach rather than locked up in a hotel room.

Update: Prisoner tracking centre opens

26th June 2021. See article from forum.thaivisa.com

A visitor tracking centre for the Phuket Sandbox has been set up on the resort island, with 70% of its equipment installation complete. Phuket will be the first province to 'welcome' fully vaccinated foreign visitors, with the whole resort island being defined as a quarantine zone, from July 1st.

The centre will be used, along with the Mor Prom and Mor Chana apps, to track the movements of foreign tourists on Phuket. Tourists will be required to install one of the apps upon arrival. If an infection is found, the information will be sent to health investigators so tourists can be incarcerated in state quarantine facilities, euphemistically called 'field hospitals'.

On the positive side there is no mention of the prison bracelet being part of the tracking arsenal.

Following a public consultation, regulations will come into force at the end of next year to introduce a 9pm watershed for advertisements of foods high in fat, salt and sugar ( HFSS ).

The new rules apply to TV and UK on-demand programmes, as well as restrictions on paid-for advertising of HFSS foods online as part of the government's ongoing commitment to tackle unhealthy eating habits at source.

The watershed will apply from 9pm to 5.30am, meaning HFSS adverts can only be shown during these times.

In order to keep the restrictions proportional, these new regulations will apply to food and drink products of most concern to childhood obesity and will ensure the healthiest in each category will be able to continue to advertise. This approach means foods such as honey, olive oil, avocados and marmite are excluded from the restrictions.

The restrictions will apply to all businesses with 250 or more employees that make and/or sell HFSS products, meaning small and medium businesses will be able to continue advertising. The government recognises these companies may be some of the hardest hit by the pandemic and rely on online media as the sole way to communicate with their customers.

Online restrictions will be limited to paid-for advertising, ensuring brands can continue to advertise within 'owned media' spaces online; such as a brand's own blog, website, app or social media page.

Analysis from September 2019 demonstrated that almost half (47.6%) of all food adverts shown over the month on ITV1, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky1 were for products high in fat, salt and sugar, rising to nearly 60% between 6pm and 9pm. Ofcom research suggests that children's viewing peaks in the hours after school, with the largest number of child viewers concentrated around family viewing time, between 6pm and 9pm.

The measures set out today form part of our legislative response to tackling obesity. The government is committed to working alongside industry and will issue guidance to help them prepare for this transition.

Offsite Comment: The advertising industry is not impressed

25th June 2021. See article from adweek.com

Ad Industry Say UK Government HFSS Ban Is Set to Fail

The IAB, IPA, AA and ISBA all claim a ban will be ineffective in reversing childhood obesity rates

A controversial online censorship bill passed the Australian senate on Tuesday night, moving the censorship closer to becoming law.

The Online Safety Bill 2021 forces social media companies, internet and hosting providers to remove supposedly 'harmful' material within 24 hours.

The eSafety commissioner will also be granted stronger censorship powers to block access to domains and URLs where material is hosted.

A senate committee gave the bill the green light after delivering recommendations in March. The committee said the aims of the legislation were strongly supported however, expressed concerns over the commissioner's future powers.

Similar concerns were raised by Google Australia, which worried about the fast rate the legislation was moving. Google Australia added it was often impossible for a cloud provider to remove individual pieces of content, which the internet giant said the bill fails to address.

The Online Safety Bill is expected to shortly pass through the House and take effect six months later.

Canada's ruling 'Liberal' government has announced that it plans to make online hate speech a crime punishable by as much as $20,000 ($16,250 US) for the first offense and $50,000 ($40,600 US) for the second.

The proposal would punish social media users who broke the law but exempt social media companies that host such content from fines.

Canada's Attorney General David Lametti has claimed that the proposed law would not target simple expressions of dislike or disdain during a virtual press conference. Instead, Lametti said, the law is only designed to punish the most extreme forms of hatred that expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The government, headed by Prime Minsiter Justin Trudeau, released a statement outlining the goals of the proposed legislation , known as Bill C-36, as well as other steps being taken in the name of online racial abuse. The government also notes that it will released a detailed technical discussion paper in the coming weeks to inform Canadians about the nitty gritty of this proposed law.

