Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts

October 3, 2019

Tik Tok Told by Gov. to Censor LGBTQ Content in Turkey, Where it is Not illegal to be Gay

Popular video-sharing app TikTok has come under fire after internal documents revealed that the app’s “local moderators” were once instructed to censor LGBTQ content in Turkey, where it is not illegal to be queer. 
The contents of these documents, which were leaked by The Guardian last Wednesday and Thursday, revealed Turkey-specific guidelines restricting content that depicts “intimate activities (holding hands, kissing, touching) between homosexual lovers.” They also uncovered guidelines that banned criticizing or “spoofing” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the country’s current president. 
In response to The Guardian’s coverage, a TikTok spokesperson issued a statement saying that the guidelines regarding LGBTQ content in Turkey are no longer in place. “We have since made significant progress in establishing a more robust localized approach... However, we recognize the need to do more and we are actively working with local third parties and independent advisors to ensure our processes are appropriate,” the statement continued. 
With 500 million active users in 150 countries, the video-sharing app’s success is often attributed to its discovery-oriented features, like the “For You” homepage which enables users to connect with others and get famous fast. ⅔ of TikTok users are younger than 30 years old.
This emphasis on self-expression and community has made TikTok an exciting digital space for LGBTQ-identifying users. During Pride Month this past June, the company partnered with RuPaul’s DragCon to launch the #ServingRealness social campaign leading up to the pride festival DragCon LA. The campaign introduced pride-themed video filters and a hashtag, “ShowYourPride,” intended to help LGBTQ-identifying users express themselves. The hashtag has a staggering 735.7M views.  
News of the company’s anti-LGBTQ censorship policies in Turkey has prompted queer activists and their allies to question the sincerity of TikTok’s progressive initiatives. 
“We’re witnessing now what we’ve already witnessed on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook: platforms who get a lot of their advertising dollars and success from the creativity of young people — especially young queer people, young black people, and young women — then creating guidelines that isolate, alienate and exclude us… I’m furious,” said Emily Odesser, a teen activist, sex educator, and social media influencer.
 “TikTok has the capacity to introduce millions of people to positive, nuanced, progressive depictions of LGBTQ people on a mobile media app and right now (their) policies are actively discouraging that,” said Daniel Villarreal, writer and co-founder of the pride celebration QueerBomb Dallas.
“We don’t even know what TikTok’s policies for moderation are in countries where it is illegal to be LGBTQ or to broadcast those images. It’s not explicitly illegal in Turkey to be queer,” Villarreal added.
While homosexuality is not explicitly illegal in Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government has expressed hostility toward LGBTQ-identifying citizens. Turkish authorities have banned the annual Gay Pride Parade in Istanbul every year since 2016, sometimes using tear gas to disperse defiant marchers. 
The documents also revealed that Douyin — the Chinese version of TikTok  — also instructed local moderators in China to censor videos that mentioned Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, and foreign leaders such as Donald Trump and Mahatma Gandhi — among other restrictions. While TikTok and Douyin are separate entities, both are owned by ByteDance, a Chinese internet technology company.
am a senior at Brown University studying English Literature and Media Studies. My writing has appeared in The Brown Daily Herald, The Shelter Island Reporter

May 27, 2019

When Gay Characters Are Censored on TV There is More Serious Phobia To Come

Image result for censoring  gay tv characters
 Do you know a couple that kisses like that? The Original had them kiss in the right placeūüíč

Even with all eyes on Alabama these days, some alarming events there may not be getting the attention they deserve. Earlier this month, Alabama Public Television decided not to run an episode featuring a same-sex marriage on the PBS animated television series, Arthur. In the episode, Arthur and his friends attend the wedding ceremony of their teacher, Mr. Ratburn, and his male partner. "It's a brand new world," one of Arthur's friends proclaims after the happy nuptials.

