Law on Mass Media Advance Post, 4th Exercise, Deadline Feb. 28

     This is an advance post. (for class members who have not been attending classes and who are not aware of the exercises, please see previous posts: This is an advance post. The deadline for the current exercise provided here last week is Feb. 20, scroll to view that exercise)

      Here is the advance post:  Law on Mass Media Fourth Exercise, due only after the discussion on the topic and cases on “Right to Freedom from Prior Restraint”

      This is an exercise given in advance, the deadline is on February 28, 2019 at 4pm Thursday. Class members may post in advance of the class discussion if they feel they are already familiar with the topic and cases,
as follows:

       1.Any news report of the period August 2018 to the present of an event (domestic or worldwide) that illustrates prior restraint or the right to freedom from prior restraint. (do not repeat materials that have been posted on this site before — those who do will get zero without prejudice to any other appropriate actions).

        Optionally, as a bonus for another 10 pts:

       2. Any news report of an event that illustrates censorship in film or the movies in the last ten years, worldwide (with same instructions (those who are posting a bonus –for ease of reviewing– should state “Bonus”) (Photo from the U.P. Media and Public Relations Office, graphics embedded by blog admin, used here non-commercially for academic purposes)

28 thoughts on “Law on Mass Media Advance Post, 4th Exercise, Deadline Feb. 28


    Press urge lifting of Voice TV gag order – 14 Feb 2019

    Bangkok Times’ article, published February 14, 2019, elaborates on the Thailand press calling for the lifting of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission’s gag order over the Voice TV, a local Thai broadcasting channel. The gag order was placed by the NBTC due to Voice TV’s alleged airing of “content that may cause confusion, incite conflicts and promote divisions in the country” by giving airtime for the Thaksin-linked Pheu Thai Party’s key members to address the government with their criticisms, the government’s intimidation against the party and handling of the election and the economy, as stated by the Bangkok Post Editorial.

    This illustrates a perfect example of violation of the press’ freedom to prior restraint as the Thai government moves to censor or gag one of Thailand’s broadcasting channels that provides the airing of government criticisms; a duty that the press fulfills as the government’s watchdog. This violates Thailand’s 1997 Constitution, Part 7, Section 45: “Censorship by a competent official of news and articles before their publication in a newspaper, printed matter, or radio or television broadcasting shall not be made except during the time when the country is in a state of war or armed conflict; provided that it must be made by virtue of the law enacted under the provisions of paragraph two”.

    In local setting, this practice violates the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 4: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

  2. Bonus:

    Queer scenes cut from ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ in Malaysia – 13 November 2018

    The SBS article published November 13, 2018 elaborates on the Malaysian Film Censorship Board’s act of cutting 24 minutes from the local screenings of Bohemian Rhapsody, a Freddie Mercury biographical film. One major scene cited in the article that was omitted from the Malaysian version of the film was one of which Freddie comes out as bisexual. Opinions of upset viewers were stated as well.

    This illustrates censorship that applies to films, demonstrating the government’s control over what the people see, read, or view, ultimately affecting and violating the right to freedom of information and expression. This is in regard with the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 4 which states that “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

  3. Sudan restricts social media access to counter protest movement – January 3, 2019

    An economic crisis has caused many citizens to vocalize their outrage both through public demonstrations, and posts online. Because of this, in order to keep the anti-government sentiments at bay, there were alleged discussions among the higher ups to block social media sites to stifle the information spread.

    The government of Sudan has a tight hold on traditional media as it is. This is what gave rise to social media as the platform most depended on when airing out anti-government sentiments. However, the administration also has a hold on internet services. In 2013, it even imposed an internet blackout due to all the protests.

    No further interpretation is needed to see that this is a clear violation of the people’s rights to freedom of expression.

  4. [Bonus]

    ‘My Didi is a censor’: As Bengali film is pulled out of theatres, Mamata Banerjee draws criticism – February 19, 2019

    [Kolkata, India] Bengali film entitled Bhobishyoter Bhoot by Anik Dutta was pulled from theaters without warning a day after it was released on February 15. An employee of the theater reports that they were under instructions from “senior authorities” to not show the film, and refund the tickets for screening. The film was speculated to be taken down for political reasons. Citizen protests followed the event demanding the of expression of the filmmakers.

