Promotional material describes this worthy CD:

Listen to the Banned is a unique collection of contemporary songs by artists who have been censored, persecuted, taken to court, imprisoned and even tortured for no other reason than their music.

Compiled by singer and composer Deeyah for the international organisation Freemuse, its purpose is to raise awareness of the lack of free expression experienced by many musicians and composers around the world - a freedom that many of us take for granted in a democratic and mainly uncensored society.

Singer, composer and filmmaker, Deeyah is a versatile artist and a passionate human rights activist. Born to Pakistani immigrant parents, Deeyah has released three critically acclaimed albums and worked with renowned musicians such as her teacher Ustad Fatah Ali Khan, Jan Garbarek (ECM: Ragas & Sagas) and Andy Summers. Having endured constant intimidation and physicals threats throughout her career, Deeyah stopped performing and now devotes the majority of her time promoting human rights and freedom of expression through a range of self-initiated projects.

Freemuse is an international organisation dedicated to protecting musicians and composers' rights to freedom of expression.

Track Listings:

1. Mahsa Vahdat (Iran) - Mystery
2. Farhad Darya (Afghanistan) - Arooss-e-Aftaw
3. Lapiro De Mbanga (Cameroon) - Constitution Constipée
4. Marcel Khalife (Lebanon) - Oh My Father, I Am Yusif
5. Chiwoniso Maraire (Zimbabwe) - Rebel Woman
6. Tiken Jah Fakoly (Ivory Coast) - Quitte Le Pouvoir
7. Abazar Hamid (Sudan) - Salam Darfur
8. Kamilya Jubran (Israel/Palestine) - Al Shatte' Al Akhar
9. Kurash Sultan (Uigurien, China) - Atlan Dok
10. Ferhat Tunc (Turkey) - Alisero
11. Aziza Brahim (West Sahara) - Regreso
12. Haroon Bacha (Pakistan) - Speena Kontara
13. Fadal Dey (Ivory Coast) - Non Au Racisme
14. Amal Murkus (Israel/Palestine) - Bhallelak

The website WikiLeaks recently publicly disclosed more than 70,000 classified US field reports from the war in Afghanistan. The Pentagon says it wants them back.

Press secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters the Pentagon was formally demanding – through the news media – that WikiLeaks return the reports, as well as 15,000 additional records the website says it might release soon: We are asking them to do the right thing and not further exacerbate the damage done to date. If doing the right thing is not good enough for them, we'll figure out what other alternatives we have.

He declined to elaborate on whether the defence department was contemplating legal action but said the FBI and the justice department were investigating how the documents were leaked.

Morrell acknowledged that the genie is out of the bottle in regard to the more than 70,000 reports that are not only posted on the WikiLeaks site, but have since been copied and downloaded by people all over the world. He said the Pentagon was primarily interested in blocking the release of the 15,000 other documents.

A UN exhibit has been censored in Vienna after Chinese pressure to ban it.

The Gun Sculpture forming the centre piece of the exhibit was created by Sandra Bromley and Wallis Kendal. The Exhibit is called the Art of Peacemaking.

The 4.5-tonne sculpture, welded together from deactivated guns, landmines and ammunition, has been shown in many countries, including at UN headquarters in New York in 2001, and has never run into problems before.

The problem is that along with the sculpture is a series of panels with photographs of violence from numerous countries. But the ones that stood out for the Chinese was the photographs of two Tibetan nuns.

After the Chinese objected to exhibit organizers and other UN departments all the photographs were removed.

We were absolutely shocked, said Bromley. This was done without any consultation or permission.

The Chinese wanted the whole exhibit removed but the UN just removed the panels with the photographs but this obviously completely ruins the integrity and whole purpose the exhibit.

China's state news agency Xinhua has launched a 24-hour global news channel in English.

Officials said CNC World would present an international vision with a China perspective.

The launch is being seen as an attempt by China to develop its influence abroad and counter foreign media views.

Beijing keeps close control over media in the country - it often accuses Western media of bias and of reporting only negative news stories from China.

China Xinhua News Network Corporation said it would offer a better view of China to its international audiences and enable more voices to be heard by the rest of the world.

It will broadcast news reports in a timely way and objectively, and be a new source of information for global audiences, said Xinhua's President Li Congjun at a launch ceremony in Beijing.

He said the channel was initially broadcasting in Hong Kong but aims to reach 50 million viewers in Europe, North America and Africa within its first year.

Wu insisted that the coverage would remain objective, saying: We are a news channel, not a propaganda station.

The recently concluded session of the UN human rights council ended with the election of Thailand as the new president to the 47-member council.

The result of the election is quite a surprise, given that Thailand has recently gone through the worst political violence the country in decades.

Thailand's ministry of foreign affairs issued a public statement highlighting that the election result clearly reflects the confidence that countries around the world have in Thailand and its human rights policies and standards.

Can this election of the council's presidency be viewed as a realistic reflection of Thailand's human rights standards?

The council was set up in 2006 to replace the contentiously debated UN commission on human rights. The election of the presidency is done on a rotating basis from five regional groups: Latin America and Caribbean, eastern Europe, Africa, western Europe and other states, and Asia. Since 2006, representatives of all four regional groups have served as presidents to the council, with the exception of Asia.

Based on this, Thailand was not competing against countries with better recognised human rights records such as those governments of Switzerland or Norway. Instead, Thailand was competing against countries in Asia, namely Bangladesh, Kyrgyzstan and Maldives – all of which are criticised by rights watchdogs as human rights violators.

Both Bangladesh and Kyrgyzstan, prior to the election, resigned from the contest after fierce campaigns by human rights groups claiming they were unsuitable contestants to head the council.

The election, therefore, only left Maldives and Thailand to compete.