So it has seemed when it comes to LGBTQ rights in the United States, especially after the Supreme Court's 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. But this incident in Alabama — and similar developments across the country — suggest the state of gay rights in 2019 may not be all sparkling rainbows. In fact, even as public opinion polls have shown steadily increasing tolerance of homosexuality and support for gay rights, those historic developments cloud what is happening on the ground where a cultural resistance to homosexuality, emboldened by the anti-gay agenda of the Trump presidency, is gaining steam in spots throughout the nation. If that continues, there could be dire consequences for millions of LGBTQ Americans.

Executives at Alabama Public Television defended their decision not to run the Arthur episode, explaining that parents counted on the network to provide programming they could trust their children to watch without their supervision.

For nearly 50 years, anti-gay activists have made similar arguments, justifying their cause as a protection of children. Meanwhile, cultural sensations like Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy helped normalize the LGBTQ community in American households. Accompanied by millions of Americans coming out of the closet in recent decades — a 2017 study, for instance, found that 70 percent of Americans counted a family member or close friend as gay or lesbian — this cultural mainstreaming of homosexuality provided the groundwork for the significant political transformations that followed.

But that doesn't mean the culture war over gay rights has ended. Rather, the success of the gay rights movement has also provoked a powerful backlash, though one that often goes mostly unnoticed until something like, say, the dispute over a gay wedding cake makes its way to the Supreme Court. Although two-thirds of Americans support same-sex marriage, nearly one-third still describe gay or lesbian relations as "morally wrong." That latter camp appears — like Trump's base itself — nearly unwavering in its position.

The resistance to gay rights remains strongest among conservative Christians, and the churches they attend continue to oppose gay rights, some with growing stridency. Despite the seemingly favorable outlook for LGBTQ Americans in recent years, there's a sizable chunk of the country that has declared they won't capitulate to the cultural progress. Instead, they are working to set it back.

In Texas, lawmakers are considering a whole slate of anti-gay legislation, including a bill that would allow any state licensed professionals to deny their services to LGBTQ persons on religious grounds. Other states, including South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, to name just a few, have already passed or will vote on aggressive anti-gay bills, most under the guise of protecting "religious freedom." Those laws would join a dense patchwork of state anti-gay legislation already in place. More than 30 states, for example, still allow so-called "conversion therapy," a treatment system often imposed on LGBTQ minors in an attempt to change their sexual orientation or gender identity. Twenty-eight states, according to the organization Freedom for All Americans, still permit discrimination of LGBTQ Americans in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

Where the anti-gay agenda at the state level ends, the Trump administration's efforts begin. During the 2016 campaign, Trump told LGBTQ Americans, "I will fight for you." As president, he has done just the opposite, often going out of his way to reverse or undermine protections. Transgender Americans have suffered the most. Just this week, the Trump administration announced it would allow homeless shelters to bar transgender persons from their premises. And on Friday, Trump's Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new rule that would eliminate protections for transgender people seeking health care. It has already overturned certain protections for transgender prisoners while also enacting a ban on incoming transgender soldiers to the military. Most of these rights the Trump administration is stripping were only recently established under the Obama presidency, further underscoring the fragility of progress.

Many Americans are likely unaware of this concerted and mounting attack on LGBTQ rights. Indeed, they may assume the contrary. A decreasing number believe that LGBTQ Americans face significant discrimination in this country. In a couple of recent surveys, about half of Americans indicated that the fight for gay rights is no longer even necessary. Ironically, the hard-won victory of same-sex marriage has made the movement for LGBTQ equality seem complete for many Americans. Yet a majority of LGBTQ people continue to report experiencing discrimination or harassment, and research shows anti-gay hate crimes are on the rise.

That's why decisions like the one by Alabama Public Television to not broadcast the Arthur gay marriage episode matter so much. Blocking the cultural inclusion of LGBTQ Americans only bolsters the more insidious political attacks on gay rights.

With the Supreme Court announcing last month that it will hear three cases concerning LGBTQ anti-discrimination, the possibility of the court's conservative majority definitively rolling back the gay rights movement several decades looks shockingly possible. If that happens, the question of what Alabama allows on its airwaves won't be the most urgent one. But for now, it could be the clearest signal of what is to come.

January 7, 2019

Linkedin Profiles Censored Zhou Fengsuo in Repressive China


 Gerhard Joren/LightRocket via Getty Images

LinkedIn censored, and then quickly restored, the profile of a New York-based Chinese human rights activist on its Chinese platform after a wave of negative publicity.

Zhou Fengsuo, one of the founders of a nonprofit organization that aids political prisoners and other vulnerable groups in China, is best known as one of the student leaders of the pro-democracy protests at Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989, which ended in a bloody crackdown by the Chinese government. He was forced into exile in the United States over his role in the student movement, which landed him on a most-wanted list in China. 

On Jan. 3, LinkedIn sent Zhou a message saying although the company "strongly supports freedom of expression," his profile and activities would not be viewable to users in China because of "specific content on your profile."

Hours later, Microsoft-owned LinkedIn reversed its decision, apparently after South China Morning Post reporter Owen Churchill brought attention to the case. 

The development comes as Silicon Valley companies come under increasing pressure over their compliance with censorship rules in authoritarian countries such as China. Netflix this week pulled an episode of Hasan Minhaj's political comedy show in Saudi Arabia, apparently because it was critical of the Saudi government. And Google recently faced heavy criticism for a secret project that would have brought a censored version of its search platform to users in China, though the company has reportedly scrapped the project amid protests from its own employees.

LinkedIn, one of the few non-Chinese social media platforms not blocked by China's heavy-handed online censorship apparatus has agreed to remove certain content in China that violates government rules. But like other tech companies, LinkedIn doesn't usually disclose what content is taken down, in response to which authorities, and why.

In the message to Zhou, LinkedIn says it is notifying him that his profile would not be visible in China as a transparency measure, prompting criticism from human rights advocates including Peter Dahlin, director of the group Safeguard Defenders and a campaigner against extrajudicial detention in China. 

Asked about the reasoning behind the decision, Nicole Leverich, a spokesperson for LinkedIn, said, "our Trust and Safety team has reviewed this issue, determined the profile was blocked in error and restored the visibility of the member’s profile in China."

She declined to respond to questions about whether LinkedIn initially took the profile down at the request of Chinese government authorities or what content on Zhou's profile prompted the decision.

Zhou told BuzzFeed News he wasn't certain why his profile was targeted but said it came the same day that his WeChat account was suspended, leading him to suspect a demand from authorities had resulted in both suspensions. WeChat, which is owned by Chinese tech giant Tencent, frequently censors politically sensitive content at the request of Chinese government authorities. Zhou believes the trigger for the suspensions was a 29-minute video he posted that centers on the massacre near Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Zhou was one of the student leaders of the pro-democracy protests at Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Zhou was one of the student leaders of the pro-democracy protests at Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989.
Zhou was one of the student leaders of the pro-democracy protests at Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989.
"I feel threatened and outraged," he said. LinkedIn's decision was doubly painful for him, he said, as a survivor of that massacre — an event the Chinese government has sought to censor and repress for decades.

"As as Tiananmen survivor, my profile was erased from Chinese public together with the whole movement since 1989," he said. "Now the western companies are by default complicit with [the Chinese Communist Party]."

"What is normal for others is, for me, a fight against ignorance and forced amnesia," he added.

