Tag

censorship

Asia Featured Security and Conflict Society and Culture Technology Uncategorized

60 Years On – The New “Red Scare” in Hollywood

by James Walker
Editor

During the collective insanity that gripped the United States in the late 1940s and 50s, political agitators and right wing demagogues alike created the specter of a sinister, lurking boogeyman poised to overthrow civilization as we knew it. The “Red Scare” of insidious communism – literally posited as “reds under the bed” – swept throughout the political narrative of the post war landscape, as well as Cold War international relations. The poster child, and some would say architect, of this paranoia was Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) who managed through sheer strength of personality and calculated populism to bring this specter to the forefront of the national dialog. The term “McCarthyism” has since come to encapsulate the notion of ideological determination, combined with a blinkered perspective, ad hominem attacks, and a willingness to ignore reality when it does not fit into your chosen narrative. At the time, however, the hysteria whipped up was all too real, and had numerous real world effects – particularly here in Los Angeles, in regards to the film industry.

By the time that McCarthyism was in full swing in the early 50s, Hollywood had become a center of attention in an effort to root out what Walt Disney described as “subtle communist touches” in the film industry. Many people know about the famous “Hollywood Ten” blacklist of suspected communists, but by 1950, the “Red Channels” list included 151 major industry players, including Orson Wells, Arthur Miller, and even Gypsy Rose Lee (presumably because her duel roles as a “communist sympathizer” and a burlesque dancer posed a double threat to the morals of the nation). In essence, the fear being exploited by McCarthy was the notion that popular media (as represented by Hollywood) had a strong influence on the development of public opinion, and that the “commies” were poised to exploit this to their advantage – a kind of subliminal fifth column for the “Fourth International.”

Flash forward 60 years, and the situation in Hollywood is very different. The movie industry is a powerhouse of the globalized world, and often posited as a prime example of American “Cultural Imperialism.” Combined, the six major US studios captured 64% of global ticket sales in 2012, bringing in a total of $ 22 billion in income. Literally hundreds of millions of people went to the cinema and consumed their own little slice of Americana, all over the world. By that measure, McCarthy was on to something – he just had the flow of influence backwards.

The difference between Hollywood then and Hollywood now is that McCarthy suspected outside influence where there was none, while today the industry openly acknowledges that foreign entities influence the production and content of the movies produced. The number one film in both the US and China currently is Iron Man 3, starring Robert Downy Jr. as Tony Stark— metal clad super-hero and quintessential Neo-Liberal American entrepreneur. However, the version you see in Los Angeles is different from the one you see in Beijing. In an effort to appease Chinese authorities, Foreign Policy’s Suzanne Nossel points out that the Beijing version has additional modified footage (including a special Chinese scene for domestic consumers), product placements for Chinese goods, and the villain of the piece has been renamed from “the Mandarin” (offensive to Chinese sensibilities) to “Man Daren” or “Big Man” in Chinese. These changes could be viewed as attempts to selectively market to a distinct target audience (China overtook Japan as the single largest foreign market for US films in 2012), if it were not for the fact that they demonstrate what Nossel describes as the “meddling hand of the Chinese censor.” As such, you could view the censor’s heavy hand as a sort of homegrown Chinese McCarthyism.

There are more direct influences on US productions though. Originally scheduled for release last December, the upcoming Brad Pitt blockbuster World War Z has been delayed for 6 months in order to re-shoot a number of scenes. This arose because of objections from the Chinese government over significant plot elements in the storyline, including the idea that the zombie outbreak (on which the film is based) originated in China. This is not the first major film to treat the Chinese hinterland as a source of worldwide pandemic – 2011’s Contagion starring Jude Law and Kate Winslet also used rural China as the birthplace of a plague. It is not hard to see why China is unimpressed with that sort of publicity, especially after the negative worldwide attention that revolved around the Asian Bird Flu and H1N1 outbreaks of recent memory. However, the difference between Iron Man 3 and World War Z is that in the latter case there will only be one version of the finished product available for your viewing pleasure– the Chinese censor-approved version.

To be clear, this kind of influence is not the insidious creeping boogeyman of McCarthy’s paranoid delusions. Los Angeles’s homegrown industry is quite open about the effects of market forces, the need to sell and succeed in major markets such as China, and the desire to collaborate with national entities. In another Iron Man-related movie, this year’s Avengers superhero spectacular also had some interesting international relations related issues, but of a distinctly domestic nature. Specifically, the US military withdrew their technical assistance from the production due to the unspecified nature of SHIELD — the shadowy international power hierarchy that controls the actions of a quasi UN-like military force. Apparently, the implication that US troops might somehow fall under the command of a non-US military command structure —even in a comic book adaptation —was simply not acceptable. This was a pity really, as the other major movie that came out at the same time, Battleship, had full US military cooperation but still turned out to be a terrible film. Political considerations do not appear to be very good at backing a winner, alas.