Maldives, a relatively young democracy, has only just emerged from a history of military coups and held its first democratic election in 2008. The country was ruled by Maumoon Gayoom, who denied free and fair elections, for 20 years. Being a small country, the Maldives lacked the political leverage required to convince member states of their leadership.

This is how the council was left with Thailand.

...Read the full article

ICANN'S top legal official told its board of directors that the panel will likely approve the sponsored top-level domain when it is put up for vote.

ICANN general counsel John Jeffrey told the board it will likely vote to approve .XXX subject to due diligence on ICM Registry's financial and technical capabilities.

The .XXX proposal has many in the online adult industry worried that it would amount to the creation of a red light district on the Internet.

Diane Duke, the Free Speech Coalition's executive director, said ICM's initiative could end up setting policies that harm its businesses. Duke is in Brussels to lobby against .XXX.

But ICM Registry CEO Stuart Lawley, in a letter on his company's website, has remained optimistic over the possibility of .XXX coming into fruition.

While most Internet extensions are used for just about everything you can imagine, .XXX will be focused on providing an online home for those members of the adult industry who wish to self-identify and responsibly self-regulate, he said in the letter. We are excited about the idea — and we know you will be too.

In March, ICANN delayed a vote on ICM's proposal to sell .XXX domain names and directed its general counsel and chief executive to seek public comment. ICANN received thousands of entries from adult companies and other stakeholders, as well as the general public. Most posted items against the implementation of .XXX.

Update: .XXX approved

26th June 2010. Based on article from guardian.co.uk

The internet could soon have its own red light district after the .xxx suffix was approved – though pornography companies are not keen to use it.

Icann, the organisation which determines what top-level domains (TLDs) such as .com or .uk can be added to the internet announced today that it will begin the process of registering .xxx by making checks on ICM Registry, the company that wants to run the domain and sell registrations.

It marks the closing stages of a 10-year battle by ICM Registry, now run by the British internet entrepreneur Stuart Lawley, to get the .xxx domain set up so that legal pornography sites can be found in a single grouping.

But many pornography companies are unhappy with the idea of a dedicated space online because they expect that as soon as .xxx is implemented, conservative members of the US Congress will lobby to make any sex-related website re-register there and remove itself from other domains such as .com or .org.

That would mean that sex sites could be more easily filtered out from web searches, and lower their revenues. Free speech advocates also worry that sites about topics seen by US conservatives as controversial, such as homosexuality, might also be forced to use the .xxx suffix.

Muslim states have said that what they call islamophobia is sweeping the West and its media and demanded that the United Nations take tougher action against it.

Delegates from Islamic countries, including Pakistan and Egypt, told the United Nations Human Rights Council that treatment of Muslims in Western countries amounted to racism and discrimination and must be fought.

People of Arab origin face new forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance and experience discrimination and marginalization, an Egyptian delegate said, according to a U.N. summary.

And Pakistan, speaking for the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the council's special investigator into religious freedom should look into such racism especially in Western societies.

Acting for the OIC, Pakistan has tabled a resolution at the council instructing its special investigator on religious freedom to work closely with mass media organizations to ensure that they create and promote an atmosphere of respect and tolerance for religious and cultural diversity.

Diplomats say the resolution, which also tells the investigator to make recommendations to the Human Rights Council on how its strictures might be implemented, is bound to pass given the majority the OIC and its allies have in the body.

Update: UN Religious Censor

19th June 2010. Based on article from foxnews.com

The United States and its allies suffered a series of setbacks at the United Nations as the misnamed Human Rights Council flirted with media censorship.

Concerns about censorship were raised after the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which has tremendous sway in the United Nations, successfully pushed through a resolution that creates a watchdog to monitor how religion is portrayed in the media.

The OIC claims it will promote religious tolerance by ensuring that religion is not defamed. But the United States and the European Union members on the council opposed the resolution, fearing that it will censor the press and muzzle freedom of expression.

The resolution now opens the way for the Human Rights Council to select a special investigator on religious freedom to work closely with mass media organizations to ensure that they create and promote an atmosphere of respect and tolerance for religious and cultural diversity.

If you are a European resident and you cannot access the National Enquirer to read the breaking story about Obama's alleged affair with Vera Baker, try surfing with www.hidemyass.com or any other anonymizer that works.

For various reasons, the National Enquirer is blocking European IPs. For example, in Britain, they block IPs because any publication that publishes in the UK is potentially liable to be sued.

Regardless the reasoning behind the European IP ban, the message displayed by the National Enquirer is at least questionable. A Page unavailable/under construction message is confusing and misleading. Correct would be to read the content of this website is not available in your area.

Teenagers on social networking site Bebo have created a secret language to stop adults knowing what they are up to, researchers say.

Youngsters are using slang words to keep parents and employers in the dark about their social activities such as partying and drinking.

Instead of writing they are drunk, teens post Getting MWI - or mad with it. Being in a relationship is known as taken or Ownageeee, and Ridneck, a corruption of redneck, means to feel embarrassed, [as in caught with a love bite].

Lisa Whittaker, a postgraduate student at the University of Stirling, who studied teens aged 16-18 in Scotland, said the slang had been created to keep their activities private, and cited the example of one young girl who was sacked after bosses found pictures of her drinking on the website. She said: Young people often distort the languages they use by making the pages difficult for those unfamiliar with the distortions and colloquialisms.

...read full article

Wikileaks has tweeted claiming that their Facebook fan page was deleted by Facebook for violation of the Terms of Service.

According to Wikileaks, the page had been disabled because it promotes illegal acts.

A Facebook spokeswoman stonewalled and said the group, which had 30,000 members, could have been taken down for a number of reasons, most likely because it had received a complaint from a member about objectionable content.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Written in 1948, the principle applies aptly to today's Internet -- one of the most important means of free expression in the world. Yet government censorship of the web is growing rapidly: from the outright blocking and filtering of sites, to court orders limiting access to information and legislation forcing companies to self-censor content.

