27

Perhaps because the laws originate in military dictatorships: the South Korea government engages in active Internet censorship based on three laws: the Nation Security Law [1948], the Basic Press Act [1980], and Article 21 [of the 1987 Constitution]. Democracy or freedom of speech doesn't have deep roots in South Korea: Censorship was almost forgotten ...


16

Sure. Everyone gets a perspective, so if, to you, that constitutes political censorship, then I can see how that argument gets made. But the flip side of that argument is true also. If the majority of those 200,000 accounts were bots meant to stifle speech from their political opponents, then the argument can be made that Twitter is trying to do something ...


10

The correct term for a service voluntarily removing content from its own site is moderation. Some form of moderation is basically essential if you want to run a communications service between humans, because otherwise the service will be drowned in spam. This was true in the days of USENET and it remains true now. It's impossible to remove all spam, but the ...


8

Well, there is not really any law authorizing the GFW (Great Firewall) at all. Why do you expect that this has violated a law? If I must pick one law that it violated, then I'd say it violated Article 12 of the Cyber Security Law of the PRC, which forbids using the Internet to "injure the State's security, honor and interests", or to "infringe on other ...


7

Is there systematic self-censorship of images of violence in U.S. media? Yes, of course there is. Essentially all "classic" (print and visual) media and almost all online media practice self-censorship of images and videos of violence. U.S. media are no exception. This has nothing to do with political censorship, but rather with the idea that such images ...


7

Pornography and (online and on-site) gambling are illegal in South Korea. The country is very conservative and it takes what it considers to be issues very seriously. For example, South Korean citizens cannot even visit casinos abroad and citizens that are guilty of gambling abroad may be prosecuted when they return to their country. The ban on pornography ...


6

Taken literally, the answer to your question is obviously YES. The companies obviously applied censorship, and the nature of that, which was censored, was political. The term "censorship" in disjunction from government is however a rather neutral term, as others have pointed out. The spirit of the question seems to be whether the censorship in this ...


5

USA The US House of representatives imposes these terms Proceedings of the House of Representatives, including any recording of such proceedings, may not be used for any political purpose or in any commercial advertisement, and may not be broadcast with commercial sponsorship except as part of a bona fide news program or public affairs documentary ...


5

In the United States, such a regulation would be prevented by the first amendment. Some other countries have rules for a sub judice situation which basically means a matter under investigation by a court. In England and Wales, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Canada, Sri Lanka, and Israel it is generally ...


4

Only if censoring propaganda counts. Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is ...


4

A question of definitions and expectations ... There is no clear, uncontested defition of censorship, which makes this question somewhat opinion-based. Yet there is some common ground to those definitions. By a narrow definition, censorship is the prior vetting of material by a government agency. Others would include government suppression after the ...


4

"Three Russian newspapers publish identical front page headlines to protest detention of investigative journalist" This was back in June 2019, in protest of the handling of Ivan Golunov, a 36-year-old journalist known for exposing corruption among Moscow city officials, who was detained by police and accused of serious drug offences.


4

Well, journalism is a job like any other and at least in Europe every one has the right to strike. In Italy is quite common, and it can result in newspapers not being printed at all, news broadcasts not being broadcasted or being reduced to a 5 minutes thing, and websites not being updated. It's hard to come up a specific source for it, and even more if you ...


4

Congress is interested because the technology used to censor searches in China might be used to censor speech on protected grounds here. For example, if politically incorrect keywords appear, what's to prevent that from being used to restrict 1st amendment rights in this country. The article Google plans to Launch Censored Search Engine in China, Leaked ...


4

First of all, part of the premise of your question is mistaken: In other countries like the USA, that weren't responsible for the Nazi crimes, Nazi symbols are not banned as well, but there they are talking about banning the southern states flag. (Emphasis added) The First Amendment to the US Constitution gives very strong protection to freedom of ...


3

The allies were instrumental in the ban of Nazi symbols and flags in Austria and Germany, see here (unfortunately only in German). The motivation, in my opinion, was to prevent Nazi-rule from re-emerging. In the US, or the UK, on the other hand, there was no danger of Nazis becoming a major political power, thus there was no need felt to ban the symbols of ...


3

There are some conglomerates that own large numbers of media outlets. For example: Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns a number of individual television stations, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post. Sinclair Broadcast Group owns 173 television stations and is in the process of expanding that to 233. McClatchy owns a a ...


2

Twitter is a private company. They can pretty much do anything they want. Their limitations are customers (Advertisers) and SEC regulations. You as the audience can also do what you want as far as using or not using their service.


2

Export Controls Export controls ban the export of a item or technology to another country without a license. This is common where technology has multiple uses so development, or export in general, should not be banned outright. For example, a network security firewall can be used to find and block malware attacks, but also reconfigured for censorship. ...


2

"Censorship by flooding" requires access to the internet Many of the countries you mentioned are undeveloped, and as such, their population lacks access to many information sources. Typically, the major mass media is the (state) TV, supplemented with (state) Newspapers and Radio. In those channels, traditional censorship works best. In other words, those ...


1

Censorship is by its nature a political term: it is the removal of material that is considered to be obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. The phrase 'political censorship' is redundant, though perhaps not problematically so. Here's what's clear: Twitter and Facebook have restricted access to this New York Post article (though I think ...


1

China is generally often seen adversarially by almost all sides of the isle (trade wise, politics wise, geopolitics wise depending on one's angle). Something that helps China in a big way is not going to be seen positively necessarily. Google is rather disliked by Republicans for using its not-insignificant power as a company in left wing causes and very ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible