Despite gaining the usual approval, the Pond's advertisement lasted only a week on Chinese TV screens.
To Western eyes, Unilever's Ogilvy-created TV commercial for Pond's didn't come across as offensive. Tastefully photographed, it featured a young and fully clothed actress extolling the virtues of the skincare brand.
Yet the ad was pulled within a week, as the featured actress, Tang Wei, was banned from all mainland Chinese media outlets. Is this a sign that advertising censorship in China is tightening?
Advertising in China is a huge business, with adspend figures that have jumped from $4.7 billion to $14.2 billion in seven years. Ads have to go through several stages of approval and, as representatives from Ogilvy insisted during the height of the Tang Wei furore, the agency had made sure that all hoops had been jumped through.
For an ad to be approved in China, agencies keep an open dialogue with the China Advertising Association(CAA). Purportedly a self-regulating body, the CAA can be more accurately described as a quasi-governmental consultative unit set up by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, which retains the power to accept or decline ads. The CAA is known to have a pretty firm grasp of what the SAIC is likely to crack down on.
Another stage of approval exists at the level of TV stations: CCTV, the ironically named Chinese state TV channel, has right of approval or rejection of ads. While approval at regional level does not necessarily mean national CCTV approval, or vice versa, once it has been granted, it's not commonly withdrawn.
Unilever's attempt to establish Pond's as a high-end brand on the Chinese market saw a deal brokered with Tang Wei, one of the stars of Lust, Caution, as the focal point. Lust, Caution was heavily edited by Sarft, the Chinese State Administration of Radio, Film and TV, when shown in Chinese cinemas, but was widely available on DVD. As Lust, Caution is Tang's only film to date, her image is closely aligned with that of her character.
The Unilever spot had been cleared with the usual government bodies but ran into trouble with Sarft. Even by Chinese standards, Sarft has a pretty nebulous remit. Its main purpose is to oversee state media, but it also censors material that might offend Chinese cultural standards and government.
Not everyone agrees that this is stifling advertising agencies' creativity in China.
"You've got to look at what you can do within the restrictions and get really creative with that," Donovan argues. Another China agency insider adds: "Sure, it's vague, but it means we can push the boundaries and see how far we can go - it's still easier than advertising in Europe when it comes to restrictions."
Whatever the impact on advertising creativity turns out to be, there's little doubt that the recent scandals have done nothing to stifle the power of advertising in China. "Ogilvy got everyone to talk about Pond's thanks to the Tang Wei scandal," David Wolfe, the Wolfe group Asia chief executive, points out.
Saradha,10S25
Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts
Negative impact of mass media in China 4
Website 4: http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,24963218-5014239,00.html
China says internet censorship needed to keep children from harmful sites
CHINA has sought to portray its internet crackdown as a campaign to protect youth from filth and nothing to do with stifling political dissent, with one official promising a long-lasting fight against "vulgarity".
China has detained 41 people as part of the crackdown, but the Government's move was in reality no different from laws in the US and Europe which aim to keep children safe from harmful sites, an official said.
"The purpose of this campaign is very clear," said Liu Zhengrong, deputy director of the State Council Information Office's Internet Bureau."
"It's aimed at creating a healthy internet environment for all young people and making the internet in China safer and more reliable."
The crackdown has been described by analysts as another step in the Communist Party's battle to stifle dissent in a year of sensitive anniversaries, including the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
"The internet remains where the battle for information lies and the fact that the Government is devoting so much effort at reining it in, in itself indicates how much of a threat they perceive it to be," said Nicholas Bequelin of Human Rights Watch.
China polices the internet intensely, quickly removing any content that is deemed to be subversive or overly critical of the Communist Party.
The Government has closed over 1200 websites, including a popular blog site, but with an estimated 3000 new sites appearing daily, the battle to maintain control of the online world is never-ending.
Vulgar websites
"We fully realise that the crackdown on vulgar websites will be long-lasting, complicated and difficult," said Mr Liu.
"We will not abandon efforts to clean up the internet environment under any circumstances."
One of the websites closed in the campaign, which began this month, was bullog.cn, a popular site for Chinese bloggers. Some of the bloggers it hosted had been signatories of Charter 08, a manifesto released in December that called for greater civil freedoms and elections in China.
But Li Jiaming, director of the China Internet Illegal Information Reporting Center, said the Government did not have a political motive.
"I can tell you very candidly, our work does not have anything to do with political content. People are extremely supportive of this campaign," he said.
The crackdown had "achieved clear results", with more than 3.3 million pornographic or vulgar items already identified and deleted, Mr Liu said.
"Internet pornography and vulgar content seriously threaten the mental and physical health of youth and threaten to damage the healthy development of the Internet in China," he said, adding that more than 35 per cent of web surfers in China were under 19.China had looked at similar internet laws in other countries, including in the US and Britain, and found common ground, he said.
"We discovered a common goal of all these governments is to ensure that internet users feel safe when they go online."
China says internet censorship needed to keep children from harmful sites
CHINA has sought to portray its internet crackdown as a campaign to protect youth from filth and nothing to do with stifling political dissent, with one official promising a long-lasting fight against "vulgarity".
China has detained 41 people as part of the crackdown, but the Government's move was in reality no different from laws in the US and Europe which aim to keep children safe from harmful sites, an official said.
"The purpose of this campaign is very clear," said Liu Zhengrong, deputy director of the State Council Information Office's Internet Bureau."
"It's aimed at creating a healthy internet environment for all young people and making the internet in China safer and more reliable."
The crackdown has been described by analysts as another step in the Communist Party's battle to stifle dissent in a year of sensitive anniversaries, including the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
"The internet remains where the battle for information lies and the fact that the Government is devoting so much effort at reining it in, in itself indicates how much of a threat they perceive it to be," said Nicholas Bequelin of Human Rights Watch.
China polices the internet intensely, quickly removing any content that is deemed to be subversive or overly critical of the Communist Party.
The Government has closed over 1200 websites, including a popular blog site, but with an estimated 3000 new sites appearing daily, the battle to maintain control of the online world is never-ending.
Vulgar websites
"We fully realise that the crackdown on vulgar websites will be long-lasting, complicated and difficult," said Mr Liu.
"We will not abandon efforts to clean up the internet environment under any circumstances."
One of the websites closed in the campaign, which began this month, was bullog.cn, a popular site for Chinese bloggers. Some of the bloggers it hosted had been signatories of Charter 08, a manifesto released in December that called for greater civil freedoms and elections in China.
But Li Jiaming, director of the China Internet Illegal Information Reporting Center, said the Government did not have a political motive.
"I can tell you very candidly, our work does not have anything to do with political content. People are extremely supportive of this campaign," he said.
The crackdown had "achieved clear results", with more than 3.3 million pornographic or vulgar items already identified and deleted, Mr Liu said.
"Internet pornography and vulgar content seriously threaten the mental and physical health of youth and threaten to damage the healthy development of the Internet in China," he said, adding that more than 35 per cent of web surfers in China were under 19.China had looked at similar internet laws in other countries, including in the US and Britain, and found common ground, he said.
"We discovered a common goal of all these governments is to ensure that internet users feel safe when they go online."
Censorship in China
Internet censorship in CHEENA
The internet censorship in the People's Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC) government, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.
The Golden Shield Project is owned by the Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China (MPS). It started in 1998, began the process in November 2003, and the first part of the project passed the national inspection on 16 November 2006 in Beijing. According to MPS, it is to construct a communication network and computer information system for police to improve their capability and efficiency.
Government in China disabled keyword searches for "Urumqi", and blocked access to Facebook and Twitter as well as local alternatives Fanfou and Youku. Chinese news sites mainly fed from Xinhua news service for updates about the rioting in Urumqi, comments features on websites were disabled on some stories to prevent negative posts about the lack of news. Internet connections in Urumqi were reportedly down. Many unauthorized postings on local sites and Google were said to have been "harmonised" by government censors, and emails containing terms related to the riots were blocked or edited to prevent discord. Nevertheless, images and video footage of the demonstrations and rioting were soon found posted on Twitter, YouTube and Flickr.
Several sexually oriented blogs began appearing in early 2004. Women using the web aliases Muzi Mei and Zhuying Qingtong wrote online diaries of their sex lives and became minor celebrities. This was widely reported and criticized in mainland Chinese news media, and several of these bloggers' sites have since been blocked in China to this day. Many dating and "adult chat" sites, both Chinese and foreign, have also been blocked.
Some hotels in China are also advising internet users to obey local Chinese internet access rules by leaving a list of internet rules and guidelines near the computers. These rules, among other things, forbid linking to politically unacceptable messages, and inform internet users that if they do, they will have to face legal consequences. In September 2007, some data centers were shut down indiscriminately for providing interactive features such as blogs and forums. CBS reports an estimate that half the interactive sites hosted in China were blocked.