    This demonstrates censorship over the arts when they do not conform or are in conflict with the interests of those in power. As stated in the article by Joyraj Bhattacharjee, “What an artist can say or cannot say cannot be forcibly decided by any authority, and when that happens, that is fascism.”


    Lebanon censors caricature of Khamenei in French weekly – February 18, 2019

    The General Directorate of General Security of Lebanon censored a caricature that was published in Courrier International, a French weekly, that depicted Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in a negative light.

    Joseph Al-Qasifi, the head of Lebanon’s Syndicate of Editors said that as per the Publications Law, “foreign publications, as well as cultural products such as films are subject to censorship”.

    Journalists pushed back, calling authorities “ridiculous, confused, and absurd”.

    Social media activists perceived the caricature as an insult to religious leaders such as Khamenei. Ali-Al Amin, director of a news website, said that Khamenei, while being a religious leader, is also a “state leader who’s active in international and regional politics”, which means that he shouldn’t be immune from public criticism, including caricatures.

    There is also a sense of confusion as to what was the point of the censorship. The directorate, however, is said to be “strict when it comes to all that could affect Lebanon and it[s] relations, and prefers to have the oversight body criticized over allowing conflict inside the country.” This, however, is an imposed censorship from the state, disallowing criticisms on political leaders which puts a limit on an artist’s (in this case, a caricaturist) freedom of expression.

  6. [BONUS]

    Kenya film board’s “censorship” of a teenage love story is the latest blackout of gay rights – April 29, 2018

    “Rafiki”, a film centered on a lesbian love story, has been banned by the Kenyan Film Classification Board (KFCB) for its plot. The film was based on a Caine short story prize winner, Jambula Tree, which tells the story of two teenage girls who fall for one another in Uganda, where same-sex unions or relationships are illegal.

    This story is recontextualized in a Kenyan setting which aims to challenge the nation’s stance of LGBTQ+ rights. With the board’s decision to outright ban the film, the film’s director, Wanuri Kahiu feels as if the rights of artists are being disregarded. She also said that the constitution is being challenged because it is stated in the constitution that “artists have the right to freedom of expression.”

    The KFCB remained firm in its stance, banning the film due to its “homosexual theme and clear intent to promote lesbianism in Kenya”, which was “contrary to the law and dominant values of the Kenyans”.

    While the Cannes Film Festival screening of the film will push through, the producers of the film have to comply with the law and not show the film in Kenya.

  7. Australian newspaper complains of censorship after gag order prevents coverage of Catholic sex scandal – December 2018


    The Herald Sun, an Australian newspaper, has published that they have been censored from publishing about the alleged sexual abuse by Cardinal George Pell, a high-ranking Vatican official. The newspaper has covered the story when it first got out, until the Court issued a gag order to prevent all Australian media institutions from publishing any details of the case, or the jury’s guilty verdict.

    While the Court reasons that this order is made to maintain impartiality, especially since the defendant is facing another case, this can be seen as a violation kn the freedom from prior restraint. The newspaper maintains its position that the people deserve to know and follow the story, and that the censorship is a not necessary.

  8. [Bonus]

    The Danish Girl banned in Qatar on grounds of ‘moral depravity’ (January 12, 2016)

    The Independent reported that The Danish Girl, a film about a transgender woman, was banned in Qatar due to “moral depravity.” While at first, the film was being shown in theaters, it was apparently banned after an “uproar” erupted online and after Qatar’s Ministry of Culture received a complaint regarding the movie.

    According to the article, complaints against the film include people saying that it “contradicts our religion, morals and traditions.” (The film focuses on the life of Lili Elbe, a transgender woman and one of the first people to receive gender reassignment surgery). However, the news outlet also reported that censorship and “heavy editing” is not new in Qatar, especially with films with content deemed sensitive or offensive.

  9. PNP, DILG chiefs urged to look in the mirror, not ‘Ang Probinsyano’ (November 18, 2018)

    Attempts by the PNP and DILG to take legal action by ordering censors on the TV series “Ang Probinsyano” have drawn flak from artists and media practitioners. The group LODI, or Let’s Organize for Democracy and Integrity, in particular stated that the authorities’ accusations of the TV slandering the image of the police force in the Philippines are moot, as it is clearly the PNP themselves that create a bad image by their malpractices. LODI also states this might be a test of the PNP’s capabilities on cracking down on media, as the studio that broadcasts “Ang Probinsyano”, ABS-CBN, is one Duterte himself wishes to deny legislative franchise to broadcast, while ABS-CBN insists that in their disclaimer and statements that the events in the series are to be considered purely fictitious.