So it's no surprise that Google, like other technology and telecommunications companies, regularly receives demands from government agencies to remove content from our services. Of course many of these requests are entirely legitimate, such as requests for the removal of child pornography. We also regularly receive requests from law enforcement agencies to hand over private user data. Again, the vast majority of these requests are valid and the information needed is for legitimate criminal investigations. However, data about these activities historically has not been broadly available. We believe that greater transparency will lead to less censorship.

We are today launching a new Government Requests tool to give people information about the requests for user data or content removal we receive from government agencies around the world. For this launch, we are using data from July-December, 2009, and we plan to update the data in 6-month increments.

As part of our commitment to the Global Network Initiative, we have already agreed to principles and practices that govern privacy and free expression. In the spirit of these principles, we hope this tool will shine some light on the scale and scope of government requests for censorship and data around the globe. We also hope that this is just the first step toward increased transparency about these actions across the technology and communications industries.

What was supposed to be images celebrating pregnancy and motherhood created by a Courtenay artist are now considered hateful, threatening or obscene by one of largest social networking sites in the world.

Mother and artist Kate Hansen recently created a series of portraits called The Madonna Child Project — images which feature different mothers and babies cuddling their babies while breastfeeding and bottle feeding.

Hansen posted some of the images in a figurative art group on Facebook and discovered the portraits were being deleted around late March.

Hansen noted she initially posted images in groups of three, and all images got deleted. She inquired with the Facebook group administrator, who assured her she had no reason to delete the images. Hansen continued to repost the images, and soon after, found they were being continually deleted from the site.

Last week, she received an e-mail from The Facebook Team noting: you posted an item that violated our terms of use, and this item has been removed. Among other things, content that is hateful, threatening or obscene is not allowed, nor is content that attacks an individual or group. Continued misuse of Facebook's features could result in your account being disabled.

During a recent interview with CBC Radio, which contacted a Facebook representative, Hansen said the social networking site representative noted they supposedly do not delete breastfeeding images.

She said the entire incident has made her question the overall topic of breastfeeding in society, and the public perception of the act. At least it's gotten people talking about it, noted Hansen: I will continue to post images and risk my account being deleted; the risk is worth it, she added.

In numerous examples unearthed by U.N. experts each year - blasphemy and defamation of religion laws have resulted in arrests and arbitrary detentions, as they have sparked assaults, murders and mob attacks. Journalists, bloggers, teachers, students, poets, religious converts and others are targeted, charged and sentenced for exercising their right to freedom of expression. Those who support defamation of religions law say these policies are necessary to combat incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, as well as to protect freedom of religion. But the facts tell a very different story, one that has resulted in eroding international support for this flawed concept.

Last month, as the United Nations Human Rights Council met in Geneva, it became increasingly clear that the tide is swiftly turning against support for defamation of religions. As it has since 1999, UN States from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) sponsored a resolution endorsing the concept that nations have an obligation to implement laws against the defamation of religions. Although the text squeezed through to its adoption, that was only by a small margin of three votes -- it was 12 votes last year -- and a growing number of UN States voted against the measure and many nations that had previously abstained from the debate spoke out in opposition to the resolution's passage.

This weakening UN Human Rights Council support for the defamation of religions was also evident in a second resolution adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards that has been charged to identify new methods to combat racism. That resolution's final text did not include any defamation of religions language and there was no authorization for the Ad Hoc committee to codify defamation of religions into a binding international treaty.

...Read full article

Google's Chinese search engine was defying local law by returning links involving the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and the Xinjiang independence movement, according to a report from NBC News.

NBC was able to access previously-censored links from Google.cn, including the famous 1989 image of a lone man blocking a line of Chinese tanks in Tiananmen Square. A search for tank man in Chinese characters on the search engine returned just one link to the photo - though several are available from the company's engine overseas.

Meanwhile, searching for Tiananmen Square massacre, Xinjiang independence and Tibet Information Network turned up long lists of previously censored results.

NBC did say, however, that search results were erratic and that in some cases, access to verboten sites was indeed denied.

Update: Google to Make Rapid Departure from China

21st March 2010. Based on article from telegraph.co.uk

Google is expected to announce the closure of google.cn by as early as April 10 after the Chinese government refused to acquiesce to demands that it stop self-censorship of the site.

It is understood that Google will continue to operate other services in the country and will maintain its research and development operations.

It is understood that Sergey Brin, who founded Google with Larry Page while the pair were students at Stanford University, has been personally involved with the investigation into gmail attacks and the decision to withdraw from China.

Reports from China said Google will compensate the division's employees following the closure.

Update: China whinge at Google for highlighting Chinese censorship

24th March 2010. Based on article from business.timesonline.co.uk

China hit back at Google last night after the internet search giant closed its flagship Chinese site, carrying out a threat issued two months ago in a dispute over censorship.

The company stopped censoring its search results in China and redirected users of the Google.cn service to its uncensored Google.com.hk site based in Hong Kong. The White House, which had backed Google in its dispute, expressed disappointment that an American company felt compelled to take such a drastic step.

Beijing isssued a furious riposte to Google, accusing it of violating the terms of the agreement it made when it opened its self-censored Chinese search engine in 2006. An official in charge of the Internet Bureau of the State Council Information Office said: This is totally wrong. We're uncompromisingly opposed to the politicisation of commercial issues, and express our discontent and indignation to Google for its unreasonable accusations and conducts.

The world's largest internet company has been in talks for two months with Beijing over its threat to shut down its Chinese-language search engine and close its offices, rather than kowtow to government censors. It delivered the ultimatum after alleged cyber attacks aimed at its source code and at the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. The company said the attacks originated in China.

Offsite: Google Explain

31st March 2010. Based on article from facthai.wordpress.com

From an interview with David Drummond of Google.

Although we have gained market share, it has become more and more difficult for us to operate there. Particularly when it comes to censorship. We have had to censor more. More and more pressure has been put on us. It has gotten appreciably worse — and not just for us, for other internet companies too.

So we increasingly came to feel that the original premise of our entry into China was being undermined. We thought when we went in that we could help to open the country and things could get better by our being there. Things seemed to be getting worse.

And what happens now?

We don't know what to expect. We have done what we have done. We are fully complying with Chinese law. We're not operating our search engine within the Firewall any more. We will continue to talk with them about how to operate our other services.

...Read the full article

The first steps are being taken towards a possible overhaul of New Zealand's censorship legislation.

Ministry of Justice and Internal Affairs officials have been meeting key stakeholders and industry and government body officials during the past fortnight to gather submissions for a tightly targeted review of the current laws. However, that scope may widen, given that the present act has been described as unwieldy and expensive and badly out of step with technology.

The Film, Video and Publications Classification Act 1993 evolved from the Video Recordings Act 1987, which was passed as an urgent response to the video format that emerged in the early to mid-1980s, but was outside the reach of the existing film censorship law, the Films Act 1983.

One person keen to see reform is Wellington's Aro Video owner, Andrew Armitage. Last year, he launched an online campaign, seeking to end what his store and others like Christchurch's Alice in Videoland saw as economic censorship and laws that unfairly disadvantaged the medium of DVD.

We are grossly over-regulated, while the competitive streams are vastly under-regulated. It's an uneven playing field at the moment, and it means many films and television programmes are not available on DVD because the distributor cannot justify the classification costs. Getting some DVDs past the censor can cost as much as $1100 a disc.

New Zealand's chief censor, Bill Hastings, says he is sympathetic to their plight: It is kind of a perfect storm - new ways of downloading entertainment content and the recession. I can understand people feeling a lot of pain because some people are getting a free ride, while they feel they are paying too much. We want as many video stores to remain as possible and DVDs to be available for as low a compliance cost as possible. Our fees haven't changed for 13 years. I don't know what other government agency can claim that.

Hastings, who has also been involved in the tightly targeted review of the legislation, believes that digital technology is the biggest challenge facing censorship in New Zealand. At the moment, we have a lot of different agencies - the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, my office and the Film Video Labelling Body, all doing their own thing.

Hastings says he has three ideas that could fix things pretty well.

• The first is to include digital content in the definition of film.
• Second, we need to incorporate free into the definition of supply, so that everything can be consistently labelled. Right now, the legislation is triggered only when something is offered for trade, exchange or hire.
• Third, we need the ability to print digital labels. This should substantially reduce industry compliance costs, increase ease of enforcement and provide more information to the consumer.

I want a repeal of the section of my act which exempts video games, unless they are restricted. That is a crazy advantage that one segment of the industry enjoys. Surveys show consumers are confused when they go into a shop with weird foreign labels all over the place. We want consistency and we don't believe the compliance costs will be huge.

Hastings has the same response for those who want to raise the threshold for trans-Tasman cross- rating of films and DVDs. Currently, if a film gets an M rating in Australia, it automatically gets an M rating in New Zealand, but complaints have been aired. Happy Feet, an animated film about penguins for example, was initially given Australia's G rating. But then our phones rang red with complaints from parents about how their toddler begged them to leave the cinema because of the leopard seal (that attacked the cute penguins), so in the end we raised it to PG.

As for the flood of 'objectionable' material available online, Hastings would prefer to do something rather than nothing: You can't have every country in the world subject to overseas servers sending them things without them doing something about it.

Hastings says ministry officials have high hopes of having censorship reforms in place by next year, but he is sceptical. There's no way that will happen. It is too complicated.

Authorities in two Indonesian provinces said that they will not comply with a controversial anti-pornography law they say would stifle traditional Balinese and Papuan culture.

Komarudin Watubun, deputy house speaker for the Papua provincial council, said it would be impractical to impose the law in Papua: The people here in Papua have never bothered with the law. It's like other laws in Indonesia where many people just realize that it cannot be enforced so why should we bother with it.

Meanwhile, Bali's governor Made Mangku Pastika said he has long objected to the anti-pornography law since it goes against Balinese society: We reject porn crimes, but this law also does not suit the sociological and psychological aspect of Balinese society.

Law professor Adrianus Meliala, from the University of Indonesia, said the law's provisions are unlikely to be applied evenly across the country: Law enforcers are reluctant to perform legal actions which are not popular and will cause a controversy, so they will avoid charging people.

Last week, I wrote about how Web filtering software, designed to protect children from porn and other harmful content on the Internet, is being used in an excessively heavy-handed fashion, and frequently blocks students from accessing legitimate educational materials. (Internet filtering as a form of soft censorship.)

Readers took me to task -- I think correctly -- for failing to provide examples. So I went back to the source of my information in that blog, Professor Craig Cunningham, of National-Louis University, to ask for specifics.

...Read full article

The non-binding defamation of religion resolution that has been an annual fixture at the United Nations Human Rights Council was has been passed again – but only narrowly.

Voting in favour were 20 states, including China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia. 17 — mostly Western nations — opposed, including the United States and the Netherlands. 8 states abstained. (Last year the vote was 23 in favour, 11 opposed and 13 abstentions).

The resolution was similar to one passed last year, but also included a section slamming the recent Swiss referendum vote to ban the construction of minarets in the country.

Pakistan introduced the resolution, accusing Western countries of targeting Muslims and using pressure instead of reason to influence votes. The only religion specifically mentioned as being discriminated against was Islam. Opponents noted tight restrictions on Christians, Jews and others in states such as Saudi Arabia and Libya, which were not mentioned in the adopted text.

The United States opposed the resolution, which it said failed to galvanize international support for real solutions to improve the lives of people on the ground. It called the resolution ineffective and an instrument of division.