April 17, 2018

China's Weibo (Their Tweeter) Was Made to Back Track on Gay Censorship by Users

Afp / AFP / Getty Images
China's Weibo, the popular Twitter-like microblog site, has said it will not suppress LGBT content as planned, following a public outcry.
Thousands of Weibo users protested a three-month "clean-up campaign" that would have targeted LGBT content along with other subjects deemed obscene.
Over the weekend, people used hashtags like #IAmGay and #IHaveGayFriends, and many shared selfies and personal stories.
"My son and I love our country. No matter where we go, we always proudly tell people that we are from China," wrote a Weibo user in Shanghai who said her son was gay in a widely shared post. 
"But today when I saw the first point in Weibo's announcement that they lumped in LGBTQ content with pornographic and violent content, I felt the violence of Weibo's discrimination against minority groups when it plays the role of a media outlet in a strong country like China."
In the southwestern province of Sichuan, a radio host posted a viral video of LGBT rights activists offering free hugs on a busy street while wearing rainbow-printed eye masks. He said he hoped to share the video before it was too late.
In response to the online protests, Weibo announced on Monday that LGBT content would be exempt from censorship.
“The clean-up campaign will not target homosexual content, as it is intended to focus on cleaning up pornographic and violent content," the site said in an official post on Monday.
It represents a rare case in which a Chinese social media company has agreed to scale back censorship of a topic in response to user protests.
The climbdown from Weibo comes amid a broad crackdown in China on online content. President Xi Jinping has tightened restrictions on online speech as well as the press, which is heavily censored.
An organization under the country's top media regulator listed content related to homosexuality along with incest, sexual assault, and pornography as targets for online censorship in a statement last June. But a Beijing court agreed this year to hear a case challenging the basis for the rules.
China decriminalized homosexuality in 1997, but the culture is still heavily conservative. LGBT activists in the country have still seen occasional success in campaigning for greater rights and acceptance.
Megha Rajagopalan is the Asia correspondent at BuzzFeed News. 
Contact Megha Rajagopalan at
William Yang is a news assistant at BuzzFeed News.
Contact William Yang at

April 15, 2016

UK Trying to Censor Anal Sex thru Porn

The UK  government has voiced concern over the amount of young people trying anal sex – as part of a push to regulate porn. The question is why a government should be involved on wether young people have anal or vaginal sex. Actually they don’t seemed concern with young people having vaginal sex and having girls getting pregnant. It’s this bias the UK has against gays and the same idea it taught to its subjects when it was an imperialist government. The same type of thinking that even in India you can’t have the government stop banning same sex marriage even though they have a super large gay population.
Officials are baffled at the increased popularity of the sex act because “research” suggests it is not pleasurable for women. I don’t know what that means! Having sex you find not pleasurable but IM reading from what they said.
According to a consultation document issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport young people are trying anal sex as a result of having viewed porn, and this is a worry for the government as the act is “unwanted”

Concerns over Anal Sex

Porn may be the cause of young people having anal sex, officials say
 “Many people worry that young people will come to expect their 
real life sexual experiences to mirror what they or their peers see 
in pornography, this often features ambiguous depictions of consent, 
submissive female stereotypes and unrealistic scenarios. 
 There is also a question about the effect of pornography 
on “unwanted sex” – for instance more young people 
are engaging in anal intercourse than ever before 
despite research which suggests that it is often not seen 
as a pleasurable activity for young women,” the consultation reads. 

 The document suggests that restricting access to porn sites might reduce the worrying numbers of people trying anal. 
“While the increase in anal sex cannot be attributed directly to pornography consumption, it does feature in a large percentage of mainstream pornography (for example, one content analysis found it featured in 56% of sex scenes).”
The government’s negative view of anal sex recalls opposition to the practice by Margaret Thatcher, who in 1986 altered an anti-AIDS campaign so as not to acknowledge the act. 
She feared teaching children about “risky sex” would corrupt them, according to leaked secret files. 
Jerry Barnett, porn entrepreneur and founder of the Sex & Censorship campaign, told Pink News: “The consultation is basically an attempt to grant stronger censorship powers. And the suggestion that it is somehow government’s role to prevent anal sex happening is surreal in the extreme.”
“Censorship” being the key word here and as I mentioned before this is no place for the government to be involved with and is something society is being saying for the past 10 years or so this is no place for the government to be.

June 22, 2015

The World against Google on Censorship


Google, once a global bastion against censorship, is having a pretty tough time of it these days. From being forced to comply with Right To Be Forgotten legislation in the EU to pressure from numerous industries to censor results which may violate copyright, Google’s defenses against censorship are crumbling. Even Google themselves – arguably in a very positive move – is taking steps to censor their own results when it comes to “revenge porn” and hacking victims, as previously reported by the Inquisitr.
Now, according to a report from MarketingLand, French privacy regulator CNIL is trying to force Google to (somehow) identify French citizens no matter where they are in the world and implement Right To Be Forgotten for them, censoring search results that would normally only be censored on the local version of Google. Not only is this essentially a technical impossibility, CNIL gave Google two weeks to pull it off, one of which is already gone. It’s unclear what penalties Google will face if they fail to meet CNIL’s demands, but it’s very likely we will be finding out.
As Fortune notes, although censorship on Google isn’t really anything new, other courts than France are starting to force them to make it global – something that Google has to choose whether to acknowledge in every case, with consequences either way. Technically, in most cases, they can refuse, but pushing back too much will bring consequences with it – just as it did when Google refused to censor search results in China in 2010, a decision which has had repercussions for the search giant to this day.
Most recently, a Canadian court attempting to resolve a trademark dispute between two companies issued an order to Google to purge certain links in their global search results, rather than the Canadian-specific page – an order that was recently upheld by an appeals court. As Canadian law professor and blogger Michael Geist notes, this decision could have staggering implications for Google.
“The implications are enormous since if a Canadian court has the power to limit access to information for the globe, presumably other courts would as well. While the court does not grapple with this possibility, what happens if a Russian court orders Google to remove gay and lesbian sites from its database? Or if Iran orders it remove Israeli sites from the database? The possibilities are endless since local rules of freedom of expression often differ from country to country.”
Long-time Google authority Danny Sullivan, of MarketingLand, notes that the implications of this decision stretch even further – specifically, that if certain courts are able to force Google to censor their results globally, they may become “censorship tourism” destinations: courts which would uphold a censorship order that plaintiffs are unable to obtain in their home jurisdictions.
Google has made almost no comment on how they plan to handle the global censorship orders, aside to note that they are “reviewing the decision.” They have some tough choices ahead. However the largest search engine in the world chooses to react to global censorship demands may very well shape the course of history. 

December 2, 2013

Censorship in Britain

Great Britain is the current scene of dramatic, charged and troubling debates about sexual freedoms and freedom of speech, debates centered on pornography access and the effects of pornography on children. A recent, very large review of academic articles on pornography found that less than 1% of such articles contain empirical, scientific data. But, many children have access to pornography, and "basically, porn is everywhere," argues the report. As a result of this report, and the social concerns about porn access, serious social and technological changes are on the horizon in Great Britain. One of the main changes is that Internet Service Providers will begin filtering porn from everyone's access, unless an individual specifically requests that their ISP turn filtering off. This will require of course, that these individuals identify themselves, to their ISP and those around them, as someone who wants to look at things that others feel they shouldn't. 