    Considering the disclaimer of ABS-CBN in that none of the plot points are conflicts in their series are meant to directly discredit or deface the PNP in reality, their broadcast cannot be stated to directly or immediately threaten state security, and thus, they should be free from censorship as the Right to Freedom from Prior Restraint should still apply to them. The bright side here is that no immediate or sudden shutdown of their broadcasts was initiated, and so, there are few complications on that front in terms of due process.

    However, mentioned in the article is a possible loophole existing for traditional broadcast media outlets that could still allow the government to prevent ABS-CBN from continuing to release “Ang Probinsyano”. The freedom of ABS-CBN and other broadcast media to continue broadcasting is granted by legal franchises negotiated with the government. Thus, if the Duterte administration were to refuse to renew the legal franchise of ABS-CBN, it would be an alternative form indirect censorship that would cause issues for the company.

  10. [Bonus]

    China bans Winnie the Pooh film after comparisons to President Xi (August 7, 2018)

    The Chinese government censored the release of “Christopher Robin”, an adaptation of the Winnie the Pooh story, due to memes originating in 2013 that seemed to mock president Xi Jinping’s appearance as being similar to that of the fictional bear. Other media, even HBO segments, have encountered similar treatment in the past, being censored if any reference to Winnie the Pooh and Xi Jinping’s appearances were made as they were deemed by the Chinese government as “a serious effort to undermine the dignity of the presidential office and Xi himself”. This isn’t a rare case for the country’s censorship policy on foreign films, as only 34 foreign movies total are allowed into the country each year.

    Pushing aside the cultural policy of China with regards to foreign media, the reasoning behind their rejection of “Christopher Robin” is an ignorance the freedom of expression, most especially that freedom to criticise those in power. This is most especially since the movie itself was not stated to directly demean President Xi or attack his official actions, or even indirectly reference Xi, and thus, cannot even be considered slander. Since it’s the Chinese people themselves that created memes that poke fun at Xi Jinping, the source character himself can’t be blamed, and thus, the censorship of the movie wouldn’t do anything to alleviate the mockery either.


    Chinese broadcaster censors Rami Malek Oscars speech – 26 Feb 2019

    This BBC News Article talked about Chinese broadcaster Mango TV translated the speech of Rami Malek paying tribute to Freddie Mercury, and translated “tribute to a gay man—“ to “tribute to special groups—“. This has been seen in the past with the network before, as Mango TV has also censored gay sentiments of the Eurovision Song contest years prior.

    Knowing that there is a direct translation for homosexual in Chinese (同性), this is an illustration of censorship in broadcast. As a forerunner broadcaster, Mango TV has come under fire for hindrances of freedom of expression and freedom from prior restraint. However, the censorship came from the network’s discretion and not the government, which legitimizes their “freedom of the press” liberty, however used problematically.

  12. Chinese broadcaster censors Rami Malek Oscars speech – February 26 2019

    Mango TV, a Chinese broadcaster receives backlash after mistranslating the Oscars, specifically Rami Malek’s speech who won best actor for his role in Bohemian Rhapsody.

    Malek, who played the role of Freddie Mercury in the movie, said that the film could help those struggling with their identity. Malek’s speech which contained the word “gay” was mistranslated by Mango TV as “special group”. The broadcaster’s previous airing of the Eurovision Singing Contest which also censored LGBT elements such as the rainbow flag was also criticized by Chinese netizens. The censoring of LGBT references by the Chinese broadcaster garnered significant reaction online.

    To censor LGBT references is a clear violation of freedom from prior restraint. It is the right of the audience to perceive information exactly as how it was presented.