As we look forward over the next few years it is clear that China as a consumer market will exert ever-greater influence over film production. Hollywood will continue to do what it does best—namely, make expensive blockbusters that reel in billions of dollars from across the globe. How much the impositions of foreign censorship will affect the freedom of expression we take for granted is unknown, but it is worth taking note of. The Chinese Communist Party structure and its efficient, dedicated, and ever-present censors have established that they have a role to play in what we consider to be a distinctly US industry. But instead of imaginary “reds under the bed,” in this case, the pressure being excerpted is quite openly done while sitting at the writer’s table.

All facts/figures taken from Foreign Policy, The Guardian, BBC, and ScreenRant.com.

James Walker has just finished his BA in Global Studies, and is currently a first year MA student in Political Geography at UCLA. He is also an avid movie-goer, Sci-Fi geek, zombie apocalypse aficionado, and an editor for the Generation.

May 18, 2013 4 comments

Security and Conflict Technology

The ‘UNternet’

written by thegeneration

by Rujuta Gandhi
Co-Editor

Co-developed by UCLA’s brightest, the Internet faces the threat of control by the United Nations (U.N.). From Dec. 3 to 14, the U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) hosted the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) in Dubai to update the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), which was last reviewed in 1988. Of 193 U.N. member nations, 89 signed the Final Acts of WCIT-12, which decide the ability of the U.N. to govern and potentially authorize censorship of the Internet.

Background

Founded in 1865 to regulate telegraph communication, the ITU became a specialized U.N. agency in 1947 and adopted a mandate to develop global technical standards to increase interconnectedness and improve access to information and communication technology (ICT), ranging from the radio to the Internet. The ITU adopted the ITR at the infancy of international Internet usage.

In addition to the ITU, the U.N.’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) also contribute to Internet management. The IGF strives to provide an equal opportunity for corporate, government, private sector, and civil society leaders from developing and developed nations to discuss Internet governance. Moreover, ICANN is responsible for creating addresses for websites and computers globally. Although these addresses were originally assigned by the U.S. government, ICANN is now a non-governmental private organization. This decentralized control is both a cause and challenge in the struggle over Internet governance.

Challenges

Among these concerns is a schism caused by the global digital divide, in which Internet access is increasingly polarized between developing and developed nations. The ITU reports that in 2011, 74 percent of Europeans had Internet access, while Africans had only 13 percent. To decrease the divide, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said WCIT-12 would “ensure universal access to the benefits of information and communication technology,” as addressed under Articles 3 (International Network) and 8b (Accessibility) of the Final Acts.

While some nations attended the WCIT-12 to close the global digital divide and increase Internet access and freedom, others strived to censor or control it. In a resolution with Algeria, China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and United Arab Emirates, Russian President Vladimir Putin supported the proposed establishment of “international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the ITU.” Within their respective borders, these regimes could filter website content and access, a regulation that violates Internet freedom. However, with the ratification of the revised legally binding treaty in 2015, the “Great Firewall” in China and Internet blackouts, such as those in Egypt and Syria, could be accepted as a norm.

On the other hand, corporations and liberal governments fight for a free Internet with privatized control. Victor Cerf, the Vice President of Google, says that he and his colleagues originally developed the technology in 1973 and “advocated for an open standard to connect computer networks together.” With the passage of the Final Acts, Cerf is concerned that governments could justify Internet censorship or remove Internet access altogether. Unfortunately, corporations cannot vote on U.N. resolutions, even though Article 1 of the Final Acts “contain[s] provisions applicable to those operating agencies,” which debatably include Internet companies.

Talks Collapse

Although these challenges posed significant obstacles, talks collapsed partly due to the inclusion of Plenary Resolution 3 of the Final Acts, which calls on the Secretary-General to engage the ITU in the development of a multi-stakeholder model of the Internet. Although supported by Russia, China, and their allies, the U.S. and European countries objected to the resolution because the multi-stakeholder model would slow the currently accelerated development of the Internet.

Meanwhile, the African bloc opted to have a clause added to the preamble, which reads, “These regulations recognize the right of access of member states to international telecommunication services.” After a majority vote in favor of its inclusion, the U.S., Canada, and the United Kingdom withdrew potential ratification of the treaty because the clause worked to legalize U.N. governance and content regulation of the Internet.