Censorship in China
Censorship in China is aimed at Chinese citizens, not foreign visitors, so it affects Chinese-language media more than English media. However, the effects are still strongly felt by visitors to China. The blocking of internet sites is the biggest enterprise, and anyone trying to do online researches will be frustrated by the number of inaccessible websites. The internet censorship is haphazard and unorganized; so many websites with no content even related to China will be blocked, while the sites of large news companies are not. Due to the difficulty of controlling such an extensive and ever-changing stream of data, "disruptive" information often slips through, and technology innovators are finding ways to override or trick the system. English-language television, such as cable and broadcasting from Hong Kong, is also censored. News and other programs with content that the government considers a threat to its stability (particularly regarding protests, natural disasters, Tibet and Taiwan) are blocked out, often clumsily because the censoring is done on a live broadcast. When the offending material comes on, it is simply cut and replaced by an infomercial or public service announcement. All commercial advertising from foreign channels is blocked in the same manner. When the TV program moves to a commercial break, the government monitors switch to their own stream of government-approved ads. This is performed on a live and constant schedule by government information agencies at local and national levels.
On 13 February 2009, Li Dongdong, a deputy chief of the General Administration of Press and Publication, announced the introduction of a series of rules and regulations to strengthen oversight and administration of news professionals and reporting activities. The regulations would include a "full database of people who engage in unhealthy professional conduct" who would be excluded from engaging in news reporting and editing work. Although the controls were ostensibly to "resolutely halt fake news", it was criticized by Li Datong, editor at the China Youth Daily who was dismissed for criticizing state censorship. Li Datong said "There really is a problem with fake reporting and reporters, but there are already plenty of ways to deal with that." Reuters said that although Communist Party's Propaganda Department micro-manages what newspapers and other media do and do not report, the government remains concerned about unrest amid the economic slowdown and the 20th anniversary of the pro-democracy protests in 1989.
The timing of the incident has raised fears that officials disguised the health risk to avoid a scandal during the Beijing Olympic Games in August. Supplies from China's leading manufacturer of baby milk, Sanlu, were tainted by the addition of melamine, the company confirmed last week. Fonterra, a New Zealand company which has a 43 per cent stake in Sanlu and three directors on its board, knew about the problem on Aug 2, it said. The country's Prime Minister Helen Clark confirmed that the company had reported the matter to local Chinese officials, but pleas for a recall of the product fell on deaf ears. It was only after Mrs Clark was informed of the impasse on Sept 5, and three days later notified the central Chinese government of what had happened, that action was taken. Even so, it took until last Thursday before a recall of all milk distributed before Aug 6 was announced. "They have been trying for weeks to get official recall and the local authorities in China would not do it," Mrs Clark said. Andrew Ferrier, chief executive of Fonterra, gave no further explanation for the cover-up, and refused to speculate on an Olympic connection. But China Digital Times, a website run by Xiao Qiang, a Chinese exile now based in California, has pointed out that it happened in the week before the opening of the Olympic Games, when the government was especially keen to control "bad news”. A document purporting to be a 21-point list of instructions for the media in advance of the Games issued by the propaganda department and leaked to The Daily Telegraph contained at number eight the words: "All food safety issues, such as cancer-causing mineral water, are off-limits".
China's crackdown on pornography is gathering pace following reports that 700 Web sites have been shut down and 220 people arrested as authorities try to censor XXX sites. Last month China announced plans to crack down on adult websites with officials claiming that the "rampant" increase in online porn is damaging the moral fabric of the nation - and young people in particular. One official said that porn "severely damaged social style, polluted the social environment, and harmed the physical and psychological health of the young people". With half of China's 87m Net users under 24, the latest reports suggest that many young people are using the Net to learn about sex because information is hard to come by. While the Government is considering improving sex education, it's also using technology to block access to sites and arresting those peddling porn. Last month Chinese websites, ISPs and other Internet-related organizations were "invited" to sign a self-discipline pact to prevent the spread of anti-government information, porn and anything else that might threaten "national security (and) social stability".
Censor Board Bans 'Final Solution'
By Kalpana Sharma
06 August, 2004
The Hindu
Mumbai:The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has refused to pass Rakesh Sharma's award-winning film on the Gujarat violence. Final Solution, the three-and-a-half hour documentary, was rejected by the Board on the grounds that it "promotes communal disharmony among Hindu and Muslim groups and presents the picture of Gujarat riots in a way that it may arouse communal feelings and clashes among Hindu Muslim groups."
The letter from the CBFC also said that the film "attacks the basic concept of our Republic i.e. National Integrity and Unity. Certain dialogues involve defamation of individuals or body of individuals. Entire picturisation is highly provocative and may trigger off unrest and communal violence. State security is jeopardised and public order is endangered if this film is shown.... When it is judged in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impact, it is not advisable to be exhibited. Hence refused under Section 5(b) 1 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952."
No surprise
Speaking to The Hindu , Mr. Sharma said: "There is no shock or surprise at this decision. But I thought they would be more clever in the way they rejected it."
According to him the Board had `violated' many censorship rules, including time limit and procedural matters. He said he planned to explore legal remedies as "I don't expect a free and fair hearing from within the CBFC." he said.
Since it was released in February this year, the film has been shown at a number of international film festivals and has won several awards including the Wolfgang Staudte award at the Berlin International film festival, the Humanitarian Award for Outstanding Documentary at the Hong Kong International Film Festival and the Silver Dhow at the Zanzibar Film Festival. The film is due for commercial release in Germany next month.
`Rules are rules'
The Regional Officer at the CBFC in Mumbai, V. K. Singla, suggested that Mr. Sharma had many levels of appeal within the Censor Board, which he can use. "Rules are rules," he said and films have to go through the process of certification before being screened in public.
"But if a person feels he can show his film everywhere and get awards, then why does he need a certificate?" he asked. Although he has not seen the film, he said that the Board adhered to guidelines laid down under the Cinematograph Act.
A committee of four people, "including a Muslim gentleman", viewed Rakesh Sharma's film, he said. Asked on what basis the viewing committee was selected, Mr. Singla said that this depended on the availability of members of the Board. "I know people are not happy," he said. "But what can we do. Sometimes we are termed liberal, sometimes very harsh."
Mr. Sharma complained that the Board saw his film on a day when he was not available to answer questions by the screening committee. Mr. Singla countered that a filmmaker's convenience cannot determine the timing of a screening. "We have so many films to review. We cannot keep them pending."
Mr. Sharma, however, has complained, in particular, about the manner in which his film was previewed.
In a letter to the CBFC Chairman, Anupam Kher, he has said that the preview panel managed to see his three-and-a-half-hour film and reach a decision to ban it in less than three hours.
http://www.countercurrents.org/arts-sharma060804.htm
06 August, 2004
The Hindu
Mumbai:The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has refused to pass Rakesh Sharma's award-winning film on the Gujarat violence. Final Solution, the three-and-a-half hour documentary, was rejected by the Board on the grounds that it "promotes communal disharmony among Hindu and Muslim groups and presents the picture of Gujarat riots in a way that it may arouse communal feelings and clashes among Hindu Muslim groups."
The letter from the CBFC also said that the film "attacks the basic concept of our Republic i.e. National Integrity and Unity. Certain dialogues involve defamation of individuals or body of individuals. Entire picturisation is highly provocative and may trigger off unrest and communal violence. State security is jeopardised and public order is endangered if this film is shown.... When it is judged in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impact, it is not advisable to be exhibited. Hence refused under Section 5(b) 1 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952."
No surprise
Speaking to The Hindu , Mr. Sharma said: "There is no shock or surprise at this decision. But I thought they would be more clever in the way they rejected it."
According to him the Board had `violated' many censorship rules, including time limit and procedural matters. He said he planned to explore legal remedies as "I don't expect a free and fair hearing from within the CBFC." he said.
Since it was released in February this year, the film has been shown at a number of international film festivals and has won several awards including the Wolfgang Staudte award at the Berlin International film festival, the Humanitarian Award for Outstanding Documentary at the Hong Kong International Film Festival and the Silver Dhow at the Zanzibar Film Festival. The film is due for commercial release in Germany next month.
`Rules are rules'
The Regional Officer at the CBFC in Mumbai, V. K. Singla, suggested that Mr. Sharma had many levels of appeal within the Censor Board, which he can use. "Rules are rules," he said and films have to go through the process of certification before being screened in public.
"But if a person feels he can show his film everywhere and get awards, then why does he need a certificate?" he asked. Although he has not seen the film, he said that the Board adhered to guidelines laid down under the Cinematograph Act.
A committee of four people, "including a Muslim gentleman", viewed Rakesh Sharma's film, he said. Asked on what basis the viewing committee was selected, Mr. Singla said that this depended on the availability of members of the Board. "I know people are not happy," he said. "But what can we do. Sometimes we are termed liberal, sometimes very harsh."