he arguments for restricting this access are largely based upon protecting children. The efforts seem intended to first, restrict access to child pornography. Starting in 2014, Google and Microsoft will begin filtering their search engines in England, to prevent access to common terms used by those searching for child pornography. However, there's question as to how effective these means will be, given that most people who use or seek out child pornography do so through file-sharing or peer-to-peer systems, and search engines are rarely used in this manner. 
When they're used to detect and prevent child pornography, these methods of restricted access seem moral and justified - who would really argue against it? But, while pedophiles and those interested in child pornography are an easy target today, what is to stop a conservativegovernment from expanding their scope? According to the authors of A Billion Wicked Thoughts, searches for "young," or "teen" pornography are one of the most popular searches, and forms of pornography, on the Internet. Are those who fantasize about sex with teens next (note, the authors of A Billion Wicked Thoughts suggest that finding teens sexually attractive may have a normative evolutionary basis)? And who is next after them? As Jesse Bering argues in his book Perv, at some point, almost all of us fall in some category of sexual deviance.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
 Martin Niem√∂ller (1892–1984) 
Many nonscientific antiporn advocates argue that porn changes peoples' brains, and has an especially damaging impact on the brains of teens. This, combined with research showing that kids are seeing pornography when they shouldn't, supports the argument that kids should be protected from pornography, like arguments that kids should be limited from access to alcohol and tobacco. Unfortunately, these ideas are largely expressions of human fears of sexuality, and are concepts which reflect the manipulative power of pop psychology and moral panics. 
The idea that porn is an addictive, insidious force take root in fertile soil, seeded by centuries of fear and sexual suppression. The ideas thatmasturbation itself is unhealthy can be traced back centuries to European physicians, who argued that masturbation depleted men of crucial energy. We now understand that many of the problems blamed on masturbation and excessive sexuality, from mental health problems or blindness, were actually the result of untreated sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis or gonorrhea. Throughout history, societies go through periods of changing attitudes towards sex, from more liberal “free love” attitudes towards conservative times when sexual expression is restricted. Fear-based ideas such as sex addiction or nymphomania arise in times and societies that are attempting to suppress or control sexuality. Sadly, the medical field has often been an instrument of this control.
Historically, women suffered the most from these dangerous moral medical practices, where women diagnosed as nymphomaniacs were institutionalized, lobotomized, or had their clitorises removed, when doctors determined that these women liked sex too much (as much as men for instance). The diagnosis of nymphomania was finally abandoned and rejected as the medical field acknowledged that these diagnoses were based on culturally-determined gender stereotypes, not on medical or scientific data. 
But today, it’s men’s turn. Between 85-92% of most “sex addicts” are men. The idea of sex addiction came to the fore at the same time that American media and society made a shift in the way that gender was regarded. Beginning in the 1980’s, masculinity became a figure of ridicule. Men were increasingly portrayed as buffoons, subject to the whims of their penises. Penises themselves are most often portrayed as objects of humor, rather than sexual objects comparable to female genitalia. Men today are seen as less moral than women, and male sexual desires are seen as baser, deficient, and dangerous. Men use pornography far more than do women. The new laws and restrictions on sexual access in Great Britain will have a disproportionate impact on males, and particularly gay and bisexual men, who use pornography more than most.
The idea that sex and porn are addictive remains a powerful myth in modern society, because of its usefulness as a social tool. Media and moral groups use this idea to invoke fear, tapping into normal human sexual anxiety. The premise that porn is addictive and inherently damaging to children was used by religious groups to ban Playboy magazine from the shelves of convenience stores, and is used today to invoke fear thatchildhood exposure to Internet porn can create uncontrollable and damaging addictions.
Sex and porn can cause problems in people’s lives, just like any other human behavior or form of entertainment. Teens need sex education, and really shouldn't be getting it from pornography (because porn is entertainment, not education. It'd be like learning to shoot a gun from watching Hollywood action films). But, the current British dialogue invokes fears and feeds a moral panic.
Sex and Censorship is one of the few groups in Great Britain who are standing up to oppose the increasing social slide towards porn panic, a slide which seems destined to engulf free speech and sexual freedoms. With nonscientific rhetoric making up 99% of the articles published on pornography and its' impact on children, it is clear that this is a charged, emotionally-driven issue, which ignores significant empirical research on porn and its' effects.
This issue is also one that is not limited just to the UK. Take note - many of the prominent antiporn advocates being brought to the UK in support of these measures, are coming from the United States. Recent events, apparently involving the United States National Security Agency, have shown that even in the US, modern data surveillance methods can be used to defeat most measures of privacy on the Internet, and justified by pointing to the dangers of child pornography.

by David J. Ley, Ph.D.