The US has taken down dozens of Iranian and Iran-linked news sites which it accuses of spreading disinformation.

The sites were replaced on Tuesday with notices saying they had been seized as part of a law enforcement action. They included Iran's state-run English-language propaganda channel, Press TV.

The US Department of Justice said in a statement that it had seized 33 websites used by the Iranian Islamic Radio and Television Union (IRTVU) and another three run by the Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia in Iraq in violation of US sanctions. The sites had been used by components of the Iranian government disguised as news organizations or media outlets to target the US with disinformation campaigns and malign influence operations, it alleged.

Several were back online within hours with new domain addresses.

Iran criticised the seizures and warned that they were not constructive for talks aimed at reviving a nuclear deal.

GB News was the subject of a widespread boycott in the first week of its broadcast as several companies pulled advertising from the new channel. The boycott was largely coordinated by the censorial campaigning group StopFundingHate.

GB News chair criticised the boycott and now presenter Nigel Farage has said that some companies have already U-turned on their decision to remove advertising from the channel. In particular IKEA and Vodafone both clarified they may resume advertising following a review.

In a TV debate on the channel, Dehenna Davison, the MP for Bishops Auckland, agreed with Farage the cancel culture movement was especially concerning as calls for a boycott had begun long before GB News had even begun to broadcast. She added:

Just because GB News is daring to do something a bit different and talk about topics the mainstream haven't been talking about, I think it makes it dangerous.

Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden also gave support to GB News when he called GB News a welcome addition to Britain's media sphere. In a column for the Sunday Telegraph, Dowden wrote:

When he launched the channel, veteran broadcaster Andrew Neil vowed that GB News would not be 'an echo chamber for the metropolitan mindset', and that it would 'empower those who feel their concerns have been unheard'

Update: Ofcom boss does not see anything problematic with GB News

25th June 2021. See article from dailymail.co.uk

An Ofcom boss said he has seen nothing problematic on GB News after brands pulled advertising from the new channel. Group director of content and media policy Kevin Bakhurst said there was nothing that would worry me as a regulator about its content.

Bakhurst, a former BBC news executive, said he was not part of Ofcom's formal monitoring but had been tuning in. He told a media industry event everything he had seen was accurate and looked like it achieved due impartiality:

From what I've seen so far, and I was watching it through my news background but also through my regulator's eye now, overall there's nothing that leaps out at me as thinking "that's problematic".

Call for evidence: racial and ethnic stereotyping in advertising

The death of George Floyd in 2020 and the global, high-profile reaction which followed brought to the forefront discussions about racial inequality. From its perspective as the UK advertising regulator, the ASA has been reflecting on what can be done to address factors that cause racial and ethnic minorities to experience disproportionately adverse outcomes in different aspects of their lives.

The ASA has a strong record of banning ads that are likely to cause serious or widespread offence on the grounds of race and ethnicity. As a proactive regulator, the ASA must ensure that we are aware of how societal values and prevailing standards are constantly evolving and what this means for our interpretation and application of the advertising rules.

We are now putting out a call for evidence to help us establish whether and, if so, to what extent racial and ethnic stereotypes, when featured in ads, may contribute to real world harms, for example, unequal outcomes for different racial and ethnic groups. In the context of the call for evidence, we're particularly interested in the following areas:

• The depiction of race and ethnicity in advertising, including examples of racial and ethnic stereotypes.

• How the issues of objectification and sexualisation relate to race or ethnicity in advertising.

• How particular cultures, or racial and ethnic groups with particular religious affiliations, are portrayed in advertising.

• The use of humour relating to race or ethnicity in advertising.

We recognise that evidence can take many forms. Stakeholders may choose to submit existing evidence, secondary analysis, bespoke research or examples. Both quantitative and qualitative evidence would be useful to us.

We are also interested in hearing from members of the public about how this type of advertising has affected them and we would welcome your own personal observations or views.

Russian broadcasting censors, the General Radio Frequency Centre, which is a subsidiary of the internet censor Roskomnadzor has published new proposal which would see X-rated material shuttered away in an adults-only area on the internet.