Mr. Sharma complained that the Board saw his film on a day when he was not available to answer questions by the screening committee. Mr. Singla countered that a filmmaker's convenience cannot determine the timing of a screening. "We have so many films to review. We cannot keep them pending."
Mr. Sharma, however, has complained, in particular, about the manner in which his film was previewed.
In a letter to the CBFC Chairman, Anupam Kher, he has said that the preview panel managed to see his three-and-a-half-hour film and reach a decision to ban it in less than three hours.
http://www.countercurrents.org/arts-sharma060804.htm
Outrage over India Yahoo ban
Thousands of internet users in India have flooded a government website calling for a ban to be lifted on a Yahoo discussion group.
The ban has resulted in the blocking of all discussion groups hosted by the internet giant in India, inconveniencing internet users across the country.
The Indian Government ordered the move because of fears the discussion group, the Kynhun forum, had links with banned separatists.
It used new information technology laws to force Indian internet service providers (ISPs) to block the forum after Yahoo refused to comply.
The government says the Kynhun forum is linked to the outlawed Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council, a minor separatist group in the north-eastern state of Meghalaya.
It said the discussion group "contained material against the Government of India and the State Government of Meghalaya".
Censorship
The order was issued by the Indian Government's Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN) which holds the power to block internet sites deemed to be obscene or a national security threat.
Under the IT Act, Indian ISPs are liable for all third party data and content.
I publish a monthly newsletter which is distributed free of cost to more than 1,000 subscribers worldwide. Suddenly I learn that I can no longer have access to my data
Yahoo user Vivek Soley
Since Indian ISPs lack the technical expertise to block a sub-group, they have responded by blocking Kynhun's IP address, which makes no distinction between it and other Yahoo discussion groups.
Thousands of Indians have now flooded the CERT-IN's discussion board asking for the ban to be lifted.
Global media watchdog Reporters Without Borders says the case highlights the danger of internet censorship.
"Blocking a few web pages can result in the blocking of hundreds of other web pages that have nothing to do with the banned content - this is a recurring problem on which we must remain very vigilant," secretary-general Robert Ménard said.
Indian cyberlaw expert, Pawan Duggal, says the government is on very thin legal ground.
"The inherent sovereign power of the government to block can never be denied," he told BBC News Online.
"But the route they have taken is completely illegal and will be struck down if challenged in court."
Cyber chaos
Despite the legal grey area, the ban has in effect blocked out many Indians from the Yahoo discussion groups.
The government should lift this ban before it ruins India's image as a free country
Yahoo user Naveen Rolands
Vivek Soley lives in the central Indian town of Indore and maintains a subscribers list on yahoo.groups.com.
"I publish a monthly newsletter which is distributed free of cost to more than 1,000 subscribers worldwide.
"Suddenly I learn that I can no longer have access to my data.
"Several other educational and information groups have also been blocked all because of one group," he says.
Naveen Rolands' eight-year-old daughter has a Yahoo group through which she shares photos and accounts of her travels with family and friends who are abroad.
That site is now blocked.
"I wonder who the real terrorists are," he said. "My daughter who uses Yahoo groups to share some photos? Or the bunch of clowns who call themselves politicians and [bureaucrats] who have given free publicity to an insurgent group?"
"The government should lift this ban before it ruins India's image as a free country."
Others point out that Kynhun had no more than about 20 subscribers.
"There are over 200 Kashmiri discussion groups with far more volatile views," says Pawan Duggal.
"With this action the government has opened a huge Pandora's box."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/3148288.stm
Published: 2003/09/29 11:49:57 GMT
© BBC MMIX
The ban has resulted in the blocking of all discussion groups hosted by the internet giant in India, inconveniencing internet users across the country.
The Indian Government ordered the move because of fears the discussion group, the Kynhun forum, had links with banned separatists.
It used new information technology laws to force Indian internet service providers (ISPs) to block the forum after Yahoo refused to comply.
The government says the Kynhun forum is linked to the outlawed Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council, a minor separatist group in the north-eastern state of Meghalaya.
It said the discussion group "contained material against the Government of India and the State Government of Meghalaya".
Censorship
The order was issued by the Indian Government's Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN) which holds the power to block internet sites deemed to be obscene or a national security threat.
Under the IT Act, Indian ISPs are liable for all third party data and content.
I publish a monthly newsletter which is distributed free of cost to more than 1,000 subscribers worldwide. Suddenly I learn that I can no longer have access to my data
Yahoo user Vivek Soley
Since Indian ISPs lack the technical expertise to block a sub-group, they have responded by blocking Kynhun's IP address, which makes no distinction between it and other Yahoo discussion groups.
Thousands of Indians have now flooded the CERT-IN's discussion board asking for the ban to be lifted.
Global media watchdog Reporters Without Borders says the case highlights the danger of internet censorship.
"Blocking a few web pages can result in the blocking of hundreds of other web pages that have nothing to do with the banned content - this is a recurring problem on which we must remain very vigilant," secretary-general Robert Ménard said.
Indian cyberlaw expert, Pawan Duggal, says the government is on very thin legal ground.
"The inherent sovereign power of the government to block can never be denied," he told BBC News Online.
"But the route they have taken is completely illegal and will be struck down if challenged in court."
Cyber chaos
Despite the legal grey area, the ban has in effect blocked out many Indians from the Yahoo discussion groups.
The government should lift this ban before it ruins India's image as a free country
Yahoo user Naveen Rolands
Vivek Soley lives in the central Indian town of Indore and maintains a subscribers list on yahoo.groups.com.
"I publish a monthly newsletter which is distributed free of cost to more than 1,000 subscribers worldwide.
"Suddenly I learn that I can no longer have access to my data.
"Several other educational and information groups have also been blocked all because of one group," he says.
Naveen Rolands' eight-year-old daughter has a Yahoo group through which she shares photos and accounts of her travels with family and friends who are abroad.
That site is now blocked.
"I wonder who the real terrorists are," he said. "My daughter who uses Yahoo groups to share some photos? Or the bunch of clowns who call themselves politicians and [bureaucrats] who have given free publicity to an insurgent group?"
"The government should lift this ban before it ruins India's image as a free country."
Others point out that Kynhun had no more than about 20 subscribers.
"There are over 200 Kashmiri discussion groups with far more volatile views," says Pawan Duggal.
"With this action the government has opened a huge Pandora's box."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/3148288.stm
Published: 2003/09/29 11:49:57 GMT
© BBC MMIX
India censors clear Da Vinci Code
Controversial Hollywood film The Da Vinci Code has been cleared for release in India after protests by Christians.
Censors gave it an adult rating but said disclaimers stating it was fiction were needed at the beginning and end.
Officials and Catholic leaders had a special viewing of the film on Wednesday after the broadcasting minister received over 200 complaints.
Some find offensive the film's theory that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and their descendants survive today.
The film received its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival on Wednesday to mixed reviews.
Outrage
India's Central Board of Film Certification had already cleared the film on Monday, saying it would give it an adult rating if the film-makers agreed to a disclaimer at the start of the movie saying it was a work of fiction.
They have now called for a similar disclaimer at the end.
It is still unclear whether the film will open in India as planned on Friday, the day of its worldwide release, as the board has said it will wait for a response from Sony Pictures before formally issuing a certificate.
Sony Pictures, the distributors, were unavailable for comment.
The film, which stars Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou and is directed by Ron Howard, is based on the novel by Dan Brown.
The blockbuster has caused outrage among Christian organisations around the world, including senior officials at the Vatican.
Court case
In India, which is home to 18 million Catholics, Catholic Secular Forum head Joseph Dias went on hunger strike to try to have the film banned.
His organisation has described The Da Vinci Code as "offensive" because it breaches "certain basic foundations of the religion".
He is suing the heads of Sony Films and the censor board for "hurting religious sentiments". The Mumbai (Bombay) High Court will hear the case on Friday.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/4995122.stm
Published: 2006/05/18 16:22:03 GMT
© BBC MMIX
Censors gave it an adult rating but said disclaimers stating it was fiction were needed at the beginning and end.
Officials and Catholic leaders had a special viewing of the film on Wednesday after the broadcasting minister received over 200 complaints.
Some find offensive the film's theory that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and their descendants survive today.
The film received its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival on Wednesday to mixed reviews.
Outrage
India's Central Board of Film Certification had already cleared the film on Monday, saying it would give it an adult rating if the film-makers agreed to a disclaimer at the start of the movie saying it was a work of fiction.
They have now called for a similar disclaimer at the end.
It is still unclear whether the film will open in India as planned on Friday, the day of its worldwide release, as the board has said it will wait for a response from Sony Pictures before formally issuing a certificate.
Sony Pictures, the distributors, were unavailable for comment.