Implications

When the Finals Acts are ratified in January 2015, American citizens will be privileged to retain their Internet freedom. However, occurrences similar to the recent government-sanctioned Internet censorships in Egypt, Syria, and China will become more acceptable under international law with the passage of this document. This plea for state sovereignty by authoritarian regimes would provide a free pass for human rights abuses to go unnoticed in times of domestic unrest.

If censorship is not the ultimate goal, then tight control is the prize for China and Iran. Since they can more easily steer talks at ITU forums, as opposed to IGF or ICANN meetings, the two nations attempted to use WCIT-12 to legalize their existing Internet policies. Already, China requires all Internet users to provide real-name registration, which enables the Chinese government to track dissidents and make it more difficult for protestors to safely organize protests online. Meanwhile, Iran is creating a “halal Internet” that adheres to Islamic law and will fundamentally sever connection with the international Internet.

Domestic Internet control is an example of a global digital divide but not the type that the U.N. hoped to address at WCIT-12. The purpose of the ITU is to increase Internet access and infrastructure for developing nations. However, if the Final Acts are not ratified, they will maintain their status quo, while developed countries continue the path of technological growth.

Apart from a digital gap, the agreement also feeds into the problem of centralizing global Internet governance to an anarchic international organization – the U.N. The Final Acts may serve as a stepping-stone for the U.N. to act as the main authority of Internet regulation and allow it to increase its legal control and jurisdiction, namely through the International Court of Justice, the U.N.’s judicial arm. However, it theoretically should not have this power because U.N. decisions deny voting rights to two major actors: the private sector and civil society.

Concluding Remarks

The Final Acts could have a powerful impact, if it is amended to address growing Internet security challenges, such as cyberterrorism. This could be a platform on which member nations unify and continue talks. Without a cyberterrorism addendum and the withdrawal or reduction of U.N. Internet governance authority, it is likely that the U.S. and its allies will not sign the treaty nor will the agreement have a great impact within U.S. borders, except for humbling the growth of the ‘UNternet.’

Rujuta Gandhi is a senior at UCLA majoring in Global Studies with a minor in Political Science. She is also a co-editor with The Generation.

December 30, 2012 3 comments

Security and Conflict Technology

Twitter’s International Censorship Plan Raises Important Questions

written by thegeneration

By Lilit Arabyan

The powerful tool of new media in the protester’s hand is…well, revolutionary. Twitter’s new International Censorship Plan allows for the website’s blocking of certain tweets on a country-by-country basis, in an effort to respect the responsibilities and limits that come with postings on social media sites. But what of protecting the peoples’ very basic, universal right to expression? The reactions to this policy change were plentiful, as Twitter announced the modification in its blog on January 26th, 2012.

Bloggers were outraged over the policy’s implications on First Amendment Rights, calling on Twitter’s management to reassess the repercussions of the new strategy on freedom of information. Acknowledging Twitter’s indispensability in Internet-based revolutions like the attempt by Moldovan citizens in 2009, and more notably the success of rebellion-organizing using Twitter in Libya this past year, opponents described the policy as one that is caving to the demands of global censorship – rightfully so.

Thailand’s Technology minister Anudith Nakornthap applauded the policy for being a “constructive” development. That is no surprise. The Southeast Asian country’s taskforce that monitors anti-monarchy content has blocked 1,156 websites with content deemed offensive to the Thai monarchy thus far.

By becoming so profoundly concerned with inconveniencing governments who already limit their citizens’ freedoms, Twitter is letting the people down – and further curtailing their rights.

Arguing that this was actually a win for freedom of speech advocates, and labeling it a step forward for tweets deemed as illegal by one government to be kept visible to the rest of the international community is a sign of surrender and an insult to the same Protester who was celebrated as person of the year by Time. To assure those of us who were furious that this was not the case, a Twitter spokesperson indicated that Twitter would only block tweets or users “in the face of a valid and applicable legal order”. Well, we all know that it may be a matter of time before this line becomes blurred; and as social media sites receive more pressures to abide, we can be giving up more rights than we initially signed up for.

Tools like Twitter need to exist without censorship; otherwise, we risk silencing those who need this medium most. To stay true to open communication in an increasingly transparent world may be a large appeal by the international community, but Twitter should take this as a measure of its importance. Twitter is a valuable tool. It should not take back the promise of connection that it has made to so many.

There is no excuse.

February 22, 2012 2 comments