The 10th annual Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards honour those who, often at great personal risk, have given voice to issues and stories from around the globe that would otherwise have passed unnoticed.

The Winners New Media Award supported by Google.vThis award recognises the use of computer or internet technology to foster debate, argument or dissent.

Twitter (USA)

Twitter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service that enables users to send and read messages with a 140-character limit.

Twitter was thrust to the fore of international politics during the contested 2009 Iranian elections. During the huge protests that followed, the site played a pivotal role in mobilising protesters and facilitated a direct line of communication between demonstrators, news outlets and engaged people around the world.

Maintaining its service in the face of a totalitarian regime, Twitter demonstrated how social networking can have a direct impact on the world stage.

It was used as a powerful tool in protecting free expression in the UK when solicitors Carter-Ruck, acting on behalf of Trafigura, the multi-national oil company, tried to prevent the press from publishing details of a parliamentary question about a report into the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast. Within hours #trafigura and #carterruck were the site's most popular topics.

Bindmans Law and Campaigning Award. This award is given to lawyers or campaigners who have fought repression, or have struggled to change political climates and perceptions.

Charter 97 (Belarus)

Charter 97 is a campaign movement dedicated to principles of independence, freedom, democracy and respect for human rights. In Belarus its website is the main independent source of information on human rights and free expression activities in the country. The site comes under constant attack by hackers thought to be working for the country's secret service and Charter 97 are regularly forced to move offices.

Along with her team, Head of Press Natallia Radzina works to bring to light the cases of arrest, detention and harassment of critical journalists and human rights activists, despite being arrested on a regular basis.

Only because of such courageous and talented people like Natallia Radzina and the whole team of Charter 97, devoted to truth and morality in journalism, do we Belarusians and the whole world know what is happening in the last dictatorship in Europe, says Natalia Koliada of the Belarus Free Theatre.

The Guardian Journalism Award. This award recognises journalism of dogged determination and bravery

Radio La Voz (Peru)

Operating in Bagua Grande in the Utcubamba Region of Peru, Radio La Voz was founded in 2007 by respected broadcast journalist Carlos Flores Borja and his sons. The aim of the station is to broadcast cultural programmes and information about environmental protection and human rights, fight political corruption and support local communities.

Radio La Voz lost its licence in June 2009 after the government accused the station of supporting violence against security forces when deadly clashes shook the area in mid-2009.

Thirty-four people were killed as Amazonian communities protested about the opening up of huge tracts of land to foreign investment. To date no government representative has offered any evidence to support the veracity of its allegation against the radio station.

Flores Borja says that La Voz was only doing its duty as an independent media source. He claims the government took advantage of the moment to silence a voice critical of its policies. On 16 February 2010, the case against Radio La Voz was dropped.

Sage International Publishing Award. This award is given to a publisher who has given new insight into issues or events, or shown a perspective not often acknowledged, or given a platform to new voices

Yael Lerer/Andalus Publishing Press (Israel)

Founded in 2000, Andalus is a unique Israeli publishing house dedicated to the translation of Arabic literature and prose into Hebrew. The name reflects nostalgia for the period in Andalusia between the 8th and 15th centuries where Hebrew and Arab cultures coexisted.

The publisher and founder Yael Lerer hopes to reverse the decline of Hebrew-speaking Israelis reading Arab literature and promote a greater understanding of the region's Arabic cultural heritage in Israeli society. Born in Tel Aviv, Lerer's idea emerged after she learnt Arabic and began reading literature and poetry in the original, leading her to see how foreign Arab culture was to her, despite having had Arab friends and colleagues for years. Andalus publishes literature from Lebanon, Syria, Sudan and Algeria – countries it is nearly impossible for ordinary Israelis to visit – as well as Palestinian writers and poets.

Special Commendation

Heather Brooke (UK)

Without journalist Heather Brooke's tireless campaign to uncover details of MPs' expenses, we might never have discovered the details of MPs' duck houses, moats and trouser presses. Her dogged five-year freedom of information battle was later made into a film by BBC4.

In 2008, Brooke won a High Court case against the House of Commons authorities for full details of MPs' second home allowances. The court said: We have no doubt that the public interest is at stake. We are not here dealing with idle gossip, or public curiosity about what in truth are trivialities. The expenditure of public money through the payment of MPs' salaries and allowances is a matter of direct and reasonable interest to taxpayers.

Brooke is the author of The Silent State and Your Right to Know, a citizens' guide to using the Freedom of Information Act. She is a consultant and presenter on Channel 4 Dispatches documentaries and a honorary professor at City University's Department of Journalism.

Indonesia's Constitutional Court has thrown out an appeal of a controversial anti-porn law, in a blow to some secular parties, minorities and artists who had said it threatened freedom of expression.

Already the law, which some Indonesians said is ambiguous, has been used to jail dancers in a nightclub and is seen as a threat to the country's precarious reputation for tolerance.

The court said concerns about the law's ambiguity, lack of regard for certain ethnic and religious minorities, and its potential to incite vigilantism, were exaggerated. There was one dissenting opinion from the panel of eight judges.

Although the law has been passed, its effectiveness and implementation are still questionable, said Maria Farida Indrati, the only female judge on the panel: This is because of the ambiguity in the articles and explanations of the law. Those who will be directly affected by this law are women and children. So where is the protection as stated in the law, she added.

In the final legislation, pornography is described as pictures, sketches, photos, writing, voice, sound, moving picture, animation, cartoons, conversation, gestures, or other communications shown in public with salacious content or sexual exploitation that violate the moral values of society. Offenders face up to 15 years imprisonment.

One of the world's most popular English-language news publications will not be distributed in Thailand this week because of an article on the nation's monarchy.

In an email issued to subscribers, the UK-based magazine The Economist, said that due to the sensitive nature of the publication's coverage of the Thai monarchy, the March 20th edition will not be distributed in the South East Asian country. There were no indications that the online edition of The Economist would be affected.