RT.com explained that Russian lovers of adult content could soon be forced to ask their government for permission before they can access saucy snaps and spicy clips online, with a public services portal acting as the gateway to all legal pornography.

The report indicates that under the new proposal the government will grant itself the power to decide what content is illegal (e.g., featuring minors and depicting 'clearly offensive' themes such as rape) and what are permitted pictures and videos, which would be defined as naturalistic images or descriptions of the genitals of an adult and/or sexual intercourse or comparable sexual activity of a sexual nature involving adults with their consent.

The government proposal would also create a state-run age verification system implemented through a public services portal.

The British government is set to extend the remit of UK TV censorship to cover major streaming services, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime.

Oliver Dowden, the Culture Secretary, is due to set out the proposal this week, with other streaming giants including Amazon Prime and Disney+ also brought under the UK's TV censorship framework. The plans will be set out in a broadcasting white paper.

Ofcom will then be able to censor content on the streaming channels and apply Ofcom rules on bias and accuracy.

The Telegraph suggests that a reason for the move was in part down to last year's row over the accuracy of scenes in The Crown , the historical drama based on the Queen and the Royal Family. Amazon Prime was also picked up for hosting anti-vaccination documentaries in the US that it later removed.

Under current rules, Netflix does not fall within Ofcom's jurisdiction because it is based in the Netherlands. Instead, it is subject to Dutch regulation even on its English language programmes tailored to the UK version of its site.

A recent government move in Nigeria to establish a state internet foundered after public opposition.

However the Nogerian government is undaunted and has now plotted another route to censor the media.

Information minister Lai Mohammad earlier in the week told the parliament to empower the Nigerian Broadcasting Commission by extending the agency's power to censor the media to include all online media through the ongoing amendment of the agency's Act currently being considered. Mohammed explained that the regulation of social media platforms is becoming a global practice saying:

Most countries have come to terms with the power wielded by the tech giants and how governments are vulnerable to such powers. Hence, the need for regulation

He said that Singapore, Algeria, Pakistan, Turkey censor social media and noted that Australia is about to be added to the list/ He added:

The UK had initiated a new law that places a fine up to 18 million pounds (about N10.8 billion) on social media companies if they failed to stamp out online abuses.

Irish police are to be given powers to demand people's passwords for electronic devices when carrying out a search warrant under new legislation.

The change is part of the Garda Síochána Bill published by Irish Injustice Minister Heather Humphreys. She said:

The aim is to create a system that is both clear and straightforward for gardaí to use and easy for people to understand what powers gardaí can use and what their rights are in those circumstances.

Special measures will be introduced for suspects who are children and suspects who may have impaired capacity.

To Members of Parliament: end-to-end encryption keeps us safe

68 million of your constituents are at risk of losing the most important tool to keep them safe and protected from cyber-criminals and hostile governments.

End-to-end encryption means that your constituents' family photographs, messages to friends and family, financial information, and the commercially sensitive data of businesses up and down the country, can all be kept safe from harm's way. It also keeps us safer in a world where connected devices have physical effect: end-to-end encryption secures connected homes, cars and children's toys. The government should not be making those more vulnerable to attack. The draft Online Safety Bill contains clauses that could undermine and in some situations even prohibit the use of end-to-end encryption, meaning UK citizens will be less secure online than citizens of other democracies. British businesses operating online will have less protection for their data flows in London than in the United States or the European Union. Banning end-to-end encryption, or introducing requirements for companies to scan the content of our messages, will remove protections for private citizens and companies' data. We all need that protection, but children and members of at-risk communities need it most of all.

Don't leave them exposed.

With more people than ever before falling prey to criminals online, now is not the time for the UK to undertake a reckless policy experiment that puts its own citizens at greater risk. We, the undersigned, are calling on the Home Office to explain how it plans to protect the British public from criminals online when it is taking away the very tools that keep the public safe. If the draft Online Safety Bill aims to make us safer, end-to-end encryption should not be threatened or undermined by this legislation.