The film, which stars Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou and is directed by Ron Howard, is based on the novel by Dan Brown.
The blockbuster has caused outrage among Christian organisations around the world, including senior officials at the Vatican.
Court case
In India, which is home to 18 million Catholics, Catholic Secular Forum head Joseph Dias went on hunger strike to try to have the film banned.
His organisation has described The Da Vinci Code as "offensive" because it breaches "certain basic foundations of the religion".
He is suing the heads of Sony Films and the censor board for "hurting religious sentiments". The Mumbai (Bombay) High Court will hear the case on Friday.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/4995122.stm
Published: 2006/05/18 16:22:03 GMT
© BBC MMIX
India's chief film censor quits
Vijay Anand, the chairman of India's Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC), has resigned following his proposal to legalise the exhibition of X-rated films in selected cinemas across the country.
Mr Anand, a former filmmaker and uncle of director Shekhar Kapur, had attracted controversy for proposing to the Indian Government that changes should be made in the Indian Cinematograph Act of 1952.
The exhibition of such films would be neither desirable nor in order
Indian Government
These included legalising soft pornographic films, allowing them to be shown in certain cinemas under a new classification.
Although it is illegal to show pornographic films in India, almost every city has cinemas which do so.
Many screen films in the morning, re-inserting deleted scenes and bribing local police to turn a blind eye.
Mr Anand, who joined the Board in September 2001, has argued that legalising such films would solve the problem.
"Since we are unable to control it, we might as well try to regulate it," he told the government.
However, the ministry rejected his proposal, saying in a letter to him that "the exhibition of such films would neither be desirable nor in order,"
His proposals also met with opposition from women's groups, who have been demanding his resignation.
However, he is thought to have quit because he was unhappy with the government's decision, and felt as the board's chairman he should be free to make decisions.
If the content is meant only to titillate with no other redeeming feature, then one cannot permit it.
Shyam Benegal, Indian filmmaker
The government has now urged the censorship board to restrict its activities to providing responsible entertainment for Indian audiences, that reflects the values and morals of its audience.
Indian filmmakers reacted cautiously to Mr Anand's proposals.
"Films where the erotic element is justified as per the requirement of the script, must be permitted," said director Shyam Benegal.
"However, if the content is meant only to titillate with no other redeeming feature, then one cannot permit it," he added.
Indian censorship is among the strictest in the world, with sex, nudity, violence and politically sensitive subjects often being cut or edited out of films altogether.
A number of well-known Indian filmmakers have fallen foul of local censors.
Shekhar Kapur ran into trouble with his controversial film Bandit Queen, based on the life of Phoolan Devi.
And Mira Nair, whose most recent film Monsoon Wedding was a big box office hit in the UK, was ordered to make 40 cuts to her earlier effort Kama Sutra.
All films have to have a CBFC certificate before being shown at the cinema or on television.
A six-member committee created by the CFBC is considering all suggestions related to a review of the act.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2144603.stm
Mr Anand, a former filmmaker and uncle of director Shekhar Kapur, had attracted controversy for proposing to the Indian Government that changes should be made in the Indian Cinematograph Act of 1952.
The exhibition of such films would be neither desirable nor in order
Indian Government
These included legalising soft pornographic films, allowing them to be shown in certain cinemas under a new classification.
Although it is illegal to show pornographic films in India, almost every city has cinemas which do so.
Many screen films in the morning, re-inserting deleted scenes and bribing local police to turn a blind eye.
Mr Anand, who joined the Board in September 2001, has argued that legalising such films would solve the problem.
"Since we are unable to control it, we might as well try to regulate it," he told the government.
However, the ministry rejected his proposal, saying in a letter to him that "the exhibition of such films would neither be desirable nor in order,"
His proposals also met with opposition from women's groups, who have been demanding his resignation.
However, he is thought to have quit because he was unhappy with the government's decision, and felt as the board's chairman he should be free to make decisions.
If the content is meant only to titillate with no other redeeming feature, then one cannot permit it.
Shyam Benegal, Indian filmmaker
The government has now urged the censorship board to restrict its activities to providing responsible entertainment for Indian audiences, that reflects the values and morals of its audience.
Indian filmmakers reacted cautiously to Mr Anand's proposals.
"Films where the erotic element is justified as per the requirement of the script, must be permitted," said director Shyam Benegal.
"However, if the content is meant only to titillate with no other redeeming feature, then one cannot permit it," he added.
Indian censorship is among the strictest in the world, with sex, nudity, violence and politically sensitive subjects often being cut or edited out of films altogether.
A number of well-known Indian filmmakers have fallen foul of local censors.
Shekhar Kapur ran into trouble with his controversial film Bandit Queen, based on the life of Phoolan Devi.
And Mira Nair, whose most recent film Monsoon Wedding was a big box office hit in the UK, was ordered to make 40 cuts to her earlier effort Kama Sutra.
All films have to have a CBFC certificate before being shown at the cinema or on television.
A six-member committee created by the CFBC is considering all suggestions related to a review of the act.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2144603.stm
Rushdie 'hurt' by India ban
The British author Salman Rushdie says he feels hurt and humiliated by India, the country of his birth, because of its actions following the publication of his book, The Satanic Verses.
In an interview with an Indian magazine, Sunday, Mr Rushdie says he cannot visit India or even enter Indian buildings overseas.
Reflecting on the price he has paid for writing The Satanic Verses, Salman Rushdie says in the interview that the biggest loss has been the damage to his relationship with India.
He accuses the Indian government of banning the book without having read it, and of preventing him from travelling to India, even though he was born in the country and has property here.
The Iranian government recently dissociated itself from the fatwa or death sentence imposed by the late Ayatollah Khomeini on Mr Rushdie for insulting Islam.
But subsequent declarations by senior Iranian clerics made it clear that the fatwa itself remains in place and can only be revoked by the person who issued it.
Ayatollah Khomeini died in 1989.
No apology
Throughout his years in hiding, Mr Rushdie has insisted it was never his intention to offend Muslims, although he has not apologised for writing the book.
At the time Mr Rushdie told a Calcutta-based magazine "There are no subjects which are off-limits and that includes God."
The publication of the book, ten years ago, provoked widespread protests by Muslims around the world, including riots in India, and the fatwa led to Mr Rushdie being forced to spend almost a decade in hiding under 24 hour police protection.
British Airways refused to carry him because of the threat of terrorist action, but India was the first of many countries to ban the book.
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka followed suit.
Access denied
In the magazine interview, Mr Rushdie complains that he has not been allowed into Indian buildings abroad such as the Nehru Centre in London.
He was also told he would not be welcome at the Indian consulate in New York for celebrations marking the 50th anniversary of independence, even though he was in the city at the time.
To be forbidden to step into India or into Indian buildings abroad while the world was expressing his thoughts about India and flooding him with requests to write about the country was, he says, a terrible feeling of rejection.
In 1997, India also refused permission for the BBC to film an adaptation of Mr Rushdie's book Midnight's Children for fear that it would inflame religious tensions and relations with Pakistan which itself saw violent protests when The Satanic Verses was published.
Mr Rushdie is quoted as saying that he feels his relationship with India has changed forever, and his next novel is about saying goodbye to the country.
"I don't want to keep on writing about a place I am not visiting" he says, "that would be phoney
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/190588.stm
In an interview with an Indian magazine, Sunday, Mr Rushdie says he cannot visit India or even enter Indian buildings overseas.
Reflecting on the price he has paid for writing The Satanic Verses, Salman Rushdie says in the interview that the biggest loss has been the damage to his relationship with India.
He accuses the Indian government of banning the book without having read it, and of preventing him from travelling to India, even though he was born in the country and has property here.
The Iranian government recently dissociated itself from the fatwa or death sentence imposed by the late Ayatollah Khomeini on Mr Rushdie for insulting Islam.
But subsequent declarations by senior Iranian clerics made it clear that the fatwa itself remains in place and can only be revoked by the person who issued it.
Ayatollah Khomeini died in 1989.
No apology
Throughout his years in hiding, Mr Rushdie has insisted it was never his intention to offend Muslims, although he has not apologised for writing the book.
At the time Mr Rushdie told a Calcutta-based magazine "There are no subjects which are off-limits and that includes God."
The publication of the book, ten years ago, provoked widespread protests by Muslims around the world, including riots in India, and the fatwa led to Mr Rushdie being forced to spend almost a decade in hiding under 24 hour police protection.
British Airways refused to carry him because of the threat of terrorist action, but India was the first of many countries to ban the book.
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka followed suit.
Access denied
In the magazine interview, Mr Rushdie complains that he has not been allowed into Indian buildings abroad such as the Nehru Centre in London.
He was also told he would not be welcome at the Indian consulate in New York for celebrations marking the 50th anniversary of independence, even though he was in the city at the time.