The article in question examines concerns in Thailand over the question of potential royal succession and how it relates to recent political unrest in the country.

Friday's self-censorship by The Economist marks the fourth time since late 2008 that the publication has been pulled from circulation in the Thai kingdom over a story about the nation's monarchy.

The Enemies of the Internet list drawn up again this year by Reporters Without Borders presents the worst violators of freedom of expression on the Net: Saudi Arabia, Burma, China, North Korea, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Uzbekistan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam.

Some of these countries are determined to use any means necessary to prevent their citizens from having access to the Internet: Burma, North Korea, Cuba, and Turkmenistan – countries in which technical and financial obstacles are coupled with harsh crackdowns and the existence of a very limited Intranet.

Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan have opted for such massive filtering that their Internet users have chosen to practice self-censorship. For economic purposes, China, Egypt, Tunisia and Vietnam have wagered on a infrastructure development strategy while keeping a tight control over the Web's political and social content (Chinese and Tunisian filtering systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated), and they are demonstrating a deep intolerance for critical opinions. The serious domestic crisis that Iran has been experiencing for months now has caught netizens and the new media in its net; they have become enemies of the regime.

Among the countries under surveillance are several democracies: Australia, because of the upcoming implementation of a highly developed Internet filtering system, and South Korea, where draconian laws are creating too many specific restrictions on Web users by challenging their anonymity and promoting selfcensorship.

Turkey and Russia have just been added to the Under Surveillance list. In Russia, aside from the control exercised by the Kremlin on most of its media outlets, the Internet has become the freest space for sharing information. Yet its independence is being jeopardized by blogger arrests and prosecutions, as well as by blockings of so-called extremist websites. The regime's propaganda is increasingly omnipresent on the Web. There is a real risk that the Internet will be transformed into a tool for political control.

In Turkey, taboo topics mainly deal with Ataturk, the army, issues concerning minorities (notably Kurds and Armenians) and the dignity of the Nation. They have served as justification for blocking several thousand sites, including YouTube, thereby triggering a great deal of protest. Bloggers and netizens who express themselves freely on such topics may well face judicial reprisals.

Other countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, Belarus and Thailand are also maintaining their under surveillance status, but will need to make more progress to avoid getting transferred into the next Enemies of the Internet list. Thailand, because of abuses related to the crime of lese-majesté; the Emirates, because they have bolstered their filtering system; Belarus because its president has just signed a liberticidal order that will regulate the Net, and which will enter into force this summer – just a few months before the elections.

An Indonesian court jailed six people under the country's anti-pornography law for performing an erotic dance at a bar in the early hours of New Year's Day.

The four female dancers, the show promoter and bar manager received a two and half months each for a performance in Bandung, West Java, which violated a repressive anti-pornography law that came into effect in October 2008.

They have been proven guilty of showing an erotic dance in front of the public, prosecutor Dodi Junaidi told AFP, adding that the judge in his ruling also fined them one million rupiah ($109) each.

The law criminalises all works and bodily movements deemed obscene and capable of violating public morality.

Bahrain was urged to take a softer approach to Internet censorship by United Nations Development Programme Arab Knowledge Report director Dr Ghaith Fariz.

The government's alleged policy of blocking politically-motivated websites and newspapers could be cutting the bad with the good, said Dr Fariz.

Dr Fariz claimed that although blacklisting pornographic content could be justified from a moral standpoint, there was a fine line when censoring other subjects.

We are advocates of total freedom [...BUT... not for porn]. In many cases, websites may be blocked for good or bad reasons - we are not here to judge. Unfortunately, what tends to be happening more frequently is that in the name of combating the evil we seem to be killing a lot of the good. We have called, and we still call, for people to understand that the veering principles of blocking specific sites can be abused and has been abused - intentionally or unintentionally.

Dr Fariz was speaking at a Press conference at the United Nations headquarters in Hoora. He was outlining the findings of the Arab Knowledge Report 2009, the first in an annual series to be published in association with the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation.

New Zealand has quietly been working on its internet filter, due for launch by the end of next month.

The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) began work on the filter in response to community expectations that the government and the internet service providers (ISPs) should do more to provide a safe internet environment, New Zealand's DIA said in a statement.

Branded the Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System, the filter uses White Box software from Netclean of Sweden. According to New Zealand's National Business Review, it cost DIA NZ$150,000, which then further customised it.

It has been trialled for two years and features a blacklist of more than 7000 child pornography websites, which, like Australia's list, will remain private, because the department believed displaying a list would make a directory for offenders to use, the DIA said in its statement.

The system operates by populating the routing tables of a participating ISP so that a request for the [internet protocol] IP address of a website containing child sexual abuse images results in a first 'hop' to the Department's server, it said.

If there is a match to the particular web page that is being blocked then the requester is presented with a blocking page stating that access to the requested page is illegal. If there is no match, then the requester is permitted through to the internet.

The Department's system preserves the anonymity of any person that is blocked by not keeping a record of their IP address. Users who believe they have been prevented from accessing legitimate content may fill in an anonymous request that a site on the filtering list be checked.

Furthermore, the system will be overseen by an Independent Reference Group, nominated by the DIA, made up of representatives from enforcement agencies, the Office of Film and Literature Classification, child welfare groups, ISPs and internet users.

The New Zealand system will be voluntary for ISPs and aims to be milder than the Australian one, by just focussing on child porn instead of refused classification sites which also include subjects such as fetishes and terrorism.

This could be why the NZ filter has not been greeted with the same level of outrage that Australia's has been, though opposition to it has surfaced, from groups who fear it could extend to other objectionable areas and become compulsory like Australia's planned filter. They also have voiced concerns about the fact that unlike the Australian filter plan, which has come under much public scrutiny, the New Zealand equivalent has bypassed parliamentary procedures such as Bills, white papers and select committee processes.