  13. [Bonus]

    John Major once suggested opting out of ECHR to stop ‘erotic blasphemy’ film being screened in UK – 28 Dec 2018

    Recent cabinet papers reveal that ex-UK Prime Minister John Major was outraged over a 15-minute video film, Visions of Ecstasy (The only film ever banned in the UK over blasphemy grounds) that he considered an opt-out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) rather than let it be shown, after it portrayed Christ in the sexual fantasies of St. Teresa of Avila. Major apparently demanded assessment in the ECHR over the film.

    The banning in was an obscuring of free speech and press liberties in the UK. The film itself was an intentional testament that the protection from public outrage for a particular group (i.e. the Church and Christians) should not outweigh “freedom of speech, expression, the press, or the right of the people to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” (Art. III, Sec. IV; Phil. Const.)

  14. Chinese internet users turn to the blockchain to fight against government censorship – Feb 26 2019

    This article basically talks about blockchain, a secure database that is stored in a distributed set of computers. Because of blockchain, Chinese netizens have the power to counter China’s strict internet censorship.

    Victories were experienced by revealing important data to expose the truth such as letters to prove one university’s attempt to hide sexual misconduct, and preservation of an investigative story which condemned inferior vaccines being given to Chinese babies.

  15. [BONUS]

    Ai Weiwei hits out at film censorship over Berlin I Love You – Feb 18 2019

    Artist Ai Weiwei, who has been an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, blames the producers over censorship on Berlin I Love You. Ai, who directed a segment of the film, didn’t make it to the final cut because the producers had told him that his involvement might endanger their chances to make a new film in Shanghai. The Berlin Film Festival also refused to screen the unedited version.

    To censor Ai Weiwei’s segment in the film Berlin I Love You is a clear violation of freedom from censorship. The reason for censoring Ai’s part is completely unconstitutional and was done just to favor the government.

  16. China shuts down 4,000 website in purge on ‘improper values’ – September 2018

    According to the article, China’s state news agency, Xinhua, announced the three-month campaign against ínternet platforms spreading ‘improper values, vulgarity or obscenity.’

    In-lined to this, thousand of websites and accounts were shut down because of improper content. Internet access in the country is strictly controlled by their government. The Chinese government’s censorship also focuses on prohibiting internet platforms with free ebooks.

    This restrictive media environment imposed by their government hinders the propagation of the people’s rights of freedom of expression. Only allowing content that their current administration approves of is a way to curb public criticism of officials and stops the citizens from being critical.

  17. Bonus

    Hardline Clerics Stop Screening of Film on Shia Religious Figure – 2015

    Despite winning many awards in film festivals, in 2015, the producers of the film Rastakhiz by Director Reza Darvish were forced to cut 40 minutes of the film before public screening in order to appease its critics.

    Even so, in July 2015, it was banned under the direct authority of the president on the first day of its screening. Those who were against the film questioned it on religious grounds, especially for the fact that the face of Imams were somewhat reproduced in the film and is said to be forbidden. Producers defended the film by stating that ‘acting the role of Shia Imams and their family members is permitted during religious ceremonies if they are treated with respect.’

    This incident is a violation of the rights of freedom from censorship. We can see how cultural freedom is limited. In fact one of the artists and cultural figures stated in a meeting that, ‘viewing the arts as a security concern is the biggest mistake.’ this also goes side by side with the people’s freedom of expression and speech.


    OSG maintains: Law against ‘offending religious feelings’ unconstitutional
    Written by: Nicole-Anne C. Lagrimas
    Published on: August 15, 2018

    The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) issued an omnibus motion at the Supreme Court to review Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code in order to acquit Manila tour guide Carlos Celdran, who protested against the Catholic Church’s opposition to the then-Reproductive Health Bill at an ecumenical service at Manila Cathedral in 2010.

    OSG chief government lawyer Jose Calida said that the law could lead to prior restraint on free speech since it penalizes “offending religious feelings” based on vague standards. Courts themselves could not agree on the factual basis for convicting Celdran because they have to guess the meaning of what constitutes the crime as defined by Article 133.

    Calida added that the prosecution failed to identify a religious practice that was mocked by Celdran’s placard displaying “DAMASO” resulting in an offense to religious feelings.

    This proves that Article 133 is unconstitutional since it led to the prior restraint of Carlos just for speaking out against the Church. This is a clear attack against his right as a Filipino citizen.