To be forbidden to step into India or into Indian buildings abroad while the world was expressing his thoughts about India and flooding him with requests to write about the country was, he says, a terrible feeling of rejection.
In 1997, India also refused permission for the BBC to film an adaptation of Mr Rushdie's book Midnight's Children for fear that it would inflame religious tensions and relations with Pakistan which itself saw violent protests when The Satanic Verses was published.
Mr Rushdie is quoted as saying that he feels his relationship with India has changed forever, and his next novel is about saying goodbye to the country.
"I don't want to keep on writing about a place I am not visiting" he says, "that would be phoney
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/190588.stm
India cuts 'anti-war' film
An India anti-war film about nuclear testing and the 11 September atrocities has been ordered to undergo heavy cuts before it can be released.
Just weeks after India and Pakistan pulled back from the brink of war, a documentary from controversial director Anand Patwardhan has been deemed too provocative by the country's film censors.
War and Peace features scenes depicting the euphoria surrounding the first successful nuclear tests in 1998 and the planes flying into New York's World Trade Center.
The cuts that they asked for are so ridiculous that they won't hold up in court
Anand Patwardhan
Critics have argued the decision to order the cuts is an attempt to control the Indian media in favour of the ruling coalition government led by Hindu nationalists.
The country's Central Board of Film Certification said the film "may have the effect of desensitising or dehumanising people".
But Patwardhan says if any cuts were made to the three-hour film it would ruin it.
He is appealing to the Appellate Tribunal in New Delhi.
The board has previously tried to censor Patwardhan's documentaries, which are usually socially or politically-focused, but all of his appeals havebeen successful.
Freedom of expression
"The cuts that they asked for are so ridiculous that they won't hold up in court," he said.
"But if these cuts do make it, it will be the end of freedom of expression in the Indian media."
War and Peace features some of the jubilant scenes that met the secret nuclear testing, with footage showing the praise heaped on Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
The film also covers the consequences of nuclear bombs and the effects of Hindu fundamentalism on the country.
It picked up an award at the state-run Bombay International Film Festival in February.
Scenes that could be stripped include footage of Mohandas Gandhi minutes before he was shot in 1948, and pictures of Hindus slashing their hands to sign their names on messages of congratulations for the nuclear tests.
Values
Mahesh Bhatt, one of India's most respected film-makers, called the censor board's demands "shameful".
"It is appalling that the land that deifies Gandhi makes it so difficult for a man like Patwardhan, who articulates the same values that Gandhi dreamed for India," Bhatt said.
"The sanity of his film, it just undermines the war hysteria that they've whipped up."
Patwardhan argues in War and Peace that nuclear weapons are not a deterrent to war.
However, others believe if it had not been for their nuclear arsenals then India and Pakistan would have gone to war.
"The film challenges the macho notion that India needs nuclear bombs," said Patwardhan.
"What happened on 11 September proved that you don't need nuclear weapons, all you need are boxcutters."
English success
Meanwhile, the Indian movie industry is witnessing a flood of English-speaking films being released on the back of the 2001 success of Monsoon Wedding.
Football movie Bend it Like Beckham, from Indian director Gurvinder Chadha, is the second biggest money-spinner of the year behind Devdas.
Hoping to make a challenge on Bend it Like Beckham's success is Everybody Says I'm Fine, which has an Indian cast and English script.
A raft of Indian-made English language films are lined up for release in the coming months, including Stumble, Mango Souffle and Dance Like a Man.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2202379.stm
Just weeks after India and Pakistan pulled back from the brink of war, a documentary from controversial director Anand Patwardhan has been deemed too provocative by the country's film censors.
War and Peace features scenes depicting the euphoria surrounding the first successful nuclear tests in 1998 and the planes flying into New York's World Trade Center.
The cuts that they asked for are so ridiculous that they won't hold up in court
Anand Patwardhan
Critics have argued the decision to order the cuts is an attempt to control the Indian media in favour of the ruling coalition government led by Hindu nationalists.
The country's Central Board of Film Certification said the film "may have the effect of desensitising or dehumanising people".
But Patwardhan says if any cuts were made to the three-hour film it would ruin it.
He is appealing to the Appellate Tribunal in New Delhi.
The board has previously tried to censor Patwardhan's documentaries, which are usually socially or politically-focused, but all of his appeals havebeen successful.
Freedom of expression
"The cuts that they asked for are so ridiculous that they won't hold up in court," he said.
"But if these cuts do make it, it will be the end of freedom of expression in the Indian media."
War and Peace features some of the jubilant scenes that met the secret nuclear testing, with footage showing the praise heaped on Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
The film also covers the consequences of nuclear bombs and the effects of Hindu fundamentalism on the country.
It picked up an award at the state-run Bombay International Film Festival in February.
Scenes that could be stripped include footage of Mohandas Gandhi minutes before he was shot in 1948, and pictures of Hindus slashing their hands to sign their names on messages of congratulations for the nuclear tests.
Values
Mahesh Bhatt, one of India's most respected film-makers, called the censor board's demands "shameful".
"It is appalling that the land that deifies Gandhi makes it so difficult for a man like Patwardhan, who articulates the same values that Gandhi dreamed for India," Bhatt said.
"The sanity of his film, it just undermines the war hysteria that they've whipped up."
Patwardhan argues in War and Peace that nuclear weapons are not a deterrent to war.
However, others believe if it had not been for their nuclear arsenals then India and Pakistan would have gone to war.
"The film challenges the macho notion that India needs nuclear bombs," said Patwardhan.
"What happened on 11 September proved that you don't need nuclear weapons, all you need are boxcutters."
English success
Meanwhile, the Indian movie industry is witnessing a flood of English-speaking films being released on the back of the 2001 success of Monsoon Wedding.
Football movie Bend it Like Beckham, from Indian director Gurvinder Chadha, is the second biggest money-spinner of the year behind Devdas.
Hoping to make a challenge on Bend it Like Beckham's success is Everybody Says I'm Fine, which has an Indian cast and English script.
A raft of Indian-made English language films are lined up for release in the coming months, including Stumble, Mango Souffle and Dance Like a Man.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2202379.stm
India bans religious riot movie
Award-winning documentary Final Solution, which looks at religious rioting between Hindus and Muslims, has been banned in India.
The film follows 2002 clashes in the western state of Gujarat, which left more than 1,000 people dead.
A censor board said the documentary was "highly provocative and may trigger off unrest and communal violence".
The movie was honoured at the Berlin Film Festival. Director Rakesh Sharma plans to challenge the ruling in court.
'National integration'
India's Central Board of Film Certification imposed a comprehensive ban on the film's public screening, stating: "State security is jeopardised and public order is endangered if this film is shown."
"The board also says that the film will affect friendly relations with some neighbouring countries and that the film attacked the basic principle of the Indian constitution, which is national integration," director Sharma told the BBC.
“ People who make hate speeches should be banned and not the film-maker who records it ”
Rakesh Sharma
The director dismissed the censor's concern as "hogwash".
"People who make hate speeches should be banned and not the film-maker who records it," he said.
Final Solution follows the riots which broke out after 59 Hindus were killed in an arson attack on a train in February 2002, blamed on a Muslim mob.
It won the documentary and critics awards at the Hong Kong International Film Festival, and the Wolfgang Staudte and Special Jury awards at the Berlin International Film Festival.
But the film was not permitted a screening at the Singapore film festival in May, after its censor board deemed it "potentially inflammatory".
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/3542340.stm
Published: 2004/08/06 15:54:28 GMT
© BBC MMIX
The film follows 2002 clashes in the western state of Gujarat, which left more than 1,000 people dead.
A censor board said the documentary was "highly provocative and may trigger off unrest and communal violence".
The movie was honoured at the Berlin Film Festival. Director Rakesh Sharma plans to challenge the ruling in court.
'National integration'
India's Central Board of Film Certification imposed a comprehensive ban on the film's public screening, stating: "State security is jeopardised and public order is endangered if this film is shown."
"The board also says that the film will affect friendly relations with some neighbouring countries and that the film attacked the basic principle of the Indian constitution, which is national integration," director Sharma told the BBC.
“ People who make hate speeches should be banned and not the film-maker who records it ”
Rakesh Sharma
The director dismissed the censor's concern as "hogwash".
"People who make hate speeches should be banned and not the film-maker who records it," he said.
Final Solution follows the riots which broke out after 59 Hindus were killed in an arson attack on a train in February 2002, blamed on a Muslim mob.
It won the documentary and critics awards at the Hong Kong International Film Festival, and the Wolfgang Staudte and Special Jury awards at the Berlin International Film Festival.
But the film was not permitted a screening at the Singapore film festival in May, after its censor board deemed it "potentially inflammatory".
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/3542340.stm
Published: 2004/08/06 15:54:28 GMT
© BBC MMIX
Da Vinci code faces further ban
The government of the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh has banned the release of the Hollywood film The Da Vinci Code.