Censorship of homosexuality on New Zealand pay TV channels set to continue for some time yet despite a number of gay people objecting to a man-on-man kiss being blurred on the E! channel.

Viewers expressed their concern to GayNZ.com after Sky TV's E! channel blurred over a scene from the movie I Love You Philip Morris of actors Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor kissing. They felt it was unnecessary and conveyed the message that two men kissing is somehow shameful or unpalatable.

They don't censor scenes from movies and shows where there is violence and all sorts of gross stuff, why should they think two men tenderly kissing was an affront, argued Raymond of Auckland. Why would they put a large oval 'modesty patch' over two men kissing? asked Dominic of Wellington.

The American producers of the E! entertainment news programme say the scene was blurred because of the restraints placed upon us due to the international nature of our programmes and channels.

The E! spokesperson said New Zealand viewers see an international version of the programme that goes out worldwide just hours after it is assembled. We have to ensure our content is compliant in all of the territories that we transmit in, and unfortunately there are some territories that same sex kissing is required to be blurred.

Gay New Zealand television producer Glenn Sims of RedFlame Media says he understands where the E! producers are coming from, but believes that the conservative sociology of the American TV marketplace which got so indignant about a flash of nipple in prime-time a few years ago is just as much to blame as the institutionalised homophobia of some of our Asia/Pacific neighbours such as Singapore and Malaysia. Censoring such gay-themed content reinforces homophobia, he acknowledges.

E! says it tries to be sensitive to the different requirements of each territory and claims to be in the process of overcoming the technical hurdles that will allow us to create territory-specific versions of our shows.

Facebook routinely deletes from its site photos of breastfeeding. It has labelled them obscene and pornographic. It says that it has rules for what is allowed on its site, but its careless actions show it does not.

Facebook's clueless manner of censoring is not just pointless but harmful. There are other ways to deal with unwanted material than by immature, arrogant, and foolish removal of what one doesn't like, especially when photos of breastfeeding are claimed to harm children, a claim Facebook has made for years.

Here is a recent photo Facebook removed. Could Facebook have a bad case of nipplephobia?

Based on article from theotherpaper.com

A charge led by Facebook administrators to delete pictures of breast-feeding moms from its pages may land the social media site in the middle of a class action lawsuit.

There have been rumblings since last December. A lot of people are really eager to call Facebook to task and we're considering whether a class action lawsuit will be viable, said Stephanie Muir, a Canadian administrator for the Facebook group, Hey Facebook, Breastfeeding is Not Obscene! We want to hit them in the pocketbook so they'll actually pay attention. Facebook is getting away with something they would not be able to get away with outside the virtual world. It's basically discrimination.

Facebook fired a warning shot recently to show it's serious about taking down the group's page by deleting Muir's personal page as well.

The group is still there. And I have created a different account for myself, said Muir. But everything I previously had is gone, including every single post I've ever made.

Muir said Facebook initially told the group they were in copyright violation and that's why they were going to be removed: One of our administrators in Scotland e-mailed an inquiry and the response said, 'We're sorry, our message was in error. It's not a copyright violation, it's nudity and explicit sexual content that your group has been removed, They said in their statement it wasn't the breast-feeding, it was the nipples that were the problem. They're very inconsistent, which is a great source of irritation. They have changed their story a number of times.

We're going to continue to keep a strong presence. It's still a mystery to me how anyone could feel so strongly to interfere with a community of a quarter of a million people. You know, you have options; if you see a breast-feeding woman (or her picture), you can either harass her or you can use your neck and swivel your head in the other direction. We ultimately just want them to leave breast-feeding pictures alone.

Wikileaks.org, a whistleblower website that allows people to publish uncensored information anonymously, has suspended operations owing to financial problems.

Its running costs including staff payments are $600,000 (£377,000), but so far this year it has raised just $130,000 (£81,000).

The website claims to be non-profit and relies on donations. A statement on its front page says it is funded by human rights campaigners, investigative journalists, technologists and the general public. WikiLeaks does not accept money from governments or corporations.

Investigative journalist Paul Lashmar said he had been startled by the effectiveness of WikiLeaks in publishing suppressed information. However he thought that the funding issue would not be easily resolved: (Web) users aren't interested in how the people behind sites make their money, he said. The problem for the self-funding model is that sites like WikiLeaks will not find it easy to attract funding through advertising. At some point people who care about free speech will realise that free speech has to be funded, otherwise it's not free.

Update: Minimum Achieved

6th February 2010. Based on article from thelondondailynews.com

Much to the annoyance of government departments and big business everywhere, whistleblower website Wikileaks has been saved.

In December it cease publishing leaked documents, concentrating on raising donations, this week they succeeded yet staff have still not been paid. That target of around £400,000 has not been reached.

Their main site is still dedicated to raising money and there is no indication when normal operations will resume.

In an update via Twitter late on Wednesday night, Wikileaks announced that it had reached its minimum target: Achieved min. fundraising goal. ($200k/600k); we're back fighting for another year, even if we have to eat rice to do it.

Music Freedom Day
3rd March 2010

The annual Music Freedom Day has grown into a truly global event which inspires increasing numbers of musicians and concert organisers to join.

Mumbai, Cairo, Amman, The Hague, Paris and New York are some of the cities planning to organize Music Freedom Day events in 2010 — a day that will see the release of the Freemuse CD Listen to the banned.

Several national broadcasting stations in – among others – Germany, Norway and Sweden will produce and present special programmes on music censorship and freedom of expression, and in the Hague in Holland the day is observed with an event which will run over two days, organised by MusicForce.org.

The Dutch Human Rights Ambassador, Mr. Arjan Hamburger, will attend the opening event in Holland, which focuses on rap and hip-hop culture.

Seminar in Jordan In Amman, the capital of Jordan, plans are underway to organise a seminar focusing on the situation for alternative music. In India one of Mumbai's international music clubs plans to present Pakistani music to mark the day, and in New York, the Impossible music series plans to run a Freemuse CD launch party.

Why Music Freedom Day?

Death threats to musicians in north-west Pakistan, imprisonment of musicians in Burma, Cameroon, and Syria, radio airplay restrictions on music in Somalia, endless court cases in Turkey... You could very well get the impression that musicians are an endangered species.

Radio reports Which is why Freemuse invites you to take part in the event as well. The Music Freedom Day is an opportunity to take a thorough look at the subject – in many languages, cultures, countries and points of view. This website features several original radio interviews and radio reports which are offered to radio stations in broadcast quality, free of charge.

House of Lords Questions
11th January 2010

Lord Patten asked the government what is their stance on the resolution promoted by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference before the United Nations General Assembly on the defamation of religion.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead): The Government share the concern of the Organisation of Islamic Conference that individuals around the world are victimised because of their religion or belief. We all need to do more to eliminate religious intolerance and to ensure that those who incite hatred or violence against individuals because of their religious beliefs are dealt with by the law.

But the Government cannot agree with an approach that promotes the concept of defamation of religions as a response. This approach severely risks diminishing the right to freedom of expression. We believe that international human rights law already strikes the right balance between the individual's right to express themselves freely and the need for the state to limit this right in certain circumstances. International human rights law provides that only where advocacy of religious hatred constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence should it be prohibited by law.

We believe that the concept of defamation of religions puts in danger the very openness and tolerance that allows people of different faiths to co-exist and to practise their faith without fear. It risks changing the focus of international human rights law from examining how countries promote and protect the right to freedom of expression to censoring what individuals say. If this happened, people might feel unable to speak out against human rights abuses or hold their government to account. It is also inconsistent with the international human rights legal framework which exists to protect individuals and not concepts or specific belief systems.

For this reason the UK, along with our EU Partners and other like-minded countries, voted against the resolution put forward by the Organisation of Islamic Conference at the 64th session of the UN General Assembly on Combating Defamation of Religions.

Wikileaks.org, the website founded in December 2006 as a place where whistleblowers can leak sensitive documents while remaining anonymous and untraceable, says on its default web page that the site is currently suspended until January 6, 2010 as the organization seeks additional funding.

That amount includes $532,000 sought from a News Challenge grant from the nonprofit Knight Foundation. The Wikileaks's Twitter feed, reported the site going to temporary inactive status on December 24, 2009. A message to visitors of the Wikileaks.org website says that Wikileaks is overloaded. We need your support for more servers. The Wikileaks website appeal says that,

We have received hundreds of thousands of pages from corrupt banks, the US detainee system, the Iraq war, China, the UN and many others that we do not currently have the resources to release. You can change that and by doing so, change the world.

The Knight proposal explains that Wikileaks plans to provide a link to local newspapers that publish stories based on documents published on the web site. And in what seems be a fascinating and valuable aspect of the localization goal, the grant proposal says that Wikileaks will allow local newspapers to add a code snippet to the newspaper's website to allow for local users to upload documents to Wikileaks. They say of this feature,

Reporters Without Borders has released its 2009 year-end round-up on. There are 151 bloggers and cyber-dissidents arrested, 61 physically assaulted and one died in prison in 2009. When compared with 2008, the number of bloggers arrested increased 155%. The report pointed out that China continued to be the leading internet censor in 2009 and RSF will launch a new campaign against the enemy of the Internet in coming March. Below is the summary on blogger and cyber dissidents section:

For the first time since the Internet's emergence, Reporters Without Borders is aware of more than 100 bloggers and cyber-dissidents being imprisoned worldwide for posting their opinions online. This figure is indicative above all of the scale of the crackdown being carried out in around ten countries. Several countries have turned online expression into a criminal offence, dashing hopes of a censorship-free Internet.

The Internet has been the driving force for pro-democracy campaigns in Iran, China and elsewhere. It is above all for this reason that authoritarian governments have shown themselves so determined to severely punish Internet users. This is the case with two Azerbaijani bloggers, who were sentenced to two years in prison for making a film mocking the political elite.

Although China continued to be the leading Internet censor in 2009, Iran, Tunisia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Uzbekistan have also resorted to frequent blocking of websites and blogs and surveillance of online expression. The Turkmen Internet remains under total state control.

This year, bloggers and ordinary citizens expressing themselves online have been assaulted, threatened or arrested as the popularity of social-networking and interactive websites has soared. Egyptian blogger Kareem Amer is still in jail, while the famous Burmese comedian Zarganar still has 34 years of his prison sentence to serve. The approximately 120 victims of Internet policing also include such leading figures in the defence of online free expression as China's Hu Jia and Liu Xiaobo and Vietnam's Nguyen Trung and Dieu Cay.

The financial crisis has joined the list of subjects likely to provoke censorship, particularly online. In South Korea, a blogger was wrongfully detained for commenting on the country's disastrous economic situation. Around six netizens in Thailand were arrested or harassed just for making a connection between the king's health and a fall in the Bangkok stock exchange. Censorship was slapped on the media in Dubai when it came for them to report on the country's debt repayment problems.

Democratic countries have not lagged far behind. Several European countries are working on new steps to control the Internet in the name of the battle against child porn and illegal downloads. Australia has said it will set up a compulsory filtering system that poses a threat to freedom of expression.

Turkey's courts have increased the number of websites, including YouTube, that are blocked for criticising the republic's founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

The number of countries affected by online censorship has doubled from one year to the next – a disturbing tendency that shows an increase in control over new media as millions of netizens get active online, said Lucie Morillon, head of the Internet and Freedoms Desk. That is why Reporters Without Borders will launch a new campaign against the Enemies of the Internet on 12 March.