    SC affirms junking of journalists’ complaint vs gov’t officials in Peninsula standoff
    Written by: Mike Navallo
    Published on Jan. 10, 2019

    37 journalists who were covering the Manila Peninsula siege in 2007 were arrested after they opted not to leave the premises of the hotel where Magdalo group including Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV concealed themselves calling for the resignation of the former President and now Speaker of the House Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

    Government security forces head and cabinet officials apprised journalists that they might face criminal cases for disobeying the order of authorities in times of emergency. The journalists filed a case against some government officials for their actions which violated press freedom.

    On October 2018, SC released a 15-page decision saying that there were no prior restraints on the freedom of the press because the actions taken were deemed to be a “valid exercise of authority” to ensure the safety of the civilians.

    Even though the government security’s act was for the safety of the journalists, the act of arresting journalists just for them to stop covering may still be considered a form of prior restraint. Aside from their concern on the safety of the journalists, police forces probably had an agenda to protect the President from public dissent once the news was released. This might be the police’s motivation to command journalists to leave the premises.


    Title: IN NUMBERS: Global threats to press freedom in 2018


    Rappler, as they do every year, released a yearly comprehensive commentary on the threats to press freedom that have occurred in the country. For their 2018 edition, one of the aspects of media threats that they really focussed on were the violations on our right to prior restraint. Rappler was very fast to cite many cases of censorship that occurred over the past year, many of which happened to them.

    For this exercise, one example of blatant censorship given by Rappler were the 30 radio stations in Mindanao that were shut down because of their criticality towards the government. The government revoked these radio stations on the allegations that they were spreading propaganda. This is a very blatant violation of our right against media censorship, and this without question needs to be taken to the courtrooms.

  21. Judge bars publication of new details on 2017 student drowning at CPS pool – February 2019

    According to the Chicago Sun-Times, a judge has prohibited the further release of the records and files relating to the death of a 14-year-old autistic freshman in the pool at Kennedy High School. After the release of the records, the BGA and the Chicago Sun-Times published an article investigating on the death. However, Chicago Public Schools lawyer requested that the records be pulled back.

    Considering that the files were obtained legally, and that national security is not threatened, by requesting to return the previously released records, the right to freedom from prior restraint is violated. Such act prevents the press from publishing records that aim to inform the public. This prior restraint is also deemed unconstitutional, since it violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

  22. [BONUS]

    Deadpool denied release in China due to extreme content – 2016

    Deadpool, starring Ryan Reynolds, was banned from being released and shown in China, a country with strict censorship laws, due to depictions of nudity, language, and violence in the film. The movie centralizes on the titular character, described as an antihero with powerful abilities.

    Such censorship of the movie is a violation of the right to freedom from censorship, prevents Marvel fans and potential audiences to watch the Box Office hit, and limits the audience’s critical thinking and freedom in choosing and deciding for themselves which films they want to watch. This act of censoring also highlights the control the government has over the content its people consume.


    Journalist quits over blacklisting of story about ‘Putin’s chef’
    Marc Bennetts – Thu 14 Feb 2019 13.02 GMT

    A former editor at a Russian state media outlet has said she felt forced to resign after writing a report that cast doubt on the safety of food provided to Moscow’s nurseries and schools by a Kremlin-connected businessman known as “Putin’s chef”. 

    Daria Burlakova said management at the Tass news agency blacklisted her article because it was critical of the catering company Concord, owned by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a wealthy businessman sanctioned by the US over alleged attempts to meddle in the 2016 American presidential election. Prigozhin gained his nickname because his companies often provide catering services to the Kremlin.

    Prior restraint in articles and news reports restricts the public to know what is going on in their society, particularly the pressing issues in connection with the government or anyone related to. Reports being censored enables the involved in the story be deodorized and prevents the audience to inform what atrocities they have made that will affect the reading or the viewing public in any aspect. It also violates the journalists’ freedom of expression and to report freely. Looking to what censorship can imply to different types of persons in the society, it has negative effects except for the protected entities for they are kept safe from harm and possible issues that may develop.

  24. [BONUS]

    Chinese Artist Ai Weiwei Accuses ‘I Love You, Berlin’ Producers of Censorship

    The executive producer of anthology film “Berlin, I Love You” is engaged in a war of words with Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei, whose contribution to the movie was left on the cutting-room floor.