November 10, 2012

Face Book Has Censored This Picture

Dana Bakdounes
The controversial photo: Dana Bakdounes holding a sign reading: "I am with the uprising of women in the Arab world because for 20 years I wasn’t allowed to feel the wind in my hair and on my body.” (Facebook)

The group today said Facebook has repeatedly disabled administrators' pages and threatened to annihilate their accounts for sharing Dana Bakdounes's photo, which shows her without a veil but holding a passport in which she is veiled and a sign reading: "I am with the uprising of women in the Arab world because for 20 years I wasn’t allowed to feel the wind in my hair and on my body.” 
The Uprising of Women in the Arab World, a women's rights group based in the Middle East, today accused Facebook of a systematic attack on their group after a photo posted on their page on the website reportedly drew fire. 
Egyptian group activist Sally Zohney told GlobalPost Thursday that The Uprising of Women in the Arab World Facebook page is an important meeting place for the region's women's movement, likening it to the "We are all Khaled Said” Egyptian page at the forefront of the country's recent uprising. That page "became a symbol of change," she said, describing the Arab feminist Facebook movement as "something similar."
Activists said Facebook earlier this month removed Bakdounes's picture over allegedly offensive speech made in the comments section. 
But The Daily Dot cited other reports suggesting the the image had been reported for nudity, with group member Farah Barqawi telling Germany's today that the photo was pulled because it provoked “misogynists and extremists." Feminist Wire said the photo in question had been reported to Facebook for being “insulting.”
In an email statement to GlobalPost, a Facebook spokesperson said, "Facebook has responded to two reports concerning this page – both relating to posted items. In one instance a photograph was removed in error, but later reinstated. The person who posted it was informed and their temporary block lifted. In the second instance an item was removed because it was reported to us and found to have violated our community standards."
Over 61,000 people support The Uprising of Women in the Arab World's Facebook page, and the feminist collective has used the social networking site to launch a global social media project in which users upload pictures of themselves completing the sentence: "I am with the uprisings of women in the Arab world because..." 
Facebook is actively trying to suppress the sharing of this photo, activists claim, saying they received the following message from the company on Wednesday: 
“You have posted a content that violates Facebook Community Rules, the post says: Follow us on Twitter @UprisingOFWomen. Support Dana with hashtag #WindToDana.”
Activists say they were trying to garner support for Facebook's Oct. 31 re-posting of Bakdounes's photo after the original Oct. 21 post was taken down. It has apparently been removed from their site once again, prompting activists to accuse Facebook of a "direct attack," adding in a press release today: 
"It also raises serious questions about the true intentions behind FB’s policies, and whether Dana’s 'controversial' image is a mere excuse to shut down the voice of the Uprising of Women in The Arab World."
Facebook has targeted five group administrators and imposed several weeks-long blocks of their accounts, disabling their ability to post or manage the site, activists say.
Several attempts to contact Facebook over the issue were met with "no response," according to the group's press release.

March 24, 2012

Face Book Censored Two Man Kissing } Shot Taken By the Famous Hidalgo

FaceBook Censura la fotografia tomada for Hidalgo

Hidalgo photograph censored by FaceBook
"The images should not refer to political, sexual or other sensitive matters" reads the Facebook Code of Ethics. The photo that announced the project laONG Visible Madrid Cultural Association, seeks gay art house did not comply with this rule. The page, which called for economic cooperation to move forward with a documentary has been removed for violating "the rules of Facebook advertising," the e-mail sent to you Pablo Peinado, creator of the NGO. "For them a kiss between two men is a sensitive issue," laments Peinado.The organizer explained that the photo was taken by the contemporary Spanish artist Juan Hidalgo, an art photographer who has many works in museums and collections around the world. This also used the picture to your wedding invitation and then donated it to the Visible project."I wanted to do a little advertising campaign documentary that took eight years preparing for and received that email. Also, I refer to a code of ethics page straight out of prehistory, "said Peinado.The documentary, shot in Madrid, brings together a thousand works of gay and lesbian donated by over four hundred artists from thirty countries. Hairstyle just wanted to give one more push to get micro-patrons, and that his film is funded through crowdfunding.Aunque part of the documentary is funded by the Spanish Agency for International Development, "this does not cover the entire budget as need at least 3,500 euros extra to pay for other items "as read on the project website."We believe it is important to shoot this documentary to present a unique art collection in the world," communicates Peinado. Through this documentary aims to build a discourse of rights and the fight against homophobia, through culture and identity of the gay community. However, the ultimate goal of this documentary is to find a place to exhibit the work that the association is subsumed under the collective name Visible and turn it into a museum of gay culture.From Facebook have said they will study the case and added that sometimes pages are removed for technical reasons and not for content.In July 2010, something similar happened. Facebook removed a photograph of Robert Mapplethorpe, one of the most celebrated artists of all time, author of the best images of Susan Sarandon, Blondie, Andy Warhol and Patti Smith, as too "explicit". It was the cover of the latest Scissor Sisters album which saw the back of a man holding it with his hands.