Sincerely,

• ARTICLE 19*
• Association for Proper Internet Governance
• Big Brother Watch*
• Bikal
• Blacknight*
• CCAOI*
• Centre for Democracy and Technology*
• Coalition for a Digital Economy (COADEC)
• Defenddigitalme
• Derechos Digitales*
• Digital Rights Watch*
• eco 203 Association of the Internet Industry*
• English PEN
• Global Partners Digital*
• Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology*
• Internet Society*
• Internet Society Ghana Chapter*
• Internet Society Hyderabad Chapter*
• Internet Society UK England Chapter*
• Mega Limited*
• New America's Open Technology Institute*
• Open Rights Group*
• Paradigm Initiative (PIN)*
• Praxonomy*
• Privacy International*
• Prostasia Foundation*
• Riana Pfefferkorn, Research Scholar, Stanford Internet Observatory
• Simply Secure*
• Statewatch
• techUK
• The Tor Project*
• Tresorit*
• Tutao GmbH 203 Tutanota*

*Members of the Global Encryption Coalition

Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children is a 2005 Japan children's action animation by tetsuya nomura, takeshi nozue (co-director)
Starring Takahiro Sakurai, Ayumi Itô and Shôtarô Morikubo

There exists a Standard Version and a Director's Cut/Complete Version. A 23 minute 'Special Edition' was shown at the Venice Film festival.

Summary Notes

An ex-mercenary is forced out of isolation when three mysterious men kidnap and brainwash the city's children afflicted with the Geostigma disease.

Versions

uncut run: 126m pal: 121m		UK: The Complete Version was passed 12 uncut for moderate fantasy violence, bloody images: 2021 Sony Pictures R0 4K Blu-ray/(RB) Blu-ray Combo at UK Amazon #ad US: The Complete Version is MPAA Unrated
uncut run: 100:54s pal: 96:52s		UK: The Standard Version was passed PG uncut for mild fantasy violence: 2006 Sony video US: The Standard Version is rated MPAA PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action violence

They Are Us is a 2021 USA film
Starring Rose Byrne, JumondR Rondaii and Ametha Randall

The producer of a movie about the Christchurch terror attacks in New Zealand has pulled out of the project after mounting criticism over the film. Philippa Campbell apologised for her involvement and said she had not realised the hurt the film would cause. She said:

I have listened to the concerns raised over recent days and I have heard the strength of people's views. I now agree that the events of 15 March 2019 are too raw for film at this time and do not wish to be involved with a project that is causing such distress.

They Are Us will focus on Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's role during the 2019 shooting at two Christchurch mosques. Ardern herself has criticised the project as poorly timed and focused on the wrong subject. She said:

In my view, which is a personal view, it feels very soon and very raw for New Zealand. And while there are so many stories that should be told at some point, I don't consider mine to be one of them.

New Zealand Muslims have also criticised the film for pursuing a white saviour narrative by focusing on Ardern rather than the victims. A petition from the National Islamic Youth Association asking for the movie to be cancelled has gathered almost 60,000 signatures, arguing the film would sideline the victims and survivors and instead centres on the response of a white woman.

 Lianne Dalziel, mayor of Christchurch, where the attacks took place, said film crews would not be welcome in her city. She said:

I'm just so outraged that they even think that this is an appropriate thing to do.

President Joe Biden has issued an executive order mandating a vast review of apps controlled by foreign adversaries in order to assess national security and privacy issues.

The executive order extends and replaces an earlier order by Donald Trump that only specifically targeted China's TikTok and WeChat.

Biden revoked that narrow order and expanded the scope of the analysis to include all foreign-based companies, which include many in the adult space.

According to the White House, Biden's Commerce Department was authorized to begin that review immediately.

The executive order's wording targets apps developed, manufactured or supplied by persons that are owned or controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign adversary, including the People's Republic of China, that may present an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and the American people.

It also directs the Department of Commerce, in consultation with other U.S. departments and agencies, to make recommendations to protect against harm from the sale, transfer of, or access to sensitive personal data, including personally identifiable information and genetic information to persons owned or controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of, foreign adversaries.