    Ai contends that the segment he shot for “Berlin, I Love You” was axed by the producers for political reasons, out of fear of upsetting Chinese officials. But Emmanuel Benbihy, the film’s Shanghai-based executive producer, says that Ai’s segment did not meet the requirements for inclusion and that the award-winning artist is obsessed with criticizing China.

    In films and broadcasts, censorship also takes place especially on controversial scenes that may put the government or its officials at a bad light. They may cut scenes, remove some dialogues, or the worst part, the film is out, removed, and forgotten for some time. In relation, there are Philippine films and shows that are removed and censored due to contentious themes and scenes.


    SC drops journos civil suit vs. gov’t in 2007 Pen siege arrests
    By Benjamin Pulta
    January 10, 2019, 7:21 pm

    This article is about the decision of the Supreme Court to dismiss the class suit filed by journalists against the government when the former were arrested during the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege led by Senator Antonio Trillanes.

    In the said decision, the Court held that there is no such thing as an absolute exercise of the freedoms of speech and of the press. The Court also rejected the argument of petitioners that the advisory issued by the Cabinet officials against the media were a form of prior restraint that is prohibited in the 1987 Constitution. The decision said that the advisory did not prohibit or restrict the media from reporting or writing on any subject matter which is the essence of the freedom from prior restraint. Instead, the Court held that the advisory ordering the dispersal of the media during the service of warrant on the group of Senator Trillanes was a valid exercise of police power.


    Director of banned Kenyan film about lesbian romance sues government
    September 14,2018

    Link to article:

    Kenyan director Wanuri Kahiu filed a lawsuit seeking to lift the banning of her film in her home country, Kenya.

    The film entitled Rafiki, meaning “friend” in Swahili, was the first Kenyan film to premiere at the Cannes film festival. It is an adaptation of an award-winning short story, Jambula Tree, by Monica Arac de Nyeko, about promoting lesbianism. Homosexuality is taboo across much of Africa, with gay people facing discrimination or persecution, thus the banning of the film.

    Wanuri Kahiu filed the suit against Kenya Film Classification Board chief Ezekiel Mutua and the country’s attorney general as it is a clear manifestation of censorship. The lawsuit could also aid for the film to be considered as the country’s Oscars entry, according to court documents.

  27. [BONUS]

    19 famous movies that have been banned around the world
    Jason Gerrasio
    7 October 2016

    This article lists down famous movies that have been banned around the word for the past couple of decades.

    The article argues that cinema is a powerful medium which makes it vulnerable to censorship and regulation. Different films may be banned for different reasons. It may be because of political, religious, or any other reason that might be offensive to viewers or the personalities involved or depicted in the film. Different countries also have different laws with respect to cinematic expression. These laws often reflect the political, cultural and religious beliefs of a particular country. Democratic countries often have more relaxed laws on censorship since they put premium on freedom of expression and cinematic expression is considered covered by such freedom.

  28. My Article Was Censored. I Found Out Why. (August 1, 2018)

    An article that journalist Shannon Sims wrote for the Culture section of the New York Times about a New Orleans museum show was censored in the print version of the paper published in Qatar. The article was removed before publishing, and instead of text and photos, it was replaced by a big empty box that with the note “The Opinion piece, ‘A Fire Killed 32 at a New Orleans Gay Bar. This Artist Didn’t Forget,’ by by Shannon Sims, is exceptionally removed from the Doha edition of The New York Times International Edition. It is available on the web at” at the bottom.

    The article that Sims wrote focused on a particular exhibit about the “tragic killing of 32 people at a gay bar in 1973” and included photos of the exhibit.

    Sims was told that some countries including Qatar have “censorship issues” and that the issue with certain articles are “sensitive content.” She wrote that the reason regarding the censorship could possibly be that her article focused on an exhibit about gay men and since “homosexuality is criminalized” in Qatar, the printers might just not have wanted to take the risk of printing an article that could have ended up being controversial, so they blocked out the article instead.

    This is an example of prior restraint because Sims’ article was censored and removed by the printers of the New York Times at Qatar and people were prevented from reading it from that medium.

If the comment posted does not appear here, that's because COMMENTS WITH SEVERAL HYPERLINKS ARE DETAINED BY AKISMET AT THE SPAM FOLDER.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.