"Las im√°genes no deben hacer referencia a temas pol√≠ticos, sexuales u otras cuestiones delicadas" reza el c√≥digo deontol√≥gico de Facebook. La foto que anunciaba el proyecto de laONG madrile√Īa Asociaci√≥n Cultural VisibleArte gay busca casa, no cumpl√≠a esta regla. La p√°gina, en la que se ped√≠a colaboraci√≥n econ√≥mica para sacar adelante un documental, ha sido eliminada por infringir “las normas de publicidad de Facebook”, seg√ļn el e-mail que le han enviado a Pablo Peinado, creador de la ONG. “Para ellos un beso entre dos hombres es una cuesti√≥n delicada”, lamenta Peinado.
El organizador explica que la foto la tom√≥ el artista contempor√°neo espa√Īol Juan Hidalgo, un fot√≥grafo de vanguardia que tiene numerosos obras en museos y colecciones de todo el mundo. Este, adem√°s, utiliz√≥ la foto para la invitaci√≥n de su boda y luego la don√≥ al proyecto de Visible.
“Quise hacer una peque√Īa campa√Īa de publicidad del documental que llevamos ocho a√Īos preparando y recib√≠ ese correo. Adem√°s, me remite a una p√°gina de c√≥digo deontol√≥gico que parece sacada de la prehistoria”, sostiene Peinado.
El documental, rodado en Madrid, re√ļne unas mil obras de tem√°tica gay y l√©sbica donadas por m√°s de cuatrocientos artistas de treinta pa√≠ses. Peinado solo quer√≠a darle un empuj√≥n m√°s para conseguir micro-mecenas, ya que su pel√≠cula est√° financiada a trav√©s del crowdfunding.Aunque parte del documental est√° subvencionado por la Agencia Espa√Īola de Cooperaci√≥n Internacional para el Desarrollo, “esto no cubre todo el presupuesto ya que necesitamos, como m√≠nimo, 3.500 euros extras para pagar otras partidas”, seg√ļn se lee en la web del proyecto.
“Creemos que es importante rodar este documental para dar a conocer una colecci√≥n de arte √ļnica en el mundo”, comunica Peinado. Por medio de ese documental pretenden construir un discurso de reivindicaci√≥n de derechos y de lucha contra la homofobia, pasando por la cultura y las se√Īas de identidad del colectivo homosexual. Sin embargo, el objetivo final de este documental es encontrar un lugar donde exhibir la obra que la asociaci√≥n tiene englobada bajo el nombre Colectivo Visible y convertirla en un museo de la cultura gay.
Desde Facebook han asegurado que estudiar√°n el caso y han a√Īadido que a veces se eliminan p√°ginas por motivos t√©cnicos y no por los contenidos.
En julio de 2010 sucedi√≥ algo similar. Facebook elimin√≥ una fotograf√≠a de Robert Mappelthorpe, uno de los artistas m√°s reconocidos de todos los tiempos, autor de las mejores im√°genes de Susan Sarandon, Blondie, Andy Warhol o Patti Smith, al considerarla demasiado “expl√≠cita”. Se trataba de la portada del √ļltimo disco de Scissor Sisters en la que se ve√≠a el trasero de un hombre agarr√°ndolo con sus manos.

Featured Posts

The Food Delivery/Ride Companies Wont Allow Drivers to be Employees But California is Changing That

                               Hamilton Nolan Senior Writer. After a monumental...