Novelist Elin Hilderbrand suffered a woke lynching on Instagram for a passage in her new summer 2021 book, Golden Girl. The passage is an exchange between two teenagers, Savannah and Vivi, where they discuss how Vivi will hide in the attic of Savannah's home without Savannah's parents knowing.

You're suggesting I hide here all summer? Vivi asks. Like... like Anne Frank? she adds. The narrator then says, This makes them both laugh -- but is it really funny, and is Vivi so far off base?

The passage was criticized through a post on the Instagram page of Little, Brown and Company, Hilderbrand's publisher. The original post, which has since been deleted, described the passage as horifically antisemitic, and demanded an apology from both the publisher and Hilderbrand.

Others accused Hilderbrand of thinking antisemitism is funny, described the passage as gobsmacked in every way with insensitivity, and disgusted.

The lynching forced the author to apologize, promising to remove the passage from all future printings. Hilderbrand wrote in her apology:

In a flashback scene in GOLDEN GIRL, p. 144, my main character Vivi compares herself to Anne Frank. I want to wholeheartedly apologize for this. It was meant as hyperbole but was a poor choice, that was offensive and tasteless. I have asked my publisher to remove the passage from digital versions of the book immediately and from all future printings.

Another similar example of book censorship targeted Casey McQuiston for her book Red, White & Royal Blue , a popular 2019 romance novel. This time the 'offending' post referenced Israel. A supporting character says:

Well, my UN ambassador fucked up his one job and said something idiotic about Israel, and now I have to call Netanyahu and personally apologize.

A Twitter user claimed the passage was unnecessary, and another insisted that the passage : normalizes the genocide & war crimes done by Israel that will always be backed up & unashamedly supported by America.

McQuiston responded that the line was "not a statement of my beliefs" but "a dig at US presidential diplomacy." She also caved to the complainers and stated that the line has "been changed from all future printings."

The Bangladesh Film Directors' Association's has published a proposal to run all films through an approval process under its guidance before finally submitting to Bangladesh Film Censor Board.

Other film organisations are not so impressed. Bangladesh Short Film Forum, Bangladesh Film Society, Bangladesh Film Institute, Dhaka DocLab, Bangladesh Documentary Council and Film without Film all raised concerns over the proposal. In a joint statement they said that the proposal seem absurd and ridiculous as they found no logical ground for a film to obtain a private organisation's authorisation before it is submitted to the censor board.

The statement also said that there is no rational explanation why the government grant-winning film must be released in 20 cinemas across the country and asked why public money should be spent on commercial films.

Russia's internet censor the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) has fined Twitter four million rubles ($55,840) for non-compliance with Russian internet censorship laws. In particular Twitter did not localize the databases of its Russian users.

An official  specified that since 2015, the social network stored more than 6,000 prohibited pieces of content. After the application of measures to slow down the traffic of the social network, 490 pieces [of prohibited content] remain undeleted.

The BBFC has released a new survey into attitudes towards swearing which shows that while the use of strong language is on the rise, parents are keen to protect their children and do not want to see increased use of strong language in media content.

The survey, carried out by Magenta, was commissioned to find out if parents would accept more frequent uses of strong ('fuck') and very strong language ('cunt') at the 12 and 15 categories, and to understand people's opinions and use of these words in their lives. The report showed that 60% say swearing is part of their daily life, with 30% saying they use strong language more than five years ago.

The survey showed that people think that the BBFC is getting it right when it comes to classification of strong and very strong language in films and TV content. People feel that there is a time and a place for using stronger language, and therefore do not want to see an increase in strong and very strong language at the 12 category.

61% agree that while they are comfortable using strong language with friends they refrain from doing so if children can hear. Only 20% parents say they're comfortable swearing in front of children under 16 at home because they are keen to shield their kids as long as possible.

The survey showed that how words are said raises more concerns than what is said. Language feels more problematic and/or adult when it is; directly targeted at an individual, or used in an aggressive way, especially when used by men towards women; used in a sexual context; used in a sexually violent way or referencing abuse, rape, coercion, or sexually aggressive behaviour.