"The release of the movie could have led to demonstrations and trouble," said Andhra Pradesh's special chief secretary, Paul Bhuyan.
Andhra Pradesh is the seventh Indian state to have banned the screening of the film, which was released in May.
The movie, which portrays Jesus as married, is based on Dan Brown's book.
Christians only make up one percent of Andhra Pradesh's 80 million people.
Pleased
"The minority organisations have pointed out that the film's storyline attacked the very heart of the Holy Gospel, destroying the divinity of Jesus Christ," said Mr Bhuyan.
Roman Catholic Bishop Marampudi Joji, based in Andhra Pradesh's capital Hyderabad, welcomed the ban.
"We appreciate the decision and we are grateful to the state government," he said.
Other Indian states which have banned the film include Nagaland, Punjab, Goa and Tamil Nadu.
The movie opened in India to a mixed reception at the end of May.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5043934.stm
"The release of the movie could have led to demonstrations and trouble," said Andhra Pradesh's special chief secretary, Paul Bhuyan.
Andhra Pradesh is the seventh Indian state to have banned the screening of the film, which was released in May.
The movie, which portrays Jesus as married, is based on Dan Brown's book.
Christians only make up one percent of Andhra Pradesh's 80 million people.
Pleased
"The minority organisations have pointed out that the film's storyline attacked the very heart of the Holy Gospel, destroying the divinity of Jesus Christ," said Mr Bhuyan.
Roman Catholic Bishop Marampudi Joji, based in Andhra Pradesh's capital Hyderabad, welcomed the ban.
"We appreciate the decision and we are grateful to the state government," he said.
Other Indian states which have banned the film include Nagaland, Punjab, Goa and Tamil Nadu.
The movie opened in India to a mixed reception at the end of May.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5043934.stm
Future of Internet censorship in India
The Government of India established the Computer Emergency Response Team, or CERT-IN, as a means to monitor all incoming and outgoing Internet traffic from India. The primary purpose of CERT-IN is to handle Internet security and many institutions and agencies are allowed to call on it, including the home affairs ministry, courts, the intelligence services, the police and the head of the National Human Rights Commission. CERT-IN's stated main mission is to enhance the security of India's Communications and Information Infrastructure through proactive action and effective collaboration.
Currently, there is no established law as to which websites the government censors, or when. In the past, mainly pornographic and anti-establishment political websites have been blocked.
The government is also planning to set up a centralized mechanism at the eight landing stations for the country to block websites as and when it pleases.
Indian law enforcement has entered an agreement with the popular social networking site Orkut to track down what it deems to be "defamatory content".
There were reports about Blackberry devices being banned in India due to security concerns but after talks between the government and Research in Motion, the makers of Blackberry, the issues have been sorted out.
On November 1, 2007, The Economic Times reported that the Government of India was considering a ban on "posting of private and personal videos on internet and mobiles" to tackle cyber crime and piracy.
The Government has planned to setup national intelligence grid where it can track all call logs and internet data in real time even though it violates the fundamental rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_India
Currently, there is no established law as to which websites the government censors, or when. In the past, mainly pornographic and anti-establishment political websites have been blocked.
The government is also planning to set up a centralized mechanism at the eight landing stations for the country to block websites as and when it pleases.
Indian law enforcement has entered an agreement with the popular social networking site Orkut to track down what it deems to be "defamatory content".
There were reports about Blackberry devices being banned in India due to security concerns but after talks between the government and Research in Motion, the makers of Blackberry, the issues have been sorted out.
On November 1, 2007, The Economic Times reported that the Government of India was considering a ban on "posting of private and personal videos on internet and mobiles" to tackle cyber crime and piracy.
The Government has planned to setup national intelligence grid where it can track all call logs and internet data in real time even though it violates the fundamental rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_India
Sex censored on search engine in India
Bing, Microsoft's new search engine, is uneven in its response to searches including the word 'sex', reported media on Thursday.
In Europe, Australian and the US, Bing users can search with the word 'sex' and receive thousands of results which can be accessed directly from results page, due to a new feature of the program.
"You are now on a porn site without leaving Bing. Amazing," technology blogger Luic Le Meur wrote on his blog.
Child advocacy groups in Australia are outraged at the possibilities of these features.
However, at the opposite extreme, other countries are unable to access any content related to the search term 'sex'.
The new search engine, currently on pre-release internationally, turns up a blank page if the user indicates they are from India, China, or an Arabian country.
A warning on the page states: "The search sex may return sexually explicit content. To get results, change your search terms."
According to a report on website news.com.au, the discrepancy was first noticed by an Indian blogger and has caused uproar on social network website, Twitter.
Users can change their country details in order to avoid the censorship, but Bing does not appear to have an option to switch of search censorship in some countries.
The search term "sex" has been consistently popular in India, Australia, and the US, ranking over 60 out of 100 since 2004 on Google Insights for Search.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Tech%2Band%2BScience/Story/STIStory_385867.html
In Europe, Australian and the US, Bing users can search with the word 'sex' and receive thousands of results which can be accessed directly from results page, due to a new feature of the program.
"You are now on a porn site without leaving Bing. Amazing," technology blogger Luic Le Meur wrote on his blog.
Child advocacy groups in Australia are outraged at the possibilities of these features.
However, at the opposite extreme, other countries are unable to access any content related to the search term 'sex'.
The new search engine, currently on pre-release internationally, turns up a blank page if the user indicates they are from India, China, or an Arabian country.
A warning on the page states: "The search sex may return sexually explicit content. To get results, change your search terms."
According to a report on website news.com.au, the discrepancy was first noticed by an Indian blogger and has caused uproar on social network website, Twitter.
Users can change their country details in order to avoid the censorship, but Bing does not appear to have an option to switch of search censorship in some countries.
The search term "sex" has been consistently popular in India, Australia, and the US, ranking over 60 out of 100 since 2004 on Google Insights for Search.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Tech%2Band%2BScience/Story/STIStory_385867.html
Internet censorship in India
In 2001, the Bombay High Court appointed a committee to oversee issues relating to cyber pornography and cybercrime. The committee upon identifying key issues made recommendations such as licensing of cyber cafe, introducing identity cards for cyber cafe visitors, ensure that cyber cafe that have cubicles or partitions be required to ensure that minors are not allowed to use machines in cubicles or behind partitions, mandatory maintaining of IP logs by cyber cafe, and so on. The committee made several other recommendations such as connectivity and authentication at Internet service provider level which provided that Internet service providers were responsible for time clock coordination and record keeping. The report addressed the issue of protecting minor children from accessing adult sites and made a recommendation that Internet Service Providers must have protective parental software with every Internet connection.
In 2004, a Yahoo! Groups discussion group was blocked because of fears the group, the Kynhun forum, had links with banned separatists. The ban resulted in the entire Yahoo! Groups being banned due to the internet service providers' inability to implement a sub-group ban, and hence a huge range of harmless material were made inaccessible. The government used new information technology laws to force Indian internet service providers to block the forum after Yahoo! refused to comply. The ban sparked outrage and led to many people calling for the ban to be lifted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_India
In 2004, a Yahoo! Groups discussion group was blocked because of fears the group, the Kynhun forum, had links with banned separatists. The ban resulted in the entire Yahoo! Groups being banned due to the internet service providers' inability to implement a sub-group ban, and hence a huge range of harmless material were made inaccessible. The government used new information technology laws to force Indian internet service providers to block the forum after Yahoo! refused to comply. The ban sparked outrage and led to many people calling for the ban to be lifted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_India
Blocking of Internet sites in India
Indian bloggers are railing against censorship after reports that the Indian government has instructed Internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to blogs on blogspot.com and typepad.com, and to Web sites on GeoCities, as a security measure in the wake of the Jul. 11 Mumbai train bombings.
Indian government officials have reportedly admitted to ordering three or four sites that host blogs to be blocked. Bloggers are convinced that as many as 22 sites are being blocked, and blame both the government and ISPs for the "censorship".
The Indian government thinks that blocking 22 Web sites will reduce the chances on future terrorism. However, the ISPs were incompetent as they produced glitches when blocking the sites.
Bloggers quickly posted instructions on how to circumvent the alleged blocks at a wiki called Bypassing the Ban in India, while a website called India Censored devoted to the issue has been created by a member of the Google Bloggers Collective.
While there is some confusion as to whether the Indian Government has ordered the sites to be blocked, bloggers are incensed at the perceived violation to their rights.
Some bloggers are even threatening to take the Indian government to the Indian Supreme Court as they believe the government actions were undemocratic and infringe their right to freedom of expression.
http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/internet/0,39044908,39376838,00.htm
Indian government officials have reportedly admitted to ordering three or four sites that host blogs to be blocked. Bloggers are convinced that as many as 22 sites are being blocked, and blame both the government and ISPs for the "censorship".
The Indian government thinks that blocking 22 Web sites will reduce the chances on future terrorism. However, the ISPs were incompetent as they produced glitches when blocking the sites.
Bloggers quickly posted instructions on how to circumvent the alleged blocks at a wiki called Bypassing the Ban in India, while a website called India Censored devoted to the issue has been created by a member of the Google Bloggers Collective.
While there is some confusion as to whether the Indian Government has ordered the sites to be blocked, bloggers are incensed at the perceived violation to their rights.
Some bloggers are even threatening to take the Indian government to the Indian Supreme Court as they believe the government actions were undemocratic and infringe their right to freedom of expression.
http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/internet/0,39044908,39376838,00.htm
India: Maharashtra Wants Censorship of Google Earth
According to reports in The Hindu, India’s Maharashtra government is revisiting legal options to censor Google Earth in the wake of the program’s alleged use in planning the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
Curbing the use of Google Earth could prevent future terror attacks, according to the Government Ministry. Minister of State for Home stated: “We want Google Earth censored…We have scores of sensitive and ultra-sensitive locations in Mumbai, Maharashtra and the rest of the country that can be easily viewed on Google Earth maps.”
The Minister went on to specify specific sites to be censored, stating: “We want at least sensitive locations like defense installations, government headquarters, legislature buildings, important places of worship, ports, docks and other similar sites to be left out on the satellite maps.”
In December 2008, according to The Register and The Times of London, an Indian court was called to ban Google Earth in response to intelligence indicating that the satellite imaging was used in planning November’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
Submitted by charles on 12 March, 2009 - 09:55.
Posted in Asia, Conflict and security filtering, India, ONI, Political filtering
http://opennet.net/blog/2009/03/india-maharashtra-wants-censorship-google-earth
Curbing the use of Google Earth could prevent future terror attacks, according to the Government Ministry. Minister of State for Home stated: “We want Google Earth censored…We have scores of sensitive and ultra-sensitive locations in Mumbai, Maharashtra and the rest of the country that can be easily viewed on Google Earth maps.”
The Minister went on to specify specific sites to be censored, stating: “We want at least sensitive locations like defense installations, government headquarters, legislature buildings, important places of worship, ports, docks and other similar sites to be left out on the satellite maps.”
In December 2008, according to The Register and The Times of London, an Indian court was called to ban Google Earth in response to intelligence indicating that the satellite imaging was used in planning November’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
Submitted by charles on 12 March, 2009 - 09:55.
Posted in Asia, Conflict and security filtering, India, ONI, Political filtering
http://opennet.net/blog/2009/03/india-maharashtra-wants-censorship-google-earth
Internet censorship coming to India?
India seems to be following China's footsteps with a recent proposal to censor the internet space. This proposal comes on the heels of the recent proposal by government to censor news channels during emergency situations that eventually failed to come into effect. Though, the TV censorship was to be initiated only during emergency, the internet will be screened even under normal circumstances.
A Central government officer will be assigned to monitor the websites and news portals and block those materials considered as a threat to national security. The draft rules were prepared by the department of information technology. The rules are drafted under the recent amendments to the information technology (IT) Act. Though the act was passed by Parliament last December, it will not come into effect until the various rules under it are finalized.
According to this rule, every State or Central government department will be able to decide if a certain material relating to its jurisdiction is against the norms. If there is a complaint raised against a web host, the designated officer will give out a judgment after looking into the issue. Though, these new measures can harm the freedom of press, there is a small amount relief in a proposal to set up a review committee.
Submitted by siliconindiaevents on May 25, 2009 - 11:57
http://www.webnewswire.com/node/455113
A Central government officer will be assigned to monitor the websites and news portals and block those materials considered as a threat to national security. The draft rules were prepared by the department of information technology. The rules are drafted under the recent amendments to the information technology (IT) Act. Though the act was passed by Parliament last December, it will not come into effect until the various rules under it are finalized.
According to this rule, every State or Central government department will be able to decide if a certain material relating to its jurisdiction is against the norms. If there is a complaint raised against a web host, the designated officer will give out a judgment after looking into the issue. Though, these new measures can harm the freedom of press, there is a small amount relief in a proposal to set up a review committee.
Submitted by siliconindiaevents on May 25, 2009 - 11:57
http://www.webnewswire.com/node/455113
"Censorship in India is an eyewash"
I think the very concept of censorship on television is a contradiction in itself.
One must understand that where there is a remote in the hands of the viewer, there is a choice to be made. The censor is the person holding the remote and who decides whether he/she or even his or her family should see a programme or not. The market that backs or sponsors programmes - soaps, music videos or movies and which targets its viewers with a particular kind of programming is also the censor.
Demand creates supply on television, not vice versa. Television is not a medium which can afford huge risks. Therefore, investment is calculated.
The number of channels in India determine the diverse viewership patterns we have and then they are coincided with the existing market shares. Someone is willing to pay for a programme only if someone is willing to see it. Therefore, the current nature of soaps, movies and music videos that are being shown on television is only because there is a huge demand for such. And above all, one must understand that the people making programmes are also emerging out of various segments of society which in turn comprise viewership.
Censorship in India, according to me is an eyewash. It is a method of a system to prove to its people that it has an eye on what’s going on. Nothing other than that! Else, why would a system ban advertising of tobacco or alcohol on television and not ban it from being manufactured or sold in the market? Why would a system shut its eye to surrogate advertising of the much banned products through other media like events, sports etc?
Expression can never be controlled. It cannot be limited within parameters. It will find some outlet or the other. Expression banned is expression unleashed. People find loopholes in law, seek outlets or else go about their business illegally and the very system perpetrating warped values and morality is left with no alternative but to turn a blind eye to it.
It’s high time we realise that the more we try to cloak the definition of morality, the more naked it gets.
The need now is to redefine morality as the masses see it or else everyone will do as they please and the failing system and its laws will become completely redundant. Technology is growing too fast for the system to catch up with it and if reality is not confronted very soon, the system which has lost its hold on censorship to people in the form of a remote control will soon be stared in the face by children from small towns and villages who will capture the real on their personal cameras and broadcast on local channels completely in control of neighborhoods.
The champions of good values must act. They must realise that morality stands for good performance at work and disciplined human behaviour. Not about what people wear, eat, and drink or what they don’t wear, don’t eat and don’t drink. And above all not what caste, creed or religion they belong to.
Therefore, everything is permissible in television which has a viewership, in effect finds subscription/sponsorship. Censorship cannot become the carpet that an attitude of one segment of society against the demand of another can be swept beneath.
Guidelines cannot be the same for each and every channel. Therefore a system has to be put in place whereby viewership segments are segregated, masses are sensitised to what children can see and cannot see and broadcasters disciplined about the timings of adult programmes.
Mr Kher’s appointment as the censor board chief is welcome. He is a mature person who has spent a substantial part of his career participating in the creation of software for television and films. If he says that it is embarrassing to watch a recent music video on television with family members and that it has adverse effects on children, he is right. I am sure that he does not in effect intend to ban such music videos. I am convinced his solution to the problem will be to ensure that systems are put in place whereby all viewership segments are satisfied and broadcasters are alerted to plan their programming sensibly.
By VINTA NANDA
Posted on 4 November 2003
http://www.indiantelevision.com/perspectives/y2k3/vinta.htm
One must understand that where there is a remote in the hands of the viewer, there is a choice to be made. The censor is the person holding the remote and who decides whether he/she or even his or her family should see a programme or not. The market that backs or sponsors programmes - soaps, music videos or movies and which targets its viewers with a particular kind of programming is also the censor.
Demand creates supply on television, not vice versa. Television is not a medium which can afford huge risks. Therefore, investment is calculated.
The number of channels in India determine the diverse viewership patterns we have and then they are coincided with the existing market shares. Someone is willing to pay for a programme only if someone is willing to see it. Therefore, the current nature of soaps, movies and music videos that are being shown on television is only because there is a huge demand for such. And above all, one must understand that the people making programmes are also emerging out of various segments of society which in turn comprise viewership.
Censorship in India, according to me is an eyewash. It is a method of a system to prove to its people that it has an eye on what’s going on. Nothing other than that! Else, why would a system ban advertising of tobacco or alcohol on television and not ban it from being manufactured or sold in the market? Why would a system shut its eye to surrogate advertising of the much banned products through other media like events, sports etc?
Expression can never be controlled. It cannot be limited within parameters. It will find some outlet or the other. Expression banned is expression unleashed. People find loopholes in law, seek outlets or else go about their business illegally and the very system perpetrating warped values and morality is left with no alternative but to turn a blind eye to it.
It’s high time we realise that the more we try to cloak the definition of morality, the more naked it gets.
The need now is to redefine morality as the masses see it or else everyone will do as they please and the failing system and its laws will become completely redundant. Technology is growing too fast for the system to catch up with it and if reality is not confronted very soon, the system which has lost its hold on censorship to people in the form of a remote control will soon be stared in the face by children from small towns and villages who will capture the real on their personal cameras and broadcast on local channels completely in control of neighborhoods.
The champions of good values must act. They must realise that morality stands for good performance at work and disciplined human behaviour. Not about what people wear, eat, and drink or what they don’t wear, don’t eat and don’t drink. And above all not what caste, creed or religion they belong to.
Therefore, everything is permissible in television which has a viewership, in effect finds subscription/sponsorship. Censorship cannot become the carpet that an attitude of one segment of society against the demand of another can be swept beneath.
Guidelines cannot be the same for each and every channel. Therefore a system has to be put in place whereby viewership segments are segregated, masses are sensitised to what children can see and cannot see and broadcasters disciplined about the timings of adult programmes.
Mr Kher’s appointment as the censor board chief is welcome. He is a mature person who has spent a substantial part of his career participating in the creation of software for television and films. If he says that it is embarrassing to watch a recent music video on television with family members and that it has adverse effects on children, he is right. I am sure that he does not in effect intend to ban such music videos. I am convinced his solution to the problem will be to ensure that systems are put in place whereby all viewership segments are satisfied and broadcasters are alerted to plan their programming sensibly.
By VINTA NANDA
Posted on 4 November 2003
http://www.indiantelevision.com/perspectives/y2k3/vinta.htm
Fighting against censorship
American pop icon Paris Hilton corrupts Indian minds. That, at least, is the fear held by mandarins of Indian culture. So they’ve barred television channels in India from airing Ms. Hilton’s new music video, “Stars Are Blind,” in yet another example of the censorship fever sweeping the country.
Movie channels in Mumbai were recently blocked because they purportedly showed adult content. That’s despite the fact these channels routinely edit out all nudity and sex. And it’s only a few months since the film version of “The Da Vinci Code” was banned in several states after Christian groups protested.
In such a climate, nothing is too trivial to escape the target of aspiring censors. One Mumbai-based crusader for tighter controls on Indian television, Pratibha Naithani, has even called for an investigation into “violence on cartoon channels.” Why stop at violence? Perhaps Ms. Naithani hasn’t noticed yet, but in addition to routinely knocking things over, Tom and Jerry also frolic in the nude.
Such extreme examples are a reaction to the foreign cultural influences that have flooded in since India began opening up its previously closed economy to the outside world in 1991. That produced a predictable backlash from traditionalists whose sense of identity, and even their political base, is threatened by foreign influence. They seek refuge in arguing that India’s religion, culture and traditions need protecting from the forces of globalization.
Unlike the U.S., the Indian constitution provides little protection against censorship. Although it professes to give all citizens “the right to freedom of speech and expression,” that is qualified by so many exceptions as to make any protection almost meaningless. These include “the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
Naturally, it falls upon government bureaucrats to decide what falls within these exceptions. And the problem is that India has long had a climate where it’s considered perfectly acceptable for the state to meddle in what its citizens can watch, and listen to. In 1968, for instance, “abbreviated skirts” and scenes "suggestive of soliciting” were enough to send “A Tale of Four Cities,” a documentary by KA Abbas partly set in Mumbai’s red-light districts, all the way to the Supreme Court. India’s top judicial body duly upheld its ban , setting a precedent for censorship that is still cited today. It ruled that films had to be scrutinized more carefully than other media because “a person reading a book or other writing [or] hearing a speech or viewing a painting or sculpture is not so deeply stirred as by seeing a motion picture.” In the view of the court, thus, Indians were like putty in the hands of these powerful media, incapable of making their own decisions or using their own discretion.
Such paternalism was quite in synch with the Fabian Socialism that India had adopted. The state was supreme in all matters, and whatever freedom it allowed its citizens—“subjects” would be as apt a term—was at its discretion. In India, we call it a mai-baap sarkar, which literally means “mother-father government,” indicating the all-encompassing authority of the state. Initially, most Indians took this for granted, and did not protest too much. The freedom that mattered to them in the early years of independence was political freedom, which was their source of national pride.
But, in recent years, things have begun to change. The economic growth triggered by India’s opening up has created a much larger middle class. And the intellectual influences that have poured in from elsewhere in the world have made this middle class more alive to the need to fight for freedom of expression.
That means the recent trend toward increased censorship has not gone without a fight. Where once censorship was taken for granted, it is now debated, and the army of news channels that have recently opened shop regularly feature debates on the subject. Online petitions protesting censorship are common, an early example being one four years ago in support of “War and Peace,” a documentary by Anand Patwardhan that was initially banned for criticizing India’s 1998 nuclear tests. Earlier this year, government instructions to ban a handful of (mostly innocuous) Web sites without giving any reasons provoked widespread outrage, especially after local Internet providers overreacted and mistakenly extended the ban to cover a large number of other sites. Bloggers across India filed applications under the Right to Information Act in an effort to discover the reasons for the ban, and some now plan to go to court to continue the battle for freedom of speech.
Such voices are still few, and these protests not yet loud enough to counter the regressive forces that routinely stifle freedom of expression in India. But they are growing, and offer hope for India’s future.
By amit varma
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
http://indiauncut.blogspot.com/2006/10/fighting-against-censorship.html
Movie channels in Mumbai were recently blocked because they purportedly showed adult content. That’s despite the fact these channels routinely edit out all nudity and sex. And it’s only a few months since the film version of “The Da Vinci Code” was banned in several states after Christian groups protested.
In such a climate, nothing is too trivial to escape the target of aspiring censors. One Mumbai-based crusader for tighter controls on Indian television, Pratibha Naithani, has even called for an investigation into “violence on cartoon channels.” Why stop at violence? Perhaps Ms. Naithani hasn’t noticed yet, but in addition to routinely knocking things over, Tom and Jerry also frolic in the nude.
Such extreme examples are a reaction to the foreign cultural influences that have flooded in since India began opening up its previously closed economy to the outside world in 1991. That produced a predictable backlash from traditionalists whose sense of identity, and even their political base, is threatened by foreign influence. They seek refuge in arguing that India’s religion, culture and traditions need protecting from the forces of globalization.
Unlike the U.S., the Indian constitution provides little protection against censorship. Although it professes to give all citizens “the right to freedom of speech and expression,” that is qualified by so many exceptions as to make any protection almost meaningless. These include “the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
Naturally, it falls upon government bureaucrats to decide what falls within these exceptions. And the problem is that India has long had a climate where it’s considered perfectly acceptable for the state to meddle in what its citizens can watch, and listen to. In 1968, for instance, “abbreviated skirts” and scenes "suggestive of soliciting” were enough to send “A Tale of Four Cities,” a documentary by KA Abbas partly set in Mumbai’s red-light districts, all the way to the Supreme Court. India’s top judicial body duly upheld its ban , setting a precedent for censorship that is still cited today. It ruled that films had to be scrutinized more carefully than other media because “a person reading a book or other writing [or] hearing a speech or viewing a painting or sculpture is not so deeply stirred as by seeing a motion picture.” In the view of the court, thus, Indians were like putty in the hands of these powerful media, incapable of making their own decisions or using their own discretion.
Such paternalism was quite in synch with the Fabian Socialism that India had adopted. The state was supreme in all matters, and whatever freedom it allowed its citizens—“subjects” would be as apt a term—was at its discretion. In India, we call it a mai-baap sarkar, which literally means “mother-father government,” indicating the all-encompassing authority of the state. Initially, most Indians took this for granted, and did not protest too much. The freedom that mattered to them in the early years of independence was political freedom, which was their source of national pride.
But, in recent years, things have begun to change. The economic growth triggered by India’s opening up has created a much larger middle class. And the intellectual influences that have poured in from elsewhere in the world have made this middle class more alive to the need to fight for freedom of expression.
That means the recent trend toward increased censorship has not gone without a fight. Where once censorship was taken for granted, it is now debated, and the army of news channels that have recently opened shop regularly feature debates on the subject. Online petitions protesting censorship are common, an early example being one four years ago in support of “War and Peace,” a documentary by Anand Patwardhan that was initially banned for criticizing India’s 1998 nuclear tests. Earlier this year, government instructions to ban a handful of (mostly innocuous) Web sites without giving any reasons provoked widespread outrage, especially after local Internet providers overreacted and mistakenly extended the ban to cover a large number of other sites. Bloggers across India filed applications under the Right to Information Act in an effort to discover the reasons for the ban, and some now plan to go to court to continue the battle for freedom of speech.
Such voices are still few, and these protests not yet loud enough to counter the regressive forces that routinely stifle freedom of expression in India. But they are growing, and offer hope for India’s future.
By amit varma
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
http://indiauncut.blogspot.com/2006/10/fighting-against-censorship.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)