David Austin, Chief Executive of the BBFC, said:

Children are watching more content on multiple screens, and their parents want to protect them from strong and very strong language wherever they can and for as long as possible. Parents told us they are keen for media industries to share the responsibility - and that's where we come in. Very strong language retains an innate shock value, and for some remains the last taboo. While it can occur in a variety of contexts, including comic and colloquial, it has a particularly distressing potency when used towards women - so it's reassuring to hear people think we are getting it right when it comes to classifying these words.

For the first time, the BBFC has also published a guide to what terms parents can expect to hear in films and TV shows in the U, PG and 12A/12 categories. The guide lays out common words that are permitted at the junior categories, and also includes sections on Hindi language.

David Austin added:

This research has underpinned our knowledge that parents are the gatekeepers when it comes to language at the lower age ratings, U, PG and 12A/12. This is why we've launched our guide to terms at the junior categories, so that parents can feel empowered and confident when choosing content that is right for their families.

Despite parents being keen to protect their children for as long as possible, there's a clear generational divide when it comes to swearing, with 46% of Gen Zs frequently using strong language daily, compared to only 12% of 55-64 year olds and 12% of over 65s. 25% of 16-24 year olds say they would never use strong language in public, compared to75% of over 65s.

When it comes to acronyms - for example WTF - people felt that the meaning is rarely lost on viewers, including children. In most cases, they are treated as if the word were spoken in full. Therefore, the BBFC will classify acronyms as if they are a use of strong language in full.

The BBFC's list of language vs age rating is as follows

	'damn', 'hell', 'God', 'Jesus Christ'. We know that some people find these words particularly offensive, but our research shows us that the majority of parents are comfortable with their children hearing them in U rated films. 'butt', 'jerk'. And, depending on the context, you may also hear the word 'screw' if it is used instead of 'messed up', eg. 'I screwed up'.
	At PG, we only allow mild bad language. If words are used in an aggressive or very frequent way, then this might result in the content being rated higher. 'bloody', 'bugger', 'son of a bitch', 'shit', 'arsehole', 'bastard', 'bollocks', 'piss', 'crap', 'arse', 'ass', 'sod', 'git', 'arse'.
	Prick, wanker, twat, bitch, whore, slag, slut, cock, Depending on context, frequency, and tone: fuck'

Members of the House of Lords are clamouring for more red tape and censorship in the name of protecting children from the dangers of the internet. Of course these people don't seem to give a shit about the safety of adults using the internet.

Maurice Morrow is attempting to revive the failed age verification for porn in his bill, Digital Economy Act 2017 (Commencement of Part 3) Bill [HL]. The original bill failed firstly because it failed to consider data protection for porn user's identity data. The original authors of the bill couldn't even be bothered to consider such security implications as porn users handing over identity data and porn browsing data directly to Russian porn sites, possibly acting as fronts for the Russian government dirty tricks dept.

Perhaps the bill also failed because the likes of GCHQ don't fancy half the porn using population of the UK using VPNs and Tor to work around age verification and ISP porn blocking.

See Morrow's bill progress from bills.parliament.uk and the bill text from bills.parliament.uk . The bill had its first reading on 9th June.

Meanwhile Beeban Kidron has proposed a bill demanding accurate age assurance. Age assurance is generally an attempt to determine age without the nightmare of dangerously handing over full identity identity data. Eg estimating the age of soical media users from the age of their friends.

See Kidron's bill progress from bills.parliament.uk and the bill text is at bill text from bills.parliament.uk . The bill had its first reading on 27th May

The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It is a 2021 USA horror mystery thriller by Michael Chaves
Starring Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson and Julian Hilliard

Uncut and MPA R rated in the US. This was initially rated 18 uncut, by the BBFC but the distributors preferred a cut 15 rated version for 2021 cinema release. The film is rated 16 uncut  by IFCO for Irish cinema release.

Both the uncut 18 rated version and the cut 15 rated have just been passed for home video release but it is not yet clear which versions will be released on which formats.

Summary Notes

A chilling story of terror, murder and unknown evil that shocked even experienced real-life paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren. One of the most sensational cases from their files, it starts with a fight for the soul of a young boy, then takes them beyond anything they'd ever seen before, to mark the first time in U.S. history that a murder suspect would claim demonic possession as a defense.

Versions

category cuts cut:   run: 113m pal: 108m		UK: The UK edit was passed 15 for strong threat, horror, violence after BBFC category cuts: 2021 Warner Bros Entertainment UK Ltd video 2021 cinema release The BBFC commented: The distributor chose to reduce bloody injury detail in a suicide scene in order to obtain a 15 classification. An uncut 18 classification was available. Of course the BBFC is referring to vertical wrist slitting which is disallowed at 15.
uncut run: 113m pal: 108m	Ireland	UK: Passed 18 uncut for strong injury detail, horror: 2021 Warner Bros Entertainment UK Ltd video 2021 cinema release, unreleased as the distributors opted for a cut 15 release Ireland: Rated 16 uncut for very strong gory violence. It is reported that the Irish 16 rated cinema release is the uncut version running at 111:44s US: Uncut and MPA R rated for terror, violence and some disturbing images.

The BBFC discussed the classification of strong language at its board meeting in April 2021. The minutes note:

The BBFC commissioned Magenta to undertake research into people's views on strong and very strong language in media content. While the research revealed that usage of bad language, including strong language, has increased among the general population, there remains a desire to protect young people from over-exposure to strong and very strong language.

The findings indicated that people do not wish to see an increase in the allowance of strong language at 12A, or very strong language at 15. Aggravating and mitigating factors were highlighted, and correspond with current BBFC policy. However, in exceptional circumstances there is some increased allowance for isolated or infrequent use of 'motherfucker' at 12A.

The research also indicated that people prefer to be warned of spoken language as opposed to bleeped strong language, so BBFC short ratings info policies will be updated to accommodate this (e.g. if a work contains a bleeped use of 'fuck', but also a use of 'prick', short Ratings Info (RI) will read moderate bad language').

The research also indicated that acronyms (e.g. WTF) are generally understood by what word is being implied, and so should be treated as if the word is being spoken, unless there are sufficient mitigating factors to defend the acronym at a lower level.

The research also looked at reclaimed use of 'nigger', typically written as 'nigga', when used between members of the black community in a peer-to-peer context. There was some recognition that the term, when used in this context, was not the same as the racist iteration of the word, and nor was it the same as 'bad language/swearing'. The BBFC is therefore trialling racial language in short RI where this word is a category defining issue, but will look to the upcoming discrimination research to further develop our understanding.

The Digital Policy Alliance is a campaign group most notably lobbying parliament in support of the age and identity verification trade.

The group has just published a lobbying paper sent to parliamentarians calling for full identity verification requirements to use any internet service offering open interaction with other users.

The group writes:

Neither banning anonymity nor absolute anonymity are fit for purpose. The risks posed by anonymity, and requirements for verification, are different for different use cases. Different types of online activity require different levels of accountability and/or different attributes to be verified.

Regulation therefore shouldn't impose a one size fits all approach on all businesses. Instead, it should set minimum standards to ensure that platforms can't just wash their hands of the challenges of ensuring accountability or the risks associated with anonymity. If a platform fails to take an effective know your user approach, or ensure that its users can be held accountable for their behaviour or their content, then the platform should be held accountable instead.

Legislation that would require Canadians to verify their age before they could look at online pornography could result in a number of privacy concerns, the country's federal privacy commissioner has said.

Bill S-203, introduced by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, doesn't specify what that verification would look like. Options under consideration include presenting some type of ID to a third-party company or organization, or the use of technologies such as biometrics or artificial intelligence to estimate age.

If adequate privacy measures aren't taken, the age verification process could increase the risk of revealing adults' private browsing habits, privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien said.

He told the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee that current digital age verification systems are all different, but what they have in common is that the user will ultimately be required to provide some amount of personal information. That brings up questions about how secure that information is.

On the other hand, the use of biometrics or facial recognition to verify or estimate a user's age raises unique privacy concerns, Therrien said, noting biometric technology is generally very intrusive and how accurate it is in verifying an individual's age still hasn't been proven. He said there's a considerable margin of error, and an error of two to three years could be significant depending on the age of the person.

The bill would also introduce fines for those who make available sexually explicit material on the internet to a young person. Individuals could be fined up to $20,000 and face six months in jail, while fines for corporations would range from $250,000 to $500,000. The way to avoid the fine would be to put in place an unspecified prescribed age-verification method.

Last month, the Oversight Board upheld Facebook's suspension of former US President Donald Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts following his praise for people engaged in violence at the Capitol on January 6. But in doing so, the board criticized the open-ended nature of the suspension, stating that it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose the indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension. The board instructed us to review the decision and respond in a way that is clear and proportionate, and made a number of recommendations on how to improve our policies and processes.

We are today announcing new enforcement protocols to be applied in exceptional cases such as this, and we are confirming the time-bound penalty consistent with those protocols which we are applying to Mr. Trump's accounts. Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr. Trump's suspension, we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols. We are suspending his accounts for two years, effective from the date of the initial suspension on January 7 this year.

At the end of this period, we will look to experts to assess whether the risk to public safety has receded. We will evaluate external factors, including instances of violence, restrictions on peaceful assembly and other markers of civil unrest. If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to re-evaluate until that risk has receded.

Attraction 2: Invasion is a 2020 Russia action Sci-Fi film by fedor bondarchuk
Starring Irina Starshenbaum, Rinal Mukhametov and Alexander Petrov

The subtitled 2020 cinema release was 12A rated by the BBFC  but the dubbed 2021 home video release was 15 rated. It seems that that the word 'motherfucker' didn't make it to the subtitles.

Summary Notes

With the fall of the alien ship Julia's life changed, now three years later mankind is about to experience new encounter.

Versions

uncut run: 133m pal: 128m		UK: Passed 15 uncut for strong language: 2021 4Digital [English language] video The BBFC explained the 12A rating: There is strong language, 'fuck', 'motherfucker'
pre-cut run: 133:39s pal: 128:18s		UK: A presumably cut version was passed 12A for moderate bloody violence, threat, infrequent strong language: 2020 [Russian language] cinema release The BBFC explained the 12A rating: There is infrequent use of strong language, 'fuck'. So compared with the video version it seems that the word 'motherfucker' has been removed from the cinema version.

Court documents show Google admits privacy is almost impossible on Android

Last year, the Arizona Attorney General's office filed a lawsuit against Google, accusing the tech giant of unlawfully collecting Android users' location data, even for users that have opted out. Last week, a judge ordered Google to unredact some sections of documents submitted in court.

The documents revealed not only Google's objectionable data collection policies, but also its employees admitting the policies are confusing and should be changed. Documented employee comments include:

So there's no way to give a third party app your location and not Google? This doesn't sound like something we would want on the front page of the [New York Times.]

Even after a user turned off location in the settings, Google still collects location data, the unredacted documents revealed.

In fact Google tested versions of its OS that made privacy settings easy to find. It saw the popularity of those settings as a problem and solved the problem by burying the settings deeper in Android's settings menu, and even pressured phone manufacturers, such as LG, to make those settings harder to find.

US Amazon customers have one week to opt out of a plan that would turn every Echo speaker and Ring security camera in the US into a shared wireless network.

The network called Amazon Sidewalk, involves the company's devices being used as a springboard to build city-wide mesh networks that enables the devices to stay online even if they're out of range of the user's home wifi. The network will also extend the range of tracking devices such as those made by Tile.

The feature works by creating a low-bandwidth network using smart home devices such as Amazon Echoes and Ring security cameras. At its simplest, it means that a new Echo can set itself up using a neighbour's wifi, or a security camera can continue to send motion alerts even if its connection to the internet is disrupted, by piggybacking on the connection of another camera across the street. Other devices lower bandwidth devices, such as smart lights, pet locators or smart locks, can use Sidewalk all the time.

Sidewalk has come under fire for the lack of transparency with which Amazon has rolled out the feature, as well as the limited time available for users to complete the tricky process required to opt out.

Users can disable Sidewalk in the settings section of the Alexa or Ring apps, but have until 8 June to do so. After that, if they have taken no action, the network will be turned on, and their devices will become Sidewalk Bridges.